Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personal wealth is distributed so unevenly across the world that the richest two per cent of adults own more than 50 per cent of the world’s assets while the poorest half hold only 1 per cent of wealth.



[/ QUOTE ]

story continues here


There are a few reactions one can have to this. 1. To support or oppose the economic processes that lead to this condition 2. To support or oppose the results themselves.

I'm a socialist, and I oppose both the process and the results. I imagine many of you are in favor of the process but oppose the results. Are any of you willing to admit that you support both the process and the results?
If so, how bad can the condition of humanity get before your precious capitalist principles become untenable to you?
Is there any limit at all to your worship of capitalism?

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

The system leads to this, and it also leads to the innovation that has given us all the technological progress we've had in the past couple centuries. If we were to go back 200 years and make the world a big socialist haven, we'd be lucky to have electricity today.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
The system leads to this, and it also leads to the innovation that has given us all the technological progress we've had in the past couple centuries. If we were to go back 200 years and make the world a big socialist haven, we'd be lucky to have electricity today.

[/ QUOTE ]

The communist manifesto states, and I agree, that capitalism was useful to build the bridge between feudalism, and socialism. We have already laid the groundwork to have a socialist society. The whole world can easily be fed clothed, schooled, and much more with the incredible productive power that we have now.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

I've never asked a socialist this, so I'm curious. Snowball, why did the USSR collapse?

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

I believe that if you redistributed all the wealth in the world evenly, that it would eventually concentrate like this again. Some people are just not as good with capital/wealth/money/whatever as others.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The system leads to this, and it also leads to the innovation that has given us all the technological progress we've had in the past couple centuries. If we were to go back 200 years and make the world a big socialist haven, we'd be lucky to have electricity today.

[/ QUOTE ]

The communist manifesto states, and I agree, that capitalism was useful to build the bridge between feudalism, and socialism. We have already laid the groundwork to have a socialist society. The whole world can easily be fed clothed, schooled, and much more with the incredible productive power that we have now.

[/ QUOTE ]

And never cure AIDS or cancer or explore the stars or acheive virtual reality or find more efficient food sources or a million other things. The scientific progress benifits of capitalism don't just stop because someone invented socialism. Perhaps I should have said television or the personal computer instead of electricity? The car or the airplane? Turn the world socialist and the poor will certainly see an immediate improvement in their condition. The problem is that progess will slow to the point that they'll be much, much worse off than they would have been 100 years from now.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
The system leads to this, and it also leads to the innovation that has given us all the technological progress we've had in the past couple centuries. If we were to go back 200 years and make the world a big socialist haven, we'd be lucky to have electricity today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, where have I been? Asleep? The communist USSR, although starting a long way behind the USA (from the worst form of feudalism, in fact), was, I thought, the first in space, the first satellite, the first animal in space, the first man in space and simultaneously the first orbiting man. The first USA citizen in space did not orbit and it came after the USSR had successfully launched a manned orbital vehicle. I would see these as some of the greatest technological achievements of the last century and the USA was pwnd! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The system leads to this, and it also leads to the innovation that has given us all the technological progress we've had in the past couple centuries. If we were to go back 200 years and make the world a big socialist haven, we'd be lucky to have electricity today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, where have I been? Asleep? The communist USSR, although starting a long way behind the USA (from the worst form of feudalism, in fact), was, I thought, the first in space, the first satellite, the first animal in space, the first man in space and simultaneously the first orbiting man. The first USA citizen in space did not orbit and it came after the USSR had successfully launched a manned orbital vehicle. I would see these as some of the greatest technological achievements of the last century and the USA was pwnd! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
How's the USSR doing these days?

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

Probably better than the USA is doing in Iraq. But, hey, who would want to compare? After all the USSR got it tails between its legs in Afghanistan. Wait, the USA took the baton there too! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The system leads to this, and it also leads to the innovation that has given us all the technological progress we've had in the past couple centuries. If we were to go back 200 years and make the world a big socialist haven, we'd be lucky to have electricity today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, where have I been? Asleep? The communist USSR, although starting a long way behind the USA (from the worst form of feudalism, in fact), was, I thought, the first in space, the first satellite, the first animal in space, the first man in space and simultaneously the first orbiting man. The first USA citizen in space did not orbit and it came after the USSR had successfully launched a manned orbital vehicle. I would see these as some of the greatest technological achievements of the last century and the USA was pwnd! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, a starving population sounds like an exciting trade off. I'll freely admit that endeavors that can't turn a profit (aka, aren't useful to the poor) can suffer under capitalism. None of those things you mentioned actually make the lives of the poor any easier though.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The system leads to this, and it also leads to the innovation that has given us all the technological progress we've had in the past couple centuries. If we were to go back 200 years and make the world a big socialist haven, we'd be lucky to have electricity today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, where have I been? Asleep? The communist USSR, although starting a long way behind the USA (from the worst form of feudalism, in fact), was, I thought, the first in space, the first satellite, the first animal in space, the first man in space and simultaneously the first orbiting man. The first USA citizen in space did not orbit and it came after the USSR had successfully launched a manned orbital vehicle. I would see these as some of the greatest technological achievements of the last century and the USA was pwnd! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Heh, I can't tell if this is serious or not, so just disregard if I missed the sarcasm...

You're going to point to one thing that the Russian government did better then the American economy and government and claim that that means Russia was better off? What about things that actually have demand, such as clean water, which you had to stand in line for hours to get in Russia?

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

This century is going to be very interesting and very scarry.

Eric Hoffer wrote in "The True Believer" 1951

"The more unworkable communism proves in Russia, and the more its leaders are compelled to compromise and adulterate the original creed, the more brazen and arrogant will be their attack on the a non-believing world. The slave-holders of the South became the more aggressive in spreading their way of life the more it became patent that their possition was untenable in a modern world. If free enterpise becomes a proselytizing holy cuase, it will be a sign that its workability and advantages have ceased to be self-evident."

There never used to be people trying to spread Capitalism like a religion or who believed in it ferverently like a faith before. Its effectiveness was just beyond doubt and therefore nothing to be passionate about. Not so anymore, unbridled Capitalism is causing more problems than it is solving.

It's all but impossible to describe where a movement is while it's happening, but there are clues. The increasing deregulation accross the USA and the world for that matter could be a sign that capitalism is on the rise, but, more likely, a sign that it's in its last throwes, just like the extreme racial violence of the 60s, and the consolidation of power right before the French Revolution.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]

There never used to be people trying to spread Capitalism like a religion or who believed in it ferverently like a faith before. Its effectiveness was just beyond doubt and therefore nothing to be passionate about. Not so anymore, unbridled Capitalism is causing more problems than it is solving.

It's all but impossible to describe where a movement is while it's happening, but there are clues. The increasing deregulation accross the USA and the world for that matter could be a sign that capitalism is on the rise, but, more likely, a sign that it's in its last throwes, just like the extreme racial violence of the 60s, and the consolidation of power right before the French Revolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Your entire post is like exactly the opposite of what's going on in the real world. Increasing deregulation? Like trans-fat?

[ QUOTE ]
If free enterpise becomes a proselytizing holy cuase, it will be a sign that its workability and advantages have ceased to be self-evident.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the most likely cause of this not being self-evident is a dumbing down of the population. Phase one, let government regulate the school system.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

Before this get way off-topic by my doing, I was only answering the suggestion that capitalism was the only system capable of making technological advances. Conversely, I am sure that capitalism like communism is capable of making big mistakes and has been in the process of doing so for quite a while.

I will not reply on this thread any longer regarding this... I did not intend to hijack but, simply, highlight some wrong reasoning in a reply.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
There never used to be people trying to spread Capitalism like a religion or who believed in it ferverently like a faith before. Its effectiveness was just beyond doubt and therefore nothing to be passionate about. Not so anymore, unbridled Capitalism is causing more problems than it is solving.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is surely not true. William Graham Sumner? Ayn Rand? The robber barons?

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There never used to be people trying to spread Capitalism like a religion or who believed in it ferverently like a faith before. Its effectiveness was just beyond doubt and therefore nothing to be passionate about. Not so anymore, unbridled Capitalism is causing more problems than it is solving.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is surely not true. William Graham Sumner? Ayn Rand? The robber barons?

[/ QUOTE ]
The "actual" robber barons were trying to spread capitalism? More like mercantilism, which != capitalism.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]

Wow. Your entire post is like exactly the opposite of what's going on in the real world. Increasing deregulation? Like trans-fat?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're joking right? Have you been paying attention to national and world news the last decade? There are countries privatizing their water supply. I seriously cannot guess how you have arrived at the opposite conclusion, because, that's all the WTO and IMF have been doing the past 20 years. All of the former Soviet block countries have been privatizing and deregulating. The US has been privatizing or decentralizing everything and reducing progressive wealth redistribution schemes. Our military is mostly outsourced now.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If free enterpise becomes a proselytizing holy cuase, it will be a sign that its workability and advantages have ceased to be self-evident.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the most likely cause of this not being self-evident is a dumbing down of the population. Phase one, let government regulate the school system.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got to be kidding me, other governments accross the world have done a fine jobe regulating their schools. And ours was decent for over a century. Would you prefer Catholic schools or Quaker meetings. In order to claim that Govt. controlling schools is the cause of dumbing down the populatin you need show at least some type of correlation between government schools and dumbing down or, even it's opposite, a nation of people who went to private school and being less dumbed down. When you make a claim that absurd, you really should back it up some how.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

Why is that "too uneven"? What is the acceptable threshhold of "even"?

Is this an increase or a decrease? Compare modern democracy with feudalism.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, how bad can the condition of humanity get before your precious capitalist principles become untenable to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's become undeniably better. Compare the serfs of a thousand years ago with life spans half that of ours with today's lower middle class, who struggle with obesity. Just because someone else has more doesn't mean you have less.

If redistribution results in widespread (but equal) poverty, is that a better alternative?

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any limit at all to your worship of capitalism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't worship it.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There never used to be people trying to spread Capitalism like a religion or who believed in it ferverently like a faith before. Its effectiveness was just beyond doubt and therefore nothing to be passionate about. Not so anymore, unbridled Capitalism is causing more problems than it is solving.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is surely not true. William Graham Sumner? Ayn Rand? The robber barons?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't Ayn Rand a refugee from USSR? kind of different. Was Sumner among the faithful or was he making reasoned arguments?

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wow. Your entire post is like exactly the opposite of what's going on in the real world. Increasing deregulation? Like trans-fat?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're joking right? Have you been paying attention to national and world news the last decade? There are countries privatizing their water supply. I seriously cannot guess how you have arrived at the opposite conclusion, because, that's all the WTO and IMF have been doing the past 20 years. All of the former Soviet block countries have been privatizing and deregulating. The US has been privatizing or decentralizing everything and reducing progressive wealth redistribution schemes. Our military is mostly outsourced now.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of your actual examples here are world, not national. I was only talking about national. In your post, you only attached "the rest of the world" as a throw away. We certainly deregulated phone service here in the U.S. (as it was starting to become obsolete, but for every thing deregulated, there are a dozen more regulated. (trans-fats, smoking in restaurants, etc.)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And the most likely cause of this not being self-evident is a dumbing down of the population. Phase one, let government regulate the school system.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got to be kidding me, other governments accross the world have done a fine jobe regulating their schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

Compared to what place where we do it via the private sector?

[ QUOTE ]
And ours was decent for over a century.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Before we started regulating it...

[ QUOTE ]
Would you prefer Catholic schools or Quaker meetings. In order to claim that Govt. controlling schools is the cause of dumbing down the populatin you need show at least some type of correlation between government schools and dumbing down or, even it's opposite, a nation of people who went to private school and being less dumbed down. When you make a claim that absurd, you really should back it up some how.

[/ QUOTE ]

America of 100 years ago vs. America of today.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There never used to be people trying to spread Capitalism like a religion or who believed in it ferverently like a faith before. Its effectiveness was just beyond doubt and therefore nothing to be passionate about. Not so anymore, unbridled Capitalism is causing more problems than it is solving.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is surely not true. William Graham Sumner? Ayn Rand? The robber barons?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't Ayn Rand a refugee from USSR? kind of different. Was Sumner among the faithful or was he making reasoned arguments?

[/ QUOTE ]

Define refuge. If you mean she was disgusted by communism and left, then I guess so.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are a few reactions one can have to this. 1. To support or oppose the economic processes that lead to this condition 2. To support or oppose the results themselves.


[/ QUOTE ]

To make amend for my earlier near derailment of this interesting thread.

Over the last few years, I have pondered on developments of economic development, especially from a dialectical Marxist view point. The reasons being, that indubitably, Marx was the founder of Economics, and I would not know a single economist that would avow not to have read "Das Kapital". I have read, of course, but to make things clear I don't claim to be an economist.

Marxism dialectics, like subsequent economic theories, except for the latest fads, which haven't had the chance to be proven wrong yet, and for AC which never had nor would have a chance, thankfully, have been proven not to model economic realistically.

I have come to the conclusion that the biggest flaw in the Marxist model was it did not account sufficiently for the arbitrary influences of nations sovereignty. I think that the Marxist model, with some correction, will prove more successfully predictive in these times of globalization of economies, and, at the end, the richer will get richer and the poorer poorer. Globalization is playing in the hands of capital very natural and intrinsic accretion qualities [Marx 101 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ].

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is that "too uneven"? What is the acceptable threshhold of "even"?

Is this an increase or a decrease? Compare modern democracy with feudalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Economically feadalism had a far more even distribution of wealth than we do now. In fact, serfs all accross europe were considered to have the right to farm the farm lands until the industial revolution was in full swing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If so, how bad can the condition of humanity get before your precious capitalist principles become untenable to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's become undeniably better.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a sense that this is true in absloute terms, but that's about it. A great many people have made a great many arguments that life was more rewarding a few hundred years ago than it is now. I'm not saying I agree, just that it's not undeniable.
[ QUOTE ]
Compare the serfs of a thousand years ago

[/ QUOTE ] I see no reason to, and it affronts my dignity to have to be compared with a serf to feel justified.[ QUOTE ]
with life spans half that of ours with today's lower middle class, who struggle with obesity.

[/ QUOTE ]
It wasn't that bad, life spans weren't that bad in the feudal era. It wasn't till after, I think WW2, but the 20th century anyway, that life spans returned to pre-industrial revolution levels.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because someone else has more doesn't mean you have less.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it really does. Inflation?


[ QUOTE ]
If redistribution results in widespread (but equal) poverty, is that a better alternative?

[/ QUOTE ]
Absoloutly not, but that's not the issue.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any limit at all to your worship of capitalism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't worship it.

[/ QUOTE ] Me neither.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
Economically feadalism had a far more even distribution of wealth than we do now. In fact, serfs all accross europe were considered to have the right to farm the farm lands until the industial revolution was in full swing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you have to highlight their government-granted right to farm their own sustinence highlights the distinguishing characteristic of feudalism: property was owned by the feudal lord, not the peasants. They owned next to nothing and lived a very crap life.

[ QUOTE ]
There is a sense that this is true in absloute terms, but that's about it. A great many people have made a great many arguments that life was more rewarding a few hundred years ago than it is now. I'm not saying I agree, just that it's not undeniable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's ridiculous. Would you like to live in the pre-medicine, pre-computer, pre-air conditioned, pre-safe sex, pre-vaccinated, pre-educated world of the fifteenth century? I've heard people claim that the amish (who basically live in an anarcho-syndicalist world) are better off than us. I fail to see the logic of this; they get up at three in the morning in a poorly built, uninsulated, uncomfortable cottage to do very, very hard work (much harder than we're used to) all day long, only to enjoy a much agonized over meal for their reward, and must continue to do so throughout their existence. That's poverty.

However, you are right about my use of the word, I should have picked a better adjective.

[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason to, and it affronts my dignity to have to be compared with a serf to feel justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're offended by the idea of making comparisons in order to observe change. How convenient.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it really does. Inflation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apples and oranges. Inflation is the result of credit expansion, which requires government monopolization of the money supply. I can't think of anything more un-capitalistic.

But yes, value can be produced without removing it from somewhere else. The economy is not zero-sum. You and I are neighbors, and we both have an equal number of trees on our lot. I chop my trees down and add a garage onto my house, thus increasing the value and utility of my property. Has anyone else lost anything?

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wow. Your entire post is like exactly the opposite of what's going on in the real world. Increasing deregulation? Like trans-fat?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're joking right? Have you been paying attention to national and world news the last decade? There are countries privatizing their water supply. I seriously cannot guess how you have arrived at the opposite conclusion, because, that's all the WTO and IMF have been doing the past 20 years. All of the former Soviet block countries have been privatizing and deregulating. The US has been privatizing or decentralizing everything and reducing progressive wealth redistribution schemes. Our military is mostly outsourced now.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of your actual examples here are world, not national. I was only talking about national. In your post, you only attached "the rest of the world" as a throw away. We certainly deregulated phone service here in the U.S. (as it was starting to become obsolete, but for every thing deregulated, there are a dozen more regulated. (trans-fats, smoking in restaurants, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]
ok, so 2 examples where laws have been passed, lets add to my list TANIF to the dereguation, and there are plety of power grids accross the country as well. Thankfully SS did not fall.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
other governments accross the world have done a fine jobe regulating their schools.

[/ QUOTE ]
Compared to what place where we do it via the private sector?

[/ QUOTE ]
Relevance? It's your assertion.... you show me
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And ours was decent for over a century.

[/ QUOTE ]
True. Before we started regulating it...

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you mean, before the federal government started regulating it? Schools have been public in the US for hundreds of years. Boston Latin?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you prefer Catholic schools or Quaker meetings. In order to claim that Govt. controlling schools is the cause of dumbing down the populatin you need show at least some type of correlation between government schools and dumbing down or, even it's opposite, a nation of people who went to private school and being less dumbed down. When you make a claim that absurd, you really should back it up some how.

[/ QUOTE ]

America of 100 years ago vs. America of today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you were annoyed by the dumbing down of the populace. Have you spent much time reading books from the turn of the century. Aside from a few gifted fiction writers and a few mathematicians, they were stupid... and I'm talking here about the smart and educated people.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

Meanwhile they couldn't build a refrigerator to save their lives.....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The system leads to this, and it also leads to the innovation that has given us all the technological progress we've had in the past couple centuries. If we were to go back 200 years and make the world a big socialist haven, we'd be lucky to have electricity today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, where have I been? Asleep? The communist USSR, although starting a long way behind the USA (from the worst form of feudalism, in fact), was, I thought, the first in space, the first satellite, the first animal in space, the first man in space and simultaneously the first orbiting man. The first USA citizen in space did not orbit and it came after the USSR had successfully launched a manned orbital vehicle. I would see these as some of the greatest technological achievements of the last century and the USA was pwnd! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Economically feadalism had a far more even distribution of wealth than we do now. In fact, serfs all accross europe were considered to have the right to farm the farm lands until the industial revolution was in full swing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that you have to highlight their government-granted right to farm their own sustinence highlights the distinguishing characteristic of feudalism: property was owned by the feudal lord, not the peasants. They owned next to nothing and lived a very crap life.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO, our whole notion of "property rights" came from the 1800s. A lord may have been ruler of a domaine but it was not his property in the sense that we think of it now. He did not have the 'right' to stop the people from farming. This was something that peasants lost in the industrial revolution. To think of it, you really need to rethink ownership. It did not exist in europe in the feudal era the way it did in the IR or now.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason to, and it affronts my dignity to have to be compared with a serf to feel justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're offended by the idea of making comparisons in order to observe change. How convenient.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, your comparing now to 600 years ago. More than just the economic system has changed, and that is the topic. And your picture of the feudal era is a bit off anyway. A large amount of our considerations of feudal times comes from industrialists trying to end it.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The system leads to this, and it also leads to the innovation that has given us all the technological progress we've had in the past couple centuries. If we were to go back 200 years and make the world a big socialist haven, we'd be lucky to have electricity today.

[/ QUOTE ]

The communist manifesto states, and I agree, that capitalism was useful to build the bridge between feudalism, and socialism. We have already laid the groundwork to have a socialist society. The whole world can easily be fed clothed, schooled, and much more with the incredible productive power that we have now.

[/ QUOTE ]

And never cure AIDS or cancer or explore the stars or acheive virtual reality or find more efficient food sources or a million other things. The scientific progress benifits of capitalism don't just stop because someone invented socialism. Perhaps I should have said television or the personal computer instead of electricity? The car or the airplane? Turn the world socialist and the poor will certainly see an immediate improvement in their condition. The problem is that progess will slow to the point that they'll be much, much worse off than they would have been 100 years from now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good thing we had the government, or we would never have nucular power.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The system leads to this, and it also leads to the innovation that has given us all the technological progress we've had in the past couple centuries. If we were to go back 200 years and make the world a big socialist haven, we'd be lucky to have electricity today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, where have I been? Asleep? The communist USSR, although starting a long way behind the USA (from the worst form of feudalism, in fact), was, I thought, the first in space, the first satellite, the first animal in space, the first man in space and simultaneously the first orbiting man. The first USA citizen in space did not orbit and it came after the USSR had successfully launched a manned orbital vehicle. I would see these as some of the greatest technological achievements of the last century and the USA was pwnd! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, a starving population sounds like an exciting trade off. I'll freely admit that endeavors that can't turn a profit (aka, aren't useful to the poor) can suffer under capitalism. None of those things you mentioned actually make the lives of the poor any easier though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Neither does our healthcare system. It is intentionally set up to incentivise inovation over care, and the health of the coutry has suffered for it.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile they couldn't build a refrigerator to save their lives.....

[/ QUOTE ]

You believe anything you are told, right. You are no different from the USSR citizens of late, they believed that there were homeless people in Washington, DC, sleeping over the sewer vents in winter, covered in newspapers, to survive and keep warm.

I would never fall for such propaganda! Hey, wait a minute, I saw it! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personal wealth is distributed so unevenly across the world that the richest two per cent of adults own more than 50 per cent of the world’s assets while the poorest half hold only 1 per cent of wealth.



[/ QUOTE ]

story continues here


There are a few reactions one can have to this. 1. To support or oppose the economic processes that lead to this condition 2. To support or oppose the results themselves.

I'm a socialist, and I oppose both the process and the results. I imagine many of you are in favor of the process but oppose the results. Are any of you willing to admit that you support both the process and the results?
If so, how bad can the condition of humanity get before your precious capitalist principles become untenable to you?
Is there any limit at all to your worship of capitalism?

[/ QUOTE ]

I scanned the link; it doesn't seem to account for assets held by governments. If this is the case, a more accurate statement would be, 'Richest 2% hold half of world's privately held assets.'

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've never asked a socialist this, so I'm curious. Snowball, why did the USSR collapse?




[/ QUOTE ]

The USSR was undemocratic and very politically centralized. The population was alienated, and unmotivated to defend their way of life. This probably would have been somewhat different if the government didn't feel compelled to spend so much money on the military. I say "somewhat different" because I believe that the stalinist bureaucracy was inherently hostile to the soviet people, and would have driven the country into the ground anyway, albeit slower than reagan wanted.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]

Neither does our healthcare system. It is intentionally set up to incentivise inovation over care, and the health of the coutry has suffered for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have not yet demostrated the willingness to distinguish mercantilism from capiltalism. What would y6ou say if i used France as a model of communism because it has socialistic policies?

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
I scanned the link; it doesn't seem to account for assets held by governments. If this is the case, a more accurate statement would be, 'Richest 2% hold half of world's privately held assets.'

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an important point and should be looked into further. How much of the world's assets are held by governments rather than people? Seems like an answer to this question might shed some important light on the cited statistics. I don't think the linked article should be considered complete without that information. For all we know just from reading the article, governments could hold <1%, 10%, or even 50% or more of the world's assets. People favoring redistribution schemes ought to have a keen interest in gaining this knowledge but my guess is they won't.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personal wealth is distributed so unevenly across the world that the richest two per cent of adults own more than 50 per cent of the world’s assets while the poorest half hold only 1 per cent of wealth.



[/ QUOTE ]

story continues here


There are a few reactions one can have to this. 1. To support or oppose the economic processes that lead to this condition 2. To support or oppose the results themselves.

I'm a socialist, and I oppose both the process and the results. I imagine many of you are in favor of the process but oppose the results. Are any of you willing to admit that you support both the process and the results?


[/ QUOTE ]

I support both the "process" and the results. (Well, at least to the extent that the "process" is laissez-faire capitalism, which, unfortunately, it isn't.)

[ QUOTE ]

If so, how bad can the condition of humanity get before your precious capitalist principles become untenable to you?
Is there any limit at all to your worship of capitalism?

[/ QUOTE ]

The condition of humanity is not degrading, and thanks to the semi-capitalistic market economies, it has greatly improved in most places. Humanity will flourish even more provided political liberty (and as a logical consequence capitalism) is more universally and consistently implemented.

I don't "worship" capitalism, but I suppose you might say I worship individual rights. Laissez-faire capitalism is the logical manifestation of those rights in the social realm, and is therefore the only moral social system. Not surprisingly, it is also the system which leads to the greatest material prosperity for the masses.

You commies act as if there is a constant, static wealth just inexplicably out there in the world, and somehow those meanie capitalists took more than their "fair" share at the expense of everyone else. The obvious truth is that wealth is a dynamic quantity which must be produced. That some people have produced great wealth is a natural consequence of freedom, and contrary to your socialist fantasies, that fact is to my (and everyone's) benefit rather than my expense.

Socialists desire to destroy human freedom and dignity, thereby dragging humanity back into the muck of political slavery and economic poverty -- all of us "equally," of course.

Whiner
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personal wealth is distributed so unevenly across the world that the richest two per cent of adults own more than 50 per cent of the world’s assets while the poorest half hold only one per cent of wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]Come on. That's a diference of one lousy percentage point. If the poorest half held two per cent of wealth, you wouldn't protest - I hope.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

unbridled capitalism is a disaster for those that do not have education or capital. Wage slavery is the result.

Re: Whiner
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personal wealth is distributed so unevenly across the world that the richest two per cent of adults own more than 50 per cent of the world’s assets while the poorest half hold only one per cent of wealth.

[/ QUOTE ]Come on. That's a diference of one lousy percentage point. If the poorest half held two per cent of wealth, you wouldn't protest - I hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you've got it mixed up...

the richest 2% of adults own more than 50% of privately held wealth.

the poorest 50% hold only 1% of privately held wealth.

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

[ QUOTE ]
unbridled capitalism is a disaster for those that do not have education or capital. Wage slavery is the result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moorobot proposed this same idea earlier and it seemed just as insane back then. When you are actually a slave you have no choice to leave, you will be shot. When someone offers you a job they do not shoot you if you don't accept! You're free to take your productiveness to someone else. If you don't have productive skills then it's your responsibility to figure it out. It is NOT anyone else's responsibility to work for you!

Re: Richest 2% hold half of world\'s assets
 

Heh, Heh, Heh. I'm in the top 10%, at least. That makes me feel pretty good.

I don't really agree much with this guys politics (you should like him) but this is an excellent analysis of wealth distribution. He has also done some studies of the way wealth distribution works in a mathematical sense, and the effects of inheritance. They are very informative. I recommend you do some reading.