Are the world's poor better or worse off than before? (how much, luxury)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
other things have become far more expensive relative to the past
housing
education
healthcare
retirement provision
inequality is a bigger issue in some countries - continents more than others , im not a socialist but you need not be one to recognise this
So basically the rich of this world figured out a scheme, that in order to make more money (using the previously acquired wealth,) they needed to invest some first - to bring technology advances here and there ( into the third world countries,) teach people how to produce the consumer's items for cheap (keeping the profits of *original companies* that developed these technologies in mind) and then when economy and financial situation of the third world countries somewhat improved, they became yet another market for consumer goods, which in turn keep on bringing profits to *original corporations." So on one hand the engine of consumerism of course improves the living conditions of the poor in the third world countries somewhat, but at the same time it fulfills the main idea - it keeps on stuffing the coffers of the rich in the first world countries. All this of course, brought unwelcome *adjustments* in the "first world countries" themselves - the kind Irish Bob mentioned here.
So basically the rich of this world figured out a scheme, that in order to make more money (using the previously acquired wealth,) they needed to invest some first - to bring technology advances here and there ( into the third world countries,) teach people how to produce the consumer's items for cheap (keeping the profits of *original companies* that developed these technologies in mind) and then when economy and financial situation of the third world countries somewhat improved, they became yet another market for consumer goods, which in turn keep on bringing profits to *original corporations." So on one hand the engine of consumerism of course improves the living conditions of the poor in the third world countries somewhat, but at the same time it fulfills the main idea - it keeps on stuffing the coffers of the rich in the first world countries. All this of course, brought unwelcome *adjustments* in the "first world countries" themselves - the kind Irish Bob mentioned here.
Is there anything to stop middle class people from investing in these horrible companies that take awful advantage of workers? There are loads and loads and loads of middle class people whose coffers are stuffed with such ill-begotten profits. The most disciplined of them have acquired millions. OTH, those in the middle class who mope about it, do so from their Iphone 7x Super-duper that they paid for on credit.
Is there anything to stop middle class people from investing in these horrible companies that take awful advantage of workers?
I would think that once the rich established their companies there ( and are willing to expand) they'd invite the "middle class" to *participate* - i.e. to buy stocks/bonds - whatever in these companies.
Quote:
There are loads and loads and loads of middle class people whose coffers are stuffed with such ill-begotten profits.
Yes, I am aware of that - at least when it comes to the US. SOME made good money on it. Not sure how this kind of things played out in Europe.
Such is the world of risk. There are winners and losers. That is why winners should be rewarded handsomely for taking a risk in the first place. Without risk takers, we'd be a world of blacksmiths and farmers.
Contrary to the Looney Tune narrative of easy money for the big wigs, it is really hard to make a business work.
Such is the world of risk. There are winners and losers. That is why winners should be rewarded handsomely for taking a risk in the first place. Without risk takers, we'd be a world of blacksmiths and farmers.
Contrary to the Looney Tune narrative of easy money for the big wigs, it is really hard to make a business work.
I knew somehow that you'd come up with something like that, but no, that's not how the real world works.
Do you think that when the rich ( I mean REALLY rich people) go initially somewhere to Communist China to set up businesses, they don't have long and detailed discussions behind the closed doors on the Capitol Hill before that?
Of course they do, because this signals the whole new chapter in relations between the two, it's the case when business/economy become closely intertwined with politics. And sure enough government backs up the initial *winners* if their move is approved (or may be even encouraged by the government.) And that's how the winners take the guaranteed spoil. Those that follow their trail later on - yes, they already gamble, looking for other openings on that trail.
It's a good article I'm sure but a bit irrelevant in this case.
Quote:
Yet somehow, you think it's unfair for people who succeed to make as much as they do.
How do you know what I think? Are you a mind reader?
Even if I think that "it's unfair" that people "make as much as they do," my thinking goes on a totally different level than you'd probably guess. It has more to do with Calvinists, with their idea ( and proven fact of their idea I'd say) that hard labor that brings prosperity is a sign of blessing from god. ( This minding you, is taking place in a setting when this hard labor clearly doesn't play the same role or has same outcome for the slaves, that work on plantations (they are obviously excluded from these rules to begin with.)
And as for the people that "make as much as they do" - it's more about the whole system being more and more unwise if anything. There is a warning about it in the bible as well.
Perhaps the article itself is not relevant, but the statistic certainly is. You knew that already though.
As for really rich people having discussions with lawmakers prior to entering a market, I'm sure they do, much to my disgust. As I told you previously, I'm totally against the socialization of risk (think bailouts of 2008--Total BS). Those discussions still do not guarantee success, however. Many large corporations have failed in China and around the world. Billions have been lost in such follies.
Anyway, the United States Constitution guarantees the right to redress grievances, as such Americans and corporations by extension, have the right of access to their lawmakers. Here's where I part ways with the status quo and am somewhat of a radical. It is my belief that corporations should be stripped of personhood, thus their ability to buy access. Only individuals would be allowed access and only individuals would be allowed to make political contributions. In order to achieve this, corporations would have to be relieved of all of their US tax obligations, which would be incredibly stimulative to the economy. BUT--Dividends, capitals gains, corporate gifts, etc would all be taxed as ordinary income in my insane capitalist world. Income is income is income. Keep government as small and neutered as possible. It has no place in private lives or business other than its stated purpose in the Constitution. /endofabridgedfantasy
The religious angle doesn't get much traction with me. I'm a heathen. Religion created a great framework of golden rules by which a society should live before there was an ability to enforce laws. Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit adultery, etc, all great stuff. Sodom and Gomorrah is no way for the world to function. Beyond that framework, religion is nothing more than manipulative, IMO. That said, I totally respect those with different beliefs from my own, as long as they respect mine.
Perhaps the article itself is not relevant, but the statistic certainly is. You knew that already though.
As for really rich people having discussions with lawmakers prior to entering a market, I'm sure they do, much to my disgust. As I told you previously, I'm totally against the socialization of risk (think bailouts of 2008--Total BS). Those discussions still do not guarantee success, however. Many large corporations have failed in China and around the world. Billions have been lost in such follies.
I was not talking about just the "lawmakers" but specifically politicians. And I assure you, those who entered such new markets while being tied directly to politicians didn't lose anything. Those "billions lost" that you are talking about - that's already the next wave, with the "middle class investments" including. And that's the reason why "middle class" doesn't always like to invest in such risky ventures.
P.S. You might be totally against the "socialization of risk," but that's the reality we live in.
Quote:
Anyway, the United States Constitution guarantees the right to redress grievances, as such Americans and corporations by extension, have the right of access to their lawmakers. Here's where I part ways with the status quo and am somewhat of a radical. It is my belief that corporations should be stripped of personhood, thus their ability to buy access. Only individuals would be allowed access and only individuals would be allowed to make political contributions. In order to achieve this, corporations would have to be relieved of all of their US tax obligations, which would be incredibly stimulative to the economy. BUT--Dividends, capitals gains, corporate gifts, etc would all be taxed as ordinary income in my insane capitalist world. Income is income is income. Keep government as small and neutered as possible. It has no place in private lives or business other than its stated purpose in the Constitution. /endofabridgedfantasy
There we go.
Quote:
The religious angle doesn't get much traction with me. I'm a heathen. Religion created a great framework of golden rules by which a society should live before there was an ability to enforce laws. Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit adultery, etc, all great stuff. Sodom and Gomorrah is no way for the world to function. Beyond that framework, religion is nothing more than manipulative, IMO. That said, I totally respect those with different beliefs from my own, as long as they respect mine.
I was talking about certain framework as well; a framework of some kind. This framework I am talking about is not all that obvious when you live in Western world (or solely in Russia,) but if you have been in quite few different places, you start taking note of certain things. Things like that whole "Church framework" is not an empty sound if you follow the history of church, the initial schism, the developments in different countries depending where they ended up as the result of further church reformation and so on. How it affected the society, what ideas governed the societies, how they've shaped them, and somewhere between those lines you'd understand where Calvinism falls into.
Basically we are talking about certain part of population that got the green light "to work and prosper" and for this purpose the whole other group of people was supposed to be gone and leave the land for them. So we are clearly dealing with the fact that SOME people have the upper hand in their endeavors, a "blessing" if you wish, while it's not a case for some others. There are reasons you see, why some nations have all the advantages and other become colonized. I'm pretty sure this pattern doesn't stop purely at "ethnic/national level."
Having advantaged and disadvantaged people is the way of the world. It has been and always will be. A good portion of your lot in life is determined before the sperm meets the egg. The same holds true across the animal kingdom.
Of course history is rife with religious influence on policy. It was certainly the driving force, or at least it was the cover for most policies, up until the past few generations and it still has a major impact. If we dig just a bit deeper than the surface, we will find that economics cloaked in religion was/is the real mover in the majority if instances. Today is the same, except the religious cloak is not always a required tool. Nothing much has changed since the hunter-gatherer days. The brightest, most innovative and hardest working will always find a way, unless they are killed off in an attempt to make things 'fair'.
Communism is about acquiring wealth and power too. Hugo Chavez's wife is the richest person in Venezuela and Castro claims to have fathered over 1000 children. Taxes aside, the socialists on here discuss how people should be forced to stop sprawling out from large cities or stop doing this and that. They want to inflict their ideas (initiate force against) on others. All for the greater good of course. I will always advocate for freedom of choices, even when the issue is repugnant on a personal level.
Any significant movement to redistribute wealth always has and always will fail. OTH, prosperity, even when not balanced, bleeds down as we have seen among the world's poor. A rising tide lifts all boats while sinking a boat kills everybody on board, except the lucky few who find a life jacket.
What countries with high levels of inequality are considered safe, stable and desirable places to live? Brazil? South Africa? Mexico? I'm trying to think of one. Somebody help me out here.
I'm not anti-wealth or anything, but the most highly developed countries in the world actually have relatively low levels of inequality. You can acquire wealth, but you can also be a lower income person and live a decent life.
That doesn't happen as much in countries with high inequality.
Last edited by Fish & Chips; 09-08-2016 at 07:44 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
