| sc94597 said: How is the " accumulation of wealth" a problem and who determines when it is "excess"? In fact, I view it as a good thing. People are more affluent (all people, the rich and the poor) than they were 100 years ago, and people 100 years ago were more affluent than people 200 years ago. Poverty has decreased from 80% of the world's population to only 20% of the world's population, almost entirely erased in first world countries. These are all good things, and they are all because greater efficiency in production caused by free-markets. Things that were scarce 200 years ago, are nowhere near scarce today. That is the only way egalitarianism can happen, if scarcity is reduced, and the only way scarcity can be reduced is from production, and it just so happens that production is most efficienty (naturally) performed through a system that is not equal, but that's rightly so because there is even scarcity in people who can perform certain functions that are necessary to production. An egalitarian distribution means a less productive society, and consequently an overall worse off society. I'd rather have income inequality if it means that the poor live better than in a society much more equal, with a worse off poor. The United States might be the most inequal first-world country, but poor still live just as good lives as the poor of other more equal countries, if not better. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/
|
I just want to point out several things about this graph and the whole commentary about capitalism. Well, first the Capitalism thing, actually. I know you didn't say it, but I just wanted to say that the United States isn't all that Capitalist. In fact, I have heard that pure Capitalism isn't the best thing for a market anyway. Okay, now that's out of the way, now onto the graph itself.
This graph, I kind of am wondering how exactly this "Better-life Index" is using as measurement. According to the website, it includes more than just GPD numbers (which is a good thing if you really want to fairly compare how well people are living). However, it begs the question on HOW are these things being quantified? I think that even with the adjustments made to that graph, there must no doubt be a skew in favor to the United States.
