MDMAlliance said:
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.
|
My point was that inequality =/> poor people live badly, and so what is the issue if there are people so much more rich than the poor in their country compared to another country? Who cares if they have so much money? Why should there be a limit on how much wealth somebody can accumulate? '
As for you question regarding the graph:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-chart-17?Fsrc=scn%2Fgp%2Fwl%2Fdc%2Fbetterlifeindex
"SIZING up countries by GDP has long been criticised for placing too much emphasis on things that are measured monetarily. Over the past three years, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has released an alternative called the "Better-Life Index". It tracks around 24 indicators in 11 categories. Some are easily quantifiable, like jobs (which includes unemployment and income), while others are more woolly, like civic engagement and community. Ever diplomatic, the OECD does not provide a score for countries, though you can see their rankings here. The Economist has crunched the numbers for 10 indicators for which the OECD provide data to place countries in a range of how the best off and least well-off in society fare, measured as the top and bottom 10% of the population by income and education. It conforms to stereotype. The better-off Americans enjoy the best lives, but the country has the widest inequality. In fact, for all the fancy metrics, the Better-Life Index does not look too different from classic GDP rankings."
