The World's Wealth - Comments Page 2

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 26 - Dave Nalle

  Dec 07, 2006 at 10:10 am

  we learn that 2% of the people on the planet commandeer half the world’s wealth, while the bottom 50% control, as a whole, only 1%.
  
  Utterly meaningless statistics. The quesiton is not who controls what percent of the world's wealth, but who lives in an acceptable standard of living conditions. And the rich don't 'comandeer' wealth for the most part, they earn it or even create it.
  
  Dave

• 27 - troll

  Dec 07, 2006 at 10:21 am

  Dave says - *The quesiton is not who controls what percent of the world's wealth, but who lives in an acceptable standard of living conditions.*
  
  actually these are two separate equally meaningful questions

• 28 - Maurice

  Dec 07, 2006 at 10:23 am

  Dave #24
  
  good call. I don't bother responding to any of his comments because he revealed himself as a BS artist many posts ago.
  
  Reminds of the old George Carlin line: I call 'em like I see 'em - and if I don't see 'em I make 'em up!
  
  

• 29 - cooper

  Dec 07, 2006 at 11:02 am

  I agree with the BS artist to some degree though, the statistics are meaningless, unless they are put to use.
  
  They haven't been applied, for the most part, in any way which will actually have an effect on world poverty, at least not on the scale necessary; this study probably won't change that.
  
  It's just a research project. And to what end?
  As it is no third world country want to risk
  The authority of their national leadership in exchange for the elimination of poverty and programs which would enable some sustainable income.
  
  Just as with Darfur, where the fear of the above let's the leaders of the Sudan allow a genocide to continue.
  
  Research is great but to what end?

• 30 - o ceallaigh

  Dec 07, 2006 at 11:21 am

  The report’s data is based on information from 2000, because evidently information in this day and age is hard to come by.
  
  Actually, it is. Especially for reports like this that rely heavily on metadata (data from data). It's common for economic studies to be two, three, four years "behind present" in order to fill as many holes in the data matrix as they can. From those that will let you have the data. Which China will not.
  
  I remember reading a Franklin Roosevelt speech from 1936 or 1937, in which he responded to critics of his efforts to redistribute the wealth by saying "The American expects to work for what he receives, and I will work to encourage that expectation". Or words to that effect.
  
  I think a lot of that ethic has been lost. "Give one an inch, that one wants a yard. Give a yard, and there'll be a demand to have a swimming pool installed in it." Even if that is NOT true for the "have nots", the "haves" THINK it is true, and go into "hoard" mode. I argue, therefore, that any discussion of how to end poverty and unequal income distribution needs to focus FIRST on "how do we get people to understand that we're all in this together?" Especially when, under the current regime, it appears the opposite is true - the rich get happily richer and the poor, if not happy about it, aren't able, or if able aren't prepared, to do anything to make changes. Elves and Dragons! Cabbages and potatoes are more fitting for the likes of me and you, said the Gaffer.
  
  I have not yet seen anyone calculate what our annual income would be if everyone around the world earned the same amount. I am sure the number would freak out most Americans not in the migrant-farm-labor pool. And that freakout would, I fear, end all discussion of poverty and its cure. For suddenly, there would be a resurgence of the Beatles. "I me mine, I me mine, I me mine ..."
  
  Otherwise, poverty would already be a thing of the past, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

• 31 - Nancy

  Dec 07, 2006 at 12:33 pm

  I have to agree w/Redtard #20, in that a lot of the problem these days seems to stem from poor parenting: people who expect everyone else to pay for & raise their kids, while totally refusing to discipline them or instill any kind of sense of responsibility or duty, just as they themselves were raised by their own parents: a product of the Dr. Spock theory of bringing up utterly spoiled and catered to children. At the same time I have to wonder how much of it is learned and how much inherent. I know quite a few people who couldn't "make it" to success if you handed them a million dollars; inside of 6 months they'd be broke & whining about their sorry selves.
  
  Another aspect of the problem is the outrageous & lopsided remuneration paid to celebrities, CEOs, politicians, & other such social lampreys. They do little or nothing, & for it they get millions, totally undeserved for the amount of effort, talent, & capability put into it. In turn this raises false expectations among the masses, especially the kids. Why study when you can become a (pick one: rock star, movie star, sports star, etc.) or amass a fortune selling crack or pimping, or (for the more sophisticated) go into politics & lie for a living & make millions from the public trough plus private deals on the side while you're at it?
  
  The whole thing is a mess, and I don't begin to know where to find the end of the string to unravel it. All I know is that something is wrong when such scumbags as the late Ken Lay (before his arrest), George Bush, Paris Hilton, Barry Bonds or Senator _____ (insert name of your favorite congressmaggot here) live high & mighty at the expense of a vast population living on the edge; yet at the same time most of this vast population wouldn't & couldn't help themselves via effort & hard work if you held a gun to their heads.
  
  I'm reminded also of an ad I hear on the radio constantly that irritates the hell out of me, some charity panhandling for donations, "to teach those in need life skills". Excuse me? Didn't they have the same chance at that the first time around that I did, the difference being that I came home & spent my evenings studying instead of watching TV & they didn't? I have to wonder about this, since last time I heard, in the US at least, public schooling is not only free but also mandatory thru age 18. Last time I looked, learning also was not limited to what was ingested while sitting in a chair in some building designated for the purpose, either. Most of my learning has been done on my own, through reading or hands on participation. I didn't sit around waiting for someone to spoon feed it to me, & I still don't.
  
  It's not politically correct, but I do wonder how much of poverty is directly attributable to the lack of personal responsibility of the individual involved?

• 32 - Arch Conservative

  Dec 07, 2006 at 2:13 pm

  "Enough with all the academic blathering; it’s time to stop talking about ending poverty and putting some things in motion to make it happen."
  
  JUST DO IT.
  
  
  Ummmmmmmmmmm yeah........
  
  Put down the bong buddy!
  
  I don't take exception with your notion of helping the truly less fortunate that we share this planet with for that is a noble intention.
  
  I do however take exception with your suggestion that ending poverty is actually an attainable goal and the inference that many like you make that people who do not believe it is a realizable goal and tout the cause are somehow ammoral and heartless.
  
  There's always going to be poverty, suffering, and misery. It's life. And no matter how many lollipops and hugs you handout it is always going to be that way.
  
  Of course we should all do what we can to help those who need it but please spare us your you visions of all of mankind holding hands skipping down the yellow brick road singing the smurfs theme song.

• 33 - cooper

  Dec 07, 2006 at 3:44 pm

  I'm not really sure how relevant people raising whiny kids is to a research study on world wealth/ poverty and I'm not sure that I could find a whole lot of starving dying children in Darfur, or child soldiers in Uganda who didn't deserve to whine a little. It is funny though how a post about world wealth ends up being a post where most of the comments are in the form of "all about me or us format".
  
  
  "I'm reminded also of an ad I hear on the radio constantly that irritates the hell out of me, some charity panhandling for donations, "to teach those in need life skills". Excuse me? Didn't they have the same chance at that the first time around that I did, the difference being that I came home & spent my evenings studying instead of watching TV & they didn't? I have to wonder about this, since last time I heard, in the US at least, public schooling is not only free but also mandatory through age 18"
  
  Actually I'd have to check, but it is not mandatory in all states through eighteen some it's more like sixteen, nor is it of equal quality. In a country touted, at least in past times as the greatest on earth it is not too much to ask that all school systems provide quality education and they don't;
  
  
  and no not necessarily and that of course is no fault of yours but there is a large segment of the population through no fault of their own who do not have the same chance as you do, they may not have the role models, they may come home to a crack parent or no parent so where you would like to think everyone had the same chance from the get go it is not the case.
  
  I have no doubt though that the baby boomer parents made some very large mistakes.
  
  
  "There's always going to be poverty, suffering, and misery. It's life. And no matter how many lollipops and hugs you handout it is always going to be that way."
  
  Programs that allow for a region to attain a way to provide jobs and sustainable income by real labor are not exactly handing people a lollipops, and my name is cooper not buddy. Thanks though.
  
  
  There is no reason to think that poverty could not be eradicated, it is economically feasible but the cost in other things such as power and money for those in power would is too great a concern.
  
  =
  
  
  
  

• 34 - Bliffle

  Dec 07, 2006 at 5:41 pm

  The "Nobel Memorial Prize" is a rump prize. You can read about it yourself here:
  Nobel economics prize
  
  Here is the essence:
  
  In 1896, Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite, bequeathed his fortune to a foundation to create an annual prize for person "who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." Nobel's will specified prizes in physics, chemistry, physiology/medicine, literature and peace. These were first awarded in 1901.
  
  In 1969, the Swedish central bank (Sveriges Riskbank) established a prize known as the "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel", which is commonly shortened to the Nobel Memorial Prize. The Nobel Memorial Prize has a similar procedure of award selection (by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences) as the original Nobel prizes. It also disburses the same monetary amounts and shares in the formal ceremony.
  
  The Nobel Memorial Prize has been quite controversial since its inception and numerous objections have been raised against it. The first objection is that economics is either not "scientific" enough or does not contribute to "human advancement" enough to merit the prestige of an award with the Nobel name. The sentiment, often echoed in wider intellectual circles and the popular press, is shared by many economists themselves. Indeed, Gunnar Myrdal, after having helped the Riksbank set it up in 1968 and receiving the award himself in 1974, eventually came to publicly admit this.
  
  The second objection, is that the Bank of Sweden's decision to use the prestigious "Nobel" name has thrust economics into a kind of medal race, pitting nations, universities and individual economists against each other. All this leads to a lot of unnecessary acrimony that distracts and disrupts serious economics research.
  
  A third objection, and one that has become increasingly louder, is that there is an insufficient number of truly outstanding economists that deserve it. After the initial splash of glorious names in the 1970s and early 1980s, many have come to argue that the awards made during the 1990s are more disputable.
  
  ...
  
  A fourth objection is that the Nobel awards committee has its own agenda and doles out the awards with an eye to encourage the profession to move in a particular direction. At the crudest level, some have claimed that it has a "Chicago School" bias, given the number of economists associated with the University of Chicago that have won the awards (for a breakdown of the awards by nationality and school, click here).
  
  ... Milton Friedman's 1976 award elevated him overnight from the profession's maverick to one of its elder statesmen and gave Monetarism a more respectable polish. ...
  
  A corollary to this is that the Bank of Sweden is occasionally criticized is for failing to choose the most popular candidates. Some of the choices it made have been openly criticized by professional economists. ...
  
  However, it is precisely because of the erratic and disproportionate "impact" the Bank of Sweden's choice has upon the profession and the shape of subsequent economics research that many have called for an end to the Nobel Memorial Prize.
  ...
  
  
  

• 35 - Baronius

  Dec 07, 2006 at 8:20 pm

  All this leads to a lot of unnecessary acrimony that distracts and disrupts serious economics research.
  
  Well, at least this prize accomplishes something.

• 36 - Dave Nalle

  Dec 07, 2006 at 8:42 pm

  So you're saying that the economics prize is just as politicized and suspect as the other prizes? What a shocker. Friedman certainly deserved the recognition, as have many of the other recipients and regardless of how hardcore scientific it may be, it's certainly a very important and legitimate field of study. And if there's a problem with a lack of worthy candidates they can not give the prize out, just as they've done with the nobel in other categories over the years.
  
  Dave

• 37 - Peter J

  Dec 08, 2006 at 3:37 pm

  There's a lot of talk about "take" and "give".
  Nobody should take anything , assets had are assets earned.
  Give? If you have and want to give that's entirely up to you. Me? I'm a sap for someone in need, that's not a good thing or a bad thing, I'm severely empathetic.
  
  I believe that the whole argument settled down to one thing. EARNINGS. money earned for services or goods rendered.
  As was stated, not everyone is suited for a college education but those who are, with a bit of effort(if they're not too lazy, even college bound people can be lazy) they can find scholarships, grants, partime jobs , whatever it takes to get the job done.
  
  So, if you don't go to college you don't deserve an equitable salary? A plumber, electrician, carpenter, shouldn't make equitable pay? Why not? Try to get your Dr to wire your house (and hope it doesn't burn down in your sleep?
  
  Ok, not even anyone can be a plumber ,electrician or carpenter, but they work very hard, put in a hard week ,40 -60 hrs sometimes, trying to make a LIVEABLE income.
  What, you say? Good money for the man who shovels shit from your septic, for the man or woman who loads and unloads the goods you eat, wear, and enjoy? they should earn decent money?? Your fucking right! Do you want to spend your weekends doing it? What if they all decided "to hell with it, I'm not going to lift a finger until we have enough money to live at least close to (even if they're just renting it)the American dream.
  
  And those damn teachers, imagine the insult, they think their job is worth 50,000. a year? I sure do. You want to stay home and teach your own spoiled, unruly brats? No, didn't think so.
  Not given EARNED!! How difficult is that to swallow. For krist sake, you'll pay $150. to see a rock star,, $1500. for a friggin football game , but you don't want honsest, hardworking Americans to be able to pay all of their bills each month.
  Maybe they'll all get AK's and take what they want. Would that suit you better?

• 38 - Maurice

  Dec 11, 2006 at 9:17 am

  I guess Peter J was unaware that plumbers make so much money.
  
  

• 39 - S.T.M

  Dec 11, 2006 at 9:33 am

  Perhaps better J would have been better off reading the posts before he started firing off at the keyboard - reading: a skill useful for plumbers and other tradesmen.

• 40 - Clavos

  Dec 11, 2006 at 11:40 am

  Maurice,
  
  I guess he's never had to hire one...

• 41 - CNM

  Dec 01, 2007 at 12:18 am

  Author: What do you freaking know about China? idiot!