fat assets

[writing irish]

No, it's not a link to a junk-in-her-trunk website.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/20061221/wl_oneworld/45361441461166723887

"The richest 2 percent of adults in the world own more than half the world's wealth, according to a new study released by the Helsinki-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University."

 

[cranberry]

But if you suggest that's not right you will get shouted down for engaging in "class warfare" as if there's something wrong with it. The growing gulf between rich and poor is a discussion we need to have, and not just in our country, either.

 

[writing irish]

Class warfare is perfectly acceptable in this country as long as (a) it's the rich beating up on the poor and (b) the word "class" is not mentioned. Because we don't have economic classes here in the USA.

 

[JR]

Class warfare is perfectly acceptable in this country as long as (a) it's the rich beating up on the poor and (b) the word "class" is not mentioned. Because we don't have economic classes here in the USA.

And you still believe in Santa, right?

 

[The Big Ragu]

The data in that story suggests the obvious: that out of all the economic models that are being tried worldwide, ours' is producing the most prosperity for the most people. According to whatever measure they used, the average American's wealth amounted to $144,000 in assets. Besides the U.S., only Canada, Western Europe, Japan and Israel showed average personal wealth of more than $50,000. So, the natural conclusion would be that democracies with open and free markets (capitalism) produce the most prosperous countries.

By the way, it's amazing how the U.S. has this comfortable middle class that is the envy of most of the world--which the guy down low in the story acknowledged (how many countries have large numbers of immigrants trying to get in here?)--when the economic classes are so pronounced and the rich are constantly beating up on everyone else.

 

[writing irish]

The data in that story suggests the obvious: that out of all the economic models that are being tried worldwide, ours' is producing the most prosperity for the most people. According to whatever measure they used, the average American's wealth amounted to $144,000 in assets. Besides the U.S., only Canada, Western Europe, Japan and Israel showed average personal wealth of more than $50,000. So, the natural conclusion would be that democracies with open and free markets (capitalism) produce the most prosperous countries.

By the way, it's amazing how the U.S. has this comfortable middle class that is the envy of most of the world--which the guy down low in the story acknowledged (how many countries have large numbers of immigrants trying to get in here?)--when the economic classes are so pronounced and the rich are constantly beating up on everyone else.

News flash: capitalism exists in poor countries, too.

 

[JR]

What seems obvious is that more and more wealth is being concentrated in the hands of a few. That is a direct threat to the North American middle class whose numbers are shrinking more and more every year.

And globalization, another fancy term for corporate hegemony, has increased the gap between poor and wealthy countries.

It's not a question of capitalism versus other economic models. It's making capitalism work for everyone.

 

[The Big Ragu]

The data in that story suggests the obvious: that out of all the economic models that are being tried worldwide, ours' is producing the most prosperity for the most people. According to whatever measure they used, the average American's wealth amounted to $144,000 in assets. Besides the U.S., only Canada, Western Europe, Japan and Israel showed average personal wealth of more than $50,000. So, the natural conclusion would be that democracies with open and free markets (capitalism) produce the most prosperous countries.

By the way, it's amazing how the U.S. has this comfortable middle class that is the envy of most of the world--which the guy down low in the story acknowledged (how many countries have large numbers of immigrants trying to get in here?)--when the economic classes are so pronounced and the rich are constantly beating up on everyone else.

News flash: capitalism exists in poor countries, too.

Name a country with a history of free election and open and free markets that is not among the countries with the highest per capita standard of living. Name a few, please.

 

[cranberry]

It's not a question of capitalism versus other economic models. It's making capitalism work for everyone.

Correct. Our brand of capitalism, as it has evolved under decades of influence by the rich and powerful, heavily favors the rich and powerful.

 

[JR]

Isn't this the third debate in a month we've had with Ragu over "capitalism"?

And I keep saying: there hasn't been, there isn't now and there will never be "free and open markets" under any economic system, including capitalism. It's fantasyland.

 

[writing irish]

I'm not talking about free elections. You can have capitalism without having political democracy. It happens all the time.

All of Latin America, with the obvious exception of Cuba and the arguable exception of Venezuela, has capitalism. The overwhelming majority of African nations have capitalism. The majority of nations in the Middle East. Much of Asia. Ecomomic disaster areas with capitalism: Indonesia, Haiti, Nepal, Bangaldesh, Myanmar, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, Peru, El Salvador, Belize, Dominican Republic, Surinam, Paraguay, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Burundi, Mali...do I need to list the majority of third world nations?

I know you'll say these countries aren't "really" capitalist since there's some degree of regulation to those economies. Of course, the US, Israel and Western Europe also have regulations...perhaps more regulations than in some of those third-world backwaters where the multinationals run rampant.

That's fine. Go ahead, say the above countries aren't truly capitalist because they don't fit your definition. There are also socialists who refer to economies like China and North Korea as "state capitalism," meaning that it's not socialism because the workers don't control industry. Instead, the state takes the place of the capitalist and extracts wealth from the workers in the same way that private interests do under normal capitalism. You can define terms forever and ever...getting farther away from reality the whole while.

And now I've broken my rule about not debating economics with libertarians. I'm going to lunch. Merry Christmas to all, including the apologists for plutocracy!

 

[The Big Ragu]

Isn't this the third debate in a month we've had with Ragu over "capitalism"?

And I keep saying: there hasn't been, there isn't now and there will never be "free and open markets" under any economic system, including capitalism. It's fantasyland.

I'm with you on this. The U.S. is too heavily regulated, and there is way too much corruption that fouls things up. But it's also the closest thing in the world to the ideal, and not surprisingly, it affords the best standard of living in the world.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Just because it's the "closest thing in the world to the ideal" (and I would say that's arguable) doesn't mean it's "close to ideal."

It's not.

There are a ****load of people in this country for whom "the system" is decidedly NOT working. And yet, you're using words like "ideal".

What's wrong with using the word "ideal"? I believe people should strive for ideals.

And I believe there is an ideal economic system that is extremely efficient and offers everyone equality of opportunity to succeed. I believe that in the aggregate, that system produces more prosperity than any other system. Feel free to disagree. I'll try to make a rational argument supporting my beliefs, if you'd like.

I wish we had that ideal system. I don't think we do--we have clumsy regulation and barriers which prevent free enterprise, and we have all kinds of corrupt practices that prevent us from having that ideal. And people suffer as a result. I also think we have more elements of the ideal system operting freely, than any place in the world. And given that, I'm not surprised that economically, we are the strongest country in the world.

 

[buckweaver]

What's wrong with using the word "ideal" is -- who is it ideal for?

Two percent of the world owns half the wealth -- is that ideal to you?
One percent of this country owns 90% of the wealth -- is that ideal to you?

Yes, I agree that we haven't found a better system yet. But to say that this is the best we can do, just because other ones in the past have failed? I think that's a bit narrow-sighted.

Or do you fail to see that the middle class in this country has been shrinking for years -- that the "envy" of the world is a myth -- that the "American dream" is a myth -- and that "equality of opportunity" is a myth?

 

[The Big Ragu]

I'm not sure what you are arguing or even who you are arguing with. Nope, two percent of the world owning half the wealth isn't ideal to me. Not sure what that has to do with anything I said. And I'm not going to even bother responding to someone who isn't taking the time to actually read what I'm typing.

 

[The Big Ragu]

You said:

And I believe there is an ideal economic system that is extremely efficient and offers everyone equality of opportunity to succeed.

I said: it doesn't offer everyone equality of opportunity.

Huh? The ideal economic system I am talking about is one where all means of production are privately owned, there are no barriers to entry for anyone (i.e. equality of opportunity) and all markets are free and open (i.e. equality of opportunity ) to everyone. How exactly does that NOT offer equality of opportunity to everyone? The whole basis for what I am talking about is that it offers equality of opportunity for anyone who works hard to succeed. That is what the "free and open" part means. Anyone can come in and if they have something to offer, the marketplace rewards them for it. It's predicated on equality of opportunity.