The End.

Take out the top 20% of the US population, and you effectively remove 80% of the US's wealth.

You're confusing wealth with wealth distribution; the average US citizen is still more well off than the average citizen in most other countries in absolute terms (quality of life).

Sadly I can't conveniently find statistics of any other countries.

Try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

You'll see that income inequality in the US is actually fairly average as countries go --- so the picture of the US already looks less bleak than you suggest. And that's merely in relative terms - factor in GDP per capita and it looks downright good actually.

However, it is fair to say that the average wealth of the average US citizen has been falling steadily since the 1950's. Wages just didn't keep pace with inflation. So much for the trickle-down effects of the world's biggest economy, eh?

And funnily enough this happens to coincide with a gradually increasing EROSION of economic freedoms in the US during the previous century ... amazing coincidence don't you think. You know what they say about socialism, it's like violence - if it's not working you must not be using enough ... same thing you see everywhere: Implement some socialism, watch it fail, blame free market economics for its failure and then apply even more socialism as the "cure". Downward spiral. Yet even so I'd say the average US citizen is still better off today than the average US citizen during the 1930s, so the USA's economic system can't quite be the horrible thing you seem to want to suggest it is.
 
Last edited:
I don't consider having to live in an apartment with 6-8 other people just to afford the rent to be a good indicator of "prosperity".

So you're saying that, say, London is an economically poor area then? How do you make that make sense? Clearly London is "prosperous" and has much wealth. Or do you think the wealth should be taken by force from the rich and distributed evenly to those people in the crummy shared apartments instead? Do you think "prosperity" is something that a share of which should be given to you as a handout? If not, then why not just leave that (hypothetical?) apartment and go somewhere else where life is better? You're not entitled to any of someone else's prosperity, but you can sell your labour and earn some of your own.

People flock to job hotspots (financially successful regions typically create jobs), which then become densely populated, driving land values up and up. That's why "prosperous" areas often have such living conditions, and it's not a contradiction. An area with an abundance of jobs, to which people voluntarily flock (because it improves their lives to do so, otherwise they WOULDN'T DO IT), is most certainly "prosperous", and those very jobs that people like you and me benefit from ARE a share of that prosperity.

If your take on life is that the world owes everyone a job, then sure, you'll complain that the job you got is in a densely populated area with high rentals - boo hoo. Fact is the world doesn't owe anyone a job; each job is a 'gift' from the people whose economic activity helped create it out of nothing (there could just as well have been trees and marsh and so on instead of an economy) ... if you realise that you might appreciate even those jobs you seem to despise.

The fact is if it wasn't to peoples' benefit to take those jobs where they have to live 6 to 8 in an apartment, they wouldn't do it. Slavery has long been abolished in most parts of the world, labour markets have never in history been more flexible and globalised than today, and the global economy, with all its jobs and opportunities, has never been so huge. Those people live like that because it IMPROVES upon the situation they came from, and if they saw a better quality of life elsewhere they'd choose that instead.
 
Last edited:
WOW, but you are paranoid;)

But seriously go and do some research on the relationship between economical freedom and economical prosperity of a country.
No, how about you rather go do some research on elementary economics.

Because then you'll see how oversimplified your statement really is. Tbh I find it hard to understand how you could be so naive. You do realise that most of the economies you try to uphold are infact economies that use other economies in the developing world as vassal economies, right?

You do realise that without the support from these economies, that the overall wealth generation tanks, right?

You do realise that the wealthy states have been waging economic imperialism since the dawn of history, right?

Surely you realise that most of the "liberalisation" packages given out by the IMF and World Bank were thinly disguised attempts at pillaging wealth from the countries "lucky" enough to get loans, to the point that the developing world is universally suspicious of the IMF?

You're confusing wealth with wealth distribution; the average US citizen is still more well off than the average citizen in most other countries in absolute terms (quality of life).
BS. You're mistaking living standards with quality of life and I was quite rightly pointing out the wealth distribution because BBSA falsely asserts that a free economy automatically means a better way of life for everyone concerned.

You'll see that income inequality in the US is actually fairly average as countries go --- so the picture of the US already looks less bleak than you suggest. And that's merely in relative terms - factor in GDP per capita and it looks downright good actually.
And just how much of that GDP was created by consumers who were buying on credit, hmmm?

And funnily enough this happens to coincide with a gradually increasing EROSION of economic freedoms in the US during the previous century ... amazing coincidence don't you think. You know what they say about socialism, it's like violence - if it's not working you must not be using enough ... same thing you see everywhere: Implement some socialism, watch it fail, blame free market economics for its failure and then apply even more socialism as the "cure". Downward spiral. Yet even so I'd say the average US citizen is still better off today than the average US citizen during the 1930s, so the USA's economic system can't quite be the horrible thing you seem to want to suggest it is.
Yeah, along came the 30s, the average working citizen got highly miffed at the inequitous state of affairs and activism ended up in minimum wage laws, social security and a host of other means of protection for the common working man. Since their introduction, of course, corporations have been hard at work trying to reverse these changes. Hardly surprising that things got better after the great depression and then started declining again not too long after that.

But hey, you can point at the restriction of the economy if you want (although I'm not entirely sure what restrictions you actually mean, tbh).

So you're saying that, say, London is an economically poor area then? How do you make that make sense? Clearly London is "prosperous" and has much wealth.
Just because London is a wealthy area doesn't mean that everyone living in London is wealthy. :rolleyes:

[/quote]Or do you think the wealth should be taken by force from the rich and distributed evenly to those people in the crummy shared apartments instead? Do you think "prosperity" is something that a share of which should be given to you as a handout? If not, then why not just leave that (hypothetical?) apartment and go somewhere else where life is better? You're not entitled to any of someone else's prosperity, but you can sell your labour and earn some of your own.[/quote]
:rolleyes:

Where did I say any of this? Nice straw man.

The fact is if it wasn't to peoples' benefit to take those jobs where they have to live 6 to 8 in an apartment, they wouldn't do it. Slavery has long been abolished in most parts of the world, labour markets have never in history been more flexible and globalised than today, and the global economy, with all its jobs and opportunities, has never been so huge. Those people live like that because it IMPROVES upon the situation they came from, and if they saw a better quality of life elsewhere they'd choose that instead.
Well, we'll see how much you like globalisation in about 10 years time, mkay? ;)
 
Yeah, trickle down economic theory really works. :rolleyes:

In reality it was just another line of BS fed to the plebs by the plutocrats.

GDP per capita means sweet nothing. Mean GDP is probably a more useful statistic to go by.


Take out the top 20% of the US population, and you effectively remove 80% of the US's wealth.

Sadly I can't conveniently find statistics of any other countries. However, it is fair to say that the average wealth of the average US citizen has been falling steadily since the 1950's. Wages just didn't keep pace with inflation. So much for the trickle-down effects of the world's biggest economy, eh?

I would favour a combination of using GDP / capita and the Gini coefficient as a means to measure welfare.
 
And before you answer that are you aware of the fact that the freer a country's economy are the higher the per capita gross domestic product hence prosperity for everybody. Go and have a look at the freedoms of the Hong kong economy and how successful it is for them.
Hong Kong, is not truly an example of either freedom or a genuinely free market.

Gross Domestic Product, like average income, does not mean the majority of the people are better off. Measures like these are basically meaningless without knowing the underlying information.

Humans are humans. Everywhere.
Right. Every country can act as a transport hub. Germans are indistinguishable from Innuit.
 
Hong Kong, is not truly an example of either freedom or a genuinely free market.

Totally incorect. Hong Kong ranked number one in the Economic Freedom index of the World: 2008 Annual Report by the independent research organization the Fraser Institute.

Link

Please allow me to quote from the report:

Research shows that individuals living in countries with high levels of economic freedom enjoy higher levels of prosperity, greater individual freedoms, and longer life spans. This year’s report also contains new research showing the impact of economic freedom on poverty reduction.
“Economic freedom is one of the key building blocks of the most prosperous nations around the world. Countries with high levels of economic freedom are those in which people enjoy high standards of living and personal freedoms. Countries at the bottom of the index face the opposite situation; their citizens are often mired in poverty, are governed by totalitarian regimes and have few if any, individual rights or freedoms,”
 
Last edited:
No, how about you rather go do some research on elementary economics.

Because then you'll see how oversimplified your statement really is. Tbh I find it hard to understand how you could be so naive. You do realise that most of the economies you try to uphold are infact economies that use other economies in the developing world as vassal economies, right?

OK, if you do not want to do some research on your own let me help you.

A quote from the Director of the Centre for Globalization Studies, Mr Fred McMahon:
(And he does know elementary economics;))

Economic freedom may seem a somewhat nebulous idea. But economic freedom is important to individuals because it is one of the main drivers of prosperity and growth. Economic freedom leads to other important developments, like improved health and education in developing countries. It allows people to be in charge of their own future.

Economic freedom focuses on personal choice, the ability to make voluntary transactions, the freedom to compete, and security of privately owned property. It ultimately provides the foundation of other freedoms and democracy by liberating individuals and families from dependence on government
 
Last edited:
"America outspends China on defense by a margin of more than six to one, the Pentagon estimates. In another strategic dimension, though, China already holds a six-to-one advantage over the United States. Thirty-six million Chinese children study piano today, compared to only 6 million in the United States. The numbers understate the difference, for musical study in China is more demanding.

"It must be a conspiracy. Chinese parents are selling plasma-screen TVs to America, and saving their wages to buy their kids pianos - making American kids stupider and Chinese kids smarter. Watch out, Americans - a generation from now, your kid is going to fetch coffee for a Chinese boss. That is a bit of an exaggeration, of course - some of the bosses will be Indian. Americans really, really don't have a clue what is coming down the pike. The present shift in intellectual capital in favor of the East has no precedent in world history.

"The world's largest country is well along the way to forming an intellectual elite on a scale that the world has never seen, and against which nothing in today's world - surely not the inbred products of the Ivy League puppy mills - can compete. Few of its piano students will earn a living at the keyboard, to be sure, but many of the 36 million will become much better scientists, engineers, physicians, businessmen and military officers."

We have a long way to go, dear reader. We will have a rally…then another, worse, drop. People will not suddenly give up hope; it will have to be crushed out of them. And then, instead of enjoying the spectacle of the mighty captains of industry and masters of the universe humbled…the show will take on a tragic theme…with ordinary people hung up on the hooks of debt…stretched out on the rack of joblessness…beaten by losses on their houses, their 401(k)s, and their

Then, the jokes will stop.

Source.

That goes pretty much along with my train of thought: There will be another rally followed by an even more spectacular collapse due to the fact that the current bailouts do not address the cause of the problem but merely the symptoms.
 
MADRID (AFP) — The governor of the Bank of Spain on Sunday issued a bleak assessment of the economic crisis, warning that the world faced a "total" financial meltdown unseen since the Great Depression.

"The lack of confidence is total," Miguel Angel Fernandez Ordonez said in an interview with Spain's El Pais daily.

"The inter-bank (lending) market is not functioning and this is generating vicious cycles: consumers are not consuming, businessmen are not taking on workers, investors are not investing and the banks are not lending.

"There is an almost total paralysis from which no-one is escaping," he said, adding that any recovery -- pencilled in by optimists for the end of 2009 and the start of 2010 -- could be delayed if confidence is not restored.

"This is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression" of 1929, he added.

Source.

It would appear that, unless all of these bailouts magically start working, 2009 will in all probability turn out to be the worst year that any of us have ever seen. Not a pleasant prospect but at least the writing has been on the wall for about 12 months already.
 
Hi Pilgrim, I just want to know how severe a case of dyslexia yours is because if you've been able to read then you would not have needed to ask that question.
 
My dyslexia is not too severe, I was just wondering if all this hype is still up to date, or if the world economy crashing and oil prices sky rocketing is still happening.

Or is this the silence before the storm or something?

Just want to know if I should go renew those canned food, they will expire soon... :D
 
Or is this the silence before the storm or something?

Dude, I know you're just trying to take the p*ss but even so, that comment indicates a severe lack of comprehension of the very basics of the current energy crisis. Alas, I'm really not feeling so inclined to point out the obvious to you right now.

If you're feeling bored I would suggest you start by reading all the pages of this thread as well as the supporting pages that I've linked to. If after that you haven't come to your own conclusions then I'd be happy to discuss this with you. Given the status quo, I'm really not feeling like it at the moment.
 
Thirty-six million Chinese children study piano today, compared to only 6 million in the United States.

Divide China's 1.3 Billion People by 4 to match America's 300 Million.

So a better comparison is 9 Million Chinese paino learners vs 6 Million American piano learners.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X