I was reading a Brazilian newspaper when I came across the following: “40% of the world’s riches are concentrated in 1% of the adult population of the world”. After reading the article I researched the actual study and thought that this piece would be good to tie back to our class. While this is more on a world scale I feel that issues of democracy and what that means are still actively present. The implications of such a reality are also very important in particular when realizing that the highest number of individuals of this 1% are Americans. This makes me think about is the issue of class and how it ties to ones rights, voice, actual citizenship powers etc. So when this is concentrated in a small percentage of the world population what does this mean? We have seen in class and in the readings that it is the ‘dominant’ or the ‘majority’ population that have the voice and the power to make decisions for the ‘minority’ population or those whose voice is a minority or less dominant (even if their numbers don’t represent a so called minority population). How does this make us re-think democracy and the constant struggle to shape such? What about in the larger scale when thinking of the world? Ending with my thoughts I would like to see your perspective and the implication this research has for.
Here are the links for the articles:
http://update.unu.edu/archive/issue44_22.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/dec/06/business.internationalnews
This is an interesting topic of research to examine especially in the state of the United States' economy and the practices of the redistribution of wealth that President Obama believes in and is beginning to enact. I like that the second article used a heart-wrenching picture of poverty to reinforce the undertones of the research. It is extremely sad to see the sometimes devastating effects of capitalism has on the less fortunate populations. The concentration of wealth outlined in this research is more than I thought. The floating ideas of socialism and the end of capitalism is a thought spurred by studies and research like this.
ReplyDeleteWhile I stand behind the redistribution of wealth to an extent and believe that massive reforms need to be enacted to help those suffering in poverty especially as the map outlines in the first article, I believe that it is more than capitalism that has served as a catalyst for disaster. It is self-interest and it has been seen in our country in both leading parties and stems from all levels. The visual aid I just mentioned made the research presented even clearer. Highlighted areas were the United States, Australia, areas of Europe, Japan, and Argentina. While these regions are wealthy for different financial reasons such as exports versus imports, etc. I found this data to be in line with what I would have perceived. The two articles bring up research that for me brings to light the economic issues we are facing in our country.
This study should definitely make us rethink democracy because the study illustrates a disproportionate difference in wealth across the world. For example, the richest places are North America, Europe and some Asia-Pacific countries and interestingly enough these countries hold the most power over the world. Also the majority of these countries are considered democratic countries. Thus, is it necessary to have money in order to have democracy? Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America pointed that America was democratic because hard work and money making were dominant values. I agree with de Tocqueville because in the United States the well-ingrained idea of anyone can accomplish anything as long as they work has become our emblem for democracy. Also in the U.S a person’s success is mainly measured through monetary wealth.
ReplyDeleteWhat I have discussed above is related to this article because the concepts that are applied to the interior, the United States applies to the exterior. The U.S reasons that other countries are not succeeding because there is something wrong with their culture or government. Thus, since the United States has “achieved” democracy it feels that it can go intervene in other countries and other powerful countries ally with the U.S in doing so. I am suggesting that monetary wealth is considered a direct result of democracy by the wealthiest countries. As we know this idea is false because in the United States and other countries succeed because other countries or people are not living democratically. For example, the outsourcing of jobs to third world countries violates the rights of many people. The maquiladoras in Ciudad Juarez Mexico violate the rights of the women that work there with the miserable working conditions and poor wages. Further, this industry has influenced the deaths of many maquiladora women workers. These women and their families do not live in a democratic state because their voices are silenced by the government. The Mexican government has overlooked these murders by not attempting to solve them. We know that the maquiladoras are a result of NAFTA, so I wonder does the U.S have anything to do with the silencing of these murders? Could it be that the U.S government in some form influences the Mexican government to not give any press to these murder so that women are not discouraged to work in the maquiladoras? These are my own speculations, but they suggest that monetary wealth is mainly obtained through undemocratic methods. The United Stats has been able to enjoy wealth by deteriorating the democracy of other countries such as Mexico. Thus, the disproportionate distribution of the world’s wealth is in many ways the result of powerful governments disrupting the democracy of poorer countries.
I am really glad you brought this issue to light. The issue of income inequality is very important in today’s struggling economy. Additionally, I think it is very interesting to look at the way that wealth is distributed internationally. The statistics that are brought up in the second article really prove that the decisions that are made by American political and economic elites reverberate throughout the world, and in order to fix things at home we must recognize this interconnectivity with the world. With the implementation of the neo-liberal model in America and abroad, income inequality has been steadily on the rise. I believe that right now it is at the highest it has been since the 1920’s. While this problem has affected the world population as a whole, it has disproportionately affected communities of color all over the world and at home. An example of this is the subprime mortgage meltdown, which robbed many communities of color of their main source of wealth: their homes. In a very good article by the nation they state that, “A United for a Fair Economy estimate…put the wealth loss for people of color at between $164 billion and $213 billion, roughly half the nation's overall loss.” (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080714/wright) We see in this one instance how income inequality in America affects communities of color immensely.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the unequal wealth distribution at home, we also see how income is distributed unequally abroad as well. Similar to how income is distributed in America, the burden of unequal wealth distribution internationally is bestowed upon non-white countries. The major industrialized countries have funneled the wealth of the non-industrialized world by taking their resources through colonial or neo-colonial projects. Through these countries collective experiences we see that democracy has been set aside in order to maintain large profit margins in the industrialized world. This has led many countries such as Venezuela and Bolivia to reject the neo-liberal economic model and go through a process of democratization, which understands that democracy and massive income inequality are incompatible. Similarly, we in America must also recognize this in order to become a more democratic society. With the current financial crisis we have an opportunity to reject the broken model that was forced upon us and try and create one that is more free and democratic. We must recognize how the current system has disproportionately affected people of color all over the world and here in America. By understanding the interconnectivity between all people of the world we can work to make a world that is more inclusive and open to difference. A world society with this much inequality is not only incompatible with democracy, but it is a severe detriment to general human progress. We must work to change this.
As previously stated, the location of the wealth of the world is overwhelmingly located in North America, Europe and Asia. Little to no wealth is located in South America or Africa after these places had been formally/informally colonized and exploited; and I do not believe this a coincidence. Through the displacement, marginalization, and genocide of people of color, mainly indigenous and black peoples, colonizers were able to violently and forcibly take/steal resources, labor, land, and people from these nations to create the wealth of North America and Europe. In terms of democracy, this system is fundamentally flawed because most of the world’s wealth is being controlled by a small, privileged minority. Those with the most money, have the most say. Money is power. Those without the money will lose their voice, their ability to say “no, this isn’t what I want!” In today’s modern world system, race and class are intrinsically tied to one another and the distribution of wealth is evidence of that divide. Darker peoples reside in the largest numbers in Africa and South America, the places where the ‘least’ wealth resides.
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, communities of color in the United States mirror the same global distribution of wealth. In the United States, people of color as a collective have the least amount of tangible capital. Whites have the most. It has been argued that people of color constitute internal colonies within the United States because of the second class citizenship they have in this country and I am inclined to agree. Oftentimes, token successful people of color will be referenced as the example of how racism does not exist anymore, class difference is not an issue, etc. For example, Barack Obama is now quoted as proving how racism no longer exists because of his election. But on the contrary, the millions of other African Americans that are struggling to survive in the inner cities are proof of otherwise. These internal colonies are still in existence and they too have less overall wealth than the powerful and wealthy whites in this country. In this sense, blacks and other marginalized people have less of a voice in this “democratic” system because of their lack of wealth which so often translates into power.
I was intrigued that the issue of income inequality was brough up, but this time on a global scale. It never ceases to shock me when people describe the average living wage in other countries, and how people work harder than the average American to in the end earn barely enough to survive on. This also makes me think of how it is our country continues to flourish to this extent, and in effect the process of the development of underdevelopment. We are actually building our economy on the backs of other countries, as we have done for centuries. By keeping other countries “third world,” and not helping them to grow their wealth and riches, and being dependent on our “foreign aid” while doing our labor we are continuing in effect the colonial framework. I watched an interview on the Colbert Report the other day with Dambisa Moyo who wrote a book about ceasing of sending foreign aid to Africa. She stated in the interview that the US and other superpowers need to not see Africa as a charity case but instead to invest in businesses and help to boulster the economy through plans that will actually benefit African countries longterm. This method to me can be applied to many countries that we are continuing to simply drain resources from, and throw small amounts of money at later. We need to start bolstering the economies of other countries so that they can continue to thrive, and we as a global population can all start to enjoy a higher standard of living and truly be on as much of an equal playing field as possible. This cannot happen over night though, and it needs to be a plan that there is a strong commitment to from countries like the US and China. I also think that the whole attitude surrounding this concentration needs to be shifted, as it is often the majority opinion that nothing can be done about this, and that Americans just work harder. Indeed we could start tomorrow by truly helping other nations and just within a decade I am sure see a huge improvement. There is such an apathy towards truly helping our own poor, let alone those abroad, and I think that we really need to start looking at this as an investment in our future as a globe, and as our moral duty being those that are in one of the richest countries in the world.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned above, distribution of wealth at the national and international levels speak for the disadvantage of color people. Countries with the least amount of wealth are considered by the first world countries as third world countries in which their economy, government etc are still in the developmental stages towards the kind of economy that many of the white-dominate countries have; a capitalist economy. In the news article, Madsen Pirie is quoted, “…wealth is a dynamic, it is constantly created” and that “the question should be how more and more people could create wealth.” I have to agree that money is being continuously made and being passed from hand to hand without being stuck in one specific location for a long time. But I think that money is only one factor of the much larger picture. I believe Eric Garcia talked about it in his response, in which natural resources is what enables money to be created and become regarded as important. Many developing countries have the necessary resources that first world countries are demanding for yet the developing countries are unable to make a profit for the betterment of their state due to the manipulation by first world countries. This is where I think distribution of money is necessary because first world countries continue to manipulate international regulations so that they can continue to make a profit off of the developing countries. I think that compensation for the colonialism/ neo-colonialism of first world countries towards developing countries can only be made through distribution to allow developing countries the chance to create themselves. Without such compensation, developing states will have to rely on international loans causing them to fall into debt and being even more susceptible to abuse of the first world countries as we currently see happening to many countries around the globe.
ReplyDeleteThis research deeply saddens me. As I was telling my fiancé everything we have our jobs, homes and education are all based on a larger entity allowing us to have it. Every one of us can easily be placed in a situation will we would be left with nothing. The truth is no such thing as equality and liberty. Only a selective few obviously can experience such freedom. I believe that with time, a change to this type of ratio of rich to poor will change. These people aren’t rich because money grows on trees in there back yards, they are rich due to hard work of everyday people. For example, movie stars and famous elites like Paris Hilton, these people are famous because of our constant consumerism on their movies, books and sex appeal. If it wasn’t for us, actors and musicians like Madonna and Lidnsey Lohan wouldn’t live life so carelessly or excessively. Ask any one of them if they think they disserve what they have, and they will most likely say they worked hard for it; but if it wasn’t for us buying what they are selling, they would be no where. I use this example to try to get across the concept of how the people, everyday people, have more power then we think we have. There needs to be a sort of global revolution and unity amongst the poor, there are more of us then there are of them. Only through some sort of resistance, such as not consuming or even working for corporation run by these elites, can change actually occur. But again this can only happen if we want to change our comforts for discomforts and unite with all people all over. Who knows? Maybe it can possibly happen.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe vast disparities in wealth among today’s world population greatly disturbs me. How can we as a people allow for the richest 1% of adults account for 40% of the world’s wealth? It is absolutely unacceptable. Obviously, there’s going to be some unequal distribution of assets in society but the income gap we currently face in the world is much to vast. There are some people in the world who have no access to clean food or water, they are constantly fighting to survive, while others squander their money on useless, superficial materials. In my Human Rights class, we were discussing fair trade coffee and how farmers in Ethiopia are only asking for an additional 20 cents a day for a chance at a better life (one where surviving is not a constant struggle). And yet, there are corporations in America who refuse to give them even this. Twenty cents to Starbucks is nothing and to these people in means clean water, clothes, food, maybe even the chance at an education. How can we deny them that? It’s like Duncan Green of Oxfam said in the article “redistribution would only have to be relatively small. Such are the vast assets of the rich that giving up a small part of their wealth could transform the lives of millions."I wish that people would realize that we are part of a global world and as human beings, we should all take action to help one another.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think it is crucial to remember the global economy, I don’t mean to lose focus on the issues we’re facing in America right now as well. I’m glad Eric addressed the effects of the subprime morgage meltdown and how as of now, income inequality is at an all time high. Jessica also brought up some excellent points about the effects of race and income distribution. The whole state of economic affairs is in disarray and has been for a long time, we need to take action now. According to the World Food Program, every six seconds a child dies from hunger related causes and yet the richest 10% of adults continue to account for 85% of the total global assets. Why should these innocent people suffer in poverty while the elite just get richer?
It is no surprise that the world’s wealth is concentrated in a small group. History has shown that no matter where you go in the world the people with wealth is always a small percentage in comparison to the population of their countries. It has not changed in over five hundred years. When the Europeans set out to conquer the world it was a select group that benefited from the gained wealth from the different colonies. It was always the upper class of the different European colonizers that controlled the riches. In Spain it was the church and the royalty, today it is the owners of the multibillion dollar companies that exploit workers across the world that are reaping the benefits. Why is it that in countries that preach democracy and equality, it is where we find the biggest gaps between the masses in economic terms? The articles in the blog discuss how we should begin a sort of equal income distribution. However, an excellent point is also brought up in that why should we take from those who have already made money to give to those who haven’t? Instead a suggestion is made that we should teach all people to make money and be successful. I ask myself: Doesn’t it take money to make money? How do we expect people to make money for themselves if we do not want to even give them the initial money to get started? The bottom line is that as long as the wealth stays at the top there will never be any balance. (Word Count 263)
ReplyDeleteAs other people have mentioned above, it does not surprise me that the world’s wealth is located in small concentrated areas. “According to the study, almost all of the world’s richest individuals live in North America, Europe, and rich Asia- Pacific countries”. I firmly believe that the location of the worlds currency is a subject that should be discussed more, but, just like in the US, the press in controlled by the elite, so not many people want to publish information that may upset their boss. Take Rupert Murdoch as an example. He has owned Fox News for over a decade, and his slogan is “fair and balanced”, but how could this be when their owner is not only very publically conservative republican, but he is one of the wealthiest people in the nation.
ReplyDeleteThe dispense of money should be spoken about on a regular biases. The general public needs to be made aware of the poverty occurring throughout the world. I would like to see a study done on the damage and control the wealthy have in places like Africa. By viewing the amount of power that the wealthy have on the U.S., one could only imagine the effect that the wealthy have in low income countries such as Congo or Rwanda. If the knowledge of wealth was dispersed more on a regular basis, I am not sure if anything would really change. Most people, myself included, don’t want to be surrounded with depressing information about third world countries that we are unable to help. What I would find interesting is if a reporter not only told the information needed about the suffering people, but also what to do to help.
This information is really depressing. It is so sad to see just how unequal the wealth is spread throughout the world. The first article gave a lot of statistical information, but it was a little dry and I noticed focused on how unequal the distribution of wealth was by focusing on the statistics at the top and didn’t really discuss the bottom of the ladder. Helpful though the first article was, the second was much better at painting a picture of how the statistics correlate to actual people. Duncan Green’s comment in the Guardian article where he says “It is impossible to justify such vast wealth when 800 million people go to bed hungry every night” it really highlights the core of the problem. The article shows two different views on solving the problem: redistribution and creating ways for the poorer to create more wealth for themselves. This was interesting to read, as much as I think redistributing wealth would be a good thing, I think it has some inherent problems and it is just not realistic, so it was interesting to hear someone else point out a different option. I wish that Madsen Pirie, who was the person quoted in the article, had given a little more in the way of actual ideas. Redistribution is an interesting theory however. I believe that if we were to use John Rawl’s “veil of ignorance” it would be possible. The idea that if you got the world together to decide how to split up the resources with the understanding that you had no idea which percentage you would be placed in after the redistribution then knowing that only 1% of the world would be really wealthy whereas a huge portion of the world lives in squalor would really propel everyone to redistribution. The problem is there is no veil of ignorance, the top 1% knows where they will come out and are perfectly happy to remain as they are.
ReplyDeleteAs a Social Welfare major, this article is so relevant to my interests presently as well as in the future. The statistics concerning local and global economic disparities make me so emotional and angry with the current distribution of wealth. In every country throughout the world, economic disparities are heartbreaking. And this disparity exists between countries as well. Everyone seems to only be looking out for themselves, while turning a blind eye to those who have nothing. People do not understand that their good fortune is not simply the result of their own hard work, but comes at the expense of others. People are born into wealth and privilege, while others are born into poverty. Despite the ideal that people can be successful if they only try hard enough, this is not the reality. Does it make sense that people who are in popular media or sit in offices all day make copious amounts of wealth while others who slave away at physically demanding jobs make next to nothing? Many of those belonging to the wealthiest percentage of the world are involved in great philanthropy. While the amount of money they donate may seem substantial, in comparison to their total wealth this is nothing. There is the idea that people should be able to keep the money they earn and decide what they want to do with it, yet at the same time, this only makes sense in a society where the playing field was level in the first place. Nowhere in all of the world is this the case.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Marina’s argument that the US is built upon the exploitation of other countries. This is similar to the way in which any superpower or wealthy individual is able to prosper – by exploiting another and benefiting from their hard work. Like the first article said, the US stands out because it has a large average wealth. Which is an interesting statement because there is also such a disparity in the US, similar to the disparity present in the statement that 40% of the world’s riches lie in 1% of the population.
As a socialist, my views are always in opposition to most people. I agree that people should be able to enjoy the wealth that they have worked hard to accumulate throughout their lives. But I cannot agree that this should be done at the expense and exploitation of others. If there wasn’t such an economic disparity in the US and throughout the world, perhaps our current economic crisis would not be so catastrophic. There is much effort currently within America to help those who are suffering from this crisis, yet for some reason this feeling of aid does not translate when the US and its small wealthy population are prospering.
Looking at this article, I cannot help but reflect of the effects of capitalism. Often times the minority holds the majority power as noted in this post. The imbalance in wealth distribution does affect everyone in the world. In terms of democracy, I think there needs to be more of a worldwide change for equality of all people especially for the majority of the people who do not belong to the wealthy category. I think with the economic superpowers gathering nowadays to try to solve the worldwide problems such as global warming and aids is a great advancement and collaboration compared to the past but there needs to be more changes implemented instead of just discussed. Especially with food, there is an over abundance in some areas of the world such as the United States but lack of it in areas such as third world country. If there was a balance between all areas of the world, there wouldn’t be the need for economic superpowers to be gathering to plan strategies to help the world.
ReplyDeleteThinking about these gathering with the superpowers, where is the voice of the majority of the population? Even though plans are being created to help the impoverished, shouldn’t the majority have an input in the formulation of change? Sometimes I think in order to help the less wealthy people; the policy makers should include them in the plan for change. In terms of legislation, I think in other countries besides the United States there is limited representation for the people. Often times the poorer countries have to form and negotiate with the economic superpowers in order to compete for profits at a global level in order to survive in the capitalist world. This creates an imbalance which must be altered to seek a balance. Hopefully the capitalist world will end eventually and a new era for change will arise where equally is reached. But I do not see this happening for at least another 100 to 200 years since there needs to be a global movement of the majority in order to see vast changes in representation.
I have often heard this statistic and it has always troubled me. It is no secret that money is power and regardless of how hard a person may work, they can only get so far without substantial financial resources. I frequently think about the people that run for office and how much money it requires to do so—or the amount of money it takes to raise a successful campaign to put an initiative on the ballot, specifically in California. For example, last year I worked with students on a campaign to get a UC tuition fee freeze on the ballot. We had limited resources and in the end, were not able to succeed. A counter example of this is the campaign to put Proposition 8 on the ballot. It has been documented that signature gatherers were paid $11 per hour –Tuition Relief Now! was entirely volunteer organized and run. Unfortunately Prop 8 made it on the ballot and we didn’t.
ReplyDeleteWhen such a disproportionate amount of the wealth is contained by such a small segment of the population it is inevitable that the interest of the poorest individuals are often overlooked. This does make me question, how “democratic” is our democracy really. Whose voices are the ones that are represented? Can America’s poor rise up and claim that they will no longer stand for taxation without REAL representation?
Another point to take note of, is not only is the wealth all in one place, that same 1% causes a disproportionate amount of the damage on the environment which leads to the increasingly poor health conditions in the worlds poor and working class.
I was very interested by Caitlin’s comment, because although I am not a socialist, I think we should at least be able to agree that the wealth and privileges enjoyed by such a small part of the world’s population is derived from the abuse and exploitation of others. After all, if we think of it theoretically, there cannot be rich without the existence of poor. However, it goes beyond that, for the rich are rich because of and through the poor. It’s certainly a tragic reality, but one that is unsurprising considering the way things run in our country and internationally. Capitalism necessitates a system in which there exist poor and wealthy. The poor
ReplyDeletemust be at the bottom rung of this structure in order for there to be profit for the rich. It’s no wonder that within our political sphere, the critique of capitalism for this reason automatically mark someone as anti-democratic—the two (democracy and capitalism) are connected deeply in our current social format.
I also appreciated the point that Irina made above; that these extremely privileged 1% of the world’s population also contribute disproportionately to the destruction and abuse of the environment, natural resources, and more. Such effects directly harm the world’s poor even further, subjecting them to toxic conditions, food depravation, as well as denying them access to water because of the privatization of lands for capitalist companies. It is certainly ironic to question the supposedly democratic characteristics of, say, our own country’s democracy, which contributes to the silencing and exploitation of third world peoples as well as disadvantaged peoples within our borders.
I think income inequality is an important issue to discuss, just as important I think is the fact that we must learn to think about it as an international issue as we the world economy is clearly intertwined. Which became evident through the housing and wallstreet meltdown in the United States which had international implications. 1 percent of the worlds population controlling 40 percent of the worlds riches; something about that fact just seems wrong to me. Especially when poverty in several countries runs rampant, malnutrition and nonpotable water a leading killer of children. Like several of you, I also look forward to Obama's redistribution plan which I think is long over due. People should be able to afford health care and the oppurtunity to someday own a home. People argue against redistribution claiming people work hard for their money and should be able to keep it, however I think some people work hard for their money and yet aren't able to keep their money. Either they are not paid enough to cover the basic necessities of living or they aren't able to find work and that is just speaking of our country. Other countries deal with more expansive poverty issues, higher unemployment rates, social services to a lesser extent, its time we beging thinking of poverty and inequality on a global level. With the amount of technology at our disposal I don't think its unrealistic to think that we can produce enough food to feed the world and make some profit doing it, we just can't continue to take take take with out giving anything.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that income inequality dictates access to citizenship, power, education, economic advancement, and social standing. Allowing such disparities to exist is the equivalent of legalizing poverty and injustice within our societies. This figure is even more disturbing when you consider the power that wealth holds in pushing legislation. If we think about our own political system, you find that the more money a candidate has, the greater his or her advantage is in winning office or pushing legislation through. In essence, we can think of this in the sense that the American democratic system is not generally a democracy. Instead, the individuals who disproportionately hold wealth, are also disproportionately passing/ influencing the laws that the rest of us have to live by. The prison system, slavery, and underfunded schools in marginalized areas are all examples of the negative effects that this wealth distribution is having on our immediate communities. In effect, what happens is exactly what Irina points out—the interest of the poorest individuals is often overlooked.
ReplyDeleteAs many others have already stated, I think there needs to be a way to offset the effects of this income inequality. Whether it’s wealth distribution, or some other form of redistributing power among communities, something definitely needs to be done. If we continue on the path that we are now, you can expect inequality to grow more profound, while the most marginalized continue to suffer the brunt of the environmental, social, and economic costs that this concentration of power is creating.
I agree with Yuri that America is mostly see success in money because we have a capitalism system. The article makes sense in listing the wealthiest country are North America, Europe, and some Asia-Pacific because that is the current modern situation. This article make me think about the rising power, such as China and lower wealth country that is not mention in the article, for instance Southern America. We all know that a great deal of corporations is moving over sea into China. China is vastly developing manufactory companies, the whole country seem to be having economic spur. According to President Obama China is the first country to develop clean saving energy program, where we are lacking behind. What would happen in the next ten years when China becomes one of the elite countries in the world? I wonder about the chain reaction to the wealth system. The writer of the article see this possibility too as states in the article, “China is already likely to have more wealthy residents than our data reveals for the year 2000, and membership of the super-rich seems set to rise fast in the next decade." I wonder how the world will receive China. I have much anticipation already. China reminded me about the manufacturing area in America. This is one of the reasons what make America strong economically. China is taking the steps as the beginning of a powerful country. I see this pattern as America is moving more toward informational services industry.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really good post because it not only brings up the aspect of polarization but also the effects of it worldwide and in a global context. I was shocked to see that the average wealth amounted to $144,000 per person. I think this fact is very disturbing because money equals power. In conjunction to Rodrigo’s comment, we can see through that map the devastating effects of capitalism. While it polarizes, the expansion into the global arena has only left countries out of the world’s power relations and subject to the exploitation of outsourced, underpaid labor. I thought that Margaret Thatcher’s saying: "It's no use throwing lots of aid at countries that are basically dysfunctional," was both positive and negative at the same time. While it is important to make sure countries use aid appropriately, I don’t think that these countries are “dysfunctional” for any reason of their own, but because of countries like Great Britain and the US that subject these countries to the exploitation of capitalism. I don’t think we as a country should be allowed to present an image of aid and assistance on one front while we are obviously neglecting the role we have played in their path towards poverty on another. We can’t just screw countries over and exploit them for economic gain while we present a sympathetic hand saying “become capitalistic and we’ll help you.” That’s definitely a way I don’t want the solution to go. But how do we stop this polarization of power and poverty? Should it be through large actions by nations? Or smaller, localized and accountable organizations?
ReplyDeleteReading this article and looking at this map of the world’s distribution of wealth makes me so sad. It’s so disturbing and discouraging to see how life really functions on a larger scale—some people are so privileged and so filthy rich, while the rest of the world barely gets by. And then there are the third world countries, including my birthplace Vietnam, where so many people are starving and suffering, many not even making it. How could all those filthy rich people live in such EXTREME LUXURY without caring about how the rest of the world lives? What I don’t understand is what that 1% of these outrageously rich people could possibly do with all of that money? Surely one person cannot need that much material wealth. Do they not ever reevaluate their privileged positions and ever think about contributing to help those suffering without basic needs—such as food and clean water? I understand that no nation, and definitely not the world, will ever be equally dispersed in wealth—but what I don’t understand is greed and the over-consumption of wealth and luxuries by those who are so damn privileged. This is why I think a part of me agrees with Marxism, socialism, and even communism in terms of ideologies, but not necessarily in terms of practice. If only there is a way to create and implement a new world system that would incorporate the Marxist values in a fair way. I really fantasize that someday the world would be conscious enough to work together to redistribute wealth enough to end poverty at the lowest level. I know this sounds very “Utopic” and unrealistic, but in all honesty, when the question is stripped down to the very fundamentals of why this cannot happen, I think the answer is power and greed. Those in power with wealth seem to never want to relinquish such positions by giving away that source of power and luxury—which is wealth and material being. If only the world can move away from a profit-centered mentality and more toward a people-centered mentality driven not by hunger for power and wealth, but by compassion and conscious understanding—then poverty might have a chance of ending and all those suffering might be alleviated from their economic pains. Only then do I think I can stop my quiet anger against that 1% of filthy rich people who carelessly live basking in their glorious luxuries.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article I was only slightly surprised. I would have assumed that that wealth distribution would be distributed in such an uneven way. I absolutely agree with Duncan Green when he says, "It is impossible to justify such vast wealth when 800 million people go to bed hungry every night. The good news is that redistribution would only have to be relatively small. Such are the vast assets of the rich that giving up a small part of their wealth could transform the lives of millions." It is disturbing that so many people are living on less than a dollar a day while these people are wealthy beyond measure. It is true that if they simply give a small portion of their wealth up that it could make a difference in the poor people’s lives, but if that were to happen we would need to make sure that the money is being allocated properly. We would need to make sure that the right people and the right causes were getting the funds and that the funds were not getting lost in corrupt governments. In relation to Maria’s question about how this shapes our ideas about democracy, this kind of information makes me consider the fact that often times the people that make it into high positions have the funding to do so. They are usually part of the richer “majority,” majority in the sense that they control what goes on in the country; they have the majority of the power. It has been brought to my attention that although we do have an electoral system it still seems unfair. Even though we, the people, get to vote for whom we want to represent us but not every one can run for high-ranked government positions.
ReplyDelete