Wealth is not finite.It just really isn't. There is more wealth today than there was in 1980. More then than in 1950. It's so dramatically true I don't understand how you could not see this?
Wealth is not money. Money is one store of wealth. Others are things, like buildings, art, furniture, etc etc etc. For practical or impractical purposes wealth is not finite.
If you have a job, it consists of taking something from a low economic state, and turning it into a higher one. Whether that's turning a lump of rock into a sculpture, or ideas in your head into a business proposal. You add value, and add worth (hopefully)
The point about free trade is that if it's done honestly, both sides win. Using sweatshops as a counter argument is a bit like me going 'well all websites are shit because lolcats.com is rubbish'. Yes, trade does happen unfairly, but trade is not inherently unfair. In good, honest, open trading, BOTH sides trade something they have for something they want more. That's a good thing for both sides. I know it doesn't always happen this way, but it's the BAD trading we need to nail, not all trading.
If you haven't, I REALLY REALLY recommend reading the Wealth of Nations. It's actually very well written, and quite interesting, and he does actually go into great depth on why trading goes bad, and how we should go about avoiding that. He was really quite a radical academic trying to work out the best way to help everyone, not an evil rich banker.
(Wealth is not money. Money is one store of wealth. Others are things, like buildings, art, furniture, etc etc etc. For practical or impractical purposes wealth is not finite.
If you have a job, it consists of taking something from a low economic state, and turning it into a higher one. Whether that's turning a lump of rock into a sculpture, or ideas in your head into a business proposal. You add value, and add worth (hopefully)
The point about free trade is that if it's done honestly, both sides win. Using sweatshops as a counter argument is a bit like me going 'well all websites are shit because lolcats.com is rubbish'. Yes, trade does happen unfairly, but trade is not inherently unfair. In good, honest, open trading, BOTH sides trade something they have for something they want more. That's a good thing for both sides. I know it doesn't always happen this way, but it's the BAD trading we need to nail, not all trading.
If you haven't, I REALLY REALLY recommend reading the Wealth of Nations. It's actually very well written, and quite interesting, and he does actually go into great depth on why trading goes bad, and how we should go about avoiding that. He was really quite a radical academic trying to work out the best way to help everyone, not an evil rich banker.
prince-igor si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses,
Fri 8 Jul 2011, 16:10,
archived)
O.k.I see your point about wealth rather than money but the main point, concerning the average person, is that the rich-poor divide has increased year-by-year over the last century and this obviously does not help those of us who don't have a great deal of wealth or influence.
My point is that we can make a difference to this divide but only if we work together from the same book. My intention is to show people that spending their money on imported goods that they don't need is not going to do them any good in the long run but it is going to make the rich-poor divide even greater. By being resilient, people are going to become collectively more stable.
And if you haven't read the New Economics Foundation's site (neweconomics.org), I seriously recommend you do.
(,
Fri 8 Jul 2011, 16:19,
archived)
My point is that we can make a difference to this divide but only if we work together from the same book. My intention is to show people that spending their money on imported goods that they don't need is not going to do them any good in the long run but it is going to make the rich-poor divide even greater. By being resilient, people are going to become collectively more stable.
And if you haven't read the New Economics Foundation's site (neweconomics.org), I seriously recommend you do.
I have read some of the site before, but......might give it another go.
I suppose my sense is that "imported goods you don't need" is so subjective. There's actually very little you need in life, and you mostly spend money on what you want.
My question over the rich-poor divide argument is that it is often postulated in a way that suggests two tribes, the rich and the poor, growing apart. Actually that's just not true. Grab the Sunday Times rich list and see how many are people whose parents were in there. Some obviously, like the Queen, but actually most have not begun life in that elite, and the wealthiest few percent are constantly changing.
I personally have no problem with wealth gaps IF (and only if mind) we also have mobility - i.e. it's not the same families being rich and the same families being poor. As long as that's true, I couldn't give a crap that some people have loads of money. Good for them.
(I suppose my sense is that "imported goods you don't need" is so subjective. There's actually very little you need in life, and you mostly spend money on what you want.
My question over the rich-poor divide argument is that it is often postulated in a way that suggests two tribes, the rich and the poor, growing apart. Actually that's just not true. Grab the Sunday Times rich list and see how many are people whose parents were in there. Some obviously, like the Queen, but actually most have not begun life in that elite, and the wealthiest few percent are constantly changing.
I personally have no problem with wealth gaps IF (and only if mind) we also have mobility - i.e. it's not the same families being rich and the same families being poor. As long as that's true, I couldn't give a crap that some people have loads of money. Good for them.
prince-igor si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses,
Fri 8 Jul 2011, 16:24,
archived)