Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
The problem is that those that have accumulated wealth will hold on to it as the global pie shrinks, causing the pie to shrink even more. The accumulated wealth needs to be defaulted or inflated away for the benefit of the 99% of the rest of us. ( * )

But, if it can be defaulted or inflated away, it was just paper wealth in the first place - claims on inexistent future energy resources at inflated prices.

( * ) I just checked the Global Rich List and I found that I'm actually in the top 1% of the world. So I'm the bad guy I am ranting about.

All youI have to do is make a choice.

$8 could buy youme 15 organic apples OR 25 fruit trees for farmers in Honduras to grow and sell fruit at their local market.

$30 could buy youme an ER DVD Boxset OR a First Aid kit for a village in Haiti.

$73 could buy youme a new mobile phone OR a new mobile health clinic to care for AIDS orphans in Uganda.

$2400 could buy youme a second generation High Definition TV OR schooling for an entire generation of school children in an Angolan village.

Keynesianism is intellectually hard, as evidenced by the inability of many trained economists to get it - Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 26th, 2011 at 02:11:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I get the general idea -that we are much richer than we think if we look at things at the world level. But I don't believe their distribution.

I entered the UK median salary. And it said that I was the 58 millionth richest person in the world. That would be very, very odd. The UK has 62 million inhabitants. Even counting only half as having a salary (an obvious underestimate), that's already 16 million richer people in the UK alone. Probably around 80 million in the US. We still have quite a few countries to go and we are way already way over 58 million.

Then, of course, it does not seem to take the difference in purchasing power into account at all.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Sat Feb 26th, 2011 at 03:11:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Anyway, it's false, because it says "wealth" instead of "income"...

My parents own a house, the're richer than me.

But their salary is lower (pensions...) so they're poorer?

That's just an example to show it's dumb, even if the truth is that I'm probably richer than I would feel compared to third world nations. After two year's working on african projects, I had gathered that news alone, thanks.

by Xavier in Paris on Sat Feb 26th, 2011 at 08:15:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But unless these goods are in competition for scarce resources, there is no reason that we cannot have all of it.

They do not strike me as being in direct competition for raw materials, so basically they're in competition for qualified labour. Which is currently sufficiently abundant as to be a problem.

So the actual choice is whether to provide all of these things (with the possible exception of the TV, which might be in competition for energy resources), or providing only a subset of them. The latter is of course only desirable if your objective is to keep third-world countries miserable, suppress labour bargaining power through unemployment, or both.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Feb 26th, 2011 at 09:28:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series