The miniature earth.
February 7, 2002 10:00 AM Subscribe
The miniature earth. A beautifully crafted Shockwave site, in your choice of Spanish, English, Portuguese or Italian that should give you pause to reflect just how fortunate you are.
Snopes talks about the statistics, giving the claim a "not quite accurate" status.
posted by jazon at 10:26 AM on February 7, 2002
posted by jazon at 10:26 AM on February 7, 2002
Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Autobiography of Mark Twain
posted by jpburns at 10:40 AM on February 7, 2002
- Autobiography of Mark Twain
posted by jpburns at 10:40 AM on February 7, 2002
Unfortuneately, the target audience for slanted simplifications like this are the same people who have no capacity to critically analyze the data in its true proportions and complexity (namely the math and IQ challenged). Said another way, if the population of the US was just the 'six' rich ones from this analysis, probably five of them would actually buy this garbage.
posted by plaino at 10:41 AM on February 7, 2002
posted by plaino at 10:41 AM on February 7, 2002
I think Ken Layne said it best when he said "It's 2001[2], and we can Fact Check your ass"
posted by owillis at 10:48 AM on February 7, 2002
posted by owillis at 10:48 AM on February 7, 2002
OK, even assuming that you could correct the numbers and it was still an interesting presentation there's another problem with it.
Half way through it loses its focus, it starts talking again in terms of percentages and "you're luckier than 500M people." OK, but I thought we were talking in terms of 100 people. If you are going to talk in terms of 100 people, stick with it all the way through, don't shift to percentages and real world numbers part way through.
posted by johnmunsch at 10:53 AM on February 7, 2002
Half way through it loses its focus, it starts talking again in terms of percentages and "you're luckier than 500M people." OK, but I thought we were talking in terms of 100 people. If you are going to talk in terms of 100 people, stick with it all the way through, don't shift to percentages and real world numbers part way through.
posted by johnmunsch at 10:53 AM on February 7, 2002
The stats are interesting, if they're even close to accurate. But the last few statements, "you sing as if you're alone," "you dance as if no ones is watching," have a one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other feel. Plus, Van Halen defined the biting, social commentary video genre with "Right Now."
posted by uftheory at 11:08 AM on February 7, 2002
posted by uftheory at 11:08 AM on February 7, 2002
how little time it takes to view these astonishing statistics, in comparison to the time the average person spends watching or reading advertisements in a day.
notwithstanding slight differences in the numbers proclaimed by these sites, i find the information very compelling. the snopes article is dealing with the figures in the link posted by dnash, not the fpp link.
whatever the fine details of the matter, anyone who can dismiss the matters raised without giving them their due attention is either in denial or has a very myopic world view.
you are lucky to be able to read this.
this is a thought experiment, in the traditions of socrates and einstein, the facts may not be defined as you would like them, but you must provide better information if you are to argue against the basic message of this site.
some may say that owning wealth is not a sure route to happiness, but it is interesting that some of those from cultures that promote owning wealth as a route to happiness seem to think they do not have to consider how they came to live in such abundance.
plaino - please can you provide a critical analysis of this information, assuming you count yourself as one who can analyse the data in it's true proportions and complexity.
posted by asok at 11:22 AM on February 7, 2002
notwithstanding slight differences in the numbers proclaimed by these sites, i find the information very compelling. the snopes article is dealing with the figures in the link posted by dnash, not the fpp link.
whatever the fine details of the matter, anyone who can dismiss the matters raised without giving them their due attention is either in denial or has a very myopic world view.
you are lucky to be able to read this.
this is a thought experiment, in the traditions of socrates and einstein, the facts may not be defined as you would like them, but you must provide better information if you are to argue against the basic message of this site.
some may say that owning wealth is not a sure route to happiness, but it is interesting that some of those from cultures that promote owning wealth as a route to happiness seem to think they do not have to consider how they came to live in such abundance.
plaino - please can you provide a critical analysis of this information, assuming you count yourself as one who can analyse the data in it's true proportions and complexity.
posted by asok at 11:22 AM on February 7, 2002
" ... I think Ken Layne said it best when he said "It's 2001[2], and we can Fact Check your ass ..."
Now that is funny.
I've always wondered about the ulterior motive behind portraying things like "10% of the world controls 90% of the "community" wealth" (or whatever the numbers are) ... without adding something like "oh yeah, and 10% of the world produces 90% of the "community" wealth".
posted by MidasMulligan at 11:28 AM on February 7, 2002
Now that is funny.
I've always wondered about the ulterior motive behind portraying things like "10% of the world controls 90% of the "community" wealth" (or whatever the numbers are) ... without adding something like "oh yeah, and 10% of the world produces 90% of the "community" wealth".
posted by MidasMulligan at 11:28 AM on February 7, 2002
The "you dance as if no ones is watching" thing is a variation of a oft-quoted line from Dubtribe Soundsystem.
work like you don't need the money,
love like you've never been hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
posted by arielmeadow at 11:43 AM on February 7, 2002
work like you don't need the money,
love like you've never been hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
posted by arielmeadow at 11:43 AM on February 7, 2002
I was staring at a newspaper clipping of these figures for half an hour the other day - the clipping was pinned on the wall of my barber, directly below the mirror in front of me. I can't say that I did any deep thinking on the implications of the figures or even the motivations behind producing them because then, as now, all I found myself thinking was, "And... ?"
Apathetic or desensitised?
posted by MUD at 11:51 AM on February 7, 2002
Apathetic or desensitised?
posted by MUD at 11:51 AM on February 7, 2002
A link to an emotionalistic, fact-challenged Shockwave presentation is posted and its critics are required to "provide better information" in order to "argue against the basic message"? First, the message is muddy at best -- stats are presented and we are supposed to see the inherent injustices, apparently. Second, a refresher on the concept of "onus of proof" might be a good idea.
posted by mw at 11:58 AM on February 7, 2002
posted by mw at 11:58 AM on February 7, 2002
you are lucky to be able to read this.
Yes. But I don't feel guilty.
I am well aware that world resources would fall far short of sustaining the world's population if everyone lived at a "western" standard of living. If we tried, there would be crippling global warming, (if there was even enough oil to burn in the first place), pollution would be massive, oceans and forests would be stripped clean of edible creatures and building materials. I'd be happy to bring the whole world up to a western standard of living but that is physically impossible without a drastic reduction in world population. The alternative, bringing the whole world down to a sustainable egalitarian standard of living would, effectively, be reinstatement of the Dark Ages and a ban on all 'progress' or forward thinking.
posted by plaino at 12:13 PM on February 7, 2002
Yes. But I don't feel guilty.
I am well aware that world resources would fall far short of sustaining the world's population if everyone lived at a "western" standard of living. If we tried, there would be crippling global warming, (if there was even enough oil to burn in the first place), pollution would be massive, oceans and forests would be stripped clean of edible creatures and building materials. I'd be happy to bring the whole world up to a western standard of living but that is physically impossible without a drastic reduction in world population. The alternative, bringing the whole world down to a sustainable egalitarian standard of living would, effectively, be reinstatement of the Dark Ages and a ban on all 'progress' or forward thinking.
posted by plaino at 12:13 PM on February 7, 2002
A billion people can't read at all
This bit made me wonder how many of that number live in literate societies where reading is needed or even valued? I'm not saying illiteracy is bad, only that it's bad relative to where it's needed by someone to live their lives well.
posted by holycola at 12:22 PM on February 7, 2002
This bit made me wonder how many of that number live in literate societies where reading is needed or even valued? I'm not saying illiteracy is bad, only that it's bad relative to where it's needed by someone to live their lives well.
posted by holycola at 12:22 PM on February 7, 2002
Wow. Ignorance reigns, it seems.
I work in international development research. The biggest problem with critiquing these numbers is that the best we have, in nearly all cases, are estimates. We have a world population clock in our lobby here, and it doesn't agree with any other world population clocks I have seen, and they don't agree with each other. The consensus, based on the best available information, is a world population somewhere around 6,100,000,000, but no one knows for sure.
The implication of this is interesting: we have no idea if millions of people exist, let alone how they are doing. One could say, I suppose, that we therefore can't make generalizations about them, but I would suggest that it also means that there are millions of people in the world that no government or charity or NGO knows enough about to determine if they are alive or dead, let alone whether they have clean water, education, and enough food to eat.
The best generalization one can make is this: that the majority of the world's population live in what we in North America would consider poverty. A significant proportion of the world's population, at least 33%, are living a survival lifestyle, just trying to find enough to eat in order to live. And there are rich and middle class people everywhere. If you go to Nairobi or Delhi or Mexico City or any other big Southern city you will see the whole range of people.
I thought MidasMulligan's suggestion that "10% of the world produces 90% of the community wealth" too simplistic. The other day I was talking to the publisher here about various trips he has taken around the world, and how breakfast in Singapore can cost CDN$75,00 while a dinner buffet in India can be CDN$3.00. It's along the lines of the cartoon asok posted: Southern labour and goods are undervalued through systemic undervaluing of Southern currencies for what some feel to be legitimate reasons.
I don't really care whether or not people feel guilt after watching a presentation like that. The best one can do it have a realistic view of the world and the level of privilege and comfort you have just because of when and where you were born. Where one wants to take it after that is up to you.
posted by tranquileye at 12:47 PM on February 7, 2002
I work in international development research. The biggest problem with critiquing these numbers is that the best we have, in nearly all cases, are estimates. We have a world population clock in our lobby here, and it doesn't agree with any other world population clocks I have seen, and they don't agree with each other. The consensus, based on the best available information, is a world population somewhere around 6,100,000,000, but no one knows for sure.
The implication of this is interesting: we have no idea if millions of people exist, let alone how they are doing. One could say, I suppose, that we therefore can't make generalizations about them, but I would suggest that it also means that there are millions of people in the world that no government or charity or NGO knows enough about to determine if they are alive or dead, let alone whether they have clean water, education, and enough food to eat.
The best generalization one can make is this: that the majority of the world's population live in what we in North America would consider poverty. A significant proportion of the world's population, at least 33%, are living a survival lifestyle, just trying to find enough to eat in order to live. And there are rich and middle class people everywhere. If you go to Nairobi or Delhi or Mexico City or any other big Southern city you will see the whole range of people.
I thought MidasMulligan's suggestion that "10% of the world produces 90% of the community wealth" too simplistic. The other day I was talking to the publisher here about various trips he has taken around the world, and how breakfast in Singapore can cost CDN$75,00 while a dinner buffet in India can be CDN$3.00. It's along the lines of the cartoon asok posted: Southern labour and goods are undervalued through systemic undervaluing of Southern currencies for what some feel to be legitimate reasons.
I don't really care whether or not people feel guilt after watching a presentation like that. The best one can do it have a realistic view of the world and the level of privilege and comfort you have just because of when and where you were born. Where one wants to take it after that is up to you.
posted by tranquileye at 12:47 PM on February 7, 2002
The best one can do it have a realistic view of the world and the level of privilege and comfort you have just because of when and where you were born
Well, that's sort of relative as well. How do you define "comfort"? There are tribes in say South America or Africa who wouldn't give a willy-nilly about our "advanced" culture. It's not even because they're not exposed to it, they just don't give a damn. Does ths make us or them any less comfortable? I don't think so.
posted by owillis at 12:51 PM on February 7, 2002
Well, that's sort of relative as well. How do you define "comfort"? There are tribes in say South America or Africa who wouldn't give a willy-nilly about our "advanced" culture. It's not even because they're not exposed to it, they just don't give a damn. Does ths make us or them any less comfortable? I don't think so.
posted by owillis at 12:51 PM on February 7, 2002
Is that whole site supposed to make up feel bad for being successful??
I say party up, people... we must be doing at least SOMETHING right over here in America!!
posted by matty at 12:54 PM on February 7, 2002
I say party up, people... we must be doing at least SOMETHING right over here in America!!
posted by matty at 12:54 PM on February 7, 2002
owillis, everyone wants food, shelter, and security. My only point is that that isn't something most people in the North worry about too much. There are very few groups of people in the world that are so cut off from everyone else that they don't want food, medicine, opportunities for their children and so on. These are universal needs. Development is really very attractive to most people in the world.
posted by tranquileye at 1:03 PM on February 7, 2002
posted by tranquileye at 1:03 PM on February 7, 2002
I've critiqued this "village of 100" idea before in my blog (temporarily offline). It seems to be directly attributed to the late Dr. Donella Meadows, a Dartmouth U academic most famous for the Limits to Growth study in the early 1970s. Although it may not have originated with her, she propagated a version in pamphlets based on a village of 1000, and later sources reduced this to 100. Unfortunately, whatever else you can say about the accuracy (and some of the chosen statistics are very arguable -- what is "clean" water? what is "substandard" housing?), the most troubling thing about most of the "village of 100" versions out there is that the numbers are the same as they were in 1978, roughly when Meadows's version was first distributed. The continental population numbers had shifted, and the biggest change that I could find was that basic adult literacy seems to be much more common today, as a result of various national and UN initiatives. Also, the hunger figures are extremely misleading, partly because the 1970s saw a disastrous natural famine in large swathes of sub-Saharan Africa. The core version's worst inaccuracy was a claim of "52 men and 48 women", when world population shows a gender variance of something closer to 50.1% men and 49.9% women. The sad part about using these outdated numbers is that one can get the impression we're making no progress, when the truth is many nations have made tremendous progress in meeting basic needs.
Fortunately this shockwave version seems to be using slightly more accurate, or up to date, figures. That's the best I can say of it.
Then, of course, they pump up this extremely simplistic propaganda with the completely unnecessary gooey emotionalism, badly mangling (for no apparent reason) the infamous (and variously attributed) quote. The original, I believe, is Sing like nobody's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, live like it's heaven on earth.
I just don't find such brochure politics very persuasive.
posted by dhartung at 1:15 PM on February 7, 2002
Fortunately this shockwave version seems to be using slightly more accurate, or up to date, figures. That's the best I can say of it.
Then, of course, they pump up this extremely simplistic propaganda with the completely unnecessary gooey emotionalism, badly mangling (for no apparent reason) the infamous (and variously attributed) quote. The original, I believe, is Sing like nobody's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, live like it's heaven on earth.
I just don't find such brochure politics very persuasive.
posted by dhartung at 1:15 PM on February 7, 2002
"I don't really care whether or not people feel guilt after watching a presentation like that. The best one can do it have a realistic view of the world and the level of privilege and comfort you have just because of when and where you were born. Where one wants to take it after that is up to you."
thank you tranquileye, that's what i was wanting to say. :-&
posted by asok at 1:17 PM on February 7, 2002
thank you tranquileye, that's what i was wanting to say. :-&
posted by asok at 1:17 PM on February 7, 2002
owillis just reminded me that we (a bunch of the western 'haves' I assume, myself included) are discussing socioeconomic disparity in terms of western ideals of "success." A lot of the world wouldn't want the western lifestyle even if the could have it. Some might even crash planes into buildings to make that point.
posted by plaino at 1:19 PM on February 7, 2002
posted by plaino at 1:19 PM on February 7, 2002
I'd like to point out the fact that if this thread were a village of 100 people, 90 of them would be complete fuckwits.
When presented with the grim condition of most people's lives, how do you morons react? You quibble over exactly how many millions wil die of hunger this year? Or celebrate the fact that HEY AT LEAST WE'RE OK *GRINS, CHUGS BEER, HIGHFIVES*
Fuck you all. Please schedule appointments to get your heads surgically removed from your asses, and have a nice day.
posted by signal at 1:31 PM on February 7, 2002
When presented with the grim condition of most people's lives, how do you morons react? You quibble over exactly how many millions wil die of hunger this year? Or celebrate the fact that HEY AT LEAST WE'RE OK *GRINS, CHUGS BEER, HIGHFIVES*
Fuck you all. Please schedule appointments to get your heads surgically removed from your asses, and have a nice day.
posted by signal at 1:31 PM on February 7, 2002
Since only a small percentage of the population has the brain power and talent needed to create the things that vastly improve the lot of the rest fo the world... let's try this while we are apparently making up numbers:
* 90% of the population rides ont he creative coat-tails of the other 10%
So those who produce have most of the stuff.
Sounds fine to me.
posted by soulhuntre at 1:51 PM on February 7, 2002
* 90% of the population rides ont he creative coat-tails of the other 10%
So those who produce have most of the stuff.
Sounds fine to me.
posted by soulhuntre at 1:51 PM on February 7, 2002
plaino, you make it sound like all those poor people are poor because they choose to be. I had a friend who spent six months in the middle of rural Guyana (it was the middle of nowhere even for Guyana) and they wanted health care and television, just like we do.
posted by tranquileye at 1:56 PM on February 7, 2002
posted by tranquileye at 1:56 PM on February 7, 2002
I've got an extra tv out in my garage that they can have.
posted by crunchland at 1:59 PM on February 7, 2002
posted by crunchland at 1:59 PM on February 7, 2002
soulhuntre, sounds like Atlas Shrugged to me. Maybe you should watch Fight Club; who will take out the trash?
posted by tranquileye at 2:00 PM on February 7, 2002
posted by tranquileye at 2:00 PM on February 7, 2002
crunchland, that's great. Now if only we can get them electric power. Do you have a generator?
posted by tranquileye at 2:01 PM on February 7, 2002
posted by tranquileye at 2:01 PM on February 7, 2002
Do I have to do everything around here?!
posted by crunchland at 2:04 PM on February 7, 2002
posted by crunchland at 2:04 PM on February 7, 2002
I wonder why all those immigrants are killing themselves at the US-Mexico Border? Hasnt anyone told them the "western" idea of success is unfulfilling?
Sorry about the sarcasm. Tranquileye is the only person that seems to be making any sense around here.
posted by vacapinta at 2:46 PM on February 7, 2002
Sorry about the sarcasm. Tranquileye is the only person that seems to be making any sense around here.
posted by vacapinta at 2:46 PM on February 7, 2002
Thanks for the reality check/guilt trip.
I realize I'm priviliged, but I don't try to lord it over the rest of the world. That's stupid.
(Needless to say, I'm not the one of the people out there draping the U.S. flag around everything I own.)
posted by Down10 at 2:58 PM on February 7, 2002
I realize I'm priviliged, but I don't try to lord it over the rest of the world. That's stupid.
(Needless to say, I'm not the one of the people out there draping the U.S. flag around everything I own.)
posted by Down10 at 2:58 PM on February 7, 2002
Yeah, what a nice little dreamy world it would be.
The 14 Americans (who would be a cross section of bits of all the other conflated 'races' and 'nationalities' mentioned in this thing) would be expected to give money to and buy the products of the rest of the 86 people, all the while being derided, jeered, protested against and occassionally killed. And even then, it would be our fault.
Sorry to be hyperbolic, but just following the example of this fuckwitted little pamphlet.
posted by evanizer at 3:22 PM on February 7, 2002
The 14 Americans (who would be a cross section of bits of all the other conflated 'races' and 'nationalities' mentioned in this thing) would be expected to give money to and buy the products of the rest of the 86 people, all the while being derided, jeered, protested against and occassionally killed. And even then, it would be our fault.
Sorry to be hyperbolic, but just following the example of this fuckwitted little pamphlet.
posted by evanizer at 3:22 PM on February 7, 2002
Yeah, strange that they lumped that together. Well, since the lad I fancy is Colombian, it all works out then. 2 down and 12 to go!
posted by evanizer at 3:36 PM on February 7, 2002
posted by evanizer at 3:36 PM on February 7, 2002
Round up the usual suspects...mw, soulhuntre, and midasmulligan are, of course, correct, and certain other posters are not. And johnsmunch - thanks for pointing out what really bothered me about it -- the switch from ratio/percentages to raw numbers midway through.
posted by davidmsc at 3:59 PM on February 7, 2002
posted by davidmsc at 3:59 PM on February 7, 2002
signal: please remove yourself from the high horse you've boarded.
There are many things in this world I cannot personally control. Among them are volcanoes, floods, and the fact that poor people vastly outnumber rich people (if you consider someone like me surviving on the odd consulting fee "rich"). I will do what I can to support the ability of poor nations to solve their own problems, and international structures that will ease the way, but I refuse to feel personally responsible for the lousy living conditions of billions of people.
I don't feel the need to make grandiose statements about how much better our society is. Surely there's nothing I can personally feel superior about -- I was just born here, as surely as someone else was just born in Somalia or Afghanistan. What I do is feel grateful. If we displace the argument from where you were born to when, anyone born in our generation is surely much more fortunate than 99% of all the humans who have ever lived. They live in a world where transportation and technology make simpler work of solving the problems of billions of massively poor people, and a political revolution that has opened borders to 95% of the world's population. That technology, that political progress, did not arrive by way of natural law or luck -- it was developed with the hard work and the lives of many who stood before us.
To take one simple example, Western money and technology invested in order to bring Western consumers a better life and Western investors a return on their money has eradicated diseases like smallpox -- if our luck holds, forever. That doesn't mean it's easy to eradicate any disease -- because in the end it doesn't just take money and technology, it takes hard work and determination and footwork and education in millions of villages around the world where diseases like malaria remain rampant.
Yet solving one problem can cause another. We in the West and the affiliated modern societies have managed to extend peoples' lives, but this isn't always a gift. Overpopulation makes feeding all those people a harder problem. More mouths to feed; agricultural abuse of the land; elimination of precious farmland for urbanization; it all feeds together to make a small problem a massive problem that grows faster than we can solve its subparts.
Contrary to the conspiracy-theory caricatures of radical propagandists like asok (literally), concentration of wealth is not the work of an evil cabal that has plotted to deny others what they already have, the success of capitalism, defined broadly, has brought many benefits to the less lucky of the world, and globalism will perhaps keep wages down but in doing so it will make goods cheaper and allow the Botswanas of the world to have functional economies that do not depend on the largesse of others. The humanitarian aid model is not a long term solution: who's going to buy the food? pay the workers? guarantee their safety? Believe me, we could give it all away and not only wouldn't the entire world then have enough, it wouldn't be able to make enough. We would doom all for the dubious sake of eliminating privilege and tamping down success wherever it pops up.
posted by dhartung at 8:23 PM on February 7, 2002
There are many things in this world I cannot personally control. Among them are volcanoes, floods, and the fact that poor people vastly outnumber rich people (if you consider someone like me surviving on the odd consulting fee "rich"). I will do what I can to support the ability of poor nations to solve their own problems, and international structures that will ease the way, but I refuse to feel personally responsible for the lousy living conditions of billions of people.
I don't feel the need to make grandiose statements about how much better our society is. Surely there's nothing I can personally feel superior about -- I was just born here, as surely as someone else was just born in Somalia or Afghanistan. What I do is feel grateful. If we displace the argument from where you were born to when, anyone born in our generation is surely much more fortunate than 99% of all the humans who have ever lived. They live in a world where transportation and technology make simpler work of solving the problems of billions of massively poor people, and a political revolution that has opened borders to 95% of the world's population. That technology, that political progress, did not arrive by way of natural law or luck -- it was developed with the hard work and the lives of many who stood before us.
To take one simple example, Western money and technology invested in order to bring Western consumers a better life and Western investors a return on their money has eradicated diseases like smallpox -- if our luck holds, forever. That doesn't mean it's easy to eradicate any disease -- because in the end it doesn't just take money and technology, it takes hard work and determination and footwork and education in millions of villages around the world where diseases like malaria remain rampant.
Yet solving one problem can cause another. We in the West and the affiliated modern societies have managed to extend peoples' lives, but this isn't always a gift. Overpopulation makes feeding all those people a harder problem. More mouths to feed; agricultural abuse of the land; elimination of precious farmland for urbanization; it all feeds together to make a small problem a massive problem that grows faster than we can solve its subparts.
Contrary to the conspiracy-theory caricatures of radical propagandists like asok (literally), concentration of wealth is not the work of an evil cabal that has plotted to deny others what they already have, the success of capitalism, defined broadly, has brought many benefits to the less lucky of the world, and globalism will perhaps keep wages down but in doing so it will make goods cheaper and allow the Botswanas of the world to have functional economies that do not depend on the largesse of others. The humanitarian aid model is not a long term solution: who's going to buy the food? pay the workers? guarantee their safety? Believe me, we could give it all away and not only wouldn't the entire world then have enough, it wouldn't be able to make enough. We would doom all for the dubious sake of eliminating privilege and tamping down success wherever it pops up.
posted by dhartung at 8:23 PM on February 7, 2002
"Most people use statistics like drunks use lampposts - more for support than illumination." (Mark Twain)
posted by lizs at 8:52 PM on February 7, 2002
posted by lizs at 8:52 PM on February 7, 2002
the success of capitalism, defined broadly, has brought many benefits to the less lucky of the world
The main story of the last fifty years is the widening gap between global rich and global poor. Capitalism as it is currently constituted doesn't do much for most people in the world except keep them poor. That may not be the long-term story, but that is the story of the last fifty years.
posted by tranquileye at 5:28 AM on February 8, 2002
The main story of the last fifty years is the widening gap between global rich and global poor. Capitalism as it is currently constituted doesn't do much for most people in the world except keep them poor. That may not be the long-term story, but that is the story of the last fifty years.
posted by tranquileye at 5:28 AM on February 8, 2002
The main story of the last fifty years is the widening gap between global rich and global poor. Capitalism as it is currently constituted doesn't do much for most people in the world except keep them poor. That may not be the long-term story, but that is the story of the last fifty years.
This is a misleading statement that gets thrown around a lot. The fact that the rich get richer does not necessarily mean the poor get poorer or that the poor are poor because the rich are rich. There is no upper limit on wealth. there is, however, a bottom limit on poverty, so as long as *anyone* prospers beyond the current standard, the gap between the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor will widen, because there will always be someone at the "rock bottom" level. This is not an indictment of capitalism. prosperity levels in developing countries *have* increased - especially for those that have progressively opened their markets.
posted by lizs at 8:39 AM on February 8, 2002
This is a misleading statement that gets thrown around a lot. The fact that the rich get richer does not necessarily mean the poor get poorer or that the poor are poor because the rich are rich. There is no upper limit on wealth. there is, however, a bottom limit on poverty, so as long as *anyone* prospers beyond the current standard, the gap between the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor will widen, because there will always be someone at the "rock bottom" level. This is not an indictment of capitalism. prosperity levels in developing countries *have* increased - especially for those that have progressively opened their markets.
posted by lizs at 8:39 AM on February 8, 2002
Since only a small percentage of the population has the brain power and talent needed to create the things that vastly improve the lot of the rest fo the world... let's try this while we are apparently making up numbers:
* 90% of the population rides ont he creative coat-tails of the other 10%
"Brain power and talent" without resources won't get you very far. If you grow up in a place where no one teaches you to read, you're clearly at a huge disadvantage. It annoys me when people here are disingenuous enough to believe that they're among the elite because of some inherent value or intelligence. You're among the elite because of where you were born. It's like Molly Ivins says about Dubya: he was born on third base, and he says, "Look, I hit a triple."
posted by anapestic at 11:26 AM on February 8, 2002
* 90% of the population rides ont he creative coat-tails of the other 10%
"Brain power and talent" without resources won't get you very far. If you grow up in a place where no one teaches you to read, you're clearly at a huge disadvantage. It annoys me when people here are disingenuous enough to believe that they're among the elite because of some inherent value or intelligence. You're among the elite because of where you were born. It's like Molly Ivins says about Dubya: he was born on third base, and he says, "Look, I hit a triple."
posted by anapestic at 11:26 AM on February 8, 2002
Well, I was born in a hospital that wouldn't issue me a birth certificate because I was born out of wedlock. I spent my first 7 years in a housing project with a single mother who worked in a clothing factory pressing pants. I went to public school and eventually, with loans and hard work got through both college and graduate school at an ivy-league university. Now, my family certainly didn't have the means to help, so I must have done it on "brain power and talent" alone, right? It certainly wasn't handed to me, so I can't think of any other explanation. If I am elite it is because of inherent value and intelligence (and perserverance and hard work) and nothing else save the grace of God. I don't want to sound like I'm gloating, I'm merely giving you a personal reason why I think your assertion is false. I've had to earn everything I've ever gotten or acheived and that success has allowed me to become one of the "elite". I am lucky to have been born in a country that values the ethic that has gotten me where I am today. You must remember that America's wealth and power were not handed to her.
posted by evanizer at 6:34 PM on February 9, 2002
posted by evanizer at 6:34 PM on February 9, 2002
« Older LucasFilm vs. Enron. | Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Which is not to take away from the sentiment involved, and the reality-check to our insulated worldview.
posted by dnash at 10:22 AM on February 7, 2002