aLx said:
But economic growth does not decrease the poverty. It makes the rich richer, unless of course you direct it to those living in poverty but then that would be too statist for you?
Also the gap between rich and poor is a good way of judging how economic growth has favoured people, over others.
The poorest of today in USA live like the richest in the beginning of the 20th century.
You seem to have fallen for the nation that the gap between rich and poor matters at all, when in fact it doesn't.
What matters is that even the poorest layers of society have their basic needs met (access to education, food, shelter, etc). If they do, then it doesn't matter how richer other people are.
Likewise, if a certain group of people does not have their basic necessities met, it doesn't matter whether they are rich or poor in their country; their situation must be changed.
Inequality is not bad at all, thus battling against it in itself is useless, not to mention harmful for the whole nation, which becomes poorer.
This is more like a continuation of your hatred against socialism and any benefits than real fact. Most third world (why did you put that in "" ?) countries are poor because they have little if no resources. What do many countries in Africa have? They are poor because we in the west screw them out of their money. Look at the debt they owe us. Look at the interest and the internal policies they are forced to adhere to with an IMF loan.
No country was ever forced to get a loan from the IMF. And if they do, it is because the loans help them (and they do).
As for debt from banks worldwide, that is also entirely up to the nation's government, which chooses the interest they'll pay for whoever lends them money.
And no, countries in Africa are not poor because someone else has screwed them. They are poor because of dishonest leaders, because of incompetent politicians, and because of their complete disregard for fundamental institutions to development: stable government, respect for private property and freedom of initiative.
Blaming their ills on another nations is a common political tactic of populist and demagogue politicians, both from left and right, but it is completely false. It is a shame that well-intentioned people who live in those countries fall for that old card, which whenever is successfully used makes things a lot worse for the country in question.
Ok prove it then.
I agree if people would only stop clinging onto their conservative and neo-liberal theories and focused on the fact that this capitalism is killing people, even more progess would be made. Life is not all about the money, rate of producation etc you know?
Yes, I do, and that is precisely why I want freedom.
But whereas we agree life is not about money and production rates, we must remember that there are people in the world who do not enjoy basic living conditions, and it is up to those who are better off, and have access to a better education, to give them the oportunity to leave their dreadful state.
It is proved beyond all doubt, both in theory and in practice, that free trade and free enterprise bring development and better living conditions for a nation, while a socialistic, statist approach either makes the nation in question really miserable (Brazil, USSR, Bolivia, India) or raises unemployment and increases the need of welfare to such a degree that it stunts growth (Germany, France, England up to the 80s, Finland).