Hi,
I'm curious - why should the 20% percent of the world's population own more wealth than they do now? How are you identifying them and how much are you giving them? After all, you probably own more than a vast number of
earth also. I know that I do and I'm barely a thousandaire. Do I stop giving when someone has the same amount as me or do I continue because there is someone else who still has less?
Thanks,
Mike
I suppose that's why US displays the greatest income disparity between rich and poor of any of the industrialized nations? Why some 10 or 20 billionaires collectively own more wealth than some 20% of the world's population? Or were you being sarcastic?
At 07:58 PM 6/30/97 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Ah, but what is a market except voluntary transactions between people? What is good for the market is good for the people.
-Declan
On Mon, 30 Jun 1997 geeman@best.com wrote:
My biggest problem is when the pundits (and by extension, those that punt to them) frame this entire debate in terms of the Market. To do so is to argue
yikes - this response makes me as nervous as any misguided government GAK program. Yes, why *should* the poorest and most starved people in the world have any more than they do? It's a free world, ain't it? They're free to avail themselves of the latest in technology, health care, and education to improve their lot aren't they? No, they're victims of transnational corporate wealth-displacement programs funded by the IMF and World Bank, organizations which fatten tinpot dicators' personal fortunes while forcing an export economy onto the weak, stripping them of the power of self-sufficiency in order to feed corporate Masters with no place and no conscience. These people the ones who pick your fruit and vegetables; they're the ones who make your designer sneakers and the silk ties and nice button-down shirts you wear to your cubicle every day. They're the ones who have no voice, no power and no chance. They starve in order to feed and clothe and entertain you, that's why. There are equitable balances of wealth distribution, and there are unconscionable and indefensible ones. I try to play a part is maintaining a balance saner than that of a world dominated by people with your response; I deliver boxes and bags of things I no longer need to Goodwill and others; I wrote off as much as I could in charity donations last year; my wife sponsors a child thru the Christian Childrens Fund; I try to educate myself -- to learn why the peasants revolted in Chiapas, how GATT and SNAFU -- oops I mean NAFTA -- really work and whom they really benefit. I write when I can to try to pass along some of what I learn. Do you continue giving when someone else has less than you do? Absolutely. I hope that you will eventually grow up and achieve some wisdom and compassion. At 12:06 PM 7/1/97 -0400, Michael Lamarra wrote: people on that
only solutions that are good for The Market are good solutions; that when a particular policy is market-agnostic or market-negative, even though it may be good policy for People (yes, remember them ???) it is irrelevant or bad. This debate is NOT about the Worldwide Encryption Market!