The End Of Poverty Is Never Coming!

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,368
3,150
113
I recently read an article in a book (based on sociological issues in mostly American society, but other places as well) called Seeing Ourselves: Classic, Contemporary, and Cross-Cultural Readings in Sociology. The book is in its sixth edition and was written or composed by John J. Macionis and Nijole V. Benokraitis.

One of the articles in the book (all are very interesting and I might post and/or use them as resources for debating some issues that plague Dominicana and the global societies) is named "The Uses of Global Poverty: How Economic Inequality Benefits the West" by: Diana Stukuls Eglitis. http://www.gwu.edu/~soc/d_eglitis.html That is a link to learn more about the author.

My reason for the previous paragraphs was to give credit and not plegiarize any info or claim any info I'm about to post as my own, unless its in braquets, those are my own opinion.

The author of the article points out 11 reasons why the West benefits from poverty. Each reason is followed by a few paragraph of explanation and proof via sources of statistics etc. to back her reasons. I will only post the reasons she gives, but not the explanations.

What I want is to create a debate on whether her reasons are legit or if there are some flaws in her thinking. Please, keep the language clean and no direct insults either to me or the author, just opinions expressed about the issue, not any person.

According to her, "the argument is not that advanced states are consciously conspiring to keep the poor states destitute... the existence of a class of poor states is positively functional for wealthy states" p. 201.

She says that is "why development and assistance programs that help ensure survival, but not prosperity, for poor populations are quite characteristic of Western policy" p.201.

Here are the reasons from pg. 201 to pg. 205:

Point 1: The existence of global poverty helps ensure the wealth of affordable good for Western consumers.

Point 2: The existence of global poverty benefits Western companies and shareholders in the form of increased profit.

Point 3: The existence of global poverty fosters access to resources in poor states that are needed in or desired by the West.

Point 4: The existence of global poverty helps support Western medical advances.

Point 5: The existence of global poverty contributes to the advancement of Western economies and societies with the human capital of poor states.
[All those professional Dominicans working abroad could have been helping the DR develop with better teachers which would result in better students which would result in better educated populance, etc.]

Point 6: The existence of global poverty may contribute to the pacification of the Western proletariat, or "Workers of the World, A Blue Light Special!"

Point 7: Global poverty benefits the West because poor countries make optimal dumping grounds for goods that are dangerous, expired, and illegal.
[Remember the Rock Ash gift Puerto Rico gave to Samana here in the DR a few months ago!]

Point 8: The existence of global poverty provides jobs for specialists employed to assist, advise, and study the world's poor and to protect the "better-off" from them.

Point 9: Global poverty benefits inhabitants of wealthy countries, who can feel good about helping the global poor through charitable work and charitable giving.
[Save the Children ask for money on TV to help some starving african child and yet, the developed world denies that child and/or his parent the chance to live better by denying them a visa]

Point 10: The poverty of less developed states makes possible the massive flow of resources westward.

Point 11: The poorer countries, which reproduce at rates higher than Western states, are useful scapegoats for real and potential global environmental threats.

So now, what do you think about it?

What points do you agree with the most?

What points do you disagree with the most?

Do you think the DR is a victim of such abuse from the wealthy states?

Do you think this world order could ever be changed?
 

bob saunders

Platinum
Jan 1, 2002
32,502
5,930
113
dr1.com
The author has given 11 statements, none of them supported by facts....etc.
Many of the poor countries have no resourses, no explotation by western powers, no money to buy western goods...etc. Explain to me(dimwit that i am) how a western aid program such as one i support(Children international) benefits my way of life.
 
Oct 13, 2003
2,789
90
48
instagram.com
mis dos cheles

Nal0whs said:
Point 1: The existence of global poverty helps ensure the wealth of affordable good for Western consumers.

Point 2: The existence of global poverty benefits Western companies and shareholders in the form of increased profit.

Point 3: The existence of global poverty fosters access to resources in poor states that are needed in or desired by the West.

Point 4: The existence of global poverty helps support Western medical advances.

Point 5: The existence of global poverty contributes to the advancement of Western economies and societies with the human capital of poor states.

Point 6: The existence of global poverty may contribute to the pacification of the Western proletariat, or "Workers of the World, A Blue Light Special!"

Point 7: Global poverty benefits the West because poor countries make optimal dumping grounds for goods that are dangerous, expired, and illegal.

Point 8: The existence of global poverty provides jobs for specialists employed to assist, advise, and study the world's poor and to protect the "better-off" from them.

Point 9: Global poverty benefits inhabitants of wealthy countries, who can feel good about helping the global poor through charitable work and charitable giving.

Point 10: The poverty of less developed states makes possible the massive flow of resources westward.

Point 11: The poorer countries, which reproduce at rates higher than Western states, are useful scapegoats for real and potential global environmental threats.

1) True, global poverty helps in producing large quantities of products at low cost prices. This in itself is not a bad thing as it also benefits poorer countries by bringing the same products, jobs, some measure of progress and money to their country.

2) Debatable. IMO selling in a low-profit market does not produce high margins for the companies involved.

3) True, the poorer states sell to the West what the West needs. Flip side is they choose to do the selling...

4) I do not see that

5) Same point as 1) and 2)

6) I do not agree.. western proletariat is very much a myth.. there are no large classes of proletariat anymore in the West.

7) True, unscrupolous companies and countries can dump expired goods on 3rd world markets.. This happens, but I don't know on how large a scale

8) IMO total bull. These so-called specialist presume malicious intent, I doubt that.

9) IMO total bull. I would much rather not give my money to victims of hunger and death.

10) Please specify

11) By increasing in population it is inevitable that they will want larger slices of a fixed cake in terms of natural resources, but I fail to see how this benefits the West.

Concluding, the weaker position of poorer countries vis-a-vis the West in terms of negotiations puts them at a disadvantage. However, I also see different levels of determination to advance themselves. A good example is China vs the DR. Some merit should be given to these points but I see a total absence of taking personal responsibility in most of these points.

Cheers,

MD
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,368
3,150
113
bob saunders said:
The author has given 11 statements, none of them supported by facts....etc.
Many of the poor countries have no resourses, no explotation by western powers, no money to buy western goods...etc. Explain to me(dimwit that i am) how a western aid program such as one i support(Children international) benefits my way of life.

She did added facts and stuff, but like I mentioned in the post I was not going to type them in.

Simpy because its too long.

So, for people in general, just answer the questions based on what is posted or try to get a hold of the book and read it.

It is very interesting and does makes me think a bit about why certain things have been happening lately.

And to answer your question, here is what she wrote in the article - this section I did not included for the reasons I already explained:

BTW, I will only post the more direct parts of the explanations she gives simply because its one heck of an explanation in terms of length.

Point 9: Global Poverty benefits inhabitants of wealthy countries, who can feel good about helping the global poor through charitable work and charitable giving.

"from the celebrity-studded musical production "We are the World" to trick-or-treating for UNICEF, those who inhabit the wealthy corners of the world feel good about themselves for sharing their good fortune."

"Apparently, we need not feel guilt about consuming many times what the unfortunate inhabitants of the world's poor states do if only we are willing to give up a few of our luxuries to help them. Indeed, not only do the poor not inspire guilt, they may inspire positive feelings: As the World Vision writer notes, she feels "happy" because she can "help someone who needs it".

"A related point is that the poor we see on television or hear about in news or music give those of us in wealthy countries the opportunity to feel good about ourselves, regardless of our position in the socioeconomic structure of our own states."

Basically, she is saying that the existence of Global poverty helps those of the first world feel "lucky" and as such, might make the masses of the first world more passive when it comes to fixing some problems like a shrinking middle class which is starting to occur in the USA as we speak. Those people would think "well at least we are not that bad as those people". Again, its a way of feeling superior I suppose.

Her explanation is long and maybe you might be able to get a copy by asking her for one via her email address available in the link I provided.
 
Last edited:

Criss Colon

Platinum
Jan 2, 2002
21,843
191
0
38
yahoomail.com
Keep Looking Nalowls,I'm sure that one day soon,

you will find a legitimate reason for the problems of the DR,based upon foreign intervention!!!
Look no farther than the super rich Dominican families that control,and have controlled this county for 100s of years!
They keep the masses here undereducated to provide than un-ending source of cheap labor to the aristocracy here!Until 50 years ago,the DR was virtually isolated from the rest of the World.No 100 flights a day,no Int.Cable TV,or 1,000,000 Dominicans in New Yourk! Face it Pal,you did this to yourselves,you must fix it yourselves.Stop looking ,it's YOUR FAULT! Cris Colon
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,368
3,150
113
Criss Colon said:
you will find a legitimate reason for the problems of the DR,based upon foreign intervention!!!
Look no farther than the super rich Dominican families that control,and have controlled this county for 100s of years!
They keep the masses here undereducated to provide than un-ending source of cheap labor to the aristocracy here!Until 50 years ago,the DR was virtually isolated from the rest of the World.No 100 flights a day,no Int.Cable TV,or 1,000,000 Dominicans in New Yourk! Face it Pal,you did this to yourselves,you must fix it yourselves.Stop looking ,it's YOUR FAULT! Cris Colon

Oh, I forgot to make a note about this.

I created this thread completely separate of my responses to other threads.

This thread is simply meant for people to express their opinion on the article, not on myself or the author.

So, Cris (and everybody who were planning to do this), please leave other topics in the other threads where they belong. Otherwise, why would I create a totally new thread?
 
Oct 13, 2003
2,789
90
48
instagram.com
Looks can be deceiving but

It is my impression that as a Domenican (which I believe you to be) you seem to look outside the DR for solutions to problems that affect the DR. While it is good to look for causes and solutions to the problems that obviously plague the DR, the suggestion as put to you on a number of occasions that some of the problem and part of the solution can be found in the current and past structure of the DR society, seems to gain no ground in the picture you paint at this board.

Is this because you are already familiar with that part of the equation or is it because you think that that part of the equation is non-existent?

I am in favor of discussing avenues for solutions to problems currently plagueing the DR, but also believe in frank self-analysis when this is called for. Maybe this is a difference in culture and you know but do not care to discuss this issue?

Cheers,

MD
 
Oct 13, 2003
2,789
90
48
instagram.com
you are of course correct

Benny,

Thanks for your input. Of course you are correct in your view, but I see no reason to give up my position of luxury and to hand over my wealth to soemone else because he/she has less.. when you work for it I might point you in the right direction but in the end..

'Lo mio es lo mio'

But to put the blame for not improving yourself on others rather than partially on yourself to me seems going to far..

Cheers,


MD
 

cr8tions

New member
May 20, 2004
29
0
0
Point 9: Global poverty benefits inhabitants of wealthy countries, who can feel good about helping the global poor through charitable work and charitable giving.
[Save the Children ask for money on TV to help some starving african child and yet, the developed world denies that child and/or his parent the chance to live better by denying them a visa]

This is in regards to your comment in brackets. About the visa thingy... if thats the case why doesn't the DR open its doors to the Haitians? Once you figure out the answer to that question you can give better thought to that comment you made and maybe rephrase your comments better.

The question I have asked you is something to think about. Actually, I think this was discussed a while back.. search the archives and you'll might find your answer faster then you thought you would. Also a crash course in macro economics might server you good.
 

xamaicano

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2004
1,011
26
48
Conspiracies abound

I heard the illuminati is partial to mulatas and cheap sex. Makes you think.

Point 9: Global poverty benefits inhabitants of wealthy countries, who can feel good about helping the global poor through charitable work and charitable giving.

Wow, this crap actually gets published.
 

Texas Bill

Silver
Feb 11, 2003
2,174
26
0
97
www.texasbill.com
NalOws has presented this theme---

so many times in so many different scenarios it is becoming redundant.

It seems that he will go to great lengths to try and prove a set of points that are strictly of a philosophical nature and are insolvable by society (world or local)!

It is an historical fact that nations/societies will develop according to their own economic and political philosophies and as to how they handle their own set of internal and external problems.

If tey are a small overpopulated territory, they may resort to the attempted conquest of their neighbors. Rome is an excellent example of such a scenario as is Egypt(under the Pharohs), The Persian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, Germany, Great Britain, etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Aras of the existing world which are experiencing abject poverty are ones that are overpopulated as to available arable lands, sufficient water for hygenic and agricultural necessities, supporting infrastructure, etc.

While it is humane to assist in times of famine and internal stress, it is not incumbent upon the world to support on an indefinite basis. To do so would bankrupt the world in short order.

So, what is the solution? I frankly don't think there is one, other than what is being done in those areas today.

Perhaps 'famine' is Nature's way of levelling the population to a point at which the remainder can survive.

Overpopulated countries such as India, China, Africa and a few others suffer the most and periodically. And I don't think that the 'Rich' nations have anything to do with the level of poverty (which is directly associated with production, industrial or agricultural) in any particular country. The price of foodstuffs is governed by these countries internal forces, not by some country thousands of miles away.

So, how do we treat such discourses such as the one cited by NalOws? Not really with seriousness, but with a grain of salt. While they appear to be informative, they are really but paintings in the sky to be looked upon as beautiful but fleeting and without true substance. Intellectual meanderings, if you will, since they attempt to deal with interactions of human nature but fall short of the true nature of the same by interjecting altruism into the formula.

Texas Bill
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,368
3,150
113
This is in regards to your comment in brackets. About the visa thingy... if thats the case why doesn't the DR open its doors to the Haitians? Once you figure out the answer to that question you can give better thought to that comment you made and maybe rephrase your comments better.

We would open our doors to Haitians and the world only if the world opens its doors to us, period.

If there were no restriction in the movement of human capital, all economies worldwide would be much more efficient in the same manner that the lowering and elimination of tarrifs on material flows from country to country is accelerating economic growth.

I just don't understand (economically speaking) why the world is allowing for material things to shift about the planet and yet, human capital is so severly restricted. No one nation will open up its border to a certain country, if the certain country don't open up theirs. The first world has done a fabulous job at cracking open their own markets to the third world and the third world markets to their own, why don't they also do the same with human capital?

If the theories of globalization and free trade prove to be correct, everything with little or no restrictions would be at its most efficient, most productive, and most effective than before.

Opening our border to Haiti and vice versa would not do us any good. However, if every country in the world was to open up both ways, that would be wonderful economically speaking. Much of the lower class of the DR will at first leave, some from the first world (those with the mentality of the current expats in the DR) would move to the DR. As those with wealth get overwhelmed by the high number of poor people migrating to the first world, some of those with power will move to the less crowded third world. As some of the money flow and jobs will move freely to the third world, so will some of the poor that previously moved to the first world.

In short, in the short run it will appear to be a bit chaotic and the flow of migration might be mostly towards the west, but as time goes on, everything will even itself out. This would only work if the whole world opens to free and hassle less movements of human capital flows.

BTW, I have a masters in Economics, so thank you for suggesting me to take a crash course in Macroeconomics, but been there, done that.
 

Texas Bill

Silver
Feb 11, 2003
2,174
26
0
97
www.texasbill.com
Here we go, Partner---

The wealthier nations open their borders to unrestricted immigration. The vast populations from China, India, Africa, South and Central America commence a mass exodus from their homelands to the magnet of the affluent European and North American nations. That's where all the wealth is, isn't it??
Suddenly these nations find themselves overwhelmed by a population explosion consisting mainly of uneducated, unskilled, and socially inept people which will cause an implosion in the labor market. That same labor market that created the 'vast' wealth in the first place, but now has the competition from an unforseen source which is not only overwhelming, but not trained to fill the slots available in industry.
Big Business loves this scenario for a little while, because now their labor costs are so much lower. BUT, they soon realize that the work being done results in more waste in production because of inferior workmanship by a workforce which were not raised in a world of mechanical devices, have no idea of engineering tolerances, the strength of a cement mix, etc., etc. They were farmers who used oxen and buffalo and wooden plows to till the desert they farmed--and now they're machinists??

In addition, can you imagine the disruption of the society of any country that wakes up one morning with literally thousands of immigrants clamoring at their borders? Where will they all live? Who will feed them until they can find gainful employment? Will they even find employment?

Your comment about the DR not taking in the Haitians is, I believe, very significant. It demonstrates an underlying fear that any nation has of being taken over by a foreign and perceived to be inferior population.

The scenario I described for you above has no foundation in actual events, but is just as conceivable as the ones presented by those you cite as being viable.

Nations will ALWAYS protect their borders, NalOws. you can't extrapolate ANY scenario in which they will give up their sovereign borders for an ideal, workable or unworkable. Their population just won't allow it.

Texas Bill
 

NALs

Economist by Profession
Jan 20, 2003
13,368
3,150
113
TBill, I perfectly agree with what you are saying also and I was aware of what you mention when I made my post.

However, I believe that for such opening of borders all over the world to happen there needs to be little attention given to culture, values, morals, national identities, etc.

I just don't see why (again, economically speaking) goods and services are so easily traded among nations (everyday trade barriers for goods and services are falling rapidly) and yet, populations are practically stuck into a specific geographic area, except for the brightest and wealthiest who either move across border with ease or are welcomed by other countries in much easier fashions than to their poorer counter part (example, the US gov. will issue up to 900,000 H-9 Visas to the most educated Indians to migrate to the US and fill high positions in engineering, educational institutions, etc. or an American would be much more readily accepted than an impoverished Haitian or impoverished Hispanic would be in the DR.)

Actually, now that I think about it, I might be ahead of our times right now. I think this will happen once globalization last a little while longer and the distinction among cultures become much more indifferent. Once that is in place, I think the "Human Capital" would be allowed to easily move with little or no restriction because everybody worldwide will be under the same general culture and understanding. Racially should not really be a consideration for not doing this, because generally around the world whites are on top economically, and the less white a person is the poorer the person tend to be. Because it is perceived that racial discrimination is more a preoccupation among whites (to avoid being tinted by the less "pure" people) then the fact that the whites will remain on top economically might make them more acceptable of allowing natural migration patterns to emerge rather than restrict them. So, racial discrimination should not play a big role in avoiding such shuffling of human capital around the globe, not nearly as much as the protection of one's wealth.

Yeah, I am way ahead of our times in this issue.

Also, my comment on "less pure people" are not my words per say, its just the way whites have seen non-whites for centuries, our current times being too short to really make a difference in the overall general attitudes of whites towards non-whites if all times are merged to get an overall picture of these attitudes within humanity.
 

Texas Bill

Silver
Feb 11, 2003
2,174
26
0
97
www.texasbill.com
This may not have much of an---

impact on what you have posted, but in defense of the immigration policies of my own and other countries over the past 50-60 years, I think you will have to admit to a tremendous slackening of restrictions world wide.

Most nations want 'new blood' to immigrate. That they place restrictions such as levels of education, financial security, and the like is not without reason.

Persons wishing to immigrate to a country, any country, should realize that that country wants the 'cream of the crop' for themselves since those people will enhance their adopted country economically and socially. To open the gates indiscriminatly would be to invite disaster upon society. And, as stated previously, nations have the right to protect their territories from the criminal elements of another society/nation.

As to your reference to the 900,000 Indians, well, why not? That nation produces some of the best engineers and business oriented people in the world. In addition, it could be that the US is taking a tack to reduce the 'outsourcing' that so many US corporations have taken.

As to the lack of 'slots' available to Dominicans and Haitians, I would think the reason they are so low is directly proportional to the 'true' educational and financial levels of the applicants. Neither European nations nor others will accept applicants who have no financial sustainability whise they seek employment in those countries. Thecountries just don't want to be sadled with yet another 'welfare' case. They ALL have enough as it is.And, NalOws, would you put up your 'average' high school or college graduate against those of Europe or the US??? Not to denegrate your education system, but i don't think there would be a contest. The overall knowledge just isn't there. And we're speaking of a 'general' graduate, not isolated or exceptional situations.
So, maybe you begin to see just why there are restrictions in the immigration fields.
So, until the nations of the world have equal education, equal financial status, etc. the 'dream' of the free flow of humanity from one country to another just won't happen, no matter how 'nice' it would be.

Texas Bill
 

strasser3133

New member
Nov 21, 2003
45
0
0
The existence of poverty

I wanted to cast my "dos pesos" to this very interesting debate. I believe that it has been well supported in the literature that the phenomenon "poverty" is a social, cultural, economic, geographic and racial construct which exists world-wide. The 3 or 4 millon Dominicans who are poor are part of the 2.5 billion people world-wide who donot have sufficient resources to maintain an adequate standard of living. Not only is there a lack of income but they don't have access to the sources which provide employment, education, health and wealth. But the major porblem is poor people don't have a political voice. The poor of the world including us here in the DR form a subculture which globally might have different faces but there is only one body. Economic globisation and poverty are wedded. One does not exist without the other. The challenge is not the eradication of poverty but the awareness of it roots.
 

Tordok

Bronze
Oct 6, 2003
530
2
0
What we all call the wealthy West is a fairly recent historical development. Even in what today are the most advanced economies, the levels of inequality within those countries were preposterous for most of their histories. Many nations that are now wealthy, are so because the levesl of inequality among its own people have approached a more rational level of income distribution. What we nowadays call the 3rd World are essentially nations that have failed - and the reasons for such failures vary from place to place- to adjust to more rational use of their natural resources, including the human capital. The Dominican Republic is a latecomer - also a very small player - in the global economy. In Europe and in Japan the internal balance of economic power would still resemble the feudal systems in which they were stuck for so many centuries had there not been progressive policies and institutions implemented. Greed and exclusivism are innate forces driving the human animal. But so are the forces of seeking justice and balance. Practically every nation in the world has practiced, to some degree or the other, systems were a few control the many. Please do not confuse these arguments with socialism, but this is true. Even a young nation like the U.S., the stalwart of freedom, capitalism, etc.. had to deal with these issues (abolition of slavery, anti-trust legislation, minimum wage, G.I. bill, etc.) or else could have ended up as a 3rd World country itself. The DR and other poor nations have just been too slow to change. At a local level in the DR there is no need for a revolution of the proletariat, we just need to enforce laws without distinction of social station and in a spirit of freedom, and the markets will eventually bring the standards of EVERYONE up. So far only the rich do well. They don't seem to understand that they can actually do BETTER if they do what's right for their own poor. No charity. Just investing in education and productive endeavors that are spread around more rationally.
At a global level a similar argument can be made, but only after major political and social reforms are put into place. Economic tribalism is predatory and it remains prevalent around the world. So poor countries are at fault. The wealthy countries and its multinationals have a grip on the control panel and thus they are also at fault. If they were to practise globally what they have accomplished nationally, then chances of eradicating poverty might have a chance.
- Tordok
 

Tordok

Bronze
Oct 6, 2003
530
2
0
Nal0whs said:
That was a very good post Tordok.

Thank you. I must have slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :)

All natural systems strive for balance. Our bodies do it through a process called homeostasis, thus when your blood sugar gets too high insulin is activated to bring it back to normal. When it is too low, other substances in the body get activated in order to release glucose from other tissues, or else as chemical signals to your brain (interpreted as appetite or hunger) so that you can find more sources of energy (eat). Likewise with many other physiological functions. The absence of such balance brings on disease.

Larger systems, ecosystems and socioeconomic systems also seek balance. Because of their size and complexity these are more difficult to balance. But the forces seeking to bring it to balance are nonetheless active at all times. It just takes longer.

Some capitalist intellectuals (Francis Fukuyama, the most obvious one with his book The End of History) have argued that with the demise of the communist empires those historical struggles between ideologies as we've known them had ended. Statism, as in soviet communism was doomed for failure as it went against the natural instincts of our species to be free. And i agree that equality cannot be forced and sooner or later such systems implode. But that is not to say that because communism was wrong that capitalism is right. That would be, like I was told when I was kid: "confundir el gimnasio con la magnesia" or for my anglo-speaking friends "comparing oranges and apples".

Equality as such, in my opinion, is not in itself a natural state. Balance yes, equality no. When we look at wealth and poverty we tend to focus on inequality rather than in the lack of balance. They are not the same thing.

For example, by observing wildlife behaviors we can see that even in unequal systems, balance is always necessary. The naturally strong (predators) feed on the weaker (prey). It would seem that such inherent inequality is a universal law that justifies lack of balance among the rich humans and the poor humans. However if we look at the bigger picture, in a wild state the prey and the predator actually do need one another to exist. If the strong predators were always to win their battles, you ultimately end up with no prey. And all predators would then starve themselves to death. Supply and demand. If the prey gets too smart and gets rid of its predators, ultimately they will then reproduce endlessly until they themselves run out of food for survival. Same principle of balance as essential in all systems prevails, even where inequality exists.

From these premises we can move on to the much more complicated systems of humans. Human beings as individuals are not equal. We all have virtues and vices that make each of us unique. Also less boring. But we also need balance. It is a paradox of nature that there must be both strong and weak individuals (thus unequal) for the greater conglomeration of individuals to have a better chance at survival. Too much of the one or too much of the other, and we can assure that in the long term we commit a suicide of the species. I submit that there are too many poor and not enough rich and that balancing things will be better.

I think we tend to think too much in short term gains and rationalize our own superiority because it is both convenient and superficially correct. So often being affluent is self-perpetuating through cronyism, nepotism and other less than moral mechanisms that we fail to see the real world and we end up believing our own myths of greatness.

- Tordok