Posted on 11/30/2006 8:54:28 AM PST by libertarianPA
LONDON (Reuters) - Huge gifts to charity from U.S. billionaire Warren Buffett and others have won widespread praise, but some say the same economic process that helped earn those fortunes is leaving billions more in dire poverty.
Buffett pledged to give away a mammoth $37 billion of his fortune -- more than most African countries' GDP estimates for this year -- the bulk of which will go to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
But the size of the gift also highlights growing inequality in the distribution of wealth, even as world economic output doubled in the last 10 years.
"The way we have proceeded with globalization has exacerbated the inequalities because it has been very asymmetric," said Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize-winning economist and professor at Columbia University in New York. "Capital moves more freely than labor and that means that the bargaining position of workers is disadvantaged relative to capital."
Analysts say the huge numbers of workers coming into the market through globalization in China and India have driven down wages in rich countries by making their workforce compete with much cheaper labor elsewhere.
At the same time, the upside for wages in poor countries is capped by an infinite pool of labor to choose from.
This helps explain the numbers in the 2005 U.N. Human Development Report, which show the richest 50 individuals in the world have a combined income greater than that of the poorest 416 million and that the unequal distribution of income worsened within many countries in the last 20 years.
CULPRITS
To be sure, unfettered economic growth is not solely to blame for growing inequality.
Corrupt national governments help to keep nearly half of Africa's people below the poverty line and inequality rampant in Latin America despite two decades of economic reforms.
Yet even emerging economic powerhouses such as India and China -- whose impressive growth rates have helped lift thousands out of poverty -- are still haunted by widening wealth gaps.
While China's economy expanded nearly 10 percent a year from 2001 to 2003, the average income for the poorest 10 percent of the country's households fell 2.5 percent, according to an analysis by the World Bank.
Meanwhile, the Gini index, a measure of wealth inequality, was 63 in rural India and 66 in urban India in 2002. The closer the index is to 100, the greater is the inequality. The corresponding figures for China were 39 and 47 respectively.
Behind this trend, a push toward smaller government has left officials without the means to care for society's most vulnerable, according to some critics.
"I think the primary responsibility for ensuring that growth benefits the poor is national government, but they have been very poorly advised over the last 25 years by the World Bank and the IMF and other institutions," said Duncan Green, head of research at charity Oxfam.
"For example, advice to open up their markets to trade and investment when all the successful economies like Korea and Taiwan have actually been very cautious about liberalizing and have done it quite slowly."
(NOT SO) ADVANCED ECONOMIES
Advanced economies too are plagued by inequalities which make parts of their population vulnerable to external shocks and natural disasters, as shown by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in the United States.
Although a 2005 European Union report concluded Europe was pretty equitable, it said earnings inequalities had increased in the 1990s in countries like Britain, Poland and Denmark. Even in socially-conscious Germany, the gap between rich and poor has grown since 1998, according to a 2005 government report.
But the gaps are especially wide in the world's largest economy and biggest champion of the free market.
The average U.S. chief executive earned 821 times as much as a minimum wage worker, the highest gap ever, according to a study published by the Economic Policy Institute think tank in June.
Analysts have also said an overriding concern with raw economic growth measures, at the heart of widely accepted business-friendly economic policies, risked widening wealth gaps.
"Our political system and the very conservative ideology that says somehow the way to boost the economy is by reducing the taxes for the very wealthy, that system has increased enormously the inequalities in our society," said Pablo Eisenberg, senior fellow at Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute.
We're in complete agreement.
unfettered economic growth is not solely to blame
Whatever, Jedi Master. Just don't whack at me with your light saber.
No I did not see that. I don't like Bill O.
"Now ask those same factory workers if they would prefer the current system or one where they can organize for greater benefits and standards of living. If it was good enough for us, after all, it is good enough for them."
And ask them if when they do that, the company will just move to someplace where they don't have to deal with unions and thus they would lose their jobs. Union are a very bad Marxist idea. They are causing every company that uses them to go broke and the unions and their leaders are always corrupt. They are not needed.
"The rich get richer because they continue to do what made them rich... ditto the poor."
Nutshell."
Not really. If you pick rice in a paddy and make $40.00 a month and that is what it takes to feed your family, then compare that to a person who makes $120,000.00 a year and is able to invest $20,000.00 of that money per year your logic is flawed at best.
The idea that all peasants deserve their squalor seems to be a rather popular one these days.
"The free market decides who gets what--not the government. We have a very mobile society. If a peasant does not want to be a peasant, he or she is free to choose a higher lifestyle."
Shh, there are socialists about.
Yes, there are people who think the government should determine how much people make and if they make too much, the government will tax it away from them and give to others who did not make enough.
Maybe there are no bricklaying jobs in the marshes of India / SE Asia. Your oversimplification of the subject proves nothing.
The story of Robin Hood is one of the most damaging stories bestowed up the western world. It taught our children that the rich are evil and stealing from them is honorable.
The countries without jobs are the countries with failed governments that are not on a free market capitalistic system. There is no over simplification about that. When we provide jobs people like you complain that they are slave wages. Of course, as more jobs come into those countries, the supply of labor goes down and the wages go up. That is how the economics system works.
"if 100% of your effort each week is towards putting food on your table and a roof over your head, it leaves nothing else (time / money) to "invest" in."
Again, if this is the case, then you are working in the wrong job. Go gain the skills to get a job that the market will pay more for and you will earn more and have extra money to invest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.