[quote]orion wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
orion wrote:
Well first, where would that be billion be? There is only one billion left and they do not seem to able to get at least a stable dictatorship going. If they also rose to lower middle class level, more power to them. That would probably cost us another decade of stagnating wages but so what Africans are people too. Incidentally China already is starting to outsource.
Sooner or later it will stop though because we will run out of poor people and than wages will rise again world wide.
Since you’ve asked, here’s a map. Are you quite sure that they all “do not seem to able to get at least a stable dictatorship going.” Seems like quite the over-generalization and a complete misunderstanding of economic history…
At best you are explaining your argument poorly. The only way your logic works is if the total number of workers in the world is increasing at a rate greater than the world GDP. Do you have stats to show this? I’ve never seen it done.
Then, so what if nobody made that happening vis a central plan. That just shows what libertarians have said all along namely that the free market takes care of poor people best. Surely achieving the goals without coercion is even better?
You are not seriously arguing that there is no role for government in pro-poor growth? Or that growth can occur without involving the poor, are you? “Central planning” is as much an extreme and as poor an idea as a free market completely unfettered by government regulation. period.
See, most of them are in Africa.
And they are a backward people.
All 4000 people that there are.[/quote]
“most” + 4000/1billion = sense?
[quote]
Then, you have it backwards. Exactly because world GDP grows faster than population growth wages will eventually rise. [/quote]
But not until wages stabilize across boarders. I’m sure it’ll only be the “statists” who go to war as this occurs.
[quote]And no there is no role for the government in redistribution. The markets distributes to poor people if they work, democratic governments redistribute to their constituencies.
Note that the poorest of the poor do not belong to their constituencies[/quote]
Certainly there is no example in history where some pockets were not “constituencies” of the free market. I couldn’t possibly imagine you could even think of one.
Too true! “development” aid going to keep despots in power…how very developmental, no? Its quite apparent to anyone who has looked that “development” falls a far third on the list of reasons why development dollars are given. 'Couse the damn Scandinavians have their hands (and sometimes even dollars) raised in objection.
I’m not quite sure who you consider “welfare theoreticians” to be, but if you are talking about the World Bank and IMF and you consider them to be either “anti-capitalist” or “anti-globalist” I think you are drinking from a cool-aid similar to the protesters.
