World Conditions Continue to Improve

by zarco 58 Replies latest jw friends

  • JAFO

    zarco wrote:

    About 200 years ago everyone on the planet lived on the modern day equivalent of about $400 a year.

    While today something like two-thirds of the global population live on only a dollar or two a day and around 480 million to 1.5 billion earn between 10 and 20 dollars daily. Given the obscene amounts of money the upper echelons of 1st world countries have, and the fact that wealth still does not "trickle down" but continues to accumulate to the top 1% of society, to the detriment of the poor, I'd say it's a little too early to crow about world conditions improving.

  • zarco

    Interesting comments. Time and time again the bet against humans and our ability to solve problems whether they be economic, health, food or population growth issues is a bad bet. The human mind and the vast under-utilized resources of the earth will continue to facilitate continued improvements in all aspects of human life. There will always be costs and benefits associated with each change/improvement. Interestingly most forecasters focus on the costs rather than the benefits with the main premise being that more people have to share the pie, whereas a more realistic forecast is probably how big will the pie be.

    Jafco - living conditions are improving worldwide. Two and three hundred years ago, western societies had child labor, lived hand to mouth and had high mortality rates - just as third world countries do today. But just a surely as the massive innovation and critical mass pulled today's wealthy societies out of poverty, it will do the same for third world countries in the future. Think back two or three hundred years ago to life in the US or Europe and compare it to life today and look forward two or three hundred years and see what is most surely to happen to third world countries.

    Villabolo - I enjoyed your comments. It is easy to project the costs of population growth, it is more difficult to project the benefits. Every forecaster that I know of has always under-estimated the benefits. And when the population growth happens it is the benefits that are vastly superior to the costs.


  • Farkel

    bizzy said,

    ::to support the capitalist ponzi scheme that has brought the global economy to its knees

    I said,

    : You're sounding like a die-hard radical Marxist, by the way

    bizzy said,

    :save your ill-informed "socialist, marxist, fascist, hippy" labels for someone who doesn't have access to a dictionary. Your labels say more about you than about me.

    wiki says:

    "Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction."

    So, no matter how you wish to deny it, your first statement which I referred to Marxism is exactly what Marx said.


  • Justitia Themis
    Justitia Themis

    Justitia, I believe that these figures are extremly simplistic.

    Upon what basis do you believe? Before making your assertion, did you read the report to ascertain the variables used?

    Farkel...your response to Villabollo is directly on point.

    You are trying to nullify a hypothesis with another hypothesis.


  • BizzyBee

    "Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction."

    So, no matter how you wish to deny it, your first statement which I referred to Marxism is exactly what Marx said.

    During the past decade we have seen.........
    2/3 of all economic growth has gone to the top 1% of income earners. Meanwhile the middle class has suffered a $13 trillion writedown in wealth as a result of the housing collapse. The banking bailout and the health care "reform" debate showed as never before the extent to which corporations have captured government and use it to redirect national wealth to themselves and their owners. The Neo-Feudalization of the American economy. The top 1% of wealth holders own 41% of all the assets in the country while the bottom 40% own absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, workers are saddled with $12 trillion of national debt, an effective indentured servitude that will bind them to their corporate masters for the rest of their lives. This is the working definition of feudalism, where the rich own everything and everybody else has nothing but their proffered labor and their obligations to their masters. The Hapsburgs, the Tudors, and the Bourbons would be jealous. The failure of "the free market" to sustain prosperity. The "free market" has long been an ideological dodge used to resist real government regulation of the economy. Still, the ideal was supposed to deliver prosperity in a stable, sustainable matter. Now we have the greatest global economic collapse since the Great Depression, with the government transferring $11 trillion to the banks to cover their sociopathically greedy bets that went bust. All in the name of deregulation, with future regulation vigorously resisted.

    BTW, if capitalism continues to fail, will that make us all Marxists?
  • moshe

    Realistically, the planet would be better off with only 1/2 the current human population and rapidly declining resoursces will reach a tipping point in another generation. Just watch what happened to the survivors of Katrina after just a few days of deprivation and you will get an idea of what is in store for society. I wish our governments would be proactive, but capitalism is mainly concerned with just today, not tomorrow.

  • sammielee24

    Bizzy... ....The latest figures out for the last 10 years....(the article was too long so I clipped it off)...By the way, Bangladesh is starting a one child voluntary policy of sorts..........sammieswife.

    Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers


    Percent change in total non-farm payroll employment

    TOOLBOX Resize Print E-mail Yahoo! Buzz COMMENT 520 Comments | View All » POST A COMMENT
    You must be logged in to leave a comment.Log in | Register Why Do I Have to Log In Again?

    </form> Discussion Policy WHO'S BLOGGING » Links to this article
    By Neil Irwin Washington Post Staff Writer
    Saturday, January 2, 2010

    For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.

    The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.

    It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism -- there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable.

    There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.

    Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s.

    And the net worth of American households -- the value of their houses, retirement funds and other assets minus debts -- has also declined when adjusted for inflation, compared with sharp gains in every previous decade since data were initially collected in the 1950s.

    "This was the first business cycle where a working-age household ended up worse at the end of it than the beginning, and this in spite of substantial growth in productivity, which should have been able to improve everyone's well-being," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.

    Question of timing

    The miserable economic track record is, in part, a quirk of timing. The 1990s ended near the top of a stock market and investment bubble. Three months after champagne corks popped to celebrate the dawn of the year 2000, the market turned south, a recession soon following. The decade finished near the trough of a severe recession.

    But beyond these dramatic ups and downs lies an even more sobering reality: long-term economic stagnation. The trillions of dollars that poured into housing investment and consumer spending in the first part of the decade distorted economic activity.

    Capital was funneled to build mini-mansions in Sun Belt suburbs, many of which now sit empty, rather than toward industrial machines or other business investment that might generate economic output and jobs for years to come.

  • What-A-Coincidence

    so much dribble on this thread ... please limit ur posts dribble to 2 lnes or less ... no one reads more than that anyway

  • mrsjones5

    Sorry didn't get to your third line

  • villabolo

    Farkel said regarding Bizzy Bee:

    "Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would inevitably produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction."

    "You're sounding like a die-hard radical Marxist, by the way"

    Just because Bizzy said something that Marx also said doesn't make her Marxist. That is the same (il)logic as saying that Hitler believed that the Earth was round like a ball therefore everyone who believes the same must be a Nazi.


Share this