|
Here’s a news flash, the whole anti-globalization movment is, possibly, a bunch of snobs! It costs MONEY to buy locally grown, organic, hemp fanny packs...and if any ya-hoo can get a neat-o fanny pack from Wal-Mart it makes it harder to be "hip." |
| |
Written By:
Joe
URL:
http://
|
|
Oil price shock means China is at risk of blowing up |
| |
Written By:
Neo
URL:
http://
|
|
Admitting having never taken as much as an Economic 101 class, I still have to ask- Isn’t this purchasing power increase for the poor basically stolen goods from future generations given the enormous negative effect on the trade deficit? |
| |
Written By:
jfw1961
URL:
http://
|
|
You know who really has it good in the inflation sweepstakes. Homeless people. The price of meals out of dumpsters has not risen at all in the last ten years. And they don’t have to worry about gas prices. Why they’re even better off than people who can pay less for low-quality stuff from Walmart. And they’re 6% more better off than those losers in the top 10%. |
| |
Written By:
Retief
URL:
http://
|
You know who comes up with more asinine and irrelevant comments than you do, Retief?
Uh, no one. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
I don’t know, I’m not the one trying to argue that because some people get to buy cheap junk at Walmart they’re really not as unequal as you might think to those who’s shopping includes overpriced designer accessories and employing a gardner and cleaning crew, and an interior decorator and landscape artist.
Sure golbalization provides US consumers with some cheap options, and yes those who are most price sensitive benefit from that. Is that even a drop in the bucket of the increasing inequality of income distribution? It is not.
Developing nations exhibit a system of dual economies. One of prices for necessities within reach of the bulk of the population and another of Land Cruisers, electronica, and other trappings of the material culture of the developed world far out of reach of most people. That is not the model we want the US to move toward. |
| |
Written By:
Retief
URL:
http://
|
I don’t know, I’m not the one trying to argue that because some people get to buy cheap junk at Walmart they’re really not as unequal as you might think to those who’s shopping includes overpriced designer accessories and employing a gardner and cleaning crew, and an interior decorator and landscape artist. Nothing elitist about your opinions is there Retief?
And btw, being able to buy that cotton shirt at a reduced price at Wal-Mart means those with lower income have more money available to buy "the other trappings of the material culure", if they choose too doesn’t it? |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
"Developing nations exhibit a system of dual economies. One of prices for necessities within reach of the bulk of the population and another of Land Cruisers, electronica, and other trappings of the material culture of the developed world far out of reach of most people. That is not the model we want the US to move toward."
Retief, you need to get out more. I thought you lefties all had passports. Take a trip someplace.
"By 1993 China had 230 million TV sets, becoming the nation with the most TV sets in the world. Statistically, every Chinese family now owns a TV set. For color TV sets, in 1978 every 100 urban families had only 0.59 color set. The number increased 100 times during the 1980s, rising to 59.04 sets in every 100 urban families. The estimated viewership in 1994 was about 80% of the population, nearly 900 million."
That data is from 1993. What do you think the numbers are now?
|
| |
Written By:
Harun
URL:
http://
|
Material wellbeing
Urban households possessing (number per household; 2003):
* bicycles: 1.4 * color televisions: 1.3 * washing machines: 0.9 * refrigerators: 0.9 * cameras: 0.5
Rural families possessing (number per household; 2003):
* bicycles: 1.2 * color televisions: 0.7 * washing machines: 0.2 * refrigerators: 0.1 * cameras: 0.02
From Wikipedia. Note the urban/rural split in China is roughly 40/60, so its not as if the urbanites represent some tiny fraction of the population. |
| |
Written By:
Harun
URL:
http://
|
|
I have come to the conclusion that those on the left are concerned about this income inequality thing only because they think the rich have too much. They really do not seem to care very much about the actual condition of the poor and how it can be improved. Instead of cheering when the lot of the poor improves they complain that the lot of the rich has improved more. Envy seems to be their motivation, just as they claim greed is the motivation of anyone on the right. That would explain their consistenly bad economic choices, such as increasing the luxury tax a few years ago. |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
Timactual,
"Envy seems to be their motivation, just as they claim greed is the motivation of anyone on the right."
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
C. S. Lewis |
| |
Written By:
Ernest Brown
URL:
http://
|
Or, as was said about the soviets, that which is not explicitly authorized is forbidden.
To misquote that old chestnut about the Puritans, a liberal is someone who is outraged that someone, somewhere, is making money. |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
|
Harun, China? Please. Sure the manufactury of the world is a developing nation but hardly the only one. I was thinking, to be more explicit, of Africa. |
| |
Written By:
Retief
URL:
http://
|