There are two aspects of this thread (and its debate in the nattersphere at large) that puzzle me:
That liberals seem to object to it; and
That conservatives seem to delight in it.
The reasoning, as best as I can figure, goes something like this:
Certain conservatives seem to think, “Oh yeah? Blame me for being rich, will you? Fine, I’ll blame YOU for being rich, howdoyalikethat, punks?”
Certain liberals, seeing themselves attacked by this idiotic attack, say, “Nuh uh! Nuh uh! No linkages!”
The way I see it, step 2 ought to go something like this:
2) Liberals, seeing themselves attacked by this idiotic attack, say, “You’re absolutely right. The problems with income and political inequality in the US mirror those in the international community. Glad that you conservatives are seeing the light! Let’s fix our problems at home, and then we’ll be better equipped to be Reagan’s Shining City on the Hill, acting as a beacon for the rest of the world to see how to fix problems with inequality.”
So yeah, OMG. You’re right. I earn a shitload more money than virtually anyone in the third world. And that’s a problem.
But just as the solution to the inequality in the US isn’t some not-gonna-happen Francis-of-Assisi spirit striking all millionaires that leads to their prancing naked out of their mansions, that’s not the solution to global wealth inequality either. The solution involves changing our social institutions so that wealth and political power can’t get so obscenely concentrated in the hands of the few.
So you believe there should be some mechanism where wealth is evened out on a world-wide basis? How do you propose that be accomplished? What do you think the effects of doing that would be?
What does “evened out” mean? There’s currently a mechanism where wealth is apportioned unevenly; this whole private property thing is a social invention, not some natural state of the universe, so there’s no particular reason why we shouldn’t fiddle with it.
Does the $34000 a year figure take into account purchasing power parity? No. Therefore the figure is completely meaningless. Since you don’t have the proper mathematical education, it’s obvious that you are intellectually unable to discern when bullshit figures are being fed to you. In fact, have you even lived outside the US ever?
Did you post this on your Facebook and get a load of likes, enough to make you start a thread?
Earning $34k would be a barely decent wage in the UK - nothing to boast about, like you’re doing. Just like a man being 6’ tall would be ordinary in Holland. They’re talking about the US, and you know it.
America has about 300 million people, the world has about 7000 million people. I think you’ll find one percent of 7000 million to be rather less than the majority of the American population, even forgetting 1%ers from Europe, Japan, third world kleoptocracies and so on.
Not really. When we have a world government, it might make sense. But we don’t.
The poorest of the poor around the world are thus because of corruption and tyranny in the countries they reside. Witness: Somalia and North Korea. We are not responsible for how those countries are run. Unless you want to advocate invasion…?
If it makes anyone feel better, money has a fairly weak correlation with overall happiness above a certain point, so some citizens of poorer countries are just as happy (if not more) than their US counterparts. Also their dollar tends to go further due to purchasing parity & good personal habits
Then we must need to change our social institutions so that wealth and power aren’t so obscenely concentrated in your hands.
Why does the Third World have to wait to have its much worse problem addressed, while your much milder problem is addressed? That’s like claiming people starving to death in Somalia need to wait until we address the problem of obesity in America.