I WILL preview my posts, I WILL preview my posts, I WILL preview my posts…
Without going into the depths of statistical generalization, the word “most” in your claim describes the scope of your assertion; that assertion is (to my knowledge) true, and you have not inferred a general notion or preposition from particular (limited or inadequate) cases–I hope. On the other hand, if you were basing your assertion on the particular example of two or three Japanese persons you know who like sushi you would be correct in saying your statement is a generalization, because you would be ascribing to “most” Japanese persons a trait you observed in two or three only. I assumed that you looked at the level of sushi consumption in Japan and the nation’s enthusiasm for sushi when you made your statement, which is how I would go about doing it. Saying that most Italians like pasta is likewise not a generalization, because I am not basing my assessment on a narrow sample of Italians. If that’s how you go about making such statements, I think I was actually giving you credit on this issue by correcting you, even if my correction was wrong!
It is, as mentioned above, an issue of the facts. I explained why “most Japanese people like Sushi” would not be a pitfall, but it seems to me that it is incorrect to claim without evidence that most non-wealthy people in third world countries who become wealthy do so through means other than hard work.
I would welcome support for that statement, because I just don’t know the precise facts here. It seems to me that developing countries vary greatly among each other, and I am not sure that “most” developing countries have governments that are repressive with their own populations (although that is certainly a popular generalization on this board). This may be an issue of my ignorance and it may be really common knowledge to everyone else, but in that case show me why I am wrong.
You claim that most of the rich in poor countries were born into wealth, and I am reminded of Kimstu’s cite that most penta-millionaires inherited money to begin with. My point, again, is that it takes hard work to turn money into more money. It is never easy to get rich, whether you are in a wealthy or a poor country (dotcom fever notwithstanding, since very few of those people actually got rich). To get rich from scratch, I agree, sounds easier in a developed country rather than a poor one for the simple reason that there is more free-floating capital available (in the forms of disposable income, etc.). On the other hand, it seems entrepreneurs may have more opportunities to manouver in the somewhat laxer laws (another generalization, I realize) of a developing country than in a rich one. I say “seems” in both cases because I don’t have the information, so I won’t draw a hasty conclusion.
Absolutely, the infrastructure is required to give everyone adequate opportunities, such as good education, health care, welfare, etc. That’s a compassionate system and I can’t find anything wrong with it on principle. If the infrastructure is not able to deliver these opportunites, then that is an argument for wealth redistribution, based on the good of the many must outweigh the good of the few and all that. But right there is the point I brought up earlier, and which keeps getting muddied: the good of the many must outweigh the good of the few. It seems that even in this aphorism the “few” are left, in principle, a little bit high and dry.
You mentioned it, you described it, OK, I made a joke about it, but I still don’t see how rich people fleeing to tax havens is narcissism. Narcissism is a psychological term for excessive or erotic interest in oneself (as in one’s physical features). People escape from the taxman because of selfishness, greed, a sense of betrayal by the state even, but not because they are narcissists.
I was always taught that narcissism was like having a big ego. How does fleeing from high taxes make you have a big ego? It just makes you greedy.