How come when this statement is discussed it is always exclusive to western and NON-communist countries (you often see lists of countries next to it). There are Rich people living in Russia and many of the former Soviet countries. I'll bet there are rich people living in Cuba, Libya, Cambodia, Laos, North Korea-many of the African dictaorship counties. Many Latin American countries (even the poorest) have wealthy people living in them. Wealth is based on dynamics of economy
Economics - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
You make a good point. In many countries, the vast majority of that country's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few very wealthy groups or individuals. Communist countries as well as those known for having corrupt governments are most infamous for this wealth disparity, as in these places money is funnelled into those people's pockets in the form of taxes, bribes, etc. You will sometimes hear these regimes referred to as "kleptocracies," because the rob the wealth of their people. In western capitalist countries, wealth is indeed based more on the dynamics of that country's economy. That is not to say that we should not try to alleviate poverty, etc. But it is certainly a lot better in the United States than in North Korea, where the majority of the population cannot even eat while Kim Jong Il enjoys a life of luxury.
2 :
It usually represents the economies of the west but your point of there being rich in communist countries is valid and the reason is when you have a dictatorship it is the ones that control the government mostly that get the wealth even in a communist regime
3 :
I am a wealthy American. I was not born that way, but got a good education: was innovative and productive and took calculated risk! . I lived below my means and invested any surplus that I had after giving 10% to the Lord's work and also directly to the poor. I happen to be born in a wealthy country that rewards savvy,initiative, and hard work. I don't brag nor apologize for my status in latter life. I could have blown it all each week and ended up carping about how I was "mistreated".
4 :
The reason is because when people talk about this they exclude government. Thus they get the results they want. In a communist country the leader has very little money the government has everything. The leader gets finer food, whores, cars, nice houses, and entertainment. People who make the "the wealth of the..." argument ignore this and argue that the governments wealth is the wealth of the people. Which clearly it is not. When you include government the idea that a few private business men have all the money falls apart. A question I have is so what? If the activities that created this wealth created utility for me then why do I care. If we came up with a system that made everyone equal and I ended up worse off why would that be a good thing. People in free societies become wealthy by creating wealth for others. By the way that that stat below left off government wealth and thus is not very meaningful
5 :
Recent news item: 2% of the people on earth own 80% of the wealth. 80% of the wealthiest live in North American or Europe. But the number of super-wealthy in Asia is increasing. There ARE wealthy people in poor countries--they are usually the dictators of those countries. Any more questions?
Read more discussions :
