Thursday, May 27, 1999 4:53 PM Tim Rhodes wrote:
>When people speak negatively of "the rich getting richer" they are not
>saying that the rich shouldn't be wealthier than the poor. It is rather a
>question of degrees--of _how much_ richer is healthy for the body politic.
>As in biology, growth is good and necessary. But, too much or uncontrolled
>growth in only a small group of cells is not. When that happens we call it
>"cancer".
This is all quite interesting. However, I am not entirely sure what you are advocating as a "solution". Do you have a problem with capitalism in general or only some facet(s)? Do you propose that a "free-market" can/should be controlled?
I've never know the poor to get noticably richer by continuing in the manner that they've been moving. I noted the interesting scewing of your statistics: the poor increased their income/wealth at a rate of 5% while the rich increased theirs at a rate of 15%. Although this may well be true, is their something preventing the poor from making the same choices? Do you really believe there are arbitrary factors forcing this "standard"?
Fortunately, capitalism does allow us to make changes in our lives and careers which can move us up the wealth scale. Too the best of my knowledge, it is one of the few social structures in which this occurs on a regular basis. The really rich almost always rich those heights because it is their primary driving objective. Success for the sake of success. We have few people in this group, because few people are so strongly motivated. In a capatalistic society, there are always going to be more in the "poor" group, because this requires no effort at all.
Roni (still unable to grasp why some people think capitalism is so "bad")
P.S. I totally agree with you about "Safeco Stadium". So we have something in common.
P.S.S. I am glad you're "back". I was growing bored.