<Instead of dreaming of the day that Norteamericanos live Third World lives, why not dream of the day that Latinamericanos live Second World lives?>
Envy is a common trait in humans. Only about half the population could describe how wealth is created even slightly. They would usually just say you get a education, get a job and get some money. They'd also say that the government should give them more money as the best way to be wealthy, but for some strange reason, the government just keeps the money. If you gave people the money pixelation process to control, they'd be pressing the lever continuously. Macroscopic ideas involving abstract concepts would bewilder them.
The envy goes back to our chimpoid roots and tribal, territorial, hunter-gatherer, alpha male dominance hierarchy approach to property, girls and who gets to eat first. When wealthy people are spotted, the emotional reaction is that they need to be attacked, stolen from, taken down and replaced by somebody more fitting of the position, namely me!
Hence the talk of the terrible and increasing gap between the rich and poor. Because the poorest person is always at zero wealth, and there's no upper limit, even the mathematically challenged can see that if the richest 10% manage to create more value, which is what they have to do to get more money, unless they are thieves like Saddam, then the gap will increase while the world is getting better. If wealth isn't stretching up to greater levels, like a stretching elastic band, then the bottom 10% won't be stretching upwards either. If the top 10% goes into decline, the bottom 10% will also go into decline.
Wealth is a continuum, from zero to the top. Only at the very highest levels, say the richest 1000 people on Earth, will gaps from one to the other start to appear in their wealth. $ill Gates is head and shoulders over the next, who is a head over the next, who is a forehead over the next who is only a few $million over the next and so on until person to person there is no gap in wealth [about $1, which isn't a lot].
While the USA's legal system is good, it's a necessary but not sufficient condition for the USA's wealth. There are also other advantages the USA has compared with other countries. English culture is the first and most important, which is the very thing ElM thinks is a disadvantage. English culture includes the idea of the individual bloke and sheila as being not just serfs. Americans have taken that culture, enhanced it and made it almost a religion. Few other places are so strong on the point. NZ, Oz and Canada, are other countries which also have that idea as a strong point but not to the extent of the USA I think. We are too sheep-like.
The USA also has lots of people like $ill Gates, Irwin Jacobs, Andrew Viterbi, MIT, Yale, UCSD, attracts the brightest from around the world and rewards them.
It also has a big economy of scale [as does India but it doesn't offer the other advantages, so goes nowhere fast].
It also has a century of rapid development and capital formation and a culture of innovation, wealth, generosity, property rights, law and a lot more besides. Not to mention the turbocharge from cyberspace, which is only just kicking in.
There is no reversion to the mean as a law of nature. Humans are unbounded. But the USA can easily have a cultural shift and vote itself into poverty, same as India. They are just people. Ignorant people, same as the rest of us. With a small competitive advantage which can be thrown away by a few silly ideas gaining currency.
Meanwhile, I'm backing the USA with my money, via QUALCOMM, which helps too [huge amounts of investment flooding into the USA from around the world, and into USA owned companies in the colonies like NZ and Oz and China].
Mqurice |
