Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Currencies and the Global Capital Markets -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Douglas who wrote (1080)	12/2/1998 4:21:00 PM
From: Chip McVickar	Respond to of 3536

-Robert and Paul, The article certainly shows its' weakness in supporting the claim that "wealth distribution" is a root cause of the worlds hunger problems. I was using it as an example of data use...as well as implying that the human condition is more complex and differentiated with varied perspectives. The article is 'in and of itself' not a very complete presentation and I doubt it was intended to do anything other then catch peoples attention. "Wealth Distribution" 'in and of itself' is not the root cause... What those with the wealth do with the wealth....is >>? You can make an argument that it's not in the holders-of-wealth best interests to reverse this pattern as in North Korea....Also, I do not follow your reasoning that an even greater gap between the rich and poor will result in improved distribution.....and that this will improve the conditions of world populations. This whole subject of the worlds wealth vs poverty is surrounded by an almost impenitable barrier of subjective 'nonesense' as well as the lack of concern. It is an area that economists have shelved and it lives on the fringes of national economic debates. Amartya Sen's work has had to overcome a great deal of caustic silence by demonstarting through nearly flawless academic studies that this area is indeed important to the continued health of a modern society. Sen's work has brought attention to a wider perspective of economic responsibility. It is my contention that the archtype of the very successful Industrial Society [with all its variations]....the farthest extension now is the "Capitalistic Free Market System" will have to evolve into a form that uses Sen's work [and other works of similar views] as a necessary part of any future economic system. But this is bordering on the subjective dribble that irritates the discussions by future looking economic thinkers. My mention in mentioning Arnold Toynbee was in hope of adding some credence to the "thought that societies do evolve and ours will undoubtably be much different as the 2100 comes around. Isn't it much easier to chat about GDP and interest rates...? Please excuse the lack of spell check, but I am late and must move on. Chip