Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Toddsterpatriot]

What other type of genetic modification existed 91 years ago?

You don't know?

I'm shocked.

I am not smart like you. Will you tell me what second type of genetic modification existed 91 years ago?

I am not smart like you.

Finally, something we can agree on.

 

[gnarlylove]

Now will you be so gracious to identify the second type of genetic modification before 1980s?

If you cannot identify it, then why did you say there was two?

Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification.

You're wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now will you be so gracious to identify the second type of genetic modification before 1980s?

If you cannot identify it, then why did you say there was two?

Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification.

You're wrong, wrong, wrong.

Pruned: Atomic Gardens

 

[gnarlylove]

Now will you be so gracious to identify the second type of genetic modification before 1980s?

If you cannot identify it, then why did you say there was two?

Genetic modifications 60 years before 1983 was only of one type: the slow genetic modification.

You're wrong, wrong, wrong.

Pruned: Atomic Gardens

Thank you. So you admit that until radiation genetic modification, around the 1950s, there was only one type of genetic modification: the slow type. Therefore your claim that "in order to be safe you must only eat seeds from before human farming" is false. In order to be safe a person only needs to avoid seeds that are radiated (beginning in the 50s) or bio-engineered seeds (1980s) which come no where near "before human farming."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now will you be so gracious to identify the second type of genetic modification before 1980s?

If you cannot identify it, then why did you say there was two?

Pruned: Atomic Gardens

Thank you. So you admit that until radiation genetic modification, around the 1950s, there was only one type of genetic modification: the slow type. Therefore your claim that "in order to be safe you must only eat seeds from before human farming" is false. In order to be safe a person only needs to avoid seeds that are radiated (beginning in the 50s) or bio-engineered seeds (1980s) which come no where near "before human farming."

So you admit that until radiation genetic modification, around the 1950s

It was used well before the 1950s.

Therefore your claim that "in order to be safe you must only eat seeds from before human farming" is false.

If the idea of human modifications makes you shit your pants, you still need to go back many thousands of years and eat foods like this......

While avoiding foods that look like this.

 

[georgephillip]

According to Stiglitz...

"America has achieved the distinction of becoming the country with the highest level of income inequality among the advanced countries.

"While there is no single number that can depict all aspects of society’s inequality, matters have become worse in every dimension: more money goes to the top (more than a fifth of all income goes to the top 1%), more people are in poverty at the bottom, and the middle class—long the core strength of our society—has seen its income stagnate.

"Median household income, adjusted for inflation, today is lower than it was in 1989, a quarter century ago.[1]

"An economy in which most citizens see no progress, year after year, is an economy that is failing to perform in the way it should.

"Indeed, there is a vicious circle: our high inequality is one of the major contributing factors to our weak economy and our low growth.

"As disturbing as the data on the growing inequality in income are, those that describe the other dimensions of America’s inequality are even worse: inequalities in wealth are even greater than income, and there are marked inequalities in health, reflected in differences, for instance, in life expectancy.

"But perhaps the most invidious aspect of US inequality is the inequality of opportunity.

"America has become the advanced country not only with the highest level of inequality, but is among those with the least equality of opportunity—the statistics show that the American dream is a myth; that the life prospects of a young American are more dependent on the income and education of his parents than in other developed countries.

"We have betrayed one of our most fundamental values.

"And the result is that we are wasting our most valuable resource, our human resources: millions of those at the bottom are not able to live up to their potential.

"This morning, I want to make eight observations concerning this inequality.

"The first is that this inequality is largely a result of policies—of what we do and don’t do.

"The laws of economics are universal: the fact that in some countries there is so much less inequality and so much more equality of opportunity, the fact that in some countries inequality is not increasing—it is actually decreasing—is not because they have different laws of economics."

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/22865-why-inequality-matters-and-what-can-be-done-about-it

 

[gnarlylove]

The problem Todders is you prefer to say things that your opponent has not. For example, you said I am "a self-proclaimed intellectual" which I have never proclaimed. Furthermore, you have continued to imply that I probably think GMO is bad when I've said the opposite.

The point is you are very eager to insert claims your opponents have not made (i.e. lying). In order to have fruitful dialogue you must stop making up lies about opponent's claims. In order to have fruitful dialogue you must begin reading at a 10th grade level where people assess what's actually written instead of making up lies that support your eagerness to get what you want (presumably validation).

Since you will not stop making up claims that were never said and probably cannot even tell when you are, please do not reply to my posts until you can learn these very basic debate skills and edicate. It will take you lots of practice before you can read a post and assess it for what's actually said instead of your imaginative addendum of lies. But keep at it and you will surely be able to read what's written without making up stuff. Then you will see what I'm saying. Until you try, you will never know.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The problem Todders is you prefer to say things that your opponent has not. For example, you said I am "a self-proclaimed intellectual" which I have never proclaimed. Furthermore, you have continued to imply that I probably think GMO is bad when I've said the opposite.

The point is you are very eager to insert claims your opponents have not made (i.e. lying). In order to have fruitful dialogue you must stop making up lies about opponent's claims. In order to have fruitful dialogue you must begin reading at a 10th grade level where people assess what's actually written instead of making up lies that support your eagerness to get what you want (presumably validation).

Since you will not stop making up claims that were never said and probably cannot even tell when you are, please do not reply to my posts until you can learn these very basic debate skills and edicate. It will take you lots of practice before you can read a post and assess it for what's actually said instead of your imaginative addendum of lies. But keep at it and you will surely be able to read what's written without making up stuff. Then you will see what I'm saying. Until you try, you will never know.

Glad to point out your errors.
Glad to educate you, in even the tiniest way.

 

[gnarlylove]

Capitalism Guaranteed Rising Inequality.
America's Class System Across The Life Cycle | Demos
Your parents overwhelmingly likely determine your socio-economic status. This means life in America is determined by the geographic happenstance of your birth, something over which you had no decision.

If that wasn’t enough, rich adults get some extra help, usually mid-life, in the form of inheritance and other wealth transfers from their rich parents. The wealthiest 1 percent (in the SCF survey, which is less wealthy than the real 1 percent no doubt) have inherited an average of $2.7 million, 447 times more than the least wealthy group of adults.


"Class haunts people from womb to grave, limiting their ability to flourish and pursue the good life as they define it. Confronted with the reality of our society’s entrenched class system, our national politics in its present state offers three responses. The first response is to deny reality altogether, usually in favor of an anecdote or two. The second is to accept that it exists, but pretend there is nothing you can do about it because those on the bottom are inferior (see Murray, Ryan). And the last response is to note it exists and offer lukewarm solutions that nibble around the margins of the problem without ever doing anything that might actually even things out."

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism Guaranteed Rising Inequality.
America's Class System Across The Life Cycle | Demos
Your parents overwhelmingly likely determine your socio-economic status. This means life in America is determined by the geographic happenstance of your birth, something over which you had no decision.

If that wasn’t enough, rich adults get some extra help, usually mid-life, in the form of inheritance and other wealth transfers from their rich parents. The wealthiest 1 percent (in the SCF survey, which is less wealthy than the real 1 percent no doubt) have inherited an average of $2.7 million, 447 times more than the least wealthy group of adults.


"Class haunts people from womb to grave, limiting their ability to flourish and pursue the good life as they define it. Confronted with the reality of our society’s entrenched class system, our national politics in its present state offers three responses. The first response is to deny reality altogether, usually in favor of an anecdote or two. The second is to accept that it exists, but pretend there is nothing you can do about it because those on the bottom are inferior (see Murray, Ryan). And the last response is to note it exists and offer lukewarm solutions that nibble around the margins of the problem without ever doing anything that might actually even things out."

"Fifty-four percent of rich kids get a four-year degree by age 25, six times the percentage of poor kids who do so."

America's Class System Across The Life Cycle | Demos

Obviously, that American Dream has turned into a nightmare for some.

 

[Andylusion]

Capitalism Guaranteed Rising Inequality.
America's Class System Across The Life Cycle | Demos
Your parents overwhelmingly likely determine your socio-economic status. This means life in America is determined by the geographic happenstance of your birth, something over which you had no decision.

True and irrelevant. Parents pass on to their kids, work ethic, moral values, and of course genetic disposition to do various work.

Alex Spanos, whose father was a Greek immigrant, wrote a book "Sharing the Wealth", in it he talks about how his father taught all of his kids to work harder than anyone else. They were driven to be successful in whatever they do. One ended up a doctor. The other a lawyer, and Alex himself became a multi-millionaire business owner.

And of course their kids were taught the same basic values, and most of them are massively successful.

Equally, if you live off welfare all your life, and do as little as you possibly can, and your kids learn from you, guess how they'll turn out? Pretty much the same, unless society forces them off the tax payers breasts, and makes them earn a living.

If that wasn’t enough, rich adults get some extra help, usually mid-life, in the form of inheritance and other wealth transfers from their rich parents. The wealthiest 1 percent (in the SCF survey, which is less wealthy than the real 1 percent no doubt) have inherited an average of $2.7 million, 447 times more than the least wealthy group of adults.

It's always interesting how a report can come out, and people on the left focus exclusively on one aspect, and ignore everything else. They put on their ideological blinders, and only see what fits with their socialist narrative.

http://www.bls.gov/ore/pdf/ec110030.pdf

Drop down to page 37. You'll find this table: Value of Wealth Transfer Received as a percent of Net Worth.

Now to recap, the leftist theory is that the reason the wealthy are wealthy, is because they inherited $2.7 Million from their parents, which is 447 times more than the least wealthy group of adults get in inheritance, and because they have this $2.7 Million, they then become successful.

To which my answer is...... bull sh!t.

This Table from the survey shows that the inheritance is only 12% of the total net worth of these people.

In other words.... There is a wealthy guy who has a net worth of $22.5 Million that he EARNED. He then get's an inheritance from his recently dead parents, of a mere $2.7 Million.

The left then ignores the fact he earned the $22.5 Million, point screaming at the $2.7 Million, and mindlessly claim the only reason he was successful was because of the tiny 12% of his net worth that came from the inheritance.

This.... is stupidity.

Also interestingly, the percentage of inherited money to net worth, was oddly higher during the Utopian years of Clinton.

But more importantly, the lower class of people get far more of their net worth from inheritance, than the upper. But of course the left has no problem with that.

The real reason that the sheer amount of inherited money is larger at the top, is for the same reason as I mentioned above. Typically, successful people are successful because their parents passed on ethics, morals, and disposition. Which of course typically means your parents are successful too, and thus have money to pass on.

The welfare queen who has nothing, spawns kids who have nothing. When the welfare mommy dies, she normally has nothing to pass on either.

 

[gnarlylove]

Capitalism Guaranteed Rising Inequality.
America's Class System Across The Life Cycle | Demos
Your parents overwhelmingly likely determine your socio-economic status. This means life in America is determined by the geographic happenstance of your birth, something over which you had no decision.

True and irrelevant.

This is irrelevant to you. That is true. But why do you think the 100s of millions of people this study refers to are irrelevant? It isn't irrelevant for me, many of my friends, my community, and 58% of Americans who will experience poverty for a year at least.

Please explain why millions and millions of human beings are irrelevant. Oh wait, I understand now! Why in the hell would I think about other people when it's all about the self. So I should forgot my community, dismiss my friends, forget the conditions under which the economy operates and just get as much as I can within that framework!. I have to remind myself each morning of the selfish attitude I need to adorn. But why does the self only matter when no business, no individual wealth can exist without a community and connected economy? Your wealth can only exist within an economy. If no one took your currency seriously, that would be the end of your wealth. Wealth can not exist without millions and millions of people, even billions agreeing to its value. So it makes no sense to only think about the self because the self depends on the economy and billions of people within which your transactions can exist. Without an economy, you' have no place to make your transactions.

 

[Andylusion]

Capitalism Guaranteed Rising Inequality.
America's Class System Across The Life Cycle | Demos
Your parents overwhelmingly likely determine your socio-economic status. This means life in America is determined by the geographic happenstance of your birth, something over which you had no decision.

True and irrelevant.

This is irrelevant to you. That is true. But why do you think the 100s of millions of people this study refers to are irrelevant?

Please explain why millions and millions of human beings are irrelevant. Oh wait, I understand now! Why in the hell would I think about other people when it's all about the self.

I said the fact that children of wealthy parents tend to end up wealthy too, is irrelevant. Not that the people who are not wealthy are somehow irrelevant.

Only a brainless scum sucking idiot, would be so moronically stupid to come to that conclusion.

Nothing else you said makes any difference to my point... which only goes to show the absolute stupidity the people on the left spew. Can't make a real counter point, so instead make up strawman arguments to obscure the fact you couldn't argue that water was wet, without being a grade A asshole.

But then... all of you leftists are the same. You have to be. No one can look at reality as it is, and still be a leftist. That's why you have no choice but to make up complete and total crap, put words in others people's mouths they didn't say, and others wise be a moron in order to keep with your idiotic ideology.

If you were not this dumb, you wouldn't be a leftist.

 

[gnarlylove]

So when you demanded I be more polite some time ago that was not a concern for quality debate--clearly you are not concerned for being polite in return. It doesn't matter and I do not care. My concern is why do you praise capitalism when you clearly reject it's central theme: profit-maximization, rational people making rational choices, cost/benefit etc.? Or do you actually accept the standard premise of rational self-interest, "looking out for #1"?

 

[georgephillip]

If you support government giving money to companies that failed, that's socializing the loss.

All socialism supporters say that others are doing it wrong. Because all socialism fails, that's all that those who support it can say.

When China's socialism resulted in 63% of the population living below the poverty line of $2 a day, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Soviet socialism resulted in mass starvation, and cannibalism being a common problem, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Cuba's socialism resulted in people keeping rusted out 1950s cars on the road for 50 years, and people unable to buy aspirin, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Venezuela's socialism has resulted in country wide power outages, and food shortages, and lack of toilet paper, apparently they were doing it wrong.
When Obama pushes more control, more bailouts, more government regulation, and drags out a sluggish economy for more than 5 years, apparently he's doing it wrong.

That's all socialist supporters ever say is "well he's not doing it right, because it would work if it was right", and yet there is no workers paradise, there is no socialist utopia. ...and here we are again, with someone pushing socialistic policies, and yet another claim "well he's not doing it right".

Whatever. No one can show it done right, so how the heck would you know if he's doing it wrong?

Socialism done right in the richest country in history would not leave one in four US children living in poverty. Socialism would not allow its richest 1% of citizens to amass 22% of national income or its richest 0.1% to take home 11% of national income. Had Socialism been done right over the last 45 years, average US workers would NOT earn less today than they did in 1969, and American men without a college degree would NOT earn almost 40% less than they did four decades ago.

Much of your confusion stems from an inability to distinguish between socialism and finance capitalism.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

You don't seem to understand that Wealth is dynamic. It's not static.
Wealth is always 100% of the time, in a state of transition.

Socialism done in the richest country in the world, would result in it no longer being the richest country in the world.

And 1 in 4 Americans are not living in poverty. Even if that were true, is that better than China which had 2 out of every 3 Chinese in poverty?

And just compare what was considered poverty in China, to poverty in the US. Chinese poverty was $2 a day. Poverty in the US is $12,000 year?

Do you think Chinese poverty compares to US poverty? I'll take Capitalist poverty over Socialist poverty any day.

Again you keep making claims about what would have happened if Socialism had been done right.... yet apparently there is no example of it being done right. You don't see workers in Cuba earning more than average workers in Cuba back in the 1960s. In fact, they are so much better off, they were willing to risk DYING trying to come here.

You certainly don't see that Venezuelan workers are better off today, than back in the 1980s, when they had the leading economy in all of Latin American.

You certainly don't see that North Koreans are better off today, than back in the 1960s, and they are willing to sell everything they own to get to that evil South Korean Capitalist system.

So all your claims about what America would be like under "socialism done right", is just hot air, just bluster and crap spewing. There is no example of Socialism that didn't result in decline and impoverishment. Not in the past, nor in the present. So what you are basing your empty claims on, is beyond me.

For the benefit of all the shit-for-brains, home-schooled, right-wing bed wetters, here's an example of socialism done wrong that's simple enough for their pygmy powers of comprehension to grasp: when three people have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries and 2% of the global population own 51% of global assets, you're looking a socialism for the rich and table scraps for the rest.

 

[Andylusion]

So when you demanded I be more polite some time ago that was not a concern for quality debate--clearly you are not concerned for being polite in return. It doesn't matter and I do not care.

You deliberately made up statements I didn't say. You completely ignored all the other information I provided, and the points that I made. You totally and intentionally refused to talk about the topic of discussion, made blanket accusation, and red herrings as a substitution for intelligent conversation.

I did to you, what you did to me, while calling you out for the childish stupidity of your post.

Here's a hint child.... if you want to be treated like a grown up, if you want people to give your statements respect as intelligent discussion..... you have to actually be a grown up, and debate intelligently.

When you choose to be a pathetic baby, and choose to engage in Middle School level debate, I will turn it around, and throw it back in your face every single time.

Want to be treated like a grown up, you have to be a grown up. Otherwise, I'll smack you around until either you prove yourself too stupid to talk to and I'll put you on my ignore list, or you grow up, and we continue with a mature discussion. Your choice. I'm good either way.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[Andylusion]

Socialism done right in the richest country in history would not leave one in four US children living in poverty. Socialism would not allow its richest 1% of citizens to amass 22% of national income or its richest 0.1% to take home 11% of national income. Had Socialism been done right over the last 45 years, average US workers would NOT earn less today than they did in 1969, and American men without a college degree would NOT earn almost 40% less than they did four decades ago.

Much of your confusion stems from an inability to distinguish between socialism and finance capitalism.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

You don't seem to understand that Wealth is dynamic. It's not static.
Wealth is always 100% of the time, in a state of transition.

Socialism done in the richest country in the world, would result in it no longer being the richest country in the world.

And 1 in 4 Americans are not living in poverty. Even if that were true, is that better than China which had 2 out of every 3 Chinese in poverty?

And just compare what was considered poverty in China, to poverty in the US. Chinese poverty was $2 a day. Poverty in the US is $12,000 year?

Do you think Chinese poverty compares to US poverty? I'll take Capitalist poverty over Socialist poverty any day.

Again you keep making claims about what would have happened if Socialism had been done right.... yet apparently there is no example of it being done right. You don't see workers in Cuba earning more than average workers in Cuba back in the 1960s. In fact, they are so much better off, they were willing to risk DYING trying to come here.

You certainly don't see that Venezuelan workers are better off today, than back in the 1980s, when they had the leading economy in all of Latin American.

You certainly don't see that North Koreans are better off today, than back in the 1960s, and they are willing to sell everything they own to get to that evil South Korean Capitalist system.

So all your claims about what America would be like under "socialism done right", is just hot air, just bluster and crap spewing. There is no example of Socialism that didn't result in decline and impoverishment. Not in the past, nor in the present. So what you are basing your empty claims on, is beyond me.

when three people have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries and 2% of the global population own 51% of global assets, you're looking a socialism for the rich and table scraps for the rest.

No, sorry. That's simply not true. People own more wealth, because they invest instead of consume.

I pointed this out before, and if you want the links again, I'll post them. A lady in Canada won $10 Million dollars. Four times as much as the $2.7 Million that your link says that the top 1% get from inheritance.

If the reason the rich are rich, is because they got $2.7 Million in inheritance, then this girl with $10 Million should be in the top 0.1% of the 1%. Right?

Instead, she's broke. 8 or 9 years later, she's got no car, works a part time job, and rides the bus.

Again, Steve Jobs had $5 Million, invested it into Pixar, which became a block buster movie producer, and sold it for $5 Billion.

What part of this is hard to grasp? The lady is broke because she consumed her money. Steve Jobs became rich because he invested his money.

Again, Pinball People, verses the Beer Pong People.

Warren Buffet when he was in high school, saved money from a paper route to buy a Pinball Machine, which he placed in a local business where it earned more money.

Most people in high school when I was there, were buying kegs of beer, going to someone's home whose parents were not there, and playing beer pong all night long.

Buffet was investing his money. Other people were consuming their money.

Buffet, and the vast majority of the wealthy, are not wealthy by some magical accident. They are not wealthy because they were super brilliant and smart. They are not wealthy because some politician bestowed the wealth on them.

They are wealthy simply because they invested instead of consumed.

I just got done reading a book, which talked about a project pushed by the World Bank to increase the wealth of poor African people. They encouraged micro-lending, funded by the world bank. The intention was that they simply needed capital to start their own businesses and build the economy. The Africans instead used the money to buy cigarettes and locally made type of beer. Nearly all of them defaulted and the program collasped in the first round of loans.

The reason the rich are rich, and the poor are poor, is because one consumes and one invests.

Are there examples of socialized government created super wealthy? Absolutely. In china prior to 1978, the only wealthy people, were the CEOs of the government companies, who were only appointed to their position by the Communist party, while the poor and impoverished were earning $2 a day.

I agree with you on that. But that is a tiny fraction of the wealthy. 80% of millionaires, earned their wealth. They are first generation rich.

 

[georgephillip]

You don't seem to understand that Wealth is dynamic. It's not static.
Wealth is always 100% of the time, in a state of transition.

Socialism done in the richest country in the world, would result in it no longer being the richest country in the world.

And 1 in 4 Americans are not living in poverty. Even if that were true, is that better than China which had 2 out of every 3 Chinese in poverty?

And just compare what was considered poverty in China, to poverty in the US. Chinese poverty was $2 a day. Poverty in the US is $12,000 year?

Do you think Chinese poverty compares to US poverty? I'll take Capitalist poverty over Socialist poverty any day.

Again you keep making claims about what would have happened if Socialism had been done right.... yet apparently there is no example of it being done right. You don't see workers in Cuba earning more than average workers in Cuba back in the 1960s. In fact, they are so much better off, they were willing to risk DYING trying to come here.

You certainly don't see that Venezuelan workers are better off today, than back in the 1980s, when they had the leading economy in all of Latin American.

You certainly don't see that North Koreans are better off today, than back in the 1960s, and they are willing to sell everything they own to get to that evil South Korean Capitalist system.

So all your claims about what America would be like under "socialism done right", is just hot air, just bluster and crap spewing. There is no example of Socialism that didn't result in decline and impoverishment. Not in the past, nor in the present. So what you are basing your empty claims on, is beyond me.

when three people have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries and 2% of the global population own 51% of global assets, you're looking a socialism for the rich and table scraps for the rest.

No, sorry. That's simply not true. People own more wealth, because they invest instead of consume.

I pointed this out before, and if you want the links again, I'll post them. A lady in Canada won $10 Million dollars. Four times as much as the $2.7 Million that your link says that the top 1% get from inheritance.

If the reason the rich are rich, is because they got $2.7 Million in inheritance, then this girl with $10 Million should be in the top 0.1% of the 1%. Right?

Instead, she's broke. 8 or 9 years later, she's got no car, works a part time job, and rides the bus.

Again, Steve Jobs had $5 Million, invested it into Pixar, which became a block buster movie producer, and sold it for $5 Billion.

What part of this is hard to grasp? The lady is broke because she consumed her money. Steve Jobs became rich because he invested his money.

Again, Pinball People, verses the Beer Pong People.

Warren Buffet when he was in high school, saved money from a paper route to buy a Pinball Machine, which he placed in a local business where it earned more money.

Most people in high school when I was there, were buying kegs of beer, going to someone's home whose parents were not there, and playing beer pong all night long.

Buffet was investing his money. Other people were consuming their money.

Buffet, and the vast majority of the wealthy, are not wealthy by some magical accident. They are not wealthy because they were super brilliant and smart. They are not wealthy because some politician bestowed the wealth on them.

They are wealthy simply because they invested instead of consumed.

I just got done reading a book, which talked about a project pushed by the World Bank to increase the wealth of poor African people. They encouraged micro-lending, funded by the world bank. The intention was that they simply needed capital to start their own businesses and build the economy. The Africans instead used the money to buy cigarettes and locally made type of beer. Nearly all of them defaulted and the program collasped in the first round of loans.

The reason the rich are rich, and the poor are poor, is because one consumes and one invests.

Are there examples of socialized government created super wealthy? Absolutely. In china prior to 1978, the only wealthy people, were the CEOs of the government companies, who were only appointed to their position by the Communist party, while the poor and impoverished were earning $2 a day.

I agree with you on that. But that is a tiny fraction of the wealthy. 80% of millionaires, earned their wealth. They are first generation rich.

Who wrote that book on Africa?

"Since the inception of the Microfinance Program in 1999, THP has grown the loan portfolio to approximately US$2.9 million across Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Senegal and Uganda. By the end of 2011, 45,000 partners had saved a total of US$1.6 million! Perhaps most importantly, 28 Rural Banks have graduated to operate as their own independent, community-owned and women-led rural financial institutions."

The World Bank is one of the key institutions for transferring wealth from poor to rich countries so it's hardly surprising when one of their "microfinance" projects fails.

Do you have a link for your 80% of millionaires claim?

Microfinance Program in Africa | The Hunger Project

 

[gnarlylove]

Androw, do you pursue rational self-interest or do you reject capitalism? Capitalism is everyone pursuing their self-interest and it works out for everyone in the end. Do you accept this premise or do you reject it?