Do you really think Bill Gates is the richest man in the world at the expense of a bunch of people living in mud huts in Africa?
That being said, yes, some people can rise to economic power by exploiting others. Pick a poor country at random, and you're likely to see a corrupt dictator who's risen to power and taken full advantage of it.
But does the wealthiest of the wealthy have much, if anything to do with the poorest of the poor? No more so really than you or I.
2006-08-14 14:43:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by a_liberal_economist 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Not in the way that you might think. We are sometimes quick to blame some multinational corporation for "keeping people down", but in reality it is usually the countries corrupt and criminal government.
If you have a plant paying people $8 a day, another company could come in and offer $9 a day, and wages would rise as long as companies were still getting value from their factories.
But if that company has to bribe the local governor $200,000 to do business, along with an additional "personal tax" of 5%, that money can't be paid as wages, or to maintain or improve the factory. That is a downward force on wages.
So "the rich" you are talking about are corrupt government ministers, not CEO's of corporations.
2006-08-16 03:59:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by Polymath 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes, the poor lack sufficient resources. The rich have sufficient resources. The world is a "dominance heirarchy", and those at the top get to eat first, usually taking more than they need. Nearly every social animal works in this way. Taxes and welfare are a human invention, designed to counter this truth, not to help cause it. What do those without wealth have to tax. As for welfare, it does more good than harm, and if it were ever done right, it would only do good.
2006-08-14 21:23:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by double_dip_34 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
=============================================
FROM MY ESSAY LAST YEAR::
Many of the above answer are referring to the Theories of Divergence, and the belief that the economic development of the world’s richest countries stems from the underdevelopment of its poorer countries.
It has been argued in Lummis, cited in Rau 1991: 46-47 that the global capitalist economy we hold dear produces inequality and uneven development dynamically, resulting in the observed global income polarisation, “A big part of the ‘economic development’, i.e. the wealth, of the rich countries is wealth imported from the poor countries. The world economics system generates inequality and it runs on inequality”.
Trudi Renwick, an economist with the Fiscal Policy Institute based in New York, stated that the decline of secondary-sector employment, expansion of low-wage tertiary-sector employment, immigration, globalization, and the weakening of unions, have hindered the economic progress of those on the lower end of the economic ladder .
Evidence:
The gap between the poorest fifth of the world's population and the richest fifth has increased from 30 to 1 in 1960, to 61 to 1 in 1991, and to 78 to 1 in 1994 , substantial to say the very least.
While the share of the poorest one-fifth in terms of global income now stands at 1.1%, down from 1.4% in 1991 and 2.3% in 1960 , again a dramatic blow to the poor through the decades.
------------------------------------------------
One must also consider the Theories of Convergence, or the 'Catch-Up Effect' whereby the less wealthy close the gap by learning from the experiences of the more wealthy. For example, with technology, less economically developed countries 'leapfrog' certain technological advancements like land-line phones and instead move directly to mobile-phones
----------------------------------------------------------------
I hope this is useful to you and worthy of the best answer
,regards
=======================================
2006-08-18 07:25:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by The Social Scientist 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
to me, The rich have the responsibility to take care of the poor.
Since the nature,the resources we have on the earch should be fairly disrubuted among people.
People who born in places where have the most resources and more developed country... doesn't mean they should take it for granted. They are rich just simply because they are born to be lucky.
So, the rich exist because they ignore the poor. They took everything they have to be granted!!!!!
Indeed , they should give a hand and help.. because every human should be treated fair.
2006-08-14 23:16:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Or do the poor exist due to the rich?
2006-08-14 21:16:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by Lil' Dog 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, they exist for themselves alone. If they want to be there for the poor, then it will be dependent on their choice. These rich people may have either worked hard at reaching their present status or, they may have worked hard corrupting people who are lured to their charismatic ways, thus, achieving what they have right now. There are always good and bad ways of getting rich.
2006-08-14 23:11:20
·
answer #7
·
answered by paulina p 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
The rich exist because they were able to rise out of poverty but sadly can also keep others in poverty if the gap between rich and poor is too great.
2006-08-14 21:22:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by Kalin D 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Is there any doubt? The Illuminati have created the perfect system for filtering wealth from the poor, upward to the super rich. They call it a free market economy.
2006-08-14 21:24:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by oceansoflight777 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
No...the poor exist due to the excessive welfare system and taxes stealing their money.
2006-08-14 21:13:47
·
answer #10
·
answered by Eldude 6
·
0⤊
0⤋