4 ms·

Definitely. Just part of globalization. It helps far more people than it hurts, but for those in developed countries, you don't really see the people it is help

by RyanZAG 10y ago

Definitely. Just part of globalization. It helps far more people than it hurts, but for those in developed countries, you don't really see the people it is helping because they're across the planet. I'd say it's nice for developed countries to help out like that - but we all know the real winners are the businessmen behind your politicians bankrolling this stuff.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
I'd assume you're right. Some evidence would be good to see - strikes me that instead of prosperity shifting to less developed nations it could instead be shifting to the already wealthy capitalists?
- jacobush 10y ago
  Especially since companies externalises environment costs and the poor people in Kerala and Africa etc have to pay.
- RyanZAG 10y ago
  It's shifting to wealthy capitalists in developed countries (well not shifting, they were always wealthy), as well as creating new wealthy capitalists in developing countries. There is some extra wealth for the poor, but you're right that it is an unequal distribution in developing countries. But those aren't "already wealthy capitalists". They're "newly wealthy capitalists". End of the day it's the same thing - a few wealthy capitalists - but it's still more wealth in developing countries than before. I'd argue that there is zero historical precedent for wealth not to be concentrated though. It's just the nature of wealth - wealth creates wealth, debt creates debt. And that's more of a universal truth than a capitalistic one, and more accurately described as 'value creates value', 'obligation creates obligation'.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    Thanks for your input I dispute that wealth concentration to the extent we have now is a universal truth however.
    - RyanZAG 10y ago
      Definitely free to dispute! It's just my personal view. I get this view because I have never come across any situation throughout history where wealth did not work this way. If you sell fish, and do really well at selling fish, you'll acquire wealth. That wealth will let you build bigger boats than someone without wealth. Same seems to apply to everything. Even little apps on the app store. If you make a successful app, you get a large following of users. This will give you a springboard of users when launching your next app, and having all those users on your old app gives you valuable data on how to build the next one. Do you see where I'm coming from about the nature of wealth?

by RyanZAG 10y ago

pbhjpbhj 10y ago

I'd assume you're right. Some evidence would be good to see - strikes me that instead of prosperity shifting to less developed nations it could instead be shifting to the already wealthy capitalists?

jacobush 10y ago
Especially since companies externalises environment costs and the poor people in Kerala and Africa etc have to pay.
RyanZAG 10y ago
It's shifting to wealthy capitalists in developed countries (well not shifting, they were always wealthy), as well as creating new wealthy capitalists in developing countries. There is some extra wealth for the poor, but you're right that it is an unequal distribution in developing countries. But those aren't "already wealthy capitalists". They're "newly wealthy capitalists". End of the day it's the same thing - a few wealthy capitalists - but it's still more wealth in developing countries than before. I'd argue that there is zero historical precedent for wealth not to be concentrated though. It's just the nature of wealth - wealth creates wealth, debt creates debt. And that's more of a universal truth than a capitalistic one, and more accurately described as 'value creates value', 'obligation creates obligation'.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  Thanks for your input I dispute that wealth concentration to the extent we have now is a universal truth however.
  - RyanZAG 10y ago
    Definitely free to dispute! It's just my personal view. I get this view because I have never come across any situation throughout history where wealth did not work this way. If you sell fish, and do really well at selling fish, you'll acquire wealth. That wealth will let you build bigger boats than someone without wealth. Same seems to apply to everything. Even little apps on the app store. If you make a successful app, you get a large following of users. This will give you a springboard of users when launching your next app, and having all those users on your old app gives you valuable data on how to build the next one. Do you see where I'm coming from about the nature of wealth?