Originally posted by: Shivetya
comparing different regions of the world is non sense in this regard.
simply put wealth in one part of the world is not remotely the same as others.
It is simply sensationalism, it looks good but anyone who thinks sees right through these storeis.
Look, wealth is party the result of productivity, the nations with the greatest wealth also have the greatest productivity per man hour. Can you encourage productivity in other areas if you just GIVE them the results without the work ? no you cannot.
A recent report in Europe pointed out that the poor in Mississippi enjoy larger homes, more "luxury items", and similar than many european countries middle class!!!! Where's the justice? See its all relative.
Plus if you read the details you notice how they had to extrapolate? These is a buzzword for "fudging the figures" ... in other words you extrapolate, manipulate, to get a desired result.
Redistribution never works, it marginalizes those who receive it and aggravates those who it is taken from.
Also, many who complain about the "disparity" always throw out the extreme examples to make their point so to discourage comparison. (ie, Paris)
Recently Hollywood is out to bash Starbucks. Apparently Starbucks is taking advantage of the poor Ethiopian farmers for coffee beans. No mention is giving that the money spent by Starbucks is more than double the incomes they would receive otherwise or that there is much done by the locals in order to be a provider to Starbucks.
Take it to our side of the ocean. Wal-mart, the big boogey man. Did you know a Democrat was recently railing against them and having a book signing at a nearby Barnes and Noble talking about how bad Wal-Mart pays its employees? Guess what, their wages at Wal-Mart for just starting out where 10-15% more than Barnes and Noble employees and their benefits better.
Wealth is there for the taking. The US wasn't always wealthy but the politics of the time and the ethich were there to make this country great. We should not be guilty of it any more than other countries have been of their gains.
Finally, most wealth starved countries are because of local politics. Are we saying its okay to intefere then? Are we?
Sorry, but you have no clue. And the reason for this is you never saw the places you are talking about and analyzed the effect of globalization on local communities abroad.
There are wonderful examples of corporations from Europe or the US starting operations in emerging countries with mutually beneficial effects. In some cases this triggered an effective emergence of the country from third world to a developing one. Great stuff.
But there are so many cases of corporations whose operations abroad destroy communities, kill people, disrupt democratization processes, destroy the local culture and interfere with the socio economic development of the country.
Look at major oil producing countries in Africa for good examples. Or commodities producing countries in South America and Africa. American, British and French oil companies consistently encouraged civil wars in Africa for the last 50 years, and let's not even start with the diamonds business in Botswana and Namibia.
You blame this to local politics. But who's financing all these dictators? And why?
You have more examples and case studies than you could possibly ask for.... start from here:
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/80483a.htm
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/120986a.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobutu_Sese_Seko
So a cruel kleptocratic tyrant who caused famine, killed thousands, and destroyed the economy of one of the richest countries in the world in terms of natural resources was called " a faithful friend of the United States" and "a voice of good sense and good will" by the president of the US. Why? Have a look at what companies had interest in operating Congo's tremendous mining operations.
Then do the same with Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire, Angola, Sierra Leone and you'll see the pattern. Big transnational corporations leveraging international politics to gain access and control to natural resources.
Travel to those places, see what Chevron. Total, Exxon or BP operations have done to local communities in Angola or Nigeria. Have a look at what De Beers is doing in Botswana:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4480883.stm
Multinational corporations are making HUGE profits on resources they steal from the poorest among the poor, without giving anything back to the communities they rape. In the process they often encourage coups, finance civil unrest or war, bribe, corrupt and indulge in political engineering.
Who's paying the price? Again the poorest among the poor.
Who paid for Kabila's army?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kabila
Who paid for Charles Taylor's army? And why was his attorney former US attorney General Ramsey Clark?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ghankay_Taylor
Why is ELF financing political campaigns in Chad and Cameroon?
http://www.cetim.ch/en/interventions_details.php?iid=136
And you could go on forever. People just don't care about what's going on in Africa. They might even donate to charities, then the next day buy products of companies whose operations overseas undermine every possible aspect of the every day life of millions and actively force people into war, starvation, unemployment and social unrest.
This thread is looking in the wrong direction. The problem is not Paris Hilton or Warren Buffet having too much money. The problem is corporation not being forced to give back part of their profits to the communities they exploit to make their riches.
Corporate Social Responsibility should not be a Public Relations issue, but an operating model, and consumers should care and actively select products from companies that behave accordingly.
This would be redistribution. You get diamonds from Botswana? Pay a decent salary, build schools, hospitals and other facilities to improve the living standards of the people whose resources you are exploiting.
But obviously they have no incentive to do so, especially since you blame all the problems on the local dictator and not on those guys who gave him an army to seize and maintain power in exchange of exploitation contracts.