Is there anyone other than me who suspects that this whole Gleneagles/Live8/Make Poverty History fuss will fizzle out and turn out to have been nothing but an occasion for politicians and rockstars to make some noise?
In my view this is a fallacy born from the confusion between public and private wealth.
It's only a fallacy if one excludes private wealth from 'all the wealth', or if you believe that 'trickle-down' effects will result in sufficient development of skills and infrastructure.
The relationship between public and private wealth (and debt) is interesting (but I'm way too tired at the moment to open that huge can of worms).
bonds were redeemed at the end of their cycle, and paid generous interest
Where did the interest come from? Was the State generating wealth to pay it, or was it collecting more in taxes due to economic growth fuelled by private investment? Or...?
It is when private wealth is insufficient that State provision becomes critical.
Of course, but people in extreme poverty have insufficient wealth by definition, so state provision (or some other means of redistributing wealth internally) is critical for them.
This, I regret to say,
You do? ;)
When I say that the African economy entered the twentieth century in an Iron Age sort of condition, I do not say that it was a desperate condition.
And neither do - or did - I, but whatever the cause(s), both the numbers and proportion of Africans living in extreme poverty (i.e. unable to meet basic needs) rose between 1981 and 2001. That's a lot of people who aren't able to accumulate wealth and whose physical and living conditions are not optimal for aquiring skills.
Yes, I do. I do not like to take up anyone on their style or content where important matters are being discussed. Especially not an ordinarily brilliant writer.
The Italian state paid bonds out of tax income. In the seventies especially this was artificially backed by inflation, but the bonds had to always pay above inflation for savers to buy them, therefore there was always a call on the public income.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-07-03 12:32 am (UTC)It's only a fallacy if one excludes private wealth from 'all the wealth', or if you believe that 'trickle-down' effects will result in sufficient development of skills and infrastructure.
The relationship between public and private wealth (and debt) is interesting (but I'm way too tired at the moment to open that huge can of worms).
bonds were redeemed at the end of their cycle, and paid generous interest
Where did the interest come from? Was the State generating wealth to pay it, or was it collecting more in taxes due to economic growth fuelled by private investment? Or...?
It is when private wealth is insufficient that State provision becomes critical.
Of course, but people in extreme poverty have insufficient wealth by definition, so state provision (or some other means of redistributing wealth internally) is critical for them.
This, I regret to say,
You do? ;)
When I say that the African economy entered the twentieth century in an Iron Age sort of condition, I do not say that it was a desperate condition.
And neither do - or did - I, but whatever the cause(s), both the numbers and proportion of Africans living in extreme poverty (i.e. unable to meet basic needs) rose between 1981 and 2001. That's a lot of people who aren't able to accumulate wealth and whose physical and living conditions are not optimal for aquiring skills.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-04 06:00 pm (UTC)Yes, I do. I do not like to take up anyone on their style or content where important matters are being discussed. Especially not an ordinarily brilliant writer.
The Italian state paid bonds out of tax income. In the seventies especially this was artificially backed by inflation, but the bonds had to always pay above inflation for savers to buy them, therefore there was always a call on the public income.