posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 12:35 PM
Let me start by questioning the last statement of your original post. What makes you believe the richest people only have an interest in furthering
their own wealth? Secondly, if they do have such an interest, what makes that interest any different from the rest of us.
Now I don't know exactly how Europe (Western Europe) became so wealthy, but in America that wealth came about by first exploiting the vast natural
resources of the North American continent and second by exploiting the natural resources of any of the rest of the world that could be persuaded by
one means or the other to let us have them. We took in raw resources and processed them into finished products that were in turn sold back to the
supplying countries at enormous profits.
Why did we do that? Because we damn well could. Other countries could have done the same if they had had the drive and inventiveness of our
forebearers--they did not, so yankee ingenuity won out.
As an aside, when I was stationed in the Philippines in the very early 70's, the average annual income for the entire country was $52 per person. A
whopping $1 per week. Further, the top 2% of Philippinos controlled over 95% of the entire country's wealth. I remember thinking how ripe the
country was for some sort of revolution.
Anyway, if you adopt some sort of standard measure concerning the control of wealth, and apply that measure to all the countries of the world, you see
that--in the U.S. anyway--wealth is better distributed. I.e., more people are needed to control it. Of course that control is still mostly centered
in the top 1% of the population, but when has it ever been otherwise, anywhere?
You know, what would really be interesting to know is how much of each countries wealth is controlled by outsiders and just where such outsiders
[edit on 29-1-2007 by Astronomer70]