> Zero-sum fallacy. Wealth in America has not been created by
>extracting resources from other countries. Most of the international trade
>conducted by American firms is with firms from Eurpoean, developing and
>advanced Asian countries, and our neighbors to the north and the south.
>The poverty of the "South" is not explainable by the wealth of the "North,"
>and vice versa.
Which does not deny the possibility that they with whom we trade
ultimately import their wealth from other developing countries that we then
extract from them. In any case, it does not matter. I don't think the
United States has sixty percent of the world's resources in its borders,
and so it must be getting the wealth from somewhere else, who isn't getting
as much back. My whole thought is that everything should be split evenly
across populations throughout the world.
>
> Clearly, if you think that the onlly explanation for America's relative
>opulence is that it is stolen, then you do not have much of an idea of how
>wealth is created in the first place. I will post more on this later. Gotta
>go.
>
> Nicholas
I'm sure that this is not the only explanation, but it is a good and
important one. In any case, I am not concerned with ho0w "wealth" is
created since wealth is only a form of domination (see, once again, Locke,
and Rousseau, who I really like on this subject). Wealth is just a
justification for controlling an inordinate amount of the world's
resources, and thus controlling a certain amount of power (sorry to be
getting away from F's notion of power). But I am interested to hjear how
you think wealth is created.
Jeff