It interesting to see that inequality does see to increase for the country (leading power) with the highest average income. — I like sushi

It's the typical argument that you can implement nearly everywhere where there is economic growth.

Inequality decreases in a recession. If the stock market would drop -50%, inequality would decrease instantly.

The reason is because we don't measure povetry in absolute terms.

I don’t think you understood what I meant - my fault, wasn’t very clear.

I meant that the MOST powerful nation has historically had a higher level of inequality of wealth compared to other nations (this can be seem from the fall of The British Empire to the rise of the US.

Note: This is looking at figures from the 1800’s to present. I haven’t looked at this on every single level but it is clear enough that the world power has shown a trend of having greater inequality of wealth (gini coefficient) than other well-to-do nations.

I meant that the MOST powerful nation has historically had a higher level of inequality of wealth compared to other nations — I like sushi

It's no wonder if this is so. You see wealth has allways been distributed very unequally and the profits of globalization and empire building are even more unequally distributed. Prosperity for the masses happens quite differently.

You see wealth has allways been distributed very unequally and the profits of globalization and empire building are even more unequally distributed. — ssu

Well, actually, no. This isn’t an apparent trend however we shuffle the data. Of course I am talking on a longterm scale here not merely from year to year. The best point, historically speaking, was around the 1970’s with the initial turnaround happening in the 1930’s. Since the 1970’s inequality steadily rose until 2000 adn since then it’s been dropping.

Of course this data is not massively telling in and of itself if we don’t take into account average earning per capita - meaning inequality was lower in 1800 than it is today, but I doubt we’d want to live in 1800. We do know extreme poverty has been falling globally too and is continuing to fall.

The world's wealth is distributed purposefully only by governments and charitable individuals/companies, you're talking about wealth redistribution on a global scale, that's called foreign aid or charity.

In any case, I haven't heard any practical ideas put forward by you, I support wealth redistribution and foreign aid but I prioritise wealth redistribution because the responsibility to look after your neighbours and constituents (as a government) should be prioritised helping people across the world. Not to mention, we have far greater control over what happens in our own countries.

When we talk about race, it's a superficial divider and really everyone is benefited if we stop making it interpretatively relevant. Huge amounts of wealth redistribution towards developing countries is a very unselfish act and you aren't fulfilling a responsibility that I can make sense of. Honestly, things, like tackling global warming or supporting some of our scientific endeavours, are more important global pursuits. Upgrading infrastructure, more support to education/health care and etc.

I actually despise altruism without any practical grounding, when it's not at the expense of something else then why not but it ends badly more than it works out. I think if a country is on the right path and needs some help then they should get it and they do. For countries that are complete disasters, there's really only violent solutions and so far, the US has not been doing a good job with that approach at all.

We've taken totally different views on what comes after race-based interpretations, for you, it's with that barrier and the other similar barriers out of the way, everyone can help each other now. For me, it's one less thing to distract individuals from ignorant ways of thinking, now they can focus on better looking after themselves rather than looking at the world in such an unproductive way. Without nationality or culture being important, we're quickly running out of reasons to even care about anyone beyond yourself or immediate friends/family.

I think because people are afraid of imperialism and the West does not have a good track record of positive results after big interventions, there's not much we can do about the bad governments around the world. Most of the good ones are quickly becoming rich and time is the only remaining ingredient to their success.

Poverty still exists in the US and it shouldn't be ignored by the US government just because they're doing better than citizens in other countries which have nothing to do with anything. Though I'm still just guessing as to what you even want since all you've done is try to suggest a contradiction in my thinking which isn't there.

The world's wealth is distributed purposefully only by governments and charitable individuals/companies, you're talking about wealth redistribution on a global scale, that's called foreign aid or charity. — Judaka

Are you one of those people who tries to prove a point by interpreting what others say to suit your mistake assumptions? I didn’t read past this paragraph.

You're all over the place so I wouldn't be surprised if I got no idea what you're talking about. You like making me guess, that's basically what this conversation has been about. You were talking about relative wealth in the US compared to other nations, now you're claiming to be talking about global inequality but now I'm thinking maybe you're just talking about inequality across the globe? Quote me where you actually succinctly expressed your position, I'm keen.

I don't like to talk about ethnicities as being interpretatively relevant but apart from individualists, the only ethnicity by and large that tries to ignore their ethnicity are Anglo-Saxon whites. The alt-right is basically complaining about that and many liberals hate them for it but why? — Judaka

Perhaps because of the difference between white-equalitarianism (if that's a word) and white-supremacy?

I replied to BC you commented. Now you’re saying I’m talking about “foreign aid” because I’m talking about global wealth - a comment I made in passing to BC who was discussing US wealth inequality ... that’s it.

After that I asked if you saw the issue of “race” and “identity” being problematic in how you view them - as there doesn’t appear to be any serious distinction in what they mean on a cultural context.

I shouldn’t have to update you on what’s been said. Simply look over the posts. Now you’re accusing me of being “all over the place”? Seriously? It doesn’t take great reading ability to string the sequence together.

As I’ve now repeated myself at least three times it doesn’t seem worth continuing. Forget it.

There's a huge difference between wealth inequality in a country and differences in wealth between countries. Wealth inequality is a social issue, it's known to increase crime, it's a moral issue, it's an issue of responsibility, it's an issue of looking after your own and explaining the inequality in a way which makes sense within the system. There are many examples where governments assist their own citizens and it's not undermined by the fact they don't extend that same level of assistance to citizens of other countries. — Judaka

I meant the possibility that referring to some “race” is not unlike referring to some “nationality”. Neither are focused on the broader picture of “humanity”.

I’m well aware of the effect of inequality on crime rates (It is a phenomenon observed on every scale; from global to city district). The issue being the proximity of poorest to wealthiest. — I like sushi

It's just technically true that wealth redistribution within a country and charity towards other countries are different things. A discussion on what to do about poverty in the world beyond the West is just an entirely different topic, it doesn't undermine a desire for wealth redistribution within a country, something which would be performed by a government. The responsibility of a government is to their people, not all people.

You want to discuss an entirely different topic then make a new thread for it but I don't get what it's got to do with what is being discussed here. — Judaka

Just curious to see if you can spot the possible irony of this statemenr alongside what you’ve been saying in this thread? — I like sushi

I was just pointing out a possible disparity in how you view “race” and “nationality”. I say this because they are both essentially part of cultural identity with little clear distinction. One can carry one’s sense of “nationality” to another country and throughout their lives - they hae to due to basica history. Race is just an outward appearence, yet it carries with it a sense of identity - hence a woman who was adopted feels “black” easily enough.

If people are only concerned with what’s going on in their backyard more fool them. They are going to realise one-day that the world is actually quite small and what happens on the other side of the globe can, and does, affect their lives. — I like sushi

To highlight: "If people are only concerned with what’s going on in their backyard more fool them"

I don't know when for you we stopped talking about wealth inequality and started talking about identity but I viewed that as a point you were trying to emphasis within that argument. Also, I have been talking about global wealth inequality the whole time and discussing "identity" without a context is clearly pointless. My "Australian" identity means different things for me based on where I am and who I'm dealing with.

You want to pretend you aren't swapping around topics without making it clear then fine but if you want to change the topic then perhaps make it clearer next time, especially when I continue to bring up points that could only be relevant in a wealth inequality debate.

Well, actually, no. This isn’t an apparent trend however we shuffle the data.Of course I am talking on a longterm scale here not merely from year to year. — I like sushi

First of all, if you consider colonization and globalization, your data ought to be a far more longer time than a period where there isn't anymore colonization. The perspective has to be centuries

You have to here look at how the economy increases. The typical way how ordinary people have become more wealthier has been for example a) they have the ability to lend to buy a home, which then retains it's value or b) through educational and technological advancement work changes to more productive work (the huge decrease in manual labour) and thus more income.

You see, ealier a sugar plantation in the Caribbean or now a electronics plant in Vietnam doesn't make the people in Chesire, UK, more wealthy. If the plant owner lives for some reason in Chesire, he surely gets more wealthy. Actually the only argument how people in Chesire would become more prosperous thanks the UK having colonies is if they produce something that then can be sold to the people in the colonies. This of course is globalization, or in the case of the imperialist British Empire, forced globalization on the colonies like India.

And the above example tells how globalization helps or hinders a society: if the economy of the society can compete well in the global market, globalization creates a lot of wealth to the society. If it cannot, then globalization and open borders just makes things worse. To close the borders, to stop globalization won't help: typically an industry that is protected doesn't use the calm to modernize in order to compete later in the global market, but just reaps the profits from in it's protected market.