|
|
|
|
|
|
by ben_w
1769 days ago
|
|
|
> If your definition accurately described the difference between rich and poor countries, the people of the Global South would be considered wealthy. Please give an example of one country where the sum total of all the assets the residents control (I ought to have specified “divided by the population”) is high and the country is considered poor. > This also describes the conditions that result from the massive disparities in how America's wealth is distributed. And? America is a rich country no matter how unfairly subpopulations are treated. I will agree that there appears to be malicious unfairness, and to me it appears sufficiently severe that it cannot even be explained by pure greed. That’s a separate issue to this. |
|
|
It's really not. The same processes that underpin the unfairness within the US are reproduced in the relationships between the US and other "poorer" countries. The freedom of capital to do whatever it wants within the boundaries of the state is asserted abroad via "free trade" agreements--and barring that, militaristic threat--that ensure capital interests are preserved above all others. They ensure things like human rights, environmental concerns and labor safety can't interfere with the profit motive and maximization of investment growth.