Lol Firstly, I want to say that I was actually just using this thread to talk about my whole idea of happiness in the world, and not exactly... the list of developed nations. :P
But some of it still is important because the socialist nations on the list seem to be happier then more capitalist nations. (besides Australia, which has a "free-er" economy then we de according to the heritage institute though )
The system was very different. No capital was really accumulated.
Yeah, yeah...Okay, but the whole discussion was about OECD "happiness" and no 3rd world country is in the OECD.
EXACTLY! therefore if rich nations were more capitalist then they would get more money to invest in the poor!Yes and no. It is the economic growth of the 1st world that is putting money in the poor countries.
You can disagree with the rich nations sacrificing the standard of living of their poor, to help even poorer people, but I think you agree with the whole mechanism im talking about.
Those are other factors that aren't related to the capitalist/socialist debate.However saying that, there are many other factors that keep these countries poor, usually political instability. It is ironic that the reason many poor countries are poor, is lack of transparency and accountability among the political and economic elite plus the political instability that comes from that.
Of course Singapore has problems, but because of their capitalism they are better off then nations that were more socialist. That is one of my only points. Capitalism helps poor nations get a higher standard of living.Not exactly factual and a bad example to be honest. Singapore's standard of living is high due to a dictatorship that forced through reforms for the majority and did not like normal dictators syphon off that much for themselves. While the standard of living in Singapore has gone up considerably, there are minorities that live in relative poverty there. You could say the same for Japan btw, however even here "capitalism" has been diluted by ancient political and social aspects, so even here capitalism cant be given the whole reason for the economic prosperity. The only place I would claim that capitalism has had an impact is in the US, and even here the economic benefits of capitalism it self have not given a financial gain for all.. aka the income inequality.
I also fine wealth inequality not bad by itself. Because the only thing that really matters if the standard of living of the poor. If the rich get $10 for the poor to get $2, that is better then the rich and poor both getting $1. Capitalism is the first one in the long run of course.
How in the world can you can say that people in Darfur aren't poor!No it aint hard to define poverty. Agreeing on a definition is another matter and comparing between countries is a whole other matter. Poverty in my opinion should always be taken in context to what you are comparing. If you are comparing poverty in the US then yes there are people who are poor. Now if you compare these people to say people in Darfur, then financially no they are not poor, but you still find people in the US and Europe that go to bed hungry because they can not afford food. That is poverty too.
Whole other discussion
You seem to have a different definition of poor. I consider poor to be when people have a low standard of living. I think you consider it to be low wealth compared to others. I just dont see the inherent problem with what you may think poor is.
Yes, people in America and Europe go to bed hungry, but we shouldn't sacrifice the poor around the world, for the SEMI poor in developed nations.
Your first priority can either be poor in your own nation, or poor around the world. we should focus on helping the most needy. And capitalism does that.