Why should rich people got rich? it's the matter of seeing things differently
I read a blog today, complaining that inequality is becoming higher and higher, seeing that all conglomerates got their cash increased 40 milliards dollars in one year. As Easterly will brilliantly say, that not only the poor trapped in poverty, the rich is being trapped to in wealthiness.
the blog mentioned some data, but kinda outdated, but whatever. she mentioned poverty rates in 2006, but accommodating Bakrie's richness in 2007 in comparison. First of all, those data is incomparable .Bad mistakes. if we see the newest data, indeed poverty decline as well, not very larged though. the idea is here, the growth has positive effect on everybody, notably the rich and the powerful though. In this I agree.
I don't see any problem with this, not that I'm pro-inequality, it is the fact that all nation is having, in all part of the world. As long as rich people got richer, and the poor people got less poorer, it's kinda OK for me, well better than poor people got poorer, no?
I mean, the very problem of inequality and poverty is that, we don't know exactly what are the determinants, in my opinion it's most likely social -interaction problem, rather than Macroeconomic problem, it's the information sharing, not the problem in growth. Off course inflation got higher effect in the short run, but really, access to credit, and information is kinda better in explaining long term poverty.
may be my post is kinda strange for one studying development, what I am saying is that it is normal that people get rich everyday, as long it doesn't take the proportion of the most poor people, in Aburizal bakrie's case I am not convinced enough the reasoning is, what's for sure, not because he has bakrie's plantation(the blog mentioned these reasons), it's more like better preferences in BUMI resource's stocks, keeping the price higher than ever. Complaining that these people got our natural resources depleted for their own wealth is kinda odd, let's say we'll give poor people couple of hectares of land in kalimantan, what would they do? -this is typically what Venezuela do-, their resources are now underutilized, not only the people got no knowledge to use it properly, but also when they want to sell it, no one will buy the land, so what's the use of having hectares of land, but unable to use it?
let's go back to bakries problem.I don't know whether his wealth won't come from poor farmer in papua back there, but what do I know is, when he got rich, he need to invest, meaning more jobs, so to measure the effect in bakries richness to the people, is how much real investment will come in the future?. indeed, Lapindo did take some people's home, but its (lapindo) loss is not to be neglected either. So while having devastated by the loss in lapindo's assets,it still gives him larger flow of money, meaning he got more gains in other investment (I do Pity the fact that the money comes from financial market) but it measured how this guy/company can handle unexpected shock, hopefully he will create more investment in the future, and more money to the poor. I believe it was called trickle down effects.
I praise the non-communist term, saying that free economy give people a relatively equal opportunity to be rich (and to be poor?), than Communist term. The whole idea of market economy is that all things are dynamic. Ones can sometimes moving out of poverty, and sometime moving in to poverty, the same case goes to wealthiness. People can be poor but in subsequent period got surprisingly rich, for randomized reasons. But in communist term, people should always be equal, should share the same burden in poverty, in their thinking, being poor together is better than having wealth gap, as poor people will always be victimized by the rich. so just eliminate the gap, so every people share the same despair. This is awfully wrong, in the sense that, it's true that most people got rich because their family had been rich for some time, but there are cases where, once poor people might in the future turned out to be one of the richest people in the country, these kind of people that will survive in this horrific competition world.
the blog mentioned some data, but kinda outdated, but whatever. she mentioned poverty rates in 2006, but accommodating Bakrie's richness in 2007 in comparison. First of all, those data is incomparable .Bad mistakes. if we see the newest data, indeed poverty decline as well, not very larged though. the idea is here, the growth has positive effect on everybody, notably the rich and the powerful though. In this I agree.
I don't see any problem with this, not that I'm pro-inequality, it is the fact that all nation is having, in all part of the world. As long as rich people got richer, and the poor people got less poorer, it's kinda OK for me, well better than poor people got poorer, no?
I mean, the very problem of inequality and poverty is that, we don't know exactly what are the determinants, in my opinion it's most likely social -interaction problem, rather than Macroeconomic problem, it's the information sharing, not the problem in growth. Off course inflation got higher effect in the short run, but really, access to credit, and information is kinda better in explaining long term poverty.
may be my post is kinda strange for one studying development, what I am saying is that it is normal that people get rich everyday, as long it doesn't take the proportion of the most poor people, in Aburizal bakrie's case I am not convinced enough the reasoning is, what's for sure, not because he has bakrie's plantation(the blog mentioned these reasons), it's more like better preferences in BUMI resource's stocks, keeping the price higher than ever. Complaining that these people got our natural resources depleted for their own wealth is kinda odd, let's say we'll give poor people couple of hectares of land in kalimantan, what would they do? -this is typically what Venezuela do-, their resources are now underutilized, not only the people got no knowledge to use it properly, but also when they want to sell it, no one will buy the land, so what's the use of having hectares of land, but unable to use it?
let's go back to bakries problem.I don't know whether his wealth won't come from poor farmer in papua back there, but what do I know is, when he got rich, he need to invest, meaning more jobs, so to measure the effect in bakries richness to the people, is how much real investment will come in the future?. indeed, Lapindo did take some people's home, but its (lapindo) loss is not to be neglected either. So while having devastated by the loss in lapindo's assets,it still gives him larger flow of money, meaning he got more gains in other investment (I do Pity the fact that the money comes from financial market) but it measured how this guy/company can handle unexpected shock, hopefully he will create more investment in the future, and more money to the poor. I believe it was called trickle down effects.
I praise the non-communist term, saying that free economy give people a relatively equal opportunity to be rich (and to be poor?), than Communist term. The whole idea of market economy is that all things are dynamic. Ones can sometimes moving out of poverty, and sometime moving in to poverty, the same case goes to wealthiness. People can be poor but in subsequent period got surprisingly rich, for randomized reasons. But in communist term, people should always be equal, should share the same burden in poverty, in their thinking, being poor together is better than having wealth gap, as poor people will always be victimized by the rich. so just eliminate the gap, so every people share the same despair. This is awfully wrong, in the sense that, it's true that most people got rich because their family had been rich for some time, but there are cases where, once poor people might in the future turned out to be one of the richest people in the country, these kind of people that will survive in this horrific competition world.
10:42 PM
|
Labels:
economic development
|
This entry was posted on 10:42 PM
and is filed under
economic development
.
You can follow any responses to this entry through
the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response,
or trackback from your own site.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Yang saya heran, lama lama sistem negara ini kayak komunis ya, semua maunya di jatah, semua maunya di batasi, padahal yang membuat kebijakan pemerintah kemudian di sangkal dan lagi lagi rakyat kecil yang jadi korban.
Mirip lagunya Chris Brown dengan judul : " Yang Kaya Makin KAYA yang Miskin makin MISKIN ".
Salam.
Prosperity with gap, shows unsustainable development. If one would like to think about long term economic development, one will not be satisfied with present condition, even if he or she is living in wealthy country.
when i say gap, means all kind of gap. from social status gap, economic gap, gender gap..anything. they all could be indicators of unsustainable development.
in the end, the final objective of development are the same; equity in prosperity. even if its reached through communism, capitalism or whatever else.
people complain, not just because they are jealous of other's prosperity. but also because they are worried about the gap one may create.
mind you?
"in the end, the final objective of development are the same; equity in prosperity. even if its reached through communism, capitalism or whatever else"
good enough for me mul,I dont mind.
Post a Comment