XPost: alt.politics.radical-left, alt.activism, de.soc.politik.misc   
   From: tim.howard@cox.net   
      
   Jeff Caird wrote:   
      
      Statistics   
   > are most easily and most often abused to advance some agenda.  Given the   
   > source, the UN, assures that abuse.   
      
   That is not the debate here, and if they are trying to advance the   
   "agenda" that there needs to be greater economic equallity, then I say   
   good for them.   
   >   
   > What was the methodology?   
   > What is wealth?   
      
   Your statements below show that the above questions don't matter to you   
   anyway.  You obviously think it is ok that so many have to make due with   
   do little and so few control so much.   
      
   > Was there any weight given to a particular groups _need_ for or _desire_ for   
   > wealth?   
   >   
   A cynical gready thing to say.  How convient for those who have wealth   
   to imply that those who are poor do not really want/need more wealth.   
      
   > Was any weight given to the disparity in environmental factors?  Does the   
   > fact that an American living in New England needs warm winter clothing,   
   > heating oil and electric lights figure into things as contrasted to the   
   > needs of a nearly naked tribesman living in a tropical climate?   
   >   
   What a racist stereotype!  The simplistic native who doesn't know or   
   care of a decent standard of living.  The overwhelming % people in the   
   third world do not live that way.   
      
   > Is there any adjustment for the fact that those who possess the wealth may   
   > have actually _created_ that wealth?   
   >   
   > Hhhmmmmm?   
      
   Hmmmmmmmmm.  Of course they create some of that wealth, because the   
   Western nations, esp. the U.S. control the financial aparatises that   
   allow them to create that wealth.  Have you not heard of Bretton Woods   
   for ex?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)