Justus For All

Well, it can’t be seen as good or bad news unless it is compared to the the rest of the society (poor, middle class, etc). The trends, when compared to each other, is the real indicator of a good or bad direction.

Ie:
+rich and -poor == good (less gap)
+rich and +poor == bad (more gap)

It is of course possible to have more rich and less poor and still have a greater gap.

It is even possible, although unlikley, to have more rich and more poor but have less of a gap.

And of course we partially judge ‘poor’ by the average wealth. ‘poor’ isn’t an absolute, it is relative.

For example, we have pretty much no poor in America on a third world country scale of what poor is.

Right, but globalization opposers will argue that America is sucking off the wealth of the rest of the world. Countries that have opened up to “free trade” have become increasingly poor doing so. I would argue that the number of millionaires in the US is not as important as the average standard of living.

I don’t know of any examples where free trade has made a nation poorer.

I doubt very much you can find any. There are multiple examples of the opposite however.

I think if the median income- the amount most americans make, where half are above and half are below- is rising or breaking even, then it’s good- more people are doing better. I know that in 2003 it went down. Not sure about 2004 or 2005, though.

Examples of free trade making a nation poorer include most latin american countries. Peru, Argentina, and Ecuador are probably the most striking examples. Globalization has had a negative impact on most developing nations. When they open up their markets, local businesses are forced to compete with American conglomerates and always lose. This results in capital flight from the host nation and increasing levels of poverty.