rowth helps the poor more recognizably than the elite, but it the wealth of the elite that is growing not he poor. We have experienced growth in the last two centuries unlike any in the history of the world, yet we still have poverty. With the type of growth we have been through there should not be poverty if the lower class collects even a small share. What is growing is the wealth of capitalists/ owners of accumulated capital. Reinvested surpluses of the wealthy is what is growing and some of their fortunes do ‘trickle’ down to the poor. The poor are given employment and share in the burdens of the system yet do not equitably share in the benefits. This being a fundamental basis on which to evaluate an economic system, one cannot help but wonder on how growth for betterment of the poor can be used for defense of growth. Since growth is being led by technology, there is potential for further inequalities. Technical progress is changing the face of the labor force. Labor now requires more educated workers and less and less uneducated workers, yet opportunities to obtain these qualifications are not becoming more available to the poor. So it seems what eventually comes of this is even more disparity between rich and poor.On a physical line of thinking, if development would be good for the poor then it would have to be made up of things the poor need. Clothing, food, and shelter and basic goods. The growth of our times though partly these things is mostly services, financial products, and not tangibles the poor benefit from. To complete the discussion of poverty alleviation we must look at the per capita annual product of nations. That is the GNP/ population. This ratio is used to distinguish rich and poor countries. Changes in GNP in rich and poor countries have very different meanings. First in rich countries population increases relatively slowly, and in poor countries population increases rapidly. World wide growth at the ...
