RE: Relative Wretchedness

[Karen Watters Cole]

Ed, I like your suggested revision of the have vs have not semantics, especially since the old language implies ownership and perhaps one-upsmanship but does not adequately describe the uneven state of infrastructures, health systems and their underlying environmental foundations in many societies.   Would wretchedness be expanded to identify pockets of ecological disaster where Superfund financing has been withdrawn and whole communities in wealthy America are at risk?   Karen   Keith Hudson gets his economist well before I do, but when my copy finally arrived a couple days ago I re-read the article on the work Mr. Sala-i-Martin has done on global inequality.  It would seem that what Mr. Sala-i-Matin has done makes a good deal of sense.  If, measured in terms of relative purchasing power, the vast popultions of China and India are making gains relative to the rich world, one could argue that the gap between the traditionally poor world and the rich world may well be closing - at least a little.  However, there are gaps that would still likely be widening, especially that relating to Sub-Saharan Africa.   Given Mr. Sala-i-Martin's findings, it would seem that the "rich world / poor world" categorization is no longer very useful.  We need something else, perhaps something based on relative wretchedness.  The rich world could be termed "non-wretched world".  Just below that would be the "no longer quite so wretched world".  It would include some parts of Eastern Europe, parts of Latin America, and at least the growing middle class if not the whole of China.  Below that would be the "still pretty wretched world".  It might include India and some of the more progressive African countries.  Below all of the other categories would be the "absolutely wretched world", which would include the countries at the bottom of the UN Human Development Index.   Thoughts?   Ed Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 Canada Phone (613) 728 4630 Fax     (613)  728 9382