well I've been here before, sat on the floor I got a little depressed earlier after reading a 2004 editorial from Monthly Review. Some of the more discouraging excerpts:

In the United States in 2000, income inequality was greater than at any time since the 1920s, with the richest 5 percent of all households receiving six times more income than the poorest 20 percent of households, up from about four times in 1970. A study by economist Paul Krugman estimated that perhaps as much as 70 percent of all of the income growth in the United States during the 1980s went to the richest 1 percent of all families. With respect to wealth, in the United States in 1995, the richest 1 percent of all households owned 42.2 percent of all stocks, 55.7 percent of all bonds, 44.2 percent of all trusts, 71.4 percent of all noncorporate businesses, and 36.9 percent of all nonhome real estate. As with income inequality, this inequality has been increasing, at least for the past 20 years.

In China and India, the world's most populous nations and two of its fastest growing economies, inequality is growing rapidly. In China, once an extremely egalitarian country, income inequality is now barely distinguishable from that in the United States. China has witnessed perhaps the greatest income redistribution in history. In India, "Most of the benefits of...rapid economic growth are going to the wealthiest 20% of society." There, "350 million [persons] - more than a third of the population - live in dire poverty... In Calcutta alone, an estimated 250,000 children sleep on the sidewalks each night."

...the richest 1 percent of people in the world get as much income as the poorest 57 percent. The richest 5 percent had in 1993 an average income 114 times greater than that of the poorest 5 percent, rising from 78 times in 1988. The poorest 5 percent grew poorer, losing 25 percent of their real income, while the richest 20 percent saw their real incomes grow by 12 percent, more than twice as high as average world income. World inequality grew because inequality grew between and within countries. The rich nations grew richer and the poor nations grew poorer; the rich within each country grew richer at the expense of the poor.

Mainstream economists have argued that the poor nations are simply on a low rung of a "development ladder," and that over time, especially if they adopt "free market" principles, they will become rich countries too. This hypothesis is difficult to demonstrate. While a very few formerly poor nations, mostly in Asia, have become relatively rich ones (South Korea, for example), most have remained poor.

I'm beginning to think that economic development is a lie people tell themselves so they feel less guilty. It's becoming more and more clear that unless there is a mass shift in priorities on the part of more than just some prominent activists, not enough will change. Man, we have it so good here in Canada. But my paper is now officially going to be one of doom and gloom. Oh, and it's going to be a day late. I need an extra day to write about such misery...  | ¶ 12:49 a.m.