This is an NY Times article about John Edward's and Mitt Romney's differing ideas about wealth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/23wealth.html

Edwards is withdrawing from the race today, although he hasn't endorsed Clinton or Obama yet. Romney is still in the running, for now. But it's still an intersting disparity, how Romney sounds almost irritated at the idea of the two Americas.

"There is a model of thought among the Democrats — that the amount of money, the amount of wealth in a nation, is a fixed amount," he said in an interview. "And that if Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are making a lot of money, that just means somebody else is not able to make as much. That happens to be entirely false."

Edwards, consumate trial lawyer and politician, thanks his country for his wealth.
Although Edwards populism can be grating at times, and I really think he should read Travels of a T-Shirt by Pietra Rivoli, I can't help feling tugged by his rhetoric. And I'm not convinced by Romney's idea of infinite wealth for the taking.

After all, isn't it obvious that the world economy and savage capitalism brings wealth to only a privileged few? I used to believe this was because the market wasn't really free and getting rid of the bogeymen and the State's regulation and protectionism would really free capitalism't potential, but I'm not so sure anymore.

There's a reason so many nations are turning to populsim, and some sort of socialism. And while we all cringe at China's newfound economic power, not many stop to think that they did it without foreign aid, and without democracy. They still have poverty of course, but it's less now and they don't owe billions to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund like Argentina and other countries do.

Just some food for thought.