[WS:] Perhaps, but underprivileged males (and females) of Asia cannot wait to adopt Western life styles, so there must be more to these lifestyles than simple lecturing of privileged Western males, no?
Re: "I do not see why the burden falls on one side to demonstrate “pursuing public investment policies that will ruin private investors” will “make the society as a whole better off”.
[WS:] I was not clear enough. I did not suggest simple redistribution of wealth. I suggested public investment policies along the lines pursued by the Soviets after the revolution, anything from transportation infrastructure, renewable energy, public health, housing etc. The only thing that holds such policies back is the property owning class, because they realize that public investment would wipe out profits on their previous investments. This is is an institutional obstacle rather than economic one (i.e. lack of resources.) However, the common perception is that putting private investors out of business would have dire consequences for the economy, hence an argument is needed to show that it will not.
One more thing - I do not understand your technophobia. There is technology and there is technology. Disposable gizmos, SUVs military gear etc is technology, but so is wind turbines, vaccines, trains, energy efficient heating etc. Nobody here advocated the former, but what is wrong with the later?
Wojtek