Helping Americans understand just how rich we are

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

There are some truths in the analysis you portray, but also some glaring contradictions that persuade me that the theory is behind it is as defective and as useless as a guide as either the original Malthusian ideas from which it takes its cwntral label or the more recent analyses such as Paul Erlich's work of about 1970, "The Population Bomb". Both, it seems to me have been so thoroughly contradicted by facts, old and new, as to become somewhat amusing curiosities.

They have been contradicted by the facts as they apply to modern times. They have not been contradicted for any period of human history preceding Galileo Galilei, or even James Watt.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

What is the cause of poverty , and depopulation, in Zimbabwe, a country with abundant national resources, and of prosperity in Singapore, a country with none?

Education, population control, and a major difference between their meddlesome dictators in the quality of their meddling.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe you and the major posters on this thread have missed the most obvious and fundamental issues.

Okay, let's talk about the elephant in the room here. I think Craven hit a nerve with you in his initial post, when he asked:

Craven de Kere wrote:

Would you miss one of our aircraft carriers if we just made one less? Probably not

Admit it: This is not about the wealth and poverty of nations for you. You just don't like it when Craven says nasty things about your beloved aircraft carriers. Razz

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

[Okay, let's talk about the elephant in the room here

"Would you miss one of our aircraft carriers if we just made one less?

Admit it: This is not about the wealth and poverty of nations for you. You just don't like it when Craven says nasty things about your beloved aircraft carriers.

Hitting close to home, Thomas !

The truth is I was induced to read the thread by Robert's graphical display of familiar Nimits Class aircraft carrrier deck profiles in the opening post.

I'll also concede I was aroused by his implication that the U.S. military has merely consumed resources that would have been better used to feed Haitians and others, and has done nothing useful for the world. (The thought quickly occurred to me that we have already given them an amount equal to the cost of one during the 1990s, and it didn't accomplish anything of lasting value). I've also spent a lot of time in Brazil, and the notion that we are responsible for the poverty in the favelas of Rio, and not the wealthy Cariocas who live in blissful indifference below them was offensive to me.

As for the rest, I'll readily concede that this is an always troubling and complex issue. We do have moral responsibilities towards the poor among us. Sadly it appears the best thing governments can do to eradicate poverty is to get out of people's way in trying to make better lives for themselves. While organized external help from other governments and NGOs can accomplish useful and necessary functions like improving basic public health services and some elements of infrastructure, the foundation of economic development must come from the people themselves and their government. Other actions from external agencies appear to often breed as many adverse side effects as benefits. Graft and venality end up rewarding the wrong people and hindering the very process we may hope to ignite.

1 Reply

Well, I just read through twelve pages of opinions that kept me on an emotional rollercoaster, only to come to...

"...the foundation of economic development must come from the people themselves and their government. Other actions from external agencies appear to often breed as many adverse side effects as benefits. Graft and venality end up rewarding the wrong people and hindering the very process we may hope to ignite."

Well said, Georgeob1. It comes down to giving a man a fish, or teaching him to fish. Do we teach him to fish with a toy net from the shore (abusive, low paying and dangerous exported American jobs with no dignity or concern for their physical health) or give him a real pole and materials to build a good boat (industriousness, trade skills, how to change their own government) ??

The concept of allowing other countries to industrialize at the expense of the environment, as presented by Robert earlier, is ludicrous to me. When we know better, we do better. Just because we allowed companies to polute and poison our population and environment in order to become wealthy, doesn't mean we accept that as an option for populations in other countries, nor do we go backwards in our standards to allow pollution spewing, poorly maintained vehicles to come over the border. If we are truly compassionate, that isn't an option.

("We are humane and loving people, please accept this job guarding our nuclear rods as a show of how much we care.")

The world will always have poverty. I don't have to go to Africa or India to have compassion for their plight or to understand that my worry over paying the lectric bill is beyond ridiculous in comparison, which is why I don't worry about it.

I got the feeling early on in this thread, due to the mention of Mexican workers crossing the border to find work in the US, that THAT might have been what triggered this discussion. Eventually, we may be "One World." I would love to see that in my lifetime, but probably won't. Open borders, no nationalities... Great! But, we will still have poverty somewhere, the wealthy will still set the rules to their advantage, and therefore the playing field will never be even. (And, that comes from a naively overly optomistic optomist in RL)

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

before reading this response, I've only made it to this post, and my question may be answered in a post I haven't read yet.

Robert, I agree with most all of what you've stated thus far. I'd like to take down trade barriers, etc.

I'm curious though how far you take this. I, for example, am looking to buy a plasma TV in a few weeks. I have to admit that, in light of those suffering in Africa (for example), that is a rather selfish purchase. Are you suggesting that people like me should instead send that money to UNICEF or something. I suppose you are, and I suppose I don't disagree. I'm probably still going to buy the TV though; does that make me a bad person?

2 Replies

@maporsche,

The flat screen is ok...just don't buy one of these:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_MTE3roZy35A/Soarg_nigQI/AAAAAAAAEsY/9OOiy9x1Cwg/s400/USN+USS+Nimitz+CVN-68+Head-on+shot.jpg

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Hi RG,

I've missed a few pages of posts on this thread and will need some time to catch up, but I must say that you have mis-represented what I wrote rather badly in this last post - just as Bill did.

You state,

Quote:

Cyclo went on to say that he doesn't "give a ****" about the world's poor but I refuse to believe that. He's not even a Republican and even most of them care on some level.

That's not really what I said, though. Here's my quote:

Quote:

I give money and time to charity every year in order to try and help the situation, not because I have to or am responsible for them, but because I wish to. But I am hardly obligated to, and if that makes you want to call me names, all I can say is: who gives a ****?

I can see how this was ambiguous, but what I really was saying is that I don't give a **** if you want to call me names for not sharing your opinion re: innate moral responsibility to solve the world hunger problem.

It's hard to see how you could conclude that I don't care about the poor or poverty issues in the same paragraph that I tell you that I donate both time and money to help solve those issues. I merely do so out of a sense of pragmatism, not a sense of innate moral responsibility. It is the same standard that I apply to politics, law and my own life.

Quote:

I think they like arguing (like I do) and are taking contrary positions to my abrasiveness, which they view as overstatement. Taking disagreement with my style to my substance in other words.

I disagree with your style more than the substance of your argument, yes. In particular, the title of the thread is 'helping Americans understand...' but, as pointed out earlier, shouting at people and denouncing them for having nuanced arguments which aren't exactly the same as yours doesn't really help Americans understand much of anything at all. If your goal matched the title of your thread, you are failing - or were, in your earlier angrier writing mode.

But I do disagree with various elements of the substance, which I will write more about at some point. In particular, I don't believe that feeding the poor ever brings about a solution to the problem of feeding the poor. Instead, the twin pillars of Technology and Education do that.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@squinney,

Squinney wrote:

Just because we allowed companies to polute and poison our population and environment in order to become wealthy, doesn't mean we accept that as an option for populations in other countries,

Cycloptichorn -- if you're still struggling with this "ugly American" concept, here's a perfect example. And the interesting thing is, Squinny is a perfectly wonderful person in private. I bet she's largely unaware just how ugly she's being to the rest of the world with her politics of "we've got ours, now do as we say, not as we did". America is just one souvereign nation among 200. And the 199 other equal souvereign nations' conduct is not for America to "accept as an option".

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

This was my point on another thread and is no part of Robert's argument:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

In particular, I don't believe that feeding the poor ever brings about a solution to the problem of feeding the poor. Instead, the twin pillars of Technology and Education do that.

I am quite certain you'd feel differently if you'd ever gone hungry for weeks on end with little help of getting anything decent to eat, ever. Or if your baby wouldn’t stop crying because it was literally starving to death. I wasn't proposing feeding people as a long-term solution; I proposed it as a bandage to stop the bleeding until a solution can be implemented. Whole families literally burn the majority of their calories just carrying dirty water to and fro. Literally millions starve to death for want of a bowl of rice. Easily preventable disease kills millions more. Some of them died needlessly in the time it took to write this post. "Feeding the poor" matters quite a bit in places outside of the United States.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Squinney wrote:
Just because we allowed companies to polute and poison our population and environment in order to become wealthy, doesn't mean we accept that as an option for populations in other countries,

Cycloptichorn -- if you're still struggling with this "ugly American" concept, here's a perfect example. And the interesting thing is, Squinny is a perfectly wonderful person in private. I bet she's largely unaware just how ugly she's being to the rest of the world with her politics of "we've got ours, now do as we say, not as we did". America is just one souvereign nation among 200. The 199 other equal souvereign nations' conduct is not for America to accept.

Well, I do agree that it is not up to us to dictate the behavior of other countries. I have not made that argument up to this point, but rather

But she does have a point. We share an atmosphere and a biosphere and the actions of one country tend to affect others. There is no compelling reason for the US to sit back and let others to continue to **** up the environment the way we used to before we smartened up.

What exactly do you expect us to do, just say 'oh, haha, we went through that development stage also guys, boys will be boys, you'll grow out of it' and act as if we don't care? We do care, because it affects us.

The technology to industrialize a country with less pollution and poisons is becoming cheaper every day, by the way... I fear that in just a few decades your side of the argument will end up being defeated by the sheer economics of the interested parties on my side of the argument.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

But she does have a point. We share an atmosphere and a biosphere and the actions of one country tend to affect others. There is no compelling reason for the US to sit back and let others to continue to **** up the environment the way we used to before we smartened up.

So you would have been fine with European protectionism against American products around the year 2000, when most of Europe had smartened up on global warming and America hadn't? You know, it's one of those amusing things in these discussions. You can bet Americans will confidently assume that they are the smart ones, and that other nations are the ones ******* things up.

That said, I think the goals you are trying to achieve can be implemented in a manner consistent with free trade: Just raise a sales tax proportional to the energy that goes into a product and impose it on every product equally, no matter where it comes from. For American products, the tax would be collected in the same manner as other sales taxes. For foreign products, it would be collected at the border, in the same way customs now collect sales taxes on alcoholic beverages there. Deal?

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

... customs now collect sales taxes on alcoholic beverages there...

... TO ARMS!

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
But she does have a point. We share an atmosphere and a biosphere and the actions of one country tend to affect others. There is no compelling reason for the US to sit back and let others to continue to **** up the environment the way we used to before we smartened up.

So you would have been fine with European protectionism against American products around the year 2000, when most of Europe had smartened up on global warming and America hadn't? You know, it's one of those amusing things in these discussions. You can bet Americans will confidently assume that they are the smart ones, and that other nations are the ones ******* things up.

Yes, I would have been fine with it - I used to sit in protests back in my college days demanding that the US meet the superior European environmental standards!

I know we **** things up all the time, it's the American way to land ass backwards in a pile of money. I gather it's rather annoying.

Quote:

That said, I think the goals you are trying to achieve can be implemented in a manner consistent with free trade: Just raise a sales tax proportional to the energy that goes into a product and impose it on every product equally, no matter where it comes from. For American products, the tax would be collected in the same manner as other sales taxes. For foreign products, it would be collected at the border, in the same way customs now collect sales taxes on alcoholic beverages there. Deal?

Deal!

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I know we **** things up all the time, it's the American way to land ass backwards in a pile of money. I gather it's rather annoying.

It's not the ******* up in itself that's annoying. Everybody does that. Rather, it's the combination of America's barely-above-average record, combined with the convition that America's opinions of what's fucked up and what isn't are so superior they're worth imposing on the rest of the world. That's what gets a little old sometimes.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
But she does have a point. We share an atmosphere and a biosphere and the actions of one country tend to affect others. There is no compelling reason for the US to sit back and let others to continue to **** up the environment the way we used to before we smartened up.

So you would have been fine with European protectionism against American products around the year 2000, when most of Europe had smartened up on global warming and America hadn't? You know, it's one of those amusing things in these discussions. You can bet Americans will confidently assume that they are the smart ones, and that other nations are the ones ******* things up.

I believe the world needs a lot less judgements by individual nations concerning what is acceptable for other nations to do within their borders, excepting only extreme violations of recognized human rights, and issues involving clear and serious danger to others.

The problem, of course is that nearly everyone believes their issues meet that test.
Thus the EU threatens African nations with a complete ban on all their agricultural products if they use and genetically modified seeds, even in cases where a significant reduction in malnutrition is indicated by their use, and the seeds are safely used in this country. Oddly these same European nations were extremely reluctant to intervene in Bosnia even as real large scale acts of genocide were taking place in Europe within a few hundred miles of their borders.
These same Europeans frequently repeat Thomas' criticisms of our analogous overbearing actions more or less as he described them. Clearly there is no shortage of hypocrisy in the developed world.

I find it strange that, in an age of extreme skepticism towards traditional forms of religion, it has become so fashionable to slavishly accept the dogmas of narrow-minded enviromentalists with a credulity that would do a medieval monk proud - even in cases where the academic objectivity of the most dogmatic "scientific" protagonists of this new religion has been shown to be seriously deficient - hiding data from skeptics; punishing academic dissenters; carefully selecting data from different sources to paint a deceptive picture to advance a favored conclusion; persisting in their dire predictions, even as the unfolding reality confounds them; grossly exaggerating the effects; etc.

The developing nations frankly aren't buying the demands of the environmental religionists, and put their hopes for a better material existence for their people above the fears of well-fed, dressed, and housed European and American global warming fanatics. They are, of course willing to let us foot the bill for them - poetic justice. When all the illusions are played out and the real capital and operating cost of the blissful new green world becomes clear, we will opt out too.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Rather, it's the combination of America's barely-above-average record

Hahaha, you're going to have me sounding like George any minute now with comments like these...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Thus the EU threatens African nations with a complete ban on all their agricultural products if they use and genetically modified seeds, even in cases where a significant reduction in malnutrition is indicated by their use, and the seeds are safely used in this country. Oddly these same European nations were extremely reluctant to intervene in Bosnia even as real large scale acts of genocide were taking place in Europe within a few hundred miles of their borders.

True. And I assure you that I annoy a lot of my German correspondents by criticizing these policies. If I seem overly critical of the USA here, that's just because A2K happens to be a mostly American forum.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Hahaha, you're going to have me sounding like George any minute now with comments like these...
Cycloptichorn

Try it. You'll find that a glow of happy well-being takes over as the cant and prefabricated nonsense previously stuffed in your head by the credulous practicioners of conventional correct thought leaves your mind ... and is replaced with independent thought, common sense and a clear view of reality.

You'll feel better all day. Wink

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Yes George is quite right, close reading of my posts will lead to independent thought, common sense and a clear view of reality. A bottle of Makers Mark won't hurt either but single malt scotch will rot your mind.

1 Reply

Helping Americans understand just how rich we are

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know