@Robert Gentel,
I would have thought Edgar's post would have put the need for charity at home vs. abroad comparisons to bed for good.
Quote:Feeding America is annually providing food to 37 million Americans, including 14 million children. This is an increase of 46 percent over 2006, when we were feeding 25 million Americans, including 9 million children, each year.
37 Million? Where would you like to be hungry?
Meanwhile every proud American who truly believes all men are created equal need only recognize that all men are not Americans. The natural rights guaranteed by our constitution were merely recognized by it, not given. Why do we have so much trouble recognizing these same natural rights should be guaranteed to people born on the other side of arbitrary lines in the sand as well? Does anyone really believe our rich history of succesful land-grabbing grants us some virtue over our fellow man? Not one contributor on this thread grew up ill-equipped to compete on a level playing field. Where is the pride?
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
[1) As Thomas noted, you are knocking down a straw man. I never made the claim that we are responsible for the poverty of others, I explicitly said we were not but you still chose to debunk your own canard.
See my response to Thomas. No straw man at all. You haven't addressed the cause of poverty or how increased U.S. trade or other like steps to "level the playing field" will in any way improve it.
Robert Gentel wrote:
3) You don't like to blame rich for the poor unless it's the foreign rich, then you don't hesitate to blame Paulista bankers and Rio..., hellifino what the hell Ipanema Cariocas do for their money, for their poor.
No again. You are assigning meaning to my words that I never expressed and yourself offering a straw man. If we relax our import tarifs on Brazilian ethanol or sugar, that will enable Brazil to make more money on trade with us. However I don't entertain any illusions that it will reduce poverty in the favelas of Rio at all, simply because the specific causes of that poverty do not relate to Brazil's export of agricultural products. Brazil is overall an increasingly rich country. The poverty in sections of Rio and Sao Paulo as well as in the North has specific causes whose origins are there - not in this country.
Robert Gentel wrote:
This blame game strikes me as a childish tit-for-tat and the worst thing is that you keep debunking it when I'm not arguing it with you at all. You and others here just keep repeating the same fallacies (strawman about blame, guilt by association, ten wrongs must be enough to make a right) but won't address my actual point at all:
You call it a blame game. I call it inquiring into the specific causes for the poverty in question and taking action to address those causes. Doing something"nice" may make you feel good but it may not have any beneficial effect. Most of the aid given to Congo (then called Zaire) ended up lining the pockets of its former dictator and his cronies. The result was to entrench an exploitive authoritarian kleptocracy and positively harm the unfortunate people of that country.
Robert Gentel wrote:
1) Can we adopt attitudes and policies that can make the world's economy a more level playing field? I say yes, do you dispute this?
2) Do we have enough wealth as a nation to afford to do so? I say yes, do you dispute this?
Amid all these red herrings, will any of you actually address this?
Who is "we"? Be specific. The simple fact is that the United States has done far more than any other existing major power to expand and extend free trade, and often to our own short term economic detriment. Moreover, no pervious world domoinant power has done nearly as much in this area. Indeed most of them from the British to the French, Spanish and Soviet Empires exploited client states, resticting them to exporting only commodities and requiring them to import only from the master state. We are a very significant change in a long established historical pattern.
Ironically here it the self-styled "progressives" who most favor unequal restrictions on free trade simply to protect labor unions and like interests. They proclaim themselves to be the protectors of working people everywhere, but it turns out they are interested only in those who pay dues to them.
The United States gave aid to Haiti in the 1990s approximately equalling the value of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. What did it accomplish?
I agree that we should encourage industrial development in chronically poor countries where it is possible. However if we end up just financing an exploitive government or class we will have done no good and perhaps real harm. Ultimately the correction of chronic poverty must come from within.
Insisting that developing economies instantly apply expoensive green technologies in their development is no favor to them. Instead it is an example of rich folks able to indulge in whimsical fantasies about imagined global disaster imflicting more suffering on truly hungry people.
@edgarblythe,
if we could even reclaim the food that was destroyed in grocery stores it would numb you
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:See my response to Thomas. No straw man at all.
I saw it, it doesn't change that it was a classic straw man.
Quote:You haven't addressed the cause of poverty or how increased U.S. trade or other like steps to "level the playing field" will in any way improve it.
Thomas has and you dismissed it thoughtlessly, so I won't bother. Thing is, we don't have to agree on the causes of poverty to recognize that increased economic activity for developing economies helps them.
Quote:Robert Gentel wrote:
3) You don't like to blame rich for the poor unless it's the foreign rich, then you don't hesitate to blame Paulista bankers and Rio..., hellifino what the hell Ipanema Cariocas do for their money, for their poor.
No again. You are assigning meaning to my words that I never expressed and yourself offering a straw man.
Do you blame rich Americans for the poor Americans? No. Do you blame Americans for poor foreigners? No. Do you blame rich Paulista bankers and Ipanema residents for the poor of Rio? Sure sounded like it, but it doesn't really matter I'll take your word for it.
Quote: If we relax our import tarifs on Brazilian ethanol or sugar, that will enable Brazil to make more money on trade with us. However I don't entertain any illusions that it will reduce poverty in the favelas of Rio at all, simply because the specific causes of that poverty do not relate to Brazil's export of agricultural products. Brazil is overall an increasingly rich country. The poverty in sections of Rio and Sao Paulo as well as in the North has specific causes whose origins are there - not in this country.
If you don't think increased economic growth in Brazil would help Brazil's poor we have fundamental differences in economic theory (as you would with just about any economist).
I've lived in Brazil 3 different times for many years, spanning multiple economic stages. I have witnessed dramatic growth and development and most of it is ascribable to them opening up their markets to globalism and with their end of hyperinflation (and later the currency pegging).
The poor are having their lot in life improve as well here and more economic growth
will help them.
Quote:I call it inquiring into the specific causes for the poverty in question and taking action to address those causes. Doing something"nice" may make you feel good but it may not have any beneficial effect.
If you think that increased economic growth for them won't help them you either don't understand Brazil or economics or a bit of both.
Quote: Most of the aid given to Congo (then called Zaire) ended up lining the pockets of its former dictator and his cronies. The result was to entrench an exploitive authoritarian kleptocracy and positively harm the unfortunate people of that country.
No matter how many times I tell you I'm not talking about foreign aid and handouts you keep knocking down this straw man.
Foreign aid can fail because it's giving a man (usually the corrupt ones on top) a fish and not teaching them to fish (it can often entrench the corrupt leaders). This is not the case with economic growth and is not what I am talking about even if you prefer to knock this straw man down.
Quote:Robert Gentel wrote:1) Can we adopt attitudes and policies that can make the world's economy a more level playing field? I say yes, do you dispute this?
2) Do we have enough wealth as a nation to afford to do so? I say yes, do you dispute this?
Amid all these red herrings, will any of you actually address this?
Who is "we"? Be specific.
I believe the country we were talking about was the United States.
Quote:The simple fact is that the United States has done far more than any other existing major power to expand and extend free trade, and often to our own short term economic detriment.
Nice segue (and I'm glad you remembered what country we are talking about), but you are skipping the two simple questions with more red herrings aren't you?
Quote:Moreover, no pervious world domoinant power has done nearly as much in this area. Indeed most of them from the British to the French, Spanish and Soviet Empires exploited client states, resticting them to exporting only commodities and requiring them to import only from the master state. We are a very significant change in a long established historical pattern.
So break out the pom poms and the
tu quoque (you too) fallacy if you must. but at least have the intellectual honesty to answer the questions you are pretending to answer.
Quote:Ironically here it the self-styled "progressives" who most favor unequal restrictions on free trade simply to protect labor unions and like interests. They proclaim themselves to be the protectors of working people everywhere, but it turns out they are interested only in those who pay dues to them.
Why are you making progressive straw men here? Have I said a word about unions? What progressive ghost are you preferring to argue with instead of answering my two questions?
Quote:The United States gave aid to Haiti in the 1990s approximately equalling the value of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier. What did it accomplish?
Go get a room with your foreign aid straw man. We were talking about trade relationships. I already told you once very explicitly that I did not make the aircraft carrier/Haiti comparison to suggest we give that in foreign aid instead, but as a way to show people how much we spend on an aircraft carrier when we don't need them.
Quote:Insisting that developing economies instantly apply expoensive green technologies in their development is no favor to them.
Yeah, I said as much too. At least we have some common ground on this if for different reasons.
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Do you blame rich Americans for the poor Americans? No. Do you blame Americans for poor foreigners? No. Do you blame rich Paulista bankers and Ipanema residents for the poor of Rio? Sure sounded like it, but it doesn't really matter I'll take your word for it.
In general no I don't blame anyone for poverty absent specific reason for doing so. However, my point was that without the willing assistance and participation of Brazilians new economic activity there won't reach the people in the favelas.
The high price of exported petroleum hasn't done the growing poor population of Venezuela much good. Were we to add a premium to that price (we can't buy more because their production is falling due to incompetent and misguided government management) it wouldn't help them either, instead it would enrich those who are taking their freedom.
Robert Gentel wrote:
If you don't think increased economic growth in Brazil would help Brazil's poor we have fundamental differences in economic theory (as you would with just about any economist).
You are merely retreating behind vapid generalities. Yes more beneficial trade will benefit their economy, but without concrete domestic action to address the local causes of their poverty it won't do much good.
Robert Gentel wrote:
I've lived in Brazil 3 different times for many years, spanning multiple economic stages. I have witnessed dramatic growth and development and most of it is ascribable to them opening up their markets to globalism and with their end of hyperinflation (and later the currency pegging).
Now you have finally said something meaningful and constructive. The fact is that for many years the primary restraint on beneficial economic development in Brazil was their own misguided and often incompetent government (Janio Quadros comes to mind). Now that they have ended nearly a century of almost hyperinflation (remember "valorization"?) ; lossened restrictions on their labor market and the movement of capital; and reduced taxes on enterprises, things are starting to move for everyone. Their problem was never the result of anyone's restrictive trade policies but their own. Still, even with the better current situation, the favelas of Rio and the slums of Sao Paulo as well as some regions in the North are and will remain poor until the social pathologies that infest them are corrected - no matter what trade policies we may adopt.
Robert Gentel wrote:1) Can we adopt attitudes and policies that can make the world's economy a more level playing field? I say yes, do you dispute this?
2) Do we have enough wealth as a nation to afford to do so? I say yes, do you dispute this?
In the absence of any attempt to define what you mean by "a more level...." the answer is obviously yes. But that is merely a tautology. We don't however have enough wealth to materially reduce poverty in the world, and I believe the attempt to do so would have more adverse side effects on the world economy than good.
Robert Gentel wrote:Amid all these red herrings, will any of you actually address this?
I have though your questions were vague, non specific and basically meaningless.
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Dead serious, I want to know what kind of logic you use to claim we have a "duty" to unborn people but not to ones around us right now.
I've heard people complain, probably in some form by Cyclops, that republicans are only concerned with abortion, but once the baby is born, they don't care enough to provide basic needs.
This sounds similar.
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:Humans exist to provide meaning to the Universe, which - absent an outside observer - is like heaven's choir playing in an empty hall.
You've got to be kidding me. The meaning of the Universe has long been found. The answer is 42. There's no good reason for us Dolphins to keep keep you humans around anymore.
Congressmen and -women get elected and re-elected not simply despite voting to build incredibly expensive aircraft carriers, but even because they do so. The states of Oregon, Washington, California, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine all have coast lines and port facilities which means that they benefit directly or indirectly from the construction of and maintenance of naval vessels. Many inland states benefit from the production of raw materials and value-added products which go into the construction of naval vessels. Your example at the beginning of the thread is hopelessly naive because it ignores political and economic realities. More than that, behind an American military shield, western Europe and Japan developed the same kind of consumer economy which makes the United States rich, and needing few to no aircraft carriers, they spent their revenues of health care systems, agricultural subsidies, education systems and a host of other things which we automatically associate with industrialized societies.
But your thesis is even more naive because of what it ignores about where wealth comes from, how we get wealthy. There is not some finite pool of "wealth" out there from which the United States unfairly takes a lion's share. You either ignore, are unaware of or have forgotten how the United States and the European nations, as well as Japan and recently China became wealthy. They have exploited natural resources, or lacking those, have engaged successfully in the value added process with which wealth is created out of natural resources. These nations started with some natural resources, and the United States have been particularly well provided in that respect. But they created their wealth from the process of adding value to the natural resources, whether the resources came from their own territory or not. That is why a nation which is relatively resource poor, such as Japan, can still make itself wealthy.
These nations have also benefited from the carrying trade. First Hansa, the the Dutch, then the English and then the United States and Japan have benefited from the carrying trade, which does not require either natural resources or a value adding process--it simply requires the development of or the exploitation of maritime expertise. Holland, for example, gained the world's first true expertise in "blue water" sailing in the North Sea, the most difficult and dangerous maritime classroom in the world, when they fished for herring and other fish to salt and sell to the rest of then Catholic Europe. When they moved to muscle Hansa out of the carrying trade, they had already developed the expertise to make that possible. It was a case of a human value adding process, in which they developed first class seaman and maritime architects.
The United States was not the first, nor usually even the greatest of the industrial powers. The United States was first and foremost an agricultural and raw material supplier, and continues to exploit such resources to this day. But the other significant thing which the United States and the rest of the industrial world have in common is being huge consumer societies. All of these nations (whether or not they are resource rich) take raw materials, add to their value from a light or heavy industrial process, and then quickly sell them to consumers eager for the goods, and possessing the wherewithal to purchase them.
The industrial world created consumer economies, even if it did take them centuries for the nickel to drop, and to realize that well-paid workers will be the consumers of their goods. Henry Ford had huge parking lots paved near his factories because he intended to and did sell his automobiles to his own workers, who could not have afforded to buy those cars if they hadn't been decently paid.
A nation like Haiti has none of these advantages, and largely because they've been consistenty robbed by a wealthy minority. The earliest production in Haiti of which i know is when it was still largely colonized by French Protestants who went out into the woods to hunt game, and to smoke the meat which was then salted down and sold to ships which called at the island of Tortuga to smuggle and buy provisions. When the royal government began to extirpate the Protestants, they also began to clear the forests in which the game was once hunted, and favored individuals began to set up sugar plantations, at which point the west African negro was imported as slaves.
Since then, what few and poor resources Haiti has had were sold off to the benefit of a few who didn't and to this day don't give a damn about their fellow citizens. Haiti barely exists as a nation. It's forests have gone to the lumber mills long since and it barely produces enough sugar to employ even a significant small fraction of the population. Even that simplest and most obvious of sugar island valued-added products--rum--has never been produced in Haiti in sufficient quantity to do more than line the pockets of a few.
Even in the unlikely event that you could convince the American people to feed Haiti rather build another carrier, you'd have solved nothing. You would not have created a consumer and production economy there which is the only long-term solution to their problems. And you won't be able to do that so long as there is a tiny but powerful and selfish minority whose only interest is their own personal profit. You'd have to change the society completely to make the change, and that would take nothing short of bloody revolution. Interested?
This is really a hopelessly naive diatribe on your part. It deals in no reality.
@Setanta,
Quote:But your thesis is even more naive because of what it ignores about where wealth comes from, how we get wealthy. There is not some finite pool of "wealth" out there from which the United States unfairly takes a lion's share. You either ignore, are unaware of or have forgotten how the United States and the European nations, as well as Japan and recently China became wealthy.
You're not all that naive so that leaves us with only one conclusion; you're more willing to lie and distort history to hide the record of the grasping and rapacious USA.
Talk of abusing reality.
@Thomas,
Excuse me?
I was refering to the suggestion somewhere in this thread that industrialization in other countries needs to be allowed to happen so that they can also be wealthy. I said it would not be compassionate to open trade so that dangerous, harmful jobs are sent overseas. If it is not acceptable for US citizens to to consume chemicals that deform and kill our children, which was the case with thousands of products while we industrialized, then why the hell would we advocate those jobs being done by ANYONE?? I find that horrifying! It has to do with "Do as we say, not as we did."
I wasn't even thinking about U.S. air being polluted or the U.S. environment being damaged. I was thinking on the individual level and the impact on their health. That was what was implied by the insertion of (paraphrased) "Take our nuclear rods. We care about you and want you to have a job guarding them." It's no different than me wanting to teach my children based on the lessons I have already learned, so that they don't have to go through the same hardships, except in the case of a lot of what we did for industrialization can cost them their life.
That was also why I addressed teaching them to be industrious. We can give them a well, but if we then teach them to sell its product they are much better off. If we give their neighbor a goat, he can then trade for or buy goats milk for his family. I don't have a problem with the giving, I have a problem with thinking that is all we have to do.
I am not of the opinion that free trade is the answer. IMO, individuals and non-profit organizations are the answer. Free trade only allows the governments and those already well off to benefit at the continued detriment of the poor. I don't believe that if a tarriff is lifted, the poor will suddenly get an extra nickle for their work, any more than I believe that making BP pay for the oil spill will have an affect on the bonuses paid at the top. Watch what happens at the pump this summer.
To Robert: Understanding that the poor will always be with us does not mean its okay or that nothing should be done. It simply means we have our work cut out for us. US, not U.S.
What have you done today to help alleviate the suffering of the poor? All this talk... is anything happening?
Or how about even starting within the U.S. (though I believe we should feed the world's hungry instead of threatening them with nuclear annhialation), and making life here more affordable.
Our country has gone so wrong it's infuriating. The cliche top 1% controlling 90%+ the wealth is still true, and getting worse I fear. We all know there's economic crisis here, but we just work harder and solve it. The people have reached damn near the brink of what they're capable.
How about improved public transport, education, major increases in funding for students, not loans, but grants. etc..
We aren't even rich. Were in major debt all over. The US is a very big lie.
But we have some wonderful people, starting up organizations that make no money, and they go out and help anyways. These are the people who should recieve some funding as well.
But of course,
The biggest bully on the block will always want bigger muscles.
@squinney,
Correction: First paragraph, last sentence should have been
It has
nothing to do with "Do as we say, not as we did."
@georgeob1,
Quote:Well said, Setanta.
See, Set. Proves that you're full of ****.
@Thomas,
Quote:The meaning of the Universe has long been found. The answer is 42. There's no good reason for us Dolphins to keep keep you humans around anymore.
Actually the dolphins were the most intelligent life on earth. The owners of the experiment were the mice.
@Setanta,
Quote:sold off to the benefit of a few.....line the pockets of a few.
This is also true of Africa, even though they have far greater resources.
The bloodletting and the incidence of failed states is greater in Africa exactly because the stakes are so much higher.
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
Quote:The meaning of the Universe has long been found. The answer is 42. There's no good reason for us Dolphins to keep keep you humans around anymore.
Actually the dolphins were the most intelligent life on earth. The owners of the experiment were the mice.
I stand corrected. Either way, humans are obsolete.
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:In general no I don't blame anyone for poverty absent specific reason for doing so. However, my point was that without the willing assistance and participation of Brazilians new economic activity there won't reach the people in the favelas.
Ok, so in your example, where ethanol exports from Brazil are made more competitive you do not imagine that this would employ more cane workers?
You really think that such increased economic participation will all go to rich Paulista bankers? Why do Republicans only believe in trickle-down economics when it comes to tax breaks for American rich but not when it comes to increased economic activity for developing nations?
The high price of exported petroleum hasn't done the growing poor population of Venezuela much good. Were we to add a premium to that price (we can't buy more because their production is falling due to incompetent and misguided government management) it wouldn't help them either, instead it would enrich those who are taking their freedom.
Quote:Yes more beneficial trade will benefit their economy, but without concrete domestic action to address the local causes of their poverty it won't do much good.
What is "much good" to you? The increased economic activity has been transformative to Brazil. What are you looking for? An overnight end to poverty in Brazil?
Yeah, that isn't going to happen but it's a cynical standard, a lot less than that can still mean a hell of a lot of good to a lot of people.
Quote:Now you have finally said something meaningful and constructive. The fact is that for many years the primary restraint on beneficial economic development in Brazil was their own misguided and often incompetent government (Janio Quadros comes to mind).
Sure, but I've never disputed this. Thing is, economic development and political development often come hand-in-hand. Sometimes it's hard to do one without the other.
The callous cynics of the world would advocate
sequentialism to address the problems, "fix your entire political system and then we'll talk about getting you something to eat". I find this to be cruel, it's a catch 22 for them and I advocate
parallelism where we act to help developing economies that show attempts towards better government.
Quote:Now that they have ended nearly a century of almost hyperinflation (remember "valorization"?) ; lossened restrictions on their labor market and the movement of capital; and reduced taxes on enterprises, things are starting to move for everyone. Their problem was never the result of anyone's restrictive trade policies but their own.
Those are all good things, and those are all things that America has some part in having preached to them. But the bottom line is that the increased economic activity with the rest of the world has been transformative for their economy and that more such economic activity is a generally good thing for the Brazilian people, including their poor.
Quote:Still, even with the better current situation, the favelas of Rio and the slums of Sao Paulo as well as some regions in the North are and will remain poor until the social pathologies that infest them are corrected - no matter what trade policies we may adopt.
The poor won't vanish overnight, and yes internal policies and local attitudes can improve but George you know very well that the Brazilian economy needs to grow to address the poverty as well, they can't policy wonk it away, the economy needs more growth to raise those millions of people out of poverty.
Economic growth for Brazil is good for Brazil's people, including the poor.
