What America Owes The World...

About a year ago I saw a report about South Africa on the BBC. They showed a township with dilapidated wood houses and dirt streets, now turned into mud due to heavy rains. The reporter said that malaria was rampant in the area, and hoped that international aid would come in so that proper drainage could be dug. And during the entire report, there were hundreds of able bodied men standing around doing nothing, because there were no jobs.

I admit I'm not a civil engineer, and have never designed a drainage system. But if my family was at risk of malaria, I believe I'd grab a shovel and start digging a drainage ditch, instead of hoping for a handout.

0 Replies

South Africa is the richest country in Sub-Saharan Africa, so presumably the best prepared one to help itself.

I can see a case for sneeking some condoms into, say, Nigeria, to help empower Nigerian women against oppression from Muslim fundamentalist men. The wisdom of specifically helping South Africa escapes me -- unless the wisdom is that there are many more TV cameras in South Africa than there are in Nigeria.

0 Replies

I agree that the SA government has not helped to control the AIDS epidemic.

South Africa is, however, a very poor country. Certain perpetrators of these horrific crimes against children will be caught but the principle of educating the people directly to prevent future instances is what I'm calling for.

We can't do everything for everyone - agreed.

What I find difficult is my perception that your attitude is "their own country can't manage to deal with it, why should we?" rather than seeing all people of this world as our brothers and sisters, some of whom are in difficult situations and could do with help we can supply.

If people don't understand something of the disease which affects so many of their fellow citizents, how are they going to change the government (by democratic means, in the case of SA) to make changes to the provision of information?

I feel as if I'm shouting in the wilderness, though!

0 Replies

kitchenpete wrote:

What I find difficult is my perception that your attitude is "their own country can't manage to deal with it, why should we?" rather than seeing all people of this world as our brothers and sisters, some of whom are in difficult situations and could do with help we can supply.

Assuming it's my attitude you're talking about, I have nothing against "seeing all people of this world as our brothers and sisters". It's just that donors have to set priorities, and the South Africans, while poor, are nowhere near the top of the list in terms of neediness.

Moreover, I believe that freer trade and freer immigration are much better tools for raising poor people out of misery. Unlike foreign aid, which is always co-opted by the government of the receiving country, free trade and free immigration actually help the productive and enterprising people -- whether in government or not.

Whatever help a country has to give, it should give it -- but there are needier recipients than medium-income nations like South Africa, and there are better ways of giving than by foreign aid.

0 Replies

Jim wrote:

About a year ago I saw a report about South Africa on the BBC. They showed a township with dilapidated wood houses and dirt streets, now turned into mud due to heavy rains. The reporter said that malaria was rampant in the area, and hoped that international aid would come in so that proper drainage could be dug. And during the entire report, there were hundreds of able bodied men standing around doing nothing, because there were no jobs.

I admit I'm not a civil engineer, and have never designed a drainage system. But if my family was at risk of malaria, I believe I'd grab a shovel and start digging a drainage ditch, instead of hoping for a handout.

And then someone would trip over your ditch and sue you for everything you have. :wink:

Seriously, you hit the nail on the head here. But watch now as the liberal intelligencia denigrate you for having the audacity to expect people to help themselves. You see, without perpetuating the notion that there exists an entrenched and identifiable subset of human beings who can only survive, be healthy, be fulfilled by the actions of government--and more specifically through government taking from those who produce resources and giving to those identified as the wanting class--liberalism would cease to exist. So, when you suggest that those identified as being in need are often in a position to do something to improve their own lot, well, pull on your flack jacket, because it isn't going to be pretty. Cool

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

But watch now as the liberal intelligencia denigrate you for having the audacity to expect people to help themselves. You see, without perpetuating the notion that there exists an entrenched and identifiable subset of human beings who can only survive, be healthy, be fulfilled by the actions of government--and more specifically through government taking from those who produce resources and giving to those identified as the wanting class--liberalism would cease to exist. So, when you suggest that those identified as being in need are often in a position to do something to improve their own lot, well, pull on your flack jacket, because it isn't going to be pretty.

A specious and gratuitous blanket attack on those with whom you disagree. Very likely, it also yet another attempt to get some poor sucker to argue with you on your terms. Setting up strawmen again, huh Shirley?

0 Replies

I agree with Set...Scrat, you are just looking for a fight...typical of ALL CONSERVATIVES WITH NO MORE SENSE THAN THE BULLETS THEY'D LIKE TO SHOOT AT THE DEPRIVED, WHO THEY SEE AS A SCOURGE TO THOSE WHO "DESERVE" THE HEALTH AND PROSPERITY...ARE YOU REALLY SO INSECURE THAT YOU CAN'T IMAGINE ANYONE DOING THINGS IN A SPIRIT OF ALTRUISM? :wink:

Yes, I'm just returning the ball with the opposite spin...you don't like it, we don't like it. You and I have even discussed it in a civilised manner on my thread "Talking past each other" but you can't help yourself. Unreal! Twisted Evil

Thomas - I see your point and agree that (in the longer term) free trade and freedom of movement of people could make a much greater difference than handouts. Help can come in many different ways...sometimes people just need to be helped to help themselves = "teaching to fish".

KP

0 Replies

It never ceases to amaze me that people on both sides of this debate are treating "foreign aid" as a "handout".

Seriously, examine our foreign aid. There's little eleemosynary about it. It's usually closer to geopolitical strategy than charity.

0 Replies

Let me go back to the topic title. If America does tangible harm somewhere, it is responsible for doing what it can to correct the problem. Otherwise, America OWES the rest of the world nothing. America may decide in a charitable spirit to help others, but that is fundamentally different than owing people something. Unless we have done tangible harm, the rest of the world cannot say, "America you owe us, so pay up." We are not in their debt.

0 Replies

ILZ; i just found your most eloquent thesis, and wish to complement your text, and its underlying 'sense'.

I have not read the entire thread, so what i am about to say may be repetitive, but if so, is worth repeating.

Redistributing wealth can be done quite easily (but not 'painlessly' by taxation (i know anathema to Americans).

simply imposing a tax on 'luxury' (using a fairly 'soft' definition) would readily provide billions for beginning to level the 'grasp' of third world nations on the resources of this planet.

A car costs about $20,000 (CDN). If a tax of 1% were levied on an vehicle costing more than twice this figure, thereby judging it to be a 'luxury' purchase (whereas having a car 20 years old, and falling apart, is beyond the dreams of most third world residents - and granted this is a poor example in light of global polution; selling no cars should be our aim, but then this would be a 'dissuading' tax) the tax figure would begin at $400, and go up depending on the 'degree' of luxury (i would prefer a rising scale, but lets keep it simple).

One can see how this tax would soon raise a very considerable sum, and nothing would need to be taken from the government revenue extracted from the lower income sections of the population to be 'wasted' (according to arch conservative ideals) on the 'indigent poor' (their term) of the planet.

The tax would also apply pressure away from purchasing items on the basis of 'show', or 'indulgence', as such would be penalized.
In a perfect world the tax could be abandonned when people only bought what they needed, and the rest of the population of the planet shared their standard of living (JOKE!).

0 Replies

galton wrote:

Let me go back to the topic title. If America does tangible harm somewhere, it is responsible for doing what it can to correct the problem. Otherwise, America OWES the rest of the world nothing. America may decide in a charitable spirit to help others, but that is fundamentally different than owing people something. Unless we have done tangible harm, the rest of the world cannot say, "America you owe us, so pay up." We are not in their debt.

do you need to 'owe' your brothers or sisters, or neighbours, or the members of your (_____) team, in order to share with them and wish them well?

Is it such a s t r e t c h ! to enlarge that group?

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

A car costs about $20,000 (CDN). If a tax of 1% were levied on an vehicle costing more than twice this figure, thereby judging it to be a 'luxury' purchase

... then the rich would reduce their consumption of cars to increase their consumption of golfing and yachting. Meanwhile, the builders of luxury cars bear most of the cost of the tax in terms of reduced employment and reduced income. Your proposal has been tried over and over again. It never worked, because the consumption of luxuries by rich people is much more responsive to prices than the production of luxuries by ordinary folks. Luxury taxes are a textbook example of how good intentions can backfire to achieve the opposite of the intended result.

If you wish to redistribute income, do it with a progressive income tax, possibly with a bracket which pays a "negative income tax". Luxury taxes are famously inadequate for what you are trying to achieve.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

In a perfect world the tax could be abandonned when people only bought what they needed, and the rest of the population of the planet shared their standard of living (JOKE!).

Is the whole post a joke? Steal from the rich and give to the poor? Are you advocating a "Robin Hood" set of values where production is punished and a lack of it rewarded? Wouldn't you better serve your fellow man by giving him a better shot at being productive? In this country; luxury is frequently the goal. In your "perfect world" where this ceases to be the case, what motivates production?

0 Replies

The last time a large 'luxury tax' was imposed (on high value boats, cars, jewelry etc.) was in 1990. It devastated the boat building industry in the United States and severely injured the other markets. The tax raised approximately $16 million to $30 million depending on what figures you use, but the resulting loss of jobs and sales revenues when the rich went elsewhere to buy their boats and other toys created a net loss to the economy. Many thousands of jobs were lost. This was another case of good intentions resulting in unintended consequences. I would scrap any idea of a luxury tax as a way to help the peoples of the world.

I haven't read all of the posts on this thread and this may have already been addressed. But looking at per capita contributions to alleviate misery and despair in other parts of the word, is any other country doing better than the USA? If so, do we have a duty/responsibility to do more? If so, should this be voluntary on the part of the U.S. citizens? Or should it be the responsibility of government to collect from the populace for the purpose of benevolence?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

... then the rich would reduce their consumption of cars to increase their consumption of golfing and yachting.......

no, no, no, no, no, no!!!

that was just an example; ALL luxuries would be taxed!! anything that is not considered a necessity; the golf balls, the clubs the Golf Club Membership;
costly guns with inlaid silver stocks (most are, of course, necessities to Americans); yachts should bring in a pretty penny, but any reasonable boat used for transportation, and not gold plated, would be exempt, etc., etc.

and while i'm at it, on the subject of 'tax' i would like to see income tax eliminated, and replaced by a substantial (say 25%ish) goods and services tax, which would be a far more equitable way to tax people - you pay according to how you 'consume'!

I know, i know, only two problems; getting re-elected after making the change, and enforcing it!

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

.......Steal from the rich and give to the poor? Are you advocating a ?Robin Hood? set of values where production is punished and a lack of it rewarded? Wouldn?t you better serve your fellow man by giving him a better shot at being productive? In this country; luxury is frequently the goal. In your ?perfect world? where this ceases to be the case, what motivates production?

if you were to look around you, the enemy is 'excess'.
if your top 'producers' were to draw the line at having 'enough' perhaps they might have time to see how their kids are growing up, maybe play a little 'ball' together, take in a local theatre production; hell, 'perform' in one.
But they might not be able to 'afford' a 'Navigator'.
And yes maybe volunteering time to teach the kids in the ghettos a trade, or just a little wisdom, would do more for the society, than earning enough to have your taxes personally pay for a new prison.

0 Replies

KP - Is it possible that we can attempt to measure the likelihood of success or failure of altruistic efforts? And if so, would it make sense to put our efforts where they are most likely to achieve the desired good? See, typically, you pretend that my position is that we should do nothing altruistic, when my position is that we need to do what makes sense and is likely to actually improve the situation, rather than just make us feel good about ourselves for trying.

What I constantly hear from people who identify themselves as liberals, is that they seem to think that they hold a monopoly on caring, which they measure by how willing the individual is to commit someone else's money to solve yet another person's problem. They point out a problem, demand that it must be solved, and jump immediately to taking a head count as to who is willing to commit other people's money to the task.

Forgive me, but I think this jumps a bunch of important questions that need to be answered before we can reasonably pretend to know what should be done... What caused the problem? Is the cause on-going? Who should have been making sure that this problem didn't occur? What were they doing instead? What resources do those people have, and what did they choose to do with them instead? What behaviors led to the problem and what impact might a given suggested course of altruistic effort on our part have on those behaviors? ...

Long ago I was in a down-and-out situation and called my parents (I was 20 at the time) to tell them I planned to come home and move back in with them. I blamed my situation on others and figured I had a plan that would allow me to avoid dealing with the mess I'd made of my life. My father told me, "Don't come here. There's nothing for you here."

If you look at this situation through the liberal lense used to look at social problems, you would assert that my parents did not care about me, basing this assessment solely on the facts that I needed help, that they were capable of offering it, but they refused to do so. Of course, I suspect that in this scenario you can see that there's another option: that they did care, and believed that allowing me to run from my problems would remove any chance of learning from them. They believed that what they were doing was, in fact, helping me in the best way they could.

I've talked with my parents about this in the years since. I've thanked them many times for taking the stand they took, and they've told me how hard it was to do what they did. This latter point is an important one; sometimes the right thing is hard to do. Sometimes the right thing looks wrong, because sometimes the right thing is to do nothing, or to first demand that the person show some willingness to help himself.

Sometimes the way to help people isn't to step in and solve their problems for them, and sometimes it is. All I am saying is that we need to consider this question before we act, rather than just pointing to a heart-rendering tragedy and clamoring to throw money at it, and denigrating anyone who suggests we try to be sure that it's money the problem needs.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

if you were to look around you, the enemy is 'excess'.
if your top 'producers' were to draw the line at having 'enough' perhaps they might have time to see how their kids are growing up, maybe play a little 'ball' together, take in a local theatre production; hell, 'perform' in one.
But they might not be able to 'afford' a 'Navigator'.
And yes maybe volunteering time to teach the kids in the ghettos a trade, or just a little wisdom, would do more for the society, than earning enough to have your taxes personally pay for a new prison.

Interestingly enough; in my personal life, I am inclined to agree with you. "Excess" and my desire to achieve it has become my enemy. In the last decade; I've put in 60 to 80 hours a week, purchased thousands of things I didn't need, and frankly, I'm not too happy about it. The problem with your thinking is that when someone like me exits the rat-race; the result benefits only me, not society. People make their living building the junk I purchased, but didn't need. If I don't need the extra money to buy junk, I don't need to employ people to help me earn it. The net result of abandoning a pursuit of luxury is detrimental to society at large, not beneficial. I'm not the extraordinarily successful person referred to in your example, but I am arrogant enough to believe I could be. The fact that I no longer want to be will only hurt, not help, my fellow man.

0 Replies

OB - If you are ever in Raleigh, NC, I'd love to buy you a beer, cup of coffee, etc..

BGW - I almost agree with you, but your comments are a little too one-sided, and overstate the case a bit. For one thing, you forget that quite often that local theater production was funded by some of the excess of one of the companies you advocate forego the pursuit of excess.

Rarely does the creation of wealth take away from others; it invariably has positive effects that ripple outward from the center. Sure it can be taken too far how much wealth we create becomes more important than how we create it, but that's not an argument against the creation of wealth, but an argument for focusing society back on things like morals, ethics, perhaps even spirituality.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Thomas wrote:
. i would like to see income tax eliminated, and replaced by a substantial (say 25%ish) goods and services tax, which would be a far more equitable way to tax people - you pay according to how you 'consume'!

consumption is a good thing though. it's what drives our economy. people buy more than they need. companies producing this stuff hire more people to do it. everyone is better off.

i would prefer that the rich spent every penny they make rather buying stuff like gold and diamonds or putting it away in an offshore bank account or something.

i know, i know, banks buy stocks and bonds and help fund businesses. but it's not the availability of funds that causes companies to hire more people and make more goods, it's the demand for said goods.

0 Replies

What America Owes The World...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know