🚀 go-pugleaf

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> 
> In article <33985B04.167@xtra.co.nz>, John William Rich <J.W.Rich@xtra.co.nz> writes:
> 
> >However, if we really want to do something about starvation, after the
> >feeling comes a willingness to sacrifice. Then the real issue becomes,
> >are we fat cat westerners prepared to take a cut in our standard of
> >living so that the starving get fed.
> 
> That's based on the ages old fallacious belief that economy is a zero
> sum game and whenever somebody's standard of living is improving, it
> is due to the exploitation of somebody else.  We've ample evidence
> that it ain't so.

No it's not based on any such thing - you may make it mean that but that
doesn't make it so. If an impoverished starving 3rd world citizen's
standard of living improved, it won't be due to the exploitation of
someone else, say in the USA, but it may be due to that American's
willingness to take a cut in his standard. Citizen's of the USA use
about twelve times the energy of a citizen of India. Use 10% less energy
by way of food, electricity, petrol etc. and make it available to say
India and you've increased their food supply, their capacity to
transport it and increased their industrial capability and thus their
ability to trade on an open world market. Sounds more like Adams-Smith
(with shades of Jesus) than Karl Marx (with shades of Lenin) to me.
So why should citizen's of the USA take a 10% cut? In my view it
wouldn't be that hard, in fact would the US really feel it? A bit of
carpooling, more walking, less food - hey we Kiwis are big eaters but we
are apalled at the size of a main on a US restaurant menu - and if
obesity is so desirable and beautiful why isn't everyone on "Melrose
Place" or "ER" as fat as the average person in the street. And why? So
the US can show the world they they really do believe in capitalism and
are prepared to put it into practice rather than the protectionist
controlled regime which passes for capitalism at the moment. People who
believe that Man is Good, trust that Man will do good with his wealth,
lean towards capitalism (Abraham Lincoln was one of these) - people who
believe Man is Bad, believe that only the State can be good and fair and
equal and thus lean towards Socialism (or as it has been practiced,
State Capitalism)(Karl Marx was one of these). 

> There was an economic system based on this belief.  Assuming that by
> taking from the fat cats it'll improve the lot of the people at large
> it did indeed manage to create equality of sorts, by reducing most
> everybody to poverty.  Need I name it?
Taking from the fat cats is your assumption, not mine. My philosophy has
the fat cats volunteering a cut for the greater good. This could be done
politically by allowing the US Government to increase taxation - or
perhaps by directing a slice of the pie overseas. The system you are
referring to may well have done what you suggest - I believe it was more
the arms race that broke them. And what system is equal - the US? there
would be a lot of Blacks, Hispanics, North American natives, women,
Vets, non-Wasps, communists, etc who might have cause for complaint.
> 
> It's not just a matter of handing
> >out food - long term it must be about allowing free trade on the planet
> >so people can feed themselves by being able to sell what they've got,
> >even if it is only their sweat and toil. And us allowing them to compete
> >in our markets - even if it costs us some jobs locally.
> 
> Guess what, there is the trade nowadys is more free than it was for a
> very long time and "they" are free to compete in our markets.  Some
> nations which used to be third world countries are prosperous nowadays
> (Singapore, Taiwan, Hong-Kong, to name but a few) and their prosperity
> is based on global trade.  Of course they also have stable governments
> which support business, not kleptocracies, which may have something to
> do with their success.
So you agree with my point - free trade is what it must be about. My
country, New Zealand, in 1964, agreed to send troops to Viet Nam in
return for improved access to the US market for our beef. We've always
been on a quota. It was practically wiped out when we banned US nuclear
armed and nuclear powered ships from our ports and declared ourselves to
be a Nuclear Free Zone. Freedom of trade, freedom of thought, freedom of
philosophy - whose principles are these?
> 
> >I'll bet more money is spent on the issue of obesity in the US (and it's
> >related problems) than is spent on aid to the starving - isn't that
> >insane????
> >
> I happened to read just few days ago (in one of the articles
> commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Marshall Plan) that the
> total amount of aid which the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa received
> from the affluent countries since 1970 is (after correcting for
> inflation) more than 4 times as large as the Marshall Plan.  Somehow,
> it didn't do much good.
Shouldn't you be asking why, and how can you make it better, and who's
to account for the obvious misuse of your resources rather than using
this as a justification to turn your back and let the status quo remain. 

Regards,
John Rich