🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3398B00D.1BC9@xtra.co.nz>, John William Rich <J.W.Rich@xtra.co.nz> writes:
>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. 

I'm afraid this doesn't follow.  The economy in India is not problem 
free but it is not choking on lack of energy.  Check some data.

>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?

The US won't, others will.  In spite of your denials above, you still 
seem to believe that the problems of other countries stem from the US 
grabbing to much in way of resources.  Well, no, not really.  On the 
other hand, slow down the US economy a bit and who you think is going 
to suffer the most.  Exactly those third world countries whom you 
would like to help and who'll find the best market for their products 
disappearing.  And yes, I really mean the best since the US market is 
way more open than those of the other affluent countries.

>Taking from the fat cats is your assumption, not mine. My philosophy has
>the fat cats volunteering a cut for the greater good. 

The result will be still the same.  Everybody will lose.  You really 
should learn some economy.

>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. 

YEah, but why didn't it break the US.  Because the US economy was 
functioning while the Soveit one wasn't.  

>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.

By the time we add all these categories together, we've some 80% of 
the US population.  So, you seem to believe that some 20% enjoy the 
fat of the land, ruling over the remaining 80%.  Is this really your 
opinion or are you just repeating stuff without thinking about it.

>>...- 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.

As free as possible, given the geopolitical situation.  Free trade is 
very important, but not to the point where all else must be ignored.

>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. 

If that was the whole reason for your country's participation, i.e. if 
your government considers its soldiers to be just merchandise, to be 
bartered away for trade privileges, then you've my sympathy.

>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. 

So, you took a stand and you paid some price for it.  This often 
happens when you take a stand.

Freedom of trade, freedom of thought, freedom of
>philosophy - whose principles are these?

They're the principles of many different people, don't think somebody 
owns a copyright here.

>> >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. 

Oh, I can answer those questions:

1)  Why?  Because most of these nations are run by cleptocracies who 
don't even have the sense any successful parasite should've, i.e. that 
you shouldn't kill your host.  C'mon government corruption existed 
since the dawn of history but even a Chicago politician knows the 
slaughtering a milking cow is not a good idea.  BTW, this answers not 
just the "why?" but also "who is accountable?"

2) How can I make it better?  Frankly, short of taking over these 
countries and running them for a generation or two (something that's 
called "imperialism" and is rather unpopular nowadays) there ain't much 
I can do.  And if I would do just this (not that either I or they have 
much reason to like the idea) the cure may turn out to be worth than 
the disease.

Mati Meron                      | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu         |  chances are he is doing just the same"