🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <339920EF.4076@xtra.co.nz>, John William Rich <J.W.Rich@xtra.co.nz> writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> 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.

>I don't believe that, thank you for acknowledging it with your "well no
>not really". I don't believe the US is grabbing too much - I just don't
>think they are prepared to have real faith in the capitalist system -

Not a perfect faith, but more than most.

>and it appears to me as an outsider looking in that there's a lot of fat
>people in the US - is it because they consume too much?

Rather because they move too little.

>> 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.

>Do I conclude that the only way to feed the starving of the planet is
>for the US to keep consuming, and if that consumption increases then
>starvation will decline? 

Kinda simplistic.  Reality is not single dimensional model.  But you 
can be sure that any significant decrease of consumption in the US 
will have very unpleasant consequences for the global economy as a 
whole.

>If the economy slows down because the Americans have each made a 
>personal commitment to do more with less (a Buckminster Fuller 
>principle) and that is where the effect is absorbed it won't
>affect free trading partners at all.

Other than the naivette involved in "the Americans have each made a 
>personal commitment to do more with less " (if we all just make a 
personal commitment to always obey the law, we'll not need police and 
courts), the above is just bad economy.  Anything I consume is the 
fruit of somebodies labor.  When I consume less, somebody has less 
work.  Decrease over consumption by, say, 10% and you've the Great 
Depression all over again.

> In fact some goods and services will become cheaper (thus more with 
>less) if supplied from a Third World economy

To your information, whatever is consumed in the US and can be 
supplied from a third world economy, is supplied from a Third World 
Economy.  It is clear from what you write that your knowledge of the 
US is quite lacking.  A short visit to any depertment store in the US 
should suffice to convince you that what you ask for is already there.
>
>> 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.

>Right first time - it's the old 20/80 rule, as much a Universal Truth as
>Murphy's Law, Parkinson's Law and Sod's Law.
>
OK, you convinced me.  You do repeat stuff without thinking what it 
means.  

>> >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.
>
>Tell us about it - name a country which understands this better than we
>do.
>
I can think of some examples.  But, that's besides the point.

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