On Perception

Jul 16, 2005 23:32

On Perception: We perceive the world (many times) as having what we have (ie food and water; resources ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

dabman July 17 2005, 13:56:09 UTC
We don't really even need to send aid to other countries. If you look at Europe before its great modernization, poverty rates and mortality were just as high as any other third world nation. What was the main element that allowed Europe to get out of its slump and become a dominating group of world powers (without this so-called aid that we believe is needed today)?

This main element was called capitalism, or free markets more specifically. In order to have economic growth, a nation must first clear the path for uncontrolled commercial markets. As these markets flourish, the next step is to slowly limit aspects of the economy to protect citizens, the environment, and the nation's own interest (i.e. protection from overseas takeover). As the nation's new economy continues to grow, the government must therefore socialize to become a 1st world country, which helps every citizen live longer (instead of just the lucky few under capitalism). The amount of socialism implemented does not have to be much, as some countries have proven.

If you look at the history if the US and Europe, this exact type of step of events took place. Specifically in the US... (1900's... big boom, monopolies in question, poverty rates still quite low... 1940's... rise of socialism under roosevelt... decline of poverty and increase in income averages.

Another thing to look at is rising powers. China for a long time has been quite barren as far as an economy. Recently (within the past 20 years) it has started to slacken its economic regulations and has become to boom. It is now a greater economy than the US believe it or not. The next step for it to eventually come to is to regulate and then socialize. Regulation has already begun to start; air pollution (specifically acid rain) is causing major problems in China and politicians are putting pollution restrictions on industries, as well as switching to nuclear power infrastructure.

Reply

dabman July 17 2005, 13:57:46 UTC
Poverty rates were quite high during the 1900's I meant.

Reply

madison98122 July 17 2005, 15:06:04 UTC
zmase July 17 2005, 19:20:41 UTC
dang carlo. homerun. nice to see you on livejournal too.

yeah that is interesting how we only want free trade with crappy countries so we can get what they produce for cheap and exploit them.

Reply

dabman July 17 2005, 23:12:05 UTC
I haven't taken econ 101, thank you. And to add further, I wasn't talking about the Imperalism era of Europe. Looking at poverty rates and mortalities, Europe was still quite horrible. At that moment in time, Europe was practicing mercantilism, not capitalism. Capitalism involves free-markets, not the tightly-controlled markets of that age in which wealthy nobles and merchants gained all the wealth.\

In addition, I hate to see you simplify my argument into laizze faire capitalism. I only said that was one stage to spur economic growth. After the stage is complete, it is the responsibility of the nation to regulate and then socialize in order to decrease poverty. One such example would be property rights.

Reply

dabman July 18 2005, 00:06:52 UTC
There is so much discussion going on that it is hard for me to know what to respond to first. I guess that I should start by saying that I do not believe that aid to third world countries will be the panacea to all of their problems. Obviously, a business structure created from within a country would be the best solution. I actually agree that laissez faire capitalism is the best way to take back the power from despotic leaders and corrupt governments of lesser developed nations. It gives the individual the opportunity to support himself. However, there are some nations in which this kind of entrepreneurial spirit will not bear fruit. Take the Sudan or the Democratic Republic of Congo for instance. Both of these nations are plauged by internal strife, and they simply do not have the resources or stability to foster any sort of capitalistic system. Any sort of growth in this direction is contingent upon aid by industrialized countries. I absolutely believe that it is not acceptable to hand over a wad of cash to the leaders of poor nations and say, "Here. Fix it." It is quite clear that this has led to little positive action. In Africa, hundreds of billions of dollars have been given in aid over the last 20 years, and there is little to show for it. It is vital that we provide aid in tangible form, and that we always keep our minds on the idea of teaching a man to fish as opposed to catching the fish for him.
In terms of more developed nations, I agree with psshutthefuckup that explotation has become the standard method of growing an economy. Now that there is little left to be colonized, people are being taken advantage of through free trade. Honestly, people are getting fucked over in terms of wages. People have got to make a living, so what does it matter if we pay some foreigner 13 cents an hour, right? Not only is true of people outside of a given country, but also for those within it. If you look at the working conditions that citizens of North Korea or China work under, it is clear that explotation readily occurs within these nations. (And please don't give me the crap about how these nations are isolated or whatever. I'm positive that sentiment doesn't matter in the least to those working in 95 degree factories for 18 hours. In any case, it's true in other countries, so the point is made).
RE China, I have to argue with the thought that it has expanded a great deal over the last 20 years. I know that anyone who reads The Economist would find fault with that, because it's obvious that its economy is larger than it used to be. Sure, it's growing because of the sheer size of the population, but the CCP's got a tight grip on whatever goes into that country, and I personally don't believe that the installations of a few KFCs prove much. I think that the political mindset of the government is still holding back their growth. Let's not forget that Tiananmen Square was less than 20 years ago. In the end, though, I am sure that it will end up being a huge economic power, so just throw the egg on my face right now. I am just asserting that where China is now is not as economically or politically stable as people say that it is.
So there you go. And if you made it this far, props to you. Just had to get that out of my system, no offense to those involved, yay for political discussion. ;) -Kiki

Reply

dabman July 18 2005, 20:05:34 UTC
I'll be ready to throw the egg. :) Get ready for some big wars/tension from China in our fourties (that is if we even care about Taiwan by then).

Sorry I didn't mention it, but the steps I talked about were but one of many possibilities that a country could decrease its poverty (and develop an economy). For some cases, African countries particularily, different steps would need to be taken. In some ways, you can't have a laissez faire economy with insurgents and rebels running around sacking towns. Yet the sad thing about this type of situation is that it is worsened by poverty. By all means, tackling poverty is one of the most difficult issues of all, especially in these war-torn countries.

Reply

dabman July 19 2005, 01:19:37 UTC
So ironically enough, I was watching Lou Dobbs tonight and the subject was China as a growing threat. While I still stand by the fact that China is not as economically or politically strong as people say that it is, I must concede that they are rapidly growing as a military power. And a top Chinese official said that if the U.S. were to try to protect Taiwan, that the response would be nuclear. You're right...I can't wait until we're middle-aged and get the opportunity to figure this one out! :) But like you said, by that time it should be interesting how much we even care about Taiwan. -Kiki

Reply

dabman July 19 2005, 17:49:07 UTC
Luckily enough for us that is just a general's opinion (or is that lucky... Dr. Strangelove all over again). China's current policy is against a first strike, yet time will tell if that will hold true. The US is actually initiating breaks in some anti-nuclear space treaties (or did they just expire?). One main reason why China is building up is possibly due to this.

Once the US gets nuclear platforms in space, there will be no way for any country to militarily destroy the US. Let's hope China doesn't perceive this as a deadline.

Reply

madison98122 July 18 2005, 12:04:27 UTC
zmase July 18 2005, 12:42:48 UTC
man i'm learning a ton from all of yall.

i think there is a bigger picture and i have to agree w carlo here because it provides for a softer more progressive solution than just "lets slap free trade in their face". if you look at what happened at the G8 summit, it is pretty close to what carlo is saying, and i believe it is the first time that us developed countries are considering some sort of realistic change. yes, despots do make those countries suck, but so do we. they need to be developed first and the only way for the to get there is through the united states first providing a relief from poverty, then establishing the commercial infrustructure for them to sustain in a free market. if you just slap the free market on them right now, it basically turns into big factories of nike shoes and little children making kathy lees clothes.

and africa isn't better off than it was in the past. according to "kofi annan's amazing list of facts":

THE ULTRA RICH The three richest people in the world have assets that exceed
the combined gross domestic product of the 48 least developed countries.
AFRICA The average African household today consumes 20 percent less than it
did 25 years ago.

and

NATURAL RESOURCES Since 1970, the world's forests have declined from 4.4
square miles per 1,000 people to 2.8 square miles per 1,000 people. In
addition, a quarter of the world's fish stocks have been depleted or are in
danger of being depleted and another 44 percent are being fished at their
biological limit.

(http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/sept98/0301.html)

so we can't say "oh, private and governmental relief aid agencies have made africa way better" because thats false and crap.

theres my two cents. kiki! you should get a lj!

Reply

dabman July 18 2005, 13:12:42 UTC
Again, I totally agree about how despicable the explotation of workers is, and I think that the ideas about how to improve Africa are great. I'm also glad that Zach made a mention of the environment. That's something that most certainly isn't getting enough attention. Just look at how it fell to the wayside during the G8. Btw, I actually have a Xanga, Zach, but I guess that you can't really comment on it cause that is for some reason prohibited if you're not a member. If you're still interested in reading my inane ramblings, the address is www.xanga.com/keekster555. But I won't feel bad if you don't take advantage of this, you know, once in a lifetime offer, hahah. Talk to you soon. -Kiki

Reply

dabman July 18 2005, 20:11:54 UTC
Don't forget to take notice to the negative environmental protection impacts that have hit Africa. Huge regions of land have become wildlife reserves, displacing large populations. These people have no land and are not always welcome by nearby tribes and villages. This is something important that must be kept in mind when dealing with environmental protection. If this continues only more fighting will ensue.

Reply

dabman July 18 2005, 20:38:32 UTC
Ok, I agree now what you are specifically arguing is relevant to the case. The nine-year-old question to me was a hard one, unfortunately I probably wouldn't get to see nine-year-old children working in 3rd world countries whether I wanted them to work or not... thanks US media coverage!

Keep in mind that in the US early 20th century, children worked in harsh factory conditions as well. This industrial boom was allowed to happen because of very little regulation from the government. Corporations were able to hire cheap labor and outperform many factories elsewhere. When labor abuse began to become a major problem, regulation stepped in to protect workers. This inevitably raised wages and reduced work-intensive conditions. Socialization further reduced poverty by ensuring food and some source of income when needed.

I guess we aren't going to persuade each other, but again this argument is much more a debatable issue than an obvious truth. Agreed, in many situations a lassez faire economy isn't going to do much. But a strict, closed economy is going to limit growth that could ultimately be exploited for the citizen's benefit. India, China, and Singapore are all countries opening up their economies and benefiting. It will be the next step for them to regulate and thus lower poverty. It's true, I don't want to see a nine-year-old boy working in a coal mine, but it seems he has at some stage of every modern economy.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up