Sorry for the delay, but I've been working _very_ hard and have had next to no free time.
> dan, of course ancient societies had little control over their lives, but > we live in the 21st century now, and it still goes on. i am not denying > that wealth can be created and technology increases production. it is > also unquestionable that medical science, diet and other factors have > increased life spans and infant mortality. OK, so we agree that there was no special morality in humans living "As Nature Intended." > there are still a few places left in the world where hunter gatherer > societies are poor to the point of starvation, and barely eke out > survival. even low tech subsistence agriculture, using the yak drawn > plow, donkeys pulling heavily loaded carts, or women carrying heavy loads > on their back, all increase the carrying capacity of the land. of course > no where near as much as agribusiness methods where the profit motive > forces more and more people to live in squalor in the cities. For that to be true, things must have been better for people living in rural areas before the modern agribusiness model, right? You can look back 2500 years and see it in the complaints of the prophets of Israel against those who would force people off their land and then sell their children into slavery just to eat. This became a big-time phenomenon under Rome. Cossian (sp) has speculated that this happened in Galilee around the time Jesus lived with the commercialization of agriculture under Rome. My point is that rural poverty, and ownership of broad swaths of land by the few is not a new phenomenon. People went to the cities in hopes of bettering their lives over hand to mouth rural existence. That hope, often, was in vain. We agree that third world poverty is indeed horrid and we should work to eradicate it. I'm doing my little bit by working with others to help empower two bright young women from Zambia to go home and improve their country. One of them has a MA in econ and gives convincing arguments that the trade barriers set up by Europe has hurt her country far more than the aid has helped it. > industrialization provides jobs for some, at barely subsistence wages. > doesn't make it right. Hmm, but if people choose that as their best alternative, wouldn't things be worse for them if there was no factory? Don't we need to afford other people the respect that they are better at choosing what's best for them themselves? > as for trade, i obtained my information from a lifetime of traveling and > living in poor countries. OK, I'm not sure what that means. Because I personally haven't lived in poor countries, just have foster daughters who were born and raised there, and relatives who worked for years helping the poor in Venezuala, I'm wrong a priori? Can't we have a fact and analysis based discussion that has a better chance of arriving at a good understanding than techniques that depend on where one has lived? Out of curiosity, were you among the poor indigenous, or were you part of an expat family? > i grew up in japan in the 50s and we > paid our maid a dollar a day, which was more than she made as a teacher. I take it your point is that your father was wrong to pay her so little, or that the schools should have paid more. Japan failed in its attempt to establish an empire, and was defeated by the US. As I'm sure you know, it was Japanese custom to treat those it defeated as sub-human. Given that the US lost over 100k dead in the war that Japan started, the American treatment of the Japanese after WWII was an unprecedented treatment of a defeated enemy. As a result, Japan recovered fairly quickly. By the early '80s, there was the fear that the Japanese would overtake the US. Contrast that with the self-reliance of China during the 50s-80s. Look at the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution that worked hard to keep land commonly owned by all the people and wipe out the small time capitalists who were abusing the people. Among them was the father of a friend of mine who lost his small apartment complex and nearly lost his life in the cultural revolution. > i have written here before about my experience in tchad. we hear a lot > about "free" trade, but what about FAIR trade? The problem with fair trade is who determines what is fair. Free trade allows both the people involved in the decision to say yea or nay. Fair trade involves politicians deciding what is fair. Most of the time, it involves protection for favored contributors to the leaders of the government, not real protection for the people. Take oil as an example. What is the fair price for oil? Who decides? And who forces people at gunpoint to trade at a price they don't want to trade at. >i understand that trade > barriers can be devastating to undeveloped countries. i blame their own > governments as much as western countries and neo-colonialism for the utter > poverty that still exists in many countries, just as it still exists in > some parts of america. Well, its easy to blame others. I'm a lot more interested in what I can do to help things along. For example, the change from socialist to capitalist outlooks have helped China and India decrease poverty in those countries. Between them, they are almost a third of the world. That's a big deal. Isn't a system that improves the economic well being of poor people better than one that doesn't....even if it doesn't match your view of perfection. > i don't know how to end poverty in these countries, but we are not saviors > because we buy diamonds and sell weapons in countries where genocide is > still being practiced. But, on the whole, the track record of the US is far better than that of the UN. The US isn't perfect, but it's actions are a net plus. > should we not send aid because much of it is sent does not reach those who > need it, but ends up in the black market, or even helps dictators remain > in power, or should we require it is distributed humanely, as under the > auspices of organizations like the peace corps? One of the main causes of starvation is that people with guns stop NGOs from distributing food at gunpoint. Some allow it through, after substantial bribes are paid, some don't. My daughter has worked in this area for about 4-5 years now, and has some strong opinions. The surest way that we've seen is to have local investment that offer jobs and trade to people. $5.00/day in a shoe factory (which is less than the $1.00/day your maid was paid after inflation) would be good income for most Zambians. Why can't Zambians decide whether to accept or reject such a job? If it is an improvement for them, then it is a good thing. Indeed, there was a recent AP article about China's prices starting to rise because labor costs are going up. Trained workers are getting hard to find and can command a higher salary. That's a good thing. > religious institutions exploit people who are starving into becoming > slaves to faith. doesn't make it right. Out of curiosity, by what means do you know absolute truth? In our discussions, you often counter my detailed research and analysis with your "gut feel." > trade may be the first step, but > when it provides money that must go through dishonest politicians first, > doesn't make it right. of course it is worse for the poorest countries who > have next to no exports, or just resources that end up profiting corrupt > officials, like i saw in tchad. Thomas Freedman made a very interesting point comparing countries like South Korea, Japan and Tawain with countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq. He, accurately, observed that countries in which there are multiple sources of income for the country tend to spread the wealth better than those in which connection to the government is the foundation of wealth. I found that interesting, because I do not see the point in sitting back and taking swipes at others for not being perfect. Rather, I am interested in systems that improve the lot of people, even when people sometimes act selfishly and immorally. > yet, many countries still allow forced child labor and other forms of > economic slavery, so americans can shop at walmart. you can't tell me > there is nothing wrong with an economic system that justifies this sort of > neo-colonialism in the name of offering as little money as the market will > bear for human labor or raw materials, because people can either take it > or starve? what kind of choice is that? The country that is most responsible for cheap prices at WalMart is China. Are you seriously saying that China is a neo-colony of the US? In the latter half of the 20th century, we've had two general types of economic systems: market and planned economies. There have been hybrids pf course (the US is actually a hybrid as well as Europe), but even the present European range of hybrids are predominantly market economies. For the most part, the pure planned economies have been bureaucratic dead ends. Socialism (in its original technical meaning of the state owning the means of production) has failed. Folks who now call themselves socialists have a different understanding than the classic definition...and they have an understanding that is, at worst, an arguable point. So, I can empathize with your accurate contention that it is unfair that we live so much better than the folks in Neli's home country, but I have a totally different response. My response is "how can we make things better tomorrow." It appears that your response is pointing out how bad others are. Maybe I misunderstood you, and I'd appreciate clarification of your viewpoint. But, I've read, and re-read your posts and have not seen any suggestion that hasn't been tried before with disastrous results. I see what I advocate as a slow means of improving the lot of poor people around the world. I'd like it to be faster, but if China and India can reach the level of, say, South Korea in a generation; that would be an enormous accomplishment for the world. The trend over the last 5 years has been in that direction, and I think that's a good thing. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
