Question 2: Imbalance of Wealth
Pages
| Author | Topic: Question 2: Imbalance of Wealth |
|---|---|
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 04:46
Profile
The summary as I see it of the substantial ideas in this thread, discounting whatever I am unable to understand as more than empty rhetoric. Thuryl: "Donate savings and become an aid worker or shut up." I share the scorn for earnestness that is no more actual use than apathy, but I'm baffled by the premise that my joining the millions of people already in Africa would help them so much. Jumpin' Salmon: "Better question is why net money flow is from poor to rich." Source for this premise? It sounds counter-intuitive for the reason JS immediately points out himself. I'm not sure what he's really getting at. At the least I think we need to ask what goods or services flowed in exchange for this money. Alec: "It's a zero sum game." And that's why we're all still living in caves and eating raw carrion. Alec has made several long, vehement posts, but I don't find him very clear on what the problem is, other than this theory that wealth causes poverty — which is apparently a hunch, since he has given no evidence or argument for it. And with so much at stake, I'd trust even the wavering Keynesianism of the World Bank before anyone's hunches. Khoth: "Relative wealth would be an acceptable price to pay for alleviating absolute poverty." I agree. If it would feed the hungry for Bill Gates to lose an arm, everyone would be all over him to go under the knife; so if instead he only had to get rich to help them, that would be at least as good. Of course it's far from obvious that wealth at Gates's level actually can do anything to help the poor. But neither is it obvious that it can't. Naive economics can kill, so if we're serious I think we need to try harder for rigor, and at least distinguish moral principles from theories of causation. Drew: "It's poverty, not disparity. Communism is particularly unstable against corruption and sloth. Ditto aid. We should empower third world women, and cut agriculture tariffs and subsidies." Sounds sensible to me. Some evidence for the effectiveness of the proposed measures would be good to have, though. I have the feeling I've seen a lot of it somewhere not too long ago, but I don't remember where. Maybe The Economist? Kelandon: "Fight poverty at home: reinstitutionalize the mentally ill; fix education; the US should take cues from Europe for improving its social safety net; recycle the unemployed more efficiently." Perhaps it is smarter to start small with the domestic problem, but the global problem is much harder: tackling global poverty is perhaps like job retraining for entire societies. On the whole I'm a bigger fan of the European social contract than of the US version, but European countries mostly have youth unemployment rates that would be considered screaming national catastrophes in the US. In support of a form of reinstitutionalization, I was impressed by a recent New Yorker article. Archmagus Micael: "Forgive South American debts because we just invaded and enslaved these countries in the first place. Here are some figures from 1972, from an unknown source." Poor debtor governments have borrowed money, at below-market rates, from international organizations whose policies are open to criticism but which were founded to help poor nations, and whose only coercive power is to refuse to lend more. (See the Wikipedia entries on the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.) I think debt forgiveness is a good idea, but it's mostly just putting a good spin on fresh charity. And the forgiven will immediately borrow again. *i: "Corruption really sucks." Yeah. In Austria, for instance, the idea of bribing the police is a silly joke. In other countries, the idea of not bribing them is. And how the heck do you get a society to flip from one attitude to the other? Various people: "Population, over-population ... probably this is getting better now; fix poverty and it will go away; so it's a red herring." Then the discussion seemed to me to degenerate. I apologize if I have omitted any serious contributions. I try to be critically serious about critically serious questions like this one, but I am not an expert on either economics or development, and I may well have failed to appreciate the force of some people's statements. I do not apologize for my impatience with unsupported declarations. If people just want to rant, I'd rather they did so in an openly frivolous thread. [ Monday, May 01, 2006 09:48: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ] -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 04:54
Profile
Homepage
quote:It is my experience that people who ask how to solve the problem of world poverty do not actually want to solve the problem of world poverty -- they just want to feel better about its existence. As such, whether or not the course of action I suggested actually helps anybody become less poor is immaterial. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 06:38
Profile
Homepage
quote:I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about or how it is relevant to what I said. Are you agreeing with me? Disagreeing with me? Providing additional evidence that complicates and problematizes what I said? EDIT: Having read the article now, I kind of get it. Yes, this is what I'm talking about: the hardcore homeless are almost invariably seriously addicted to drugs, mentally ill, or both. They need treatment much more than they need anything else. Thuryl, did you just say, in effect, "I may have just said something really stupid, and you may have just called me on it, but WHAT'S THAT OVER THERE!" [ Monday, May 01, 2006 06:51: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 06:56
Profile
Homepage
quote:Took you long enough to figure it out. Frankly, I'd just assumed everyone had noticed I was trolling in this thread and was deliberately ignoring me. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 06:59
Profile
Homepage
What you were saying in this thread was no more trolling than what you normally say in issue threads... wait, I get it now! :P -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 07:35
Profile
Homepage
Hey, nobody ever convinces anybody of anything in these topics anyway. So I may as well support positions that no sane person would ever agree with, if that's what it takes to make people think. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 07:44
Profile
Homepage
quote:I'm less worried about creating more upstanding, moral citizens of the world than creating fewer destitute people. —Alorael, who thinks Thuryl's trolling serves a valuable purpose. Someone always needs to articulate why eating the babies is wrong. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 08:19
Profile
quote:It is? Dang! -------------------- ??? ?????? ???? ????? Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 09:49
Profile
I edited my previous post to expand my elliptical response to Kelandon, and to add *i's remarks about corruption, which I think are important but which were concise enough that I overlooked them originally. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 12:25
Profile
Homepage
quote:I think this is a really critical piece of the question. Redistribution of wealth, in and of itself, doesn't actually solve many of the problems that we have come to associate with inequitous distribution. On a human level, the actual problems are endemic. They are problems of persons and of entire classes of persons who have been marginalized and abused, and who essentially require rehabilitation in multiple dimensions. This is true in any country, and I think it provides some good justification for Kel's assertion that we can begin at home. Yes, the food problem is worse in Africa, but it exists here, and we have other problems; those problems exist in Africa too, but the bottom line is there are still large numbers of people here who are in wretched situations and are unable to do anything about it. Despite the crappy historical record humans have had dealing with famine and financial poverty, those ills are easier to address than violence, alienation, and trauma are. There is no social equivalent to food-drops; there is no such thing as psychotherapeutic handouts. Most really critical rehabilitative work, whether it's social, medical, or psychological, doesn't require much training, let alone a graduate degree. But people don't want to do it, because it's tough, and people don't want to finance it, because it's inefficient. It mostly has to be done one-on-one. Which brings us back to Thuryl's comment. Although I agree with Thuryl and tend to be the one poking fun at armchair do-gooders myself, it's not that they don't want to help. They may be selfish and unwilling to sacrifice, but even those people might help out in some small way. The problem is that people don't know how to help. Things seem altogether too messed up, and the mess seems altogether too large. It's hard to get a handle on it. And Thuryl's observation itself exaccerbates this situation. Not just intellectual wanking, but an awful lot of volunteer work can be described by it. It's easy to look at it and say "is this really making a difference, or does it just make the volunteers feel better?" Hell, I know I look at it and say that. But when you are dealing with a problem this big, when there really isn't anything you can do that seems like it makes a difference, that does not excuse you from doing anything. "What you do is not important. But it is very important that you do it." -- Gandhi -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 4445
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 13:20
Profile
The first step towards solving world poverty, in my opinion, would be a rigorous systems analysis of the entire Earth. It is essential to determine each person's needs, each person's productive potential (i.e. taking into account things like social situation, proximity of infrastructure, total education, and so one and so forth), and how the systems work which translate productive potential into goods and services (leaving aside the question of wealth entirely), how to meet each person's needs, and how to assign the excess production (assuming there is any) as incentives for those with rare skillsets to use them, rather than working at another, equally-compensated occupation. Some suggestions I have on how to do this would be a push for de-globalization and greater locality of production, management, and distribution. Too much management work (and white-collar work in general) is concentrated in too small an area of the world. In an ideal situation, the ratio of white-collar to blue-collar workers in each area would be about the same. Regional specialization in commodities is not something we could seriously think about eliminating; but those managing an operation (and enjoying the benefits of doing so) should always be of the same community (to as narrow a definition of community as is possible) as those doing the grunt work. I, for one, would not be against a decrease in the global standard of living; so long as a drastically smaller proportion of the world's population has an unacceptable standard living. Of course, the only way I see any of this as possible is by taking control of all the nuclear weapons on Earth and essentially reforming it at gunpoint, and then nuking any areas experiencing positive population growth (humans would discover a self-control they never knew they had). If history is any indication, the systems analysis and/or implementation would be fundamentally flawed and everything would end up much more messed up than before, but that's the danger of trying to solve a problem that is really composed of several much smaller problems. With regards to problems here in America, I will be doing my best to fix them, since my chosen field of study is Urban Planning, not one of the several more lucrative ones open to me. I think the single greatest problem of 21st-century urban planning is how to revitalize without gentrifying; in other words, how to induce the middle class to occupy an area and spend their money there without displacing the people who would gain the most by their doing so. I basically agree with Slarty's sentiment that much of what appears as selfishness is actually uncertainty. Being willing to sacrifice to eliminate world poverty is entirely different from being willing to sacrifice in order to do what some guy thinks might solve world poverty. After all, it's quite nice being affluent and comfortable, and if I'm going to sacrifice that, I've got to be damn sure that I'm not just lining the pockets of the corrupt or simply having absolutely no effect. Posts: 293 | Registered: Saturday, May 29 2004 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 17:02
Profile
Good dicussion. How about another related one: Why should we solve poverty if we could? -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 18:11
Profile
Homepage
Umm... because people starving to death needlessly sucks? -------------------- SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 18:14
Profile
Homepage
I was debating whether or not to post exactly that. There are all sorts of philosophical directions to go in from your new question *i, but in the end, is it really necessary? Starving sucks. Word. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 18:26
Profile
Yes, it is philosophical. However, I'm seeing what else we can come up with other than we should out of sheer moral obligation. Well duh. Once we remove that, it's not such an easy question. A possible way to address this is to the perspective of the selfish first world: What does the first world get out of it other than satisfaction in doing the right thing? [ Monday, May 01, 2006 18:28: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 18:43
Profile
Homepage
The Lion and the Mouse -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Councilor
Member # 6600
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 18:51
Profile
Homepage
Why should we solve poverty if we could? Self-preservation (or at least, preservation of a high-standard of living). The odds of falling into poverty or having someone you care about fall into poverty is too great to do otherwise. If poverty suddenly no longer exists, it's no longer an issue. Dikiyoba. Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 20:13
Profile
quote:Cheap labor and a new market. Same as it's always been. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 20:56
Profile
Well, *i, I certainly can answer this one, if all our answers are based on our personal convictions. Here's mine. God says, clearly, that we are to "take care of" the poor. Obviously, speaking in mafia-style language, this means we are to eliminate them little by little. Throwing those who make less than $10,000 a year off bridges, capping them in the head, etc. This is clearly what we ought to do. What the Bible actually says, in the actual, non-mafia context, is that we are to make sure their needs are met, not that the wealth is distributed equally. That's speaking from a moral perspective. If I was speaking from a selfish perspective, I'd say "I like the status quo, despite technically being in poverty myself. I have food, shelter, a social life, and thousands of dollars of debt! But I'm HAPPY, and that's all that matters!" -------------------- "Oh, North Wind, why frighten others? In Nature's family all are brothers. Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss; You can't frighten Shingebiss. Bring your frost and ice and snow; I'm still free to come and go. You can never frighten me, One who never fears is FREE!" -Shingebiss, the mighty duck Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00 |