Why we need poor countries

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-12-30 05:41pm

Axis Kast, despite appearances, I am not arguing against Globalization. What I am saying that in a first world Earth, we will no longer have extremely cheap labor to draw upon.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-12-30 05:54pm

kojikun wrote: And it has lowered the number of people in poverty. Your little socialist fantasy jerkoff land (Canada) has almost twice the poverty rate than the evil antisocialist US. Chew on it.

Wow, what a way to totally miss the point you fucking moron. What part of socialist programs increasing and a redistribution of wealth under a first world Earth makes you think this has anything to do with the ins and outs of Canada's internal economics? Canada is not a "socialist fantasy jerkoff land", it is simply a country with greater social programs then our own (one of many actually).

As far as I know, there is no definition beyond "industrialized capitalist nations like the united states and britain etc". No definition I've seen, however, has meant a nation where everyone is making $15/hour and shit like that.

The real definition of a first world country is one where a certain percentage of the population is above the poverty line. Industry means very little (Malaysia has a very advanced industrial base but is still considered a second world nation), it is the status of the population that matters. And when you move the majority of the Earth's population above the poverty line, you run into the exact problems I mentioned.

Whether you like it or not, the United States does insitute social programs to take care of those below the poverty line. These social programs are inevitable in a responsible first world society.

I don't pay attention to the WTO. Still don't know what it even does. Sorry if I read your post wrong, but it seemed rather anti-topical. But if you meant that modernization would destroy cheap labor, this is true. It would also force us to find other solutions (like automation).

Right, which is what I said in my first post. However, heavy use of automation is going to destroy the jobs that make a country into a first world nation to begin with. So you can either institute a society that places less emphasis on the accumulation of wealth, or you can have a society where the top 10% own everything and everyone else is barely surviving. Gee, I wonder which I'd rather live in.

Start a new thread then. Or stick to the conditions of the original post.

The minute you become a mod, let me know.

It doesn't. I was simply making an observation. Chill.

Then don't offer it as a rebuttal to one of my points.

Social responsibility that must be forced? Bahaha. Real responsible there. And what responsibility do I have to someone else who I do not know and whos done nothing for me? To a person who I've done nothing to? None. I cannot take responsibility for something if there is no something. What you want to do is force me to support people who have not earned it.

Nice fantasy, straight out of the Libertarian handbook. In the real world, we all have a responsibility to those of lower social status as long as we are enjoying the fruits of their labor.

Yes, people should voluntarilly pay taxes, but it wouldnt happen overnight that theyd come to see it as a necessary way to secure their freedom. And I know we pay social security regardless. That does not change the fact that its a piece of shit that doesnt work.

You really should stop smoking crack. It is bad for your health.

Well an answer to that would not inherently require wealth redistribution.

And just what the fuck is wrong with redistributing the wealth in the United States?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-12-30 06:14pm

We grow enough to feed the world already, it's despotic fuckheads and tribal
wars that cause people in afrika to starve

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-12-30 06:15pm

I say if the third world becomes first world level, the first world should become super first world level. Expand as they expand, so to speak.

Of course, that would involve acquiring new territory and resources. With that in mind, space travel becomes more and more appealing IMO.

So in the future, "third world" nations have a living standard higher than what we Americans and other Westerners enjoy currently, but "first world" nations of that era enjoy a living standard incredibly luxurious beyond our imagination.

Of course, in the far future, those "third world" nations would be whining about the "unfairly elevated" living standards of the "first world" nations like how the mideast does to us today.

I'll stop ranting now.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-12-30 06:15pm

Off the top of my head, we'd have World War III, this time over natural
resources.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-12-30 06:17pm

SirNitram wrote:
kojikun wrote:
I'm not even going to dignify your retarded 'We aren't going to run out of metal! The entire planet is made of iron!' comment with a true rebuttal.
Good thing, too, because it's very hard to have a rebuttal to fact. It's even harder when you add in the fact that we reuse steel in new construction. Steel goes nowhere but back into steel. And sometimes into scrap heaps when its cheaper to get it from a steel company.
You really are a moron, aren't you? Look at the numbers for how much iron, nickel, and other metals is used per capita. Multiply by new population of 1st worlders. Compare to amounts accessable. It's simple math, Kojikun.

And it's misleading. Amounts accessable means just that: amounts that we can access with our current technology. This does not mean that's all we will ever be able to get out of the ground. If all third world nations became first world, there would be an increase amount of resources used, but would be offset by the ability of governments and firms to explore for new sources. An example of this is Petroleum. Throughout this century, estimates of known world petroleum reserves have climbed, even though our use of oil has increased drastically. New technologies and governments and firms looking for new sources of oil have increased the amount available to us.

If we were truly running out of metals, there would be signs. The most obvious of these would be price. The price of metals would be increasing. However, this is not the case. See here. The price per pound, in 1992 dollars has dropped, sometimes significantly. This indicates either an increase of supply, or a decrease in demand. If it's a decrease in demand, then an increase in the number of first world nations would only further this decrease. If it's an increase in supply, then demand for that resource is already being more than met.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2003-12-30 06:31pm

The Kernel wrote:Axis Kast, despite appearances, I am not arguing against Globalization. What I am saying that in a first world Earth, we will no longer have extremely cheap labor to draw upon.

You and kojikun are both wrong on this point. If all the countries suddenly became first-world nations, you'd STILL have cheap labor, and plenty of people to fill those roles. Always.

First world status doesn't rely on every man, woman, nd child suddenly becoming college educated go-getters. Just look at the United States. Homeless communities are rampant in all the major cities, especially Los Angeles. You will ALWAYS have these people. And despite the heartfelt news broadcasts of cameras panning over the homeless with violin strings playing in the background, most of these people weren't PUT there. Most of them WANT to be there.

Think back to when you were in school. There was always Beavis and Buttheads in the back of the classroom that didn't give a fuck about their education. Where are they now? If they have a spark of self respect, they're jockying a mop somewhere, or they're passing time as unarmed security guards watching over an abandoned building.

When I worked at a fast food restaurant right out of high school as I went to film school, the homeless were an untapped resource we used all the time until management found out. Want the parking lot clean as a whistle from garbage, wrappers, and things? Let the homeless guy that hangs out near the trash dumpsters do it for a free meal at the end of the night. Don't want to clean those bathrooms? Same thing.

Do you know that McDonalds is REQUIRED to throw out dozens of hamburgers every 20 minutes that simmer under the heat lamps? What's worse, this food is thrown away in a locked dumpsters so the homeless won't be digging into their garbage. Same with donut shops, but the donuts have a "shelf life" of a few hours.

Cheap labor can ALWAYS be had. Just because you're a first world country doesn't mean every Cletus in Oak Ridge Georgia is going to be a Fortune 500 executive.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-12-30 06:33pm

Poe, there is a world of difference between 50-cent an hour jobs and $10 an hour jobs. That is what I meant by extremely cheap labor, which would be impossible in first world nations.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-12-30 06:45pm

Darth Wong wrote:What would happen if every country in the world suddenly and magically had a first-world standard of living and a well-educated population?

Off the top of my head, the first consequence that comes to mind is massive inflation, as we could no longer make products cheaply by taking advantage of third-world labour. Certain resource costs would also skyrocket. Also, a Middle East which is no longer dependent upon oil profits would be a very disturbing thought. And then, of course, there's the environmental aspect to consider.

So are people lying when they say they'd like the third world to get better?

How would we massive inflation? Sure the amount they pay their workers would have to increase, but companies would still benefit from the competition between countries. Third world labor is unlikely to be very skilled, whereas first-world labor would be much more skilled, which means in turn that fewer people are needed to produce the same amount. In addition, any increase in costs would be offset by the massive influx of new consumers that these countries bring, as well as the increased economies of scale that would occur when meeting these demands.

As for the middle east, I'd love to see them become first world nations. despite the way some people play chicken little when it comes to America's christians, they (america's christians) aren't as dangerous as joe fundamentalist in the West Bank or Saudi Arabia, who feeds off the poverty and oppression to recruit for his Jihads. You increase the education and wealth of the people in the middle east and they will become less likely to support or join terror groups.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2003-12-30 06:51pm

The Kernel wrote:Poe, there is a world of difference between 50-cent an hour jobs and $10 an hour jobs. That is what I meant by extremely cheap labor, which would be impossible in first world nations.

Minimum wage in California is $6.75 cents an hour. If every nation in the world were suddenly First-world, then no, you couldn't get away with charging $.50 cents an hour for someone to work for you. On the record.

But if you offer a meal and a $5 dollar bill to a homeless guy under the table to clean the windows, or bathrooms, or do simple landscaping on your business property, you wouldn't be looking too far and wide for a homeless, or unmotivated loser to do it.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-30 07:03pm

Patrick Degan wrote:Because it's what helps maintain socioeconomic stability, for a start. Enlightened self-interest; having a society without a massive disparity in income/wealth is better than living in a society riven by economic and societal unrest or, in extreme cases, tilting toward revolution.

Governments role is not to maintain socioeconomic stability, its to protect our rights. Atleast, that is my view of governments role.

And where did you get that nice bit of drivel?

It's not drivel, it is an response to a true statement that notes peoples general unwillingness to financially support their governments unless forced.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-30 07:17pm

The Kernel wrote:The real definition of a first world country is one where a certain percentage of the population is above the poverty line. Industry means very little (Malaysia has a very advanced industrial base but is still considered a second world nation), it is the status of the population that matters. And when you move the majority of the Earth's population above the poverty line, you run into the exact problems I mentioned.

I couldn't find any definition with a percentage. I used Merriam-Webster online for the definition of "First World". And I never denied that there could be serious problems, I said that we'd be forced to deal with them.

Right, which is what I said in my first post. However, heavy use of automation is going to destroy the jobs that make a country into a first world nation to begin with. So you can either institute a society that places less emphasis on the accumulation of wealth, or you can have a society where the top 10% own everything and everyone else is barely surviving. Gee, I wonder which I'd rather live in.

I do not see why automation of labor that does not pay terribly much to begin with is a problem. What it would create, like it has been doing for the past century, is a society that is service based. Most first world nations are already service based, with most people providing services to others, not doing physical labor.

The minute you become a mod, let me know.

You're adding conditions that aren't there. It's an entirely different scenario.

Then don't offer it as a rebuttal to one of my points.

I wasn't. I did not consider your post to be something I disagreed with.

Nice fantasy, straight out of the Libertarian handbook. In the real world, we all have a responsibility to those of lower social status as long as we are enjoying the fruits of their labor.

And that responsibility is to pay them for their services, not just for existing. Responsibility is being accountable for ones actions, not ones inactions or the actions of others.

You really should stop smoking crack. It is bad for your health.

You really should make points and not act like a child.

And just what the fuck is wrong with redistributing the wealth in the United States?

The fact that you have no right to something you did not earn? That whole concept of, you know, theft.. it just kind of bugs me to know that you think you can take something from someone without having earned it. I have an idea, let's let all people below the poverty line break into our houses and take our stuff and sell it. That way, we can still buy what we want, but it gets taken after we've enjoyed it a bit, instead of before we even get to enjoy it. That way more people can be happy. But you wouldnt support that because theft is illegal and bad and wrong. Well how is that any different (in concept) than my taxes paying for someone on welfare? It's not, except that one occurs before I get my money, the other occurs after.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-12-30 07:32pm

kojikun wrote:Governments role is not to maintain socioeconomic stability, its to protect our rights. Atleast, that is my view of governments role.

A state is supposed to protect its citizens, care for them, and steer the state in that way as to maximize living conditions for its citizens.
Without stability, you can't uphold your state or government, as the state will fall apart from within, and then all you have is an empty husk with worthless ideals and rights...

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-30 07:38pm

Dahak wrote:A state is supposed to protect its citizens, care for them, and steer the state in that way as to maximize living conditions for its citizens.

But not through theft. Government should protect rights, not destroy them or pick and choose who is more "deserving" of them

Without stability, you can't uphold your state or government, as the state will fall apart from within, and then all you have is an empty husk with worthless ideals and rights...

A certain amount of societal stability is one thing, but force is not the way to get it.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-30 07:39pm

kojikun wrote:A certain amount of societal stability is one thing, but force is not the way to get it.

I should actually say initiation of force, because force in response to force is justified and moral.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-12-30 07:42pm

kojikun wrote:
Dahak wrote:A state is supposed to protect its citizens, care for them, and steer the state in that way as to maximize living conditions for its citizens.
But not through theft. Government should protect rights, not destroy them or pick and choose who is more "deserving" of them

How is it theft? The state is not taking something without turning something back?
And there is a responsibility of each citizen towards the state and the society. You want all the benefits of it (proetction, safety, rights...) without giving something back.
By giving just a little, each and everyone helps the other. I see no bad thing in it. It would be unethical to let hang people out in the rain, just because they can'T afford a health insurance, or because they're to old, unemployed,...

Without stability, you can't uphold your state or government, as the state will fall apart from within, and then all you have is an empty husk with worthless ideals and rights...
A certain amount of societal stability is one thing, but force is not the way to get it.

A state is more than just the summation of its citizens. If you think so, you're a poor guy...

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-30 07:49pm

Dahak wrote:How is it theft? The state is not taking something without turning something back?

No, it's not. It's taking something from me [and giving to someone else] without my permission. That is the definition of theft. I get nothing from people on welfare.

And there is a responsibility of each citizen towards the state and the society. You want all the benefits of it (proetction, safety, rights...) without giving something back.

Actually, I want protection and safety and would pay taxes voluntarilly. If I didn't want to pay them, I'd move to Andorra.

By giving just a little, each and everyone helps the other. I see no bad thing in it. It would be unethical to let hang people out in the rain, just because they can'T afford a health insurance, or because they're to old, unemployed,...

By giving voluntarilly, it is perfectly moral. But forcing people is immoral.

A state is more than just the summation of its citizens. If you think so, you're a poor guy...

The state is only the citizens, that is all there is. There is no mystical "state" without the citizens, for they ARE the state. Enough of your Nazi dedication to the "state", we've seen what devotion to the state above people will do.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-12-30 07:51pm

kojikun wrote:Enough of your Nazi dedication to the "state", we've seen what devotion to the state above people will do.

IF YOU ASSHAT CALL ME A NAZI ONE MORE TIME, I SWEAR TO GOD I'LL COME OVER AND RIP YOU A NEW ONE!!!

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-30 07:56pm

*bludgeons Koji into the ground*

Koji, that was not cool!

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-12-30 08:05pm

kojikun wrote:The state is only the citizens, that is all there is. There is no mystical "state" without the citizens, for they ARE the state. Enough of your Nazi dedication to the "state", we've seen what devotion to the state above people will do.

Ignoring your disgusting Nazi comment, the people are the state, right. But they are also bound by common ideals, ideas, and form a society which fits it.
Wars have been fought for those ideas and ideals. Not just for a mere country. They exist, if you accept it in your little world or not.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-12-30 08:07pm

Koji, I don't know why you decided to become a dumbass troll in this thread, but you need to tone the rhetoric down a few notches

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-12-30 08:08pm

Why do people always jump at the food part of the equation whenever the point that we could not currently sustain a global first world is brought up? It's not just food that makes the first world a nice place to live.

To answer Wong's question: Some people live in a fantasy world.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-12-30 10:03pm

kojikun wrote:Ah, sorry. Point. I was looking at the urban numbers, it seems. But poverty rates are still higher in Canada, with it's amazing welfare system.

You're a fucking moron, Kojikun. Your use of statistics is pure sophistry, because it measures the percentage of people under the so-called "poverty line", but it does not measure just how far below that poverty line they are. The poor in Canada live far better lives than the poor in America; this is a small fact which is ignored in your abuse of statistics.

You cannot be responsible for things you have not done. Why is it my responsibility to support someone else?

It is your ethical responsibility to do what you can in order to help produce a stable, prosperous society which is relatively free of outright misery and suffering.

Thats why taxes would be the last thing to go, if at all. At best, they're a necessary evil.

Define "evil" without simply quoting Rand's bullshit conclusions as if they were established fact. They are not.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2003-12-30 10:47pm

U-235: People jump to the food arguement because for years it was the rallying cry of the wolf cryers of overpopulation.

With respect to resources, what couldn't we supply to a global first world economy? We are nowhere near capacity in many resources, hell we close iron mines, nickel smelters, foundaries, etc. because there is insufficient demand to make those particular ones profitable. There are massive stocks of untouched iron, coal, copper, bauxite, and just about everything else that are left in the ground because demand is currently not sufficient to make it profitable to extract those particular stocks. Even oil has recoverable deposits that aren't being extracted because it isn't profitable when the Saudis can tank the price of oil overnight.

Yes in the short term there would be problems as prices reached a new equilibrium reflecting the new demand and new supply generated, but nothing that cripples the global economy for a huge amount of time.

Ecologically we might have problems (depending on how one defines the first world). Massive amounts of pollution and fresh water use would be problems, but not insurmountable ones. Wood and fish stocks would take a precipitious decline, but I have no clue how bad it would get (particularly if large portion of the old 3rd world adopted european style fishing restrictions.

Mike: While there would certainly be massive price increases in some goods, others would fall drastically. For instance software, if you can cut your labor costs by picking up Ghanan programmers then you should be able to lower the price of the end product. Likewise other products that have high skilled labor costs would drop.

Once prices reached a new equilibrium I think the global economy would be better off.

The worst thing, in my opinion, if everyone in the third world became first world educated is the ease with which wackos could recruit people like microbiologists, aerospace egineers, nuclear physicists, hackers, etc. Personally I'd be making tracks away from population centers in hopes that whenever Al Queada or some other suicidal nutcases releases bioweapons ... they won't kill me.

Modernization without social or cultural reform is a recipe for disaster. It took Europe hundreds of years to go from killing each other over the meaning of the sacrement of communion to where they weren't looking for ways to kill each other. Having the ability to easily kill millions while still holding a fuedal/theocratic mindset is just a bad thing.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-12-30 10:50pm

tharkûn wrote:Once prices reached a new equilibrium I think the global economy would be better off.

The global economy, perhaps. But the living standards of the current first-world nations would suffer.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Why we need poor countries

Re: Why we need poor countries