Why we need poor countries

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-12-30 10:50pm

Just to throw it in, I find it amusing that all the anti global liberals, you know the ones whose hearts blead all over the floor for the third world kiddies, are usually also the ones that object to genetic engineering of crops, which is what would be needed to feed them all.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-30 11:02pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Just to throw it in, I find it amusing that all the anti global liberals, you know the ones whose hearts blead all over the floor for the third world kiddies, are usually also the ones that object to genetic engineering of crops, which is what would be needed to feed them all.

I am in favor of genetic engineering of crops, thank you very much.

I am not anti-globilization either... I simply think that minimum wage laws should be universal first

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2003-12-30 11:08pm

AD, you know that the consumer is going to be the only one screwed by universal minimum wage, right? Because the companies sure aren't going to give up their profits.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-30 11:14pm

Darth Wong wrote: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.

I only sought poverty rates and only claimed poverty rates. If their conditions are better, then that is one thing. But that does not change anything, your social welfare system is not keeping people out of poverty, only letting them live happy lives off of your effort.

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.

Then convince me that social programs are the only way, because right now you're just making claims about responsibility without saying why it is a responsibility.

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

Evil is action which hurts a person and detracts from his life and causes unhappiness. Inaction cannot cause anything and cannot be evil.

Can't we shift this to the socialism thread? I'm not going to debate the same points in two places. This thread is not for that discussion.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-30 11:15pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:AD, you know that the consumer is going to be the only one screwed by universal minimum wage, right? Because the companies sure aren't going to give up their profits.

*snort* And you do know that the consumer has no right to a companies effort unless he can pay for it right? Or should we say that Mercedes' are too expensive and so we should lower the price so I can have one..

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-30 11:17pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:AD, you know that the consumer is going to be the only one screwed by universal minimum wage, right? Because the companies sure aren't going to give up their profits.

While a 12 year old in a southeast asian sweatshop works 14 hours day in horrible conditions for next to nothing? I am willing to put up with some added costs for shit I dont need, if it means that kids in a foreign country can afford to feed themselves.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-30 11:18pm

kojikun wrote:
StormTrooperTR889 wrote:AD, you know that the consumer is going to be the only one screwed by universal minimum wage, right? Because the companies sure aren't going to give up their profits.
*snort* And you do know that the consumer has no right to a companies effort unless he can pay for it right? Or should we say that Mercedes' are too expensive and so we should lower the price so I can have one..

And the company as no rights to the peoples labour unless they are willing to pay for it.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2003-12-30 11:21pm

kojikun wrote:
StormTrooperTR889 wrote:AD, you know that the consumer is going to be the only one screwed by universal minimum wage, right? Because the companies sure aren't going to give up their profits.
*snort* And you do know that the consumer has no right to a companies effort unless he can pay for it right? Or should we say that Mercedes' are too expensive and so we should lower the price so I can have one..

That's true, but rising prices would push more people below the poverty line and make them unable to afford things. Everyone would be poor together.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-30 11:23pm

which is when socialism coms in

It can work very well, and may not even offend Kojis self-rightous randite sensibilities of done right

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2003-12-30 11:37pm

The only problem with socialism is the leadership. People are greedy, and those with power are those with the best opportunity to exploit others.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-12-30 11:39pm

kojikun wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: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.
I only sought poverty rates and only claimed poverty rates.

No, you claimed that Canada's social programs are a failure, dumb-ass.

If their conditions are better, then that is one thing. But that does not change anything, your social welfare system is not keeping people out of poverty, only letting them live happy lives off of your effort.

Wrong, idiot. If their standard of living is higher, then the social programs are functioning as designed, hence they are not a failure. The fact that they are not so generous as to make them prosperous is by design: you don't want to make welfare so goddamned generous that people are actually well off on it, do you? Fuck, do I have to explain every goddamned little thing to you?

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.
Then convince me that social programs are the only way, because right now you're just making claims about responsibility without saying why it is a responsibility.

I have already pointed out, and you have agreed, that voluntary charity won't get the job done. Your alternative of "getting them jobs" is a ridiculous pipe dream; one cannot snap one's fingers and magically get people jobs. So unless you have a third option or you have some magical method of "getting them jobs", you either have some conceding or some explaining to do.

Define "evil" without simply quoting Rand's bullshit conclusions as if they were established fact. They are not.
Evil is action which hurts a person and detracts from his life and causes unhappiness. Inaction cannot cause anything and cannot be evil.

So the people who stood idly by while Kitty Genovese was stabbed to death were not immoral? Lovely ethical code you have there

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-30 11:51pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:The only problem with socialism is the leadership. People are greedy, and those with power are those with the best opportunity to exploit others.

Yeah... democracy would have to function for socialism to work... Maket forces at work in politics...

Unfortunatly, you have to get people voting so those in power are held accountable.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-30 11:54pm

Mike: Yes, people are bastards; yes, Canada's system keeps people out of harm; and yes, it is a necessary evil. Immoral or not, it is better then without. I'm ending both of my discussions with this, as the alternative to the situation, while being more moral on certain counts, is even more immoral on others.

lukexcom · Post by **lukexcom** » 2003-12-30 11:55pm

Axis Kast wrote:It's possible to bring capitalism to largely impoverished nations - see the success of ... Poland in recent memory.

Don't be so quick to point out a success where there is none yet.

In essence, we privatized our economy and industry so fast, that the wave of money came in, and dissapeared at about the same speed. But it turned out that the Soviet block-based industries were far below western standards. So western companies sat and waited. Waited to buy out our companies for as cheap price as possible (perfectly reasonable for them, but not a healthy thing for us), and then close them down and eliminate possible competition.

Hygiene equipment, clothing, cars, some furniture, construction and masonry materials, tractors, all of these that you buy in Poland were things that were made in Poland. And there lied a problem. Cheaper and superior competition from overseas closed down a lot of the industries here.

Unemployment skyrocketed. GDP dropped massively. And here we are now, buying more and more overseas products while less and less are being made in-country. And there isn't a very big shift in the industries to start exporting something good. The tech sector is a possibility, but then there's Germany right next to us.

The massive shipyards in Gdynia are but a shadow of their former might.

Anyways, the conversion to a thriving capitalistic economy is still a long ways off. Lots of mistakes were made in the transition here, and they must be corrected. And then we can attempt to rebuilt the economy and the various industries to a capitalist standard. Which will not happen if investments stop flowing in. Heck, we chose Lockheed Martin's F-16s in part because of the massive investments they offered into our economy. Some in the EU want to significantly decrease their investments for us and Spain.

And remember that a lot of people in Poland still prefer the job security of the communist era to the opportunity and risk of the capitalist era. It's still a volatile place there economically.

Don't call it a success, because it's still a long ways off. And don't be so quick to judge who is impoverished either. Barring a few minor incidents, people were fairly well off over here.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-12-31 12:32am

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.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html
http://www.ccsd.ca/facts.html

Take a look at how they calculate the numbers dumbass. The poverty line in the States is set at a much lower level and does not account for cost of living differences in rural and urban areas.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-12-31 12:43am

kojikun wrote: 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.

And how exactly do you propose we deal with them?

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.

Moron, do you realize that if manufacturing companies could replace human labor with automation cheaper, then those people would lose their jobs? If automation took over a significant percentage of the job market, new jobs for these people aren't going to appear overnight and probably never will.

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.

Boy, you really are disillusioned about the way the world works. It is societies responsibility to prevent things like extreme poverty and to provide things like schools, roads and yes, even welfare.

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

Advocating the abolishment of taxes is something only a crackhead or someone terminally stupid would say.

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.

I'm not suggesting that we come and take your hard earned money away. I'm suggesting that there shouldn't be a salary gap of 10,000 times between a CEO and a janitor.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-12-31 12:45am

At this point the debate is pointless because Aly made note of the fact that by voluntarilly staying in a country with taxes for this sort of stuff, you're agreeing to pay taxes for them. So I was in error to assume that there was no volition nor choice.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-12-31 12:46am

Lord Poe wrote: 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.

Homeless people working on the side are not the foundation of a lower skilled job market. They may be seen in isolated cases like your example, but if they were suddenly in demand like you suggest, the prices would go up (supply and demand and all) and remember that not every area has homeless problems as bad as California does.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-12-31 01:29am

Lord Poe wrote: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.

Actually I heard they're dead and are now acting as some guy's guardian angels

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-12-31 01:39am

kojikun wrote:Evil is action which hurts a person and detracts from his life and causes unhappiness. Inaction cannot cause anything and cannot be evil.

If by pushing a button, which costs you nothing, you know that you can save a hundred lives, and you don't do it, that would be really evil.

Kojikun -> Dark Side point gained.

Cthulhu-chan · Post by **Cthulhu-chan** » 2003-12-31 07:13am

Sophistry will get you nowhere. The simple fact of knowing that not pushing the button will result in a hundred people dieing causes the concious act of doing nothing to be an action. In fact, by the scenario's very wording, it would not be possible to adopt a stance of inaction.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-12-31 07:55am

I would like to make a question regarding the US healthcare system, the US goverment spends money on it right?
Infact alot more than Canada does, where does this money come from? Tax-payers I would wager, so is it not so that in america tax-payers contributes to the US healthcare system, yet they cannot use it without being rich enough to pay for what their taxes has already been used for, or having private health insurance.

This is the impression I've gotten, and it seems like outright theft to me, how is this better than socialized medicine? The only thing it has going for it is that it excludes alot of poor people, what sort of fuckface would consider that good?

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-12-31 10:53am

kojikun wrote:Inaction cannot cause anything and cannot be evil.

Whoa, hold on there. Haven't you ever heard the expression "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing?" Inaction certainly can be evil.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-31 12:39pm

Koji is right in that morality flows from objective reality. Unfortunatly, the conclusions he draws from it are all wrong, they arenot based on OBSERVED reality.

when he says that we have no responsbility to anyone but ourselves, he is ignoring a fundamental fact about humanity. We are social animals. The shark has no responsibility to the other sharks, because he directly competes with the for food. The monkey on the other hand, does. The monkey is protected by the group(In humans this is police, welfare etc), in exchange for a share of its food(taxation/charity) now, if the monkey has food and refuses to share, he/she gets beaten(negative sanctions, be they formal or informal)

The same works for humans. We live in a group that provides us with certain benifits that are based on the will of the group(democracy and social contract). In return for these benifits we have a certain obligation to the group, and that is to furnish the means of providing said benifits.

Morality, is selected for. It is a product of natural selection. They are rules of conduct for group interactions, without them, a group would collapse and the individual animals would not survive. Those with the best set of ethics, will win out in the evolutionary race. All social animals have them, be they simple group hierarchies, or the self-sacrificing altruism found in primates and cetaceans. These behaviors I would think, are learned, at least in the more altruistic species. Seeing as some of them fly in the face of a genetic survival instinct. Rather they arenot selected for as genes, but rather as memes. Cognitive replicators. But I digress

The simple matter is, altruism works, it allows us to survive as individuals and pass on our genes. Much like the first cells banded together into an organism for mutual advantage, so do the organisms form groups in order to further the survival of their genes(and memes for that matter)

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2003-12-31 02:58pm

A world where all nations are first world, and not less or more, is quite a bit like ideal communism.

Is ideal communism possible? It's not. So, a truly First World Earth is an impossibility. There'll always be somebody richer or poorer, and this applies to nations too. The only way is really by godly fiat. Nice to think of, but ultimately pointless.

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

The people who claim that they want the third world to get better never said the first world would be staying stagnant either. It's a constantly moving set of goalposts. First world nations are where the majority of the population enjoy lifestyles significantly better than the rest, but it doesn't mean the bottom feeders are gonna be starved out folks either. As the third world improves, so will the first world(hopefully).

'Poor' in the future may become defined by having a 25 inch TV set, hot showers, a reasonable flat, and a decent 3 meals a day while rich is defined as taking vacations to outer space, able to buy immortality etc. This is probably what they meant. Still poor relative to the rest of the developed world, but improved from the wretched poverty and disease plagued conditions that we see in Africa and other parts of the world.

So, those people weren't lying. They really do want the third world to become better. But they never said the third world would catch up...

The Wobbly Guy