World hunger

[Luciana]

Luciana, Your point about the fact that a few millions of dollars in charitable causes having little effect out the US economy is true. Having said that , I am reminded of an old politician, Everett Dirkson, who in the course of budget hearings for the pentagon,he was disparaged on his frugal ways in relation to the ridicules expenditures , he said "A million here and a million there and pretty soon your talking about real money.

The current "standard" figure is 0.7% of donations in relation to the donor's gross national income, yearly. That's a lot. But when you look at the goals - end of hunger, better health, development, gender equality and more importantly, self-sustainability, then 0.7% isn't much. Many American citizens donated much more from their own pockets in relation to their monthly income, because they believed that the cause was just. It can be done.

You are mistaken when you say that the largess of the American people is all inclusive when it comes to charity, it IS when done voluntarily not when demanded. If You want to subsidies the homeless children in Rio or the starving kids in Sudan, that is Your choice. Spending dollars is a part of the US's foreign policy and has more to do with Realpolitik then charity.

Realpolitik, then. Don't you think that poverty can rear its very ugly head? And yes, there is a moral issue. "Moral" isn't a bad word, is it? For example, the goal of democracy won't ever be satisfied under extreme poverty. Underdevelopment and its consequences - illiteracy, hunger - are much scarier than tyrannical governments.

 

[Luciana]

Shane, I had said:

That is, when you're working on someone else's money, you have less room to err, because the bill will grow and you'll have to pay anyway.

It's also true that working with someone else's money means you have little to no incentive to economize.

What you said is true, but is not necessarily true. There's one mitigating fact - vulnerability. A country with a weak economy is much more vulnerable to the fluctuations of the world's economy. Some countries are more than willing to diminish their dependence, like those who have been reducing their debt-to-GDP ratio in response to loans plus responsible use of them.

What I said happens to be true in each in very case. Unfortunately.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
Many American citizens donated much more from their own pockets in relation to their monthly income, because they believed that the cause was just. It can be done.

Your right, it can be done. That we ( the US taxpayer) should be required to spend monies on the current cause celebre' De' Jour or for dubious reasons to prop up a right wing junta or a despotic dictatorship is not defensible.



Realpolitik, then. Don't you think that poverty can rear its very ugly head? And yes, there is a moral issue. "Moral" isn't a bad word, is it? For example, the goal of democracy won't ever be satisfied under extreme poverty. Underdevelopment and its consequences - illiteracy, hunger - are much scarier than tyrannical governments.

I agree with You let's call it enlightened self-interest. I think that a few ten's pf dollars to keep kids in school or to teach them real world skills so they move successfully into the adulthead to be far preferable then the 25-75,000 dollars that we pay for housing 1 prisoner for 1 year in jail..

The whole argument of "morality" and "empathy" for those less fortunate has been usurped and co-oped by the right wing in the US to be used as an excuse for the debacle in Iraq. The Bush apoligests use the argument of a despotic ruler to be justification for that action.

When I ask what about the people in Sudan which has millions displaced and countless killed, I ask and answer my own question, What about them? Why not invade Sudan and save millions and my answer ( which made crimesearch call me a raciest ) was O Ya , cuz their Nigg@@@ and have no oil. So much for their new found sense of morality.

Kennedy and Shriver- UNICEF, CARE,Peace corps, THOSE were moral actions not the cynical attempt to justify an un-justifiable war.

I am however a libertarian and while being disposed to very liberal social standards and believe the smallest government is the best government . I do not believe that the highway men in Washington should be able to take money I worked for and spend it without accountability and justification.

 

[The idea]

(1) Why there are still underdeveloped nations in the world?

Maybe there is an unwillingness to use relatively primitive technologies.

Suppose a factory just opened somewhere in the world. Suppose the factory uses technology that is not used elsewhere and that was state of the art technology in, say, 1910. One might take this as evidence of underdevelopment, depending on what one means by "underdevelopment."

(2) Thread title: World hunger

Unless people in the USA were doomed to be hungry in 1910 because of insufficiently advanced technology, it's hard to see any connection between this kind of underdevelopment and actual hunger.

More advanced technology typically requires more years of education. For example, to repair Ford vehicles today probably requires more education than was required to fix model Ts in 1910. What if people in a given country cannot afford the education required to use a given level of technology? Do they invest money and effort to bring in experts who can find appropriate technologies?

 

[shanek]

(1) Why there are still underdeveloped nations in the world?

Maybe there is an unwillingness to use relatively primitive technologies.

Suppose a factory just opened somewhere in the world. Suppose the factory uses technology that is not used elsewhere and that was state of the art technology in, say, 1910. One might take this as evidence of underdevelopment, depending on what one means by "underdevelopment."

In a way, there's truth to this. Elitists in their economic ignorance usually call the more primitive factories "sweat shops" and try to have them shut down. When India first started becoming more developed, accusations of "sweat shops" abounded, the factories were shut down, and India sank again into poverty and starvation. Once India told them where to stick it and let the "sweat shops" do their work, India developed as a country, the factories improved, and now it's rapidly becoming a player in the global market.

 

[CFLarsen]

In a way, there's truth to this. Elitists in their economic ignorance usually call the more primitive factories "sweat shops" and try to have them shut down. When India first started becoming more developed, accusations of "sweat shops" abounded, the factories were shut down, and India sank again into poverty and starvation. Once India told them where to stick it and let the "sweat shops" do their work, India developed as a country, the factories improved, and now it's rapidly becoming a player in the global market.

When, exactly, were these factories shut down? What periods are you talking about?

 

[shanek]

When, exactly, were these factories shut down? What periods are you talking about?

Pretty much over the last 50 years, except for the last decade or more when they finally lossened the restrictions.

 

[CFLarsen]

Pretty much over the last 50 years, except for the last decade or more when they finally lossened the restrictions.

Sweatshops have not been an issue for 50 years.

You could, however, show some data on just how the closing of these sweatshops made India sink down into poverty and starvation.

You know, "evidence".

 

[shanek]

Sweatshops have not been an issue for 50 years.

Claus, once again, you are wrong, wrong, WRONG. Check out "Two Cheers for Sweatshops" by Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, New York Times, 9/24/2000. Here are a couple of excerpts:

In fact, the most vibrant parts of Asia are nearly all in what might be called the Sweatshop Belt, from China and South Korea to Malaysia, Indonesia and even Bangladesh and India. Today these sweatshop countries control about one-quarter of the global economy. As the industrial revolution spreads through China and India, there are good reasons to think that Asia will continue to pick up speed. Some World Bank forecasts show Asia's share of global gross domestic product rising to 55 to 60 percent by about 2025—roughly the West's share at its peak half a century ago. The sweatshops have helped lay the groundwork for a historic economic realignment that is putting Asia back on its feet. Countries are rebounding from the economic crisis of 1997-98 and the sweatshops—seen by Westerners as evidence of moribund economies—actually reflect an industrial revolution that is raising living standards in the East.

For all the misery they can engender, sweatshops at least offer a precarious escape from the poverty that is the developing world's greatest problem. Over the past 50 years, countries like India resisted foreign exploitation, while countries that started at a similar economic level—like Taiwan and South Korea—accepted sweatshops as the price of development. Today there can be no doubt about which approach worked better. Taiwan and South Korea are modern countries with low rates of infant mortality and high levels of education; in contrast, every year 3.1 million Indian children die before the age of 5, mostly from diseases of poverty like diarrhea.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, once again, you are wrong, wrong, WRONG. Check out "Two Cheers for Sweatshops" by Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, New York Times, 9/24/2000. Here are a couple of excerpts:

First, the article is from 2000. Second, the quotes simply don't support your claim.

Please provide a source from 1955 that states that sweatshops were such an issue that they were shut down. That's 50 years back.

Please provide some data on just how the closing of these sweatshops made India sink down into poverty and starvation.

Yes, you "forgot" that one.

You might also want to check up on India's software boom....

 

[Luciana]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
The whole argument of "morality" and "empathy" for those less fortunate has been usurped and co-oped by the right wing in the US to be used as an excuse for the debacle in Iraq. The Bush apoligests use the argument of a despotic ruler to be justification for that action.

I don't know much about that, I don't normally follow US's internal politics, plus I have avoided reading the news as much as possible for the past 4 months. Disillusion and all.

I do believe that poverty causes or permits the existence of tyrannical governments, adequate hiding places for terrorists, little regard to human rights, "ethnic"l wars, etc. It's not the other way round.

When I ask what about the people in Sudan which has millions displaced and countless killed, I ask and answer my own question, What about them? Why not invade Sudan and save millions and my answer ( which made crimesearch call me a raciest ) was O Ya , cuz their Nigg@@@ and have no oil. So much for their new found sense of morality.

In the past, comunism was the devil. Now it's terrorism. Very short-sighted, in my opinion. Fighting underdevelopment at least would at least have longer-lasting effects.

Ok, if no one needs me, I'll go back to my do-not-discuss-politics policy. It's just that such a question as put forth by AWPrime had to be answered in kind. Back to the shadows now.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

I think thats unfortuonate because you represent a seemingly considered voice.
Politics can be a vociferous and messy exersize but one worthy ( I think ) of effort, even tho the forum it is in may be dis-commodious to differing points of view .

I have absented myself from the Israeli/Palestinian debates as the threads are reflections of past sentiments and diatribes of the participants. There , truly, nothing will change , but sometimes even if I bite my tongue, a post requires a response even if it changes no minds.

I view Your absence as a loss to political threads.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
Ok, if no one needs me, I'll go back to my do-not-discuss-politics policy.[/i]

I would miss you as well. I do not necessarily agree with you but you raise good points and I like having diverse backgrounds and perspectives.

CBL

Edited for VB Error

 

[shanek]

First, the article is from 2000.

So?

Second, the quotes simply don't support your claim.

How do they not?

Stop making excuses. Argue the evidence.

 

[AWPrime]

Luciana you can do politics, but you often make it too personal.

Will like to see you soon.

 

[CFLarsen]

So?

So....that does nothing for your claim that sweatshops were an issue 50 years ago. Want to try again?

How do they not?

Stop making excuses. Argue the evidence.

Well, I don't see any references to 1955. For starters. You want me to continue?

And do you think you could deign to address the issues?

Please provide a source from 1955 that states that sweatshops were such an issue that they were shut down. That's 50 years back.

Please provide some data on just how the closing of these sweatshops made India sink down into poverty and starvation.

You might also want to check up on India's software boom....

Why, oh why do you always "seem" to "leave out" the crucial questions? Do you honestly think you are fooling anyone? Or is it your enormous ego that prevents you from seeing this?

 

[shanek]

So....that does nothing for your claim that sweatshops were an issue 50 years ago. Want to try again?

Uh, hel-lo??? Dan't you read??? It specifically says, "Over the past 50 years, countries like India resisted foreign exploitation."

Well, I don't see any references to 1955. For starters.

Since I made no reference to 1955, this is hardly of any relevance.

And do you think you could deign to address the issues?

I am. You're ignoring them, as usual, and cooking up excuses to avoid having to deal with information that challenges your own world-view.

 

[CFLarsen]

Uh, hel-lo??? Dan't you read??? It specifically says, "Over the past 50 years, countries like India resisted foreign exploitation."

Where does it say anything about sweatshops? Exploitation can be many things, e.g. foreign control of industries. This is not possible? It has to mean sweatshops?

Since I made no reference to 1955, this is hardly of any relevance.

Since you refer to 50 years back, I have to ask you what year you are living in right now.

I am. You're ignoring them, as usual, and cooking up excuses to avoid having to deal with information that challenges your own world-view.

You have shown no evidence that sweatshops were an issue 50 years ago, so they were shut down.

You have shown no evidence that the closing of these sweatshops made India sink down into poverty and starvation.

You have not commented at all on India's software boom.

 

[shanek]

Where does it say anything about sweatshops? Exploitation can be many things, e.g. foreign control of industries. This is not possible? It has to mean sweatshops?

Claus, the entire article is about sweatshops! It's in the smegging title!

You have shown no evidence that sweatshops were an issue 50 years ago, so they were shut down.

\

Yes, I have. You, as usual, just don't want to admit it.

You have shown no evidence that the closing of these sweatshops made India sink down into poverty and starvation.

Yes, I have. You, as usual, just don't want to admit it.

You have not commented at all on India's software boom.

That happened after the restrictions were lifted. Why do you keep bringing up points that support my contentions as though they refute them?

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, the entire article is about sweatshops! It's in the smegging title!

Reality has a nasty way of biting you in the ass:

Large-scale government involvement in the economy began in the 1950s as a reflection of nationalism and of the socialism of the first post-independence government led by Jawaharlal Nehru—and with the aim of speeding up economic development and growth to meet the needs of India’s rapidly growing population. The first of India’s five-year economic plans was launched in 1951. During the decades that followed the state took over certain key sectors and invested heavily in others, while the private sector was subject to wide-ranging controls. Tariff, and other, barriers were erected to protect domestic industries, and various agrarian reform programmes were initiated.
Source

Get it yet? The Indian economy was not about sweatshops. It never has been.

Economic growth, except during times of severe drought such as 1979 and 1987, was steady; it averaged 3.6 per cent a year in real terms (that is, after taking into account population growth) between 1965 and 1980, and more than 5 per cent a year during the 1980s. Inflation and the national debt were generally kept low. Agricultural output rose significantly and the spectre of mass famine was eliminated. The basis of a modern industrial state was laid.
Source

Get it yet? The Indian economy was not about sweatshops. It never has been.

In terms of land uses, 54 per cent of India’s land is used for arable agriculture, 3 per cent for crops, and 4 per cent for pasture. About two thirds of India’s population depends on the land to make a living. Agriculture generates an estimated 23 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP).
Source

Get it yet? The Indian economy was not about sweatshops. It never has been.

India ranks among the world leaders in the mining of iron ore and coal, and produces significant amounts of bauxite, manganese, mica, ilmenite, copper, petroleum, asbestos, chromium, graphite, phosphate rock, zinc, gold, and silver. This varied mineral base was a key factor in India’s economic development following independence—underpinning the establishment of a diversified manufacturing sector.
Source

Get it yet? The Indian economy was not about sweatshops. It never has been.

India has a very diversified manufacturing sector that contributes about 16 per cent of GDP. The modern sector, which has some very large concerns—particularly in the iron and steel sector—dominates in terms of output. However, small-scale, family-owned craft-based concerns are most important in terms of employment. Textile manufacturing—especially cotton textiles—is one of the longest established and still one of the most important sectors. Most cities have at least one cotton mill; output of cotton cloth in the mid-1990s was more than 17.0 billion m (55.8 billion ft).
The iron and steel industry expanded greatly after the 1950s; in the mid-1990s output of finished steel products was more than 17.8 million tonnes. Other important industries include the processing of tea, grains, oil seeds, sugar, tobacco, and other agricultural products, printing and publishing, oil-refining, and the manufacture of electrical and electronic equipment, motor vehicles, paper, footwear, chemicals, tiles and bricks, leather and metal goods, and railway equipment. The computer industry, in particular the development of software, has expanded considerably in recent years. Bangalore, in southern India, has been termed “India’s Silicon Valley”.
Source

Get it yet? The Indian economy was not about sweatshops. It never has been.

Do at least a modicum of studying, before you engage in debate.

Yes, I have. You, as usual, just don't want to admit it.

(whistles)

Yes, I have. You, as usual, just don't want to admit it.

(whistles)

That happened after the restrictions were lifted. Why do you keep bringing up points that support my contentions as though they refute them?

(whistles)