|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What causes poverty?
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
chukovsky, you list all of the usual suspects and then dismiss them all as being only minor problems! So what is the problem? More importantly, what will it take to fix things?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
Poverty is corruption when a dictator steals your food.
Poverty is a leader who spends money on arms or cars.
Poverty is being kicked out of your Community because you have Leprosy.
Poverty is a child abandoned because they have learning difficulties or Aids.
But the worst Poverty of all is when you have no spirit.
I'm not convinced that lack of Education is Poverty.
My daughter has learnt more about Life working at the checkout in a HyperMarket than she ever learnt at school.
Obviously I'm keen to help abroad when I can.
And you can probably guess that I support the Leprosy Mission' work throughout the World and Children's Orphanages and Hospices in Russia and Romania.
Pax et Bonum
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Neither letting the Africans lead totally traditional lives on reservations, nor totally westernizing them and giving them all our problems
I don't think it is a matter of "letting" Africans do anything. They will anyway. People want industrial development, new technology, jobs, and all the rest of it. And there was no question of "reservations" apart from apartheid Sourth Africa, and they were just a scam to get cheap labour and free land for the whites.
quote:
But it may be that the right mixture will have to be developed in Africa, by Africans, rather than in some Western university.
No "may" about it. 100% certain.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
but my impression is that high efficiency, commercial-style farming is necessary just to feed the current population. It cannot be done by independent, small-scale farmers.
This is not the case. Small farmers are more efficient than large farmers, in the sense that they get more crops out of the same amount of land.
The place I lived in in Kenya was full of very, very efficient small farmers who mostly grew cash crops (tea and coffee) as well as food.
Large farms look more "efficient" in our European circumstances because the margins of profit from a farm are so small these days (even with subsidies!) that a small farm can't return enough money for the lifestyle people have come to expect.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
But ken, I'm not talking about profit. I'm talking about feeding the existing population. The small farmers can't do it. I fear that Zimbabwe is about to provide a stunningly clear example of the difference in productivity between commercial and independent farming.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
Small farmers can feed the existing population - if they have enough land each (and Africa is underpopulated, whatever anyone tells you, it has more than enough land to feed its people), they are not using inappropriate farming practises - e.g. ones that are more adapted to the area a particular people used to live in, or to an area with higher rainfall.
For example, a lot of farming groups have gone over to farming maize - because the seeds are commercially available, and because it's fashionable, and promoted - from farming sorghum or millet, both of which are more drought resistant and in some circumstances get higher yields. Surprise surprise, these farmers are having problems feeding their families).
With proper small-scale farming practises, Zimbabwe could feed itself, it is only because the government is not putting proper farmers onto the land that there is such a mess*. There are quite a few areas which do feed themselves, such as the area Ken is talking about, and people who have some crops for the family and some to sell are in an ideal position. Diversity of crops is better for the land and better if you have a blight or a drought.
Scot - if you read my post you'll see that I say we need to change here - not by giving handouts, but by making the playing field level - by not expecting more back in debt repayments than we give in aid, by not imposing stupid conditions that prevent people from being able to afford healthcare or education, and by ensuring that small-scale industries and farming have decent access to markets, and aren't strangled by cheap imports.
Garden Hermit - if your daughter had not been able to read, write, or add up she would not have got a job in a hypermarket. And don't tell me "she can learn those things at home", if you hadn't been to school you wouldn't have been able to teach her. If you have the luxury of any way to survive other than hoping beyond hope that one of your children will be better educated than you were, you are very very rich. So don't patronise those for whom education is the only way out.
*I am not in any way saying that the Zimbabwean government should be throwing people off land that their families have farmed for years. I'm just saying that the people who know how to farm could just as well farm the land.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karin 3
Shipmate
# 3474
|
Posted
Scot I don't pretend to be an expert in the field, but I am concerned by world poverty and interested to understand better how it can be at least alleviated and so, hopeful that this thread may help me do that a little more, I am glad that you started it.
I don't think we can eradicate poverty in every corner of the world, or even in our own countries, unfortunately. And as an aside I’d just like to say that I think we should also consider addressing poverty in our own countries, which is something we may be able to help with in a very practical way.
In your opening post you questioned the role of the West in causing or exacerbating poverty. I think colonisation of many of those countries we now call “Third World” countries did a great deal of damage, although perhaps also some good on occasion, but that may depend on what you consider to be good. The way Britain and other colonial powers left their erstwhile colonies was often badly planned and may have caused further damage. I also think that the continuing relations the West has with these countries is not always helpful and is often entered into for reasons of self-interest and in a domineering manner.
I felt you concentrated on Africa and did not mention that poverty also exists in the Middle East, India and much of Asia as well as South and Central America. Perhaps you did that for good reasons, though.
I don’t know enough about life in these countries to know whether the indigenous peoples had smaller families before the arrival of colonials. I would have thought that before birth control was available and people understood the benefits of smaller families large families would have been the norm worldwide. In fact, if you know that some of your children are likely to die of disease and you need to have enough children to support you in old age you might consider a large family desirable.
We have seen many times in recent years alone that war is a major cause of poverty, causing people to be homeless and displaced, devastating crops and livestock and killing and maiming many able-bodied people who would previously have been able to work to support their families.
Scot, you rightly mentioned corrupt and self-interested governments.
Natural disasters such as drought, famine and earthquakes also play a major role.
In your more recent post you asked about the evils of capitalism or over-consumption by the West. I shall attempt to give a few examples. I am not able to investigate the truth or otherwise of these claims myself, so am happy to listen to anyone who feels they have another side to these stories, however, I have heard these things repeated consistently down the years by a number of sources.
I have been told that large American companies encouraged corrupt South American governments to sell them good agricultural land belonging to small farmers, which made these farmers both homeless and unable to support themselves. Of course the local governments were also responsible, but some would argue that a company with a conscience rather than just a concern for profit should not have done this. This land was then used to raise cattle and coffee so that we in the West can enjoy a plentiful and relatively cheap supply of them.
A European company has been accused of encouraging women in Third World countries to use powdered baby milk even when they have a plentiful supply of breast milk. Notwithstanding the fact they can ill-afford the product, the conditions under which it is likely to be prepared make it extremely dangerous for the babies.
We are also told that wealthy Western countries exploit local people by paying low wages that mean workers can ill-afford medicines and have no hope of educating their children.
These are just a few examples, I know. This post is starting to get very long and I have other things to do. I shall therefore only briefly consider possible ways of tackling poverty.
First of all I don’t think we can go into one country deal, with poverty and go away again. It requires patience, a long-term view and to be prepared to go back and put things right again after civil war or natural disaster has seemingly ruined everything you worked for.
I’m not sure how we can ensure all countries have a good democratic government and it is very hard to wipe out corruption, especially if it seems to be part of the culture. However, putting pressure on regimes does work to a certain extent, but Western governments can put pressure on Third World regimes to do things that further their own interest rather than merely to improve justice and welfare in their countries. If enough people in the West lobby their political representatives that can also help. Some third World dictators and corrupt regimes do care about what you and I think.
Aid when disaster strikes is good, but long-term it probably is about education. The reason I’m not an agricultural labourer like my ancestors is because my grandparents, my parents and I received an education. As changes occurred in society a better education was available to all regardless to class or sex and this has improved my family situation greatly.
As has already been mentioned, education can improve health and agricultural practices. It can also improve the way people use their resources and plan for the future. An education can help you climb a rung or two out of the poverty trap by getting a better job.
Health and safety are also important issues. It’s all very well teaching people how to stay healthy, but with the best hygiene in the world you or your children can still become ill, so you need to have adequate healthcare available at an affordable price. Good safety practices at work will reduce the likelihood of a workforce unable to work through disability.
There is a lot more I would like to say, but I don’t have time right now. I will try to get back tonight. I think Christian Aid, just for example, are doing a lot of interesting things to help in many situations and this is often in partnership with existing local organisations. I shall continue to read this thread with interest and make every effort to respond to sensible questions and comments, but I may not always have the time.
Karin
--------------------
Inspiration to live more generously, ethically and sustainably
Posts: 417 | From: South East England | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
[HOST MODE]
quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
In as much as I have posted a summary of current academic opinion, I will not retract.
Well, you have failed to show that your views are "a summary of current academic opinion" - not a single citation of academic study or publication - and you have failed to engage with the clear opinion of others on this thread that your views are contrary to current academic opinion. As such, your original racist statement still holds, and is still contrary to the rules of these boards. In addition, you have repeated the offense with a further racist statement. quote:
Africans are prone to impulsive and superstious behaviour
I ask for one final time that you retract your racist comments. Otherwise more drastic measures will need to be taken.
Alan
Purgatory host
[/HOST MODE]
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karin 3
Shipmate
# 3474
|
Posted
Another thought. Change from within a country is better than change imposed from without. Bearing this in mind I am quite interested in the work of the MST in Brazil, a type of trade union movement, which is one of Christian Aid's partners in Brazil. You can find out more about them at the MST website
Basically quote:
the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement (MST)is the largest social movement in Latin America and one of the most successful grassroots movements in the world. Hundreds of thousands of landless peasants have taken onto themselves the task of land reform in a country where less than 3% of the population owns two-thirds of the arable land.
While 60% of the farmland lies idle, 25 million peasants struggle to survive by working in temporary agricultural jobs. In 1985, with the support of the Catholic Church, hundreds of landless rural Brazilians took over an unused plantation in the south of the country and successfully established a cooperative. They gained title to the land in 1987. Today more than 250,000 families have won land titles to 15 million acres after MST land takeovers.
Quote taken from this article on the fish website.
I wonder if the way forward is to support those who are struggling for a better system in their own countries, although many other strategies such as education, agricultural and health projects are necessary as a short-term measure.
Karin
--------------------
Inspiration to live more generously, ethically and sustainably
Posts: 417 | From: South East England | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
But the worst Poverty of all is when you have no spirit.
One thing that surprised me when I first visited Africa was the apparent spirit of the place and the people. This was in Ghana and Togo.
Hearing about poverty and disease, I had expected people shuffling down the streets looking ill. I still remember the amazement I felt at how vibrant and strong the people appeared. Everyone is young and fit looking, beautifully dressed, with a ready smile for anyone they pass. Obviously the sick ones aren't out there walking around, but it was quite a contrast with my expectations - as well as with the look of the overweight, shabbily dressed, and sullen, crowds I meet up with in my own American city.
I wonder if others have had this experience.
Not that this has much to do with the causes of poverty - but I fear that people often have a distorted view of what life is actually like in a poor country. This is not to downplay the real hardships, but spirit is often present in great quantity.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
What causes poverty.
In much more general terms poverty is most often caused by exploitation of the poor by the rich. Or, in other words, exploitation of the powerless by the powerful.
Consider something as simple as chocolate. There are a certain number of man hours which go into making it. The production of a bar of chocolate requires a certain amount of work. Those who grow the raw materials receive far less for their hours of work than those who design the wrapper, why?
We live in a world where our western lives are only sustained by the toil of poor people. People who work long hours for very little pay to keep us in the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed.
If these people lived in our own countries we would demand good working conditions for them, they would have good education as a right, they would have the opportunity to change their carreer if the one they had chosen didn't pay enough. But we don't allow them to come and live in our countries.
However, because they live in other countries, we feel that it's ok to pay them only just enough to live on for their many hours of work. We, the rich, have constructed a world which perpetuates this injustice. We sing the praises of our 'capitalist' system which has made us all so free and rich, but we deny the people on whose work we've built that system the freedom to exploit it.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Genie
Shipmate
# 3282
|
Posted
I don't know too much about the subject, but I've heard good things about some charitable trusts that offer small loans and grants at very low interest rates to poor farmers in African countries to enable them to improve their village infrastructures. The 'profits' from repayment of the loans are then used to give loans to more people. They're for projects like digging wells, paying the salary of a health worker or buying a tractor for sharing round a village. Admittedly I got this information from the advertising bumpf the organisation sends out about itself so it's undoubtedly a rose-tinted view, but it seems a good idea to me.
--------------------
Alleluia, Christ is risen!
Posts: 762 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
But ken, I'm not talking about profit. I'm talking about feeding the existing population. The small farmers can't do it. I fear that Zimbabwe is about to provide a stunningly clear example of the difference in productivity between commercial and independent farming.
Exactly the wrong way round. Small farmers make less profit but more food - and so can feed the existing population.
Large commercial farms in Africa are often shockingly badly run, often by Northern companies (sometimes with a local individual as a front) and get on by paying starvation wages to migrant workers. Compare the plantation-sized cocoa farms of Cote D'Ivoire with small-scale set-up in Ghana.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
Another example: A friend of mine runs a few safari camp type things in Tanzania. They like to offer a variety of vegetables and foods, some of which they grow themselves - e.g. they can grow some very temperate vegetables in their farm at high altitude, and serve these in their beach camp, Western tourists like them, and it's all produced in-country.
However as they need to run their farm on a commercial basis, they found that local growers who were running their farms on a slightly-more-than-subsistence-basis were cheaper, and possibly also slightly more reliable (different farms all over the mountain may have crops maturing at different times, their farm is only on one side of the mountain) than growing it in-house on a commercial farm.
They still make their own sausages but once local producers catch on they could be out of the market there too!
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
I think that better transport links are needed.
Wealth in Europe really took off with the canals and later railways.
Now if there is a food shortage in parts of Europe or North America it is realtively cheap to use trains or truck to bring it in from elsewhere. In fact it is so cheap that this is what happens all the time in the majority of regions where little food is produced locally.
However in much of Africa it can only be flown in at great cost, and thus the society becomes much more at the mercy of variations in food production caused by disese, climate etc.
Transport is better in much of Asia and thus in many areas it is easier to ship in food.
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
However in much of Africa it can only be flown in at great cost, and thus the society becomes much more at the mercy of variations in food production caused by disese, climate etc.
Transport is better in much of Asia and thus in many areas it is easier to ship in food.
Flying in food happens almost exclusively in emergency situations, which could have been prevented if they were caught earlier. In the current drought situation in Southern Africa most of the food aid is being distributed by road.
Asia is a lot more densely populated than Africa. And richer.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
clare
Contributing Editor
# 17
|
Posted
Administrator Notice
eleighteen, your failure to admit culpability on this one is your final undoing. Admins, Hosts and shipmates are fed up with your persistent trolling behaviour, and we refuse to let you disrupt any more debates. You are permanently banned.
clare
------------
Member Administrator
Posts: 2317 | From: edge of the peak district | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
ya' know, i think this is the first time i've actually been pleased that someone was banned.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
chukovsky and ken, since my own knowledge of Africa is based entirely on book-learnin’ I bow to your first hand knowledge. Still, what you are saying contradicts most everything I’ve ever read about agriculture or Africa. I have not doubt that subsistence farming is possible, only that it is a viable solution to feeding the entire population including those in urban areas or various encampments. North American and European history suggest that large farms using modern methods are indeed better able to support a large population. I sincerely hope you are right.
quote:
ken wrote:
I don't think it is a matter of "letting" Africans do anything. They will anyway. People want industrial development, new technology, jobs, and all the rest of it.
I don’t doubt that people want these things, but are you saying that they will get them regardless? History suggests otherwise.
Freddy, thank you for pointing out that quality of life is not just about the physical things.
Karin 3, you make a lot of good points and some I disagree with. Since I am short on time, let me just throw out a few comments. According to their website, Nestle (the company you referred to) stopped promoting their infant formula 20 years ago. // Regarding health care, prevention is far better (and cheaper) than cure. The first steps are education, sanitation, and nutrition. // I am not sure which dictators you are thinking of when you say that some of them care about our opinions. We are consistently unsuccessful in pressuring small dictatorships into just about anything. // Perhaps there is a role for labor unions in some of these areas. I am firmly opposed to them in the US, but I readily admit that they played a valuable role during the industrial revolution.
Bonzo, I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure that the facts support you. Can you point out some examples of US or UK society being supported on the backs of the African poor? (A stronger case can be made with regard to the Asian or Indian poor, but I am trying to focus on Africa because it seems to me to be the most intractable.) Are you saying that open immigration would improve the plight of the poor nations?
Genie, there are a variety of organizations doing the sort of microloans which you described. A few of them have have their problems, but on the whole I think it is one of the best ideas going. BTW, some loans are for community projects, but others are for individual or family businesses. Both are good, IMHO.
Astro, you make a good point about transportation. Unfortunately, I cannot see it being effectively addressed until stable governments with some degree of honesty and restraint become the norm.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I bought an old trainee teacher's notebook at an antique fair for historical interest - it was dated 1837. It included the information (which was accepted as fact in those days) that African brain sizes were smaller than British children and therefore they were incapable of learning as well. I understand why people thought like that in those days but I am staggered to find such opinions being expressed on an e-bulletin board in the 21st century! ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
for anyone who might fall prey to such hogswallop, i recomend "the mismeasure of man" by stephen j gould as antidote.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
We are also told that wealthy Western countries exploit local people by paying low wages that mean workers can ill-afford medicines and have no hope of educating their children.
But why are the local people working for the western companies in the first place - because it is better than scratching a living on a farm. The need is for effective (and therefore profitable) investment to raise the value of what each worker produces, and so can be paid. The difference between Africa and the countries of Asia that have achieved a massive cut in the prevalence of poverty in recent years is that the governments of Asia are relatively stable, and not so hopelessly corrupt as to prevent the possibility of profitable investment occurring in their countries. This is independent of whether that investment is internally generated or externally driven. At its best - and there are many dark spots as well, so don't hear me as necessarily defending colonialism - the European rule of Africa did allow that investment to flourish, to the benefit of the people. Ghana at independence showed signs of future prosperity - and was certainly more prosperous than South Korea was in that year (1957). Since then South Korea has all but joined the 1st world, and Ghana has become a mess.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spong
Ship's coffee grinder
# 1518
|
Posted
This page shows that Nestle's protestations of clean hands may not be as persuasive as they appear at first sight (click on baby food companies then on Nestle to get the details).
--------------------
Spong
The needs of our neighbours are the needs of the whole human family. Let's respond just as we do when our immediate family is in need or trouble. Rowan Williams
Posts: 2173 | From: South-East UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Since then South Korea has all but joined the 1st world, and Ghana has become a mess.
True about South Korea, but Ghana is really pretty good now. It endured hard times through the 70s and 80's, under Acheampong, Akufo, and Liman, but under Rawlings there was a tremendous improvement. Which is not to say that there isn't a long way to go.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot.
Bonzo, I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure that the facts support you. Can you point out some examples of US or UK society being supported on the backs of the African poor? (A stronger case can be made with regard to the Asian or Indian poor, but I am trying to focus on Africa because it seems to me to be the most intractable.) Are you saying that open immigration would improve the plight of the poor nations?
Well I did point out the example of chocolate. But if you need a few more there are bananas, coffee, tea and oil. African workers produce all of these. They work at least as hard to do their part, as the refiners and pakagers of these raw materials do in the west, but they are paid nowhere near the same amount for their work by the same companies. Why?
The whole premise of capitalism is an open unrestricted market where people can sell their work to the highest bidder. Capitalism turns into exploitation where people are not allowed to do this.
Open immigration may not be the answer (I don't know) but it is against the spirit of capitalism to prevent immigration. If we are going to have immigration laws then we have a responsibility to make sure that a fair wage is paid at source for our raw materials.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karin 3
Shipmate
# 3474
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SpO-On-n-ng:
This page shows that Nestle's protestations of clean hands may not be as persuasive as they appear at first sight (click on baby food companies then on Nestle to get the details).
Thanks for that Spong. I have friends whose son work for Nestle and they won't hear anything against the company, so I was puzzled to hear that some organisations continue to encourage boycotting them. It's hard to know who to believe at times.
--------------------
Inspiration to live more generously, ethically and sustainably
Posts: 417 | From: South East England | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Well I did point out the example of chocolate. But if you need a few more there are bananas, coffee, tea and oil. African workers produce all of these.
I apologize for being unclear. I didn't mean more examples of crops which are produced in Africa and processed elsewhere. What I really wanted to know is how this constitutes exploitation. If there is a large supply of cocoa, then the price will be relatively low. Of course, if the supply or price is being artificially manipulated then it is a different story. I can also understand and support your outrage if it is directed at the regulations which prevent local processing of the cocoa.
quote:
The whole premise of capitalism is an open unrestricted market where people can sell their work to the highest bidder. Capitalism turns into exploitation where people are not allowed to do this.
I agree with you. Now that I've have a bit of time to read through a good bit of the Christian Aid website, I think they have some good positions which I could support (and some others, too). Tariffs are an abomination. They should be eliminated at once. Doing so would help poor nations by increasing their market options, and it would help wealthy nations by making their markets more healthy.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
Well I did point out the example of chocolate. But if you need a few more there are bananas, coffee, tea and oil. African workers produce all of these.
I apologize for being unclear. I didn't mean more examples of crops which are produced in Africa and processed elsewhere. What I really wanted to know is how this constitutes exploitation. If there is a large supply of cocoa, then the price will be relatively low.
But the labourer still deserves a fair wage. This is clear in the Bible. How can a wage that doesn't allow the labourer to feed their family be biblically justified?
On this point, if market forces mean that consumers in the West benefit where producers in the developing world cannot make a living wage, it is abundantly clear that market forces are evil. Decide between them and God's will. Of course this is *%&$@@ exploitation!
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
But the labourer still deserves a fair wage. This is clear in the Bible. How can a wage that doesn't allow the labourer to feed their family be biblically justified?
But if a product is of so little intrinsic value that it is not worth a "fair wage" then how can paying one be economically justified? If I want to support my family by hand-crafting butter churns, does that mean that I am owed a living wage for doing it even if there is no market for butter churns? Of course not.
If you are saying that the laborer is being paid at a rate below the value of their work, then something other than the free market is at work.
quote:
On this point, if market forces mean that consumers in the West benefit where producers in the developing world cannot make a living wage, it is abundantly clear that market forces are evil. Decide between them and God's will. Of course this is *%&$@@ exploitation!
The "market forces" are not being allowed to act naturally. The various tariffs, trade policies, and other governmental interference are preventing it. If those factors were eliminated (or at least reformed) and the market still did not allow a living wage for growing a particular crop, then the farmer should do something else!
If there is nothing that can be done in that location which will product a reasonable income in a free market, then the area is desolate indeed, and perhaps is not able to support its current population. In either case, the evil is not the market.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
But if a product is of so little intrinsic value that it is not worth a "fair wage" then how can paying one be economically justified? If I want to support my family by hand-crafting butter churns, does that mean that I am owed a living wage for doing it even if there is no market for butter churns? Of course not.
If I buy hand crafted butter churns, it's only fair that I should pay a price that compensates for the work put in to create those butter churns.
If there are hundreds of people producing butter churns and not enough people to buy them, according to market forces the price will go down to rock bottom. It will no longer be possible to earn a living from producing them. So if I lived in America I'd go and get another job. If I couldn't find one then I'd move to another town. If I couldn't get a job anywhere I'd have benefits to rely on. So the price of my work has a minimum value (ie what I could earn elsewhere).
These options are not available to most people in Africa. So they continue to produce their crops at the lowest possible price, because they have no alternative.
That's why it's important for us to pay a better than market force price for those things we do buy from Africa, one which properly compensates for the work put in. Otherwise it's exploitation.
I'm not suggesting that it's encubent on the buyer to buy all the hand crafted butter churns produced, just to pay a living wage for those we do buy.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hull Hound
Shipmate
# 2140
|
Posted
Scot, you truly are a free market idealist (despite your Socialist outburst earlier ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ). I could honestly live with that state of affairs because it would be better than the pseudo free market that is weighted so heavily in favour of the rich countries since they have the influence to set the rules and spin the lies.
However as Bonzo mentioned earlier it often sticks in the craw to allow free flow of people in the same way as capital. I don’t know what you think about this Scot but are you also into free market anarchism? It is the next logical step.
--------------------
ahhh ... Bisto!
Posts: 1167 | From: Hull | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hull Hound
Shipmate
# 2140
|
Posted
Scot, after a full 2 minute reflection, I can't say that the problem with Africa is capitalism. I honestly do not know enough about the interactions to say. Capitalism may be the solution, the only solution. I just do not know.
--------------------
ahhh ... Bisto!
Posts: 1167 | From: Hull | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
If you are saying that the laborer is being paid at a rate below the value of their work, then something other than the free market is at work.
I'm sorry, that is so illogical. Again, the market is NOT God. Since when did we decide that the true value of someone (or their labour) is what people are willing to pay for them?
A truly free market would include unregulated prostitution, people selling their children, education and healthcare only available to those who pay. Oh, and also selling ritually pure animals and changing money at a huge markup in the temple forecourt. Hell, that's what the market demands, so supply it! You want that, take it, I'll take benign regulation and people getting paid for the sweat of their brow.
What is this obsession with the free market? Since when did one of the Ten Commandments say "thou shalt honour no other gods before me, and the free market". Just because an economic system doesn't work, doesn't mean "there's something funny going on in the market". I wish people would take their heads out of the sand and realise there is something wrong with the concept of the market.
When there was a lot of communism about, people who were obsessed with it said "oh, but it isn't working because it isn't being practised properly". Now people are saying exactly the same thing about free markets.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonzo:
quote:
But if a product is of so little intrinsic value that it is not worth a "fair wage" then how can paying one be economically justified? If I want to support my family by hand-crafting butter churns, does that mean that I am owed a living wage for doing it even if there is no market for butter churns? Of course not.
If I buy hand crafted butter churns, it's only fair that I should pay a price that compensates for the work put in to create those butter churns.
If there are hundreds of people producing butter churns and not enough people to buy them, according to market forces the price will go down to rock bottom. It will no longer be possible to earn a living from producing them. So if I lived in America I'd go and get another job. If I couldn't find one then I'd move to another town. If I couldn't get a job anywhere I'd have benefits to rely on. So the price of my work has a minimum value (ie what I could earn elsewhere).
These options are not available to most people in Africa. So they continue to produce their crops at the lowest possible price, because they have no alternative.
That's why it's important for us to pay a better than market force price for those things we do buy from Africa, one which properly compensates for the work put in. Otherwise it's exploitation.
I'm not suggesting that it's encubent on the buyer to buy all the hand crafted butter churns produced, just to pay a living wage for those we do buy.
Hmmm, some interesting points here.
Bonzo, I disagree with you that buyers of goods have a moral imperative to pay "a living wage" to the source producers or distributors of those goods. I agree it would be a kind, considerate, and certainly an evil-free thing to do, but a moral good? I don't see any framework to support that argument.
Let's use your chocolate bars as an example.
I want to buy a chocolate bar. According to your position, I should only buy a bar from a maker who pays or supports the payment of living wages to every single person who has anything to do with the production, distribution and vending of that bar.
The following is where your logic takes us:
FADE IN:
INT. CONVENIENCE STORE - DAY
OUR HERO walks up to the SHOPKEEPER, plunks down a chocolate bar on the counter.
OUR HERO:
"Hello, Shopkeeper! I would like to purchase this fine Bonzo(tm) brand chocolate bar from you today. But first, a few preliminaries!"
Our Hero whips on his reading glasses and unlimbers a huge wad of dogeared paper from his pocket. Licking the tip of a stubby pencil, he looks at the bemused storekeeper.
OUR HERO:
"Firstly Shopkeeper, are you and all employees, agents, assigns, contractors, consultants paid a living wage here?"
SHOPKEEPER:
"Errm, there's only me an t' missus, and all depends on foot traffic and time of the year, but we've been doing this for 43 years, so I guess we do all right."
OUR HERO:
"Excellent!" <tallies mark on sheet.> "Secondly, does the distributor from whom you bought this most delicious chocolate pay his employees, agents, assigns, contractors, consultants, et al, a living wage?"
Shopkeeper scratches his head.
SHOPKEEPER:
"Dunno, sonny. Been buying from the same company for over 20 years, so they must be doin' something right. Why're you askin'?"
OUR HERO:
(frowns)
"It's a moral thing. What about the chocolate manufacturer and its employees, agents, assigns, contractors, consultants, et al? What about the growers, pickers, distributors and packagers of cocoa beans, milk, sugar, preservatives, and chocolate production machinery makers and their distributors, employees, agents, assigns, contractors, consultants, et al? What about the trucking companies hauling the chocolate, cocoa beans, milk, sugar, preservatives, and chocolate production machinery?"
Shopkeeper, exasperated, throws the chocolate bar at Our Hero and chases him out of the store with a broom.
FADE OUT.
quote:
If I buy hand crafted butter churns, it's only fair that I should pay a price that compensates for the work put in to create those butter churns.
Firstly, where in any moral literature is this duty of the buyer propounded? The biblical verse, "The workman is worthy of his hire" has nothing to do with the buyer making sure the workman is paid well or not.
Secondly, IMHO you're trying to make simple supply and demand fit a Procrustean moral bed, but in the end you've nothing left but your own conviction, unsupported by anything other than your own feelings in the matter. I think you're misapplying the concept of "fair" in a purely mechanical, "either/or" arena (the proposition that price paid for the churn should pay a living wage to ScoT the churn maker.)
Either ScoT prices his churns at a point he recoups his time, effort, materiel and earns some profit, or he does not. Either way, I see no duty of "fair" falling on you, the buyer of churns, to ensure ScoT competently prices them. In essence, you are making the buyer responsible not only for the seller's business competence, but also for the competence of EVERY single link in the chain of supply from original source to you!
quote:
That's why it's important for us to pay a better than market force price for those things we do buy from Africa, one which properly compensates for the work put in. Otherwise it's exploitation.
Nope, sorry, but this is nonsense. Commerce exists only when there is supply of a thing (churns, made by ScoT)and demand for that thing by you, the buyer.
Even the idea of exploitation is fraught with logical inconsistencies. If the forest owner pays his workers a pittance to cut the trees later shipped to the sawmill to be drawn into staves to be sold to the cooper who fashions them into basic churns and sells them to ScoT who adds the handle and paddle assembly and paints and seals it all and then sells it to you, are the pay scales of all the workers in the above chain any of your responsibility as a buyer of the churns? I don't see that it is.
If the buyer does not pay what the seller requires to recoup his cost of production plus profit, then there is no commerce. Either the seller must lower his prices by lowering his costs, or he rolls up his blanket and goes off to study geology, accompanied by a handsome churn collection.
The buyer will either forgo churns entirely or seek a less expensive vendor.
ScoT must sell his churns for at least the cost of their production, plus enough profit to allow him to expand his business base, so he can sell them for more than what they cost him to make, so as to earn profit to buy more churn making supplies to make more churns to earn more profit to make more churns to sell more churns to make more profit, etc., etc., etc.
You as a buyer do not morally owe ScoT the opportunity to be in business, which is what you are in fact proposing. You are under no moral duty to buy his churns just to keep him in business, regardless of how much he may need to sell churns to support his existence.
Every link in the great chain of capitalism knows the fundamental rule: Buy Low, Sell High. ScoT as a distributor and seller of butter churns will attempt to pay as little as possible for the raw churn ingredients, while selling them for as much as practically possible to churn buyers or retailers, who in turn will pay as little as possible for them and will mark them up as much as practically possible to the ultimate buyers, who will in turn give them as Christmas gifts to purse-lipped friends and relatives who will in turn sell them in the next possible garage sale. This is capitalism.
[RANT TANGENT]
I saw a Shipmate's sig, "Capitalism is a crime." If that's so, then capitalism's opposite, socialism, is stupidity. It completely ignores human nature. Frankly, I'd rather be a criminal than an idiot.)
[/RANT TANGENT]
This is one of the reasons wheat farmers don't earn the same price per pound for wheat as the flour mills do when they sell the farmers' wheat processed into flour to commercial bakeries.
Even if ScoT spreads a blanket by the roadside to sell churns directly to buyers, thus eliminating the middleman, he will still try to sell churns at the greatest practical price. You, the shrewd buyer, will attempt to haggle him down to the lowest/highest price both he and you will accept.
You forcing yourself (and others) to pay more than his market price ludicrous because it provides zero incentive for sellers, distributors or agents to raise the price they're willing to pay for original goods or materiel. If you'll pay US$100 for ScoT's churn (and God help you when your spouse sees what you paid it!) when other people will pay only US$50, then ScoT will simply pocket the extra and has no reason to tell his cooperer, carpenter, or glass blower, "My customer is paying more, so I'll pay you more for supplies that go into making his churns."
Yes, ScoT is worth his hire as a churnmaker, and the price of his churns should repay him his time, effort, materiel and also add some profit. That being said, as a buyer, it's not your duty to make sure ScoT makes an adequate living from his churn's pricing points.
You sound as if you want the Universe to be "fair," and that is something the Universe simply is not. Never has been, never will be. Even God is not "fair." (Thank God! Otherwise, we should all get what we deserved: perdition.)
It's late and my tiny, tiny brain hurts, so I'll stop here. I may pick this up later.
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
If you are saying that the laborer is being paid at a rate below the value of their work, then something other than the free market is at work.
<snip> Since when did we decide that the true value of someone (or their labour) is what people are willing to pay for them?
Umm, actually you've just defined the free market pretty well. Your labor is worth EXACTLY, to the penny, what an employer is willing to pay you for it.
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
Kenwritez said: quote:
Firstly, where in any moral literature is this duty of the buyer propounded? The biblical verse, "The workman is worthy of his hire" has nothing to do with the buyer making sure the workman is paid well or not.
Firstly:
As the buyer of goods, you are their employer. If I have someone that comes to do my ironing, or comes into my house to cook my dinner or wash my clothes, or I get someone who runs a small tailoring business to make my clothes, I am their employer, and I am responsible for their wages being fair.
If I send my clothes out to the laundry where they are cleaned and ironed, I am also their employer, I am providing the money for them to live. If I go to a restaurant, I am responsible for the waiters and cooks being fairly paid.
If I buy ready-prepared meals, or clothes made in a factory, I am also responsible for the people that made those goods. I am responsible for their wages and wellbeing.
The society in which the Bible was written had no factories, dry cleaning businesses, or restaurants. It only had the equivalent of hiring people directly. That's why it says you should pay labourers fairly. If the person who buys the bar of chocolate doesn't care how much the people who make the chocolate are paid, who will put pressure on the company?
In today's world, you need not worry about the middleman, the supermarket, and the importer. Worry about the cocoa farmer. It is your responsibility.
quote:
Originally posted by kenwritez:
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
If you are saying that the laborer is being paid at a rate below the value of their work, then something other than the free market is at work.
<snip> Since when did we decide that the true value of someone (or their labour) is what people are willing to pay for them?
Umm, actually you've just defined the free market pretty well. Your labor is worth EXACTLY, to the penny, what an employer is willing to pay you for it.
You will note that I said the true value. Not the monetary value. Do you really believe that the true value of a person is what someone is willing to pay for their labour? If so, I strongly suggest you reread your gospels.
If you've never known anyone who was underpaid for a really hard job, I suggest you get out more.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
kenwritez,
I'm not going to reply to each point of your essay in full.
Most of what you are saying is the 'it just wouldn't work' argument. To which I say that there are a variety of ways of forcing a fair price to be paid for African goods. The best of these is if western governments pass laws to enforce it.
However, your example: Guy goes into a shop, picks a bar of chocolate off the shelf, looks for the fair trade mark, if there isn't one then he doesn't buy it and tells the shopkeeper why.
You sound as if you want to make things so complex because you are perfectly happy with the situation. 'I'm alright Jack' was one of Jesus most common expressions!
I am not a believer in capitalism as a complete solution. However so many on these boards are. My point is that, for capitalism to have a chance of working well, it's necessary to allow people to compete fairly. Since trade barriers and immigration laws don't allow this, then capitalists like yourself should be campaigning for the abolition of these laws.
Instead of this I see so called capitalists campaining against economic migrants!
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FatMac
Ship's Macintosh
# 2914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kenwritez:
I saw a Shipmate's sig, "Capitalism is a crime." If that's so, then capitalism's opposite, socialism, is stupidity. It completely ignores human nature. Frankly, I'd rather be a criminal than an idiot.)
I presume that you mean that socialism is stupidity because it ignores the fact that human nature is selfish, greedy, self-serving etc. So you propose that the solution worthy of Christians is to build a system based on selfishness, greed and self-serving? Great theology! (Not.)
--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.
Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
I don't think capitalism is based on greed or selfishness at all. It is simply the efficient delivery of choices to as many people as possible. A just society may elect to add all manner of inefficiencies into the system, such as welfare or truth-in-advertising, because it values other things besides efficiency. But we should always know that as we do so we increase the cost for someone, somewhere, and it may not be the people we have targeted who bear the worst cost.
Greedy and selfish people can and do use any system to exploit others, and as a practical matter, they seem to get away with that a lot longer under non-capitalist systems. Capitalism favors the greedy in quick-strike, limited duration enterprizes, but corrects well against sustained exploitation. When people continue to be exploited, as does happen, it is most usually because their governments collaborate with capitalists in a non-free (oligarchic, nepotistic) way.
We might rightfully argue that the moral capitalist or the just nation might refuse to do business with an exploiter, because doing so makes one an exploiter as well. I think that is good moral reasoning, but not the same thing as deciding the system is exploitative.
Most people who argue against free-market systems know intellectually that in earlier eras nearly everyone was desperately poor, but respond as if that were not so. I think it stems (oddly), from being well-read. What we know of the past is given to us from the pens of the fortunate few, who seemed to live decent lives with sufficient food and warmth. Unwittingly, we picture past eras populated with similar folk.
The phrase "how the other half lives" was originally quite literal: nearly 50% of the population was impovershed 120 years ago. Going back to the 16th C, over half (I'll look it up if you like) of the population was starving. That is the normal lot of mankind, the situation which the huge majority of people have found themselves in for most of history.
Now some societies have been able to rise out of that, drawing from the same population of saints and scoundrels as everyone else has. More of the poor are fed. Population grows when there are barely adequate resources (or better), not insufficient resources. We might wish it otherwise, that population only grew when there were abundant resources, but I don't know how we'd manage that.
There's this myth that runs around in people's heads, that because George has stuff and Sam doesn't, that somehow George must have cheated Sam. And when it can't be proved that George has cheated Sam, wise fools retreat to the position that there must be some indirect factor in the system which allows George to exploit Sam invisibly.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Most people who argue against free-market systems know intellectually that in earlier eras nearly everyone was desperately poor, but respond as if that were not so. I think it stems (oddly), from being well-read. What we know of the past is given to us from the pens of the fortunate few, who seemed to live decent lives with sufficient food and warmth. Unwittingly, we picture past eras populated with similar folk.
I know many people who argue against free-market systems and I don't recognise what you are saying in any of their arguments.
Where they do refer to history they look at the way the poor were treated in Victorian times by a capitalist system. The emergence of the trade unions and socialism was what stopped the exploitation of the poor, not capitalism.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote from chukovsky quote:
You will note that I said the true value. Not the monetary value. Do you really believe that the true value of a person is what someone is willing to pay for their labour? If so, I strongly suggest you reread your gospels.
I think you are the only person posting on this thread who has equated the value of a person and the value of that person's labor.
You are right that this idea is completely contrary to the gospels.
My question is, who besides you has said it?
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FatMac
Ship's Macintosh
# 2914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by logician:
I don't think capitalism is based on greed or selfishness at all.
Perhaps you are correct. I will think about and respond to your post at length later. For the moment, suffice it to say that I was not arguing this in isolation. Rather I was responding to kenwritez' suggestion that socialism was flawed inasmuch as it ignored human nature, and by implication that capitalism did not.
In fact IMO interventionist models do acknowledge human nature, inasmuch as they are based on the premise that humans will act greedily, selfishly etc, unless government overrides that impulse.
Of course I am fully aware of the drawback (seen clearly in various Communist regimes) that the government itself is composed of humans who act sinfully. Guess that's what we get for living in a fallen world...
--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.
Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote from chukovsky quote:
You will note that I said the true value. Not the monetary value. Do you really believe that the true value of a person is what someone is willing to pay for their labour? If so, I strongly suggest you reread your gospels.
I think you are the only person posting on this thread who has equated the value of a person and the value of that person's labor.
You are right that this idea is completely contrary to the gospels.
My question is, who besides you has said it?
This is what the current systems says every time it fails to pay someone what their labour is really worth, but only what another - fallible, and greedy - human being thinks it is worth.
All those who say "but a person's labour IS REALLY worth what the market is prepared to pay them" (e.g. Scot, kenwritez) are saying precisely the above.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hull Hound
Shipmate
# 2140
|
Posted
Human nature is also co-operative, altruistic, sacrificial if it is greedy and mean.
--------------------
ahhh ... Bisto!
Posts: 1167 | From: Hull | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
chukovsky, I believe that your statements reflect an honest desire for the best outcome for the poor. Please understand that I have the same desire. I would very much appreciate it if you would try to see our disagreement on this matter as an honest disagreement over the best way to reach common goal. I do not want anyone to be oppressed by an unjust system or to be unable to feed their family. I certainly have no desire defy the Gospel in pursuit of profit.
I want to be completely clear on one point. I do not believe that a person’s intrinsic value is in any way related to their income. That is one of the most damaging fallacies of the modern western work ethic and concept of success. I flatly reject that proposition whether it is applied to an African farmer, a working mother, a CEO, or myself. It is a necessary logical conclusion that one’s income (i.e. the value of one’s labor) is not related to one’s intrinsic value as a person. You cannot have one side of the coin without taking the other.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Hull Hound, how odd that I concede that socialism may be the only hope for Africa, and you respond by saying the the only hope may be capitalism! Perhaps the situation is just so extreme that none of us think that any reasonable solution will work.
As it happens, I have long been a critic of US immigration policy. I believe that it is not in our best interest to keep people out who want to come here and work. Of course, I would favor restricting access to welfare in order to prevent wholesale abuse. I will admit that I have not seriously reconsidered the matter in the light of 9/11, so I do not have a ready answer for questions of security. On the other hand, our borders are already so porous that any such questions are likely red herrings.
I am not a free market anarchist, or an anarchist of any other stripe. I consider myself to be a libertarian, or limited-statist if you prefer. Portions of Africa come near enough to effective anarchy to illustrate the value of a strong, but limited democratic (or representative republican) government. Although I see truly free markets as a key part of the solution, their unregulated introduction would be much like installing a jet engine on a child’s tricycle.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Bonzo, I understand what you are getting at with regard to the lack of options for many of Africa’s poor. That is one reason why the solution is going to involve many factors as outlined above. Still, it seems to me that paying more for something than it is worth will not have a positive impact on the producer in the long term.
To continue the butter churn analogy, imagine that you are buying my churns at a price which provides me a living wage. Over time, more and more people decide that they don’t really need a butter churn until, finally, you are the only one buying them. You are now providing my entire living wage. Eventually you say “The hell with this!” and get your butter at the market, instead. Now I have no income. I would have been better off if, instead of paying me an inflated wage, you had helped me expand my market, or switch to building refrigerators, or start a market. Charity is good, but charity in the disguise of sound economics is an unsustainable solution.
My best guess, based on this thread and the information on the Christian Aid website is that solid first steps toward feeding people might include shifting a large percentage of African agriculture from cash crops to food crops, ending US and EU agricultural subsidies and relaxing US and EU tariffs. However, none of this will do anything about the corrupt African governments or the lack of knowledge with regard to basic sanitation and health issues. Thus, violence, crime, AIDS, and other communicable diseases are likely to continue unabated, and so will poverty.
sigh.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
My best guess, based on this thread and the information on the Christian Aid website is that solid first steps toward feeding people might include shifting a large percentage of African agriculture from cash crops to food crops, ending US and EU agricultural subsidies and relaxing US and EU tariffs. However, none of this will do anything about the corrupt African governments or the lack of knowledge with regard to basic sanitation and health issues. Thus, violence, crime, AIDS, and other communicable diseases are likely to continue unabated, and so will poverty.
Glad you're reading Christian Aid. I think you'll find that they don't think unfettered markets are the best for people. It's all very well if the market for what you are producing goes up and down very slowly but if you have a family farm you cannot change your business at the whim of the market every five minutes. You can only have justice and a free market if the market pays the actual cost of what it is buying.
If people have more money they will be able to educate their children more. Also, better educated and richer women have much more confidence and are more likely to make their own decisions in sexual matters and less likely to rely on any man they can get for money, and to let him be violent towards her. Powerful women also tend not to tolerate crime and violence towards others.
When people can make a living wage on their family farm men will not go away for months at a time to work in the cities, leaving poorly-fed children* and female family members in the village, and will also be less likely to think "gosh, I can't survive without a woman and I'm here in the city with cash in my pocket, what shall I do?"
When people have more money, they will be able to afford to take their children to the doctor. Their children will not die of easily preventable diseases, and when they are more educated they will know what to do themselves too. Then they won't plan to have lots of children to make sure some can look after them in their old age.
Also, when countries have more money they won't have to charge people for education and health and the education and health will get better for that reason too.
Likewise, an educated electorate will not stand for corrupt government (well, OK, not so much ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ), and will not be fooled by things like "everyone who is for the ruling party, register to vote today... everyone else, we'll let you know"; they will have more knowledge about how to get things done in officaldom and will not have the wool pulled over their eyes by clerks hungry for a bribe; and if the country is richer they will pay more taxes and the clerks will get paid properly anyway.
*One of our research projects found the most poorly nourished children were those who were living with only a female relative, it was worse if the relative was a grandmother, aunt, or stepmother than if it was their real mother. Usually this happens because the father has gone to the city to seek work.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by linzc:
quote:
Originally posted by kenwritez:
I saw a Shipmate's sig, "Capitalism is a crime." If that's so, then capitalism's opposite, socialism, is stupidity. It completely ignores human nature. Frankly, I'd rather be a criminal than an idiot.)
I presume that you mean that socialism is stupidity because it ignores the fact that human nature is selfish, greedy, self-serving etc. So you propose that the solution worthy of Christians is to build a system based on selfishness, greed and self-serving? Great theology! (Not.)
Linzc, you make some good points, and I think I have the answer to them.
No, not to use those specific building blocks of negative human character attributes, but since every single one of us as humans is infected with selfishness, greed and self-serving, we are like the obverse of King Midas: Everything we touch turns to shit, albeit the process is not always instantaneous and may happen faster or slower.
Capitalism taken by itself is an efficient distribution system for goods and services to its peoples, a system which is (to an extent) self-maintaining and self-repairing, a system that in its purest form can survive independent of governmental controls and supports.
OTOH socialism requires extensive governmental life support and has no direction without it. Without governmental committees deciding how much of this or that is to be grown/imported/made, the economy nosedives.
I don't believe socialism is a viable economic system for the long term, say, a century or more. I think it is both contradictory and corrosive to human nature and encourages its inhabitants into apathy and ennui by robbing them of the ability to both accumulate wealth and to effect change in their government, their society, and to an extent even in their own lives.
Pure socialism is an extremely controlled system, whereas pure capitalism is freer, more wild and ungoverned. Great good or great evil can be more easily done under capitalism than socialism because of that.
I don't believe capitalism or socialism are on the moral playing field; they are amoral, they just exist, like rocks and water. People can commit acts morally right or wrong, but inanimate things have no such choice; they are what they are and no more. A radio, a gun, a computer, a truck, a pair of ladies' red stiletto high heel shoes; all can used by people committing right, wrong or neutral acts, but these objects have no morality.
That being said, capitalism is not a perfect system and is one in which heinous acts can be committed as long as profit is being made. Thus, while a fault of socialism is encouraging apathy, capitalism has the obverse fault: Encouraging ruthlessness in the name of pursuing profit.
Do I favor a pure free market system? No, because Shipmates' points about tarriffs have given me pause to think. I think there must be some regulation and control of business entities, independent of profit. Does this mean there should be no tariffs whatsoever? It's a troubling question that for which I have no clear answer.
Over all, I think capitalism the most efficient, flexible, responsive manner of moving goods and services to people who want them. In a socialist government and economy, butter churn production, distribution and selling would be governed by committees, would be planned out at least several years in advance. The growers of the wood to make up the staves of the churn would be told how many trees to plant, how many to harvest, and would be paid a flat rate for their wood, regardless of current market conditions (wood imports or plant blight affecting tree supplies, for example.)
Were I a butterchurn maker in Ghana, for example, I would want the same opportunity to sell my wares in the U.S. as ScoT has to sell his. If I can produce, ship to the U.S., and sell my churns for less than what ScoT sells his for, then I will make a profit, assuming a demand for the churns.
I can pay my workers less per hour than ScoT does because here in Ghana they have a much lower standard of living so money buys much more. I can pay my workers US$5 a day while ScoT must pay his workers US$10.00 per hour. My transport costs will be triple what his are, so that will eat up some of the profit, but if he can't beat my prices, then I will sell more churns, assuming all else is equal. If it turns out my churns are poorly made and fall apart quickly, then people will buy more of ScoT's than mine.
Now, say ScoT as a domestic churn maker can sell his churns here for US$25 each, the lowest price for which he can afford to sell his churns, given his costs of doing business. But I, the Ghanian churn maker with much lower production costs, can sell my churns here for US$10 each. Assuming comparable product quality, buyers will pick my churns over ScoT's. If I export many, many churns to the U.S., I will soon drive ScoT out of business, unless the government taxes my churns to raise their price comparable to ScoT's, the number of churns I'm allowed to export is limited, or ScoT is given some kind of governmental relief on his cost of doing business.
Is ScoT entitled to his government attempting to enforce a level playing field between him and me? Right now, I don't know. I can see pros and cons to both answers.
--------------------
"The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd." --Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction
My blog: http://oxygenofgrace.blogspot.com
Posts: 11102 | From: Left coast of Wonderland, by the rabbit hole | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
