|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What causes poverty?
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Good. Then we can move on. You will have to accept my apologies if I mistakenly detected an undercurrent based on my previous experience.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
gracia Said quote:
to MadGeo:
I would be very happy to contrast my willingness to work hard, as professional nurse & highly successful single mother, against any geologist (a good friend of mine is married to a geologist, so I do know just how “hard” that work is).
Also, I would be willing to wager that, were you to go out into the vineyards around here, & match your ability to “work hard” against the Mexican laborers who harvest our food, that you would be fired in about 4 hours (max). Those laborers are so poor they cannot afford the expense of a car, so they bicycle, & team up 6 or more to a vehicle, to get to work.
Karl said:
quote:
The highest horses in this debate are the "I deserve my massive wealth because I worked hard" horses. You don't get massive wealth through hard work - you get through yours and a lot of other people's.
Not directed at Karl:
Frankly, the highest horses in this discussion seem to be the people defending the poor against some ethereal privileged class. Gracia didn't even notice how offensive she was to me and the other geologist in the room in her zeal to prove....nothing.
Is it possible, that there is a complex correlation (as opposed to the term simple correlation being used here) between hard work and wealth. Or in other words:
People that are wealthy usually worked hard to get there, but not everyone that works hard is wealthy.
The statement was made: you don't get massive wealth through hard work - you get it through yours and a lot of other people's.
In short, so what?
It's a reciprocal relationship, wealthy people get there by creating jobs. They benefit, other's benefit. Win-win. Those that would fight the rich as some class warfare, fight themselves.
It is not right for rich people (or anyone) to gloat, it is also not right for other people to assume rich people are evil, or even bad.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Height of horses is clearly subjective.
If it's accepted that the wealthy get that way on both their's and other people's hard work, is it not equitable that the other people get a share in that prosperity?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Yes but the real question is:
Who gets to decide what's an "equitable share"?
Me, you, Heaven Help us no the Government?????
How would you feel if you came up with an idea, quit your job, scrimped and scraped until you built it into a small business, hired your first employee at great risk, hired more, branched into a second business, survived a recession and had to lay people off at great discomfort to your feelings, lost the second business, started a third, incorporated, hired hundreds of people, and THEN
The government or someone decided you needed to allocate an "equitable share" of your profits, because of course you are a bad guy for being rich......
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
What I mean is a bit of protection against rip-off wages and casual firing. I'm not suggesting the government come in and say "right - flog the second home in the Algarve and divide the proceeds between your employees". What I am suggesting is that the successful have a duty of responsibility to those whose hard work has got them where they are.
Actually, I'm quite into the idea of employee shareholders as well. What is seriously inequitable is that I work my arse off so that shareholders (who don't work at all for the company) can make money.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Karl,
What you seem to be suggesting is that someone in government (I presume) can actually determine what the term "casual firing" means.
Is an employee that is slow, yet can't be demonstrated to be on government paper a "casual fire".
Is an employee that is creating gossip and dissent in an otherwise happy workplace a "casual fire".
How and who gets to decide?
And just out of curiosity how do you define a "rip-off wage"? Many people in low-paying jobs thank God every day that their boss gave them the job so they can eat.
Going back to my example of how a business is built. Let's say that this creative person that has built this small business determines that he/she can make a Widget and build the business into a corporation if the Widget costs $4.00. And let's say he/she determines if a minimum wage employee makes US$5 an hour he/she will make one cent profit per Widget. He/she hires 100 employees to increase the Widget profit and build the business into a corporation so he/she can hire more employees. Then someone decides that the wage of $5 an hour is a "rip-off wage" and bumps it to $5.50 an hour.
The owner of Small Widget Company now has a decision to make. Does he/she raise prices and see if he can still sell Widgets and risk the company, AND/OR doe he/she lay off Widget makers till he can return the company to profitability.
If the owner is lucky, he inherited the house in the Algarve (Have to look that up ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) and can sell it to keep his/her employees through the minimum wage hike.
I love the idea of employee ownership, that IMHO is the best reward to those that helped the owner, that money can probably buy. It also motivates the heck outta the employees I would think.
On the other hand, the next best thing is for the employees to make money from the owners of other companies wealth (shareholders)! Sorry Karl
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
People that are wealthy usually worked hard to get there,
I see now! We are in a discussion about Cloud-Cuckoo Land.
When you get back from somwehere over the rainbow maybe you can take a look at the world as it is.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Ken,
Care to elaborate?
I assume you think that everyone inherits their money? The statistics disagree (at least in the U.S.). Most rich people here worked hard to get it, and a LOT of them are immigrants.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
I know a number of people who are quite rich. I would not say that any of them didn't work hard to get where they are, I would say, however, that they worked no harder than some people I know who are quite poor.
It isn't any use to argue that governments can't make the sort of decisions which intervene to control the excesses of capitalism. Governments already do this. In the UK and the US there are reams of employment law which do just that.
The problem is really not whether they should intervene, but why they don't intervene when the worker is in a foreign country.
If our governments tried to give the same protections to workers in Africa as they do to workers in the UK, a huge amount of poverty would be avoided. The problem is that they don't try.
The governments of countries in Africa are powerless to give such protection to their workforces, because they don't have the resources to do it.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Taking the world as a whole, and history as a whole, I expect that most rich people got rich by stealing it.
That aside, even in America, people who get rich by working don't get rich by working harder than than other people but by being lucky in working at stuff that just happens to come out right at whatever time & place they find themselves.
And - even in America - people who start off half-way up the greasy pole are more likely to get towards the top than those who start off at the bottom.
And - everywhere, not just in America - it is simply not true that the poor work less hard than others. Mostly they work harder, but get less for it.
(Probably only middle-aged Brits will remember Pete & Dud and "I'd rather be a judge than a miner" )
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
well according to the forbes 400 list, of the 10 richest americans, 5 inherited their money. (the children of sam walton) unfortunatly i can't find any way to sort the list by the categories of "self made" as opposed to "inherieted", so i don't know how the rest breaks down, however it is my understanding that a great number are not self made.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Actually I wasn't thinking so much of the very richest (who by definition are going to be weird - though of course Bill Gates parents were pretty well off!) as the "rich" or the "wealthy" - a vague term by which I suppose I mean those with enough capital to live more than comfortably for the rest of their lives without working.
Not long ago "millionaire" would have been an acceptable term, but in a time of inflation & low interest rates a dollar millionaire probably isn;t quite rich enough these days.
There are many parts of London where an ordinary house would cost you half a million US dollars - and I mean an ordinary house, the sort of place you would expect a working-class person to live. So just being a millionaire probably doesn't count as rich any more.
I suspect that most large fortunes take more than a generation to accumulate anyway.
NB - statistics of the sort that "3/4 of all millionaires were not born wealthy" (which I just made up) don't really cut it because, of course, more than 3/4 of all people were not born wealthy...
But now we have turned from "what causes poverty?" to "what causes wealth?".
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Geez Ken,
So let me get this straight:
Most wealthy people are lucky thieves.
Right.
Are you originally from East Germany by chance?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Darn it:
The ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) I meant to attach to that didn't go.....
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Karl,
Our childhood backgrounds have a big similarity.
quote:
When I was a lad, I won a scholarship to an independent school. Therefore I was rubbing noses with mostly wealthy people's offspring. I, however, was the son of a postman.
The attitude there was very much "your father should just work harder, then he'd have as much money as ours."
Their attitude should have been, “Wow. You must be incredibly smart and hard-working to get here. I admire you for that; no question you earned it on your own, unlike me. Too bad your father didn’t have the same opportunity.”
That was closer to what I got when I won a scholarship to Cornell University coming from a background where my father was the night janitor at my high school and preacher at the local Holy Roller Pentecostal church. It saddens me that uppity people should question your father’s work ethic based solely on his income.
At the same time, I have become quite comfortable financially via a single-person consulting practice. I did not take on any employees and so did not profit from them. I paid as much in taxes as I saved (about a half million dollars) and for over 10 years tithed very close to 10% of my income (something like a hundred thousand dollars). I gave to other charities as well and served for three years as legal guardian of two troubled teenagers. I went stark raving mad when I put my mother in a mental hospital for the fourth time in her life, finding out that she is perpetually anxious and at time depressive with psychotic features because she is gay and believes herself to be demon possessed. When I was a small child, I thought myself demon possessed because I could not make myself believe in God or speak in tongues.
“Hard work” is not the right word for how I came across what wealth I have. But often I sum it up that way because that’s what it feels like. Beginning at age 12, I worked hard physically on farms for far less than miniumum wage. Later, I worked minimum wage in landscape construction. As a white-collar worker, I thought hard and I tirelessly self-educated. As a businessman I took on risk and lived way below my means, sometimes at the poverty level, in order to save and increase my ability to take on risk. At the same time I often say, “anybody can do it” meaning that I am not some outrageously gifted person who was fortunate to run into nothing but great luck and smooth sailing.
I hope you can see why I think that I deserve every penny of whatever wealth that I have because I earned it through “hard” work. I hope when you are talking about “massive wealth” always coming partly on the backs of employees you are talking about multi-billion dollar conglomerates with thousands of employees and no excuse to mercilessly axe someone to save a few bucks.
Ken,
My 65-year-old landlady in Dubuque Iowa asked me what to do with her $200,000 retirement nest egg in 1981 and I told her to put it in a 5 year US Treasury note at 18% interest. She doubled her money to $400,000. Interest rates started dropping and I told her to buy US Treasury zero coupon bonds until the interest rates fell to 8%. Eight years later, her money doubled twice, to $800,000 and then to $1,600,000. No Chinese slave labor, no screwing employees, no theft, no fraud. All in one generation.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
JimT,
What do you charge for financial and business counseling anyway? ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
If our governments tried to give the same protections to workers in Africa as they do to workers in the UK, a huge amount of poverty would be avoided. The problem is that they don't try.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
No - the consequence of the imposition of 1st world working standards would be a lot less people employed in African countries. The market value of their labour is not enough to pay for the UK minimum wage, so they would be totally destitute rather than marginally employed. If the GDP per capita of a country is less than the UK minimum wage, this is 100% inevitable. It's cute fantasy economics to believe otherwise.
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's cute fantasy economics to believe otherwise.
I agree. But still there are pressures that move companies in that direction, as well they should.
It reminds me of the dilemma of Peace Corps Volunteers as to whether they should employ household servants to do their cooking, washing, cleaning, etc. The volunteers have a monthly allowance of $200 a month, and live in housing provided by the local village.
Well, there was no way I was going to employ "servants." I did my own cooking, cleaning, washing, water carrying, etc. At least until everyone I met started asking why I didn't like the people in the village, and why I refused to employ them.
So I hired a student - but paid him substantially more than the ridiculously low normal wage. At least I did until everyone I met started asking me why I was making everyone unhappy by ruining the price structure for labor in the village.
Basically, you can't win.
--------------------
"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
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
If our governments tried to give the same protections to workers in Africa as they do to workers in the UK, a huge amount of poverty would be avoided. The problem is that they don't try.
No - the consequence of the imposition of 1st world working standards would be a lot less people employed in African countries. The market value of their labour is not enough to pay for the UK minimum wage, so they would be totally destitute rather than marginally employed. If the GDP per capita of a country is less than the UK minimum wage, this is 100% inevitable. It's cute fantasy economics to believe otherwise.
So what are you saying? That the poor can only ever be paid poverty wages?
The market value of someone's work is whatever the market will pay. It is not necessarily less in an African country than a European one as it is primarily related to the value of the goods they produce, not to labour rates in their country. Fairtrade organisations source products from workers' groups that ensure higher returns to the producers. It is perfectly possible.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
No - the consequence of the imposition of 1st world working standards would be a lot less people employed in African countries. The market value of their labour is not enough to pay for the UK minimum wage, so they would be totally destitute rather than marginally employed. If the GDP per capita of a country is less than the UK minimum wage, this is 100% inevitable. It's cute fantasy economics to believe otherwise.
It's only fantasy economics if the West continues to pay the pittance that it does for their produce. Their GDP per capita would rise if the West paid more.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
At the same time I often say, “anybody can do it” meaning that I am not some outrageously gifted person who was fortunate to run into nothing but great luck and smooth sailing.
Don't you see that the fact you ran into "great luck and smooth sailing" is the reason that not everyone can do it? Some people run into appalling luck and a series of disasters. And that's why I say that hard work doesn't guarantee success.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
It's only fantasy economics if the West continues to pay the pittance that it does for their produce. Their GDP per capita would rise if the West paid more.
And who is 'the West'?
This can be done voluntarily - by fair trade - which is nice, and won't change things much, and certainly won't pay the equivalent of 1st world minimum wages. It may help a bit, and may be the least disruptive approach apart from direct project aid.
Or we can attempt to impose it. Either the price of third world imports rise substantially. Guess what - demand would plummet. So - lots of unemployed farmers etc.
Or the governments in the west use general taxation to pay the difference. There are say 1 billion employees who you want to pay the minumum wage to. Say this is £10k (£5 an hours for 40 hrs a week - just to make the sums easier)
Assume you are doubling their income on average - so that is £5k per person - so £5 TRILLION. If Britain pays 10% of that, it's $50bn - which is the equivalent of 20p on income tax.
This of course would collapse demand at home, so lots of people wouldn't have jobs... so the tax would have to be higher...
The only way people can earn more is when the value of their labour to the employer is greater. This is achieved by their being educated, and the employer being able to invest to be more productive. This can only happen relatively slowly - and if the target is pressed for too directly, it may actually hinder progress. But it can happen; remember Ross Perot's 'sucking sound' in opposition to the North America free trade area? In fact everyone has got richer as a result. But prevent 3rd world employers from exploiting their present advantages and you prevent the capital formation that will draw them out of poverty in the long term.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Erm - surely a solution to this is that 1st world conditions do not mean 1st world minimum wages as defined by the exchange rates. Rather, defined by the cost of living, which is far, far lower. The BBC example we referred to yesterday had people on was it $200 a year? But that was enough for a basic standard of living in Ghana. It's that which is important, not the exact dollar equivalences on the money markets in their pockets.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Geez Ken,
So let me get this straight:
Most wealthy people are lucky thieves.
Right.
Glad you agree.
Actually, over the whole history of the human species on the planet, it probably is true. Talking about real wealth here, not just a decent income and a small farm. You don't get seriously rich that by selling the product of your own hard work, you have to do it by owning the product of the work of others. It is a political thing, a heirarchical relationship between people in which some are rulers or owners or employers, and others ruled or owned or employed. A master and servant thing. I forget who first said that kings were the most successful thieves, but I know that St. Augustine and St. Jerome repeated it.
You said that most wealthy people get that way by working. You might as well say that most healthy people get that way by breathing. Does that mean that if you see an unhealthy person you tell them to breath harder? Or assume they haven't done enough breathing?
More or less everybody works. Most people work hard. Lots of them stay poor. It just isn't true - even in America - to say that "if you work hard you will end up wealthy". Almost everybody who works hard isn't wealthy, obviously, because many work hard and few are rich. The rich and the poor are not distinguished by the quantity of their work.
If we were not talking about wealth but just an ordinary standard of living you might have a better argument. But you must still take account of the hundreds of millions who work just as hard as anybody else but still can't keep a roof over their heads or know where the next meal is coming from.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Ken,
My 65-year-old landlady in Dubuque Iowa asked me what to do with her $200,000 retirement nest egg in 1981 and I told her to put it in a 5 year US Treasury note at 18% interest. She doubled her money to $400,000. Interest rates started dropping and I told her to buy US Treasury zero coupon bonds until the interest rates fell to 8%. Eight years later, her money doubled twice, to $800,000 and then to $1,600,000. No Chinese slave labor, no screwing employees, no theft, no fraud. All in one generation.
And no work, either.
Her money, to which I'm sure she is entitled, is based on work done by other people.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And who is 'the West'?
This can be done voluntarily - by fair trade - which is nice, and won't change things much, and certainly won't pay the equivalent of 1st world minimum wages. It may help a bit, and may be the least disruptive approach apart from direct project aid.
[snip]
The only way people can earn more is when the value of their labour to the employer is greater. This is achieved by their being educated, and the employer being able to invest to be more productive.
The West is US. You and me. That includes you.
Fair trade - as I said above - is the only part of the market that is actually growing at the moment. Not a "nice idea", but a reality. And not "more disruptive" than direct aid - direct aid is not sustainable, and does not help people to be self-sufficient in the long run. Most people want to be self-sufficient.
How the ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) do you think people are supposed to pay for education if they don't earn enough to pay for their children to go to school, and if the IMF insists that countries charge them for their children's education?
If you are not prepared to sanction child labour, you have to build in some way for parents to afford to keep their children without sending them out to work - you have to pay them enough both to feed and to educate their children.
Preferably you have to arrange that the latter can be done on a country-wide basis rather than making individual parents pay - after all it's hardly a child's fault if their parent doesn't earn enough to pay school fees - and on a wider scale, if a region of a country has a blip in their economy, you are going to get a very large set of uneducated people in the future from that region.
Otherwise, choose child labour, and return to the 19th century. Your choice.
--------------------
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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
quote:
At the same time I often say, "anybody can do it" meaning that I am not some outrageously gifted person who was fortunate to run into nothing but great luck and smooth sailing.
Don't you see that the fact you ran into "great luck and smooth sailing" is the reason that not everyone can do it? Some people run into appalling luck and a series of disasters. And that's why I say that hard work doesn't guarantee success.
Karl, I think you misconstrued JimT's sentence. He said he was not some outrageously gifted person who ran into great luck and smooth sailing. In other posts he has mentioned various setbacks he experienced.
I would like to endorse his views on living on as little as possible for awhile to accumulate capital. I don't mean living on awful food and never doing anything for recreation.
You figure out the cost of the foods you like, and then confine your menu to the cheapest of these except for special occasions. You find recreational activities you enjoy which are cheap or free.
In an earlier post I spoke of the advantages of being debt-free. I'm sure JimT would agree with me on that.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
You figure out the cost of the foods you like, and then confine your menu to the cheapest of these except for special occasions. You find recreational activities you enjoy which are cheap or free.
I've had to do the above all my working life, not to acquire capital, but merely to live within my means. That is, I submit, the experience of most people.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paulo
Apprentice
# 165
|
Posted
Scot (and many others...):
The reason I didn't go into detail about determining factors in why the poor are poor is because there are many reasons that combine. I will outline some here:
Firstly I'd just like to say that it seems the population of the world began in Africa and thus when people reached other parts of the world could conquer local territory as people had honed their hunting skills but animals had not honed their aviodance skills.
1. Europe had animals. Not just animals but animals we could train and use to farm. Others did not, europeans took animals to USA and thus we could farm much more efficiently and let some people invent while some farmed.
2. We had crops, only some plants can be made into crops, and europeans had them.
3. When europeans invaded the incas they killed 95% through diseases that came through animals (like most diseases). The diseases meant we could invade many places.
4. Europeans were violent people who had to be good at fighting to survive. They slaughtered more peaceful people.
5. Even though China discovered printing first it didn't exploit it as they had a multi character alphabet and thus could do mass printing so government wasn't as easy. Look at they keyboard in front of you and imagine having 2000 keys. It wouldn't work.
Along with many other reasons these are some of the points as to why people are poor. It is not healthy to demonise the poor (e.g. poor because they're lazy) or demonise the rich (they stole it). The same would (propally) happen if you were in the same situation.
Paulo
ps- we can do something about it. Write to your government about debt for example...
--------------------
"The love of God is Folly"
Posts: 29 | From: South England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
I read an article earlier today which seems to have gone off line about the spread of aids
and saying how it was a major cause of the famine currently hitting southern africa as there not enough strong healthy people to farm the land.
Also around where I live (SE England) many (if not most) of the people living in poverty have health problems. So I think that desease can be a major cause of poverty.
--------------------
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
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Paulo, thank you for expanding your points AND for returning us to our topic.
You are right about the availability of domesticatable animals and good crop plants being a major factor in European development. I once read an article (can't remember where) about the fact that the agricultural revolution never happened in Africa. Through the wonders of colonialism, the native people stepped directly from a hunter-gatherer culture into an industrial era one. When the empires ended, the African nations were left with a decaying industrial/agricultural infrastructure and population, but without the cultural infrastructure to support the system.
My only concern with writing off the national debts is that there has been no change in the situations which caused the debt in the first place. Debt forgiveness treats a symptom, but not a cause. Of course it is possible that the money currently being used to service the debt could be used to improve education and infrastructure, but it could also be used to buy bigger presidential motorcades, more armies, and richer offshore bank accounts.
I haven't researched the matter, but I wonder if the debt provides some degree of leverage against the corrupt governments? It could be a mistake to give away the only lever we've got in the name of "doing something".
--------------------
“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
|
|
Karin 3
Shipmate
# 3474
|
Posted
Scot, as far as I can see the debt does afford leverage over the debtors, but it can therefore be used to exploit them as well as for good.
The famine in southern Africa reported a few months ago was made much worse by the World bank or similar body making the government(s) sell off its/their reserve grain stocks as a condition of the loan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If anyone was interested in the Co-op's initiative with fairly traded chocolate there is information on the Co-op's website There is also a fairly balanced article on globalisation.
--------------------
Inspiration to live more generously, ethically and sustainably
Posts: 417 | From: South East England | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenWritez
Shipmate
# 3238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
kenwritez gave us a long and - he thinks - ridiculous example of a chocolate bar. Maybe he can't be bothered to think about all the people he is employing when he buys a chocolate bar, but anyone that is serious about ending poverty is going to have to do it. There are no short cuts. However, fortunately there are professionals on the case, and we only need to be informed consumers.
<snip>
Can I also say that if you ask a question about what causes poverty, and how to alleviate it, you do need to be prepared for the answer to a) involve some work for you and b) possibly involve a shift of mindset.[/QB]
Ah, I love the smell of condescension in the morning.... ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
"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 Freddy:
It reminds me of the dilemma of Peace Corps Volunteers as to whether they should employ household servants to do their cooking, washing, cleaning, etc. The volunteers have a monthly allowance of $200 a month, and live in housing provided by the local village.
Well, there was no way I was going to employ "servants." I did my own cooking, cleaning, washing, water carrying, etc. At least until everyone I met started asking why I didn't like the people in the village, and why I refused to employ them.
So I hired a student - but paid him substantially more than the ridiculously low normal wage. At least I did until everyone I met started asking me why I was making everyone unhappy by ruining the price structure for labor in the village.
Basically, you can't win.
I agree. You raise an excellent point. After reading through the posts on this thread, I think the issue is not so much conservatives/capitalists vs. liberals/socialists so much as it is an issue between perceptions of people not involved in the situation vs. reality of the people in the situation.
The people in your village were real people, they knew exactly what their labor was worth and your noble preconceptions didn't mesh with their reality.
There is no final, determinate answer to "What causes poverty?" except this one: Human nature. The fact jesus said, "The poor will always be with you" doesn't excuse us from trying to alleviate their poverty as much as possible. The answer isn't to just throw money at them. I believe the answer is to teach them to build the social and economic infrastructure they need to not only generate income but to responsibly reinvest and capitalize on it. This is why I like the idea of the Grameen Bank, which makes microloans to those in the Third World (the majority of their loans are to women, BTW.) to buy things like sewing machines, tools, houses, etc.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
This can be done voluntarily - by fair trade - which is nice, and won't change things much, and certainly won't pay the equivalent of 1st world minimum wages. It may help a bit, and may be the least disruptive approach apart from direct project aid.
Or we can attempt to impose it. Either the price of third world imports rise substantially. Guess what - demand would plummet. So - lots of unemployed farmers etc.
Actually, when a fair price is paid for third world goods such as coffee, tea, cocoa etc. The price of the finished goods in the West rises only a little. This is because most of the price is made up of the processing costs (processing is invariably done in the West). Demand for, say, chocolate might be expected to fall fractionally but not plummet as you suggest.
If all chocolate consumed by western nations had to be produced in a fair trade manner. I doubt whether it would make much difference at all to demand.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paulo
Apprentice
# 165
|
Posted
quote:
I haven't researched the matter, but I wonder if the debt provides some degree of leverage against the corrupt governments? It could be a mistake to give away the only lever we've got in the name of "doing something".
In the way that if developing countries have no money then they can't be selfish with it? i.e. leaders can't take loads? Well I don't mind as much what they do with the money from debt cancelation, it's just not a just way to behave. This debt is unfair. Fact. Stop it.
Where do you think developing countries buy arms? Britain subsidies every job in the arms industry by (from memory) approx. £4,000 per year (thats $6000). Do you know where the taliban in Afganistan got its training? USA, cos it didn't like that other lot and used the taliban to get rid of them.
I don't agree:
"The answer isn't to just throw money at them. I believe the answer is to teach them to build the social and economic infrastructure they need to not only generate income but to responsibly reinvest and capitalize on it."
It all sounds very patronising and a bit prejudice, a bit colonal then I suppose. It assumes that 'they' are poor because they are stupid, or at least uneducatated. This is wrong. The factors making people poor are generally no fault of their own. What we should do is stop the unfair practises of the rich: a new form of slavery. Sounds hash?.....
1. Because of debt dev. countries must export to earn foriegn cuurency.
2. Aid hs strings attached. It is used to get the best possible deal for the west.
These mean a lack of options. Dev. Countries are dependant because developed countries like it that way. We use their labour cheap and make gains through our capital. (E.g. sweat shops) There is a race to the bottom as each government will reduce their standards to get precious employment.
Oh and one last point (kenwritez)- where will dev governments get the money to build these infrastructures without people "throwing money". Tax? Most dev countries have mainly subsisdence farmers ie no money transactions and therefore no tax.
Paulo
--------------------
"The love of God is Folly"
Posts: 29 | From: South England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I won't continue any more of the subtext about personal poverty and personal wealth here; I'll keep them to the thread I started. It has comments for Karl and Moo but Ken's refrain that "seriously rich people who have employees by definition all steal labor from their hard-working impoverished employees" is going to be serenely ignored beyond this sentence.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jim T
I won't continue any more of the subtext about personal poverty and personal wealth here; I'll keep them to the thread I started. It has comments for Karl and Moo but Ken's refrain that "seriously rich people who have employees by definition all steal labor from their hard-working impoverished employees" is going to be serenely ignored beyond this sentence.
Jim T,
You might be well advised not to serenely ignore this argument.
I wouldn't use the same emotive words (steal) as you have, but the argument is a good one.
If a person is lucky enough to become rich (and yes, luck plays more of a part than any other factor), they have people who depend on them for employment. Even if that person doesn't have any direct employees, she might be a shareholder of simply a consumer. The more money a person has, the more responsibility they have for the people who depend on them.
More often than not, rich people serenely ignore this responsibility.
Compared to the people in Africa, we, in the West, are rich. They depend on us for employment. Are we going to serenely ignore our responsibilities?
I was recently doing a street collection for Christian Aid. A single mum gave some money to her 6 year old to put in the collection box. I told the child how it would be used to help people who had very little money to have a chance to have a better life. The mother told me that, even though they survived on benefit in Britain, they had adopted a Nepalese family and were able to support them finacially. I was reminded of the story of the widow's mite and of all the rich people in the story too and I felt ashamed of my own selfishness.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
I won't continue any more of the subtext about personal poverty and personal wealth here; I'll keep them to the thread I started. It has comments for Karl and Moo but Ken's refrain that "seriously rich people who have employees by definition all steal labor from their hard-working impoverished employees" is going to be serenely ignored beyond this sentence.
Which Ken said that? I didn't. I did point out that no-one can get seriously rich by selling the product of their own labour but by profiting from the labour of others. That is so obvious that if you dispute it I wonder about your sanity, not your politics.
(at this point people bring up examples like popular musicians & so on but from an economic point of view they aren't actually selling the product of their labour they are charging rent on it, at a higher rate because of uniqueness - slightly different thing)
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
You are right about the availability of domesticatable animals and good crop plants being a major factor in European development. I once read an article (can't remember where) about the fact that the agricultural revolution never happened in Africa. Through the wonders of colonialism, the native people stepped directly from a hunter-gatherer culture into an industrial era one.
I don't know where you got that one from but I highly recommend Africans: The History of a continent by John Iliffe, for some genuine history. When Europeans arrived, a very large majority of West Africans, and at least a substantial minority of Eastern and Southern/Central Africans were agriculturalists. Another group were settled pastoralists (like European sheep farmers).
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paulo:
1. Europe had animals. Not just animals but animals we could train and use to farm. Others did not, europeans took animals to USA and thus we could farm much more efficiently and let some people invent while some farmed.
Having just read Chukovskys' comment reminded me that I'd intended to make a rather pedantic reply to this point. Sorry for the delay.
Native Americans had domesticated plants (eg: maize and potatoes) and animals (eg: llamas) prior to the arrival of Europeans, and were more than able to feed the populations of cities that in terms of size rivalled many European cities of the time. And although European diseases (eg: smallpox) decimated the native population who had little resistance to the new disease, the effect of local diseases (eg: yellow fever) on the European settlers was equally devastating.
Alan
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
James Mc
Procrastinator
# 3414
|
Posted
<Pedantic diversion>
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Paulo:
1. Europe had animals. Not just animals but animals we could train and use to farm. Others did not, europeans took animals to USA and thus we could farm much more efficiently and let some people invent while some farmed.
Having just read Chukovskys' comment reminded me that I'd intended to make a rather pedantic reply to this point. Sorry for the delay.
Native Americans had domesticated plants (eg: maize and potatoes) and animals (eg: llamas) prior to the arrival of Europeans, and were more than able to feed the populations of cities that in terms of size rivalled many European cities of the time. And although European diseases (eg: smallpox) decimated the native population who had little resistance to the new disease, the effect of local diseases (eg: yellow fever) on the European settlers was equally devastating.
Alan
Yes, but Smallpox requires no vector other than humans, and Yellow Fever requires a mosquito, so europeans didn't get that one back from the Americas too easily (of course, syphilis is another matter). Llamas (are they South America only?) are animals which carry little compared to mules and horses - oh, and they didn't have wheeled transport of any kind. Maize as a staple lacks essential nutrients and led to vulnerability to infections. The european settlers were coming from a reservoir of population not exposed to the local illnesses, so could keep on coming, whereas the native populations had little place else to go.
</Pedantic diversion>
I might be repeating something I saw on the ship already, but it was not on this thread - if so I apologise.
It is an argument I have seen somewhere and found on the surface, quite convincing. I went a little deeper on my own, but would like the erudition of you, dear friends, to help expand it.
Is there a case for better organised taxation in poor countries?
The reasons:
1) In many third world countries, large numbers of the population pay no tax whatever. They have no stake in the government and care not what the government does.
2) In return, the government (or those in power) receive(s) little from the very poor and therefore have little interest in doing anything for them except getting their vote. (if a vote is available to them) These votes can often be bought cheaply.
3) Efficient taxation means locally derived cash to spend on local projects, without any necessity to talk to a foreign bank or agency. Self reliance is encouraged, and corruption discouraged.
4) Taxpayers have paid a stake in government. This means that they are more likely to take an interest in how money is spent. This means that they might be more likely to hold their government to account.
5) Accountability to an electorate would encourage a less corrupt system.
There are a number of problems with this theory:
a) Many live on a subsistence basis, and it is arguable that no tax could be extracted from these people. (having said that, if the Grameen Bank can function when dealing with that exact sector fo the population, a simple taxation system could work.)
b) How on earth do you set it up in the first place?
c) You need a minimum democratic level to be able to start something like this.
Here's one of the References that I found about it.
Thanks for your patience with my drivelling.
Posts: 905 | From: London, UK | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
A totally free-market capitalist society is not usually considered desirable. It's a Mafia state where justice is for sale to the highest bidder alongside everything else.
One of the ways in which whole societies can fail economically is if they lose respect for the rule of Law. If a country has good laws and people who will enforce them impartially, that might do more for prosperity than anything else. Good laws allow the market to flourish, within boundaries. Equality of persons under the law is much more important than who gets to vote.
I'd like to see less emphasis on simplistic materialist ideas (paying poor people more money for their goods) and more on understanding the historic cultural causes of our own relative prosperity, and being willing to share our conclusions for the benefit of others.
Seems to me that as an individual in Britain today there are two ways to become rich. One is to invent something that people want - to see an unmet demand and think of a way of satisfying it. That seems to me an honest way - meeting the desires of others.
The other path to riches is to talk one's way into a group of people who occupy a place within our institutions where they have the power to set their own renumeration - people such as MPs, company directors, perhaps union leaders ?
Both routes, in different ways, require talent, and an understanding of how our society works.
So, second to law, I'd put education - to develop people's talents, understanding, and awareness.
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chukovsky:
When Europeans arrived, a very large majority of West Africans, and at least a substantial minority of Eastern and Southern/Central Africans were agriculturalists.
Indeed. And a huge chunk of West Africa, had an urban civilisation - as it still does. Places like Benin, Bonny, Ibadan, Calabar, Brass, and of course fabled and famous (if rather grotty in real life) Timbuktu were urbanised states, comparable in both technology and culture to the ancient civilisations of the Middle East or South-East Asia.
Things weren't much further behind in coastal East Africa, or in the Ethiopian area.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by James M:
Is there a case for better organised taxation in poor countries?
One of the big changes when many parts of Africa became colonialised was that the colonial authorities, and the white settlers, wanted a cheap source of labour. Begin quite happy with their method of farming that had fed the family for hundreds if not thousands of years, African farmers did not want to change. Even when traders brought supposedly exciting and covetable manufactured goods, the ideal of "your raw goods for our manufactured goods" only works if the raw goods producers actually want the manufactured goods.
The only way the colonialists and settlers could get people to work for cash was to impose extremely unjust taxes - in some cases a hut tax and in others a poll tax. If people have no income you can't impose an income tax - but if you can impose taxes on people for merely existing then it's pretty easy to make sure everyone's eligible.
When a couple marry we are reminded that "no-one should put asunder" the partnership. Slavery does this - when it sells the couple apart - and West Indian and African American communities do have a high rate of marital breakdown and a low rate of marriage. It is arguable that West Africa suffered due to able-bodied men and women being captured/sold and pretty obviously not in married couples. Apartheid did this, by only allowing people who were actually working in South African cities to live there.
The poll tax/hut tax system did this, by forcing men to go and work for cash out of the village (and women were not employed by the settlers/colonial authorities). I hope it's not too late for African societies to rebuild themselves - a few hundred years of slavery seems to have messed up the African diaspora pretty well - if you compare family patterns there to pre-colonial African ones (e.g. described in memoirs by contemporary East Africans and former slaves from West Africa) you can see that quite well.
--------------------
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
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paulo:
<<snip>>if developing countries have no money then they can't be selfish with it? i.e. leaders can't take loads? Well I don't mind as much what they do with the money from debt cancelation, it's just not a just way to behave. This debt is unfair. Fact. Stop it.
<<snip>>
"The answer isn't to just throw money at them. I believe the answer is to teach them to build the social and economic infrastructure they need to not only generate income but to responsibly reinvest and capitalize on it."
It all sounds very patronising and a bit prejudice, a bit colonal then I suppose. It assumes that 'they' are poor because they are stupid, or at least uneducatated. This is wrong. The factors making people poor are generally no fault of their own. What we should do is stop the unfair practises of the rich: a new form of slavery. Sounds hash?.....
1. Because of debt dev. countries must export to earn foriegn cuurency.
2. Aid hs strings attached. It is used to get the best possible deal for the west.
Stop what? Insisting that they pay back the money they borrowed? I do, they can too. Just because I actually used the money to improve my situation and they didn't is no excuse to forgive the debt. I would argue that forgiving debt is a further injustice - it teaches them to continue to look for handouts. They borrowed the money. They should repay it.
The "harsh" and "unfair" practices was lending money (usually at low or no interest)? Sorry, no.
Earlier, you detailed your view on the develpment of the rich society:
quote:
1. Europe had animals. Not just animals but animals we could train and use to farm. Others did not, europeans took animals to USA and thus we could farm much more efficiently and let some people invent while some farmed.
2. We had crops, only some plants can be made into crops, and europeans had them.
3. When europeans invaded the incas they killed 95% through diseases that came through animals (like most diseases). The diseases meant we could invade many places.
4. Europeans were violent people who had to be good at fighting to survive. They slaughtered more peaceful people.
5. Even though China discovered printing first it didn't exploit it as they had a multi character alphabet and thus could do mass printing so government wasn't as easy. Look at they keyboard in front of you and imagine having 2000 keys. It wouldn't work.
Along with many other reasons these are some of the points as to why people are poor. It is not healthy to demonise the poor (e.g. poor because they're lazy) or demonise the rich (they stole it). The same would (propally) happen if you were in the same situation.
So, the rich societies made themselves rich and the poor societies are to blame for remaining poor? I agree, and that is why developed countries work with the developing countries to try to help them improve. They loan money at little or no interest (much of which is eventually forgiven), they work with the governments to improve their systems of government, including setting up fair tax regimes. And all you can say is, "forgive the debt". Sorry, that is in itself another hand out, and handouts do not work, as you yourself said. You seem to be arguing out both sides of your mouth. Pick one side and stick with it.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
SS - I cannot justify taking money in interest repayments from countries too poor to feed their own people. Would you kick the sandwich out of a starving homeless man's hand because he owed you a fiver?
Debt repayments are killing people, and I will fight for debt relief to my dying breath. I don't see how you can possibly say that giving countries the possibility of saving lives is injustice. The fact that we take more in debt repayments than we give in aid is real injustice.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
And I forgot to add - if you have an unpayable debt, you have access to bankrupcy proceedings to give you, ultimately, a clean slate. Nations have no such recourse. There is no way out, unless we swallow the debt. I'm willing to pay my bit. Name a country, and I'll pay off £10 of its debt by sending a cheque to the Chancellor for that express purpose. That's my promise.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karin 3
Shipmate
# 3474
|
Posted
"They're paying their debts with their families,
Our loans back with blood..."
The Year of the Flood, Show of Hands
What if the interest rates are exortionate, or simply unaffordable? The poor should not be exploited, by you or me, or by the World Bank and how can anyone who calls themselves a Christian support that?
--------------------
Inspiration to live more generously, ethically and sustainably
Posts: 417 | From: South East England | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
I think it would be an interesting exercise if some bank that was owed a lot by a developing country decided to take that country under its control like if someone cannot pay a mortgage on a house they take over the house.
How many weeks would it be before the bank said to the leaders they had just desposed her you are take back the country you can obviously run it better than we can?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
