Are wealthy countries in anyway responsible to lift poor countries out of poverty?

[o_mlly]

In Henry Hazlitt’s 1946 book Economics in One Lesson (Chapter 11 “Who’s “Protected” by Tariffs?”) he explains why protectionism and tariffs can never make a country better off …

An economist’s definition of “better off” is usually an increase in GDP whose main component is consumption. If maximizing consumption is one’s highest goal then tariffs make little sense to a country that has a robust and sound welfare system. That country, for a while, can have its cake and eat it too. But when (not if!) that country’s balance sheet degrades to the point it borrows its own money back from its foreign competitors to make its own welfare payments to its citizens to buy the foreign country’s goods then the financial collapse and the independence of that country is near.

Historically, tariffs were a means for country A to export its unemployment to country B by imposing tariffs on country B’s goods and services. Tariffs are but one means to accomplish full employment at home. We are country B. Our competitors are imposing tariffs, manipulating currencies, and using other anti-competitive practices to frustrate our trade in their home markets.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

How to Look at Tariffs | Mises Institute

The upshot is that protectionism is not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsense, destructive of all economic prosperity. We are not, if we were ever, a world of self-sufficient farmers. The market economy is one vast latticework throughout the world, in which each individual, each region, each country, produces what he or it is best at, most relatively efficient in, and exchanges that product for the goods and services of others. Without the division of labor and the trade based upon that division, the entire world would starve. Coerced restraints on trade-such as protectionism-cripple, hobble, and destroy trade, the source of life and prosperity. Protectionism is simply a plea that consumers, as well as general prosperity, be hurt so as to confer permanent special privilege upon groups of inefficient producers, at the expense of competent firms and of consumers. But it is a peculiarly destructive kind of bailout, because it permanently shackles trade under the cloak of patriotism.

Who’s "Protected" by Tariffs? | Mises Institute

 

[o_mlly]

Protectionism is simply a plea that consumers … be hurt so as to confer permanent special privilege upon groups of inefficient producers, at the expense of competent firms and of consumers.

It would be useful if the claim above were written so as to identify the effects on four groups:

1. consumers of the tariff imposing country (tariffor)
2. consumers of the tariff receiving country (tariffee)
3. workers of the tariffor
4. workers of the tariffee

If the theory that tariffors destroy general prosperity is correct then China (the tariffor) would have experienced declining GDP in the last decade (cp). But the opposite is true: China GDP has overtaken the USA.

On Purchasing power parity basis, economy of China was $619 billion less than US in 2013. In 2014, GDP of China has expanded by $1483 compare to US figure $648. Now, China’s GDP is $216 billion more than US.
http://statisticstimes.com/economy/united-states-vs-china-gdp.php

 

[DENNYINMI]

THE CHURCH AND TRADE
Pope Leo XIII’s landmark 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum marked the rise of a body of social doctrine that has consistently defended private property and contract rights while subordinating these rights to the universal destination of material goods. Pope Leo observed that contracts freely entered into by employers and workers do not always conform to the demands of justice because of the two parties’ unequal positions. Applying this principle to the realm of trade, Pope Paul VI taught in his 1967 encyclical Populorum Progessio that free trade “certainly can work when both parties are about equal economically; in such cases it stimulates progress and rewards effort…. But the case is quite different when the nations involved are far from equal. Market prices that are freely agreed upon can turn out to be most unfair…. In order that international trade be human and moral, social justice requires that it restore to the participants a certain equality of opportunity.”
With increasing frequency, pontiffs and Holy See diplomats have seen the protectionism of wealthy nations as a major barrier to this equality of opportunity. In his 1987 encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, Pope John Paul II called for “the reform of the international trade system, which is mortgaged to protectionism and increasing bilateralism…. The international trade system today frequently discriminates against the products of the young industries of the developing countries and discourages the producers of raw materials.”
Donald Trump has laid out his policies that are the embodiment of protectionism, low taxes, and playing America as the victim and it couldn’t be farther from the truth in our waste ridden heavy at the top economical country. You made that easy. Thanks!~

 

[o_mlly]

I suggest a deeper reading of these encyclicals:

Rerum Novarum (On the Condition of Workers)

(As to the US workers
This evil [voluntary idle labor], which is frequent and serious, ought to be remedied by public authority, because such interruption of work inflicts damage not only upon employers and upon the workers themselves, but also injures trade and commerce and the general interests of the State.

(As to the Chinese workers
Workers are not to be treated as slaves; justice demands that the dignity of human personality be respected in them, … gainful occupations are not a mark of shame to man, but rather of respect, as they provide him with an honorable means of supporting life.

It is shameful and inhuman, however, to use men as things for gain and to put no more value on them than what they are worth in muscle and energy.

Centesimus Annus
The Hundredth Year

(As to free market idolatry
There are needs and common goods that cannot be satisfied by the market system. it is the task of the state and of all society to defend them. An idolatry of the market alone cannot do all that should be done.

The free market appears to be the most efficient tool for utilizing resources and responding to needs. But this is true only if you are able to buy and sell. Justice and truth demand that basic human needs should be met and that none should be left to perish.

Populorum Progressio
On the Development of Peoples

(As to US the consumer vis-à-vis Chinese workers):
Is he ready to pay a higher price for imported goods so that the producer may be more justly rewarded?

No one can remain indifferent to the lot of his brothers and sisters who are still buried in wretchedness, and victims of insecurity, slaves of ignorance. Like the heart of Christ, the heart of the Christian must sympathize with this misery: “I have pity on this multitude”.

Let us make it simple.

You and your neighbor have tomato gardens. Your neighbor enslaves his children to work in his tomato garden. You pay your children a fair wage. Your neighbor can sell to you and your children his tomatoes at a price less than your cost to produce your tomatoes.

What do you do? Buy your neighbors tomatoes enabling his continuing unjust treatment of his children? Encourage your children to be “voluntarily idle” and eat your neighbors tomatoes? Or do you want to do that which Catholic social teaching prescribes.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Uhm, (((Hello))) Reading these encyclicals was my suggestion…hahaha…funny guy!~
Rerum Novarum is an encyclical on Labor and Capital, the role of the State, Worker too, and Employer…A small brief summary here: (very small, it is too rich to detail it all…you need to read it in all of it’s beauty and entirety)

II. THE ROLE OF THE STATE 32. As I wrote in On the Christian Constitution of the State the State’s laws must be enacted for the common good and for “private prosperity.” By giving particular care for the needs of the working class, there will be less need to give them special help. The general welfare is met through: a. moral rule b. well-regulated family life c. respect for religion and justice d. moderate and fair public taxes e. the progress of arts and trades f. fruitful harvests g. essentially, anything “which makes the citizens better and happier.”

1. Since the working class are largely in the majority, and since the State has the obligation to maintain the common good, it only makes sense that the State focus on the needs of the working class first so as to be able to meet the needs of all the other classes. This is called “distributive” justice.
2. There will always be differences between classes. All contribute to the common good, just not in the same way. For those who are more directly in charge of the common good, i.e. politicians, they need to keep in mind the following: since “the end of society is to make men better,” then public life ought to be structured so as to make it easier for “virtuous action.” The chief condition for such a public life is the working conditions of the working class. Justice for the worker is in the best interest of the State for “it is only by the labor of working men that States grow rich.”
3. Though the State cannot absorb the family into itself, there is still a role for it to care for the safety of the community…

It kind of blows away that trickle down philosophy of the right, does it not? haha

 

[DENNYINMI]

Also, I was addressing in specific, Trumps PROTECTIONISM in relation to poorer countries and those we have affairs of Trade…But I’m always willing to talk about the encyclicals and the economical warnings in relation to today.

 

[Socrates92]

How exactly does one enslave one’s own children?

 

[o_mlly]

Uhm, (((Hello))) Reading these encyclicals was my suggestion…hahaha…funny guy!

Reading (and studying) encyclicals is the obligation of all Catholics. I don’t see anything that appears “funny” from Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum.

I argued against your economic claim that tariffs destroy general prosperity. Rather than reply to the arguments you made new claims based on Catholic social teaching which I also argued against. Still no reply to those arguments.

A small brief summary here …

Summary? Copying and pasting large parts of the encyclical without relating the citations to some points relevant to the thread or arguments asserted so far does not advance the debate.

It kind of blows away that trickle down philosophy of the right, does it not?

Rerum Novarum does not even mention “trickle down.”

 

[o_mlly]

How exactly does one enslave one’s own children?

When those who have just power unjustly use that power on subordinates to exploit their labor.

 

[DENNYINMI]

Ho, ho…Rerum Novarum in As the UCCSB explains:
This groundbreaking social encyclical addresses the dehumanizing conditions in which many workers labor and affirms workers’ rights to just wages, rest, and fair treatment, to form unions, and to strike if necessary. Pope Leo XIII upholds individuals’ right to hold private property but also notes the role of the state in facilitating distributive justice so that workers can adequately support their families and someday own property of their own. He notes the poor “have a claim to special consideration.”
Over a century before Pope Francis warned that trickle-down economics “expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system,” Leo XIII cautioned:
The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government…Although the encyclical does not mention “trickle down” in those exact words please allow me to spell it out for you in this way…The Bible does not mention the word “Bible” but we indeed know that is WHAT we are reading. In your case, I would suggest digestion vs reading, hahaha…

 

[DENNYINMI]

Gosh, I love these conversations, but it is difficult discussing something when someone has not taken the time to actually read it and understand what was being said. I’d love to credit our Wonderful Pope Francis with these ideas and things he has spoken of but as one can see, he didn’t re-invent the wheel. Economical systems that exploit laborers and the poor were not recently invented either, haha

 

[o_mlly]

Gosh, I love these conversations …

We had no conversation as there was nothing discussed. I argued; you copy/pasted. Answer the arguments against your unsupported assertions and a conversation might occur. Until then, a Dios,

 

[Theo520]

I came across this article that states that many Indians are competing for very limited jobs and due to this situation they are " resorting" to working for scamming companies.
While everyone is responsible for their own sin,at the same time do wealthy countries bear some responsibility for not investing enough in infrastructure and industry/job creation in third world countries?

I think Subsidiary best explains this. Australia or the US should not supplant their local governance, we can help but not replace them. This means the Indian Govt is best situated to deciding where to invest in infrastructure. They have the ability to do this without emptying your pocket book, they have a central bank and they also collect taxes to pay for the investments.

You said the key word - Investment. The indian Govt is better able to allocate investment money than a foreign power. They are also able to borrow additional funds from OECD countries at favorable rates or from the world bank. Much of what you suggested is already happening where it makes investment sense. But we must avoid building bridges to no where, much more likely to happen if we are just offering them free money.

Governance is the main problem holding back developing countries, not access to capital. We can help improve their governance but it eventually comes back to the local population. Remember that colonies with foreign governance are no longer a viable alternative :crazy_face:.

 

[Ridgerunner]

About 44 million people in this country have no health insurance, and another 38 million have inadequate health insurance. This means that nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that, if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families.

A week ago I met a woman who told me she has lung cancer. Out of the blue she said she takes Keytruda and another medication. Together they cost $41,000 per month. She has Medicare and what appears to be a pretty good supplemental policy. But still, $41,000 per month? Can any nation really afford that on any kind of scale? I know an NP who is psych certified. Some drug or other, she says, cost about $20,000 per month.

You see the ads on tv for that drug for Hepatitis C. I read that treatment costs $200,000. Good if you can afford it.

I remember a guy I knew who got pancreatic cancer. The doctors told him he had something like six months to live. He had good insurance and underwent a million dollars worth of treatment, and died at the end of six months all the same.

I remember reading, too, that if every asset in the U.S. was distributed worldwide, it would amount to about $1,000 per person. It would, of course, get spent, and then it would be gone.

I think sometimes we have expectations of redistributive schemes that are far too high.

 

[DENNYINMI]

A week ago I met a woman who told me she has lung cancer. Out of the blue she said she takes Keytruda and another medication. Together they cost $41,000 per month. She has Medicare and what appears to be a pretty good supplemental policy. But still, $41,000 per month? Can any nation really afford that on any kind of scale? I know an NP who is psych certified. Some drug or other, she says, cost about $20,000 per month.

You see the ads on tv for that drug for Hepatitis C. I read that treatment costs $200,000. Good if you can afford it.

I remember a guy I knew who got pancreatic cancer. The doctors told him he had something like six months to live. He had good insurance and underwent a million dollars worth of treatment, and died at the end of six months all the same.

I remember reading, too, that if every asset in the U.S. was distributed worldwide, it would amount to about $1,000 per person. It would, of course, get spent, and then it would be gone.

I think sometimes we have expectations of redistributive schemes that are far too high.

I think the cost of drugs are far too high. That type of expenditure when the availability to obtain a drug at a lesser rate needs to be investigated. I have no idea what we are waiting for. Medicine was never built on an economic model until money makers found their way in the mix. It use to be doctoring was between a doctor and patient not a doctor, patient and the insurance company making decisions about procedure approvals…I have little respect for big pharma.

 

[Augustinian]

I think the cost of drugs are far too high. That type of expenditure when the availability to obtain a drug at a lesser rate needs to be investigated. I have no idea what we are waiting for.

There is nothing to investigate. It just costs a lot of money to develop new pharmaceuticals, and biotech firms rely on investors who want a return on their money. And considering how many new drug ideas don’t pan out, someone else comes up with another solution to the same problem first, or other failures, they have to make up with it on the winners.

Now the alternative is to rely strictly on the government or non-profits to fund drug research.

The question is whether government bureaucrats and academics are better at guessing which projects to fund and which ones not to fund, than investors risking their own money.

 

[DENNYINMI]

I could care less what investors want, The world has been changed more with charity than with science, and I am shocked at the wave of gladiators on this site that need to dissect whether giving a beggar a piece of bread is a good thing…When you can charge for an epinephrine pen that saves lives in the case of anaphylactic shock 300 % over the usual cost there is plenty to investigate. Might I suggest we begin with moral conscience

 

[Augustinian]

You don’t get it, the epinephrine pen might not have ever been developed in the first place and sold at any price, without the investors.

Maybe bureaucrats in Washington are better off determining which pharm projects to fund and which not to, than are investors.

 

[Rozellelily]

Something I have also come across is some people saying/believing that taxation is theft.
While public taxes are often misused,isn’t the purpose of tax at least in theory to provide the Government with money to help those in situations of poverty-primarily local but also sometimes foreign aid to countries overseas?

Why then would someone be against this and view it as theft?
Is it that are disinterested in helping others?