J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
No, I’m actually saying that we spend more and still aren’t the best. So we need to demand better results not throw More money which is often the cry
Are wealthy countries in anyway responsible to lift poor countries out of poverty?
- Status
S
Socrates92
Guest
Aha, gotcha.
S
Socrates92
Guest
I would be too. I wonder what he was paid to make that statement?At least one ex CEO of Telstra did have the moral fiber to admit that his salary was indefensible.
I’m a bit cynical because he said it on the last day of his employment at the company though.
S
Socrates92
Guest
What about to help lift them out of poverty? (I couldn’t help notice how you went from doing it for them, to helping in your 3rd paragraph.)
S
Socrates92
Guest
It comes down to a question of fact. If a company is providing $500,000,000 of benefit (just to pull a number from a hat), then the equivalent of a doctor’s salary is pretty small peanuts. On the other hand, with a charity of that scale, the cost of paying someone significantly less could be enormous do to the difference in competence and incentive. Whether or not you, personally, would be ok with earning that isn’t really material to whether it is a wise decision for a charity to pay that to the CEO.
I will partially grant the poor impression/appearance of hypocrisy. This is largely due to the fact that our media culture in general operates on soundbites instead of critical analysis.
As per the greed, there is nothing inherent in making a large salary that prevents someone from using it for humanitarian ends. People too often equate personal compensation with personal consumption.
I will partially grant the poor impression/appearance of hypocrisy. This is largely due to the fact that our media culture in general operates on soundbites instead of critical analysis.
As per the greed, there is nothing inherent in making a large salary that prevents someone from using it for humanitarian ends. People too often equate personal compensation with personal consumption.
Last edited:
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
Yeah, no duh, they were two images grabbed from google. And every single source lists the same average IQ for those African countries. Because it’s their average. It’s easy to find.
The hilarious bit is the poster I quoted is of the type that thinks that wealth should be seized. Adam smith was not a proponent of wealth confiscation through violence like the communist sympathizer I was quoting and mocking.
I may not have a major in economics, but I do have one in business, and I have enough study of economics to argue with the average mouth breather who thinks we can tax the rich into liberating the poor from poverty.
Last edited:
S
Socrates92
Guest
Haha, I love it! I’m going to start using that as an insult.
S
Socrates92
Guest
Here’s an interesting look at the shrinking consumption gap between the rich and poor in the US (as opposed to income or wealth inequality, which arguably, aren’t that important). It’s logical to assume that something similar will happen on a global scale over time.
Last edited:
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
If that’s my only contribution to this forum I’ll consider my time here a success 
po18guy
Well-known member
Wealthy countries were not always so. Yet, when they attempt to teach the economic principles which allowed them to advance, they are accused of imperialism or worse.
A conundrum, to be sure.
Since the 1960s, billions have been handed out by western nations, but poverty remains relatively steady. Clearly, money is not the primary answer.
A conundrum, to be sure.
Since the 1960s, billions have been handed out by western nations, but poverty remains relatively steady. Clearly, money is not the primary answer.
T
tafan2
Guest
I have not read this thread, just trying to understand your point. The US foruegn aid program is heavily weighted just towards economic development. Which you seem to think is good. Yet you don’t want the government in the business of charity.
So no foriegners aid because it’s charity and not the government’s business?
BTW: I am firmly in the camp that the answer to the thread’s title wuestion is a resounding yes.
So no foriegners aid because it’s charity and not the government’s business?
BTW: I am firmly in the camp that the answer to the thread’s title wuestion is a resounding yes.
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
The US government shouldn’t be taking money from its citizens to give to foreign nations.
T
tafan2
Guest
That’s a different argument than you had been making, isn’t it?
The Marshal Plan was wrong?
The Marshal Plan was wrong?
A
abucs
Guest
I just called two waitresses over to show them that your map had the Philippines as the highest IQ and they pointed out that it was Japan in red, not the Philippines.
I am not sure where that leaves me on the IQ hierarchy but I’ve got little choice now but to leave a big tip?
I am not sure where that leaves me on the IQ hierarchy but I’ve got little choice now but to leave a big tip?
Last edited:
A
abucs
Guest
My opinion is that rich countries have no responsibility whatsoever to close the gap between rich and poor countries. When we say rich countries have a responsibility what we are really saying is that some elite has the right to take wealth of people in rich countries for the supposed betterment of people in other countries. In my opinion this is ethically wrong. That doesn’t mean people should not offer and give help but giving themselves the right to take off others they deem should give is the more honest reality of what is proposed.
Wealth has to be continually created. Food, clothes, gadgets, even buildings. Wealthy countries are such because they continually create more wealth. The wealth of the world is fast changing due to capitalism where many jobs are going to cheaper areas with lower costs and government regulations. China has been great in exploiting this, so was Taiwan and of course earlier Japan and Korea.
If other countries want to follow these examples then they too must exploit the lower wage situation. We have to remember that it takes time for a country to progress. 100 years ago people in the west were also working for $1 a day because the countries had not yet built up wealth sufficiently to draw more people into the capitalist system and to use the intelligence of the nation to innovate and create all types of industries and technology to help in the wealth creating process.
In poor parts of Africa or the Philippines (where I live) it is all about supporting a business culture and capitalism and realising that fighting inequality is not the priority. Creating wealth is. The more equalising of wealth (and power) comes afterwards.
In my opinion the focussing of effort on fighting inequality is a retard to helping the poorest of the poor.
Also I have to take issue with the idea of the rich having continual holidays to impress pretty little things. The real entrepreneur creators of wealth in a capitalistic system tend to be ones that work non stop to a degree most people would balk at. They tend to be on the obsessive side of the spectrum and highly competitive. Quite literally, putting their feet up and taking a rest would panic them. I think this false picture of capitalists is also part of the problem and where social justice falls down the rabbit hole of divisive identity politics.
Wealth has to be continually created. Food, clothes, gadgets, even buildings. Wealthy countries are such because they continually create more wealth. The wealth of the world is fast changing due to capitalism where many jobs are going to cheaper areas with lower costs and government regulations. China has been great in exploiting this, so was Taiwan and of course earlier Japan and Korea.
If other countries want to follow these examples then they too must exploit the lower wage situation. We have to remember that it takes time for a country to progress. 100 years ago people in the west were also working for $1 a day because the countries had not yet built up wealth sufficiently to draw more people into the capitalist system and to use the intelligence of the nation to innovate and create all types of industries and technology to help in the wealth creating process.
In poor parts of Africa or the Philippines (where I live) it is all about supporting a business culture and capitalism and realising that fighting inequality is not the priority. Creating wealth is. The more equalising of wealth (and power) comes afterwards.
In my opinion the focussing of effort on fighting inequality is a retard to helping the poorest of the poor.
Also I have to take issue with the idea of the rich having continual holidays to impress pretty little things. The real entrepreneur creators of wealth in a capitalistic system tend to be ones that work non stop to a degree most people would balk at. They tend to be on the obsessive side of the spectrum and highly competitive. Quite literally, putting their feet up and taking a rest would panic them. I think this false picture of capitalists is also part of the problem and where social justice falls down the rabbit hole of divisive identity politics.
Last edited:
K
Kris34
Guest
China isnt “the developing world”. I’m sure you could find labor abuses. Even in the US there is trafficking for labor and worse. China has plenty of money for military and museums and infrastructure.
K
Kris34
Guest
My first line every system has rich and poor people… seems to have been ignored.
Forced to relocate to work in some factory and share a flat with three other families is surely not to be admired for their being no homelessness. Russia has been trying to gain population like mad.
Yes there are safety nets here. There should be safety nets. And the safety nets are not exclusively the government but also charities, most often relgious groups. The military is a probably the closest example to things being socialist. The guy cleaning is making the same as the guy doing something more prestigious if they are the same pay grade… same benefits. Housing, food, medical, work to occupy oneself all guaranteed. Course many military leave and work in a whole other field.
Forced to relocate to work in some factory and share a flat with three other families is surely not to be admired for their being no homelessness. Russia has been trying to gain population like mad.
Yes there are safety nets here. There should be safety nets. And the safety nets are not exclusively the government but also charities, most often relgious groups. The military is a probably the closest example to things being socialist. The guy cleaning is making the same as the guy doing something more prestigious if they are the same pay grade… same benefits. Housing, food, medical, work to occupy oneself all guaranteed. Course many military leave and work in a whole other field.
K
kgmlg
Guest
Use of force is very rarely legitimate for me, sorry. It would have to be a mass genocide situation for me to agree to international use of force, and even then, a police force to keep the peace more than the military force to kill would be my preference.
I believe that each home/country should be allowed to fix their own problems without outside intervention of force. Diplomatic intervention, ok, guns blazing, hardly ever ok with me.
Having said that, and like I said in my previous post…sometimes, just sometimes, it would be nice if evil just got completely wiped out.
(yes, I have violent wishes sometimes )
Edit: the reason behind my reticence on the use force is, the innocent get killed/injured together with, or more than, the guilty. The guilty, most likely, have armed themselves or have found a way to protect themselves somewhat….the innocent, not so much.
I believe that each home/country should be allowed to fix their own problems without outside intervention of force. Diplomatic intervention, ok, guns blazing, hardly ever ok with me.
Having said that, and like I said in my previous post…sometimes, just sometimes, it would be nice if evil just got completely wiped out.
(yes, I have violent wishes sometimes )Edit: the reason behind my reticence on the use force is, the innocent get killed/injured together with, or more than, the guilty. The guilty, most likely, have armed themselves or have found a way to protect themselves somewhat….the innocent, not so much.
Last edited:
R
Rozellelily
Guest
Take for example a country like India mentioned in the article:
Often the parents are also very poor.
The government may be corrupt and only favour those with money who can bribe them.
Education might be good or it might be substandard-but what does it help in the end if there are limited jobs to compete for anyway?
The agriculture may be contaminated with heavy metals or other pollutants which were used due to ignorance or to keep costs down.
Without assistance (in a friendly and non exploitation way) from wealthier countries do the poor of India stand much chances in their is corruption amongst officials and industry and therefor jobs are limited?
Often the parents are also very poor.
The government may be corrupt and only favour those with money who can bribe them.
Education might be good or it might be substandard-but what does it help in the end if there are limited jobs to compete for anyway?
The agriculture may be contaminated with heavy metals or other pollutants which were used due to ignorance or to keep costs down.
Without assistance (in a friendly and non exploitation way) from wealthier countries do the poor of India stand much chances in their is corruption amongst officials and industry and therefor jobs are limited?
Last edited:
K
kgmlg
Guest
Yes, you have a point here. I just believe that companies, in this case NGOs, should be consistent with what they preach.
If you are asking people to let go of some of their wealth to help the poor, then it should be that, to help the poor. But paying an NGO employee, half a million dollars, is a bit much for me. It is inconsistent with what they preach, like you say in another post above, a bit hypocritical, or perceived as such anyway. Maybe I am just a bit idealist….maybe.
If you are asking people to let go of some of their wealth to help the poor, then it should be that, to help the poor. But paying an NGO employee, half a million dollars, is a bit much for me. It is inconsistent with what they preach, like you say in another post above, a bit hypocritical, or perceived as such anyway. Maybe I am just a bit idealist….maybe.
- Status