Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Well, that certainly isn't the end of socialism, as far as I'm aware of it...


It certainly isn't the stated end, but logically speaking, can it be achieved and enforced otherwise?

Quote: I'm not too sure about the latter example in every case, but okay.
Not every case, but the vast majority.

Quote: Nice company you are keeping.
Just an observation. Disregard it.

[Cato]

Quote: You're assuming that there is a rise in poverty and that it is caused by someone who did not cause it. That's what fits your dichotomy, but it is a logical fallacy.

I'm not assuming either; I don't think I understand what you're saying. I'm saying, poverty = dictator, rather than dictator = poverty, if that makes it clearer on my side.

Where's the logical fallacy?

Quote: Poverty exists for many reasons, all that can be traced back to a dysfunctional culture.

'Dysfunctional culture'? That seems rather silly. Can you explain what makes a culture dysfunctional? Worshiping the wrong God, I'm guessing?

Quote: BTW I do not like Globalization. I think it is reprehensible.

That makes two of us.

[Cato]

Quote: It certainly isn't the stated end, but logically speaking, can it be achieved and enforced otherwise?

Firstly, the way something is achieved is the means, not the ends. Secondly, are you proponent of democracy, or no?

Quote: Not every case, but the vast majority.

I'm not too sure about that either, but I really don't know.

Quote: Just an observation. Disregard it.

Will do.

[social]

Cato wrote: Quote: Poverty exists for many reasons, all that can be traced back to a dysfunctional culture.

'Dysfunctional culture'? That seems rather silly. Can you explain what makes a culture dysfunctional? Worshiping the wrong God, I'm guessing?

:lol:

[jawsome]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: I think the situation in the third world is one conducive to the rise of dictators; that is, the catalyst of the dictator's rise is the poverty of his nation, and not vice versa.

You're assuming that there is a rise in poverty and that it is caused by someone who did not cause it. That's what fits your dichotomy, but it is a logical fallacy.

Poverty exists for many reasons, that all can be traced back to a dysfunctional culture in some manner. And Globalization takes advantage of that, but it does not cause it. So do the dictators, who care nothing for their people, upon which Globalization depends

BTW I do not like Globalization. I think it is reprehensible.

Well, in the case of sub-Saharan Africa, I'd say the reason poverty exists is because of an immense lack of any kind of significant development, which is due mainly to geographical reasons. If you want a really awesome book about why certain civilizations evolved more quickly than others, I'd recommend "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. Great read and very convincing.

[Cato]

Quote: Well, in the case of sub-Saharan Africa, I'd say the reason poverty exists is because of an immense lack of any kind of significant development, which is due mainly to geographical reasons.

I don't agree; development doesn't solve poverty. An African tribe isn't 'developed', and it certainly isn't impoverished; its economic means suit its economic ends. Poverty occurs where a society's economic means cannot achieve its ends. In many cases, development creates poverty, as the means change such that the ends cannot be met.

Take, for instance, a rural farming community. This community's local farms feed everybody; it's means meet its ends. Now, introduce foreign markets and untariffed foreign goods... What happens to our nice little farming community?..

Cheap produce from elsewhere floods in, the farmers go bankrupt, and the community can no longer feed itself. The farmers can't go back to work because what they produce is now quite worthless (though it is in fact 'worth' the survival of the community). The community doesn't have a modern industry, so it can't compete on the world market. The people may either sell themselves into slavery, or renationalize (which necessarily leads to war for what I should hope are obvious reasons). 'Development' has here created poverty, quite clearly.

I've read Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel aswell; he's an enlightened man, but I don't think you've interpreted the aim of his argument correctly. He's showing us how the west rose to dominate the world, and not (directly) how the south became impoverished. The latter is a modern occurrence, and is in fact the fault of the west.

[jawsome]

Cato wrote: Quote: Well, in the case of sub-Saharan Africa, I'd say the reason poverty exists is because of an immense lack of any kind of significant development, which is due mainly to geographical reasons.

I don't agree; development doesn't solve poverty. An African tribe isn't 'developed', and it certainly isn't impoverished; its economic means suit its economic ends. Poverty occurs where a society's economic means cannot achieve its ends. In many cases, development creates poverty, as the means change such that the ends cannot be met.

That's true, but I guess I was thinking more along per capita measurements and the like. Good point.

Quote: Take, for instance, a rural farming community. This community's local farms feed everybody; it's means meet its ends. Now, introduce foreign markets and untariffed foreign goods... What happens to our nice little farming community?..

I see what you're saying, but I think this depends on each case. For instance, a modern case would be US and Mexican farm goods. Unless US farm goods are heavily subsidized, they cannot compete with Mexican farms because the cost of production in Mexico is significantly lower. No one in Mexico would buy American goods because they would cost much, much more.

Quote: Cheap produce from elsewhere floods in, the farmers go bankrupt, and the community can no longer feed itself. The farmers can't go back to work because what they produce is now quite worthless (though it is in fact 'worth' the survival of the community). The community doesn't have a modern industry, so it can't compete on the world market. The people may either sell themselves into slavery, or renationalize (which necessarily leads to war for what I should hope are obvious reasons). 'Development' has here created poverty, quite clearly.

This is why every nation who has developed has used protectionist policies and continue to do so in one form or another. It's also why I understand completely why foreign nations nowadays that are developing use tariffs and the like. It makes perfect economic sense.

Quote: I've read Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel aswell; he's an enlightened man, but I don't think you've interpreted the aim of his argument correctly. He's showing us how the west rose to dominate the world, and not (directly) how the south became impoverished. The latter is a modern occurrence, and is in fact the fault of the west.

Maybe I didn't state it well enough, but I did understand his argument...I just feel like it's a good book to explain why other parts of the world didn't become developed and powerful. As for the bolded part, I think this would be an excellent topic to debate (and would love to), but it's for a different thread.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: I don't agree; development doesn't solve poverty. An African tribe isn't 'developed', and it certainly isn't impoverished; its economic means suit its economic ends. Poverty occurs where a society's economic means cannot achieve its ends. In many cases, development creates poverty, as the means change such that the ends cannot be met.

Go live like a tribeperson if you think it's so great, just don't try to force them to stay like that so you can amuse yourself by looking at documentaries of them.

[Cato]

Quote: Maybe I didn't state it well enough, but I did understand his argument...I just feel like it's a good book to explain why other parts of the world didn't become developed and powerful. As for the bolded part, I think this would be an excellent topic to debate (and would love to), but it's for a different thread.

Okay, sorry for being so presumptive. As for the bolded part, you know how I love to tack my personal contentions onto all my arguments; you're right, its belongs in a different tread.

[Cato]

Quote: Go live like a tribeperson if you think it's so great, just don't try to force them to stay like that so you can amuse yourself by looking at documentaries of them.

... ?

[Cato]

jawsome wrote: For instance, a modern case would be US and Mexican farm goods. Unless US farm goods are heavily subsidized, they cannot compete with Mexican farms because the cost of production in Mexico is significantly lower. No one in Mexico would buy American goods because they would cost much, much more.

That's actually what I was thinking of when I wrote my example. America's subsidized goods are actually flooding into Mexico, and destroying the local industry.. Have you ever heard of the Zappastia movement? The southern Mexican farmers who went bankrupt when cheap American produce flooded the markets, and have since taken up arms against their government?

[Robin Hood]

Cato wrote: Quote: Go live like a tribeperson if you think it's so great, just don't try to force them to stay like that so you can amuse yourself by looking at documentaries of them.

... ?

The point is you are assuming they have a specified economic ends i.e wishes, desires, and wants, which is a horrible, and in this case patronising, assumption to make.

[Cato]

I don't see how I could have possibly drawn that 'point' from your post, but alright.

It's the economic end of every society to sustain the lives of its individual members. To propose that this is not a necessary economic end is.. wrong.

[Robin Hood]

Cato wrote: I don't see how I could have possibly drawn that 'point' from your post, but alright.

It's the economic end of every society to sustain the lives of its individual members. To propose that this is not a necessary economic end is.. wrong.

To say that a society can have an economic end is wrong.

[Cato]

Care to provide an argument?

[cassandrabandra]

Cato wrote: jawsome wrote: For instance, a modern case would be US and Mexican farm goods. Unless US farm goods are heavily subsidized, they cannot compete with Mexican farms because the cost of production in Mexico is significantly lower. No one in Mexico would buy American goods because they would cost much, much more.

That's actually what I was thinking of when I wrote my example. America's subsidized goods are actually flooding into Mexico, and destroying the local industry.. Have you ever heard of the Zappastia movement? The southern Mexican farmers who went bankrupt when cheap American produce flooded the markets, and have since taken up arms against their government?

The same is happening in many African nations are trying to compete with heavily subsidized European produce. Meanwhile, in recent years this has been compounded by SAPs (Structural Assistance Programmes) where the International Financial Institutions only loan money for the right kind of projects - which do not include infrastructure, including clean water, public education and public health. Consequently you see the GDPs of many sub saharan nations going backwards - and political unrest feeds into this, exacerbating the situation further. Diseases, including HIV, but also malaria and TB can only become worse unless good public health measures are adopted. Masses of people living in shantytown slums and refugee camps in some ways could make it easier to deliver health services than if people live in rural villages, but when overall levels of health are poor, education levels are virtually nonexistent for many, and communicable diseases spread more easily through crowded inadequately serviced townsites, massive injections of money and resources are needed to address the problem.

A lot of what is happening in Africa over the last 15 years or so may be part of the aftermath of the cold war. Programmes no longer have to compete with socialist ideology, so expenditure on public goods is no longer necessary according to those who dictate the terms.

BTW - Africa did have several successful civilisations in the past. In the 14th Century, the Mali empire, which traded extensively with Europe, along with many other civilisations globally, collapsed. This was due - it appears - to a period of climatic change. Like many others they never really recovered. The one which recovered most successfully was at the time no more or less barbaric than their neighbours, and expanded to conquer the world. The weakened position of those they encountered, along with the opportunities to support resources, including South American gold especially, as well as labour - were what enabled the Europeans to keep their dominant position. And the pattern has continued on from there.

[garyd]

The main reason third world farmers can't compete is that production yields are very much lower per Acre and even with lower cost per laborer it takes far more laborers in most of the third world to harvest the same amount of crop.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: 'Dysfunctional culture'? That seems rather silly. Can you explain what makes a culture dysfunctional? Worshiping the wrong God, I'm guessing?


That guess shows what kind of shallow mind you hide behind the pretentious rhetoric.

What makes a culture dysfunctional is greed, indifference, and hate. All of which cause women and children to pay the price.

Adding a dysfunctional collectivist political ideology on top of that culture is what causes regimes like the Hitler's, Stalin's, Mao's, Pol Pot's, and Jong's of the world to happen.

You are nothing more than a petulent child with a impressive vocabulary.

[cap'n queasy]

jawsome wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: I think the situation in the third world is one conducive to the rise of dictators; that is, the catalyst of the dictator's rise is the poverty of his nation, and not vice versa.

You're assuming that there is a rise in poverty and that it is caused by someone who did not cause it. That's what fits your dichotomy, but it is a logical fallacy.

Poverty exists for many reasons, that all can be traced back to a dysfunctional culture in some manner. And Globalization takes advantage of that, but it does not cause it. So do the dictators, who care nothing for their people, upon which Globalization depends

BTW I do not like Globalization. I think it is reprehensible.

Well, in the case of sub-Saharan Africa, I'd say the reason poverty exists is because of an immense lack of any kind of significant development, which is due mainly to geographical reasons. If you want a really awesome book about why certain civilizations evolved more quickly than others, I'd recommend "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. Great read and very convincing.

I'll keep that in mind next time I visit the local bookstore. One thing is for sure. It's not the fault of the US. Think about this, why is there a lack of significant development? Is that really the cause or is it another symptom?

Think about it.

[cassandrabandra]

garyd wrote: The main reason third world farmers can't compete is that production yields are very much lower per Acre and even with lower cost per laborer it takes far more laborers in most of the third world to harvest the same amount of crop.

no. subsidies are far more significant. If people in my village in say, French Guinea, grew tomatoes they could grow them very cheaply. There could also be a local canning plant which could operate very cheaply. The produce could be sold for a good price on my local market, keeping both agricultural and other workers and their families at a level above subsistence. In addition, many workers would actually have a higher yield per acre than just the tomatoes, as they would grow food in their traditional way - so that a very small plot could still produce enough food to feed the family, and the tomatoes they sold could earn the income that would enable them to raise their standard of living.

Most importantly, that productive land was owned by local people, and traditional ties were maintained, a lot of the power over decisionmaking stays in the local community, and because this level of agriculture often is undertaken by women, the status of women is higher.

The produce probably wouldn't make it to european shelves, as transport was too expensive, however it would make it into the cities in French Guinea, and in to some of the neighbouring countries.

The situation changes. Swiss tomato growers get subsidies from their government that enable them to produce hothouse tomatoes all year round - increasing their production capacity. This keeps those people on the land while enabling them to enjoy a much higher standard of living than they traditionally had. But - they have too many tomatoes. with their subsidies - they can afford to extend their market into north and west Africa.

In a relatively short time, their surplus tomatoes are swamping not only neighbouring countries, but also my local market. In actual fact, it uses far more resources to produce hothouse tomatoes, there is nothing sensible about growing them (except on a small scale for local consumption only) from either an environmental or economic viewpoint, however the subsidy guarantees swiss tomato growers a year round income from one crop. They need to sell them though - and despite transport costs (subsidised) they can break into my market due to subsidies.

what happens? well - the jobs in the canning factory are lost. The people in the villages lose their cash crop, and go back to subsistence living. they don't have resources to invest in something new ... their living standard decreases .... and its always harder to go backwards than forwwards, so people begin to leave the village and flock to the towns.

You get a whole series of problems there - for many young people, both male and female, survival is by means of prostitution and petty crime. The economy hasn't really begun to diversify, it was still largely reliant on agricultural products, however cannot compete with subsidized imports, and hasn't developed any other substantial industry.

This is happening at the same time as the HIV problem is really taking off in that country, wars in neighbouring countries such as Liberia and Sierra Leone increase the flow of people into the region, all competing for scarce resources and jobs in a developing (or perhaps backsliding) economy.

In the meantime, changes in the geo political situation have meant that IMF loans will not go to the government unless they STOP investing in public water supplies (so 70% of people don't have access to clean drinking water) education, public health etc.

Back in the village, the school closes down. children have to walk four miles to the neighbouring village to go to school, and now - they have to pay. maybe $2 per week for one child to attend school - when the family income is around $20 per month. hmmm. But our income is also dependent on the work performed by the children before and after school. We can only afford to send one child to school. The oldest son - he has almost completed his schooling ... the other children can stay at home and work to contribute to the family income.

things are tough, but we know that when the boy finishes school he will be able to go to the city and earn an income. ... do you know what happens in stories like this?

the boy goes to the city ... which doesn't relieve the family's poverty. One of the best things the family can do to relieve their poverty is to allow one of the daughters to be trained to circumcise little girls ... she will get good money for that, and so, with a lack of education and the pressures of economic necessity we see practices that had been declining making a comeback ....

if you want to look at production yields in traditional societies though - you could look at some of Indian ecologist Vandana Shiva's work.
The Violence of Green Revolution and Monocultures of the Mind should provide you with some perspectives you haven't come across before.