When the Rich could do more for the poor in the world

[Gem (Grant)]

I should add that I feel a bit guilty over buying my scope too...

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Oh dear, the sitting pretty crowd pontificating and claiming poor again....thats what really makes me sick....

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

The problems plaguing these countries are more complex than just simple "redistribution of wealth and resources". You have to get at the core of the problem...which is social and political as well as economic.

In Africa it goes even further back than that. It is tribal. Colonisation by Europeean countries created artificial boundaries. It forced people with different or even opposing cultures to live together. With weapon technology and money, drugs, you name it, the whole thing went out of hand. Look at what happened in Rwanda, Tchad , Nigeria and many others. Always minorities tribes being decimated by the bigger numbered ones. Somalia is no different. Very difficult for aid workers on the ground and extremely dangerous places to be. That's why ideally we'd need to pull out and let them sort it out. But that's not going to happen because of the natural resources those countries have. Dictators and abusive governments come and go. They are supported by the western countries making sure they keep a line of contact with the guy at the top to get the good deals and supplies.

[Gem (Grant)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

In Africa it goes even further back than that. It is tribal. Colonisation by Europeean countries created artificial boundaries. It forced people with different or even opposing cultures to live together.

True, but that doesn't always mean that artificial boundaries never work.
Zambia has 72 tribes. In 1964 when it gained independence that first president used the slogan "One Zambia, One nation". He instilled the concept of nation first, tribe second - even though the concept of "Zambia" was total new. It is no coincidence that Zambia has been the most peaceful, coup free country in Africa. Yes there is still corruption and poverty (they had one party democracy for too long after independence), but there isn't civil war or tribal violence like the rest of the continent.
What I am trying to say, is that African countries can rise above tribal violence. It takes leaders with courage and conviction to do so.
Chinese mining companies (and their blatant bribes) are exploiting Zambia now more than the colonials did in the past. I can't comment on the rest of Africa, but I can on Zambia...

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

In Africa it goes even further back than that. It is tribal. Colonisation by Europeean countries created artificial boundaries. It forced people with different or even opposing cultures to live together. With weapon technology and money, drugs, you name it, the whole thing went out of hand. Look at what happened in Rwanda, Tchad , Nigeria and many others. Always minorities tribes being decimated by the bigger numbered ones. Somalia is no different. Very difficult for aid workers on the ground and extremely dangerous places to be. That's why ideally we'd need to pull out and let them sort it out. But that's not going to happen because of the natural resources those countries have. Dictators and abusive governments come and go. They are supported by the western countries making sure they keep a line of contact with the guy at the top to get the good deals and supplies.

I know Marc.....it goes back even further than European settlement in Africa. It's been going on ever since peoples north of the Sahara have been moving into the areas south of there looking for whatever they've been looking for. That includes the Romans, Egyptians and everyone in between. Least of all, themselves. Africa is a basket case and has been for many tears....centuries even. Until they figure out for themselves that they can't continue on like they have been, and these outside influences take a hike, they will remain so.

[casstony]

Wealthy bankers and powerful nations actively promote poverty. Bankers manipulate the financial system/markets and encourage debt in order to promote the trickle up of money from ordinary people to themselves; powerful nations promote regional/civil wars to protect what they consider their national interest.

Us plebes need to stick together; I donate a little to various charities and I think that a lot of the money gets through to those in need. I find the incessant fund raising phone calls extremely annoying though.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by casstony

Wealthy bankers and powerful nations actively promote poverty. Bankers manipulate the financial system/markets and encourage debt in order to promote the trickle up of money from ordinary people to themselves; powerful nations promote regional/civil wars to protect what they consider their national interest.

Us plebes need to stick together; I donate a little to various charities and I think that a lot of the money gets through to those in need. I find the incessant fund raising phone calls extremely annoying though.

Nup... ultimately WE are 'the problem'. Let's not blame the bankers. We are the bankers. We leave in a world where there are limited resources and a growing population. For every person having it good (read us) many others grow hungry and live in poverty. TBH I have no shame in living on the good side of the fence and I wouldn't change it for the world. It is what it is and I can't/won't change it.

[casstony]

Marc, I'd say you're simply unaware of the lengths that powerful bankers go to to steal other people's money: they infiltrate politics, weaken regulations designed to protect against fraudulent/unsound financial activity and manipulate markets. You might find some interesting reading at the following link: http://market-ticker.org/

Also, you say that we are all part of the problem yet you have no shame in living on the good side of the fence and don't want to help those on the other side; if 'we' are part of the problem shouldn't 'we' be part of the solution?

Disclaimer: I make no claim to have greater or lesser moral integrity than the average person.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by casstony

Marc, I'd say you're simply unaware of the lengths that powerful bankers go to to steal other people's money: they infiltrate politics, weaken regulations designed to protect against fraudulent/unsound financial activity and manipulate markets. You might find some interesting reading at the following link: http://market-ticker.org/

Also, you say that we are all part of the problem yet you have no shame in living on the good side of the fence and don't want to help those on the other side; if 'we' are part of the problem shouldn't 'we' be part of the solution?

Disclaimer: I make no claim to have greater or lesser moral integrity than the average person.

I'm well aware of what's going on. A healthy banking system is the spine of any developed country. I'm not going to criticize them for giving me a great lifestyle. The world is not perfect but I accept it as it is. I don't claim to change it. I'm enjoying a very costly hobby, typing on a PC, sitting in my own house, in the warm and soon I'll have a good lunch because my fridge is full of food. As Mike said 'sitting pretty' So what? Am I doing anything different than all of you? I don't think so. Do I wish to change the way things are? I don't think so either.

[Brian W (Brian)]

Perhaps this needs to be taken to the basics. Throughout recorded history all cultures have had at least 2 classes, the haves and the haves not. No culture has ever found a way around this problem.

Capitalism is the dominant financial system of our world. Capitalism enhances the problem of the haves and have not simply because it demands that approximately 5% of the population be unemployed so as to have a ready work force that can be trained up. (no I am not a communist cause it does not solve the problem either)

None of the worlds religions has ever made the claim that 'our way will eliminate poverty'. Though many of them have made compassionate treatment of the poor one of their core values.

I would suggest to this thread that until compassion for the poor comes to the forefront in all cultures (and that is not likely to happen any time soon) nothing will change.
Brian

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Brian W

Perhaps this needs to be taken to the basics. Throughout recorded history all cultures have had at least 2 classes, the haves and the haves not. No culture has ever found a way around this problem.

Capitalism is the dominant financial system of our world. Capitalism enhances the problem of the haves and have not simply because it demands that approximately 5% of the population be unemployed so as to have a ready work force that can be trained up. (no I am not a communist cause it does not solve the problem either)

None of the worlds religions has ever made the claim that 'our way will eliminate poverty'. Though many of them have made compassionate treatment of the poor one of their core values.

I would suggest to this thread that until compassion for the poor comes to the forefront in all cultures (and that is not likely to happen any time soon) nothing will change.
Brian

Poverty comes from oppression. Oppression is removed by education which delivers freedom, free will, free enterprise.

[TrevorW]

Guys I was just making a point what I considered a total waste of money, when so many poor starve.

I don't think we can solve the problem or lay blame on one specific group or another inherently a lot of problems breed internally.

A large number of African nations have issues that I for one have no idea how they can or will resolve.

[casstony]

Originally Posted by multiweb

I'm well aware of what's going on. A healthy banking system is the spine of any developed country. I'm not going to criticize them for giving me a great lifestyle.

But we don't have a healthy banking system and the banks are not looking out for anyone but themselves.

The entire world financial system is on a precipice, labouring under a mountain of debt. We were willing participants in the debt binge but the Banksters pulled the levers.

In hindsight this good life some of us enjoy may turn out to be a fools paradise for which we might trade the lives of our children in the next world war; economic desperation is a common catalyst for war.

[Brian W (Brian)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Poverty comes from oppression. Oppression is removed by education which delivers freedom, free will, free enterprise.

Poverty comes from oppression? Not so, poverty is relational. In Canada my disability pension is not even enough to rent a pad on skid row. In the Philippines I live well. You say you are happy living on the good side of the fence. That is a statement based on a comparison.

Education delivers freedom? Not really it may allow someone to take advantage of opportunity as it arises but there is no one to one relationship between freedom and education. Germany was a very well educated country when it fell to fascism.

Education gives one free will. First you shall have to show me that free will exists and then how it exists because of education.

Free enterprise the result of education. An interesting idea but you will need to show me some historical precedence for your belief. Whereas I can show you any number of semi literate people who know enough to take their crop surplus to the market (black or white) to make a little extra money.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by TrevorW

Guys I was just making a point what I considered a total waste of money, when so many poor starve.

I don't think we can solve the problem or lay blame on one specific group or another inherently a lot of problems breed internally.

A large number of African nations have issues that I for one have no idea how they can or will resolve.

Yeah sorry Trev. This thread as gone off topic. Probably bit of my fault too. Maybe we should start a new one titled " how good do we have it in Oz"

[mikerr (Michael)]

I've decided not to be so hard on cook the next time my croissants are cold!!
The Chablis, is of course, quite another matter!!!

Michael

PS don't turn your back on the masses!

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

It's something of a false analogy these days that being wealthy "takes money away" from the poor.
Reaganomics essentially initiated an unlimited supply of M0 (the stuff in your pocket) through financial de-regulation and shifting inflation control from fiscal (money supply) to monetary control (interest rates).

Peter, you are confusing money with wealth. Money comes from a printing press, wealth comes from labour. That floating compensation represents 100s if not 1000s of person-years of labour that has been appropriated for a socially useless purpose. The tradespeople who built that could have been building hospitals for the poor (to used a cliched example). When socially-produced wealth is privatised there are winners and losers. [Pointing out - quite correctly I'm sure - how aide money is wasted does not affect this fact.]

Reaganomics, of course, was not the first example of putting the printing press into overdrive. It's happened before and ended in hyper-inflation, poverty, tears, discontent and helped produce the social conditions that allowed the rise of facsism. There should be a correspondance between the goods (or, more correctly, use-values) in circulation and the money in circulation. Throwing money at our economic ills can paper over the problem for a while (hopefully until after the next election) but there will be a day of reckoning.

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

Dave,
I beg to differ. I have a degree (only a "Desmond", granted!) in Economics so I know a little about this.

It is another fallacy that wealth derives from labour.
Labour "adds value" or marketability, but does not necessarily create wealth.

Wealth is subjective and open to the whims of the 'market'.
Wealth is comparative rather than absolute.
While it's true that there is almost a universal standard for wealth and prosperity, in terms of what one can purchase with what one has, it will ultimately boil down to a mutually acceptable medium of exchange, rather than the any value-added component.

The labour in this floating tub of Kitsch has not been appropriated for a "scocially useless purpose".
It fed the people who did the work, housed them, kept their families, allowed them to spend the wages they earned so other's could do the same, and generally (apart from savings) went into circulation.

Money is a unit or medium of exchange with a specific value at the time.
Its value is derived from scarcity or utility.
Having a lot of 'cash' or gold or silver or copper etc., makes you wealthy as it can be traded for goods and services of all kinds depending on the time and circumstance.

Having a lot of "value-added" goods, does not necessarily make you wealthy. I doubt I could get 1/4 of what I paid for most of my stuff.

Reaganomics was different to the printing-press inflation of the 20's and 30's. The policy, fostered for 30 years, allowed for the coverage of debt without actually printing the cash or nominating another exchange medium.
Had the opposite been true, we might not have been "Bush"-whacked by the GFC.

Despite the fact he is French ( ), I have to agree with Marc.
Never in the history of mankind has here been a society where the appropriation of money or property or restrictions on productivity, produced more misery for more people than "free-enterprise".
One merely swaps one set of power-hungry rulers for another without the benefit of being able to improve one's circumstance through initiative, talent, hard work or intelligence.

"From those according to their ability, to those according to their needs"
Who decides 'ability, and who decides 'needs'????!!!!