27 Jan 2014, 9:52 am
27 Jan 2014, 10:09 am
27 Jan 2014, 10:43 am
27 Jan 2014, 10:49 am
LoveNotHate wrote:
Four major prongs of Western wealth sharing ...
1. Humanitarian aid from Western nations to poverty nations.
2. Immigration of poor people from nations with poverty into the Western countries to share the wealth (many Western nations setup poor people on welfare when they arrive).
3. Capitalism is moving production to lower production cost nations, and this is reducing poverty in those nations (as shown in above graph).
4. Free trade agreements to allow direct competition with foreign nations.
This means Americans/Europeans will have to embrace an ever-lowering standard of living as these forces keep acting to lower their wealth.
However, if people here are honest about their morality of wanting to end poverty, and share wealth from wealthy to non-wealthy, then this is good news? More so, it is fair. So, with regards to morality, or an argument to "fairness", then people here are arguing for the obliteration of their own standard of living. Yea!
I am honored to among such selfless people!
Of course .. if this is about trying to greedily keep wealth for oneself - by taking it from wealthier people, and using "poverty" as an excuse for why one wants to do it .. well ... then .. that is just selfishness and phoniness.
1- Arms trading
2- 2nd or 3rd class citizens, many enslaved. Better than the original country, sometimes, but not good.
3- At the cost of slavery.
4- Countries which enslave a part of their population should not have the right to compete in the free market in equal position.
I have to get out of the house now. I enjoyed the phoniness that preceeded and will enjoy the phoniness that follows,
27 Jan 2014, 11:08 am
27 Jan 2014, 11:10 am
thomas81
Veteran
Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland
27 Jan 2014, 11:54 am
27 Jan 2014, 12:13 pm
ModusPonens wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Four major prongs of Western wealth sharing ...
1. Humanitarian aid from Western nations to poverty nations.
2. Immigration of poor people from nations with poverty into the Western countries to share the wealth (many Western nations setup poor people on welfare when they arrive).
3. Capitalism is moving production to lower production cost nations, and this is reducing poverty in those nations (as shown in above graph).
4. Free trade agreements to allow direct competition with foreign nations.
This means Americans/Europeans will have to embrace an ever-lowering standard of living as these forces keep acting to lower their wealth.
However, if people here are honest about their morality of wanting to end poverty, and share wealth from wealthy to non-wealthy, then this is good news? More so, it is fair. So, with regards to morality, or an argument to "fairness", then people here are arguing for the obliteration of their own standard of living. Yea!
I am honored to among such selfless people!
Of course .. if this is about trying to greedily keep wealth for oneself - by taking it from wealthier people, and using "poverty" as an excuse for why one wants to do it .. well ... then .. that is just selfishness and phoniness.
1. Humanitarian aid from Western nations to poverty nations.
2. Immigration of poor people from nations with poverty into the Western countries to share the wealth (many Western nations setup poor people on welfare when they arrive).
3. Capitalism is moving production to lower production cost nations, and this is reducing poverty in those nations (as shown in above graph).
4. Free trade agreements to allow direct competition with foreign nations.
This means Americans/Europeans will have to embrace an ever-lowering standard of living as these forces keep acting to lower their wealth.
However, if people here are honest about their morality of wanting to end poverty, and share wealth from wealthy to non-wealthy, then this is good news? More so, it is fair. So, with regards to morality, or an argument to "fairness", then people here are arguing for the obliteration of their own standard of living. Yea!
I am honored to among such selfless people!
Of course .. if this is about trying to greedily keep wealth for oneself - by taking it from wealthier people, and using "poverty" as an excuse for why one wants to do it .. well ... then .. that is just selfishness and phoniness.
1- Arms trading
2- 2nd or 3rd class citizens, many enslaved. Better than the original country, sometimes, but not good.
3- At the cost of slavery.
4- Countries which enslave a part of their population should not have the right to compete in the free market in equal position.
Apparently, I didn't get the memo.
Exactly where are all these slaves? I am aware of the existence of human trafficking (and Mauritania is a really nasty country), but your post suggests that most of the developing world is effectively equivalent to the antebellum Southern United States.
27 Jan 2014, 3:15 pm
27 Jan 2014, 3:46 pm
ModusPonens wrote:
Were you sleeping when you heard about child labour? Were you sleeping when you heard of people who work 16-20 hours a day in chinese/indian/bangladeshian/indonesian factories without the right to go to the bathroom, to the point of, sometimes, urinating and defecating themselves?
Nope. Wide awake. But ask yourself how all of these people were doing before the evil capitalists of evil came in with their evil capital of evil. In case you missed it, please let me repost a graph from earlier in this thread:
Another look demonstrating the increase in living standards in China.
And funny you should mention both (1) Bangladesh and (2) child labour in the same post, BTW. Here is an interesting story that I previously shared with WP:
GGPViper wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour#Eliminating_child_labour
I like this particular section:
"For example, a UNICEF study found that after the Child Labour Deterrence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs in Bangladesh, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution", jobs that are "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production". The study suggests that boycotts are "blunt instruments with long-term consequences, that can actually harm rather than help the children involved."
Original source (see page 60):
http://www.unicef.org/sowc97/report/
I like this particular section:
"For example, a UNICEF study found that after the Child Labour Deterrence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs in Bangladesh, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution", jobs that are "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production". The study suggests that boycotts are "blunt instruments with long-term consequences, that can actually harm rather than help the children involved."
Original source (see page 60):
http://www.unicef.org/sowc97/report/
So it would seem that looking at the actual facts about economic development may better serve the needs of the poor and disadvantaged than the standard displays of (feigned) moral outrage.
27 Jan 2014, 4:28 pm
GGPViper wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Were you sleeping when you heard about child labour? Were you sleeping when you heard of people who work 16-20 hours a day in chinese/indian/bangladeshian/indonesian factories without the right to go to the bathroom, to the point of, sometimes, urinating and defecating themselves?
Nope. Wide awake. But ask yourself how all of these people were doing before the evil capitalists of evil came in with their evil capital of evil. In case you missed it, please let me repost a graph from earlier in this thread:
Another look demonstrating the increase in living standards in China.
And funny you should mention both (1) Bangladesh and (2) child labour in the same post, BTW. Here is an interesting story that I previously shared with WP:
GGPViper wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour#Eliminating_child_labour
I like this particular section:
"For example, a UNICEF study found that after the Child Labour Deterrence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs in Bangladesh, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution", jobs that are "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production". The study suggests that boycotts are "blunt instruments with long-term consequences, that can actually harm rather than help the children involved."
Original source (see page 60):
http://www.unicef.org/sowc97/report/
I like this particular section:
"For example, a UNICEF study found that after the Child Labour Deterrence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs in Bangladesh, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution", jobs that are "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production". The study suggests that boycotts are "blunt instruments with long-term consequences, that can actually harm rather than help the children involved."
Original source (see page 60):
http://www.unicef.org/sowc97/report/
So it would seem that looking at the actual facts about economic development may better serve the needs of the poor and disadvantaged than the standard displays of (feigned) moral outrage.
This is usualy where I give up on discussions: when I realize I'm debating with (insert the appropriate, but truthful insult here) people.
Can you say, with a straight face, that there are only 5.4% of poor people in the world? I'm going back to my previous point and which is actualy the only thing I can say that can do any good: you guys are phonies. If you think that there are 5.4% of poor people in the world, you're not worth any discussion, let alone an intelligent one. You think that, because you are aspies, you are all like Spock. What I've seen here is honey booboos.
And I know the responses that follow by heart. "You insult people because you don't have arguments.", "That's ad hominem.", etc. Be my guest. I have better things to do than trying to convince people that 5x5=25. It is what it is...
But I wouldn't like to say goodbye without saying: taxing the rich? That crap is horrible! Chemically castrating women for consecutive periods of 5 years, in exchange for them to have education, health and underage prostitution? Sure, that seems about right.
*Walks off the Twillight Zone*
27 Jan 2014, 5:04 pm
27 Jan 2014, 5:13 pm
27 Jan 2014, 6:32 pm
27 Jan 2014, 9:25 pm
27 Jan 2014, 10:26 pm
