You can't feed the world.

It's easy to dismiss the impact of The Marshall Plan when you don't know jack squat about economics.

It's easy to diminish the impact W. Edwards Deming had on Asia when you get your news from Kurt Loder.

Read a book kids...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wouldn't be more pissed off. The reason why I'm pissed off is that they are wealthy even though they are lazy...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Get out of your butt and start making some exercises, evil americans!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

EDIT: I'm just joking. Please don't take it seriously.

Beware! Minimun wages can create the evil monster unemployment!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I like Roman's posts. It's nice to hear an unbiased opinion...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wesmorris, you make some damn good points. I, however, did not intend to put so much negative charge on greed and laziness. I simply meant that if someone can get more for less, they'll almost always do it.

Thank you for correcting my USA & military budget blunder.

Here's an idea: let's use natural selection for determining 'laziness.'

Let's first define laziness as the amount of energy expended, roughly approximated by physical exertion and time spent on the job, in relation to how hungry the people are. For the purposes of statistical rigor, let's leave out anything else, such as what's made, who makes it, etc.

Here's my premise: people will do the least amount of work required of them for the greatest pay offs. Those who do not follow this rule may overwork themselves, or not work enough and starve.

So if there is someone in Africa who is too 'lazy' to carry water from the well, herd the cows, and sow grain (or whatever they do there), they will die.
In terms of physical exertion, the average African has a much harder life than the average westerner. Also, the pay offs for the African are much smaller. So the African must work more for less.

That's where people can get off calling an American 'lazy.'
I believe that protecting one's own resources rather than help out others when you are in a position to do so is considered selfish.

America is in a position to help out. We have a big military– no one's going to steal our food. Heck, we grow food for so cheap, the government pays farmers to not grow stuff. I think anger towards Americans comes from several places. One is jealousy, and another is America's sometimes callous attitude and tendency to support third world dictators, though we're the land of the free.

Hey, but if we keep the dictators in place, we get cheaper platanos (bananas). United Fruit used to be vicious.

With our current administration, there is a tendency to say one thing noble (let's liberate Iraq, I pledge 20 billion dollars to stop AIDS), and do another. I can understand anti-American sentiment.

 

Thank you. You do too.

I think that's a beautiful thing because I think that it's in that manner that resources are conserved in the big picture - in terms of meeting demand (reserving judgement of what that demand is (meaning I don't twist my analysis to judge you because you want the golden toilet). It both drives continual improvement and maximizes the satisfaction of demand.

Please note that I don't think that there should be no judgements. I simply think that to analyze the economic machine we have to see it for what it is. We can then contrain it as we deem fit. Artificial contraints are imposition of will onto the system. I think that's the necessity that I deem "politics", as if not any crime you could think of would be rampant.

Gotta be good for something.

I'll object to an extent somewhere below.

That's a good premise, you have to make sure though that you really consider what "pay offs" can entail. Any resource from coal to love. It is subjective value that motivates the individual.

That's a funky way to put it, but yeah I'm buying your premise I think.

Note however, that if they can convince someone else to do it, or steal the food, or provide some sort of other valued service for it, they won't.

But is that a fair measuring stick? If I work 100 hours a week at a computer does that make me lazy because I don't carry a mule for 10 miles over a week?

While on the emotional point I do agree with you, I have to ask you to consider the following:

What if you view them instead in terms of their contribution to the economy. What does the african, working harder for less, do to contribute to ME in the US? Do you think it's as much as I do for him? I mean in terms of my contribution to the economy. If by my actions and station, I impart $10 of value into the economy today (in excess of my pay) and he actually takes a negative value from it, economically, which is the better investment of future resources? I'd follow an abstraction of your notion of getting a bang for your buck and go with the guy who adds to the economy more than he takes from it.

I suppose that's a decent, though I believe - emotional - reason.

The economically wise have to seek a balance. Money has a time value. You have to make it work for you or it's no good. "protecting one's resources" is techinically "ensuring wise investements", which is highly selfish and highly productive for everyone involved.

And we do? I think the percentage for military spending is actually equivalent to the percentage of aid we provide in the world. Note that there is crossover as well, as one of the missions of the military is to provide some civil engineering and medical services to the countries in which we have installations. I've witnessed these operations first hand. I'm not positive on my percentage thing though. Correct me if you think it's wrong, or I'll try to look it up if you insist.

Like I've been saying though, it's not the quantity of food that's the thing. How do you get it where it needs to go with all the holes and barriers in the way? For now, you simply don't as they make it wasteful. What if you have a hole in the hose you use to put gas in your car? If you squeeze it to the maximum, all the gas goes to the ground. There is a point at which, exactly in the same way you said earlier about the efficiency of the individual, that you keep pouring on resources but it doesn't get any more people fed, so why waste the resources? Shit that was a bad explanation. I hope you saw a point in that mess.

The latter if an interesting predicament. Impossible choices make for odd bedfellows I'd say. Consider Sadaam for instance. 30 years ago, he offered the US what they needed because he met their political interests. Later, not so much... so much as to that he was perceived as a threat to national security (let's not get into it, maybe we can agree on at least the perception and avoid the other aspect of the argument for now, for the sake of maintaining the topic).

Can't argue with you there. It's messed up but put yourself in the position of the dipshit having to set the policy with 132023 lobbyists telling him how their children die from lack of potassium. *shrug* I'm not defending it, but I don't necessarily condemn it either, especially given who knows what other factors to consider in the scenario.

LOL. Please demonstrate ONE administration in the US who is better in this regard? And please note, Iraq has been liberated and is about to become sovereign. You can politicize that however you like, but the fact remains that on 6/30, some power transfers. Later, more power tranfers and if the current president's vision is fulfilled Iraq will be completely liberated in as short of a time as it can be done. I don't know about the 20 billion for aids. Are you sure it didn't happen? That would suck. I wonder about that 5 billion for hydrogen too. Hmm. Goddamn washington bastards.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well, it's understandable sure, but then again so is keeping dictators in power for banana prices eh?

 

the total income of one years tax in the USA could feed the entire world in wheat for their lifetime.

also, captolist countires are seriouly exploiting 3rd world countries.
workers in 3rd world countires get paid less then 50p a day (sometimes they get paid nothing, just food) to make major brand products.

ill give you one example. the actual (not replicas) footballs used in the world cup are sold for 60 POUNDS in western countires (about $100 ???) anyway, the people in asia who actually make THOUSANDS of pounds of footballs a day only make 50p a day, despite the fact the total bllas they made are worth thousands and western countries minimise the cost the poor countires can sell them (west buys 60 pound footballs for only £5 while it sells them for £60), while the price that the western country brands sell them is very high.

the idiots who buy nike trainers for a $100 dont know they were bought by Nike for like $5.

 

50p a day would make ~15$ a month
that ain't that bad. in Afganistan a school teacher two years ago got only 6$ a month

 

Finally another unbiased person!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What I've been saying for years. And Americans simply don't want to believe it, because they are in a very comfortable position...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yep, I never buy Nike. In fact, I never liked Nike, because it is a famous brand name (I don't like famous brand names, cause I like being different then most people). I like it even less when I found out that Nike has child-slave labour in China...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So, as US feeds poor countries, it should go poor too? Taxes go to fund things, like our police, military, Welfare.... We have our own poor to take care of.
And, yes, making Nike in some underdeveloped country is supposed to help that country. Export platforms like that are a usual thing that should lead to economic takeoff. It almost never worked, but at least it is an attempt. Other attempts are risky, too. Don't think that people who make these policies have less clue than sciforums posters. Don't be so skeptical. We already have middle class jobs migrating to India.
Underdeveloped countries need to establish more or less competent governments first. They need to educate their people, particularly women. This, of course, needs to be done with some sort of money. China had better luck by producing small cheap goods. Why can't others do that?

 

US has money to spare, not to mention that it has stolen a whole lot from other countries...

Sorry, but that is just not true. What can help 3rd world countries is:

• external investments: which causes immediate economic growth
• internal businesses: because with their own business, the money flows within the country and never outward, not to mention that it makes their economy grow substantially
• investment in education: which is basically from the first one (because it should probably come from external investments). With better education, people can have better jobs, and with better jobs their purchase power, productivity and their living standarts increases, which in turn increases productivity even more and, obviously, causes economic growth and better oportunity costs.

Yes, so that they can't have those better jobs right? No, just because it is our interest and because they don't have the proper education. Also, I don't think the rich countries "invest" in poor countries for the poor's sake. I think they do it because they know they can profit from poor people's work!

I think that's not so true. I can partially agree with you, but underdeveloped countries are underdeveloped for a variety of reasons which not very often includes the imcopetence of the government. It is true that their governments sometimes do stupid things, but all governments do! For instance, controlled rental!! It has destroyed many neighbourhoods in US, didn't it?

Back to the reasons for undeveloped countries.... Have you ever noted that most undeveloped countries are below the equator? This happens because the south was controlled by countries that had a predatory approach, while the north was controlled by countries that wanted economic development within their colonies. Reemeber in US north vs south? Exactly that.

Also, underdeveloped countries are more likely to have difficulty handling money because of lack of capital and, subsequently, small opportunity cost, which means that we have to, for instance, sacrifice our health for the sake of education. That furthermore causes obvious problems and then we suddenly are faced with having to take money off education and investing in health. That obviously causes a vicious circle, where we never have enough money to progress and thus making us dependent on external capital investments.

Wow... did I just said that?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry, but that is a steryotype. Do you know who is the Supreme Judge of the Brasilian Supreme Court? A 21 year old girl.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Better luck? Their purchase power is close to zero! How can the economy grow if the flow of money is so limited! They need to be educated, that's what they need!

 

Someone remind me of the numerical size of our deficit.... Plus to that, we owe UN (if I remember right).

Worked for South Korea.
Direct investment in form of loans, etc. encourages corruption, which is actually common in transitional societies.
Internal businesses need to be funded with capital, aided by efficient gov't policies, supplied with capable work force (at least somewhat educated.) This means, majority of the population can not be farmers (hard to do, requires convincing people, which goes again into education, providing technology, capital.) A competent gov't has to create usable infrastructure. A competent gov't is one that is legit, first of all. That comes from educated population. Besides, the population has to be educated well enough to accept the gov't reforms (that means population in villages, too).
I'm not a fan of external platforms, don't get me wrong. But it still is one of the options, and it works to some extent.
Educating women is just a stereotype? How do you control population growth? Not just women in cities, but women in villages, too! Grr. No there's no fully traditional country, but there are traditional groups of people in villages of transitional societies.

 

A few trillion, if I'm not mistaken. So what? You never pay it, and you will never be able to. America owns the IMF. You din't need to pay it, we do. Fair world, eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And any other deficit you may have is caused by this stupid "war on "terror"". The money the goverment is wasting with that could be used to better means. The only way the US government could estabilish a democracy in Iraq was by winning the Iraquis confidence and helping them out. Of course, they used he wrong strategy once again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Loans are bad in the long-run. And yeah, corruption is often "encouraged" because of the low income.

Yep, I already talked about all that...

Doesn't work much. Works better for 1st world countries, that benefits from the low-cost work force.

Read carefully what we said. You said: "They need to educate their people, particularly women." I interpreted it as if you said that women are uneducated compared to men. That's what I understood. I disagreed and said that women are already very educated and I gave an example of my own country: "Sorry, but that is a steryotype. Do you know who is the Supreme Judge of the Brasilian Supreme Court? A 21 year old girl." I guess there was a misunderstanding on my part caused by the dubious double-meaning of your sentence. Oh well...

Close your legs?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What do you mean by traditional?

 

Cannibalism.

We'll start with the terminally stupid, but healthy.

 

A traditional society is the one that lives by tradition. Meaning, a family has many children, preferring boys. Women are seen as those who stay home and raise children. Children are seen as source of income since they help on farms. In traditional society, most are farmers. A farmer either owns land inherited from parents, divided between him and brothers, or doesn't own land at all and is constantly in debt. There are other kinds of traditional societies like orthodox Jews (who don't farm, but have 12 kids per family), etc; there are different kinds of tradition in each group. A common trend, as I see, in traditional societies, is large amount of children per family, which is a bad thing for a poor nation. There are other aspects, such as small middle class, large lower class. A transitional society is one that has modern life in cities and traditional life in villages. For example, in India, the caste system was outlawed but is still strictly practiced in villages. It is important to control population growth so that the nation does not eat away everything it earns. Education is important for more efficient farming (farming in traditional ways is way too inefficient). In modern society, a child is an expence (schooling, etc), not a source of profit.

Not MY legs. Legs in African villages. And they have to be convinced first, that a woman is not just for leg-spreading. Would help control spread of AIDS, too.

 

Not MY legs. Legs in African villages. And they have to be convinced first, that a woman is not just for leg-spreading. Would help control spread of AIDS, too.

I am inclined to believe that women in the West have more sex then those in Africa. The West was really no different in population growth in the early 1900’s; it wasn't until population control began, and higher incomes came along with it; that population growth began to subside. AIDS isn't spread quickly in the West because of our healthcare system, and easy access to relatively cheap condoms, and Birth Control. These things don't exist in Africa, the problem is structural not societal.

 

Well, my point was, go convince traditional societies that condoms should be used, at least. Because the archbishop of NY(C?) (I don't remember what he's called but some important clergy man) is against birth control. Go convince them that they should not try to have 12 kids per family, is what I meant.

 

Go convince them that they should not try to have 12 kids per family, is what I meant.

How can we do that if most of their kids die through infant mortality? They have a lot of kids for a reason that escapes us here in the West. Mere survival! Surely one can say that having more kids makes you poorer, and it does. But to them they need that extra labour to make more money, or work the farms. It's a vicious cycle, and it existed in our European cultures as well, look at the industrial revolution in the UK for instance. You cannot reasonably expect population growth to go down without competent gov't, and economic empowerment of the average African. We in the West should be empowering the individual before the gov't, because with an empowered population the gov't has to change.

 

Biased! I know ya wanna do it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Listen to Undecided, he has some good points. I understand what you are saying, but there is a reason why African people behave in different ways then we do. There are environmental reasons as well as, probably, cultural reasons. Besides, we have condoms and they don't.

That's exactly what the government doesn't want!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hence our media...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Mr. Untruth

If Nike's factories are so bad, why do people work there? Simple, because it pays good. Maybe you should start up a friendly business in China instead of complaining.

"Yeah right.... do you work from 6:00am till 10:00pm? We do, and most of our money goes to taxes... "
Blame your government, not the U.S. And yes, Farmers in the US work those hours. The majority of the US used to work those hours but we have this really cool thing called technology......

"Maybe it is because of all that the US stole from other countries? "
And what did we steal? The British took over the east coast. We PURCHASED the entire MIDDLE of the United States. The West Coast we got from Mexico in a War. Parts of Arizona we PURCHASED. Alaska we PURCHASED. Stop your whining.
Speaking of stealing- do Brazilians speak the native indian tounge or do they speak portugeuse? I wonder why...........

"the governments are so biased..."
Wow! You finally got it! Its YOUR GOVERNMENT that is screwed up, not the U.S.

 

There's no such word. Maybe you meant "lie".
There's no reason to attack my self-concept...

Because they need to feed themselves and they have absolutely no alternatives.

What!?!?!? Like... do you even know what you are talking about!?!? Everyone knows how badly Nike pays their workers! Like... even in Maclean's there was an article about that! There was articles even aboput child slave labour, which of course, they deny....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Pays good... well, maybe you should go and live on a third world country and see how tough it is.

How? With which money? Maybe if i would steal and have slave labour like american companies and government, maybe then I would be able to have money to start a business...

Yeah right. Do you know what happened in the 60s. No, of course not. The americans bribed the militaries of all south american countries to implement dictatoriorship in the name of "national security" (once again). Our economy was getting better and better. We were having a lot of economic growth. The US looked at it, didn't like it and destroyed our economy with the same excuse they use nowdays to get oil in the middle east. :bugeye:

Money....?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is complete nonsense. What that has to do with anything? The Portuguese invaded our land and then created Brasil. We didn't invade or detroy any indians, the portuguese people did. That's obvious. They also stole most of our gold....

And I wasn't talking about territory, altough I would say you stole Mexico....

I was obviously talking about all governments. It shows everyone how biased and blind you are....