Screw terrorism, this is what we need to focus on! [Archive]

IRONxMortlock

12-06-2006, 03:24

Richest 2% own 'half the wealth'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm
Richest 2% own 'half the wealth'
By Andrew Walker
Economics correspondent, BBC World Service

The richest 2% of adults in the world own more than half of all household wealth, according to a new study by a United Nations research institute.

The report, from the World Institute for Development Economics Research at the UN University, says that the poorer half of the world's population own barely 1% of global wealth.

There have of course been many studies of worldwide inequality.

But what is new about this report, the authors say, is its coverage.

It deals with all countries in the world - either actual data or estimates based on statistical analysis - and it deals with wealth, where most previous research has looked at income.

What they mean by wealth in this study is what people own, less what they owe - their debts. The assets include land, buildings, animals and financial assets.

Different assets

The analysis shows, as have many other less comprehensive studies, striking divergences in wealth between countries.

Wealth is heavily concentrated in North America, Europe and some countries in the Asia Pacific region, such as Japan and Australia.

These countries account for 90% of household wealth.

The study also finds that inequality is sharper in wealth than in annual income.

And it uncovers some striking differences in the types of assets that dominate in different countries.

In less developed nations, land and farm assets are more important, reflecting the greater importance of agriculture in those economies.

In addition, the report says the weighting is the result of "immature" financial institutions, which make it much harder for people to have savings accounts or shares.

In contrast, some citizens of the rich countries have more debt than assets - making them, the report says, among the poorest in the world in terms of household wealth.

However, they are presumably better off in terms of what they consume than many people in developing countries.

Comprehensive

The survey is based on data for the year 2000. The authors say a more recent year would have involved more gaps in the data. As it is, many figures - especially for developing countries - have had to be estimated.

Nonetheless, the authors say it is the most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken.

Why does it matter? Because wealth serves as insurance against times when income tends to fall, such as unemployment, sickness or old age.

It is also a source of finance for small businesses, a particularly important point since it is the countries with lower levels of personal wealth which also tend to have weaker financial systems without the funds, ability or inclination to lend to small firms.

The report is not about policy recommendations.

But one of the authors, Professor Anthony Shorrocks, says it does draw attention to the importance of enhancing banking systems in developing countries to help generate the funds for business investment.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/6211250.stm

Published: 2006/12/05 17:21:57 GMT

© BBC MMVI

Helping to equitably redistribute the world's wealth and resources should be one of the highest priorities for humankind.

CrossLOPER

12-06-2006, 03:30

The rich... have money?!

Crazed Rabbit

12-06-2006, 03:34

Helping to equitably redistribute the world's wealth and resources should be one of the highest priorities for humankind.

What a nice way of putting theft.

Oh, and could we not get our undies in a bundie due to assumptions?

As it is, many figures - especially for developing countries - have had to be estimated.

Crazed Rabbit

Redleg

12-06-2006, 03:39

Richest 2% own 'half the wealth'

Helping to equitably redistribute the world's wealth and resources should be one of the highest priorities for humankind.

And how does one go about doing that? More important how does one accomplish such a thing and still maintain the drive to succeed in all mankind?

Then how does one accomplish such a redistribution. Do you base it upon need? Do you base it upon the individual's performance? What is the criteria for such a redistribution of wealth?

How do we prevent the corrupt government of the world from misallocating the wealth and holding it for themselves so that they can maintain power? (ie see the old Soviet Union or about any African Nation for exambles).

Is it a noble idea - sure. But is it one that mankind can develop into an equitable plan? Not in our lifetimes is my belief.

Del Arroyo

12-06-2006, 04:13

The article is based on the false premise that money is the key to succes and happiness.

Red Peasant

12-06-2006, 04:25

The article is based on the false premise that money is the key to succes and happiness.

Yeah, that's what rich people and their flunkies keep telling us. :beam:
(I agree BTW)

Unfortunately, when the rich-poor balance gets obscenely out of kilter then nasty things tend to happen, usually leading to the deaths of lots of mostly poor people. :no:

Crazed Rabbit

12-06-2006, 07:03

Unfortunately, when the rich-poor balance gets obscenely out of kilter then nasty things tend to happen, usually leading to the deaths of lots of mostly poor people. :no:

Any example or two? I guess that means the balance isn't too bad in the US, as poor people aren't being lined up and shot yet.

Crazed Rabbit

Strike For The South

12-06-2006, 07:05

Oh stop your complaining. There is always going to be a top dog and others trying to knock him off. Yes it sucks people go hungry every day and children die from simple curable illnesses but you know that has happend and always will happen. Anyone who thinks we can live in one big nation state where everyone is equall is a blithering idoit and there is no use aruguing with them becuase there usually idealestic college students. I wake up every morning and thank god I was born where I was and not in Africa or India or Holland or China. Not to mention redistrbution of wealth is a luaghable concept to begin with. You should earn what you get paid. You should toil over it through your own blood sweat and tears. I find the whole concept abhorrent and lofty.

BigTex

12-06-2006, 07:12

Yeah, that's what rich people and their flunkies keep telling us. :beam:
(I agree BTW)

Unfortunately, when the rich-poor balance gets obscenely out of kilter then nasty things tend to happen, usually leading to the deaths of lots of mostly poor people. :no:

But there is usually a good thing that comes from civil strife like that. The poor become richer and the rich are dethroned.

It's a utopean idea that we can redistribute wealth so that everyone is equal. But by doing so you destroy peoples drive, their ambition to do better. It has been said many times and many ways by many generations and across many cultures that struggle leads to greatness.

Gregoshi

12-06-2006, 07:24

You should earn what you get paid. You should toil over it through your own blood sweat and tears.
True, but there are those who don't earn what they get paid. Entertainers and sports figures are grossly overpaid for the most part. How about executives and CEOs who ruin a company and are then paid obscenely large sums of money to quit? Some of these people earn their money, but there are too many who don't.

IRONxMortlock

12-06-2006, 07:28

What a nice way of putting theft.
More than a little rich coming from someone who lives at the top of the global wealth curve due to historical and current theft and exploitation of the lands and resources of millions of people. :no:

And how does one go about doing that?
Is it a noble idea - sure. But is it one that mankind can develop into an equitable plan? Not in our lifetimes is my belief.

Perhaps not in our lifetimes but it is something we can all start working towards now so that our children and our children's children can live in a more equitable and peaceful world. The problem is when we just write the concept off as a nice, but impossible idea. That's how we can be sure that such a future will never occur. We need to acknowledge that while it will not be easy, this can be achieved. Once this occurs we’ll be on our way.

More important how does one accomplish such a thing and still maintain the drive to succeed in all mankind?
I guess you could say making the world more equitable would remove the drive for success but only if the accumulation of private wealth and greed is the yard stick of success. What if equality and peace was the gauge of success, would that not provide incentive and motivation?

Strike For The South

12-06-2006, 07:32

True, but there are those who don't earn what they get paid. Entertainers and sports figures are grossly overpaid for the most part. How about executives and CEOs who ruin a company and are then paid obscenely large sums of money to quit? Some of these people earn their money, but there are too many who don't.

Ah true some just get lucky. However the big picture shows in America if you work hard and keep your nose to the grindstone you will attain that which you desire. No one in this country needs redistribution becuase of a greedy aristocracy. There is no class system here you can do anytihing. I would also like to point out that many of those people you are refering to were born into poverty. The epitome of hard work.

Redleg

12-06-2006, 07:37

Perhaps not in our lifetimes but it is something we can all start working towards now so that our children and our children's children can live in a more equitable and peaceful world. The problem is when we just write the concept off as a nice, but impossible idea. That's how we can be sure that such a future will never occur. We need to acknowledge that while it will not be easy, this can be achieved. Once this occurs we’ll be on our way.

Again how does one go about accomplishing such a task? I would argue that it can not be achieved without resorting to a tyrannical form of world government. Why would I advocate a lessing of personal freedom and the equally important personal responsiblity because of an attempt to redistribute wealth?

I guess you could say making the world more equitable would remove the drive for success but only if the accumulation of private wealth and greed is the yard stick of success. What if equality and peace was the gauge of success, would that not provide incentive and motivation?

Man's development is from what factors?

Those factors determine the answer to your question here.

How does one motivate themselves when any extra effort to be productive has the same benefit as being non-productive? People tend to preform the standards that are presented to them. If high performers are reward the same as low performers, guess what happens?

Crazed Rabbit

12-06-2006, 09:16

More than a little rich coming from someone who lives at the top of the global wealth curve due to historical and current theft and exploitation of the lands and resources of millions of people.

I, nor any of my ancestors, had nothing to do with any such hogwash. Nor do they reside comfortably due to exploitation- they worked damned hard. I am where I am now not becuase of any alledged exploitation, but by hard work.

Nor does that excuse or justify more theft.

We need to acknowledge that while it will not be easy, this can be achieved. Once this occurs we’ll be on our way.
No. Such utopian dreams are not possible and destroying our societies in a futile effort to achieve such utopias is foolish.

I guess you could say making the world more equitable would remove the drive for success but only if the accumulation of private wealth and greed is the yard stick of success.
Guess what?- it is.

What if equality and peace was the gauge of success, would that not provide incentive and motivation?
For what? Giving away your money? The concept makes no sense- you'd destroy the world economy by taking away any incentive to work hard, and even a dillusion that equality was success would not get people working hard.

The entire ideology will never succeed because it fights human nature.

Crazed Rabbit

Sasaki Kojiro

12-06-2006, 10:06

The article is based on the false premise that money is the key to succes and happiness.

I don't know, if I was starving money for food would make me happy :balloon2:

Also, I'm sure most people in Africa do work very hard :inquisitive:

That said, I don't like this equal redistribition nonsense. But letting people starve while scooting around in your private jet is rather inhumane..

doc_bean

12-06-2006, 10:22

Also, I'm sure most people in Africa do work very hard :inquisitive:

I'm not sure how you meant that... (sarcasm or not ?)

It's probably always been this way, do you think castles and churches got build by distributing the wealth ?

Now I'm for equal distribution to a certain extent, but be realistic about it.

Bill gate sis using his vast fortune now to fund charity, if all that money was spread equally over the middle class they'd probably all just buy a bigger TV. Accumulation can be a bad thing, but not neccesarily.

Banquo's Ghost

12-06-2006, 10:55

I think the key to reconciling these viewpoints is not redistribution (as Redleg rightly notes, even if such a process was desirable, who would carry it out?) but equality of opportunity and level playing fields for local and global economic activity.

Africa is not poor because of fecklessness. It is poor partly because much of its natural resource wealth is not owned by its people, but by foreign powers that historically conquered and now economically own those resources. It is poor because the developed world makes very sure that it cannot sell the goods where it would out-produce us in the market place (largely agricultural products) due to protectionist measures that we impose. It is poor because we have ensured that the states of that country are indentured to us through debt, provided ostensibly for charitable purposes like feeding people, but actually to make sure their statesmen buy the arms we sell them and don't innovate to relieve their own hardships, by their own hand. Through struggling to overcome the challenges of survival without external aid, those countries would likely come to out-perform our own agriculture very quickly and lose their dependence on our aid.

Of course, sufficient blame must also be placely squarely where it belongs, at the feet of extraordinarily corrupt politicans and leaders of those countries. Again, aid fuels this corruption as does corporate interest in resources. The developed world has a vested interest in maintaining corruption, but the corruption is very much an integral plank of African politics. It's hard to see how it wll be rooted out.

Nonetheless, despite almost similar levels of corruption in China and India, they have progressed. So it is possible.

The other environmental factor that is almost unique to Africa is health. First malaria, and now HIV have decimated the working populations - can anyone imagine the impact of their levels of disease on western economies? Yet our pharmaceuticals spend approximately thirty times more on R&D for cosmetics than they do on HIV/AIDS research. If we changed that figure around, and supplied inexpensive drugs to Africa, we would do them a hell of lot more good than trying to redistribute wealth and maintain the aid dependencey culture. Of course, we'd create another economic monster to threaten our cosy world view alongside China and India.

AIDS not aid.

As for inequality in western countries themselves, that's a matter of education, IMO and legislation to set a level playing field. Redistribution doesn't work for all the reasons previously set out. However, corporations and rich individuals are able to exempt themselves from the constraints that apply to ordinary people - like taxation, or national laws (by moving between jurisdictions, for example). By definition, being rich provides one with many more opportunities to get richer - most importantly of all, through gaining a better education.

If one is going to utilise taxation at all, use it to fund the highest quality education for all it is possible to afford. Then people will make their own way.

macsen rufus

12-06-2006, 13:33

Hmm yes - what BG said :2thumbsup:

A major factor is trade terms, and the whole WTO set-up, serious protectionism in the rich countries (EU and US farm subsidies are an absolute scandal, for instance). It's not a simple case of "we're richer because we work harder". The poorest people I've met work a darn sight harder than the richest (I'm talking $2-a-week poor here, not benefit system poor, BTW) The old adage is right:

How to make rich people work harder? Pay them more.
How to make poor people work harder? Pay them less.

At the end of the day, a rich man has no more stomachs than a poor man, needs as much food, water, fresh air etc. It's not just about inequality - control of cash gives control of resources, and it's not so much cash that needs to be redistributed as access to essential resources. I can't remember the exact figure but approximately 1 billion people still don't have access to safe, potable water supplies. That's hardly challenging, technically, so why can't we fix it???

I am where I am now not becuase of any alledged exploitation, but by hard work.

But would you able to stay there if you had to walk miles for fresh water every day? The point being that many people are held down by things beyond their control that no amount of hard work on their part will ever alleviate, so this sanctimonious "the poor deserve to be poor" attitude won't wash. Lift some of these burdens (yes, I agree, including government corruption) then people will have more chance at a fair stab. But I tell you, if the playing field really were level, our comfortable western lives would be a lot less comfortable.

Vladimir

12-06-2006, 16:20

And another thing: Tall, attractive people tend to have more mates. This is unbelievable, how dare they! :furious3: Not everyone can be fortunate enough to have inherited good genes from their parents. Why should, ugly people suffer such indignation? If we can’t provide cosmetic surgery to these poor unfortunates surely we can hobble and mutilate the tallest and pretty among us. Oh the humanity! :fainting:

Sasaki Kojiro

12-06-2006, 17:54

Blodrast

12-06-2006, 18:29

It so DOES make a huge difference where you're born, for example.
Born in one of the 1st world countries, and you have the possibility to live a decent life. Born in Africa or any other 3rd world country, and you have the right to a miserable life. Oh yeah, sure, 1 in a few thousands of those manages to get out and lead a decent life - in a 1st world country.

So the point is that those born in "civilized" countries are first of all lucky. It's only after that that the working hard part comes in effect.
As stated before, I'll bet many African people work their butts off, yet they will never own a TV, a computer, a car, or even AC. Hell, they'll prolly die of stupid diseases that no longer exist in the "civilized" world, because they don't have access to decent hospitals and drugs and such...

Remember's Sasaki (iirc) game with the simulation of the life of a girl in Tanzania, or some such ?

So please, any of you, don't go on a high horse saying you are where you are only because of your hard work. If you were born in a different place, you wouldn't have been able to have everything you have now, no matter how hard you worked.
Nobody is denying that you are working hard - and kudos to you for that. But we have to keep things in perspective - an American/Canadian/Brit/French youth has a completely different choice of prospects than an African kid, or one from some of the other poor countries.

macsen rufus

12-06-2006, 18:54

@ Vladimir -- poor parallel.

Tall, attractive people tend to have more mates

Even then some mess up the dating game and do a lot worse than some squat, balding, pug-nosed types.

If the world economy truly worked as a "free" market then wage competition would tend to iron things out. Cheap imports from low wage economies would undercut wages in our "rich" countries. But they don't -- because we impose trade barriers, import quotas, protectionist subsidies, and immigration controls etc. Commodity prices depend more on who gambles what in Wall St than on how hard miners, growers etc work. We expect to keep our high-paid jobs, buy cheap goods from abroad, and still complain when Johny Foreigner can make stuff cheaper than us, even though he's working double our hours for a tenth or less of our income and outcompeting us. If we're going to trumpet the free market, let's make it really free and stop all subsidies, tariffs and barriers, and just to show willing let the EU and US go first. Then we'll see who deserves what they get, or not.

Major Robert Dump

12-06-2006, 19:22

Can someone send me $40 please?

Vladimir

12-06-2006, 19:27

@ Vladimir -- poor parallel.

Even then some mess up the dating game and do a lot worse than some squat, balding, pug-nosed types.

That was part of the point of the word you italicized.

Even so you're proving my point. Why should people with superior dating skills get more women? Each according to his need right? Ugly people need lovin’ too.

Don Corleone

12-06-2006, 19:28

Can someone send me $40 please?Done! :laugh4: I have a bridge to sell you if you believe that one.

I agree with BG and with Redleg. I would add a caveat though, that basic human needs should be above and beyond market forces. A bowl of rice should not be a commidity, it should be universal. A steak? Sure. But this planet has too much money and too much food for children to starve to death. One day I'm going to have explain my capitalista views to Jesus, and I think it's here that he would agree I've drawn a fair line. Everyone should have a basic right to rudimentary fulfillment of their most basic needs. Everyone does not have a right to high-definition TV's, Playstation 3's and digital cable.

Redleg

12-06-2006, 19:42

Done! :laugh4: I have a bridge to sell you if you believe that one.

I agree with BG and with Redleg. I would add a caveat though, that basic human needs should be above and beyond market forces. A bowl of rice should not be a commidity, it should be universal. A steak? Sure. But this planet has too much money and too much food for children to starve to death. .

If one was to seek redistribution of goods to insure that the world is adequately feed - that is a goal that no one should find fault with. I to agree that the amount of food commidities should be treated as a basic need to life for all. Surplus from nations should be given freely to those nations that have not the ability to adequately feed their population.

yesdachi

12-06-2006, 19:59

We all share the same origin but some of us have ascended, not thru godly intervention but because of the effort put forth by our ancestors, to civilization while others of us have remained stagnant in the past. Because of my good fortune of being born in the US do I have some kind of responsibility to help others who have not helped themselves advance past their stone age? Should I redistribute my wealth to some country or tribe that cannot even get along with its neighbor because of their color or religion when I am encouraged by the laws my forefathers devised to ensure religious freedom and color equality. There is a common trait among the most prosperous and civilized people, the ability to work, trade, live and integrate well with others. Our laws have been made to promote equality, freedom and fairness to everyone, should we redistribute anything to those that can’t even meet the basic principals we have built our successful and civilized societies on?

Our, for profit, governments and corporations have tried their hardest to take advantage of these backwater countries for their resources but that is not an excuse for their inability to even work well with themselves or to treat members of their own society as equals or with respect. How can equally redistributing the wealth of civilized, tolerant and helpful countries to countries stuck in the past that hate and kill and oppress be a priority for humankind.

Not every country is equal and if those less fortunate countries choose to follow the footsteps of the advanced and civilized countries then we should encourage them as best we can but if they choose to continue hating, killing, oppressing and opposing the more advanced countries then it will only lead to their doom. The only thing of mine that I think I should equally redistribute is a smile. :smile:

Banquo's Ghost

12-06-2006, 20:50

Blodrast

12-06-2006, 21:08

I kinda agree with a slight variation of yesdachi's post: yes, the govt's of most of those countries are so corrupt, that most likely giving them help would not reach the actual population. We need to make the distinction, as it was already pointed out, between the gov't, and the people. I agree with yesdachi's post if it refers to the governments of those countries. I disagree with yesdachi's post if it refers to the people of those countries.

Therefore, if there were to be a redistribution of, say, food, the solution would somehow have to make it get directly to the people, not just give it to the gov't, because, more than likely, it wouldn't reach the people. Of course, this makes things all the more complicated.

Moreover, one cannot really blame the people for not being able to overthrow their government if "they don't like it", to justify why they don't really "deserve" our help, if they don't help themselves first.

yesdachi

12-06-2006, 22:13

yesdachi, are you aware that the above paragraph is almost an exact summary of the position of the British government at the commencement of the Irish Potato Famine?
I wont pretend to completely understand the Irish Potato Famine or the relationship between the British and the Irish but I do know that it was a strained relationship and that the Irish, in the way they ran their countries politics, land holdings and import/export laws were behind and needed to change if they wanted to keep up with the rest of the civilized world. Sadly it seems change was thrust upon the Irish. I am intrigued by the topic, perhaps I will do a little more reading this evening.

I kinda agree with a slight variation of yesdachi's post: yes, the govt's of most of those countries are so corrupt, that most likely giving them help would not reach the actual population. We need to make the distinction, as it was already pointed out, between the gov't, and the people. I agree with yesdachi's post if it refers to the governments of those countries. I disagree with yesdachi's post if it refers to the people of those countries.

Therefore, if there were to be a redistribution of, say, food, the solution would somehow have to make it get directly to the people, not just give it to the gov't, because, more than likely, it wouldn't reach the people. Of course, this makes things all the more complicated.

Moreover, one cannot really blame the people for not being able to overthrow their government if "they don't like it", to justify why they don't really "deserve" our help, if they don't help themselves first.
Of course there are good people in some of the “bad” countries lead by corrupt governments, but those people are the ones that need to oppose the corrupt government before they should be given any handouts. The oppressed people could easily ask those sympathetic to their cause to assist them in overthrowing their corrupt government but they need to be the ones that want change. Our society was built thru struggle and change our ancestors threw off the chains of oppression and chaos to form the civilization we enjoy today, theirs didn’t, they need to want that struggle and change or we would only be replacing one corrupt government with another. A working civilization is not created with a magic wand but with desire for freedom, respect and equality. If the people don’t want that then I don’t understand why we would bother helping them.

Blodrast

12-06-2006, 23:57

Of course there are good people in some of the “bad” countries lead by corrupt governments, but those people are the ones that need to oppose the corrupt government before they should be given any handouts. The oppressed people could easily ask those sympathetic to their cause to assist them in overthrowing their corrupt government but they need to be the ones that want change. Our society was built thru struggle and change our ancestors threw off the chains of oppression and chaos to form the civilization we enjoy today, theirs didn’t, they need to want that struggle and change or we would only be replacing one corrupt government with another. A working civilization is not created with a magic wand but with desire for freedom, respect and equality. If the people don’t want that then I don’t understand why we would bother helping them.

I am afraid I'll have to disagree, it's not that simple. People wanting the change does not mean that they can get it jsut by revolting or such. It's simplistic to think that way.
And, forgive me if I say so, but the US had a relatively easy time getting from under the British reign because the Brits were some 3000 miles or more away, and logistics kinda sucked 200 years ago, if you know what I mean.
It's not as "easy" (please note the quotes, okay?) for some poor African people to simply "take arms", when the dictator and his military are right there. Also, with all due respect, I think you underestimate the paranoia of dictators in general.
Do you think Kim Jong Il would be so simple to dethrone, as "people taking arms" ?
I sure hope you're realistic enough to realize the answer is "no".
The same stands for all dictatorships, my friend. If there's one thing a dictator is always careful about, is crushing and anticipating all potential means of opposition - and that's the first thing they do when they get in power.

So, that doesn't mean the people don't want the change. They may not even be allowed to say so... don't take for granted the freedom of speech you can afford, it's not present in all countries. But again, that doesn't mean they wouldn't want the change.

Moreover, let me be a bit sarcastic and mean here: obviously your leader shared my opinions, because the US invaded Iraq precisely to "free" the Iraqi people, right ?
If he thought they could just sort it out on their own, then he wouldn't have invaded, right?
IIRC, you agree with the "reason" presented so candidly for the invasion in Iraq, bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people.

So how can you both claim that people should free themselves, but at the same time support the war in Iraq, which was (supposedly) necessary precisely to bring freedom to the Iraqis because they obviously couldn't do it themselves ??

IRONxMortlock

12-07-2006, 01:12

Again how does one go about accomplishing such a task? I
would argue that it can not be achieved without resorting to a tyrannical
form of world government. Why would I advocate a lessing of personal
freedom and the equally important personal responsibility because of an
attempt to redistribute wealth?

I agree that ultimately this would require a world government but I don't see why it would have to be totalitarian. I know these kinds of socialistic ideals have a rather bad history with dictatorial governments but I put this down
mostly due to the violent revolutions which spawned them. Relatively egalitarian systems have developed without such revolution. E.g Australia
circa 1970's or Sweden.

It is a slightly improved version of this kind of equality I'd like to see but on a global scale, not some world where everything is commonly owned and we all have an equal share. I see now that I didn’t make myself very clear. I probably should have clarified this at the beginning considering the "with us or against us" world of absolutes that often pervades current thinking. This (along with the environment, world peace and gathering in dark chambers with other liberal elitists to work towards destroying freedom and everything that Crazed Rabbit knows, loves and believes in :beam: ) is one of my pet issues and I had to hurriedly type something out the second I saw the article before work called me away.

I envision a world where all people have the same opportunities. Currently
half of the world, nearly 3 billion people, lives on less than $2/day. A
tiny proportion of others however make $50,000+/day. It is this kind of gross
inequality that needs to be solved.

I wish I had a nice simple answer to this problem but I don’t believe a simple solution exists. Instead it will require an effort on multiple fronts. Here’re some ideas I’ve been thinking of:

* The free market is most certainly exacerbating the problem but that is the system we’re are being more and more forced into in the west. As consumers of the products of the poor perhaps we can start to work within the current system and only demand products which are made by workers who receive a decent wage. Would this have any effect?

* How about drastically increased foreign aid to be distributed under close supervision so that those in need are the greatest benefactor? This aid could be in the form of providing the poor with credit so they can have a chance to regain control of their own lives as well as ensuring every person on earth has access to food (the world actually produces a surplus of food at the moment, it is how it is distributed that results in people going without), clean water and medical aid.

* Greater education for all people into the plight of those on earth living in abject poverty. Programs like Real Lives (http://www.educationalsimulations.com/) are a great start to this process. Yesdachi showed us in this thread that social-Darwinism is a concept that people still believe in. I used to believe the same until I had the opportunity to live and travel in some of the poorest countries on earth. This radically altered my perspective on humanity in general and I believe by teaching people about the realities of what life is like for the poor, others will be able to empathise more readily and thus become more willing to share.

* Something more controversial; what about a salary cap? Does anyone on earth need to make, I don’t know let’s pick something arbitrary, more than $500,000 per year? Surely such an income is more than sufficient to provide that person with all they will ever need and more. Perhaps if these 500Kers make more than their cap the extra would go towards helping the poor of the world? If such generosity was regarded as the ultimate form of success then doing so would reward the individual with the kind of respect sports stars are currently afforded in our societies.

Am I on the right path here or will these ideas lead to the destruction of civilisation?

Strike For The South

12-07-2006, 03:13

Why should we all be equal?

Don Corleone

12-07-2006, 04:17

I don't think we should be channelling payments to corrupt 3rd world dictators. I don't think everyone is entitled to an equal standard of living. There's only one way to pull that off, everyone equally miserable. But where matters of life & death are concerned: food, medicine, shelter... there are basic human rights and needs that must be addressed. As a Christian, I cannot think of a way to come to any other conclusion. Jesus explicitly stated this repeatedly in the bible. What do you folks think that whole "As surely as you did this for the least of these, you did it for me" was all about?

I'm all about the free market when it comes to just about anything else. But basic items of survival, these we cannot deny to people because their parents fought a stupid war, or because they have bad governments. I do not believe in wealth redistribution, and if people don't have as good a standard of living as my neighbors do, well I'm sorry. Get your collective act together. But they have a right to a standard of living.

Crazed Rabbit

12-07-2006, 07:11

I agree Don, but we should take care to prevent slimy dictators from controling the food supply and to make sure aid gets directly to the people. Of course, making the world more capitalistic by removing agricultural tariffs would help third world farmers.

I wont pretend to completely understand the Irish Potato Famine or the relationship between the British and the Irish but I do know that it was a strained relationship and that the Irish, in the way they ran their countries politics, land holdings and import/export laws were behind and needed to change if they wanted to keep up with the rest of the civilized world. Sadly it seems change was thrust upon the Irish. I am intrigued by the topic, perhaps I will do a little more reading this evening.

As I understand it, it was the British who ran Ireland, and the British who kept on exporting food from Ireland as Irish people were eating grass.

One Q: What do you mean by medicine as a basic human right, Don?

Crazed Rabbit

IRONxMortlock

12-07-2006, 07:59

In the countries I've visited which would be considered dictatorships it appears as though foreign aid is getting through to the people it was intended for. Of course there's a part that will always get stuck on someone's fingers, but this happens in western democracies also.

To give an example, on my last trip to Vietnam I had the opportunity to discuss this topic with some AusAid project managers. Basically these guys work directly with local NGO's to whom the aid is distributed. They continuously monitor the projects which are being funded by keeping track of their accounts and evaluating each project's effectiveness. It appeared to be a sound system and the aid was getting through to those in need.

I don't think the mere presence of a dictatorship should be a reason not to send aid provided sufficient care is taken to ensure the cash gets through to the right folks.

I just found some more information on the original report.

Some Key points:

Those with assets of $500,000 could consider themselves to be among the richest 1 per cent in the world. Those with net assets of $2,200 per adult were in the top half of the wealth distribution.

The richest 10 per cent of adults accounted for 85 per cent of assets. The bottom 50 per cent of the world’s adults owned barely 1 per cent of global wealth.

In terms of wealth distribution the US was among the most unequal, whereas Japan had one of the lowest levels of inequality. Britain ranked with Russia, Indonesia and Pakistan in wealth inequality.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2488836,00.html
Richest tenth own 85% of world's assets
David Brown

Where the wealth is

The richest 2 per cent of adults own more than half the world’s wealth, according to the most comprehensive study of personal assets.

Among the largest economies, Britain boasted the third-highest average wealth of $126,832 (£64,172) per adult, after the United States and Japan, a United Nations development research institute found.

Those with assets of $500,000 could consider themselves to be among the richest 1 per cent in the world. Those with net assets of $2,200 per adult were in the top half of the wealth distribution.

Although global income was distributed unequally, the spread of wealth was more skewed, according to the study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the UN University.

“Wealth is heavily concentrated in North America, Europe and high-income AsiaPacific countries. People in these countries collectively hold almost 90 per cent of total world wealth,” the report said.

Researchers defined wealth as the value of physical and financial assets minus debts.

The richest 10 per cent of adults accounted for 85 per cent of assets. The bottom 50 per cent of the world’s adults owned barely 1 per cent of global wealth.

Among high-income nations, the amounts varied from $37,000 per person in New Zealand to $86,369 in Germany and $109,418 in the Netherlands.

In terms of wealth distribution the US was among the most unequal, whereas Japan had one of the lowest levels of inequality. Britain ranked with Russia, Indonesia and Pakistan in wealth inequality.

James Davies, Professor of Economics at the University of Western Ontario, and one of the authors of the report, said: “Income inequality has been rising for the past 20 to 25 years and we think that is true for inequality in the distribution of wealth.

“There is a group of problems in developing countries that make it difficult for people to build assets, which are important, since life is so precarious.”

The gulf between rich and poor nations has long concerned politicians and economists, who say that it is one of the biggest bars to development.

Household wealth in 2000 was valued at $125 trillion, equivalent to about three times total global production, or $20,500 a person, according to The World Distribution of Household Wealth report.

Average wealth in the US was $143,727 a person in 2000, and in Japan, $180,837, it said.

In India the figure was $1,100, in Indonesia per capita wealth was $1,400, and in Zimbabwe, $1,465. The Democratic Republic of Congo came last with $180.

Professor Davies said that there were some hopeful signs: China and India, developing rapidly, were gaining wealth.

In countries such as Bangladesh, the spread of microcredit institutions was helping to increase personal wealth. In others, registration programmes were allowing the poor to own land for the first time, he said.

Anthony Shorrocks, the institute’s director, said: “Despite its rapid growth, China does not yet feature among the super-rich, because average wealth is modest and evenly spread by international standards.

“However, China is already likely to have more wealthy residents than our data reveals, and membership of the super-rich seems set to rise fast in the next decade.”

13,568,229: number of dollar millionaires in 2000

499: number of dollar billionaires in 2000

Abokasee

12-07-2006, 08:54

We (britan) are only linked with the same amount of russia because our goverment taxes are off the bloody planet! you even get taxed when you ******* die!, and the police system is ****** up serious in one town, man got mugged, phoned the police they laughed at him down the phone and bristol, withywood you can walk the whole way round it and theres a 1/5 in getting mugged:smash: :smash: :smash: :smash: :smash: :smash:
https://img183.imageshack.us/img183/1927/babycryui5.jpg:whip:

However africans really do have bad you got rape, you got dicatorship, (communism isn't that bad, I myself are -democratict-communist a goverment which both ideas... but the way humans, thats a long reach) you got dieseasses, you famine, you got war, you got HIV, you got no dental care, you got nothing virtually, you got forced child labour not as much as columbia, but still thats well out of order.

Don Corleone

12-07-2006, 14:37

One Q: What do you mean by medicine as a basic human right, Don?

Crazed Rabbit

I mean that everyone should have access to basic medical care. They should still have to pay for it, but essentially, they should have an open-ended credit limit with regards to how much care they receive.

So, if a 78 year old lady on a fixed income needs a certain heart medication, but she can't afford it, she should be able to get it filled anyway. The cost of it should run against her estate. If upon the settlement of her estate, her medical providers still have unpaid bills, they should be able to take a tax credit for the unpaid amount. This would solve two problems:

-"Fake" destitute seniors who are in reality trying to shield their estate's value for their heirs

-Seniors having to stop taking medications they need to survive because they cannot afford them.

Likewise, we need to come up with a way to distribute life saving drugs for AIDS, malaria and other killer diseases, regardless of how destitute the people receiving them are. Do YOU have it in you to send an 8 year old child with AIDS who walked 20 miles to get medicine because they can't help bolster Pfeizer's profit margin? I believe drug companies should get paid, and I don't think everyone should have access to every new experimental drug and procedure that's out there. But I don't think we should be denying people access to lifesaving drugs and procedures, based solely on their ability to pay cash up front.

Redleg

12-07-2006, 15:25

I agree that ultimately this would require a world government but I don't see why it would have to be totalitarian. I know these kinds of socialistic ideals have a rather bad history with dictatorial governments but I put this down
mostly due to the violent revolutions which spawned them. Relatively egalitarian systems have developed without such revolution. E.g Australia
circa 1970's or Sweden.

Call me cyncial but a one world government will not be a "kind" government, nor will it be able to allow the current freedom of expression that many democratic states have. Primarily to insure equality of all, the government will have no choice but to put down dissent with its programs. This does not equate to a government that allows freedoms.

It is a slightly improved version of this kind of equality I'd like to see but on a global scale, not some world where everything is commonly owned and we all have an equal share. I see now that I didn’t make myself very clear. I probably should have clarified this at the beginning considering the "with us or against us" world of absolutes that often pervades current thinking. This (along with the environment, world peace and gathering in dark chambers with other liberal elitists to work towards destroying freedom and everything that Crazed Rabbit knows, loves and believes in :beam: ) is one of my pet issues and I had to hurriedly type something out the second I saw the article before work called me away.

Oh I didn't assume that with your postion. I assumed you wanted to reallocate wealth.

I envision a world where all people have the same opportunities. Currently
half of the world, nearly 3 billion people, lives on less than $2/day. A
tiny proportion of others however make $50,000+/day. It is this kind of gross
inequality that needs to be solved.

If that 50,000 a day is being done by the individual making investiments in others - how is that a problem? I ask purely from the capitialist view of the world. Now if that individual was investing in others as a method to insure others are not advancing, I would tend to agree that it needs to be solved. But this postion doesn't explain away individauls such as Bill Gates, who built a company up on his own - allowed his employees to invest in the company, and donates a substanial amount of money to charity.

I wish I had a nice simple answer to this problem but I don’t believe a simple solution exists. Instead it will require an effort on multiple fronts. Here’re some ideas I’ve been thinking of:

* The free market is most certainly exacerbating the problem but that is the system we’re are being more and more forced into in the west. As consumers of the products of the poor perhaps we can start to work within the current system and only demand products which are made by workers who receive a decent wage. Would this have any effect?

The free market is the only fair market for the consumer. The consumer can influence the market by demanding just what you suggested. Now I am an advocate of few governmental regulations in the market, so while I like the free market as a consumer, I understand that certain aspects of that market are inheriently prone to abuse. In this area minor adjustments to many western nation's regulations will help.

* How about drastically increased foreign aid to be distributed under close supervision so that those in need are the greatest benefactor? This aid could be in the form of providing the poor with credit so they can have a chance to regain control of their own lives as well as ensuring every person on earth has access to food (the world actually produces a surplus of food at the moment, it is how it is distributed that results in people going without), clean water and medical aid.

Okay - where will the money come from? Nice idea to increase foreign aid but when one begins to look at where that money is being spent - one begins to realize that the controls on foreign aid are non-existant. Governments tend to take care of governments first, which actually leads to continued problems. Now the food issue I agree with. However a lot of issue on food distribution is not just from those nations with excess food, but many developing nations do not want to recieve the grains. Some of the reasons for rejecting the food aid are sound for many of these countries where the genetic alteralations could choke out native grains if not distributed probably. Others reasons are not as sound.

* Greater education for all people into the plight of those on earth living in abject poverty. Programs like Real Lives (http://www.educationalsimulations.com/) are a great start to this process. Yesdachi showed us in this thread that social-Darwinism is a concept that people still believe in. I used to believe the same until I had the opportunity to live and travel in some of the poorest countries on earth. This radically altered my perspective on humanity in general and I believe by teaching people about the realities of what life is like for the poor, others will be able to empathise more readily and thus become more willing to share.

That requires one to have a willingness to learn. Not all can see past their own sphere of self-preservation to learn about the problems of others.

* Something more controversial; what about a salary cap? Does anyone on earth need to make, I don’t know let’s pick something arbitrary, more than $500,000 per year? Surely such an income is more than sufficient to provide that person with all they will ever need and more. Perhaps if these 500Kers make more than their cap the extra would go towards helping the poor of the world? If such generosity was regarded as the ultimate form of success then doing so would reward the individual with the kind of respect sports stars are currently afforded in our societies.

Salary caps are not the problem for the most part. Those that make over that amount in income generally do it from investments or in the case of corporate CEO's the stock options that their companies pay them.

Am I on the right path here or will these ideas lead to the destruction of civilisation?

Some adjustments in the world society needs to happen - that I can agree with. Some of your ideas might even bear fruit to bring about a more equatible world society. I just find the premise of an one world government to bring about such a change to be distasteful because to bring about such a change it will initially have to be a benevolt dictorship of some type. To bring about ecomonic equality for all - happens to equate to reducations of freedoms for all in my opinion. I am more in the camp of bring about equality of opporunity for all. Provide the basic necessities of life to all is a good idea, one that I can even support. Provide adequate food stuff for all so that no-one has to suffer from hunger, Provide adequate medicial care facialities that provide basic health care to all, Provide a base level of education to all, all of these are basically good ideas. The problem however is that many nations do not want to provide such basic services for their people. Even in the more advance nations we have problems providing such services for all.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-07-2006, 15:25

Fe-man:

A couple of points for consideration:

1. One aspect of economics that you fail to address, at least so far, is its dynamic character.

Implicit in all of your points regarding the imbalance of wealth is the assumption that wealth is a "zero sum" commodity. Were that the case, all of us would have been locked, for millenia, in competition for the same tribal caves and good hunting/forage areas.

You are well aware that wealth is creatable, therefore, but your assessments of inequity do not account for the overall improvement of the entirety. The old saw about "a rising tide lifts all boats" has at least some applicability. If all persons (on average) experience a growth in wealth of 5% while the (on average) growth in costs is 4.9% or less, have not all persons improved their positions? Is this not a valid tool for improvement? Must the rich be less rich for you to have a better life than before?

2. Wealth is relative. For all persons possessing $500k+ to be viewed as wealthy, their wealth would have to exceed costs. As you are probably aware, a US couple making $110k per annum with only $500k in their retirement accounts is going to take a lifestyle hit in retirement -- costs are vastly different. The person surviving on $2/day is not living in an area where that $2 represents less than 3 hour's rental on a typical appartment.

I am not trying to argue that $2/day is appropriate, but you need to index your wealth #s with cost #s in the same region.

You cannot simply scale them all together and produce meaningful statistics, since calculating the degrees of freedom is NOT just a mathematical premise here -- there is NO chance for all individuals (dtat points) to appear in each of the statistical conditions, save by purposefully disconnecting the statistics from reality.

Note:

Wealth inequality, especially where socio-political conditions create the impresssion among a populace that there is NO meaningful opportunity for the individual to rise above their current conditions, is both a well-spring of terrorism and a source of ongoing problems in most/all cultures. Working to redress this -- on some level -- IS a means of combatting terrorism and does not therefore count as something to be done INSTEAD.

Don C:

I hate the thought of government being involved in the noble goals you suggest -- I don't trust government not to enact a bloated mess instead of the "safety net" features you suggest. Your goals are laudable, and working toward them would very much address some of the concerns Fe-man is hitting on in this thread.

Idaho

12-07-2006, 17:45

Good post by BG.

Yesdachi, however, really needs to take a read of Guns, Germs and Steel. Get you off this manifest destiny trip.

As for equality. Remove tarrifs and import restrictions from the south to sell to the north. And stop controlling cash crops. Do you realise how much of your cup of Starbucks coffee goes to the person who grows the stuff? And who in that supply chain lives in abject poverty? Is that right?

yesdachi

12-07-2006, 20:13

I am afraid I'll have to disagree, it's not that simple. People wanting the change does not mean that they can get it jsut by revolting or such. It's simplistic to think that way.
And, forgive me if I say so, but the US had a relatively easy time getting from under the British reign because the Brits were some 3000 miles or more away, and logistics kinda sucked 200 years ago, if you know what I mean.
It's not as "easy" (please note the quotes, okay?) for some poor African people to simply "take arms", when the dictator and his military are right there. Also, with all due respect, I think you underestimate the paranoia of dictators in general.
Do you think Kim Jong Il would be so simple to dethrone, as "people taking arms" ?
I sure hope you're realistic enough to realize the answer is "no".
The same stands for all dictatorships, my friend. If there's one thing a dictator is always careful about, is crushing and anticipating all potential means of opposition - and that's the first thing they do when they get in power.

So, that doesn't mean the people don't want the change. They may not even be allowed to say so... don't take for granted the freedom of speech you can afford, it's not present in all countries. But again, that doesn't mean they wouldn't want the change.

Moreover, let me be a bit sarcastic and mean here: obviously your leader shared my opinions, because the US invaded Iraq precisely to "free" the Iraqi people, right ?
If he thought they could just sort it out on their own, then he wouldn't have invaded, right?
IIRC, you agree with the "reason" presented so candidly for the invasion in Iraq, bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people.

So how can you both claim that people should free themselves, but at the same time support the war in Iraq, which was (supposedly) necessary precisely to bring freedom to the Iraqis because they obviously couldn't do it themselves ??
I agree with practically everything you have said :bow:. Its not that simple, I am looking at things in a simplistic way but I am not trying to write a detailed novel on the subject, just convey my thoughts. The US did have a pretty easy time removing the British yolk (in relation to some other revolutions), but we did express a desire to revolt, luckily there were others to assist us in our quest for freedom. Similarly the US and other civilized countries are available to assist those that request it. Korea is a bit different because of his crazy iron grip on the people and the threat he can impose on others, the French didn’t have to worry about being nuked by the British when helping the revolting colonies.

I don’t mind your sarcasm and meanness, seems more like the truth. :wink: I did support the Invasion of Iraq at first because of the WMD’s (and because I haven’t liked Saddam since before round 1, I need a villain) but without finding the WMD’s I have had to switch my support to fixing what we broke by invading. I would not have supported just simply removing Saddam, we should have supported whoever we wanted to replace Saddam and not created a void like we did. But now that we have created a void and made a mess we should pick up the mess and we might as well spread a little democracy while we are at it.

People that want freedom should fight to free themselves and people that sympathize with them and support them should assist them. I can simultaneously say that people should want it for themselves and support our efforts in Iraq because there are people there that desire freedom and equality. Iraq is a bit different to the situation we have been discussing because they were not looking to have what we have, equally redistributed, they were actively opposing us, our allies and the UN, we went to war with them and left a complicated situation in our wake.

Yesdachi, however, really needs to take a read of Guns, Germs and Steel. Get you off this manifest destiny trip.
I think that Jared makes some good points in his book but today is different than 13,000 years ago and the same limitations do not apply like they once did when some countries were developing. IMO a “person” can not cut off a clitoris, have a slave and murder someone based on their religion then claim to be a human too and want to have some of a civilized person’s wealth redistributed to them.

Manifest destiny trip? I’m not the one suggesting we all live in one big, happy, evenly distributed, world. :shrug:

Goofball

12-07-2006, 20:25

True, but there are those who don't earn what they get paid. Entertainers and sports figures are grossly overpaid for the most part. How about executives and CEOs who ruin a company and are then paid obscenely large sums of money to quit? Some of these people earn their money, but there are too many who don't.

Not true. Those people are paid exactly what the market (and therefor, society) say they are worth. Don't like it? Speak with your wallet. Stop buying tickets to sporting events and concerts, and don't own stock in companies that negotiate such crappy deals with sub-standard execs.

Red Peasant

12-07-2006, 21:00

As I understand it, it was the British who ran Ireland, and the British who kept on exporting food from Ireland as Irish people were eating grass.

One Q: What do you mean by medicine as a basic human right, Don?

Crazed Rabbit

Big business ran Ireland, and the rest of the UK, and the Empire. Merchants were shipping out more than enough food (i.e. exporting from Ireland as you say!) to feed the starving Irish during the famine period (under armed guard), including butter, beef, lamb, pork, and cereals. The profit-driven greed of those bastards was running the government.

Hell, why should they care, they had a spineless, compliant government in their pocket - as the business class usually does - and they were making big money. Capitalism rules, eh? No restrictions on profit and trade? Meh.

I've no grudge against people who want to make a better life for themselves, I'm trying to do that myself, but the pursuit of profit as an end in itself seems to de-humanize people. We are now shafting Africa in the same way, on a vaster scale, as BG has pointed out, but many people just don't see it.

Blodrast

12-07-2006, 22:13

You're right, yesdachi, situations are of course different. NK is different from a bunch of African countries, which are probably different from some Far East countries, which are different from some arab countries... so the solutions to free them, or help them become free, would most likely need to be different as well.

People that want freedom should fight to free themselves and people that sympathize with them and support them should assist them.

I can definitely agree with that. :bow:

Crazed Rabbit

12-07-2006, 23:11

I've no grudge against people who want to make a better life for themselves, I'm trying to do that myself, but the pursuit of profit as an end in itself seems to de-humanize people. We are now shafting Africa in the same way, on a vaster scale, as BG has pointed out, but many people just don't see it.

Ironically, one of the ways to help them is to promote free trade- namely on agricultural products. Both the US and EU have big trade barriers on foodstuffs and whatnot- eliminating one of the main advantages third world countries have - cheap labor.

Crazed Rabbit

Red Peasant

12-07-2006, 23:23

Ironically, one of the ways to help them is to promote free trade- namely on agricultural products. Both the US and EU have big trade barriers on foodstuffs and whatnot- eliminating one of the main advantages third world countries have - cheap labor.

Crazed Rabbit

Not Free, but FAIR trade is needed. Free trade just means that the richest, biggest economies will dominate and they are mostly in the developed world.

Redleg

12-07-2006, 23:39

Not Free, but FAIR trade is needed. Free trade just means that the richest, biggest economies will dominate and they are mostly in the developed world.

Your going to have to describe what you think fair trade entails.

Meneldil

12-07-2006, 23:39

Rich get richer, poor get poorer, that's old news.

I have absolutely nothing against people working hard to earn money and to have a better life, but fact is, currently, the wealthiest part of modern society is composed of people who never ever work.

Does Bill Gate spend 8hours a day working ? I doubt it.
Does Warrent Buffet works as much as any manworker ? I doubt it.
And the list goes on : there are thousands of people who earn millions although they either barely work at all or are totally useless (comedians, sportsmen).
So yeah, there's a huge difference between earning enough money to have a pleasant, decent life (ie. someone having vacations, buying his own house) and earning billions just for the heck of earning billions and wasting it in the most useless way possible.

Bill Gates can try to look cool and to be actually bothering about the 3rd world, it doesn't change the fact that he's earning enough money to feed half an african country but prefer to waste it on trend cars, shoes and what not.

Red Peasant

12-08-2006, 00:11

Your going to have to describe what you think fair trade entails.

To begin with, Free Trade sounds fine and dandy as an ideal, but if it were to be realised now it would place the under-developed countries of the world at a huge disadvantage. They could not compete in a completely open, free system.

From Wiki:

"Free trade and market failures

All FINE members and fair trade federations support in theory the principles of unhindered free trade. However, as Alex Nicholls, social entrepreneurship professor at Oxford University, points out, the "key conditions on which classical and neo-liberal trade theories are based are notably absent in rural agricultural societies in many developing countries."[2] Perfect market information, perfect access to markets and credit, and the ability to switch production techniques and outputs in response to market information are fundamental assumptions which "are fallacious in the context of agricultural producers and workers in developing countries".[3]

The absence of these microeconomic conditions can nullify or even reverse the potential gains to producers from trade. While Nicholls agrees that the win-win situation for all actors involved may be broadly correct in some markets, nevertheless, "within developing countries market conditions are not such that producers can unambiguously be declared to be better off through trade."[4] These market failures severely question the ability of trade to lift them out of poverty.

Fair trade is seen as an attempt to address these market failures by providing producers a stable price for their crop, business support, access to premium Northern markets and better general trading conditions."

So, they need to be helped, not just fed to the voracious predators of a Free Market who begin with huge advantages.

Fair Trade Objectives, also from Wiki, which I broadly agree with:

"Creating opportunities for economically disadvantaged producers
Fair trade is a strategy for poverty alleviation and sustainable development. Its purpose is to create opportunities for producers who have been economically disadvantaged or marginalized by the conventional trading system.
Transparency and accountability
Fair trade involves transparent management and commercial relations to deal fairly and respectfully with trading partners.
Capacity building
Fair trade is a means to develop producers’ independence. Fair trade relationships provide continuity, during which producers and their marketing organizations can improve their management skills and their access to new markets.
Payment of a fair price
A fair price in the regional or local context is one that has been agreed through dialogue and participation. It covers not only the costs of production but enables production which is socially just and environmentally sound. It provides fair pay to the producers and takes into account the principle of equal pay for equal work by women and men. Fairtraders ensure prompt payment to their partners and, whenever possible, help producers with access to pre-harvest or pre-production financing.
Fair trade means that women’s work is properly valued and rewarded. Women are always paid for their contribution to the production process and are empowered in their organizations.
Fair trade means a safe and healthy working environment for producers. The participation of children (if any) does not adversely affect their well-being, security, educational requirements and need for play and conforms to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as the law and norms in the local context.
Environment
Fair trade actively encourages better environmental practices and the application of responsible methods of production."

Links:

Wiki Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade)

NEWS Link (http://www.worldshops.org/fairtrade.html)

Redleg

12-08-2006, 01:21

To begin with, Free Trade sounds fine and dandy as an ideal, but if it were to be realised now it would place the under-developed countries of the world at a huge disadvantage. They could not compete in a completely open, free system.

I agree with this sentiment. But how does one go about institute a fair trade plan for the world? The material you provided is very idealistic - which I don't have a problem with - but it does not have any explanation about how to go about it. Plus some of it sounds very similiar to market protection not fair trade. Edit: But then again I am not an economicist.

Yun Dog

12-08-2006, 05:15

Having recently been to Africa - Ive been thinking about this a bit lately - I know this is not a simple problem we are discussing and I think we are all aware of the economics and cultural complexity.

But I do feel there is a need to people to start thinking globally

no more us and them - I feel basically as humans we are pretty much all the same - we all have the same hopes and dreams of living a happy life - this does not necessitate wealth although having enough to eat, a roof over your head, and clothes to wear helps. At the moment this is a lottery - based on where you are born - the only diference between me and my confortable life and someone starving and dieing of disease is where we were born.

Im not saying this needs to be some robin hood thing - but there is massive inequality in how resources are distributed on this planet - as a result of western colonisation we have made ourselves rich plundering the weath of most of the rest of the world

the developed countries are major consumers of the worlds resources per capita of pop and this goes hand in hand with massive waste and pollution. So we (Western consumer economies) greedily (an assumption of the capitalist system) eat up all the worlds resources and then destroy the planet with the wastage of both the consumed resources and the unconsumed (wasted) excess resources. And then expect the 'have nots' or the remainder of the planet - to be happy about this.

Its this inequality which has indirectly led to the terrorism we see ever increasing worldwide - what have the 'have nots' got to lose - nothing - why not kill some fat western pigs and help the planet - cant think of a reason not to

Im posting an article from a well known statesman regarding this issue - that while there is inequality - while it is us and them - then terrorism will be on the rise

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=115931

ever tried to import agricultural produce to the west - almost impossible unless your a member of the WTO club - no doubt there will be some bug or quarentine rule - if not an economic one which prevents it - the problem is that developing countries havent wiped out their ecosystems with DDT and every other misc herbicide and insecticide under the sun - yet - so they still have bugs n stuff - unacceptable

The west has a policy of - lets keep the poor poor - so we can buy their stuff cheap - besides there isnt enough resources left to go round for everyone to be rich and the planet couldnt handle the waste anyway.

rest assure that unless we start to think globally soon - the planet will decide this issue for us - we wont need to worry about having to share - because who/what ever survives can scratch a living out of whats left.

more guns and more division based on religions and nations and wealth - thats the answer - its working so well as long as your lucky enough to be born on the right side of the fence

please no 'economics thesis' replies - I understand the mountains of dogma and BS we have piled to justify to ourself why it has to be this way

my point? it aint working - and never has :thumbsdown:

when is the human race going to wise up - its not a race - its the longevity of our existance