Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

ok…..so i don’t know what to do….

i agree with eric on this article….completly….

and it’s totally freaking me out….

i need a valium….

Nice post, Eric. But there are a variety of “liberal activists” out there that propose different solutions to the problem of poverty.

For instance, from first-hand testimony of trying to reform poor countries, I don’t think direct food aid is smart policy. When you provide free housing and free food, it collapses the local economy.

Instead, I am a liberal activist type that believes when you intervene that you must purchase food from local markets (but not cause inflation either), and hire locals as labor for construction projetcs in order to stimulate the local economy and start real change.

The areas in Iraq where this type of solution has been applied has worked much better.

I also am a big fan of micro-loans.

Julia

I agree with Eric AND Julia. :)

Seriously, Eric. If you lay off the anti-liberal rhetoric, you’ll find more people willing to voice support.

I happen to know that when you say “liberal”, you actually mean “Godless Communist tree-hugging hippie”, rather than Democrat, so it doesn’t bother me. :)

Eric,
If you are talking about “Pure Capitalism than I agree with you. However, if our country continues to practice Rapitalism (A race to the bottom) than absolutely not.

While profit is a good thing and inflation as well as other soiciety problems accompany Pure Capitalism, everyone has an opportunity to raise up out of poverty. Nonetheless, the worlds current economic model (cold war model) seperates the people into two classes. As we have found out in our country, it is leading into a society that is made up of the “Haves” and “Have Nots.” Until the Capitalist Investors learn that it is in their best interest to invest in higher wages instead of importing/exporting chearer labor, our economy will continue to widen this gap.

As a capitalist, I understand the need to make a profit; however, I end up losing money if you as a capitalist pay your workers so low of a wage that it puts a burden on me and my employees. Today, we have those amongest that would sell their own mother for a dollar. Spreading that type of Rapitalism throughout the world will only bring the rest of civilization to its knees.

But, that is an argument for another day. I do agree that Americans should stand up and debate this question openly and informatively. As long as Rush and Hammity’s points of view is left out, I think you will find that the Blues have some real valid points that would even help our country achieve wealth for everyone.

I would suggest we find a solution to our own poverty in America, one of the wealthiest capitalist nations on Earth before we go critiquing and preempting other organizations for flawed attempts.

To date, I see a lot of evidence for capitalism combined with socialized programs resulting in alleviating poverty, but, I have not yet seen a system that will win any war on poverty, anymore than I have seen a sound plan for ending the scourge of terrorism which has been with mankind since prehistoric times.

Eric,

Could you expand on or perhaps offer your own interpretation of a portion of the texts you’ve quoted?

This vision is based on the false Malthusian notion that the world’s resources are limited, condemning a large portion of the world’s people to misery and poverty in perpetuity.

I’ve done a lot of reading on the concept of sustainable development, and the texts I’ve read have had more to do with using our resources efficiently than with any concept that people are condemned to misery or poverty.

For instance, houses that are primarily heated and cooled naturally (we do have the technology to build them… fairly cheaply) so that less energy is needed for climate control. Crops that are properly rotated to sustain the soil without needing nutrients to be imported to make poor soil arable. Solar, wind, and hydroelectric power used where available instead of fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Electric grids where people with home hydroelectric, wind, or solar hookups can feed energy into the system when they produce a surplus and be credited for it on their bills (useful for those times their power source diminishes; such as nonwindy days for wind and night for solar) or even paid outright for it if they consistently produce a surplus. Such interconnection with the grid would also largely remove the need for inferior battery-systems for storing the energy produced, since most batteries deal poorly with the unequal charging/discharging cycles produced by sustainable energy sources.

Jarin, all those alternatives are great, but oil is still cheaper.

AP:

True. However, sustainable development is not about making a quick buck… it is about being able to consistently continue development in perpetuity, rather than sacrificing the future for temporary gains in the present.

AP,
Jarin is correct. Why should “We the People” help pay billions of dollars to promote energy sources that only cause us trouble down the road. By all of use standing up and telling Congress that the billions they want to spend on lobbying for more nuke power plants, they could build Tidal wave generators (a proven technology) thus creating real jobs here in America.

Short term gain at the expense of a major cost down the road is in of it self a losing bet. No, Our Government should be in the business of long term profits for Our Society not Our Corporations profit shares.

Eric —

As usual, interesting and at the same time dismissive or views other than your own. Could you please link to a source that claims all resrouces are inexhaustible? Also, you refer to the US as rich — I assume you mean generally and not universally, but what do you think about solving the problems of America’s poor before worrying about globalization?

Eric,
Sometimes the liberal/conservative tags just don’t work. Generally speaking, it would be fair to tag me with the bleeding heart, tree hugging epithets, but I’m very much in agreement with you here. Two exceptions:

1) Globalization should be accomplished non-violently. Curiously, I admire the neo-con dream of a democratic Middle East. However, I stridently oppose accomplishing this with warfare.

2) Globalization needs to lift the standard of living in the Third World, NOT depress living standards in the US. And there is absolutely no reason to provide tax subsidies, or permit US corporations to flee to tax havens. As long as we have an income tax, companies which profit from the US should contribute taxes.

On sustainable development… decades ago, there was a book by Paul Ehrlich called “The Population Bomb.” He posited that the population boom would deplete finite natural resources, resulting in catastrophe.
And here we are today, with almost every natural resource at a lower, inflation-adjusted price than what is was 40 years ago. The population did increase a great deal. Oil, gold, you name the commodity, it’s price is lower. What on earth happened?

Innovation. More than anything else, that is the secret of our economic & cultural strength. Capitalism combined with socialism is powerful when it’s fueled by innovation, usually state-funded research which is funneled into the private sector for adaptations to profititable applications.

Global Warming, for example, is an enormous issue. Pretending it doesn’t exist, or just needs more research, is an approach that won’t work. The best way to deal with it is to acknowledge it, make short-term accomodations to deal with the transition away from oil & autos, and encourage innovation.

I don’t know why we should primarily be concerned about the poverty in our own country. Even the poor among us live many times better lives than the poor in other countries. If we can invest X amount of money to help a few million Americans, or the same amount to help tens of millions in other countries, I think the choice is clear. What we have in America to help the poor is far from ideal, but at least its something compared to those with no possibilities.

What’s the point of an attempt if it is only to bring about a temporary solution in which there will be little growth? We talk about how important it is to develop new energy efficient solutions to the world’s increasing demand for energy, and criticize the resistance resulting from cheap oil; but when it comes to a solution to poverty, we suddenly want the band-aid solution of covering up poverty by throwing the hard earned monies of the world at it instead of developing ways of promoting growth among able-bodied but underpriviliged persons? Just because our own country is not perfect, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t criticize attempts which are flawed.

A few questions and points…

Julia, what are micro-loans?

David, I agree that we should help Americans first. Just remember, what we consider poverty, most people consider rich.

Henry, I’ve heard of using tides to create power. I doubt they’d be powerfull enough to power the entire country. What would be your suggestion for the landlocked states?

Here in New York the power companies charge extra on electric bills and the money goes directly to researching more eco-friendly power generation. I can’t tell you if their getting anyware with it…

AP Parker and Traveller, going without food or being homeless feels just as bad in America as it does in Africa or the Middle East. You should try it sometime before being so free with our tax dollars overseas.

ap,

I happen to know that when you say “liberal”, you actually mean “Godless Communist tree-hugging hippie”, rather than Democrat, so it doesn’t bother me. :)

Yeah, that’s a reasonable approximation. By liberal left I do essentially mean “neo-communist” in most respects. In libertarian terms ‘statists’, or collectivism. Not that every democrat or person who considers themselves a liberal is in fact a neo-communist, (except maybe Green party members). ;)

Henry,

I mean ‘natural’ capitalism. Unfortunately even billionaires, corporate managers, and business leaders hold erroneous views of what capitalism is. Capitalism is service to your fellow man. The best definition of capitalism I’ve ever heard is that in order to make a profit, a capitalist must think about what people need and how to provide it to them. Then he has to keep them satisfied with how he provides those things. Competition and freedom to choose, for both suppliers and consumers, is what makes capitalism so effective an economic system.

There are always some percentage of people with low morals who are willing to lie, cheat, and steal. This is a fact of life, not an economic theory. I would submit that you end up with more Rapaciousness in an economy unbalanced dominated by governmental economic control.

David,

What I see in America are the richest poor people in the world. Hell, I’ve been one of those people most of my life. Poverty is relative.

Jarin,

I agree with alot of these technologies. In fact, I have determined to get a solar system either on my present house or next house. But unfortunately any system that will actually produce a significant amount of energy will cost $20,000 to start. But I absolutely love the idea of saving energy, and thereby money. That’s why I have an infatuation with LED lights. Do you know that LED’s use a minscule fraction of power compared to an incandescent bulb? I mean a 60 watt incandescent can be replaced with a 5 watt LED bulb! But they are pricey.

Even though California does have a rebate program, price is a significant barrier for widespread adoption. But it will get there Jarin. You cannot force people to go against their self interest. Ten years ago there was one solar power sales and installation company in my city, now there are three.

Another thing I hate is taking out the garbage. I cannot believe the amount of garbage I have to carry out of my house to the garbage can every day. Every time, I think, “Where the ‘fudge’ is all this ‘crap’ coming from?” Mostly it’s packaging. Packaging that helps to sell the product. I can understand that. Remember that aisle in the supermarkets of days gone by where everything had a white label with black letters that said generic? No one wants to be ‘generic’. Even though it was the same thing in many cases, and cheaper, the colorful package clearly has an advantage in sales. I can understand that. Still, there is a market for less packaging in products. People like you and I do not want all the extra packaging.

At the risk of exposing my own looniness, I have thought of standing at the end of the checkout line and taking all the extraneous packaging off and leaving it in the store to send a message. But being the polite guy I am, ever respectful of authority, I only entertained the idea and didn’t act on it.

The point is that everyone is ready to adopt new energy sources etc.. It just has to be made profitable and impossible not to adopt.

I’m not saying its great for anyone to be homeless or without food. But in America we have shelters and soup kitchens to provide food and shelter to the homeless and hungry. We have welfare programs. If we have the option of helping many times more people with the same amount of money, why not use it to help stimulate growth in another country where there isn’t any sort of ‘safety net’. Along those lines, I also think America shouldn’t completely shoulder the financial burden either. But the point is that organizations advocating social welfare for third world countries do not present an effective solution to the problem.

I don’t know why we should primarily be concerned about the poverty in our own country. Even the poor among us live many times better lives than the poor in other countries. If we can invest X amount of money to help a few million Americans, or the same amount to help tens of millions in other countries, I think the choice is clear. What we have in America to help the poor is far from ideal, but at least its something compared to those with no possibilities.

It’s clear? I’m not an isolationist, but I have to say it’s not clear to me at all.

Okay. So it’s not clear to you. That’s why I said “I think”. I find it better to use our resources to give opportunities to a larger number of people who have absolutely no way of bettering their life, even though they aren’t within our borders. Just because they don’t live in America doesn’t mean the world as a whole shouldn’t do what they can to support their development.

Jarin, Alejo, (and Don,)

This vision is based on the false Malthusian notion that the world’s resources are limited, condemning a large portion of the world’s people to misery and poverty in perpetuity.

The predictions of many advocates on these issues have failed to come to pass over and over. Starting with Malthus in fact. I’m all for sustainable development, however, I’m concerned about what kind of policies are being proposed based on exagerated apocolyptic predictions.

“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines … hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death.” (1968)

“Smog disasters” in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)

“I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” (1969)

“Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity … in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.” (1976) Paul Ehrlich

I do not agree that we are headed for disaster unless, “economic and technological development that depletes natural resources is brought to a halt.”

Population. The most developed nations actually have declining birth rates. Yet all these population scaremongers are trying to limit immigration from high birth rate nations to low birth rate nations. Why?

Since 1950, U.S. population has nearly doubled -growing from 151 million to over 294 million today. If present trends continue, our population will exceed 400 million by the year 2050.

More people means more pollution, more sprawl, less green space, and even more demands on the earth’s already overburdened resources.

NPG is the leader in the movement for a sound population policy and advocates a smaller and truly sustainable population through voluntary incentives for smaller families and reduced immigration levels.

It appears that higher development actually equals smaller families, so why don’t they advocate higher development?

Does it bear pointing out that the number of starvation deaths every year in the US is nil? That because of the higher development smaller and smaller numbers of farms actually feed more and more people? So much so that obesity has been declared an ‘epidemic’ in the US?

I don’t mean to berate, but some of the more strident advocates clearly misrepresent the facts in order to push an agenda.

David- poverty and starvation in America is a completely different character than the suffering throughout the world. In American, the life expectancy is basically the same between rich and poor, and it is almost double what it is in some of the more AIDs torn-african nations. Which means the american poor person lives on average TWICE as long as the AVERAGE person in some nations. In America, the poverty rate would dwarf the average incomes of people in many nations.

I am not saying that tax dollars should be spent to allieviate either condition (you know i do not believe in that), but as soon as I start working at my firm, I will definetley be sending money to those who are suffering a lot more (the poor overseas).

Eric —

Of course all of the doomsayers who pick the date the world will end look silly after it doesn’t happen. We all get a chuckle out of that. But that doesn’t mean that the opposite is true and that we will never deplete our resources, particularly the nonrenewable ones like oil. “It hasn’t happened yet” isn’t the same thing as “It will never happen.”

Some of the reason for decreased population growth in the US is social, but it may also be environmental to some extent. I have mixed feelings about immigration: I don’t want to have to remove the Statue of Liberty (“Give me your poor….”) but all we need to do is look at the former “Fertile Crescent” to see what overusing farmland will do.

David,
I agree that we should spend money here first. I’m just saying I don’t agree with the government that people who have cars and tv’s are living in poverty.

Eric, the average wage a corporation will provide overseas is just terrible, and that is intentionally so. To make money on the deal, wages have to be kept low, and American businesses cooperate in this. They try to maintain Robber Baron Era labor standards and comparable pay.

I’m not saying that people overseas can’t prosper with Big Business, I just think we’re creating an economically unviable system, where consumers are concentrated mainly in one country which is getting squeezed by the movement of producers overseas.

When Adam Smith talked about prices reaching their natural market value, from what I’ve read of his book, he didn’t mean depressed value overseas and relentless outsourcing. He meant best product for best price. The corporations have disrupted that balance, and we are leaking money because of that. It’s time to right that balance, and to do that, we need to both attack unfair labor and trade practices overseas, and end encouragement and reward for unnecessary removal of jobs here.

Corporations won’t do it themselves. They don’t look out for interests other than their own. Our government needs to become active in regulating these things.

Jarin, all those alternatives are great, but oil is still cheaper.

Jarin, Henry, and (I think) David,

I meant that it’s pretty unfair to expect an impoverished nation to implement a more expensive “sustainable development” system, rather than just get people working and eating regularly as quickly as possible.

I suspect you thought I was talking about the developed world. Sorry for being vague. We should definitely be abandoning petroleum - at least for our transportation systems - ASAP. And it’s not just about being green for me, it’s mostly about security.

Stephen,

Well, that’s a good issue to debate, because labor is subject to market forces as well. Globalization means global market. When Adam Smith was alive outsourcing as a concept didn’t really exist. I can see the downside of lower wages from overseas employment, but whether or not American companies are involved really makes no difference, the wages there are going to be lower, and there are positive effects from this as well. Long term the effects are way more positive than negative.

You cannot shield yourself from market forces. To attempt to do so is denying reality and I know how much you are against that. :) I don’t see evil corporations creating the problem here. It is natural market forces.

Look at real estate within California for example. It only takes two hours or so for me to get to the coast from where I live. Yet the same home I could buy here for $250,000 here might go for several million dollars in other parts of California. And I do mean the exact same home. Same square feet, same features, all in all identical.

Real estate prices inland have been depressed for years. But a funny thing has been happening lately, as real estate prices continued to rise on the coast more and more people began moving inland buying homes. Finally, the home prices here have begun to rise. The same would be true of wages. What’s true for a state is true for countries. (California would in fact be the fifth largest economy in the world if it were considered a country.)

Do we want the third world to stay poor? Because the policies that require us to arbitrarily set wages, or protect wages by curbing outsourcing, or raising tariffs on products produced by ‘low wage’ countries is in effect a policy to keep them poor. What’s more, to me it is a policy based purely on selfishness. “We have ours, to hell with the rest of the world.”

Protectionist policies arguably ensured the Great Depression. Hoover’s Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act essentially ended the globalization process at the end of the 20’s.

AP:

I’m willing to consider things on a case by case basis for the undeveloped world, and not provide a single solution for every culture and locality. But I think the current situation in the amazon, with massive deforestation caused by slash and burn practices for temporary agricultural benefits which quickly fade, is a good illustration of the problems faced even by developing nations if they do not adopt at least some aspects of sustainable development.

On the other hand, if memory serves, Brazil has made tremendous strides forward in sustainable development through the use of alcohol fuels made from sugarcane as an energy source. It’s much less polluting, they don’t need to pay to import it, plus the source is something that can be sustained and renewed indefinitely.

The Traveler,
Tidal Generators usage has been going on for the last twenty years. currently they have models that produce 200MW/hr at a cost of $.06/kwh which is cheaper than other forms of production being used. Fujita Research

As far as landlocked states/areas they have ample ways to generate electiry through such things as Bio-Mass(turning organic grabage into methane) and also burning the waste; Thermal Water Temperture Trubines which would serve as huge water reserves in times of droughts as well as generate electricity buy a 6-9 degree in water temperature due only to the deepth of the water; as well as solar and wind.

Additionally, Our Government has the technology to generate electricity from the most basic form of nature, magnets. Yes, this technology was first introduced by Tesla in 1880’s and proved that you can use the retotion of magnets across copper wiring to generate a low current of electricity. You than can step up that same electricity to a high current without lose. In turn that electricity can be used to charge the source to turn the first set of magnets and produce additional horsepower which can drive a bigger generator. research the words “Grays Electromagnet Motor” to find out how Mr. Gary produced a working model in the 60’s. Another good wood search is “Electromagnetic Fushion” but I would warn about staying clear of federal sites.

The idea that this type of energy is not cost effective is only due to the lack of production into the main stream and you can find the same argument was made when people wanted to introduce nuke power plants in America.

Eric,
Capitalism vs. Rapitalism is propable my biggest problem with the far right. Many of them my have the “Old Money” however, they have yet shown that they understand the concept of “Free Market”.

I look forward to debating your side on these issues. For example; why did Bush just sign into law a lowering of a tariff to China which allows cheaper furniture into the US, but does nothing for the workers of the US factories that manufactor furniture?

Traveler:
micro-loan in africa:
http://www.microloanfoundation.org.uk/
in the u.s:
http://www.nrda.org/html/micro_loan.htm

Everyone else,
An example of rapitlism:
One of my friends, while working on a job, stumbled upon a family here in California who had an illegal immigrant living with them and serving as a nanny. Her wage is $300 a mos. She speaks no English. She sends 2/3 of her wage back home. She has no health insurance. Even if she wasn’t sending money back, and was putting it into a savings account, this is an unlivable wage. What happens when she gets sick? What happens when she is too old to work anymore?

This is why unfettered capitalism doesn’t work. She is willing to take the job, because the market forces will bear it. If she didn’t take it, another illegal would have. However, the job itself generates an unsustainable situation.

Farm workers make unlivable wages. They don’t make enough to save towards retirement. They don’t make enough to pay for health care. So how do they recieve health care, and how do they take care of themselves in old age? Government subsidization.

Now, the family with the nanny are clearly engaging in illegal behaviour. But the example shows you what the U.S. was like in 1900 when child labor was legal, and there was no such thing as unemployment compensation and social security.

That’s why you need minimum wage, and “forced retirement savings” (s.s.)and “forced health care savings” (medicare). Essentially, we’re trying to legislate “fair trade”, a price of goods that reflects a sustainable lifestyle for the people that produce the goods.

That’s why Henry’s point about China is so salient. China has no such fair trade legislation. Allowing them to flood the market with projects built by an unsustainable system isn’t helping anyone. The W.T.O. kind of tries to impliment this legislation, but it is populated by a bunch of rapitalists. (I like that word).

Not that China is all bad. How would our country deal with a land area that large, and a poverty level that big? Not too well.

Still, we shouldn’t import goods that prop up businesses that compound problems, instead of solving problems.

I actually purchase coffee from
http://www.peacecoffee.com
because of this reason.

I need to do that with the rest of my groceries as well:
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/coffee/1732.html

If we had an organized government body that legislated rules for what constituted sustainable products, then had a good labeling process, life would be so much easier. Instead, whenever I go to the grocery store, I buy something with a liberal looking label and hope I did okay.

See, it’s this type of behaviour that makes people think I’m a fruity liberal type.

But this type of behaviour isn’t so bad, is it? Come on, Eric S. Join the dark side.

:)

Julia

Very interesting post, Eric! It has certainly brought out some great arguments.

Someone mentioned Paul Ehrlich. Here is a link to an article about a bet Ehrlich lost with economist Julian Simon regarding scarcity of resources.

By the way, one problem with some resources, in the sustainable development arena, is that they are not fixed. That is, we can’t look at all resources as just having a fixed quantity. The “pie” doesn’t just stay the same size; we can create a larger pie. For example, we are able to farm less land today than in the past, with fewer workers, and still get higher crop yields. We expanded the pie.

Here is a good column on poverty in America. Dr. Williams makes some good points.

As for the tariffs on Chinese furniture, consider this article which points out that 90% of Chinese furniture manufacturers “are private, shareholding or foreign-funded.” Another article observes that the US acted to reduce the tariffs after further analysis revealed that Chinese companies were not “selling products at unfair discounts.” In addition, China is rapidly becoming a real market economy; the government exercises less and less control. We Americans are mostly very uninformed about the true state of things in China.

Also, tariffs can hurt Americans far more than they help; they make it more expensive for consumers to purchase products. If the products we buy cost us more, then we buy fewer products. If we buy fewer products, then suppliers are selling less and must fire workers. In the long run, we all lose that way.

Troy,

You are right. The vast majority of Americans are uninformed about China. Having actually been to China, the situation over there is very complex. I would say it’s a lot like the boom times of the 1920’s, with all the great aspects, and bad aspects of that time.

Can we realistically expect China to have the kind of worker security laws that the United States does? Well, who knows. But it would be extremely difficult for them to enforce.

Enforcement by purchasers appears to work, such as the way Walmart handles it, by having spot checks and basic requirements. But my point is that we should have a national policy, that basically demands the same sorts of things.

Anyway, thanks for the contribution Troy, and for reminding me that I oversimplified.

I am actually pretty excited about China.

Julia