How can 1st world nations help 3rd world nations?

joecavalry

I believe that financial assistance given by 1st world countries would be a good way to help third world countries. It could allow them to fix or build their infrastructure, increase the food supply, built shelter, provide more clean water, etc.

WilliamSchulz

joecavalry said:

I believe that financial assistance given by 1st world countries would be a good way to help third world countries. It could allow them to fix or build their infrastructure, increase the food supply, built shelter, provide more clean water, etc.

Good point! Would you like anything in return from the nation or would you do it for free? From a political standpoint, it is not attractive to give away money without first nailing the assistance point. What makes helping 3rd world nations worth our while?

Ampersand

Any assistance will out of necessity only relieve a fraction of the harm that the economic exploitation of developing nations causes.

WilliamSchulz

Ampersand said:

Any assistance will out of necessity only relieve a fraction of the harm that the economic exploitation of developing nations causes.

That may be true, but even the smallest assistance will help boost our relations with the country. If we are trying to be a first-world nation, is it not our duty to help those who are weak and in need of assistance, no matter how much?

Mike

Education on the science of unalienable rights.

WilliamSchulz

Mike said:

Education on the science of unalienable rights.

Do you believe that we should also educate them on basic mathematics and literature?

CYDdharta

There seems to be a fatal flaw in the opening post.  If you're not going to demand, at the very least, promises from countries receiving aid, then the leaders of those nations will just keep it for themselves.  It would just be someone showing up with a planeload of cash and saying "here you go, use it for something good".  I'm sure you'll agree that that would not be effective.

Mike

WilliamSchulz said:

Mike said:

Education on the science of unalienable rights.

Do you believe that we should also educate them on basic mathematics and literature?

Good question!

The prerequisite to basic education is a civil society. A civil society is dependent on the moral factor, which is an outgrowth of the “Golden Rule,” which is a function of “unalienable Rights” (aka the physical constructal law, the unification principle of evolution). If their system of governance understands, embrace and protects their citizens’ “unalienable Rights” from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government, then we have a stable environment for building schools for basic education (“mathematics and literature,” etc.). Otherwise; in an uncivil environment surrounded by killing and mayhem, basic education, and other civil services simply breakdown.     

someone234

I'm on the other end of the spectrum. I want them all to surrender and to end Sharia law along with poverty and corruption by taking over their nations and solving their deep-seeded filth of a political agenda.

Ampersand

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

Any assistance will out of necessity only relieve a fraction of the harm that the economic exploitation of developing nations causes.

That may be true, but even the smallest assistance will help boost our relations with the country. If we are trying to be a first-world nation, is it not our duty to help those who are weak and in need of assistance, no matter how much?

No, I would say it is our duty to make meaningful difference that helps people rather than just slightly mitigating the damage that is caused by a system we enable.

WilliamSchulz

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

Any assistance will out of necessity only relieve a fraction of the harm that the economic exploitation of developing nations causes.

That may be true, but even the smallest assistance will help boost our relations with the country. If we are trying to be a first-world nation, is it not our duty to help those who are weak and in need of assistance, no matter how much?

No, I would say it is our duty to make meaningful difference that helps people rather than just slightly mitigating the damage that is caused by a system we enable.

If we are intended to make a meaningful difference, than why do we only seem to slightly help 3rd world nations per moment? If these same reasons for only making a meaningful difference apply, it is really possible to be charitable when we expect something in return or only help when it is worth the time to us, and not them?

WilliamSchulz

CYDdharta said:

There seems to be a fatal flaw in the opening post.  If you're not going to demand, at the very least, promises from countries receiving aid, then the leaders of those nations will just keep it for themselves.  It would just be someone showing up with a planeload of cash and saying "here you go, use it for something good".  I'm sure you'll agree that that would not be effective.

With our current government, we don't simply hand over money and leave the dogs to fend for. As a nation, we assist countries by not only giving them money, but sticking around to make sure the government properly forms. Granted, in places like Iraq, this did not work, but there is room to be amendable. 

WilliamSchulz

Mike said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Mike said:

Education on the science of unalienable rights.

Do you believe that we should also educate them on basic mathematics and literature?

Good question!

The prerequisite to basic education is a civil society. A civil society is dependent on the moral factor, which is an outgrowth of the “Golden Rule,” which is a function of “unalienable Rights” (aka the physical constructal law, the unification principle of evolution). If their system of governance understands, embrace and protects their citizens’ “unalienable Rights” from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government, then we have a stable environment for building schools for basic education (“mathematics and literature,” etc.). Otherwise; in an uncivil environment surrounded by killing and mayhem, basic education, and other civil services simply breakdown.     

If the prerequisite to basic education is a civil society, then shouldn't we send troops down to ensure order before placing an educational system? I get it, this is hypothetical, but a civil society only exists when the government actively works to keep peace, which is the flaw of many third world countries. I do believe that teaching moral and constitutional character is important, but with your prerequisite, it would seem like we would need a military takeover first, which may not be applicable in every stance.

WilliamSchulz

someone234 said:

I'm on the other end of the spectrum. I want them all to surrender and to end Sharia law along with poverty and corruption by taking over their nations and solving their deep-seeded filth of a political agenda.

If this were true, we would (a) be declaring acts of war and lose support of our allies since we are the aggressors and (b) go against all UN codes and incur sanctions upon the US. Sharia Law is bad, I've done my research, but the best way to eliminate it is not by military takeover, but by exposing it for what it is using philosophy and reasoning.

Mike

WilliamSchulz said:

Mike said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Mike said:

Education on the science of unalienable rights.

Do you believe that we should also educate them on basic mathematics and literature?

Good question!

The prerequisite to basic education is a civil society. A civil society is dependent on the moral factor, which is an outgrowth of the “Golden Rule,” which is a function of “unalienable Rights” (aka the physical constructal law, the unification principle of evolution). If their system of governance understands, embrace and protects their citizens’ “unalienable Rights” from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government, then we have a stable environment for building schools for basic education (“mathematics and literature,” etc.). Otherwise; in an uncivil environment surrounded by killing and mayhem, basic education, and other civil services simply breakdown.     

If the prerequisite to basic education is a civil society, then shouldn't we send troops down to ensure order before placing an educational system? I get it, this is hypothetical, but a civil society only exists when the government actively works to keep peace, which is the flaw of many third world countries. I do believe that teaching moral and constitutional character is important, but with your prerequisite, it would seem like we would need a military takeover first, which may not be applicable in every stance.

Let me get this straight. You want to, “send troops” in an atmosphere surrounded by killing and mayhem and have our troops do more killing in an uncivil environment?

Let me use your own words in your reply to “someone234”:

“…the best way to eliminate it [uncivil society] is not by military takeover, but by exposing it for what it is using philosophy and reasoning.”

So again I will repeat the “philosophy and reasoning” I used, backed by the physical laws of nature:

The prerequisite to basic education is a civil society. A civil society is dependent on the moral factor, which is an outgrowth of the “Golden Rule,” which is a function of “unalienable Rights” (aka the physical constructal law, the unification principle of evolution).

Perhaps, by reading those links will also expose you to “philosophy and reasoning” backed by a physical law in nature.

Ampersand

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

Any assistance will out of necessity only relieve a fraction of the harm that the economic exploitation of developing nations causes.

That may be true, but even the smallest assistance will help boost our relations with the country. If we are trying to be a first-world nation, is it not our duty to help those who are weak and in need of assistance, no matter how much?

No, I would say it is our duty to make meaningful difference that helps people rather than just slightly mitigating the damage that is caused by a system we enable.

If we are intended to make a meaningful difference, than why do we only seem to slightly help 3rd world nations per moment? If these same reasons for only making a meaningful difference apply, it is really possible to be charitable when we expect something in return or only help when it is worth the time to us, and not them?

I never said that is the policy of countries at the moment. It is in fact very much not the intention of countries to make a meaningful difference - but then in isolation neither is anything you have suggested.

The wealth and power of developed nations is based upon the economic advantages we have over poor nations which produce raw materials with little added value. The economic system which keeps our countries prosperous is the same which keeps other countries poor.

To resolve this you need to implement a fundamental restructuring of the socio-economic order - which most people don't want. better to suggest donations or charity or what have you that slightly mitigates the damage rather than fixing the problem.

The modern philosopher Zizek makes the point in regards to personal participation here:



It's an interesting watch and besides that more people need to listen to Zizek's lectures because at the moment no=one appreciates my Slajov Zizek impressions.

WilliamSchulz

Mike said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Mike said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Mike said:

Education on the science of unalienable rights.

Do you believe that we should also educate them on basic mathematics and literature?

Good question!

The prerequisite to basic education is a civil society. A civil society is dependent on the moral factor, which is an outgrowth of the “Golden Rule,” which is a function of “unalienable Rights” (aka the physical constructal law, the unification principle of evolution). If their system of governance understands, embrace and protects their citizens’ “unalienable Rights” from the crimes of others and from the crimes of government, then we have a stable environment for building schools for basic education (“mathematics and literature,” etc.). Otherwise; in an uncivil environment surrounded by killing and mayhem, basic education, and other civil services simply breakdown.     

If the prerequisite to basic education is a civil society, then shouldn't we send troops down to ensure order before placing an educational system? I get it, this is hypothetical, but a civil society only exists when the government actively works to keep peace, which is the flaw of many third world countries. I do believe that teaching moral and constitutional character is important, but with your prerequisite, it would seem like we would need a military takeover first, which may not be applicable in every stance.

Let me get this straight. You want to, “send troops” in an atmosphere surrounded by killing and mayhem and have our troops do more killing in an uncivil environment?

Let me use your own words in your reply to “someone234”:

“…the best way to eliminate it [uncivil society] is not by military takeover, but by exposing it for what it is using philosophy and reasoning.”

So again I will repeat the “philosophy and reasoning” I used, backed by the physical laws of nature:

The prerequisite to basic education is a civil society. A civil society is dependent on the moral factor, which is an outgrowth of the “Golden Rule,” which is a function of “unalienable Rights” (aka the physical constructal law, the unification principle of evolution).

Perhaps, by reading those links will also expose you to “philosophy and reasoning” backed by a physical law in nature.

I think you misinterpreted by argument above. I happened to disagree that we would need a civil society as a prerequisite for basic education to occur. I used the sending military into the country as a hypothetical for how we would achieve a "civil society." Obviously, you have correctly pointed out that I said we shouldn't use military might in a post with someone234. However, I was exposing your point, in order to achieve what you value, a civil society, it goes against what I value, philosophy and reasoning. Sending military does not work, so we need basic education before a civil society to teach them how to be civil, not to force them to be civil with the military. Does this make sense?

WilliamSchulz

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

Any assistance will out of necessity only relieve a fraction of the harm that the economic exploitation of developing nations causes.

That may be true, but even the smallest assistance will help boost our relations with the country. If we are trying to be a first-world nation, is it not our duty to help those who are weak and in need of assistance, no matter how much?

No, I would say it is our duty to make meaningful difference that helps people rather than just slightly mitigating the damage that is caused by a system we enable.

If we are intended to make a meaningful difference, than why do we only seem to slightly help 3rd world nations per moment? If these same reasons for only making a meaningful difference apply, it is really possible to be charitable when we expect something in return or only help when it is worth the time to us, and not them?

I never said that is the policy of countries at the moment. It is in fact very much not the intention of countries to make a meaningful difference - but then in isolation neither is anything you have suggested.

The wealth and power of developed nations is based upon the economic advantages we have over poor nations which produce raw materials with little added value. The economic system which keeps our countries prosperous is the same which keeps other countries poor.

To resolve this you need to implement a fundamental restructuring of the socio-economic order - which most people don't want. better to suggest donations or charity or what have you that slightly mitigates the damage rather than fixing the problem.

The modern philosopher Zizek makes the point in regards to personal participation here:



It's an interesting watch and besides that more people need to listen to Zizek's lectures because at the moment no=one appreciates my Slajov Zizek impressions.

I watched the video, I have a few points of disagreement. While there is a certain method for proper charity, the video seems to assume that once we have done our good deed, we simply leave, like the man giving bread to the homeless example as a way to prolong the future issue that would arise once more in a day. However, we are not talking about prolonging, I am talking about a change in the education system and money given by our government for free to assist 3rd world nations. We aren't going to let the dogs fend for, we would rather help them use the money appropriately, gaining trust, allies, and more unified people. The advantage we have over 3rd world nations is that we are more developed and we have more Gross Capital. That is not what keeps nations poor, we have social ideas that make us better, ideas of liberty, a constitution, and American political thought that is much different. We behave according to the law because we know the legal authority has jurisdiction, it is not so in 3rd world countries, they have groups running wild and without control. We need to make a meaningful difference, for sure, but small assistances also help because instead of prolonging, as assumed, we are making slight improvements that will overall yield larger takeaways. I'm not going to spend 2 BN as a government to restructure a country, but I might spend 80 MN to rebuild houses felled by war in a 3rd world country Then, in a year, with a larger budget, more changes can be made that will be long-lasting. Processes take time, they don't occur at once, so let small changes add up so that they seem larger over time. 

Ampersand

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

Any assistance will out of necessity only relieve a fraction of the harm that the economic exploitation of developing nations causes.

That may be true, but even the smallest assistance will help boost our relations with the country. If we are trying to be a first-world nation, is it not our duty to help those who are weak and in need of assistance, no matter how much?

No, I would say it is our duty to make meaningful difference that helps people rather than just slightly mitigating the damage that is caused by a system we enable.

If we are intended to make a meaningful difference, than why do we only seem to slightly help 3rd world nations per moment? If these same reasons for only making a meaningful difference apply, it is really possible to be charitable when we expect something in return or only help when it is worth the time to us, and not them?

I never said that is the policy of countries at the moment. It is in fact very much not the intention of countries to make a meaningful difference - but then in isolation neither is anything you have suggested.

The wealth and power of developed nations is based upon the economic advantages we have over poor nations which produce raw materials with little added value. The economic system which keeps our countries prosperous is the same which keeps other countries poor.

To resolve this you need to implement a fundamental restructuring of the socio-economic order - which most people don't want. better to suggest donations or charity or what have you that slightly mitigates the damage rather than fixing the problem.

The modern philosopher Zizek makes the point in regards to personal participation here:



It's an interesting watch and besides that more people need to listen to Zizek's lectures because at the moment no=one appreciates my Slajov Zizek impressions.

I watched the video, I have a few points of disagreement. While there is a certain method for proper charity, the video seems to assume that once we have done our good deed, we simply leave, like the man giving bread to the homeless example as a way to prolong the future issue that would arise once more in a day. However, we are not talking about prolonging, I am talking about a change in the education system and money given by our government for free to assist 3rd world nations. We aren't going to let the dogs fend for, we would rather help them use the money appropriately, gaining trust, allies, and more unified people. The advantage we have over 3rd world nations is that we are more developed and we have more Gross Capital. That is not what keeps nations poor, we have social ideas that make us better, ideas of liberty, a constitution, and American political thought that is much different. We behave according to the law because we know the legal authority has jurisdiction, it is not so in 3rd world countries, they have groups running wild and without control. We need to make a meaningful difference, for sure, but small assistances also help because instead of prolonging, as assumed, we are making slight improvements that will overall yield larger takeaways. I'm not going to spend 2 BN as a government to restructure a country, but I might spend 80 MN to rebuild houses felled by war in a 3rd world country Then, in a year, with a larger budget, more changes can be made that will be long-lasting. Processes take time, they don't occur at once, so let small changes add up so that they seem larger over time. 

2 key points in rebuttal:

1) Your defence is based in large parts in empty platitudes and just world fallacies. For instance the country with the highest GDP PPP per capita is Qatar and depending on whose list you go by the USA might not crack the top 10. Meanwhile the faster growing major economy, thought to be the world's superpower by the end of this century, is China. Liberty does not make people rich. Meanwhile the USA has significant problem with crime with one of the world's highest incarceration rates. Viewing your country as good does not mean it will be economically successful.

2) You haven't understood the actual point of the video, which I think links in with point 1 in that you don't understand why some countries are rich and some are poor.

To use an analogy but scaled down to individuals rather than companies; you seem to think that if we help people enough then everyone can be a Managing Director of a major company. That isn't correct because while there can be some Managing Directors, there need to be a heck of a lot more normal employees, street sweepers, janitors and people with no job due to structural unemployment. In a Capitalist society these lesser paid positions will exist and they will be lesser paid because control over pay is in the hands of the Capitalist and the system incentives them to not pay others more than necessary - and for menial jobs which MUST be performed but could be performed by just about anyone there is little incentive to pay well.

Similarly in the global economy there will need to be countries focusing on commodity creation with low added value - someone has to grow the food and mine the ores and sew the sneakers. The comparative advantage that lets poorer countries specialise their is the lower level of subsistence they hold to - Western farmers and miners would never work for the wages that are paid in the poorer countries. This also benefits the wealthier countries by allowing them to buy food and raw materials and goods with low added value that can be made in a sweatshop at low prices. There have to be industries focusing on low added value commodities and due to the principle of comparative advantage countries will tend to specialise - e.g. if they are one of the cheaper food producers in the world because of the low low wages of their farmers then they will continue to have a significant agricultural focus.

To put it another way - if impoverished Africans aren't producing a particular crop for very low wages who is producing it and how much are they getting paid to do it? Moreover - if you say they are now getting paid more to do the same work - why is this? The supply and demand factors won't change so why are these farmers suddenly getting paid more?

Pogue

A 3rd world country is a country that did not side with the US or USSR during the Cold War. 1st world countries are US and allies. I think you mean how can richer nations help poorer nations and war-stricken countries. However, even if a country is not an economic powerhouse, that does not mean the citizens will not be happy. 

WilliamSchulz

Pogue said:

A 3rd world country is a country that did not side with the US or USSR during the Cold War. 1st world countries are US and allies. I think you mean how can richer nations help poorer nations and war-stricken countries. However, even if a country is not an economic powerhouse, that does not mean the citizens will not be happy. 

@Pogue

Note to @Ampersand, I will respond to your post, but since it is late, I only have time for this. A third world nation is not exactly on that did not side with the US or the USSR in the Cold War, heck a lot of people were neutral for fear of offending people. Neutrality is a factor, and one war does not serve as the basis for 3rd world country judgement. For the purposes of this debate, I consider a third world country to be that which has a poor economy and faces struggles that the government in place can not handle, which is leading to problems within and outside the country.

WilliamSchulz

However, even those who did side with the US or USSR were invaded like Czechoslovakia, or simply left alone, and they can be considered 3rd world countries.

Ampersand

WilliamSchulz said:

Pogue said:

A 3rd world country is a country that did not side with the US or USSR during the Cold War. 1st world countries are US and allies. I think you mean how can richer nations help poorer nations and war-stricken countries. However, even if a country is not an economic powerhouse, that does not mean the citizens will not be happy. 

@Pogue

Note to @Ampersand, I will respond to your post, but since it is late, I only have time for this. A third world nation is not exactly on that did not side with the US or the USSR in the Cold War, heck a lot of people were neutral for fear of offending people. Neutrality is a factor, and one war does not serve as the basis for 3rd world country judgement. For the purposes of this debate, I consider a third world country to be that which has a poor economy and faces struggles that the government in place can not handle, which is leading to problems within and outside the country.

The term you're looking for is developing countries. From Wikipedia

"The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Communist Bloc. The United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Western European nations and their allies represented the First World, while the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and their allies represented the Second World. This terminology provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on political and economic divisions."

Now you can still use it in the manner you are, as Wikipedia also notes that the term has no agreed upon meaning and is commonly used to refer to developing countries etc as well, but the fact that it has no agreed upon meaning is why it's usually best to use "developing countries" so as to avoid confusion.

Vaulk

Personally I think that the best way to help these 3rd world countries or "Developing Countries" is to leave them alone and allow them to develop.  If a Country is failing then I personally don't think that the cause is likely some external force that's beyond their control or means of mitigating...it's likely due to fundamental flaws in the systems that are in place or to over simplify...human error.  I don't believe that you can correct Human error by giving the same Humans in error some sort of aid.  

Ampersand

Vaulk said:

Personally I think that the best way to help these 3rd world countries or "Developing Countries" is to leave them alone and allow them to develop.  If a Country is failing then I personally don't think that the cause is likely some external force that's beyond their control or means of mitigating...it's likely due to fundamental flaws in the systems that are in place or to over simplify...human error.  I don't believe that you can correct Human error by giving the same Humans in error some sort of aid.  

In a world of international trade where organisations like the IMF and World Bank as well as the policies of individual countries have great say over how countries can trade, it's an absurd claim to just try and say "it's their own fault". For instance the USA has huge tariffs on a lot of agricultural, textile, etc products because those are the areas where poor developing nations can out compete the USA on a fair playing field, so the USA restricts fair trade, helps make the poorer countries uncompetitive which in turn helps keep them in a state of poverty.

WilliamSchulz

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

Any assistance will out of necessity only relieve a fraction of the harm that the economic exploitation of developing nations causes.

That may be true, but even the smallest assistance will help boost our relations with the country. If we are trying to be a first-world nation, is it not our duty to help those who are weak and in need of assistance, no matter how much?

No, I would say it is our duty to make meaningful difference that helps people rather than just slightly mitigating the damage that is caused by a system we enable.

If we are intended to make a meaningful difference, than why do we only seem to slightly help 3rd world nations per moment? If these same reasons for only making a meaningful difference apply, it is really possible to be charitable when we expect something in return or only help when it is worth the time to us, and not them?

I never said that is the policy of countries at the moment. It is in fact very much not the intention of countries to make a meaningful difference - but then in isolation neither is anything you have suggested.

The wealth and power of developed nations is based upon the economic advantages we have over poor nations which produce raw materials with little added value. The economic system which keeps our countries prosperous is the same which keeps other countries poor.

To resolve this you need to implement a fundamental restructuring of the socio-economic order - which most people don't want. better to suggest donations or charity or what have you that slightly mitigates the damage rather than fixing the problem.

The modern philosopher Zizek makes the point in regards to personal participation here:



It's an interesting watch and besides that more people need to listen to Zizek's lectures because at the moment no=one appreciates my Slajov Zizek impressions.

I watched the video, I have a few points of disagreement. While there is a certain method for proper charity, the video seems to assume that once we have done our good deed, we simply leave, like the man giving bread to the homeless example as a way to prolong the future issue that would arise once more in a day. However, we are not talking about prolonging, I am talking about a change in the education system and money given by our government for free to assist 3rd world nations. We aren't going to let the dogs fend for, we would rather help them use the money appropriately, gaining trust, allies, and more unified people. The advantage we have over 3rd world nations is that we are more developed and we have more Gross Capital. That is not what keeps nations poor, we have social ideas that make us better, ideas of liberty, a constitution, and American political thought that is much different. We behave according to the law because we know the legal authority has jurisdiction, it is not so in 3rd world countries, they have groups running wild and without control. We need to make a meaningful difference, for sure, but small assistances also help because instead of prolonging, as assumed, we are making slight improvements that will overall yield larger takeaways. I'm not going to spend 2 BN as a government to restructure a country, but I might spend 80 MN to rebuild houses felled by war in a 3rd world country Then, in a year, with a larger budget, more changes can be made that will be long-lasting. Processes take time, they don't occur at once, so let small changes add up so that they seem larger over time. 

2 key points in rebuttal:

1) Your defence is based in large parts in empty platitudes and just world fallacies. For instance the country with the highest GDP PPP per capita is Qatar and depending on whose list you go by the USA might not crack the top 10. Meanwhile the faster growing major economy, thought to be the world's superpower by the end of this century, is China. Liberty does not make people rich. Meanwhile the USA has significant problem with crime with one of the world's highest incarceration rates. Viewing your country as good does not mean it will be economically successful.

2) You haven't understood the actual point of the video, which I think links in with point 1 in that you don't understand why some countries are rich and some are poor.

To use an analogy but scaled down to individuals rather than companies; you seem to think that if we help people enough then everyone can be a Managing Director of a major company. That isn't correct because while there can be some Managing Directors, there need to be a heck of a lot more normal employees, street sweepers, janitors and people with no job due to structural unemployment. In a Capitalist society these lesser paid positions will exist and they will be lesser paid because control over pay is in the hands of the Capitalist and the system incentives them to not pay others more than necessary - and for menial jobs which MUST be performed but could be performed by just about anyone there is little incentive to pay well.

Similarly in the global economy there will need to be countries focusing on commodity creation with low added value - someone has to grow the food and mine the ores and sew the sneakers. The comparative advantage that lets poorer countries specialise their is the lower level of subsistence they hold to - Western farmers and miners would never work for the wages that are paid in the poorer countries. This also benefits the wealthier countries by allowing them to buy food and raw materials and goods with low added value that can be made in a sweatshop at low prices. There have to be industries focusing on low added value commodities and due to the principle of comparative advantage countries will tend to specialise - e.g. if they are one of the cheaper food producers in the world because of the low low wages of their farmers then they will continue to have a significant agricultural focus.

To put it another way - if impoverished Africans aren't producing a particular crop for very low wages who is producing it and how much are they getting paid to do it? Moreover - if you say they are now getting paid more to do the same work - why is this? The supply and demand factors won't change so why are these farmers suddenly getting paid more?

Response to rebuttals:

While my arguments are not based off of world fallacies, I agree that China is one of the world's top powers and has the fastest growing economy, as that the US has its fair share of problems. However, incarceration rates have nothing to do with being economically successful. Sure, it costs cash to hold prisoners, but there is no instance where this has led to economical crisis. You are right, liberty does not make people rich, but liberty that is followed, supported, and legally provided encourages autonomy and for people to become rich under a liberty based society. We may not have the highest GDP per capital, but we do have one of the largest budgets in the world, or gross capital to access, which makes us economically successful. 

With that being said, I may not have understood the point of the video, can you summarize it for me?

Second, I think you are missing the point of my argument. I completely agree that people need to take menial roles and not everyone can be a managing director. but instead of supporting Libya with the purchase of a coffee, I am talking about government support, which is the manager ex machina. As the government, we are responsible for directing foreign and world affairs without getting overly involves in every world affair. While we as individuals can contribute, I am referring to the government, whose job it is to support 3rd world (or developing) countries, not the menial roles of the everyday worker. 

This follows into my key point, in that our government does not want to take the time to undertake a large scale project which would require 2 BN say to fix in a developing country. As a solution, our government should spend 60 MN and focus on one aspect of a third world (developing) country that needs improvement, say roads, and keep spending money to rebuild the nation over a few years. That way, the country can remain autonomous and use the gift to boost the economy while establishing good relations with the US.

To answer your question, the reason farmers get paid more in the US to produce the same crop than in Africa is because our currency is economically stable and not so in other nations. We pay more because we understand the full meaning of our work, to produce domestically fresh fruit, thus getting paid more because we are the producers for our own country.Economic stability is the best factor for why some places pay more. I could be payed 1 MN in Africa for farming, but if the value of that MN is only $1.50 US dollars per day, it is clear to see why currency would play a role in this.  

WilliamSchulz

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Pogue said:

A 3rd world country is a country that did not side with the US or USSR during the Cold War. 1st world countries are US and allies. I think you mean how can richer nations help poorer nations and war-stricken countries. However, even if a country is not an economic powerhouse, that does not mean the citizens will not be happy. 

@Pogue

Note to @Ampersand, I will respond to your post, but since it is late, I only have time for this. A third world nation is not exactly on that did not side with the US or the USSR in the Cold War, heck a lot of people were neutral for fear of offending people. Neutrality is a factor, and one war does not serve as the basis for 3rd world country judgement. For the purposes of this debate, I consider a third world country to be that which has a poor economy and faces struggles that the government in place can not handle, which is leading to problems within and outside the country.

The term you're looking for is developing countries. From Wikipedia

"The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Communist Bloc. The United States, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Western European nations and their allies represented the First World, while the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and their allies represented the Second World. This terminology provided a way of broadly categorizing the nations of the Earth into three groups based on political and economic divisions."

Now you can still use it in the manner you are, as Wikipedia also notes that the term has no agreed upon meaning and is commonly used to refer to developing countries etc as well, but the fact that it has no agreed upon meaning is why it's usually best to use "developing countries" so as to avoid confusion.

Thank you for the clarification, I will use developing countries then, with an alias for entailing 3rd world countries.

Ampersand

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

Any assistance will out of necessity only relieve a fraction of the harm that the economic exploitation of developing nations causes.

That may be true, but even the smallest assistance will help boost our relations with the country. If we are trying to be a first-world nation, is it not our duty to help those who are weak and in need of assistance, no matter how much?

No, I would say it is our duty to make meaningful difference that helps people rather than just slightly mitigating the damage that is caused by a system we enable.

If we are intended to make a meaningful difference, than why do we only seem to slightly help 3rd world nations per moment? If these same reasons for only making a meaningful difference apply, it is really possible to be charitable when we expect something in return or only help when it is worth the time to us, and not them?

I never said that is the policy of countries at the moment. It is in fact very much not the intention of countries to make a meaningful difference - but then in isolation neither is anything you have suggested.

The wealth and power of developed nations is based upon the economic advantages we have over poor nations which produce raw materials with little added value. The economic system which keeps our countries prosperous is the same which keeps other countries poor.

To resolve this you need to implement a fundamental restructuring of the socio-economic order - which most people don't want. better to suggest donations or charity or what have you that slightly mitigates the damage rather than fixing the problem.

The modern philosopher Zizek makes the point in regards to personal participation here:



It's an interesting watch and besides that more people need to listen to Zizek's lectures because at the moment no=one appreciates my Slajov Zizek impressions.

I watched the video, I have a few points of disagreement. While there is a certain method for proper charity, the video seems to assume that once we have done our good deed, we simply leave, like the man giving bread to the homeless example as a way to prolong the future issue that would arise once more in a day. However, we are not talking about prolonging, I am talking about a change in the education system and money given by our government for free to assist 3rd world nations. We aren't going to let the dogs fend for, we would rather help them use the money appropriately, gaining trust, allies, and more unified people. The advantage we have over 3rd world nations is that we are more developed and we have more Gross Capital. That is not what keeps nations poor, we have social ideas that make us better, ideas of liberty, a constitution, and American political thought that is much different. We behave according to the law because we know the legal authority has jurisdiction, it is not so in 3rd world countries, they have groups running wild and without control. We need to make a meaningful difference, for sure, but small assistances also help because instead of prolonging, as assumed, we are making slight improvements that will overall yield larger takeaways. I'm not going to spend 2 BN as a government to restructure a country, but I might spend 80 MN to rebuild houses felled by war in a 3rd world country Then, in a year, with a larger budget, more changes can be made that will be long-lasting. Processes take time, they don't occur at once, so let small changes add up so that they seem larger over time. 

2 key points in rebuttal:

1) Your defence is based in large parts in empty platitudes and just world fallacies. For instance the country with the highest GDP PPP per capita is Qatar and depending on whose list you go by the USA might not crack the top 10. Meanwhile the faster growing major economy, thought to be the world's superpower by the end of this century, is China. Liberty does not make people rich. Meanwhile the USA has significant problem with crime with one of the world's highest incarceration rates. Viewing your country as good does not mean it will be economically successful.

2) You haven't understood the actual point of the video, which I think links in with point 1 in that you don't understand why some countries are rich and some are poor.

To use an analogy but scaled down to individuals rather than companies; you seem to think that if we help people enough then everyone can be a Managing Director of a major company. That isn't correct because while there can be some Managing Directors, there need to be a heck of a lot more normal employees, street sweepers, janitors and people with no job due to structural unemployment. In a Capitalist society these lesser paid positions will exist and they will be lesser paid because control over pay is in the hands of the Capitalist and the system incentives them to not pay others more than necessary - and for menial jobs which MUST be performed but could be performed by just about anyone there is little incentive to pay well.

Similarly in the global economy there will need to be countries focusing on commodity creation with low added value - someone has to grow the food and mine the ores and sew the sneakers. The comparative advantage that lets poorer countries specialise their is the lower level of subsistence they hold to - Western farmers and miners would never work for the wages that are paid in the poorer countries. This also benefits the wealthier countries by allowing them to buy food and raw materials and goods with low added value that can be made in a sweatshop at low prices. There have to be industries focusing on low added value commodities and due to the principle of comparative advantage countries will tend to specialise - e.g. if they are one of the cheaper food producers in the world because of the low low wages of their farmers then they will continue to have a significant agricultural focus.

To put it another way - if impoverished Africans aren't producing a particular crop for very low wages who is producing it and how much are they getting paid to do it? Moreover - if you say they are now getting paid more to do the same work - why is this? The supply and demand factors won't change so why are these farmers suddenly getting paid more?

Response to rebuttals:

While my arguments are not based off of world fallacies, I agree that China is one of the world's top powers and has the fastest growing economy, as that the US has its fair share of problems. However, incarceration rates have nothing to do with being economically successful. Sure, it costs cash to hold prisoners, but there is no instance where this has led to economical crisis. You are right, liberty does not make people rich, but liberty that is followed, supported, and legally provided encourages autonomy and for people to become rich under a liberty based society. We may not have the highest GDP per capital, but we do have one of the largest budgets in the world, or gross capital to access, which makes us economically successful. 

With that being said, I may not have understood the point of the video, can you summarize it for me?

Second, I think you are missing the point of my argument. I completely agree that people need to take menial roles and not everyone can be a managing director. but instead of supporting Libya with the purchase of a coffee, I am talking about government support, which is the manager ex machina. As the government, we are responsible for directing foreign and world affairs without getting overly involves in every world affair. While we as individuals can contribute, I am referring to the government, whose job it is to support 3rd world (or developing) countries, not the menial roles of the everyday worker. 

This follows into my key point, in that our government does not want to take the time to undertake a large scale project which would require 2 BN say to fix in a developing country. As a solution, our government should spend 60 MN and focus on one aspect of a third world (developing) country that needs improvement, say roads, and keep spending money to rebuild the nation over a few years. That way, the country can remain autonomous and use the gift to boost the economy while establishing good relations with the US.

To answer your question, the reason farmers get paid more in the US to produce the same crop than in Africa is because our currency is economically stable and not so in other nations. We pay more because we understand the full meaning of our work, to produce domestically fresh fruit, thus getting paid more because we are the producers for our own country.Economic stability is the best factor for why some places pay more. I could be payed 1 MN in Africa for farming, but if the value of that MN is only $1.50 US dollars per day, it is clear to see why currency would play a role in this.  

Not "world fallacies" - "just-world fallacies"; the belief that good things happen to good people e.g. a country will have economic prosperity because it's people are law abiding and liberal, which is to say the exact kind of argument you have made and as per my examples we know to be false. Also the point about incarceration wasn't the economic cost, but that the USA is hardly the law abiding bastion of liberalism you tried to paint it as.

The point of the video is that charity does not change the institutional causes which create poverty. The charitable giving as part of your purchase is just an analysis of consumerism, the point still stands if you give to charity as a separate action from your commercial purchases which crate the conditions of poverty. 2BN in road improvements will not substantially alter the socioeconomic status of a country. Poor people living in poverty on a few dollars a day will still be living in poverty on a few dollars a day. Your action does nothing substantial to change the situation that causes poverty and suffering.

You also did not answer the question I asked. I did not ask "Why do American farmers make more money from agriculture", I asked: "if impoverished Africans aren't producing a particular crop for very low wages who is producing it and how much are they getting paid to do it? Moreover - if you say they are now getting paid more to do the same work - why is this?" Please answer the question. Currently masses of people in the developing world get paid very little and live in poverty in a range of occupations centred around the production of raw materials, food and textiles. After all your charity happens, who will be producing the raw materials, food and textiles that they are currently producing, how much will they be getting paid for it and if you say they are getting paid more - why are they getting paid more?

Also your answer to the question I didn't ask is incorrect anyway. Stability of the currency does not cause the wages of agricultural workers to be high or low - look at how despite the value of the pound in the Uk fluctuating considerably over the last year or two since Brexit; the farmers still get paid far more than developing countries whose currency is stable. hence we know your answer is wrong.

"We pay more because we understand the full meaning of our work, to produce domestically fresh fruit, thus getting paid more because we are the producers for our own country" just seems to be a platitude with no actual meaning.

The actual answer is twofold:

1) Farmers in Western nations receive massive subsidies, e.g. https://fullfact.org/economy/farming-subsidies-uk/.

2) Farmers benefit from protective trade policies. Countries like the USA will arrange free trade agreements with developing nations which cover 95% or so of goods and allow free trade of things like jet engines which of the two countries only the USA can produce, ensuring that the USA can sell it's highly expensive high value added goods competitively with other advanced nations (like the Uk, germany, etc) who might produce jet engines. it also ensures the developing nation can't put protective measures in place to start trying to develop its own jet engine business as infant industries need a good deal of protection until they've grown enough to be competitive. However of the 5% of stuff that isn't covered, this will cover agricultural products, textiles, etc ensuring that the cost of their products in the USA is massively inflated over what it's market price would be.

There are other influences as well such as the the greater industrial level and ability to loan money in the USA, but those would be meaningless if the agricultural sector wasn't so heavily subsidised and protected as the farmers wouldn't make enough to afford the more efficient equipment and no-one would give them a loan when they would be so dirt poor.

MayCaesar

The basic idea of an investment is that in some form you get more back long-term than you spend initially. If we want our help to truly make a difference, then our help must be investment in the country's future, not a purposeless money transaction - and that necessitates the mentioned give-back method. 

One of the main reasons third-world nations are doing so poorly is the prevalent corruption throughout all elements of their political, economical and even societal systems. With this in mind, you definitely do not want to help them by performing an unconditional act of charity, as the fruits of that act are almost certain to be evaporated along its travel throughout all the steps on the ladder of corruption.

Bill Gates employs a complex approach where he invests money in education and healthcare in third-world nations; his reasoning is that healthy and educated people are the main drivers of the modern economy. However, he does not do it through charity; his foundation, instead, acts as a private profit-focused company, and its sustenance requires that every investment results in a financial profit. As a result, his foundation is one of the highest ranked private human capital-focused foundations in the world, and he has managed to improve life even in countries on which Western politicians have long given up.

I think this is the approach we should employ, if we truly want the third world to stop being the third world. Pragmatic business approach, no matter how cold-hearted it seems, somewhat paradoxically tends to be the most effective one.