Disturbing Disparity:

[Aristophanes]

This is interesting: last year Saudi Arabia raised in excess of $150 million for the families of suicide bombers in Israel/Palestine. In contrast, Saudi Arabia has pledged to contribute no less than $30 million for the hundreds of thousands of dead, injured, sick, orphaned, hungry, and homeless muslims in Indonesia. This despite huge profits selling oil last year, ditto Kuwait.

Private US donations exceed $350 million, and money pledged on Amazon.com alone exceeds Kuwait's announced donations.

Comments?

I'd also like to point out that the only unaffected countries which have actually CONTRIBUTED [in real terms] to the disaster relief so far are the United States, New Zealand, and Australia. Canada's special DART team which is supposed to be a fast action relief force took 9 days to leave airbases in Canada. An American carrier task force was within the region providing aid within a couple days of the disaster.

I thought I'd post this to counterbalance the condescending, and high-handed tone with which allegedly bloodthirsty and ignorant Americans; and their leadership are so frequently used. You may say aught that you will; but they were there first, and they have done the lion's share of the relief work to date.

[morble]

I have said and continue to say that Saudi Arabia is a primary (financial) force behind terrorism in the world today. Saudi Arabia and the Saudi royal family (though not officially) are currently engaged in acts of war against the US and have been doing so for decades. Wahabism, the official Saudi religion, is the primary philosophical and religious wellspring of Islamic fundamentalism and the belief that killing "infidels" is holy, and encouraged and sanctified by God. Remove Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea (the latter don't actually do much, but function as an illegal arms dealer who will sell anything to anybody) and you remove 85% or more of the forces of terrorism in the world today.

As for the rest, there is a parable in the Bible: A father goes to his son and asks him to work in the vineyard. The son say no, but then later repents and goes to work in the vineyard. The father goes to his other son and asks him to work in the vineyard, and the son says, "yes, father, I will go right away", but then does not go. Which son, Jesus asks, did his father's bidding?

(Aristophanes, what's your source for those numbers? I think I'd like to at least send a letter to the editor of the local paper if those numbers can be supported as reliable.)

[OTZ]

donations by country

[Marshal Qin]

Originally posted by morble@Jan 5 2005, 05:48 PM
I have said and continue to say that Saudi Arabia is a primary (financial) force behind terrorism in the world today. Saudi Arabia and the Saudi royal family (though not officially) are currently engaged in acts of war against the US and have been doing so for decades. Wahabism, the official Saudi religion, is the primary philosophical and religious wellspring of Islamic fundamentalism and the belief that killing "infidels" is holy, and encouraged and sanctified by God. Remove Saudi Arabia, Iran, and North Korea (the latter don't actually do much, but function as an illegal arms dealer who will sell anything to anybody) and you remove 85% or more of the forces of terrorism in the world today.

I guess that's true though I'm not sure how far Iran is involved in terrorism outside the middle east. I thought they were more involved in the fight with Israel rather than taking it outside the region. The only practical way that they can fight Israel is through non-convetional means because of the support that Israel enjoys from the US.

Saudi-Arabia....yep

Nth Korea...Yep

and Pakistan up until recently.

As for the original post,
Its Asia. People don't matter in the same way as they do in the west. Thats not to say that they don't matter here, its just that the suffering of others is abstract. I constantly marvel at the lack of empathy I see here in my daily life - and thats with their own people. I imagine the suffering of others is just interesting-but-irrelavent news to the majority of people in Asia.

Even though many muslims were effected, a natural disaster is just an act of God and is approached with a degree of fatalism so its not so surprising that not much has been donated.

Its what I keep saying in GD....different cultures, different attitudes to everything - including disasters like this. People simply cannot judge the actions of people from another culture according to the values of their own.

[Aristophanes]

Originally posted by OTZ@Jan 5 2005, 06:07 PM
donations by country

Unfortunately that ignores the donations made by individuals, and activities whose expense is difficult to gauge: deployment of military personel, vehicles, and stores/supplies which had been antecedently set aside.

There are claims that donations by US individuals, charities, corporations, churches, etc... have reached $382 million. Unfortunately, I can't find a reliable way to verify those numbers; but I'd be loathe to let Morble write a letter to his local paper that would excite ridicule. We'll have to wait and see.

All the direct government donations are likely to go through the UN which will ensure much is spent on meetings, 'co-ordinating', diplomats, bureaucrats, and hair-brained mega-projects. More to follow on that.


Qin, I was taking a shot at all the people who say Islamic terrorism is motivated by the suffering of Osama or Arafat's Muslim brethren. I'm making the point that religion is still today a shimmering mantle under which certain people hide nefarious, or less-than-appealing motives. Anybody who seriously believe Islamofascism is brought on by the plight of helpless Muslims worldwide is absolutely deluded. The 'root cause' of terrorism is, as it always have been, the illicit quest for power: not justice, as we are led to believe.

Of course even the most cursory examination of prior facts should have led the rational man to that conclusion long ago.

[Tiwaz]

Originally posted by Aristophanes@Jan 6 2005, 04:35 PM
Unfortunately that ignores the donations made by individuals, and activities whose expense is difficult to gauge: deployment of military personel, vehicles, and stores/supplies which had been antecedently set aside.

There are claims that donations by US individuals, charities, corporations, churches, etc... have reached $382 million. Unfortunately, I can't find a reliable way to verify those numbers; but I'd be loathe to let Morble write a letter to his local paper that would excite ridicule. We'll have to wait and see.

All the direct government donations are likely to go through the UN which will ensure much is spent on meetings, 'co-ordinating', diplomats, bureaucrats, and hair-brained mega-projects. More to follow on that.


Qin, I was taking a shot at all the people who say Islamic terrorism is motivated by the suffering of Osama or Arafat's Muslim brethren. I'm making the point that religion is still today a shimmering mantle under which certain people hide nefarious, or less-than-appealing motives. Anybody who seriously believe Islamofascism is brought on by the plight of helpless Muslims worldwide is absolutely deluded. The 'root cause' of terrorism is, as it always have been, the illicit quest for power: not justice, as we are led to believe.

Of course even the most cursory examination of prior facts should have led the rational man to that conclusion long ago.

It has private donations in parenthesis where possible (as in CNN is told how much private aid comes)
Example:
Germany 680.20 (200.00)

Germany 680 million officially and 200 million privately.
Largest aid pachage overall.

As for donations going to UN....

You know efforts like this do tend to require large amount of bureaucrats. Running aid operation in multiple nations for millions of people isn't run with pen and paper in small office.

But could we please avoid turning this into another "muslims are evil" or "UN is evil" thread. Or any other similar. We have multitude of those around.

[username]

All the direct government donations are likely to go through the UN which will ensure much is spent on meetings, 'co-ordinating', diplomats, bureaucrats, and hair-brained mega-projects. More to follow on that.

Wrong. The whole of Australias aid which is fast approaching 1bn is going straight to Aceh - together with Australian troops. As much as I dislike the Howard government I must admit they handled this issue in a very knightly way. The aid you are probably right about is the one given by the IMF, which will most probably stay in the vaults of the banks that gave it.

[Derkon]

Aid donations are all very well and will help in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. But what about next year, 5 years time, 10 years down the road. Recovery from this disaster will be measured in years, and how fast it happens depends on the west, particularly America.

If we in the west are serious about helping these people, and others like them then this should be the catalyst that sparks off the cancellation of all Third World debt. As Sir Bob Geldolf has been quick to point out, this disaster should not act as a distraction from the disaster that it ongoing in Africa.

The problem is that the likes of the IMF, World Bank, US Administration and the mega corporations that bankroll/control them are never going to agree to canceling this debt. Like someone here already said, it is all about power, and as long as you hold the purse strings of a country like a noose around it’s neck, you can wring anything you want out of it, and pay a pittance for the privilege!

These are the things that made America great, these are the things that keep America great! Anybody that hasn’t realized this truth, wake up and smell the coffee! While you’re doing that remember that some poor kid living on the breadline is picking coffee beans dawn ‘til dusk so you can enjoy your morning brew!

It’s a cruel world, and that’s not gonna change on it’s own! Stop the war and cancel the debt!

[Aristophanes]

Originally posted by Derkon@Jan 7 2005, 07:25 AM
Aid donations are all very well and will help in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. But what about next year, 5 years time, 10 years down the road. Recovery from this disaster will be measured in years, and how fast it happens depends on the west, particularly America.

If we in the west are serious about helping these people, and others like them then this should be the catalyst that sparks off the cancellation of all Third World debt. As Sir Bob Geldolf has been quick to point out, this disaster should not act as a distraction from the disaster that it ongoing in Africa.

The problem is that the likes of the IMF, World Bank, US Administration and the mega corporations that bankroll/control them are never going to agree to canceling this debt. Like someone here already said, it is all about power, and as long as you hold the purse strings of a country like a noose around it’s neck, you can wring anything you want out of it, and pay a pittance for the privilege!

These are the things that made America great, these are the things that keep America great! Anybody that hasn’t realized this truth, wake up and smell the coffee! While you’re doing that remember that some poor kid living on the breadline is picking coffee beans dawn ‘til dusk so you can enjoy your morning brew!

It’s a cruel world, and that’s not gonna change on it’s own! Stop the war and cancel the debt!

You make 'cancelling debt' seem like some sort of panacea without considering, in the least, the negative repercussions which are sure to ensue:
-Yet more irresponsible lending[by private institutions] under the belief that the IMF or governments will cover bank losses. The real losers will be the taxpayers who end up footing the bill when nations, once again indebted, can not pay up. If you don't believe this is possible you should read about loans made by US banks to the 'developing world' during the eighties and early nineties. At one point there were enough bad loans granted that, had the information been made public knowledge, institutions like Citigroup would have collapsed. As it was, fuzzy accounting methods were required to hide the harsh realities.[with government collusion of course]

-Yet more irresponsible spending is a sure bet when all third-world nations are hamstrung by corruption. Perhaps 'elect' President Iouene Ayawani will agree with the suggested measures; after all, they're likely to buy him a new palace and some black Toyota trucks.
Most of the money lent so far has not achieved, in the slightest, what was intended. What makes you think a pack of thugs, dictators, and populists will hesitate to borrow money where there are yet fewer consequences. This is a little akin to giving an unlimited credit card to a teenage girl.
Don't try our patience with claims of oversight, accountability, or the likes: we've seen how intent international organizations are on transparent dealings.[UN Oil for Power Scam]

-Yet more money to fund violence all across the African continent, and new incentives to sow violence and disorder are probable outcomes. There are several possible reasons for this [probable] outcome: whether to keep one's place on the unlimited trough, to take by force the enviable sinecure, or simply to increase one's share of the total.

-Such measures ignore the entire reason for/behind money: money is simply a way to simplify trade and barter by providing a stable universal measure against which the values of properties conrete and intangible can be calculated. [and through which long/short term contracts can be arranged] Money allows the amazing complexity, and specializations of the modern marketplace, and to reduce trust in monies[through irresponsible lending, and accounting 'magic tricks'] must reduce trust and coherency in the market system itself. This is a real and natural consequence which has been witnessed in the tech bubble, and preceding the Great Depression.
In the past few years, a credit surplus, primarily in Japan Saudi Arabia and China, has financed US borrowing.[how long can that trend continue] The US dollar is reeling as money has been lent upon which returns seem, with each passing day, more unlikely. [this seems off-topic, but illustrates the effects unregulated borrowing and lending do have on currencies]
Cancelling debt is likely to increase economic uncertainty, and further shake confidence[at a time when there is low confidence in the US dollar, and to a lesser extent, the Euro] in the money supply in the same way other massive increases or reductions in it are wont to do. Unexpected ripple effects such as increases in interest rates are likely to ensure; and may have adverse effects on both healthy, and unhealthy economies. With very uncertain goals and expectations in mind, why would we embark on a path that could be, at worst, suicidal for the financial system-see first paragraph. At best, Western taxpayers will once again foot the bill for money poorly-invested, and well-embezzled.

It seems foolish to debase the edifying constructs of our present prosperity in order to further entrench evil dictators, fatten the wallets of greedy bureaucrats, and reward irresponsible behaviours. Despite what many macro-economists and politicians may say, money is not easily managed and its policy is often misunderstood.

Let's not give in to ad hominem appeals for charity: "Good intentions pave the way to Hell."

Another thing to consider:

If third world debts are cancelled, less credit will be available to private citizens in those countries. People already starved for capital will have no recourse but governments famous for monopoly power over the capital markets.
Tyrants, plutocrats, autocrats, kleptocrats, their families, and their cronies will 'benefit' from the unfree capital markets; but democrats, entrepreneurs and people hungering for change will have no arms[metaphorically speaking] at their disposal to combat widespread corruption, poverty and injustice.

The mathematics of this are clear: Cancelled debt= less credit available.[for a variety of reasons such as uncertainty, credit contraction, higher interest rates, and no promise of returns] When I say 'less credit available' I don't mean to the governments themselves, but in absolute terms. The governments themselves are unlikely to be starved of fresh loans because those are the only things keeping many countries afloat, and to deprive them would seem to be a 'humanitarian debacle'.[whether that would be the reality is another question] So, less available credit for all, but governments themselves will be borrowing as much as before in absolute terms; thus, private citizens get smaller portion of smaller total available. Governments are empowered, people are weakened. What an elegant solution!!!!

This seems the ideal way to make every third-world potentate automatically dictator-for-life. So yes, this is about power and privilege, but whose noose and whose neck?

[Derkon]

I’m not saying that canceling the debt is going to fix the third world’s problems overnight but it’s a starting point. If these countries debt repayments exceed their GDP then how is the situation ever going to change? Bear in mind that many of the tyrants controlling these countries are doing so with the backing and support of Western governments. If the West wants to pump third world countries for their resources, feeding first world economies and maintaining their dominant position they have a vested interest in keeping the populations of these countries oppressed. That’s why they support corrupt regimes and keep them in power. Part of that support entails giving them enough rope to hang their economies with, or, in layman’s terms, loaning them more money than they could ever hope to pay back. Isn’t that responsible of them!

Here’s a further example of irresponsibility. The so called “War on Terror”. It’s a bunch of marketing crap. An excuse for the US administration to ram it’s agenda down the world’s throat. A war on corruption coupled with debt cancellation would go a long way to improving the lot of huge numbers of humanity that are suffering needlessly. End their suffering and they actually might start getting a little more out of life. If that happened then they might start demanding something approaching a descent wage. We couldn’t have them doing that though because that would push the cost of raping these nation up and would inevitably hurt the precious profits of the first world corporations that are bankrolling the US administration and getting them to illegally invade sovereign nations as payment.

You can spout any amount of theory on the adverse economic effects canceling the debt would have for the first world, but you’re basing that on that fact that the cost of canceling the debt would be passed on to those least able to bear that burden. At the end of the day even in the West the disparity between rich and poor is becoming more marked. You talk about credit availability, well credit is something that’s far too available these days in western nations. As a result we’re seeing average everyday people getting deeper and deeper into debt and as a result we’re now starting to witness third world type poverty in first world countries. You can stick your head in the sand and ignore it if you wish but when it’s on your own doorstep that’s going to be hard to do. You might feel differently in ten or fifteen years when you either have to live inside a fortress like compound or, worse, you find yourself on the outside, one of these unfortunate first world peasants.

If you want to talk about irresponsible spending, then consider, for a moment, the fact that the world richest nation made an initial aid pledge of the miserly sum of $75 million. Does that sound like a government that is in any way serious about helping those affected by the Tsunami? This from a nation that spends countless billions on “defense” every year. Since the Soviet Union is now a distant memory can you tell me who exactly, are they defending themselves against? How can such defense expenditure be justified? Is it defense, or is it offense? Or, perhaps, is it just one big money making racket?

You can stick your head in the Ecomomist and spout lame excuses for why the so-called “good guys” shouldn’t get their hands dirty, while the world around you gets flushed down the toilet. Or you can open your eyes, see the wood for the trees and realize that if people like you and me don’t start making demands of our politicians then there wont be much of a world to pass on to our children! Ultimately, the noose is around all our necks, the choice is to remove it now, or let it slowly choke us all, from the poorest upwards!

[Aristophanes]

Originally posted by Derkon@Jan 10 2005, 10:23 AM
I’m not saying that canceling the debt is going to fix the third world’s problems overnight but it’s a starting point. If these countries debt repayments exceed their GDP then how is the situation ever going to change? Bear in mind that many of the tyrants controlling these countries are doing so with the backing and support of Western governments. If the West wants to pump third world countries for their resources, feeding first world economies and maintaining their dominant position they have a vested interest in keeping the populations of these countries oppressed. That’s why they support corrupt regimes and keep them in power. Part of that support entails giving them enough rope to hang their economies with, or, in layman’s terms, loaning them more money than they could ever hope to pay back. Isn’t that responsible of them!

Here’s a further example of irresponsibility. The so called “War on Terror”. It’s a bunch of marketing crap. An excuse for the US administration to ram it’s agenda down the world’s throat. A war on corruption coupled with debt cancellation would go a long way to improving the lot of huge numbers of humanity that are suffering needlessly. End their suffering and they actually might start getting a little more out of life. If that happened then they might start demanding something approaching a descent wage. We couldn’t have them doing that though because that would push the cost of raping these nation up and would inevitably hurt the precious profits of the first world corporations that are bankrolling the US administration and getting them to illegally invade sovereign nations as payment.

You can spout any amount of theory on the adverse economic effects canceling the debt would have for the first world, but you’re basing that on that fact that the cost of canceling the debt would be passed on to those least able to bear that burden. At the end of the day even in the West the disparity between rich and poor is becoming more marked. You talk about credit availability, well credit is something that’s far too available these days in western nations. As a result we’re seeing average everyday people getting deeper and deeper into debt and as a result we’re now starting to witness third world type poverty in first world countries. You can stick your head in the sand and ignore it if you wish but when it’s on your own doorstep that’s going to be hard to do. You might feel differently in ten or fifteen years when you either have to live inside a fortress like compound or, worse, you find yourself on the outside, one of these unfortunate first world peasants.

If you want to talk about irresponsible spending, then consider, for a moment, the fact that the world richest nation made an initial aid pledge of the miserly sum of $75 million. Does that sound like a government that is in any way serious about helping those affected by the Tsunami? This from a nation that spends countless billions on “defense” every year. Since the Soviet Union is now a distant memory can you tell me who exactly, are they defending themselves against? How can such defense expenditure be justified? Is it defense, or is it offense? Or, perhaps, is it just one big money making racket?

You can stick your head in the Ecomomist and spout lame excuses for why the so-called “good guys” shouldn’t get their hands dirty, while the world around you gets flushed down the toilet. Or you can open your eyes, see the wood for the trees and realize that if people like you and me don’t start making demands of our politicians then there wont be much of a world to pass on to our children! Ultimately, the noose is around all our necks, the choice is to remove it now, or let it slowly choke us all, from the poorest upwards!

This jumble of unreasoned, and unsubstantiated verbiage, oft repeated platitudinal statements, is not an adequate response to what I wrote. Your entire thesis, so far, has been "cancel debt to eliminate global poverty," without showing that such a process would indeed have the intended results. I went on to provide objections which were completely relevant, and showed fairly conclusively that cancelled debt could well increase suffering and poverty everywhere. Like a broken record, we've returned to the tired themes of 'exploitation,' 'evil US corporations,' and 'poverty' as though they are the only ills that affect this world.[if ills they are] The tirade continues with totally obsolete 'zero sum economics,' and the famously wrong-headed 'class struggle.' Please, 'facts not words': hold on the rhetoric; we're not making speaches.

Bottom line, I'm not about to argue a rambling post with no clear point, and absolutely no factual basis. I'm sorry, but that isn't fit to debate.

[Derkon]

I would have to counter that it is your response that is inadequate. What, exactly are you describing and unsubstantiated? Of course my thesis hasn’t changed, it’s the anti-thesis of your own, “canceling debt will eliminate global poverty” versus “canceling debt won’t eliminate global poverty”. In case you hadn’t noticed, I did actually concede that canceling debt alone would not be enough and that a War on Corruption would also be required.

You’ve summed up your argument quite well yourself, that canceling debt could (read might or may here) increase suffering and poverty. Any enterprise, if not properly managed, is certain to go awry and cause more damage than good. I often find that those most in need of hearing about the realities of “exploitation”, “US corporations” and “poverty” are the ones that deride and rebuke any serious discussion about them.

Not to mention that you seem to be in some doubt as to whether or not exploitation and poverty are “ills of the world”. From your attitude they’re obviously not ills of your “little” world but let me assure you that, yes, they are ills of the world, and man made ones at that. I’ll leave Corporations out of the list, as that’s a subjective issue.

If we’re on the subject of rhetoric, what about phrases like “tirade”, “obsolete” and “famously wrong-headed”. Oh please, get off the stage! I’m quite convinced now that you’re a Republican. And I’m sure you’re proud of it. Let me just remind you that at the height of their power, smothering in their delusions, the Nazi’s were quite proud of themselves too. In the long run though, that didn’t go any way to making them right!

It’s quite obvious from your attitude that “debate” is the furthest thing from your mind, all you’re interested in is being right.

One final thing, speaches is spelt speeches!

[morble]

Ok, both you guys take a step back and three deep breaths. I, for one, would definitely like to see you discuss this further. I've always leaned towards Derkon's pov, but Aristophanes has made me consider I've been looking at it too simplistically. Do the money nations not lend at all? How do we prevent the corruption and incompetence that got the poor nations into this fix in the first place? It's a complicated issue, I'd like to hear more, and you both should try to confine your arguments to dry-as-toast analyses of only the topic at hand, so that the whole debate doesn't just flame up and out! Please, let's hear more debate.

[Aristophanes]

Originally posted by Derkon@Jan 11 2005, 05:44 AM
I would have to counter that it is your response that is inadequate. What, exactly are you describing and unsubstantiated? Of course my thesis hasn’t changed, it’s the anti-thesis of your own, “canceling debt will eliminate global poverty” versus “canceling debt won’t eliminate global poverty”. In case you hadn’t noticed, I did actually concede that canceling debt alone would not be enough and that a War on Corruption would also be required.

You’ve summed up your argument quite well yourself, that canceling debt could (read might or may here) increase suffering and poverty. Any enterprise, if not properly managed, is certain to go awry and cause more damage than good. I often find that those most in need of hearing about the realities of “exploitation”, “US corporations” and “poverty” are the ones that deride and rebuke any serious discussion about them.

Not to mention that you seem to be in some doubt as to whether or not exploitation and poverty are “ills of the world”. From your attitude they’re obviously not ills of your “little” world but let me assure you that, yes, they are ills of the world, and man made ones at that. I’ll leave Corporations out of the list, as that’s a subjective issue.

If we’re on the subject of rhetoric, what about phrases like “tirade”, “obsolete” and “famously wrong-headed”. Oh please, get off the stage! I’m quite convinced now that you’re a Republican. And I’m sure you’re proud of it. Let me just remind you that at the height of their power, smothering in their delusions, the Nazi’s were quite proud of themselves too. In the long run though, that didn’t go any way to making them right!

It’s quite obvious from your attitude that “debate” is the furthest thing from your mind, all you’re interested in is being right.

One final thing, speaches is spelt speeches!

a)You didn't cite one source, one figure, or one fact[or any particular chain of reasoning] in your entire diatribe; I think that qualifies as 'unsubstantiated.'

b)I'm glad you think a 'War on Corruption' is in order; but rather than resorting to bureaucratic titles, why don't you tell me what measures you think would be useful.

c)There is nothing certain in the world of economics, and I added 'may' as a caveat. When we consider probabilities, and we say 'such and such has a 99.9999% chance of happening,' we should still warn that, unlikely though it may be, there is an alternate possibility. That seemed clear to me.
You may be a rationalist, and you may not be; but you're assertion that [and I paraphrase] 'this problem can be somehow managed' defies the realities of the trillions of variables and possibilities which need to be considered. I'm suggesting we rely on empirical evidence to guide us, not 'wholly direct', but certainly guide.
The entire history of 'managed economies' [just as 'managed environments'] is a pageant of monumental errors. Don't be arrogant; we[humans] aren't nearly as knowledgeable as we think we are.[no matter what your university profs may let on]

d) 'Exploitation' is a subjective term in today's world, but there are many people who would rather be 'exploited' than starved. You claim employees in other countries are 'exploited' without admitting that their lower productivity is very much responsible for their lower pay. [there are many other factors to consider, but we would exhaust ourselves solving other people's problems when we would do better on our own]
As it is, in China, dozens of millions of young people are flocking to the coastal provinces to be 'exploited.' Some exploitation!!!
I know a lot about poverty. I live in the poorest[2nd poorest] city in Western Canada, Saskatoon. Saskatoon lies in the province of Saskatchewan, which is considerably poorer than Mississippi or Alabama. It is also blessed with some of the largest resource deposits in the world including the largest Uranium deposists, the largest Potash deposits, and huge quantities of natural gas. Saskatchewan also has abundant timber, fertile farmlands, oil[lots of oil], gold, and coal. You could probably say that Saskatchewan was 'exploited', and that it is 'raped of its resources.' After all, our economy is mostly based on the extraction and exportation of natural wealth: yet Saskatchewan is poor. We're the home of Tommy Douglas and the first successful socialist party in North America, and we've had socialist government for the last 60 years.[interspersed with 8 years of Liberals, and ten TERRIBLE years of Conservatives] Our population in 1930 stood at 1 million, today we're at about 980 000. Why?

e) Exploitation and poverty are both relative concepts, and absolutely natural. They are hardly ills; they exist. We should thank our lucky stars for them, because they have made possible almost every [human] development.[including the development of humans] You act as though, in some Utopian past, there was an abundance of resources and wealth and everyone, and everything coexisted in harmony; and then mankind came along...Your assertion that there was no such thing as scarcity before some 'Man' apparently made it is ridiculous.
Biology is the study of efficient resource use, and chronicles the struggles of species competing for scarce resources. If you studied earth sciences from the earliest beginnings on this planet you would find that nature itself expands its economy at the expense of the weak.[human economies and societies are, thankfully, less heartless] There was a time when only anaerobic bacteria COULD live on this planet, billions of years later, the planet supports unparalleled diversity of life. The natural mechanisms which make that possible could be distilled down to physical forces themselves; so who's to blame?
Don't be such an idealist. [you folks always think there is a 'problem' and a 'solution' as if we know everything there is to know]

f)
i) I don't think I could be Republican: I'm Canadian. I would not vote for either major American party as their politics, and corruption disgusts me. Washington is ROME.

ii) We're all smothered in our delusions. Philosophy is resignation to ignorance, try it.

g)I'm very much interested in debate for the very reason I want to be right, and see 'right' as being an ongoing challenge which will continue until 'I'm rotting in peace.'
We live in a dynamic world; we can't be right all the time.
Debate, to me, consists of trading facts, figures, and [logical]substantive reasoning in an effort to find common ground; but deprived of these elements on one side, there can be, equally, little of effect reasoned on the other. [Throw me a bone: I need a chain of reasoning I can argue against, or 'facts' I can disprove.]

h) Thank you for correcting my spelling. It just so happens that it is a common error of habit with me; it became imbedded in my mind in the wrong form, and since then I have been struggling to expurgate it.
I've seen many notable spelling mistakes in your own ramblings; but, as you don't like to be corrected, I decided not to inform you of them.

[Praetorian Sejanus]

Aristophanes,

I know you could not have forgotten me so soon, but I feel the need to (again) bring up some of my concerns. I have no doubt, that in the face of such conduct, Derkon will eventually refuse to continue this discussion with you, much as I did with our debate in the Political Mudpit.

Offending people left right and center is not a manner in which a civitate should carry themselves. But I believe that I have said something to this effect to you before. Naively, perhaps, or may just to be civil, I still hold on to the belief that you are unaware of how patronising you can appear sometimes. And so, again, perhaps naively, I call on you to mend your ways. You are quite obviously an intelligent individual, but, by no means, the most (or the only) intelligent person meandering through these forums. I would wager there's good reason why Derkon was promoted to civitate status, and likewise for myself.

It's probably a good idea to step on as few toes as possible, as a rule, in life in general. As I've said before, passion is something I applaud, but make sure, to use the cliche, that it is your head and not your heart governing your actions.

- Praetorian Sejanus

[aves]

Well written praetorian

It is very rare to see a suggestion that has both tact and yet drives home a point

But both Aristophanes and Derkon are getting a little "soap-boxy". Of course I'm the pot calling the kettle black...
Check out here... I get so tired of people demanding help as if it is a right... and doing so in the most unlikely manner to actually get help... enough of that.

I agree with morble... I'd love to see this continue... I too am undecided as to the balance between helping struggling nations and doing what is responsible for both them and those nations that give aid in the long-term. I have a lot of experiance with aid and charity to Arab nations and to Israel and as a political/historical analyst (and instructor) I have my fair share of jaded and bitter views of the world. So far my view is that a lot of these struggling governments and people are in the situation that they are in due to poor leadership and corruption at the top. I guess that only after a proper government structure (whatever it is for that nation) is created, can aid and debt cancelation make any real, lasting progress.

BTW many scientists and historians would put forth that the struggle for scare resources is THE driving factor in progress and one of the givens of any real-world economic/biological system throughout time.

Then there is always that nagging little thought that if a nation can't borrow money and make good on it, then maybe they shouldn't be kept around (survival of the fittest). Don't get me wrong... I donate one month of pay and time to relief work overseas every year... but some of these people really need to learn to help themselves. Its just too bad that incompetant governments and apathetic people cause so many to suffer... and I mean this for both those giving aid and canceling debts and those benefitting from aid and debt cancelation.

[Derkon]

Originally posted by Aristophanes@Jan 11 2005, 05:41 PM

a)You didn't cite one source, one figure, or one fact[or any particular chain of reasoning] in your entire diatribe; I think that qualifies as 'unsubstantiated.'

b)I'm glad you think a 'War on Corruption' is in order; but rather than resorting to bureaucratic titles, why don't you tell me what measures you think would be useful.

c)There is nothing certain in the world of economics, and I added 'may' as a caveat. When we consider probabilities, and we say 'such and such has a 99.9999% chance of happening,' we should still warn that, unlikely though it may be, there is an alternate possibility. That seemed clear to me.
You may be a rationalist, and you may not be; but you're assertion that [and I paraphrase] 'this problem can be somehow managed' defies the realities of the trillions of variables and possibilities which need to be considered. I'm suggesting we rely on empirical evidence to guide us, not 'wholly direct', but certainly guide.
The entire history of 'managed economies' [just as 'managed environments'] is a pageant of monumental errors. Don't be arrogant; we[humans] aren't nearly as knowledgeable as we think we are.[no matter what your university profs may let on]

d) 'Exploitation' is a subjective term in today's world, but there are many people who would rather be 'exploited' than starved. You claim employees in other countries are 'exploited' without admitting that their lower productivity is very much responsible for their lower pay. [there are many other factors to consider, but we would exhaust ourselves solving other people's problems when we would do better on our own]
As it is, in China, dozens of millions of young people are flocking to the coastal provinces to be 'exploited.' Some exploitation!!!
I know a lot about poverty. I live in the poorest[2nd poorest] city in Western Canada, Saskatoon. Saskatoon lies in the province of Saskatchewan, which is considerably poorer than Mississippi or Alabama. It is also blessed with some of the largest resource deposits in the world including the largest Uranium deposists, the largest Potash deposits, and huge quantities of natural gas. Saskatchewan also has abundant timber, fertile farmlands, oil[lots of oil], gold, and coal. You could probably say that Saskatchewan was 'exploited', and that it is 'raped of its resources.' After all, our economy is mostly based on the extraction and exportation of natural wealth: yet Saskatchewan is poor. We're the home of Tommy Douglas and the first successful socialist party in North America, and we've had socialist government for the last 60 years.[interspersed with 8 years of Liberals, and ten TERRIBLE years of Conservatives] Our population in 1930 stood at 1 million, today we're at about 980 000. Why?

e) Exploitation and poverty are both relative concepts, and absolutely natural. They are hardly ills; they exist. We should thank our lucky stars for them, because they have made possible almost every [human] development.[including the development of humans] You act as though, in some Utopian past, there was an abundance of resources and wealth and everyone, and everything coexisted in harmony; and then mankind came along...Your assertion that there was no such thing as scarcity before some 'Man' apparently made it is ridiculous.
Biology is the study of efficient resource use, and chronicles the struggles of species competing for scarce resources. If you studied earth sciences from the earliest beginnings on this planet you would find that nature itself expands its economy at the expense of the weak.[human economies and societies are, thankfully, less heartless] There was a time when only anaerobic bacteria COULD live on this planet, billions of years later, the planet supports unparalleled diversity of life. The natural mechanisms which make that possible could be distilled down to physical forces themselves; so who's to blame?
Don't be such an idealist. [you folks always think there is a 'problem' and a 'solution' as if we know everything there is to know]

f)
i) I don't think I could be Republican: I'm Canadian. I would not vote for either major American party as their politics, and corruption disgusts me. Washington is ROME.

ii) We're all smothered in our delusions. Philosophy is resignation to ignorance, try it.

g)I'm very much interested in debate for the very reason I want to be right, and see 'right' as being an ongoing challenge which will continue until 'I'm rotting in peace.'
We live in a dynamic world; we can't be right all the time.
Debate, to me, consists of trading facts, figures, and [logical]substantive reasoning in an effort to find common ground; but deprived of these elements on one side, there can be, equally, little of effect reasoned on the other. [Throw me a bone: I need a chain of reasoning I can argue against, or 'facts' I can disprove.]

h) Thank you for correcting my spelling. It just so happens that it is a common error of habit with me; it became imbedded in my mind in the wrong form, and since then I have been struggling to expurgate it.
I've seen many notable spelling mistakes in your own ramblings; but, as you don't like to be corrected, I decided not to inform you of them. [/quote]
a) I’m pretty sure you didn’t quote any sources either, by your own admission you haven’t provided any reliable figures and your “facts” are as subjective as my own.

b) By a War on Corruption, I mean a global commitment to stamp out Imperialist machinations, the interference of private business in (public) governmental affairs and the end of support for corrupt regimes. America is the number one offender on these issues. If you want evidence of this I’ll give you some examples: For Imperialist machinations and support of corrupt Regimes, the assassination of Allende (CIA backed and assisted) and subsequent installation of Pinochet in Chile, the invasion and carpet bombing of Cambodia/Laos during the Vietnam War (killing thousands of innocent civilians, illegal also), supporting/maintaining repressive regimes such as Saddam in Iraq, the Saudi Royal family and Suharto in Indonesia. Selling these regimes weapons that, in the case of Iraq (Kurds) and Indonesia (East Timor) they knew were being used against civilian populations. The illegal invasion (non UN sanctioned) of Iraq on the basis that they had WMD and were a threat to America (unfounded and still unproven). The list goes on and on and on. If you want some sources for these facts, check out the numerous books on these subjects by such authors as John Pilger, Greg Palast, Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and, although the authors name escapes me at the moment, an excellent book called “The Trial of Henry Kissinger”.


c) By managing the problem I mean that by firstly canceling debt and withdrawing support for corrupt “puppet” regimes and then, following their demise, helping new fledgling governments with aid and advice, these countries can be coached back to good health and self-sufficiency. Such aid and advice could be made conditional, say, for example, that UN inspectors would monitor (or even control) the distribution of any aid, and that basic Human Rights would be protected.


d) I think your statement that “many people who would rather be exploited than starved” is very arrogant. The exploitation of such people stems from an imperative imposed by poverty. The same goes for the young Chinese people you mentioned. I would counter that lower pay is very much responsible for lower productivity, coupled with horrendous working conditions. Haven’t you ever heard the adage that a happy employee is a productive one! Coming from somewhere like Saskatchewan one would think that you would have an appreciation of the suffering that exploitation and poverty imposes upon a population. However, it strikes me that your contempt for the poor stems from some underlying anger. Either you’ve come from humble origins or feel resentment for having been surrounded by those that do.


e) Nature doesn’t have a conscience, but people do. Nature doesn’t cause poverty or exploit. Nature is concerned with evolution and survival of the fittest. There is nothing natural about the exploitation of and poverty imposed upon humans by other humans. As a matter of fact most of us describe such behaviour as “inhumane” meaning not human or animal. I, for one, am not about to “thank my lucky stars” for exploitation and poverty. The difference between examples of poverty and exploitation in the past compared to today is scale. The levels of poverty and exploitation today dwarf any examples in the past. It is a system where the needs of the many are trampled by the wants of the few. It’s not a system that has any long-term sustainability because of the fact that resources are finite. We will eventually reach a critical mass where resources run out and poverty explodes. When that happens you get sociological meltdown. As humans we consider ourselves to be more than mere animals and, as such, strive for a more sophisticated nature to call our own. That’s what the whole “thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal etc” thing was all about. If you want to compare yourself to an anaerobic bacteria then go right ahead. I personally like to see humans as being greater than the sum of their parts. When you refer to me as “you folk” exactly what folk are you referring to, Liberals, Humanitarians, Peasants? Or is it merely directed at anyone who doesn’t agree with your point of view? For the record, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being an idealist, most people want a better world for themselves and others. Exactly when did you discover you were suffering from terminal cynicism yourself?!


f) Republicanism is not in your nationhood so much as it is in your heart. Republicanism today is synonymous with extreme capitalism. It stands for such things as survival of the fittest, might is right, exploitation, power, control and economic/political/military supremacy. Sound familiar? You’re certainly not a L*b*r*l, because nobody is these days. Actually, it’s a dirty word and will probably get blanked out as profanity. Some of us smother in our delusions, whilst others merely choke or cough a little!


g) I’m interested in debate for the very reason that I wish others to understand that there are things done in their name which they probably know little or nothing about and, if they did, would never agree to. Debate for me is not about who is right or who is wrong, it about the enlightenment of all involved. I fear that your drive to be “right” blinds you to opportunities for enlightenment.


h) You’re very welcome for the spelling correction. You are, however, quite mistaken that I harbour any desires not have my spelling corrected. Just as you are quite mistaken that there are any spelling mistakes for you to correct!

[Aristophanes]

a) Although it is true I didn't quote any sources, I did provide examples; and I certainly had a 'chain of reasoning', or explanation for all my points.

b) Are you suggesting that all the corruption, or even a significant proportion, in the world today is the result of 'imperialist machinations' and the 'interference of private business in government'?
What, in your mind, constitutes a 'corrupt regime'? Does Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe fit the definitiont? Is Thabo Mbeki's South Africa corrupt?[a lof of independent observers would say that it is] Is North Korea corrupt? What are your criteria for defining 'corruption'?
i) Pinochet took power more than two decades ago, how is that pertinent now-especially considering the fact that he resigned in the early 90s? [this was also the result of the Cold War, and though both Super Powers engaged in this sort of activity, the USSR was by far the biggest offender] I don't agree with that policy, but it isn't relevant today.
ii) The bombardment of Laos/Cambodia occurred more than 30 years ago in a hugely different geo-political climate, what does that have to do with corruption 'across the board' in the Third World? [corruption connection, hello?]
iii) I am sure we all strongly disagree with the way diverse US administrations have cooperated with Saudi Arabia, but with all the examples[you've] cited we're still left with 90-100 odd nations with massive foreign debt, stagnant economies, and corruption.
iv) Suharto was believed to be a Cold War ally: was collusion with him wrong? Yes. Was it justified by practical considerations, perhaps. Once again, he's long gone. What does that have to do with the present world at all?
v) Modern day Iraq is an example of a hugely corrupt regime being removed by a Super Power, and I think it's too early to comment on what the outcome will be. I'm content to say, "I don't know," and move on. I'm glad that you have ONE modern-day example though
vi) All your references occupy an extreme side of the political spectrum, and if Moore's books[and they are, I read dude where's mycountry] are as 'factual' as his 'documentaries,' you're barking up the wrong tree if you're seeking enlightenment.

c) I don't know where you get this whole 'puppet' thing from...Do you mean 'puppet' as in the long gone Shah of Iran, as in the recently dear departed [pro-Putin] governments of Georgia or Ukraine, or as in the autonomous State of Lebanon which has been occupied by Syria for the last 2 decades? Do you mean the governments of Tibet or Hong Kong? Do you mean Saudi Arabia, anything but a puppet regime?[I would say that the White House and successive American ambassadors have been/are the Saudi's puppet regime. ]
i) would you like the UN to control things like they did in the Oil for Food Scandal[$21 billion], or more like they did in Rwanda? We could try out the 'Sex for Food' scandal that went on in the former Yugoslavia for size?

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has sent a team of investigators into refugee camps in west Africa following the revelation that large numbers of children have been sexually exploited by aid workers there. The scale of the problem - revealed in an overview of a report by the UNHCR in conjunction with the British-based charity Save the Children - has surprised relief personnel. ... Over 40 aid agencies - including the UNHCR itself - were implicated, and 67 individuals - mostly local staff - named by the children. Some under-age girls said United Nations peacekeepers in the West African region were involved.

But it said that poverty was the principle cause, with parents feeling compelled to offer their children to aid workers for sex in order to survive. "They want us to love to them (sic) so they can give us money," one refugee told the BBC.

Human rights, eh?

Linked in the past to sex crimes in East Timor, and prostitution in Cambodia and Kosovo, UN peacekeepers have now been accused of sexually abusing the very population they were deployed to protect in Congo. And while the 150 allegations of rape, pedophelia and solicitation in Congo may be the UN’ worst sex scandal in years, chronic problems almost guarantee that few of the suspects will face serious punishment. ...

In the case of Congo, the accusations seem as bad as anything the UN has ever seen. Women and children have reportedly been raped, and there is said to be video and photographic evidence of crimes. Similar allegations have been directed at UN peacekeepers and officials in East Timor. And, in Cambodia and Kosovo, local officials and human rights group charge that the presence of UN forces has been linked to an increase in trafficking of women and a sharp rise in prostitution.

We could do it that way; however, the United Nations is a gigantic bureaucracy which is completely [un]accountable to anybody. That doesn't have good implications for the people who give it money, nor for the people who receive from its 'oh so giving' hands.

d)Lower pay is only responsible for low productivity when workers feel they are due more, or when it isn't in line with the basic wage in that country. Let me explain more:

i)Third world people don’t consider jobs ‘exploitation’ and that’s exactly why they’ll fight to get them; they pay better than subsistence farming [in general], and are considerably better than sitting around starving. The pay seems extremely poor to us, but is always above the amount needed to survive in the given region. If it weren’t, people wouldn’t take the job. Over time wages will increase as productivity increases.
ii)If they[various and sundry] were to pay those people more, it would cause even greater price inflation in export processing regions and their hinterlands. Those who didn’t have such jobs could conceivably suffer as their products became less attractive versus foreign-made ones, and their incomes remained stagnant in an atmosphere of inflation. I.e. a lot of people would suffer extremely negative consequences due to the inflation caused by higher wages-this is already the case in regions of Bangladesh where housing/food is exorbitantly expensive in local terms; but slightly affordable to employees of big exporters.
iii)Arbitrary wage increases could very well make factories or manufacturies uneconomical and force them to move to areas with higher productivity-poorly paying jobs are better than no jobs at all.
iv)Bottom line, some areas, some people, etc… have a production advantage over others, and wage differences happen to be a way to balance that fact. The idea of trade is to organize people in such a way that every person is doing that which/where he can maximize efficiency most-this sort of approach seems to eliminate waste, and ends up ensuring we all produce MORE, and end up being able to consume MORE.
v) Saskatchewan has all the potential it needs to be rich, but is trammeled by extremely high taxes[even for the poor] and trade barriers because we've had socialist/quasi socialist governments for 50 years. We're not exploited, and we take what jobs we can, but they pay considerably less than they would if we took the same work in Alberta-less heavily taxed, and hasn't ever had socialist government. A starting job at Wendy's pays $6.65/h[minimum wage] in Saskatoon, and in Calgary they have a hard time attracting people at $11.00/h.[minimum wage is lower in Alberta than in Saskatchewan] That's doesn't even begin to cover the wealth disparity...

I'm sorry you had to include that pat 'psychology' in there.

e) Anything that occurs or 'is', is natural as far as I'm concerned. Whether it is a 'good' thing is another discussion entirely. I don't see poverty or exploitation as good, but I don't define it in the same terms you do. I don't see people being paid the wages they do as 'exploitation' because they made the decision to take the jobs at the wages offered. You may counter that 'it isn't enough and is therefore exploitation', but the people who took the jobs clearly saw it as 'enough', and the jobs could very well not have been offered in the first place. 'Enough' is a very relative term.
i) Resources are 'finite' so long as you don't believe that human knowledge, technical prowess, and ability increase over time. I'm sure you would have made the same argument before when wood was the prevalent energy source, when coal was the prevalent energy source, and you are certainly making it today. You would have said the same thing before anaerobic bacteria produced a CO2 rich atmosphere that allowed the plant kingdom to evolve, etc...
Under the sort of system you suggest resources are, indeed, finite because there are no incentives to innovate. [A man without arms can still play the violin if he expands his experience.]
ii) Nature is full of all sorts of cases of 'exploitation', or what you might consider 'exploitation'. Barnacles hitch rides on whales, and slow them down. Parasites attach themselves to hosts, and often end up killing them. Viruses turn our cells into automaton slaves. Ants 'use' aphids, milking them without their permission. Nature also contains 'poverty' as well, and certainly starvation. Don't exclude us from the natural world; we are subject to its laws.'
iii) Idealists think we/they know more than we/they do; that tends to cause all sorts of problems when they take control.

f)Republicanism today is actually synomymous for the enormous diversity of ideals/ideas adherents of the Republican party stand for, and I could find you lots of anti-corporate Republicans in the same way I could find you pro-corporate Democrats. People vote for parties for the damndest reasons.[Ours not to reason why] I actually consider myself a 'liberal' because I am staunchly pro-freedom. liberte['e' accent aigu]/freedom-same thing.

g) You definition of 'debate' seems to imply you holds the keys to truth...

I’m interested in debate for the very reason that I wish others to understand that there are things done in their name which they probably know little or nothing about and, if they did, would never agree to.

My emphasis added.

Now for some interesting facts and figures: [in support of free trade, and free capital markets]
-Currently global trade is far from free with average tariffs of nearly 14.5% in low-income countries, and 4% in industrial nations-this is in addition to countless non-tariff barriers such as quotas, regulations, or slow border crossings.
-Empirical studies, of which there are many, unmistakably link free and open trade with economic growth and poverty reduction. Add in free capital markets, and suddenly you see a bright new world!!!!
One noteworthy example, The Economic Freedom of the World Report, organized 123 countries into quintiles of economic freedom and found average per capita income of US$873 for the poorest 10% of the population in the bottom quintile nations compared to US$6,681 for the top quintile nations.

Also of note, Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner paint an even clearer picture: over the two decades ending 1989, open economy developing and developed nations grew at an average annual rate of 4.49 and 2.29 percent, respectively, while their closed economy couterparts grew at a much smaller 0.69 and 0.74 percent.

Jeffrey Dunkel and David Romer investigated cross-country geographic factors[which are powerful determinants of trade unaffected by national income] and consistenly found trade-friendly geography leads to an incrase in income per worker.

In Taiwan between 1964 and 2000, reasearchers found a one-to-one relationship between growth in per-capita GDP and the growth in mean income of the lowest quintile of the population.

The liberalization of Vietnam's rice sectors, to which 70 percent of households contribute, which increased the real price of rice by 27 percent between 1993 and 1998, led to a 9 percent decline in child labour rates.

Each year the OECD nations provide US $311 billiion in domestic price supports, import restriction, and export subsidies to their agricultural producers. This artificially increases wealth for the top producers to nearly 2.4 times the average agricultural income.
US subsidies on cotton producers cause and enormous over-production of cotton causing world prices to halve between 1997 and 2002. [there are 10 million African cotton producers]
Lets end the subsidies first.

Most anti-free trade activists take it as axiomatic that inequality and poverty are rising. Empirical evidence shows this to be quite wrong: the extent to which economic growth reduces poverty is dependent on the poverty line in the income distribution; however, Sala-i-Martin[2002], Bourgignon and Morrisson[2002] and Bhalla[2002] all show rapidly decreasing rates of poverty over the last 20 years, both in proportional and absolute terms. Notably they find that the percent of people living on less than $1 per day fell from 16% in 1970 to 5% in 1998. Using household survey consumption measure rather than national account data[as the former does] it was found that the proportion living in abject poverty fell from 28% in 1987 to 24% in 1998.

Free trade policy is one of many determinants of economic growth, and I can go over other ones later, but I'm going to repost my original arguments because they still stand:

-Arbitrary cancellation of debt is likely to empower the myriad corrupt regimes of the world at the expense of their citizens.
-Cancellation of debt could lead to panick in the financial system which could do serious long-term damage to all economies in the world
-Cancellation of debt could lead to even greater irresponsible spending and lending.
-Who can name an impoverished or debt-stricken nation in this world which is not mired in corruption[or bad government] at EVERY LEVEL? Anybody?

As a further note, the world's population has never been bigger, and in fact, famine has never been less important than it is today. In other words, our ability to feed populations is growing at a greater rate than populations themselves. I think there is a lot of room for hope, and I'm certainly not all doom and gloom.

[Marshal Qin]

This has been good reading (except for the near flames), I'd like to wade in on one point though Aristophanes.

) 'Exploitation' is a subjective term in today's world, but there are many people who would rather be 'exploited' than starved. You claim employees in other countries are 'exploited' without admitting that their lower productivity is very much responsible for their lower pay. [there are many other factors to consider, but we would exhaust ourselves solving other people's problems when we would do better on our own]
As it is, in China, dozens of millions of young people are flocking to the coastal provinces to be 'exploited.' Some exploitation!!!

Third world people don’t consider jobs ‘exploitation’ and that’s exactly why they’ll fight to get them; they pay better than subsistence farming [in general], and are considerably better than sitting around starving. The pay seems extremely poor to us, but is always above the amount needed to survive in the given region. If it weren’t, people wouldn’t take the job. Over time wages will increase as productivity increases.

First, to qualify what I'm about to say, I have lived in Central China for the past 3 years and am in a position to observe the conditions of staff and try to make changes. This can be difficult due to cultural differences and my efforts have met with varying degrees of success (or failure). Admittedly, China is classed as 'developing' rather than 3rd world, but there is little differnence at individual level for the lower classes other than that in developing countries the poor get to see more shiny new things that they cannot hope to ever own.

A few facts:

Shanghai is suffering from a lack of workers, particularly in manufacturing. Many businesses are offering higher wages and a few perks in order to attract people but it does not seem to be making a lot of difference.
The hotel group I work for is based in a city where the average monthly wage is 400RMB per month. The company is losing staff despite the lack of available jobs in the city.

Staff are not considered as assets, nor are they considered as individuals. They are, however, well aware of when they are being exploited and would rather leave than continue to work for a company that does not consider their needs.

admitting that their lower productivity is very much responsible for their lower pay.

This is the excuse my boss gives and I see the direct results of his failure (staff turnover) to address the issue properly. It is, in fact, the reverse. Staff who feel appreciated will work better to maintain their positions and gain 'face' from the (good) reputation of their company. They have 'ownership' of their job. Staff who are merely rewarded with higher pay for higher efficiency are not motivated to achieve because (rightly) they know it is a form of exploitation. Every initiative (barring a few minor successes) I have taken to improve staff conditions has been turned aside with the sentence "Chinese are different from westerners, they expect less". This is a load of crap and is just an excuse that company bosses use to justify the exploitation of their staff. I imagine a varient of the same was used in early 20thC U.S.A when bosses were exploiting European immigrants.
A second example along the same lines is the police here. Up until recently, they were fairly efficient (though still corrupt), but reducing/removing their bonuses caused a huge drop off in efficiency to the point where roads have become anarchy - with 130,000 deaths in 2003 and god knows how many injuries. My point here is that even though they were doing their jobs, they still had their pay reduced. Productivity and pay are unrelated here - its more to do with how little a company can get away with paying their staff.

The pay seems extremely poor to us, but is always above the amount needed to survive in the given region.

This again is untrue (see my point about the police). Some of the lower level staff (dishwashers, public area attendants etc..) are paid less than the average monthly wage (400RMB where I am) which is in itself not enough to live here. It is enough to eat, but there is no way it will cover other expenses such as accomodation, utilities, transportation, festivals etc..

It is dangerous to make assumptions based on your version of logic when your own cultural standards are being applied to situations in other parts of the world. It is a mistake that is probably one of the largest causes of conflict today and is a mistake I made in the early days of my job which I am still trying to learn how to deal with. 'How does one improve conditions and productivity using western ideas in an eastern cultural environment?' - one doesn't. The only way to do it is to modify eastern ideas to achieve the desired result.

but we would exhaust ourselves solving other people's problems

Its a big part of my job - and yes, I am exhausted. I was nearly in tears the other day when I went to visit one of our hotels (a new aquisition) and saw the rat hole the staff were living in. The general manager there is my new favourite chew toy.

[Aristophanes]

Good post Qin, although you weren't being exactly truthful in saying there was a 'job shortage' in Shanghai[double-digit yearly growth] when that region is desperate to attract any workers it can.[and has attractedf 3 million NEW people since 2001] And this:

She said respondents who had quit their last job did so for five main reasons: to get a better salary; to find a more promising job; they were unsatisfied with their managers; they were disgusted with the original job; or they want to work in a new environment.

"We also found in our survey that 90 percent of the respondents, who have been jobless for more than one year, are Shanghai natives," said Zhan, noting that many of locals are very selective in choosing jobs since they often don't have heavy family burdens to consider.

Shen kaiyan, an associate professor at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, said there are two major reasons behind unforced unemployment.

She explained that many well-educated young people are very fond of an "easy" and well-paid job. But when a position fails to meet their requirement, they would rather choose to stay at home instead of taking an unsatisfactory job.

"Normally, the families of those unforced unemployed have pretty good economic conditions," she said.

Shen also noted many other young people just chose to stay at home for an uncertain period of time before they get a visa to study in foreign countries.

According to the Shanghai Labor and Social Security Bureau, the city's registered jobless rate reached a record high of 4.9 percent by the end of last year. This year, the city expects to keep the rate within 4.6 percent.

I agree that higher wages, in some circumstances[when wage increases are applied to the right people in the right situation] , lead to higher productivity; but the demand for arbitrary wage hikes across the board is impractical, and could well have adverse consequences for those no employed in export-processing regions.
I also agree that it is a good idea, as well as ethical, to pay one's employees substantially more than what is required to cover necessities; however[there it is again], there are quite simply situations where wage levels will leave industries uncompetitive and result in them moving. It all comes down to whether you would rather people were employed and earning enough to survive, or whether you would demand they be paid more only to see the jobs disappear.

Management, and organizational structure plays a huge part-employees at foreign firms in China are better paid than at domestic ones:

Besides salaries also the average return on labour cost increased, even if at a much slower pace. For every 100 Yuan spent on labour costs last year, companies earned 133 Yuan in profit on average, an increase of 9 per cent year on year.

Comparing foreign companies with overseas-funded companies and state owned companies some differences emerge. According to the survey foreign companies pay most with annually 56,931 Yuan on average for each employee. Overseas-funded companies, meaning those with investment from Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, spent 44,650 Yuan on average per employee, while state-owned companies spent 42,326 Yuan.

When it comes to benefits the situation changes. While foreign invested companies spent the most, they also had the largest benefit, earning 210 Yuan for every 100 Yuan spent in labour costs. On the contrary, state-owned firms only earned 128 Yuan for every 100 Yuan in labour costs.

I agree that most employees 'feel exploited' when they are only paid the minimum necessary to survive, or the minimum wage for a region- that's the way I felt when I worked in a restaurant[not a fast food joint], and most of the people I worked with used it as a justification to steal.[so did I] We didn't even have paid breaks, and we weren't paid overtime.
Most productive employees also hate being paid the same amount as unproductive employees, and anybody who does an especially good job doesn't like remaining unrewarded for that. Pay hikes are a good thing, but that doesn't mean that we should arbitrarily force every overseas manufacturer to make whimsically determined raises.


BTW, dishwashers, anybody earning minimum wage here, busboys, etc... don't make enough to survive here either, and that's for the simple reason that no-one expects to be doing that sort of thing for very long. It's what we call 'entry-level positions' ,or 'jobs where you prove you have discipline and are willing to put up with a lot of crap.'