Oxfam: World's Top 100 Earners Could Solve Poverty…

[Keron]

And, whilst I do agree that every human should have equality of opportunity, in practice that is almost impossible to implement without a tyrannical government

Nope, here are numerous examples of societies which have abolished the state for that very purpose, or never had one.

While I'm all for learning more and reading sources people provide, I'm afraid that 146 pages is a bit too much. Care to summarise?

Being an anarchist (I presume you are given the title of the book...), how is it that you did not point out the distinction between a government and a State?

Nevertheless, I'm interested in how these voluntary societies accomplished equality of opportunity.

(one can argue that it is his right to distribute his wealth as he sees fit - inheritance, charity, etc.).

Not ethically, no, one cannot.

Ethics, being moral principles, are subjective, given that morality is subjective.

Or do you believe in objective morality? (Note that I did not affirm the statement, merely stated that some argue that).

Those people have a rightful claim over certain resources. It's the basis of property rights.

And what you call "property rights", we call "theft".

Property rights are a system of rationing scarce resources. Communal ownership more often than not leads to an over-exploitation of those resources.

Whereas, with property rights, it makes no sense for the owner to willingly ruin his resources. They are items of value to him.

You can apply the same principle to supply and demand and the price mechanism. The price mechanism is intended to prevent over-capacity or shortages.

So, when I work for a restaurant, that restaurant's owner justifies his use of my labour with the capital that I use off of him, and vice versa.

Under conditions which the owner would almost surely resent if the circumstances were reversed, according to an agreement signed under coercive threat of deprivation.

There is no coercive threat of deprivation. In a non-distorted market there are multiple "consumers" (jobs). Thus, if one agreement is not to your liking, you can look for another one.

And, indeed, if not, then you can take the owner's place by engaging in enterprise rather than labour.

[Jullin]

Every job I've ever worked at has provided me with a computer for my productivity needs where one was required. And 'organising one's day' is not a reason for owning a computer. People managed for centuries with diaries and calendars.



Libraries have computer access. Jobcentres offer facilities too. Nobody 'needs' a computer in their home.



And in either of these circumstances, a 10 year old computer will accomplish the same task. I should know, I'm using an eight-year-old machine right now. There's no need for any Apple Macs or high-spec Windows Ultrabooks. And this isn't mentioning the superfluous nature of TVs etc.

I'm not for one minute suggesting that we all sell our non-essential utilities and devote every penny of our wages that we don't need for a basic standard of living to Africa. Because the economy would collapse, for one thing, and then nobody would be able to help anybody. But hypocrisy is hypocrisy - most people posting on this forum have more than they need. And we've earned it, it's ours, to do with as we please.

You're hilarious. I'll give it six months before you find some pretense for cutting library hours and axing unemployment services, if you haven't already.

No, they can't. They can give leaders the financial resources they need to tackle poverty, but that alone does not solve poverty.

I can spend hundreds of billions of dollars and accomplish literally nothing.

That would be Oxfam's point, yes.

Why would I do that? I've used both. They're fantastic services.

I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of those folks who are demonising people that they perceive to have more stuff than they need at the expense of the poor, whilst surrounding themselves with stuff that they don't need at the expense of the poor. After all, to a starving African, seeing us all sitting on our leather sofas whilst watching their plight on our 42" plasma TVs would doubtlessly seem no different than seeing a millionnaire doing the same thing only on a slightly softer sofa, in a slightly bigger room, and a higher-resolution 51" plasma TV. Both the regular dude and the rich dude eat when they're not hungry, drink when they're not thirsty, spend money on trinkets that aren't particularly useful, and generally squander large sums of money that could have been used to buy a starving third-world child a meal.

People blame the super-rich for all of the world's ills, when there's plenty of blame to go around. The high standard of living we all enjoy today (even our own impoverished citizens don't come close to some of the suffering in the third world, after all) is born out of the exploitation of those people the super-rich are apparently obligated to try and help. And it goes deeper than spending a little money on a treat every now and then instead of giving all of your money to noble causes; every time you buy an item of clothing that was made by a child in Vietnam, every time you buy an iPod that was made by a suicidal worker, you're propagating suffering that apparently the super-rich are exclusively to blame for.

Everybody's so keen to get others to solve these problems, but only a select few are willing to make significant sacrifices for the cause themselves.

[Free South Califas]

Nope, here are numerous examples of societies which have abolished the state for that very purpose, or never had one.

While I'm all for learning more and reading sources people provide, I'm afraid that 146 pages is a bit too much. Care to summarise?

My ability to do so would be limited. The book is a compendium of detailed examples, separated by topic: economics, environmental protection, gender equity and so on. If you want a summary, the introduction is probably your best bet. I'll take a crack at it, though: basically, it is possible to implement equality (or any other internal policy consistent with anti-authoritarianism) in the absence of tyranny if the society is committed to statelessness and vigilant in its defense. This generally requires that there be a strong anti-authoritarian culture in the first place, and that people learn to recognize the signs of a rising proto-state. In practice, it also usually requires people who start bossing others around to be assassinated. It's not for the faint of heart, but then, neither is tyranny.

Being an anarchist (I presume you are given the title of the book...), how is it that you did not point out the distinction between a government and a State?

I waffle on using that term to describe myself, as it does not include all anti-authoritarian socialists, but is disproportionately favored by those who speak Greek-influenced languages. I'm also not completely averse to using ballot tactics to alleviate suffering in the short term, so I avoid labeling myself as an "anarchist" so as not to invite confusion on this point; really, to me the term has become associated with a whole detached lifestyle movement that I'm not really into. But sure, you can call me that; it's close enough. Actually, the book's title is meant to be a double entendre; I read it as akin to, say, a movie called "Silas Learns" which shows a man named Silas going about learning things.

I'm not trying to mince words here; I think one does not have to support anarchy or anarchism simply because it 'works', so I don't think asserting or even proving that "anarchy works!" is a sufficient argument in its favor unless you already agree with its principles. I can see why you'd get that impression, though.

Anyway, I meant to imply the distinction by using the term "State" instead of "government". "Government" is a broader term; it can be polycentric, egoistic, and/or completely diffuse, i.e. 'self-government'. Anarchy, like any other social order, requires some degree of "government" in the sense that people must be governed by mutually agreed principles in order to coordinate effective mutual aid and support self-reliance. The "State" is more complicated, and there are different definitions of it, but suffice it to say that it requires a monopoly of force and other things, as far as anarchists are concerned. I don't want to wander too far off topic...

Nevertheless, I'm interested in how these voluntary societies accomplished equality of opportunity.

To pull each example from the book, or a representative number, would be a bit spammy here and not my favorite use of time at the moment (I haven't gotten all the way through it, either). Suffice it to say that the book is organized and cited in such a fashion that you can use the table of contents as a topical index of sorts; if you flip to one or a few related topics, you can probably pick a few examples at random for an illustrative sample.

Not ethically, no, one cannot.

Ethics, being moral principles, are subjective, given that morality is subjective.

Sorry I was unclear. I meant that in my opinion, you could technically do so but you would be wrong.

And what you call "property rights", we call "theft".

Property rights are a system of rationing scarce resources. Communal ownership more often than not leads to an over-exploitation of those resources.

Ah, the 'tragedy of the commons' fallacy. A penny for your thoughts on this perspective? It is biased, but unlike TotC the bias is disclosed up front.

Whereas, with property rights, it makes no sense for the owner to willingly ruin his resources. They are items of value to him.

If you don't value the shared resources of humanity and the earth, that is a locus of disagreement with anarchists, not a reflection on shared human values.

Under conditions which the owner would almost surely resent if the circumstances were reversed, according to an agreement signed under coercive threat of deprivation.

There is no coercive threat of deprivation. In a non-distorted market there are multiple "consumers" (jobs). Thus, if one agreement is not to your liking, you can look for another one.

Yes, a 'non-distorted' market, i.e., a needs-based market. Not everyone can just "look for another one", though. (redacted)

Suffice it to say that your assumptions are disconnected from the lived reality of those of us who are forced to take whatever we can get.

And, indeed, if not, then you can take the owner's place by engaging in enterprise rather than labour.

You propose that workers seize control of the workplace and run our own affairs, then? Perfect. You'll be happy to find there are many examples of this in the Gelderloos book I cited above, too. In Argentina, for example, workers responded to factory closings by occupying the factories; some of these factories, when reopened by elected councils of delegates, re-crunched the numbers and found that they could break even or even bring in net revenue while simultaneously cutting their hours, raising their pay, alleviating the local unemployment situation with aggressive hiring and lowering their prices.

[Manisdog]

Why should they ? They drive the world and people talk about greed and stuff but the fact is greed is good .

[Keron]

While I'm all for learning more and reading sources people provide, I'm afraid that 146 pages is a bit too much. Care to summarise?

My ability to do so would be limited. The book is a compendium of detailed examples, separated by topic: economics, environmental protection, gender equity and so on. If you want a summary, the introduction is probably your best bet. I'll take a crack at it, though: basically, it is possible to implement equality (or any other internal policy consistent with anti-authoritarianism) in the absence of tyranny if the society is committed to statelessness and vigilant in its defense. This generally requires that there be a strong anti-authoritarian culture in the first place, and that people learn to recognize the signs of a rising proto-state. In practice, it also usually requires people who start bossing others around to be assassinated. It's not for the faint of heart, but then, neither is tyranny.

I see. I'll add it to my (long) reading list. Hopefully I'll get round to it some time this year.

Being an anarchist (I presume you are given the title of the book...), how is it that you did not point out the distinction between a government and a State?

I waffle on using that term to describe myself, as it does not include all anti-authoritarian socialists, but is disproportionately favored by those who speak Greek-influenced languages. I'm also not completely averse to using ballot tactics to alleviate suffering in the short term, so I avoid labeling myself as an "anarchist" so as not to invite confusion on this point; really, to me the term has become associated with a whole detached lifestyle movement that I'm not really into. But sure, you can call me that; it's close enough. Actually, the book's title is meant to be a double entendre; I read it as akin to, say, a movie called "Silas Learns" which shows a man named Silas going about learning things.

I'm not trying to mince words here; I think one does not have to support anarchy or anarchism simply because it 'works', so I don't think asserting or even proving that "anarchy works!" is a sufficient argument in its favor unless you already agree with its principles. I can see why you'd get that impression, though.

Anyway, I meant to imply the distinction by using the term "State" instead of "government". "Government" is a broader term; it can be polycentric, egoistic, and/or completely diffuse, i.e. 'self-government'. Anarchy, like any other social order, requires some degree of "government" in the sense that people must be governed by mutually agreed principles in order to coordinate effective mutual aid and support self-reliance. The "State" is more complicated, and there are different definitions of it, but suffice it to say that it requires a monopoly of force and other things, as far as anarchists are concerned. I don't want to wander too far off topic...

Fair enough. It was wrong of me to assume that, given a choice, individuals would prefer a coercive (because it is coercive) system of governance over a voluntary system of governance. There would, even with empirical evidence in favour of anarchism, still be quite a few people who would prefer a State.

And, obviously, I use the word "State" not "government", because I would probably be one of those people who would prefer a government.

Nevertheless, I'm interested in how these voluntary societies accomplished equality of opportunity.

To pull each example from the book, or a representative number, would be a bit spammy here and not my favorite use of time at the moment (I haven't gotten all the way through it, either). Suffice it to say that the book is organized and cited in such a fashion that you can use the table of contents as a topical index of sorts; if you flip to one or a few related topics, you can probably pick a few examples at random for an illustrative sample.

Alright then, I'll take a look at it at some later date.

Ethics, being moral principles, are subjective, given that morality is subjective.

Sorry I was unclear. I meant that in my opinion, you could technically do so but you would be wrong.

A point which would require further explanation, don't you think?

I'll start it off; if one accepts the premise that the most efficient and effective way to allocate scarce resources is a market system based on private ownership of the four factors of production, then, by extension, one must also accept that the owner of a resource should have the discretion to determine the conditions under which he transfers those resources to another person or group.

If one does not accept the initial premise, then we are left with the question of what is the most efficient and effective way to allocate scarce resources.

Property rights are a system of rationing scarce resources. Communal ownership more often than not leads to an over-exploitation of those resources.

Ah, the 'tragedy of the commons' fallacy. A penny for your thoughts on this perspective? It is biased, but unlike TotC the bias is disclosed up front.

Interesting. However, this raises the question of how to make communal management work. A commune, in my opinion, can only work on a small scale. The reason I say this is because, I believe, on a large scale the diseconomies of scale of such a system of organisation would far outweight the economies of scale gained from such a system of management.

Which raises the question of how any sophisticated economic activity can occur under such an arrangement. I suppose one can argue from the point of view of comparative advantage, followed by free and fair trade in order to procure other goods and services (with your produce being used as payment, just like in international trade).

That arrangement works for primary sector and probably most secondary sector industries. However, when the tertiary sector and the highly specialised secondary sector comes in, there's a problem.

There is no coercive threat of deprivation. In a non-distorted market there are multiple "consumers" (jobs). Thus, if one agreement is not to your liking, you can look for another one.

Yes, a 'non-distorted' market, i.e., a needs-based market. Not everyone can just "look for another one", though. My partner runs herself ragged working as a domestic caregiver for less than minimum wage, with no benefits and a capricious schedule, and is often verbally abused by her boss. All of this is very difficult for her to handle with the stress disorder which her family inflicted on her through no fault of her own, and with other medical limitations that I'm not at liberty to disclose. She does not have the option of finding another job; after using almost all of her energy (we use the term "spoons" in the disability world to quantify the finite capacity some of us have for executive functioning on any given day, you may have seen this in blogs) to do her job and make it through traffic without melting down, she barely has enough left over to perform basic maintenance and cleaning tasks in the converted garage which is all she can afford to live in. This is because, despite her having excellent grades and being a shoo-in for nearby elite universities, her parents abused the financial-aid laws to prevent her from going to college, so that her mother could manipulate her into staying close and feeding her (the mother) a steady stream of narcissistic supply. If you asserted to her face that she "can always look for another job", you would richly deserve a slap for your arrogant, ableist presumptions. (She'd probably be too nice to do it, though.)

Now, no more disrespecting my partner, please. I'm already a little uncomfortable with what I've had to divulge to make my point so far; suffice it to say that your assumptions are disconnected from the lived reality of those of us who are forced to take whatever we can get.

The issue of your partner drives hard on the point of equality of opportunity, but there's another thread for that, so I won't get into it.

GDP is a function of demand. NI is a function of total employment. Businesses employ people, and, thus, level of supply determines level of employment. However, level of demand determines level of supply, and, thus, a labour market, in the long run, would move toward full employment, again, without any distortions from external factors (government, fluctuations, monopolies, etc.).

What does this mean? It means that, ideally (I stress that word, as right now I'm just discussing theory), an employer would not take offer a contract which is not beneficial to him and a worker would not accept a contract not beneficial to him.

Now, it doesn't work quite like that in practice because of distortions and also because of cyclical (and others, but this is the main one - structural unemployment does not fluctuate and is so not relevant to this discussion) fluctuations, which increase (or decrease) each party's bargaining power.

So, in the event that there's too much supply, wages become depressed, which in turn incentivises business creation (entrepreneurs see lower labour costs, workers see diminishing returns on labour and so opt for enterprise instead), which increases the supply of jobs, and thus restores the stability that is needed in order for employers and employees to be able to negotiate on a roughly level playing field.

And, indeed, if not, then you can take the owner's place by engaging in enterprise rather than labour.

You propose that workers seize control of the workplace and run our own affairs, then? Perfect. You'll be happy to find there are many examples of this in the Gelderloos book I cited above, too. In Argentina, for example, workers responded to factory closings by occupying the factories; some of these factories, when reopened by elected councils of delegates, re-crunched the numbers and found that they could break even or even bring in net revenue while simultaneously cutting their hours, raising their pay, alleviating the local unemployment situation with aggressive hiring and lowering their prices.

No, I said that if a worker is not satisfied with returns for labour, he can look into the returns for enterprise. In effect, become an entrepreneur. In that example, start a restaurant.

[The Lone Alliance]

Surprise surprise the "Trickle Down" theory that those ****tards sold the world on doesn't work.

Can we tar and feather every single economist that backed it?

[Caninope]

Surprise surprise the "Trickle Down" theory that those ****tards sold the world on doesn't work.

Can we tar and feather every single economist that backed it?

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have a post completely not related to the topic, at all.

[Olthar]

Wow. Trickle down economics is really working, isn't it? I can already feel the world getting better...

[Free South Califas]

My ability to do so would be limited. The book is a compendium of detailed examples, separated by topic: economics, environmental protection, gender equity and so on. If you want a summary, the introduction is probably your best bet. I'll take a crack at it, though: basically, it is possible to implement equality (or any other internal policy consistent with anti-authoritarianism) in the absence of tyranny if the society is committed to statelessness and vigilant in its defense. This generally requires that there be a strong anti-authoritarian culture in the first place, and that people learn to recognize the signs of a rising proto-state. In practice, it also usually requires people who start bossing others around to be assassinated. It's not for the faint of heart, but then, neither is tyranny.

I see. I'll add it to my (long) reading list. Hopefully I'll get round to it some time this year.

Since it's so easy to read piecemeal (consisting almost entirely of examples considered in isolation), I put it on my phone and usually read bits of it when I'm waiting in line or somesuch.

A point which would require further explanation, don't you think?

I'll start it off; if one accepts the premise that the most efficient and effective way to allocate scarce resources is a market system based on private ownership of the four factors of production, then, by extension, one must also accept that the owner of a resource should have the discretion to determine the conditions under which he transfers those resources to another person or group.

I reject the premise. Capitalism is inefficient and deprives most people the resources they need for self-actualization. This would not be a devastating critique if resources were scarce enough; only base physical needs must be resolved to meet the standard of "effective way to allocate scarce resources", if only similar needs are met for those at the top. However, even base physical needs are not well accounted for under capitalism, and to me it is obvious enough that a needs-based economy would be a better alternative.

If one does not accept the initial premise, then we are left with the question of what is the most efficient and effective way to allocate scarce resources.

First distribute such resources according to extant human needs; then reinvest in the economic infrastructure or means of production; then distribute mutual aid such as is required to raise/maintain basic living standards and solidarity elsewhere; then distribute further resources, if available, such as is necessary to allow all members of society an equal opportunity in personal, civic and professional development limited only by their level of interest, learning potential and natural ability; then further distribute mutual aid such as is required to raise living standards to this higher level elsewhere; then, if any is left after all this, keep it as surplus or distribute it equally.

Ah, the 'tragedy of the commons' fallacy. A penny for your thoughts on this perspective? It is biased, but unlike TotC the bias is disclosed up front.

Interesting. However, this raises the question of how to make communal management work. A commune, in my opinion, can only work on a small scale. The reason I say this is because, I believe, on a large scale the diseconomies of scale of such a system of organisation would far outweight the economies of scale gained from such a system of management.

You may believe that, but federation and delegation resolve the problem in the real world. Though it is a fictional example, the "Government" link in my sig is chronological in a way that may help explain what I mean.

Which raises the question of how any sophisticated economic activity can occur under such an arrangement. I suppose one can argue from the point of view of comparative advantage, followed by free and fair trade in order to procure other goods and services (with your produce being used as payment, just like in international trade).

That arrangement works for primary sector and probably most secondary sector industries. However, when the tertiary sector and the highly specialised secondary sector comes in, there's a problem.

I'm all ears. One alternative, though, is to implement a basic minimum income and require people to work in order to qualify--not to seek employment per se, but to direct hir own work on the society at large; sweeping streets, writing political theory, creating art, etc. People want to make meaningful contributions and have an effect on their society; the present distribution of capital often prevents us from doing necessary work. For example, in my city, we funnel most of our municipal funds into subsidizing downtown development, while the road and freeways are pockmarked with potholes. I'd fix a number of them for free, but my medical situation prevents me from applying for a full-time position doing it, I don't have access to the requisite equipment or capital for same, and I'd probably get arrested if I tried.

Yes, a 'non-distorted' market, i.e., a needs-based market. Not everyone can just "look for another one", though. My partner runs herself ragged working as a domestic caregiver for less than minimum wage, with no benefits and a capricious schedule, and is often verbally abused by her boss. All of this is very difficult for her to handle with the stress disorder which her family inflicted on her through no fault of her own, and with other medical limitations that I'm not at liberty to disclose. She does not have the option of finding another job; after using almost all of her energy (we use the term "spoons" in the disability world to quantify the finite capacity some of us have for executive functioning on any given day, you may have seen this in blogs) to do her job and make it through traffic without melting down, she barely has enough left over to perform basic maintenance and cleaning tasks in the converted garage which is all she can afford to live in. This is because, despite her having excellent grades and being a shoo-in for nearby elite universities, her parents abused the financial-aid laws to prevent her from going to college, so that her mother could manipulate her into staying close and feeding her (the mother) a steady stream of narcissistic supply. If you asserted to her face that she "can always look for another job", you would richly deserve a slap for your arrogant, ableist presumptions. (She'd probably be too nice to do it, though.)

Now, no more disrespecting my partner, please. I'm already a little uncomfortable with what I've had to divulge to make my point so far; suffice it to say that your assumptions are disconnected from the lived reality of those of us who are forced to take whatever we can get.

The issue of your partner drives hard on the point of equality of opportunity, but there's another thread for that, so I won't get into it.

Yes, there must be that. One cannot defeat arguments against capitalism or private property by assuming an imaginary world of equality that capitalism has never delivered and which the capitalists themselves (defined in a material sense) do everything in their power to fight. The federal government has been pushing for equal opportunity for decades in my country, and national governments do the same elsewhere; if the capitalists themselves wanted equal opportunity, we'd have it tomorrow.

GDP is a function of demand. NI is a function of total employment. Businesses employ people, and, thus, level of supply determines level of employment. However, level of demand determines level of supply, and, thus, a labour market, in the long run, would move toward full employment, again, without any distortions from external factors (government, fluctuations, monopolies, etc.).

What does this mean? It means that, ideally (I stress that word, as right now I'm just discussing theory), an employer would not take offer a contract which is not beneficial to him and a worker would not accept a contract not beneficial to him.

Now, it doesn't work quite like that in practice because of distortions and also because of cyclical (and others, but this is the main one - structural unemployment does not fluctuate and is so not relevant to this discussion) fluctuations, which increase (or decrease) each party's bargaining power.

So, in the event that there's too much supply, wages become depressed, which in turn incentivises business creation (entrepreneurs see lower labour costs, workers see diminishing returns on labour and so opt for enterprise instead), which increases the supply of jobs, and thus restores the stability that is needed in order for employers and employees to be able to negotiate on a roughly level playing field.

All fine and dandy, but in no real-life situation can it be assumed that workers can generally just "find another one", nor do I see any reason to believe your theory would take my partner's needs into account. Support for capitalism and the "free market" is, in the real world, used as justification for cutting library hours, never beginning to provide useful social services for autistic adults, ignoring the needs of disaster survivors or prioritizing the desires of venture capitalists, and so on.

You propose that workers seize control of the workplace and run our own affairs, then? Perfect. You'll be happy to find there are many examples of this in the Gelderloos book I cited above, too. In Argentina, for example, workers responded to factory closings by occupying the factories; some of these factories, when reopened by elected councils of delegates, re-crunched the numbers and found that they could break even or even bring in net revenue while simultaneously cutting their hours, raising their pay, alleviating the local unemployment situation with aggressive hiring and lowering their prices.

No, I said that if a worker is not satisfied with returns for labour, he can look into the returns for enterprise. In effect, become an entrepreneur. In that example, start a restaurant.

That's not true in real life. You need capital to be an entrepeneur, and to get capital you need investors, and to get investors you need to convince someone to invest in your business, and in that almost all workers are disadvantaged by not having connections with capital. Then there's the issue of convincing banks and other investors to buy in, which involves business rituals the experience of which is heavily concentrated among able-bodied, neurotypical white men in the Global North. There are about a million points at which forms of discrimination in society which capitalism is powerless to address and has no interest in resolving can enter and ruin the whole experiment.

Surprise surprise the "Trickle Down" theory that those ****tards sold the world on doesn't work.

Can we tar and feather every single economist that backed it?

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have a post completely not related to the topic, at all.

Not to mention proposing a rather expensive appropriation. You know how much food went into making those feathers, TLA?

[Freiheit Reich]

Did Africa help the USA in the 18th century when we were an agricultural nation? Did Africa help us out in the Great Depression period when we had the Dust Bowl? If Africa didn't help us out and we turned out OK than why do we need to help out Africa?

Well, that's news. I didn't know that "Africa" was one unilateral entity. I always thought that it was a vast landmass, with over one billion heterogeneous people, with over twenty ethnic groups with over ten million people (and far more with fewer than that number), nearly sixty countries and over twenty-two hundred languages spoken. It's almost like you're combined the second most populous/second largest continent in the world together, because, apparently, you can't see the difference between individuals there! That's a wonderful attitude to have towards an entire continent of people!

(less snarky aside: in face, the heterogeneity of African nations has been one of the major questions regarding growth and stimulating growth in Africa and has given birth to a fairly vast literature on the effects* of cultural homogeneity/heterogeneity on growth).

* - with the exception of Barro (1996), these are selected mostly at random, purely to illustrate the size of the literature. Unlike articles I normally link, there's no particular importance to any of these nor are they really particularly interesting.

Almost every single African nation is corrupt and or violent. South Africa is the wealthiest but it is very violent and supports racism (they have affirmative action). Northern Africa is safe and has a low AIDS rate but it is farily intolerant of non-Muslims. Only a few countries seem to not have genocide and/or extreme violence. Botswana (althogh AIDS rate is high), Namibia, Madagascar, and the island nations are some better ones.

I said Africa because typing in 20+ terrible nations there would take awhile.

[Yorkopolis]

Almost every single African nation is corrupt and or violent. South Africa is the wealthiest but it is very violent and supports racism (they have affirmative action). Northern Africa is safe and has a low AIDS rate but it is farily intolerant of non-Muslims. Only a few countries seem to not have genocide and/or extreme violence. Botswana (althogh AIDS rate is high), Namibia, Madagascar, and the island nations are some better ones.

I said Africa because typing in 20+ terrible nations there would take awhile.

How nice of a generalization. South Africa has served years under Apartheid, know it? Sure as fuck they should have affirmative action if there have been years of discrimination of the majority by the minority. Of course, it shouldn't lead to violence but still giving whites an advantaged position in a society where they have already enjoyed high positions for years because of a system known as Apartheid is bullshit and you know it, so stop being racist while talking about South Africa.

[Ostroeuropa]

World's top 100 earners could destroy the economy by inflating the money supply ridiculously.

[Freiheit Reich]

Almost every single African nation is corrupt and or violent. South Africa is the wealthiest but it is very violent and supports racism (they have affirmative action). Northern Africa is safe and has a low AIDS rate but it is farily intolerant of non-Muslims. Only a few countries seem to not have genocide and/or extreme violence. Botswana (althogh AIDS rate is high), Namibia, Madagascar, and the island nations are some better ones.

I said Africa because typing in 20+ terrible nations there would take awhile.

How nice of a generalization. South Africa has served years under Apartheid, know it? Sure as fuck they should have affirmative action if there have been years of discrimination of the majority by the minority. Of course, it shouldn't lead to violence but still giving whites an advantaged position in a society where they have already enjoyed high positions for years because of a system known as Apartheid is bullshit and you know it, so stop being racist while talking about South Africa.

I understand the need for revenge but it still means they are racist. Racism means treating somebody differently or unfairly because of their skin color. Anybody who says race based preferences is not racist is ignorant. Anybody that support race based preferences is racist.

I believe in treating people the same (when it comes to color-religion is different). Apartheid was wrong but so is S. Africa's current system. Colorblind policies are the way to go.

S. Africa has a very high crime rate, I checked (to site my arguments, it is worse than I thouhgt)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_South_Africa

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sf- ... /cri-crime

I will list a few nations with major problems (or had recent problems) and you can disagree with me if you want.

Chad, Mali, Nigeria (Religious conflict), Sudan (genocide), S. Africa, Egypt, Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda ('90's genocide), Sierra Leone, Liberia, Congo (rapes, child soldiers), Zimbabwe.

Many African countries have serious civil conflicts, corrupt leaders, high crime rates, child soldiers.

http://www.davidajao.com/blog/2006/05/0 ... ed-states/

Top 10 worst countries, all in Africa

http://travel.prwave.ro/un-2011-top-bes ... o-live-in/

Yes, I guess I am too general when I say most of Africa sucks. I avoided the word all because there are a few exceptions.

[The Oan Isles]

Well Bill Gates at the height of his wealth (US$176 billion) earned almost half of my country's GDP so that answers everything in a nutshell.

[Samaja]

The global market for illegal drugs is worth between 300 and 500 billion dollars a year.

If the insane war on drugs was ended, maybe the portion of this that is ripped from the poor might stay with the poor, and stop them from staying so poor?

[Trotskylvania]

Eh, even if that was possible it'd probably reinvent itself and we'd eventually end up with a standardised currency again after much trouble, whilst not being able to help others any more for it.

Not if there was an effective resourced based economy instead.

No.
Money is commodity created for sake of convince and does its job well.


No, it is neither exploitation nor greed. Is is money of nation A that was lent to the nation B, it is nation B's duty to pay it back.

Sorry, not buying it. See what I did there? Then again, I'm happily anti capitalist

Nothing about a planned economy is necessarily opposed to poverty or unequal distribution of resources.