Environmentalism, Kyoto and the Greens

[Desertrat]

I was doing my usual casual browse-through of the Lew Rockwell website on Thursday, and ran across this little jewel. (Well, not "little"; it's a very lengthy read.)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/Anti-Green.pdf

I had never run across the name, Bernard Switalski, before. I know nothing, really of his background, but he appears to be far more well-read than I ever thought of being.

He not only skewers the whole Kyoto/Globular Worming idea, he disembowels it. With references and footnotes. He also gives the political background for what we know today as Environmentalists (with the capital E) and the Green Party.

Like I say, lengthy. I'm about 1/4 through it. So far, excellent read.

:), 'Rat

[mypantsaretight]

While that document contains little more than pseudoscientific ramblings that barely touch on any of the most recent or relevant climate data, it does make for a decidedly amusing read. I strongly recommend it as a mental diversion or perhaps good toilet reading.

In particular I found the author's whole notion of fascism as anti-capitalist to be an entertaining bit of fiction. Poor students of history and political science will find his half-truths compelling, while the rest of us will find much entertainment in unraveling his deceptions.

Another amusing section is page 54's summary of "statistics" on state-sponsored murder. Add a footnote and call 'em facts, it's the pseudo-intellectual way. I highly recommend readers peruse this section as it's utter disdain for factuality is astounding.

All in all I give the document four American flags and one Texas flag. Not quite a perfect score, but the author does little more than cobble together a bunch of footnotes. Throw in a little more originality next time and it will certainly earn 5 American flags.

Thanks for the amusing link. I'm guessing you subscribe to the author's beliefs though and thought this stuff was good. Might I suggest a trip to a university library, and perhaps there you might just start by looking up Reinhard Gehlen and see where that takes you. Good reading!

m

[IJ Reilly]

The man's qualifications to make scientific pronouncements are a sight to behold. Now I know what the Republicans mean when they talk about "bad science."

[skunk]

That is SUCH A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS! Like reading Leo on the Environment, but even less amusing.

[Desertrat]

Yeah, right. None of the people quoted ever said what they reputedly said. None of the events reported ever really happened. And nobody died during Stalin's or Mao's reigns and the Holocaust never happened.

:D, 'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

What the bloody hell is that supposed to mean, 'Rat? Honestly.

If you want to get a sense of this man's qualifications, take another look at the article.

[mypantsaretight]

Yeah, right. None of the people quoted ever said what they reputedly said. None of the events reported ever really happened. And nobody died during Stalin's or Mao's reigns and the Holocaust never happened.

:D, 'Rat

I never denied that the quotes were spoken, nor did I deny the deaths during Mao or Stalin's reigns or during the Holocaust. As I said go to the library and look things up for yourself since you obviously missed the glaring factual errors and omissions in that section. Don't take my word for it, execise your mind by looking it up from the original sources.

If the library was closed when you tried, try again Monday. Opening one's mind and reading the actual source documents is an important first step to intellectual growth.

m

BTW, if the first name was too hard for you to find, try George Kennan. Or maybe just look up a bio of Oscar Romero. There's a lot of good original source material if you're willing to read.

[takao]

hmm an article by somebody who worked in the oil industry for a _long_ time ...
without even reading the article i'm pretty sure he isn't happy with the greens ;)

perhaps the american greens are different.. here they are very liberal ('open-minded'), rational in it's political discussions (aka. 'lack of trench-fighting'), always anti-fascistic engaged, most voted party in the high education part of populaton , and in local governmental positions they are always doing a good job...

[mypantsaretight]

hmm an article by somebody who worked in the oil industry for a _long_ time ...
without even reading the article i'm pretty sure he isn't happy with the greens ;)

perhaps the american greens are different here they are very liberal ('open-minded'), rational in it's political discussions (aka. 'lack of trench-fighting'), always anti-fascistic engaged, most voted party in the high education part of population , and in local governmental positions they are always doing a good job...
In America much of the confusion in the discussion of politics and related issues is created by an imprecise understanding of the terms being used. The definitions thread was a nice try to bring some sense to things, but it can't overcome the net effects of a lifetime of propaganda.

This is just one of many examples where words and phrases like fascism, ultra-nationalism, democracy and liberalism are used to nurture an us versus them mentality amongst the populace. If they aren't with us they must be xxxxx <---- insert random pejorative political adjective.

A good example is "Communism." Look it up and you find one definition. Very similar to the one put forth by Lenin and Marx and such. But the term "Communism" when used by the American government specifically does not use that definition. One needs look no farther than declassified Policy Planning Study documents from the US State Department to see that the operative definition of "communism" in the government's lexicon is "the idea that the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the people." And it doesn't take a genius to realize that that definition and the real defintion have little in common... hence all the confusion.

This article merely uses that type of confusion in an attempt to tie the Greens to fascism.

m

[skunk]

From over here it does often seem that over there you are living in an alternate reality created by completely distorted language. According to your US terminology, practically every European country is verging on communism. No wonder we don't see eye to eye. :(

[takao]

From over here it does often seem that over there you are living in an alternate reality created by completely distorted language. According to your US terminology, practically every European country is verging on communism. No wonder we don't see eye to eye. :(

and our favourite newspaper is http://english.pravda.ru/
(actually i was amused by their 'articles' on the left side under 'fun story' and their flashing links to other articles)
i had to grin a lot about that one:
http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/12072_Castro.html

the Cuban leader said that the United States, with a fiscal deficit of more than $520 billion, was handling its economy as a "banana republic".

but the "drinking tips for women" http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/379/13038_womenDrink.html
are priceless as well ;)

bookmarked ;)

[skunk]

Thanks for the link: it's priceless! :D

[mypantsaretight]

Absoultely wonderful links. Thank you!

m

[Desertrat]

takao, most of the US types I know don't use "communism" in comments about European countries, so much as "socialistic". Of course, this ignores the socialistic realities of our system--but, then, we label stuff differently. :)

Me, I try to separate--for simplicity's sake in casual discussion--viewpoints into "statist" and "individualistic". As a generality, those labelled with the isms--including statism--are in favor of some sort of central government controls to a greater degree than those favoring a high degree of individual sovereignty.

Those people I've known who have labelled themselves liberal or socialist or communist are comfortable with the idea of a large degree of central governmental controls over society. I am not. I don't see them as having any more desire for a good life for the poor than I; we differ on how this is to be achieved.

Same for many environmental matters. Similar or equal goals; different methods of achieving them.

As for the Kyoto accords: They call for the US to reduce CO2 emissions to an earlier level, no matter the effect on our economy or any other facet of our lives. My problem with this stems from the NASA air-constituent measurement of CO2: There is less CO2 in the air mass flowing east from our Atlantic coast than in the air mass entering from the Pacific coast. The US is a CO2 sink.

'Rat

[Leo Hubbard]

As for the Kyoto accords: They call for the US to reduce CO2 emissions to an earlier level, no matter the effect on our economy or any other facet of our lives. My problem with this stems from the NASA air-constituent measurement of CO2: There is less CO2 in the air mass flowing east from our Atlantic coast than in the air mass entering from the Pacific coast. The US is a CO2 sink.

'Rat
I thought it was suppose to be republicans that had problems with scientific realities. :rolleyes: :D

Don't forget the actual affect on our temperatures the raising of the suns own temperature has caused. Remove that from the equation, and its what greenhouse effects that has been directly caused by man?

[skunk]

As a generality, those labelled with the isms--including statism--are in favor of some sort of central government controls to a greater degree than those favoring a high degree of individual sovereignty.
Strange generalization: what about individualism, anarchism, nihilism, libertarianism?

[Desertrat]

Okay, skunk. Mea culpa. I was thinking of the more mainstream (?) stuff. Communism, socialism, facism are more historical words, I guess. Or wider spread, maybe...I don't think I've ever thought of "libertarianism" so much as just "libertarian".

In the FWIW department, one reason I like the word "Statist" is that it's so much less laden with emotion, and I think it's more descriptive of a general political view.

For instance, I note that High Times is promoting a protest at the RNC. But I'd bet that few of the HighTimers strongly favor a powerful central government. :) Certainly not to the extent as favored by what are labelled NeoCons or those like Sen. Clinton.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Those people I've known who have labelled themselves liberal or socialist or communist are comfortable with the idea of a large degree of central governmental controls over society. I am not. I don't see them as having any more desire for a good life for the poor than I; we differ on how this is to be achieved.

I suppose you didn't learn the lesson of the tragedy of the commons then. Individuals have no incentive to maintain and improve public resources. The only incentive they have is to use them as fast as possible before they run out or are befouled.

This does not mean I am against individual freedom. Far from it in fact. I would like to see individual choice and freedom increased, but balanced against maintaining and improving our natural resources.

[Desertrat]

"I suppose you didn't learn the lesson of the tragedy of the commons then. Individuals have no incentive to maintain and improve public resources. The only incentive they have is to use them as fast as possible before they run out or are befouled."

mac, I see the tragedy of the commons quite regularly. The "ejidos" of Mexico are as prime an example as one could wish.

The owner of property has the incentive. That our government does not stringently enforce its own rules on such entities as miners or ranchers on the public lands does not mean there is not incentive; it merely means a lack of will or brains. Note that private farms and ranches are far better managed than any public lands.

The worst polluted areas on the planet are in those countries which had the most authoritarian governments we've ever known: Russia, and East Germany.

Nowhere have I ever said I want NO government controls. Never have even implied that. My favorite example of why I want such as the EPA to be a national-level entity is that of paper mills. If Texas pollution-control laws are more stringent than those of Louisiana, mills in Louisiana will be more economically competitive. That is not a level playing field, which is a desirable goal as I see govenmental responsibility.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Nowhere have I ever said I want NO government controls. Never have even implied that.

I knew it! You're a statist! :p

[Desertrat]

:D

[Leo Hubbard]

Nowhere have I ever said I want NO government controls. Never have even implied that. My favorite example of why I want such as the EPA to be a national-level entity is that of paper mills. If Texas pollution-control laws are more stringent than those of Louisiana, mills in Louisiana will be more economically competitive. That is not a level playing field, which is a desirable goal as I see govenmental responsibility.

'Rat
National standards don't always apply nationally. What is necessary in one state may not be necessary in another. Should we make a law requiring everyone has to wear heavy down jackets during the winter just because it is cold in New Hampshire? Could get kind of hot down in Florida.

As you stated the US is a polution sink???? I'm just taking your word on that. But don't you think certain states are more in need of higher pollution control laws compared to other states. Blame Mother Nature.

[katchow]

Should we make a law requiring everyone has to wear heavy down jackets during the winter just because it is cold in New Hampshire?

can you think of any reasons (or scientific data) why a certain area (state) might be able to handle higher pollution levels? i mean, i really don't know if thats the case...but your analogy is out in left field.

[Leo Hubbard]

can you think of any reasons (or scientific data) why a certain area (state) might be able to handle higher pollution levels? i mean, i really don't know if thats the case...but your analogy is out in left field.Certain states do have to handle higher or lower temperatures. The measure you use to defend from such temperatures is dependent on the individual locale without resorting to an unrealistic national standard.

[katchow]

are you talking about temperatures as they relate to pollution or what clothing you should wear? i mean, i think i know what you mean...i'm just curious about what the factors would be.

[skunk]

Certain states do have to handle higher or lower temperatures. The measure you use to defend from such temperatures is dependent on the individual locale without resorting to an unrealistic national standard.
Or are you saying that Alaska could benefit from a bit of global warming, so it's OK?

[IJ Reilly]

I think every country ought to be required to adhere to a standard ambient air temperature. Think of the advantages.

[skunk]

I'm trying...

[themadchemist]

I think Leo has a point not so much with respect to standards, but instead, with respect to efforts. That is, one need not require Wyoming to spend the same amount per capita on pollution as, say, California. The states have different pollution levels and can achieve similar ends by differing means. But maybe that's not what Leo meant at all.

[skunk]

I don't think that IS what he's saying. Clearly, states with less pollution would not need to spend the same as those with heavier pollution. You might well find one state suing another for causing pollution which crossed the state line...

[IJ Reilly]

FWIW, standards for air pollution abatement already differ state by state and in areas (air districts) within the states. The districts with the biggest problems (known as "non-attainment areas") are required to do the most to clean up. This is why California has different gasoline formulations than other states, in addition to the fact that California has specific climatic and topographical conditions that tend to promote the formation of air pollution.

[Leo Hubbard]

I think Leo has a point not so much with respect to standards, but instead, with respect to efforts. That is, one need not require Wyoming to spend the same amount per capita on pollution as, say, California. The states have different pollution levels and can achieve similar ends by differing means. But maybe that's not what Leo meant at all.
That is what I meant. Different states produce different amounts of pollution and have different environmental concerns for example, polution traps. So each state needs to be treated as an individual. National standards would ignore the individual needs of states requiring too much for some and too little for others.

Alaska could use a few more oil pipe lines though, I heard it helps the caraboo multiply. :D

[skunk]

That is what I meant. Different states produce different amounts of pollution and have different environmental concerns for example, polution traps. So each state needs to be treated as an individual. National standards would ignore the individual needs of states requiring too much for some and too little for others.

Alaska could use a few more oil pipe lines though, I heard it helps the caraboo multiply. :D
So we all agree, then - apart from the last bit... :eek:

Anyway, the caribou don't seem to have much trouble breeding unaided.

[IJ Reilly]

Anyway, the caribou don't seem to have much trouble breeding unaided.

You don't happen to have any (ahem) personal experience in these matters, do you?

[skunk]

You don't happen to have any (ahem) personal experience in these matters, do you?
I said unaided...

[zimv20]

what about the a state's pollution affecting other states? it's not like weather and terrain obey state boundaries.

[mactastic]

what about the a state's pollution affecting other states? it's not like weather and terrain obey state boundaries.

Makes me glad I'm about as far west as you can get in the territorial states and that the wind patterns go east! Of course we can trace pollutants from mainland China here...

[Desertrat]

"Different states produce different amounts of pollution and have different environmental concerns for example, polution traps. So each state needs to be treated as an individual. National standards would ignore the individual needs of states requiring too much for some and too little for others."

It would be better, I believe, to think in terms of areas or regions. Certainly EPA does this in terms of air quality.

There is a nationwide standard for emissions from a given type of industrial facility. Then, if there are further problem factors in some area, the additional restrictions are imposed. There are more stringent automobile exhaust inspections in Houston or Atlanta than in Kansas City, for example. A paper mill in the Beaumont area might well have stricter controls on its emissions, because of the greater air quality problems there.

Regardless, the national standards for industry or automobiles exist in Wyoming as in California. California's additional requirements are indeed as IJ commented...If a state determines it needs more than the fed standard, it can impose such.

(It's been several years since I flew past the LA Basin area. However, I could actually see LA. In 1967, during a flight, all of California was sunny and clear, except for the yellow-brown smog clouding the Basin. More to do, but a helluva lot of improvement.)

[IJ Reilly]

Southern California's air quality is vastly improved since I moved here in the mid-70s. You don't even need to read the statistics that confirm it -- just look out the window on any given summer day.

The states don't entirely decide what sorts of measures they'd like to implement. They are required to meet the federal air quality standards; if they don't, then they propose a plan for compliance to the EPA, which can approve or reject it. Often this process gets hung up in politics. California recently petitioned the EPA to drop a requirement that California substitute ethanol for MTBA as a gas additive. The California EPA has demonstrated that we'd achieve nothing in terms of improving air quality by making the substitution, but the federal EPA continues to reject the request.

[pseudobrit]

Most exhaust standards are set to meet the CARB guidelines.

That is the California Air Resources Board, not the federal EPA. The EPA IIRC only regulates with the CAFE (Corporate Average Fleet Economy) standards.

Because automakers don't want to go to the trouble of designing a separate emissions system for just California-sold cars, they usually meet the standards nationwide. Exceptions are few, but the automaker will typically simply not offer the nonconforming vehicle at all in California. Other states have some standards that end up on all cars sold in that region.

If anyone has a problem with this, they should simply vote with their wallet and refuse to buy cars that meet CARB or state standards if they don't need them.

One vehicle I can think of: the 50 mpg VW TDI, which VW does not sell in CA. Irony is a bitch.

[Desertrat]

"California recently petitioned the EPA to drop a requirement that California substitute ethanol for MTBA as a gas additive."

IJ, isn't this a groundwater contamination issue, rather than air quality? We had some discussion on this matter, here, "back when".

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

IJ, isn't this a groundwater contamination issue, rather than air quality? We had some discussion on this matter, here, "back when".

Yes, it is, and we did, in another context. MTBE was dropped as additive to fuel because it's been found in groundwater. The reason MTBE had been added to gasoline in the first place was to reduce pollutants (I believe it's an oxygenization agent). The EPA is insisting that California replace MTBE with ethanol, not because it's necessary to reduce pollution, but because it buys votes in the Corn Belt.

[Desertrat]

"The reason MTBE had been added to gasoline in the first place was to reduce pollutants (I believe it's an oxygenization agent). The EPA is insisting that California replace MTBE with ethanol, not because it's necessary to reduce pollution, but because it buys votes in the Corn Belt."

I'm missing something, here.

MTBE is an oxygenization agent, to reduce pollutants.
Ethanol is an oxygenization agent, to reduce pollutants.

I think it's generally agreed that minimizing pollution of air and water is a Good Thing.

MTBE is Bad Stuff if it gets into groundwater. Ethanol evaporates before it can contaminate groundwater.

I don't quite follow how keeping a groundwater contaminant is a Good Thing, as long as Corn Belt voters don't vote for Bush. That strikes me as rather Neserkian. :D

'Rat

[skunk]

That strikes me as rather Neserkian. :D
Oooh, 'Rat! You're playing with fire! :)

[IJ Reilly]

"The reason MTBE had been added to gasoline in the first place was to reduce pollutants (I believe it's an oxygenization agent). The EPA is insisting that California replace MTBE with ethanol, not because it's necessary to reduce pollution, but because it buys votes in the Corn Belt."

I'm missing something, here.

MTBE is an oxygenization agent, to reduce pollutants.
Ethanol is an oxygenization agent, to reduce pollutants.

I think it's generally agreed that minimizing pollution of air and water is a Good Thing.

MTBE is Bad Stuff if it gets into groundwater. Ethanol evaporates before it can contaminate groundwater.

I don't quite follow how keeping a groundwater contaminant is a Good Thing, as long as Corn Belt voters don't vote for Bush. That strikes me as rather Neserkian. :D

'Rat

Yup, you are missing something. The California State EPA has demonstrated that neither MTBE nor Ethanol are required to meet the standards.

[Ugg]

I'm missing something, here.

MTBE is an oxygenization agent, to reduce pollutants.
Ethanol is an oxygenization agent, to reduce pollutants.

I think it's generally agreed that minimizing pollution of air and water is a Good Thing.

MTBE is Bad Stuff if it gets into groundwater. Ethanol evaporates before it can contaminate groundwater.

I don't quite follow how keeping a groundwater contaminant is a Good Thing, as long as Corn Belt voters don't vote for Bush. That strikes me as rather Neserkian. :D

'Rat

It's true that minimizing groundwater contamination and pollution is a good thing but let's face it, corn is heavily water and oil dependent and it is only through massive federal subsidies that it can even be considered as being an economically viable additive. Sometimes it is necessary to look a gift horse in the mouth if for no other reason to ascertain that it isn't a trojan horse....

[Desertrat]

IJ, thanks. The chemistry of oxygenation of gasoline for pollution reduction isn't my area of expertise.

skunk, my "Neserkian" comment stems from her stated view in another thread that her antipathy for Bush is such that if violent protest disrupts the RNC nominating process, all well and good.

Ugg, you're correct. Hey, Archer-Daniels-Midland is big in the corn/gasahol world. However, if they weren't growing corn, it would be some other crop. E.g., most of China's soy is "outsourced" from the U.S. and other countries.

SFAIK, were it not for the alleged pollution abatement idea, alcohol is far less efficient as a fuel than gasoline. From an mpg standpoint, about 50 to 60 percent.

'Rat

[mypantsaretight]

The environmental problems faced by the world are a direct result of runaway consumerism in the first world. This in turn is the lifeblood of the business party and a critical element in their continued hold on power. Arguing about this emissions standard or that environmental law are merely diversionary endeavors.

If standards are changed on fossil fuels requiring the development of alternative energy sources who will lead the way? The oil companies. If you don't believe that then look no further than the expressly stated energy policies of both the Democrats and the Republicans. Why is that? Why is it that the energy policies of both factions of the business party are inherently concerned with leaving control of our energy destiny in the hands of one group of transnational corporations.

So long as the system remains the same, the environmental problems will merely shift. Greenhouse gases under control? Next its a global water shortage. Water supplies intact? Now erosion of arable land is at a crisis. The environmental problems we are witnessing are and their causative elements are merely symptoms of a much deeper and more fundamental societal malfunction.

In the last 50 years we have seen the visions of American government planners come to fruition. There is no intention of elevating the standards of living for those in the third world. They and their lands are merely labor and resources for the American economy. The environment is a nuisance, to be abused for profit.

Long live the business party and long live their right arm, the American commissar class. Long live United Fruit Company.

m

[Desertrat]

mpat, stipulate you're correct in all particulars.

Do you see any way to improve the lot of the people in the Third World without reducing the standard of living of people in the developed nations?

By "standard of living" I don't mean consumerism as such. I'm thinking more of US conditions in, say, the 1930s/1940s but without the Depression or WW II. And, of course, assuming we keep today's technologies...

(I have more comments, but that's enuf fer now.)

'Rat

[mactastic]

Do you see any way to improve the lot of the people in the Third World without reducing the standard of living of people in the developed nations?

No.

[skunk]

Do you see any way to improve the lot of the people in the Third World without reducing the standard of living of people in the developed nations?
Why, yes! Transfer 0.5% of your military budget to your Aid budget and drop the tariff barriers to imported goods from the Third World. Not exactly rocket science.

[Leo Hubbard]

Originally Posted by Desertrat
Do you see any way to improve the lot of the people in the Third World without reducing the standard of living of people in the developed nations?

Why, yes! Transfer 0.5% of your military budget to your Aid budget and drop the tariff barriers to imported goods from the Third World. Not exactly rocket science.
If we dropped our tarrif barriers, our outsourcing of jobs would increase and our standard of living will go down because in order to have a job in this country you will have to be willing to work less. So effectively you didn't answer Rat's question.

BTW if we reduced our military budget, which would be stupid, it would be better to give aid to our citizens in the realm of another tax cut. Keep in mind I said tax cut not another redistribution plan where we pay people for the privilege of being citizens who don't make enough to pay taxes.

[Desertrat]

skunk, you cannot create wealth by giving money away. Wealth can only be created in some form of relatively free market, with no more than a reasonable amount of taxation. Add in the security of title to property. The biggest problem in most third world countries lies in the formats of their governments which commonly inhibit that creation. There's no way for the common folks to better their lot in a thugocracy.

Half a percent of our military budget? That's two billion greenies. It's nice in a thug's Swiss bank account, but about twenty-five cents a person among the poor...

If you told military retirees to go off and die and gave all our military budget to "the poor", they'd have to live on $200 or less per year. Woopti-do.

So, question still unanswered...

'Rat

[skunk]

skunk, you cannot create wealth by giving money away. Wealth can only be created in some form of relatively free market, with no more than a reasonable amount of taxation. Add in the security of title to property. The biggest problem in most third world countries lies in the formats of their governments which commonly inhibit that creation. There's no way for the common folks to better their lot in a thugocracy.

Half a percent of our military budget? That's two billion greenies. It's nice in a thug's Swiss bank account, but about twenty-five cents a person among the poor...

If you told military retirees to go off and die and gave all our military budget to "the poor", they'd have to live on $200 or less per year. Woopti-do.

So, question still unanswered...

'Rat
You have a very odd notion of foreign aid. More a question of teaching men to fish than of giving them fish.

[zimv20]

give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. teach a man how to give away a fish and he'll still be hungry.

i don't know what that's supposed to mean, either.

[skunk]

Nor do I, but it's f**cking deep.

[takao]

sell a man a fish and you will have a small margin,teach a man how to fish and you miss a wonderfull business opportunity

or something like that ;)

[Leo Hubbard]

sell a man a fish and you will have a small margin,teach a man how to fish and you miss a wonderfull business opportunity

or something like that ;)
Nah, then you sell him bait, buy his fish at a huge discount and sell it at a markup to some lazy bum who perfers to pay someone else to fish.

[Desertrat]

Nothing particularly profound about the concept that if you just give somebody some sustenance he's okay for the short term; if you teach him how to be self-sufficient he's good for his lifetime.

Do most poor folks WANT to be poor? If they have the know-how, and live within a legal and open socio-economic system, MUST they remain poor?

What good does it do to give away money into a thugocracy where there is a populace which is largely ignorant of know-how to create any wealth at all?

'Rat

[skunk]

Why do you assert that all aid recipients are "thugocracies"?

[mactastic]

I assumed he meant Halliburton... :p

[katchow]

Do most poor folks WANT to be poor? If they have the know-how, and live within a legal and open socio-economic system, MUST they remain poor?


can you be wealthy without the backs of the poor?

[takao]

Why do you assert that all aid recipients are "thugocracies"?

hm if discounts on buying arms counts as 'aid' then i would say pakistan and saudi arabia fits thugocracies... i liked the part of bush speak where he talked about "people getting executed in sports stadiums in afghanistan" ...i wonder if anybody already told him that this is commen practice in saudi arabia ? (ask the swiss company Liebherr wh oare producing cranes...they sold a few of the hugest cranes they ever made into saudi arabia for lots of money... a few weeks later pictures were circling around where you could see beside the person who got hung the big red(?) Liebherr crane with the company sign.....)

but of course this is absolutly off topic...it's more about the US don't minding about getting allied with _real_ "thugocracies" (instead with the biggest democracy around in the middle east)

[mischief]

mpat, stipulate you're correct in all particulars.

Do you see any way to improve the lot of the people in the Third World without reducing the standard of living of people in the developed nations?

By "standard of living" I don't mean consumerism as such. I'm thinking more of US conditions in, say, the 1930s/1940s but without the Depression or WW II. And, of course, assuming we keep today's technologies...

(I have more comments, but that's enuf fer now.)

'Rat

Sure. You invest in educating the population in both places, thereby increasing the average income potential. Then you encourage venture-capitalizing businesses in overseas countries while dropping protectionist laws and subsidization of US industries that really should die back a tad. IE: Food and raw-materials production should be encouraged to be more globall and regional.

You simplify the taxation here in the USA so there's less complexity and holes in the system. At the same time you streamline how the various agencies fit together to remove Pork-Barrel projects and redundancy. You encourage a higher average wage by encouraging Unionization. You work to assure that a simple increase in the number of Jobs available actually equates to a larger number of available work hours and pay dollars.

You encourage US commercial banks and large companies to act as vendors and partners to overseas startups. GM and Budweiser did very well by doing exactly that in Japan after WW2.

[Desertrat]

mischief, I agree with your assessment. To tie your comments to mine about "thugocracies", your ideas can't work in places like Zimbabwe or Chad under their present systems. Saudi Arabia, for that matter. There are other countries which, although less abusive, still restrain such private enterprises as you envision, or haven't provided adequate educational systems.

While not exactly a thugocracy, certianly the political system in Mexico, for all that the country's many resources, is a good example of how people just can't readily rise above their "station in life". Mexico has oil, gas, gold, silver, farmland, water, timber, fisheries, tourism and lots of willing workers...Why ain't they wealthy?

'Rat

[takao]

Mexico has oil, gas, gold, silver, farmland, water, timber, fisheries, tourism and lots of willing workers...Why ain't they wealthy?


hm russia has oil (really lots of), gas (under the biggest producers world wide),gold (ditto),silver(not sure but i guess they have plenty of it),farmland(enough available as well), water ( that too),timber(lots and lots of it),fisheries(check),tourism(is growing fast),lots of willing workers(as long as they have vodka,yes)
are they wealthy ? no way

on the other side luxemburg is the wealthiest country in the EU(perhaps one of the richest countries world wide) and it has none of the resources you listed (switzerland has at least a little bit farmland,willing workers,timber and tourism)
you know why mexico is not wealthy ? because that resources you stated don't really matter _much_ (of course it matters)

[Desertrat]

takao, thank you for reinforcing my point: It's the political/socio-economic system that makes the difference.

'Rat

[takao]

takao, thank you for reinforcing my point: It's the political/socio-economic system that makes the difference.

'Rat

but sooner or later they will catch up.. ;)

same with democracy in the middle east...

politicianstlak about enforcing it there but then fail to realize that iran already _is_ a democracy (with a higher election turn out than the big proclaimed 'defender of democracy')

foreign economical+political policies takes time...that's not something you do within 4 years... sooner or later the people will come to democracy on their own...forcing democracy is dangerous business ... it might piss people of and turn them into fanatism of different kinds

[Desertrat]

Illustrative of the problems of thugocracies, western corruption and even--maybe--some wouldbe do-gooders:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/spectator/spec372.html

:), 'Rat