We don't want peace, we just want to be rich.

The BBQ Pit
21

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Y’know, it really sucks how we have go over to Iraq and steal all their Ipods and Honda Accords and Kung Pao chicken. Why won’t those bastards share with us?

The notion that people in the third world are poor because we are rich is laughable. Laughable. I laugh at this notion.

People in the third world not poor because we stole their Ipods. Economics is not a zero sum game. When China’s economy grows, when India’s economy grows that makes the US economy grow. They aren’t taking more from our share, their increase share of wealth increases our share. Win-win. China’s economic renaissance is the most promising development for global peace since the end of WW2.
[/QUOTE]
You could not be more right about this. Wealth is created…it isn’t like there is X amount, and it will always remain X, and X must be divided amongst everyone in the world. It is more than feasible that if people in all countries had as much freedom to control their own destinies as there are in liberal democracies like the US, that all countries would have standards of living like the US.

22

Te funny thin gis that throughout history, war has pretty much been the antithesis of economic progress. Look at some of the poorest nations of the world, may are fighitng within, some without. Europe was wealthy prior to the two world wars, war destroyed much of that and it wasn’t until after WWII when goods and services were traded instead of bullets.

23

Yeah, the whole “war is good for the economy” idea could really only be believed by Americans. Since we fight in wars, but they never happen HERE, but rather over THERE. So OUR factories never get destroyed, OUR transportation networks don’t get wrecked, OUR farms aren’t abandoned, OUR people never become internal homeless and unemployed refugees.

World War II kickstarted the American economy, but it absolutely crushed the economies of Britain, France, Russia, China, Japan, Italy, and every other smaller country that was fought over or fought through. They were wrecked, people were starving. It took a decade before they recovered, even after the war was finished.

But the war certainly didn’t bring prosperity to the US either. Just about anything you care to name was rationed. Yeah, people had all those new munitions plant jobs, but they couldn’t spend their money due to rationing. The war helped only because we were coming out of the depression and had so many people without work. The war put unemployed people to work, and when the war stopped the factories converted to consumer goods rather than fire everyone. But if all those people had been working productive jobs rather than being unemployed it would have wrecked our economy too, even if we were never bombed or invaded.

24

[QUOTE=Cemetery Savior]
Looks like someone hooked you pretty good with a Sally-Struthers pitch.
[/QUOTE]
Somebody set us up the blonde.

25

You do know that GPS’s are used by emergency services to SAVE life’s. Your whole post seems like a incoherent rant.

26

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
You make it sound like it will be voluntary on our part. As China, India and other developing nations continue to grow and perfect western capitalism, they will continue to eat our lunch in the world economy, just by out-competing us at our own game. We won’t have to give up anything for the third world to prosper; they will take it from us, whether we like it or not.
[/QUOTE]

Prosperity is not like a pizza: so if I get two slices, I have to take one of yours. If they develop their economies, it makes more pizzas. Pizzas beget pizzas. The fact that many countries haven’t started making their own pizzas is only due to political and economic backwardness - no point making a pizza if you don’t stand to get a slice of it; no point making one if there aren’t laws to protect your slice; can’t make one if your government won’t let you get your shit together to buy the ingredients.

To torture the simile further, you may find that making pizzas is not your thing: other people can make their pizzas better and cheaper. Your real advantage may not lie in making pizzas - any fool with a kitchen can do that - so girding yourself with rules to keep other pizzas out won’t help, since you’re only cheating yourself by paying more for pizza. Find what you are good at doing, and learn to do it better. Deliver pizzas. Advertise pizzas. Trade pizza futures.

Our future lies in pizza!

27

[QUOTE=Case Sensitive]
Prosperity is not like a pizza: so if I get two slices, I have to take one of yours. If they develop their economies, it makes more pizzas. Pizzas beget pizzas. The fact that many countries haven’t started making their own pizzas is only due to political and economic backwardness - no point making a pizza if you don’t stand to get a slice of it; no point making one if there aren’t laws to protect your slice; can’t make one if your government won’t let you get your shit together to buy the ingredients.
[/QUOTE]

But what about the resources which generate wealth-- the pizza ingredients?

Wealth comes from resources and some countries, like impoverished African nations, don’t have many to exploit. Agriculture is no good for them, they don’t have timber, there isn’t any valuable mineral deposits beneath the soil. All they have is people who could, on the surface, appear to be a resource of cheap labor, but companies need infrastructure to be attracted to a location, stable governments and an at least somewhat educated populace. (In some impoverished nations, most people never have a chance for any kind of schooling.) They have nothing which with to generate wealth.

Also, if wealth is generated from resources, what happens when those resources peter out? Nation A sells its oil until the wells run dry, and oil was its primary export. What will Nation A rely on for its wealth now? Nation B relies on agriculture, but shifting climate paterns have left the area more arid than in the past. Crops are failing. Nation B has no forests, no oil-- crops were its major export. From where will its wealth come now?

28

[QUOTE=Lissa]
But what about the resources which generate wealth-- the pizza ingredients?

Wealth comes from resources and some countries, like impoverished African nations, don’t have many to exploit. <snip> They have nothing which with to generate wealth.
[/QUOTE]

Go tell Hong Kong.

29

[QUOTE=Case Sensitive]
Go tell Hong Kong.
[/QUOTE]

Didn’t Hong Kong have a strategic seaport? That’s a hell of a resource.

30

[QUOTE=newcrasher]
Fuck.

Fuck it. I want my Ipod, and my $4.95 happy meal, and I want to buy my kids’ clothes at Wal-Mart. Keep sending soldiers. I want a big ol’ SUV that uses more fuel than I need, and releases green house gases that screws the planet.

Well I don’t own an Ipod,I do however drive an suv and shop at Wal-mart . It pains me greatly that my country men and women as well Iraqi men women and children are all dying for no good reason that I can discern . But as I don’t know any personally, I am sure that I don’t feel the pain that you and the relatives of the dead do. So I offer you my sincerest apologies .

O

31

[QUOTE=Lissa]
Didn’t Hong Kong have a strategic seaport? That’s a hell of a resource.
[/QUOTE]

Yes , but your post talked only about primary resources like agriculture or mining. One hundred and fifty years ago Hong Kong was a bunch of fishing villages, until the British decided that they wanted to use it to run opium up the Pearl River. What Hong Kong developed was a rule of law and a stable government which meant that it was worth a merchant’s while to try and make a buck without too many regulations hedging him in, and without the fear that some greedy despot was going to declare him persona non grata and filch the lot.

That’s what most African nations lack, and what prevents them from getting rich: next week some bugger’s going to declare himself president for life, have your family murdered or imprisoned, and nick your farm. Not establishing stable governments and fair laws - and the concomitant infrastructure - is what holds them back, not any lack of resources. Take Nigeria: loads of oil, but all revenues go into the pockets of greedy tyrants who are willing to keep their kleptocracy going with AK47 toting thugs.

Let’s move away again from primary resources: New Zealand has an enormous tourism industry, with all the appurtenances - jobs in cafes, in restaurants, in bars, in hotels, in transport, and in providing all the infrastructure that’s required to service the servicers. Why? Because we have pretty mountains that people are willing to pay to come and look at - indeed, almost our entire film industry is predicated on pretty mountains - secure in the knowledge that they can drink the water and not get ambushed by Marxist bandits in the Ureweras or shaken down by the local cops.

Why don’t African countries have a similar cash cow? God knows plenty of places there have lots of pretty animals that I and many others would happily pay to see. Tourism is a resource. Elephants are a resource. So why don’t I go? No infrastructure - I can’t drink the water, and I wouldn’t want to get sick there. Ineffective laws - I can’t trust the cops not to sock me for healthy bribes. Repressive governments - ergo gun-toting bandits. Frankly, Africa isn’t safe to go, whereas New Zealand is. Africa probably has more tourism resources than we do down here, yet the fundamental lack of stability is what prevents them from effectively exploiting them and enriching more than a small - and probably already wealthy - part of the populace.

32

[QUOTE=Lissa]
like impoverished African nations, don’t have many to exploit.
[/QUOTE]

That’s a fairly inaccurate statement.

Many of the richest nations in the world in natural resource wealth lie in Africa, and that hasn’t helped them develop.

As suggested by Case Sensitive, good governence is exceedingly more important to the outcome of a nation than natural resources.

33

Why did you put this in the pit? This is an intelligent topic that should be debated. Is endless reprisal a good way to fight a war, or does it just increase motivation? You actually come across as a really decent person newscaster in how you presented yourself, your link about global poverty and this thread. Its a shame you put it here in the pit though.

As for reprisals, I have tried to explain to people on this board and others that one of the best ways to fight terrorism is through our humanity, not through war. Whereas war builds endless ill will, humanity breaks down hatred and decreases motivation for evil. Even some hardened criminals are affected by being forgiven by their victims. I think the guy who shot the pope and was forgiven for it by him tried to rip the door off of his cell because he wasn’t allowed to attend the pope’s funeral when he died.

Here is an article you may like.

http://www.godspy.com/reviews/The-Pope-and-the-Politics-of-Forgiveness.cfm

Alot of people feel forgiveness is a sign of weakness, but it is just letting go of the desire to harm others. It doesn’t mean not holding them accountable, just letting go of the malice and the desire to inflict suffering while you do it. At least for me it does.

I wrote a thread somewhat on the subject once (no replies dammit) highlighting among other things that our support for humanitarian aid decreases terrorism.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=323829&highlight=human+rights

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/article.php?id=42

In a 2004 Freedom Institute poll, 16% of Indonesians agreed with recent terrorist bombings in Indonesia, and another 25% refused to disagree. A Freedom Institute’s researcher said, “There is a significant number of Indonesians, at least half, [who] do not have a negative reaction to that and they agree with silence at least, or protect this kind of activity.” Of the 40% who had heard of Jemaah Islamiyah, one third supported the extremist group.

Impact of the Tsunami: Terror Free Tomorrow Poll

For the first time ever in a major Muslim nation, more people favor US-led efforts to fight terrorism than oppose them (40% to 36%). Importantly, those who oppose US efforts against terrorism have declined by half, from 72% in 2003 to just 36% today.

For the first time ever in a Muslim nation since 9/11, support for Osama Bin Laden has dropped significantly (58% favorable to just 23%).

65% of Indonesians now are more favorable to the United States because of the American response to the tsunami, with the highest percentage among people under 30.

Indeed, 71% of the people who express confidence in Bin Laden are now more favorable to the United States because of American aid to tsunami victims.

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/articlenav.php?id=71

The exact same thing happened in Pakistan when the US helped after the earthquake.

73% of Pakistanis surveyed in November 2005 now believe suicide terrorist attacks are never justified, up from 46% just last May.

Support for Osama Bin Laden has declined significantly (51% favorable in May 2005 to just 33% in November), while those who oppose him rose over the same period from 23% to 41%.

US favorability among Pakistanis has doubled from 23% in May to more than 46% now, while the percentage of Pakistanis with very unfavorable views declined from 48% to 28%.

For the first time since 9/11, more Pakistanis are now favorable to the United States than unfavorable.

78% of Pakistanis have a more favorable opinion of the United States because of the American response to the earthquake, with the strongest support among those under 35.

79% of those with confidence in Bin Laden now have a more favorable view of the US because of American earthquake aid.

81% said that earthquake relief was important for them in forming their overall opinion of the United States.

The United States fared better in Pakistani public opinion than both other Western countries and radical Islamist groups.

While opinion of the United States itself improved significantly, this did not translate into increased support for US-led efforts to fight terrorism. Tellingly, those who oppose US efforts against terrorism grew, from 52% in May to 64% now.

As for redistribution of wealth, I don’t think it takes a huge amount of that to make a difference. the UN millenium goal of 0.7% of GDP works out to about $29/month for a family making $50k a year. You don’t need to do alot to fight global poverty. I give over $100/month and am going to increase that amount a lot after I graduate and find a real job. And fighting global poverty is a global problem. You need leadership from the developing world, funding from the wealthy world and accountability all around. Global poverty is constantly going down, the number of people who live on less than $1/day went from 42% to 21% of the planet in the last 30 years. Most people are happy to spend the money necessary to end poverty if you look at polls on the subject, but government doesn’t really respond with raising funds to do it. You have to do it privately because of that.

The world is moving towards more responsibility. Things like the ICC, debating human rights and international responses to humanitarian crisises are on the rise over the last 40 years. In the last 20 years Saddam, Noreiga, Rwandans, Pinochet, Charles Taylor, Yugoslavs and Hissène Habré ahve all been arrested for their crimes. Not all have been tried yet, but still it is a move in the right direction.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2001/02/03/dictators/print.html

So if you ask me the world is moving towards responsibility, representative government and fighting poverty and disease. Maybe not fast enough, but we are moving in that direction. If it bothers you, and it seems to, you can just do more to help the process along.

34

"Once and for all the idea of glorious victories won by the glorious army must be wiped out.

Niether side is glorious.

On either side they’re just frightened men messing their pants and they all want the same thing

  • not to lie under the earth, but to walk upon it -

without crutches."

[INDENT]Peter Weiss / MaratSade[/INDENT]

CMC fnord!

35

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Economics is not a zero sum game. When China’s economy grows, when India’s economy grows that makes the US economy grow. They aren’t taking more from our share, their increase share of wealth increases our share.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is good for US corporations and their stockholders, but not so good for US workers, who must compete with low wages abroad. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

36

[QUOTE=threemae]
Many of the richest nations in the world in natural resource wealth lie in Africa, and that hasn’t helped them develop.
[/QUOTE]

Conversely, perhaps the biggest economic success story of the last fifty-odd years is Japan, which went from being a pile of smouldering rubble with no natural resources to being a manufacturing titan with no natural resources. The key was a a stable and reasonably representative government, a rule of law, strong incentives for economic success and sensible policies to back them up - and, of course, an educated workforce with aspirations. The Japanese are masters at added value: import raw steel, aluminium, plastics and rubber, make them into cars and electronics that people want to buy, and export them.

37

[QUOTE=threemae]
Well, I’m only in the top 12.95% of the world’s richest people, so, screw you newcrasher!.
[/QUOTE]
How did you manage to end up down there? When I accidentally entered my monthly income instead of my annual, I was still in the top 15%.

38

Newcrasher, if you’re so damn famous and a celebrity, and added to that among the top 1% of the richest people in America, quit fucking around and tell us who you are instead of playing games and making idiot claims. Or fuck that, use your vast wealth and fame to help these people.

39

[QUOTE=zuma]
Newcrasher, if you’re so damn famous and a celebrity, and added to that among the top 1% of the richest people in America, quit fucking around and tell us who you are instead of playing games and making idiot claims. Or fuck that, use your vast wealth and fame to help these people.
[/QUOTE]

What makes you think I am?

What makes you think I am not?

Look, the whole celebrity episode was a joke. Albeit a bad one. It was just something silly I thought was funny, but turned out to be …silly.

But thanks for remembering me.

And upon a closer reading you will se tha I am in the top 1% of the wealthy in the world, not in America. That is a major distinction, as the United States is not “The World”.

40

[QUOTE=threemae]
Well, I’m only in the top 12.95% of the world’s richest people.
[/QUOTE]

Then that means you earn only about $10,000 a year. I would assume, but I could be wrong, that you rely on someone else for the majority of your support. At least if you live in the United States. Either you are living on school loans, or have a spouse who earns considerably more, or you are still young enough to be living off of your parents. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I doubt that you are self supporting, which sort of skews the point of using the global rich list website…if you have other support, you don’t NEED to earn money yourself.