2004-6-26 19:19:00
Robert writes:
JJ, why do you do that? Why do you avoid directly addressing key points and, instead, make a post that swerves around the particular topic? Why?
JJ:
Give me time to reply my friend. I told you I would be making additional points shortly. Consider yourself lucky. A number of people on the list wish I would expand more on their thoughts. I have only so much time and must be selective.
My criteria is this. If a member brings up a point that has not been covered in the past, would be of interest to the group and elaboration would share additional light then I will probably cover it. At the present time I am attempting to write Book 4 of the Immortal series so my time for miscellaneous postings is at a greater premium than ever.
That said, I will answer your post, but can't guarantee I will give the same attention to your next one.
Robert:
So where do we begin? Well, the title of your post is "The danger of giving". Upon reading this title I knew a misunderstanding had already occurred - the problem with the limitation of words, eh? I just re-read my post that you replied to and I only wrote about "giving" in relation to the USA being a donor country to the poorest countries in the world. I wrote about how the USA "gives" in developmental aid and how that percent of GNP is the lowest out of 22 donor countries. And from this fact, you whipped out the oh so very wise saying, "you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime".
JJ:
You keep repeating questions that call for me to repeat myself. Sometimes I wonder if you read my posts.
First, the U.S. gives much more than we receive credit for. In my last post I said: "We do give that other 35 cents, but receive no credit for it. If you take the money we spend on helping illegal aliens (30-40 billion a year) it surpasses the money much of the world spends on aid.
In addition t o this we spend many times more than this in the defense of freedom in the world and without freedom we would have most of the world starving. If we are concerned about feeding the poor the first thing that must happen is to insure that freedom is preserved or only a handful of warlords will eat.
Since World War II, two of the powerful nations in the world, Germany and Japan, have been limited in their defense to insure they will not become a problem again. As a result the United States has taken the responsibility to maintain the military necessary to defend them and their freedoms. This has been and is a humanitarian aid of the highest kind. Insuring freedom is insuring that billions will eat tomorrow.
Those with tunnel vision cannot see this. They seem to think that the only credit that can be given in aid to the poor is in the form of a direct gift dumped in their lap, but, in the end, this is a very temporary measure and needs to be replaced with assistance that will lead to self reliance.
Robert:
Perhaps we should clarify what developmental aid means and how the old cliche is a dangerous generalization and cannot be applied to absolute poverty.
JJ:
I've already done this also. I told you that Kennedy's Peace Corp was in the right direction. Under this program we send citizens to teach, educate and serve those in need, helping them to become self reliant.
Robert:
So I ask - how are you going to teach a man to fish when there are no fish because the fish have died from the deathly unsanitary conditions of the local water? How are you going to teach a man to fish when he does not have enough energy to move because he is starving from hunger? How are you going to teach a man to fish when there are no schools to educate him about fishing?
JJ:
It is an illusion that there are no fish and that was the main point of the article I posted that you claim was not applicable. There are always fish to be caught. In every case where people are taught to fish, they catch fish.
This question is very similar to one you asked as Felix Sept 27, 2003. I do not like repeating myself, but here was my answer to you back then: "It's a myth that the sharing of resources will produce abundance. After World War II Japan was left with almost zero resources. They are a country with very few natural resources. All they had was their will and a free market plan presented to them by Edwards Deming from the United States. Using the "teach a man to fish" principle they became a great economic power without the forced sharing of resources from other nations.
"The city of Shanghai is another example. This city has close to zero in natural resources, but when the free market, natural intelligence and hard work were allowed to do their work they became one of the wealthiest cities in the world.
"By contrast some of the poorest nations are the wealthiest in natural resources (fish). Both Africa, South America and Russia have tremendous natural resources. To develop them they do not need a sharing of resources for they already have resources. What they need is freedom and a sharing of intelligence to develop that which they already have."
I am not against outright giving for short term relief. Sometimes there is nothing else that can be done. I personally give to the local homeless shelter and Salvation Army and always give something to each beggar who approaches me. These private means provide efficient assistance and use of money, but not so with the government. Governments take from the rich and poor and redistribute to the rich and poor and very little benefit is accomplished.
Here is another quote from a previous post to you:
"This is where some of the illusion fits in and controls the underclass. Dispelling this illusion would do more for the poor than dumping all the food and money of the world in their lap...
"The Western nations are doing a lot to help the poor, but often when food and supplies are sent they are stolen by dictators and warlords and used for political control. Even if we had the means and sought to feed all the people of the world few would get fed because localized powerful people would prevent it.
"The only permanent solution is to teach the poor to take care of themselves."
We should do what we can to help the starving peoples, but all will be of little value until they are taught to fish.
Robert:
Giving money that will turn a developing country into a developed country will not be bad, wrong, evil or whatever other word you want to use.
JJ:
It depends. It could be bad if it takes away from one group and makes them suffer while accomplishing nothing.
If you want to see what would happen if unlimited funds were just dumped into the laps of third world countries where the people are eking out a living just take a look at what has happened when oil has been discovered and even more money than we could give was streamed into the land. Keep in mind that there would be little difference in effect if we just gave a third world nation large sums on a regular basis or if we gave them money for oil. In either case they did nothing to earn the money.
The nation with the greatest oil reserves in the world is Saudi Arabia. Before they received large sums of money for their oil they were a very poor country. A small handful were wealthy and the rest lived in poverty.
Now after many decades of receiving almost unlimited wealth what is the difference?
Very little. The only difference is that there is an increased number of the very wealthy while the rest live in squalor. About 80% of the population are very poor living in slums balanced off by 30,000 who are very rich with the rest struggling to make a decent living.
Most of the rest of the oil rich nations have a similar problem
The question is this. If untold billions dumped into a Saudi Arabia since 1931 has produced negligible results what makes you think a similar approach using much less money would work today???
Another question to consider is this:
What was the difference between Japan, devastated after World War II with miniscule resources and Saudi Arabia with unlimited resources?
The only difference is that one overcame their dogmas and learned how to fish while the other did not.
Robert:
No one with a sane mind will dispute that the economic playing field is unleveled globally and the poorest countries are hit the hardest.
JJ:
But the playing field not being level has nothing to do with resources, or one nation giving money to another as you indicate.
Robert:
I never said that these poorest nations do not have corrupt politicians, but the United Nations HAS A PLAN to directly develop these poorest countries and that plan requires a financial gift from the rich countries. How much will it cost? About 75 billion a year.
JJ:
I would assume you're talking about the United Nations Development Programme. I haven't seen an outline of their plan, a tabulation of their success or failure so cannot intelligently comment. Perhaps you can supply us with some details.
Robert:
How much did all the countries spend in armaments and warfare this year? About 950 billion. How much did the USA spend this year on armaments and warfare? About 450 billion.
JJ:
But without armaments the free world would cease to be free and then there would be many more starving people which thing is of great concern to you.
Robert:
The bottom line is that helping a country build their infrastructure is not "dangerous" - it is essential that we help,
JJ:
I have no problem with helping other countries become self reliant. Do you not realize this after all I have said? On the other hand you make fun of the "teach a man to fish" principle.
Robert:
....especially when the economic totalitarianism of the USA and few allied nations continue to financially oppress the poorest countries in the world.
JJ:
This statement is extremely deceitful, malicious and displays great ignorance and betrayal of the truth.
First of all - what is totalitarianism? It is the absolute control over a people from the highest to the lowest over every aspect of their lives. Tell me - can you back up your insane accusation with even one example?
Let me see - perhaps you are thinking of Cuba?
Couldn't be Cuba because we do everything we can to ignore them and not have financial dealings with them. They are begging us to get more involved financially.
Could it be Mexico?
Let us see. We spend 30-40 billion a year helping their illegal aliens who trespass into our country whereas Mexico gives virtually no assistance to legal Americans is Mexico.
Then we loaned billions of dollars to Mexico and when they had financial problems we extended an additional 20 billion dollar line of credit. Did Mexico or any Mexican complain that we were controlling them and just refuse the money? Of course not.
If a true totalitarian regime tells it's people "we will leave you alone if you desire" the people will say "yes, please" and rejoice.
The nations of the earth love financial help from the U.S. More recently Brazil and Russia have depended on U.S. help to protect then from collapse.
Let's see, perhap's the PLO feel oppressed because of U.S financial tyranny. Most of their $800,000 yearly budget comes from "sharing" from western nations. From this some say that Arafat has accumulated and hoarded up to $10 billion over the years while the people do without.
Even so have we heard these people tell us: "please stop the financial tyranny and do not give us any more?"
I am very curious about this financial tyranny you speak of. Could you give us even one example where the U.S. and its allies tyrannize any nation on the earth and what they are supposed to do about it?
Robert:
The mistake is made when we make crude generalizations about the world at large based on our own personal experiences. We tend to personalize what we know and apply it to intricate details of life - case in point, believing that the poverty in America is the same poverty in Africa. The homeless person in America can get three meals a day from various providers, whereas this is obviously not the case in Africa for the hungry human being.
JJ:
No one disagrees with you here. Why even bring this up when the point is so obvious?
Robert:
I know that sharing -must- happen, I know that sharing the world's resources will become a fact.
JJ:
This is where the article that I posted yesterday comes in. You indicate that it had nothing to do with our debate, but it has everything to do with your above statement. They key is not the sharing of physical finite resources, but the sharing of technology with infinite supply..
Robert:
I know that today's type of capitalism will collapse.
JJ:
It will not collapse but will gradually change and adapt to fill human need. I know Creme wants it to collapse and that means you do too.
Robert:
Perhaps we should clarify the difference between giving and sharing. A gift does not signify justice and equality, a gift perpetuates the illusion of separateness; I give the gift to you - it tends to enhance the "me" and the "you". On the contrary, sharing is about "we" and "us" - there is equality and what is shared is shared in equitable portions.
JJ:
A rose is a rose by any other name. If a person, group or country transfers funds to another person, group or country it matters not whether you call it a gift or sharing. Changing words does not change what happens.
If I give you a Christmas present nothing changes if I call it a "Christmas sharing" rather than a Christmas gift. It must be people of your mindset who dream up our present politically correct terminology that is forced upon us.
Next Robert gives a long DK quote to support his ambiguous case.
One quote that I'm sure he feels makes his case is this one:
" Security, happiness and peaceful relations are desired by all. Until, however, the Great Powers, in collaboration with the little nations, have solved the economic problem and have realized that the resources of the earth belong to no one nation but to humanity as a whole, there will be no peace. -The oil of the world, the mineral wealth, the wheat, the sugar and the grains belong to all men everywhere.- They are essential to the daily living of the everyday man. "
JJ Response:
I think that DK was looking into the far future here where there will come a time that the world will have such abundance that sharing will be a natural thing.
In the short term the sharing must be more in the form of teaching a man to fish than giving fish.
Let us just use one of the commodities that we are supposed to share as mentioned by DK - oil.
Here are the nations with the largest oil reserves (measured in millions of barrels)
Saudi Arabia: 261,750
Iraq: 112,500
United Arab Emirates: 97,800
Kuwait: 96,500
Iran: 89,700
Venezuela: 77,685
Russia: 48,573 Libya: 29,500
Mexico: 26,941
Nigeria: 24,000
China: 24,000
United States: 22,045
WOW! The United States is twelfth on the list? Does this mean that we need to convince Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria and other oil rich nations to see us as a needy nation that owns their excess oil just as much as they do? No chance of that happening in this century no matter what DK, Jesus, the Solar Logos or Creme himself says.
A good portion of the raw materials for commodities belongs not to the rich nations, but the poor ones. Perhaps this was part of a master design for the earth so the rich nations will be forced to assist the poor ones in developing resources.
The solution to poverty will not come with the sharing of money and commodities as much as it will through the sharing of technology, human resources, capitalism, free trade, good will, education and good examples.
"Teach a man to fish" may be a worn out cliche, but that does not diminish the truth behind it.
Robert:
It is very dangerous to quote what DK writes about pacifism anent the world war and apply it to the world situation today. We cannot do that!
JJ:
You are wrong. I did it.
"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet... That's why we're smiling all the time... You can see us coming down the street. You know, 'Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down." Michael Moore's (Robert's hero) comments on Americans while speaking on foreign soil.
Copyright 2004 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved