Subject:
|
Re: Poverty myths?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Feb 2003 04:41:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
297 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > > > Here is an article that really makes one think.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.Creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?next=2&ColumnsName=wwi
> > >
> > > The examples are not that good: China has a lower population density than
> > > Taiwan, but the again more than half of China is uninhabitable.
> >
> > So the population density of inhabitable China would be roughly double which • is
> > still about half that of Taiwan and remains insignificant compared to Hong
> > Kong.
>
> Hong Kong is a city - it can't be compared to an entire country. Of which it
> is a part of, BTW.
Hong Kong is the name of the city AND the country.
> And I said OVER half of China is uninhabitaBLE, not uninhabitED - the last
> portion is even greater than the first. If you check where the majority of
> the chinese live, you'll find that they are tremendously concentrated in the
> valleys of only two rivers and along the coastline. In short, what I'm
> saying is that the density of "effectively populated" areas of China is
> immense, as opposed to the immensity of "effectively unpopulated" areas.
>
> So there is a fallace in his line of thinking. Or at least his example!
OK I will agree that the example is obviously distorted in favor of Williams'
argument, however that still doesn't explain the country of Hong Kong's success
despite its population density.
>
> > > And
> > > Switzerland became rich charging toll rights to those who wanted to cross
> > > the Alps.
> >
> > Assuming that is actually where most of their whealth is derived, is it not
> > there right to do so as the land owners?
>
> Extorsion can be named different if it's backed by legislation... :-)
>
> Alright, I won't say there is no right to charge the toll; I would however
> prefer to think tolls are charged for road/environmental maintenance (and a
> fair percentage of profit), and not solely ground property. Present day
> facts support this claim of mine...
Well I had assumed that they were maintaining some type of traversable route
which is why they would be charging a toll.
>
> > > Williams' arguments have less strenght under these facts, wouldn't
> > > you say?
> >
> > You might want to check out his credentials.
> > http://www.Creators.com/opinion_Shell.cfm?pg=biography.html&columnsname=wwi
> > I am inclined to believe he knows his stuff and is a better source than the
> > idealistic politicians with little understanding of economics.
>
> Which would be?...
All of the politicians that steal my money (under the euphemism of taxes) and
give it to other countries as handouts. (Give a man a fish, he eats for a day.
Teach him to fish, he eats for a lifetime.) I would have no problem with my tax
dollars going to perform the necessary actions to ensure all people of the
world enjoy the same rights, privileges, and duties that people living in the
so called "Western Countries" enjoy.
>
> > Really this here is the main point of his article:
> > "Poverty is mostly self-inflicted -- indigenously created. What are some of • the
> > most commonly held characteristics of the non-poor world? In non-poor
> > countries, people tend to have greater personal liberty, property rights are
> > protected, contracts are enforced, there's rule of law and there's a
> > market-oriented economic system rather than a socialistic one."
>
> I won't dispute that paragraph, with exception of the last bit - Sweeden and
> Canada are semi-socialistic for US standards, and are hardly poor. They do
> differ from other socialistic nations because they grant freedom of
> endeavour to their citizens - and that's the key to success, like Williams
> writes. In the end, the form of government is secondary IF the citizens feel
> free to risk a new business. Come on, we both know that even a 100%
> capitalist regime won't *automatically* grant economic success! Just look at
> Argentina...
Where the military takes over whenever it deems neccessary. Not exactly what I
would call freedom.
> Williams is trying to link politics and economics as if they were one and
> the same thing. They are not, at least since China decided to become a
> Market-oriented Socialist State - with much success so far.
> "Getting rich is glorious" - you gotta love Deng Xiaoping's pragmatism! :-D
>
> Would you accept my suggestion and seek a different viewpoint (not
> necessarily contradictory, mind you) in David S. Landes book, "The Wealth
> and Poverty of Nations"? And relax, this guy is far from what I'd call a
> socialist ;-)
Well I wasn't getting all heated up. I thought we were haveing a friendly
disscusion here. I guess that is trouble with typing rather than actually
speaking, one can not discern tone of voice very easily.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Poverty myths?
|
| (...) No, Hong Kong is a city and a Special Administrative Region OF China. The British handed the territory over to Chine, they did not grant it independance. Perhaps you're thinking Singapore? (...) Again, it's a city. Any comparison can be made (...) (22 years ago, 3-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Poverty myths?
|
| (...) Hong Kong is a city - it can't be compared to an entire country. Of which it is a part of, BTW. And I said OVER half of China is uninhabitaBLE, not uninhabitED - the last portion is even greater than the first. If you check where the majority (...) (22 years ago, 2-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
