Subject:
|
Re: Poverty myths?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:30:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
199 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > 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.
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?
> > 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.
Again, it's a city. Any comparison can be made only against another city.
Because, you know, cities are known to have a wider concentration of wealth
than countryside areas - otherwise hardly anyone would live in them!
(actually, this pretty much sums up the answer to your doubt)
But if you're really that into using density for anything, try this: The
Netherlands have the biggest population density in the Western World,
notwithstanding tiny states; their GNP per capita is higher than Spain's,
but lower than the American one - and both have a lower density. Since there
is hardly any reason to involve present day form of government in either
country (all alike), and density has no obvious connection to economic
success "per se", there must be something other into it. That, for me, is
easy to agree; but at least Williams should use some other examples!
> > > > 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.)
Or, in the not-so-dumb words of Brazil's president, "teach the man how to
fish, but feed him during the process"; dead people can no longer fish as
they were taught.
> 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.
So let's see... do you want Social Security??? Most of us in the "Western
World" have it. (Ok, so that one was easy to pick on you :-)
> > > 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.
IIRC, rioting has happened in most developed countries since the sixties,
always with some sort of armed force called to exerce crowd control - yours
is no exception. Are you less free because of that?
And FYI, the army has not taken control of Argentina for the past 20 years.
Sure, they had 5 presidents in a row - but ALL were civilians.
> > 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.
Yes, I know what you mean :-/
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not that heated up as well. But I was annoyed
at William's poor examples (1), and the connections between politics and
economics *as* he implies them. I mean, sure there is a connection, only not
that B&W!
Pedro
(1) - pun intended
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Poverty myths?
|
| (...) is (...) Hong Kong is the name of the city AND the country. (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 3-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
|
|
|
|
