This conversation started in another thread (http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... p?p=425357) but in an effort to avoiding derailing it, I've moved this part to a new thread. I hope you don't mind, Ted.
Quote by Ted: "Accountable:-6
I don't disagree with what you say. I have no idea what it is like in Britain but here in Canada we have families that are in fact destitute not just living in poverty. We have food banks but the lines are getting ever longer and longer and they run out of food at times. Then there is the problem of getting there especially in the larger cities.
We have here what could be called legislated poverty.
What is needed is a radical new way of doing things not only here but world wide. We need to find a much better way to distribute the resources of the planet. I don't mean in the sense of robbing the rich to feed the poor but when one sees CEOs taking home 200 000 000 a year this becomes absurd. No one needs this kind of money. In Canada Conrad Black is a good example. The courts severely restricted his monthly income to 20 000. Another judge has since recinded that order. My heavens I don't know how one could exist on only 20 000 per month. That's terrible.
We live in a world where greed seems to be the operative word.
If it is that bad here what is it like in Darfur or other countries in Africa. We do need a radical change and that was the message of Jesus some 2000 years ago. Nothing has changed. The only thing we seem to learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
Shalom
Ted:-6"
I don't know who Conrad Black is, but I assure you, the corporation would not pay him 200mil if they did not think he could produce more than that in profits. Highly-paid CEOs create more jobs and feed more families more efficiently than any gov't can - through employment. When that judge restricted his income to 20K per month, did he also dictate what the company would do with the excess? If not, he only punished a man for achieving excellence in his field and helped no one.
Ted, we will always have destitute people. Unfortunately some of these people have families. In societies as rich in opportunity as ours, there is no reason for it. The only thing that holds the vast majority of these people in poverty is their own despair, compounded by those who continuously tell them in myriad ways that they have no way out, and should just get in line and hope there's soup left when they get to the front.
As far as the other countries you mentioned, there is food aplenty there. Armed gangs or governments are hoarding it. I don't see any short-range method of change that doesn't involve more violence. Are you willing to send our troops in to kill the hoarders and guard the food? I'm not.
What is fair share?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What is fair share?
Accountable wrote:
I don't know who Conrad Black is, but I assure you, the corporation would not pay him 200mil if they did not think he could produce more than that in profits. Highly-paid CEOs create more jobs and feed more families more efficiently than any gov't can - through employment. When that judge restricted his income to 20K per month, did he also dictate what the company would do with the excess? If not, he only punished a man for achieving excellence in his field and helped no one.
Ted, we will always have destitute people. Unfortunately some of these people have families. In societies as rich in opportunity as ours, there is no reason for it. The only thing that holds the vast majority of these people in poverty is their own despair, compounded by those who continuously tell them in myriad ways that they have no way out, and should just get in line and hope there's soup left when they get to the front.
As far as the other countries you mentioned, there is food aplenty there. Armed gangs or governments are hoarding it. I don't see any short-range method of change that doesn't involve more violence. Are you willing to send our troops in to kill the hoarders and guard the food? I'm not.
Trouble with Conrad Black is that, as CEO he paid himself (and a couple of friends) monies that were due to the company - without the knowledge or agreement of the board who are now suing him for the return of the $200M.
Much of Africa, apart from suffering from civil wars, is suffering from fairly severe drought with millions starving. At the same time the EU is destroying hundreds of thousands of tonnes of farm produce as part of the Common Agricultural Policy whilst refusing to allow any of it to be donated to feed the starving.
There is no need to send the troops in, just even out the share of what is.
I don't know who Conrad Black is, but I assure you, the corporation would not pay him 200mil if they did not think he could produce more than that in profits. Highly-paid CEOs create more jobs and feed more families more efficiently than any gov't can - through employment. When that judge restricted his income to 20K per month, did he also dictate what the company would do with the excess? If not, he only punished a man for achieving excellence in his field and helped no one.
Ted, we will always have destitute people. Unfortunately some of these people have families. In societies as rich in opportunity as ours, there is no reason for it. The only thing that holds the vast majority of these people in poverty is their own despair, compounded by those who continuously tell them in myriad ways that they have no way out, and should just get in line and hope there's soup left when they get to the front.
As far as the other countries you mentioned, there is food aplenty there. Armed gangs or governments are hoarding it. I don't see any short-range method of change that doesn't involve more violence. Are you willing to send our troops in to kill the hoarders and guard the food? I'm not.
Trouble with Conrad Black is that, as CEO he paid himself (and a couple of friends) monies that were due to the company - without the knowledge or agreement of the board who are now suing him for the return of the $200M.
Much of Africa, apart from suffering from civil wars, is suffering from fairly severe drought with millions starving. At the same time the EU is destroying hundreds of thousands of tonnes of farm produce as part of the Common Agricultural Policy whilst refusing to allow any of it to be donated to feed the starving.
There is no need to send the troops in, just even out the share of what is.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What is fair share?
Bryn Mawr wrote: There is no need to send the troops in, just even out the share of what is.Who decides?
What is fair share?
Accountable wrote: Who decides?
To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities?
What deciding is required when the EU has a mountain of food it's overproduced and the Africans are starving to death?
To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities?
What deciding is required when the EU has a mountain of food it's overproduced and the Africans are starving to death?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What is fair share?
Bryn Mawr wrote: To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities?
What deciding is required when the EU has a mountain of food it's overproduced and the Africans are starving to death?See this is the problem with platitudes and quick-fix ideas. They sound pretty, but are useless. This is a major project that has to be thought through to work - and believe me, it's been thought through and tried many times without working. That's how the hoarders got their hoard, y'know.
Before that child gets a plate of gruel, somebody has to decide how much, how often, what type.
Before that person can make such decisions, he/she has to receive gruel. Will it be delivered by truck? Dropped from a cargo plane? Will he/she have to go to town to pick it up? In what? Somebody has to make distribution decisions.
Before the distributor can deal with any of his issues, he has to get the stuff. What kind of bureaucratic red tape will get in the way? Will he have to bribe customs officials? These countries have bandits. How will he protect himself and his cargo? Who will pay for that?
Before the distributor even gets involved, somebody has to clear the way to get the stuff into the country - negotiate with the government. Whose responsibility is that? EU? UN? An individual country? Perhaps we can send Jesse Jackson.
All that negotiation is for naught unless we have the ability to transport this "mountain of food" across international boundaries. Will we ask for volunteers? Hire an airline? Does the EU own an airplane? How about the UN? Perhaps a nation will be charitable enough to spend their nation's tax money to foot the bill. Gee, how many planes will we need?
Before any transportation decisions can be made, somebody has to decide how many countries we are sending this "mountain of food" to. Do we have enough to feed every single one? Do we have the logistical ability to get it to that many countries? If we don't have enough planes, or enough food, who won't get any food? Who will make that decision? How?That's just off the top of my head.
Your posting "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" is cute, but who decides 'need' versus mere 'want'? Who decides what one's 'abilities' are? We have to know so we can tell who's slacking.
What deciding is required when the EU has a mountain of food it's overproduced and the Africans are starving to death?See this is the problem with platitudes and quick-fix ideas. They sound pretty, but are useless. This is a major project that has to be thought through to work - and believe me, it's been thought through and tried many times without working. That's how the hoarders got their hoard, y'know.
Before that child gets a plate of gruel, somebody has to decide how much, how often, what type.
Before that person can make such decisions, he/she has to receive gruel. Will it be delivered by truck? Dropped from a cargo plane? Will he/she have to go to town to pick it up? In what? Somebody has to make distribution decisions.
Before the distributor can deal with any of his issues, he has to get the stuff. What kind of bureaucratic red tape will get in the way? Will he have to bribe customs officials? These countries have bandits. How will he protect himself and his cargo? Who will pay for that?
Before the distributor even gets involved, somebody has to clear the way to get the stuff into the country - negotiate with the government. Whose responsibility is that? EU? UN? An individual country? Perhaps we can send Jesse Jackson.
All that negotiation is for naught unless we have the ability to transport this "mountain of food" across international boundaries. Will we ask for volunteers? Hire an airline? Does the EU own an airplane? How about the UN? Perhaps a nation will be charitable enough to spend their nation's tax money to foot the bill. Gee, how many planes will we need?
Before any transportation decisions can be made, somebody has to decide how many countries we are sending this "mountain of food" to. Do we have enough to feed every single one? Do we have the logistical ability to get it to that many countries? If we don't have enough planes, or enough food, who won't get any food? Who will make that decision? How?That's just off the top of my head.
Your posting "To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" is cute, but who decides 'need' versus mere 'want'? Who decides what one's 'abilities' are? We have to know so we can tell who's slacking.
What is fair share?
My take on it is that capitalism works because it most acuratley relects people's economic relationship with each other, there is no other workable game in town, and as accountable says the precise problem with all other systems, is that equal distribution of wealth would be depedent on some political or moral elite, who would replace the capital controlling elite and impose some judgement system, which whenever implenented in the past results in a far worse situation than allowing private concerns to more or less set market conditions.
What I would say, and this is particularly the case in the U.S. where government control is at a minimum over capital, that those who understand and propser most from the capitalist system have a responsibility that they don't destroy it through needless greed, ambition, hegemony, or forgetting that they are rich becuase they live in a society that enables them to be so. Not just becuase they are hard working or clever or from "old money". Once they lose sight of that, they turn into something like the French nobility of the ancient regieme, who ultimately were destroyed because they fleeced the mass of the population beyond the point of no-return.
I think some sections of the cororate world and the super-rich in Europe and America are at a point where they seem contemptuous of the concerns of ordinary people, and belive that they almost have a god-given right to their economic hegemony and to live in a different world than everyone else. They would be wise to realize that once they divorce themselves from the structures of the society they come from, they are inviting their own downfall and that power without responsibility or accountability-towards those over whom it is exercised-is tyranny.
What I would say, and this is particularly the case in the U.S. where government control is at a minimum over capital, that those who understand and propser most from the capitalist system have a responsibility that they don't destroy it through needless greed, ambition, hegemony, or forgetting that they are rich becuase they live in a society that enables them to be so. Not just becuase they are hard working or clever or from "old money". Once they lose sight of that, they turn into something like the French nobility of the ancient regieme, who ultimately were destroyed because they fleeced the mass of the population beyond the point of no-return.
I think some sections of the cororate world and the super-rich in Europe and America are at a point where they seem contemptuous of the concerns of ordinary people, and belive that they almost have a god-given right to their economic hegemony and to live in a different world than everyone else. They would be wise to realize that once they divorce themselves from the structures of the society they come from, they are inviting their own downfall and that power without responsibility or accountability-towards those over whom it is exercised-is tyranny.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What is fair share?
Diuretic wrote: That's not a platitude, it's a philosophy ("each according to his needs" I mean). I believe it may have been attributed to Karl Marx (but will stand corrected of course).
I was wondering if anyone would recognise it - that's why I put it in there.
I was wondering if anyone would recognise it - that's why I put it in there.
What is fair share?
ArnoldLayne wrote: I think the answer to that is very plain for us to see. It really is galling to see us arguing about "platitudes" and "semantics" while millions of children in the third world are dieing through lack of food. Food that could be supplied by us instead of destroying it. I couldnt give a rats arse about the difficulties of the logistics, or that some people might take a cut. Tough, lets live with it and deal with the long term solutions after we have put food in the mouths of starving children. Thats not "want", thats "need" and need NOW.
And if you want to know who is slacking, its the West, with their need to make the 3rd world in some way pay for the food and water that goes into their mouth, very often with their lives, grind them into the ground as they pay back the loans. Throw them a few sacks of grain when the rains dont come and a few more when the floods wipe out what the drought didnt. Expecting them to be grateful.
Lets just watch our governments concentrate on helping the ordinary Iraqi. They are so benevolant toward ordinary folk aint they. I dont see anybody this side of never releaving the Zimbabweans of their dictator. Nothing in it for us. Nothing that would line our pockets in the way of oil (And I am blaming no one but Mugabe for it)
Why do we cheer at the down fall of Saddam and preach to the world how benevolent we are, yet ignore the pleas from those other worse off places that most of us have never even heard of
"To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" may well be a cute platitude but its a maxim that might put food in kids mouths, while we all argue on the most efficient way of managing it all
I understand completely where you are coming from in terms of the moral need to do something to relieve the utter poverty that many people in the world live in, and obviously their conditions seem indefensible when compared to those who live in wealthy countries. But I have to be bit cynical here and say that the government of say the U.K. or Germany, or the U.S.A. are not elected to actually feed people in say Zimbabwe or Malawi, but to maintain the interests of the country's over which they are sovereign. And people, despite genuine good intentions and occasional bursts of altruism expect them to do just that and vote accordingly.
One of the major problems in third world poverty is a scewed international trading system that definetly favours richer countries over poorer one, and people are justifyably indignant about that, until of course any measures to change them threaten their own immeadiate economic needs. On the one hand people rail against third world poverty, while on the other completely distrust the globalization of capitalism, manufacturing, and agrigculture (justifyably in many circumstances), which has already delievered tens of millions from poverty in south east asia and china, and would (if applied fairly) mean that farmers in the third world would have as big an advantage over first world farmers as chinese manufacturers have over british ones, but its pretty hard to get that message to European farmers who are resisting all attempts to reform the Common Agricultural Policy, because naturally they don't want to lose their livilhoods.
I also think that although yes, western countries do exploit poorer, weaker regions and nations they don't have a monoply on that and its simplistic to just blame the west for the worlds ills. If you think of the trillions of dollars of revenue that about 5 or 6 oil rich countries have enjoyed since 1973, what have they done with their money? Spent it on propping up their failed regiemes and indulging in an orgy of luxury spending on their elites that would make a Byzantine Emperor blush. Not a lot of that money went to feed poor people in Africa, or even help the palestians build their infrastructure. So why are these regiemes (Saudi Arabia is the prime example) ever held to account? I suspect that its because if they were lectured, they would just call that economic impearlism and western hypocrisy, and our own curiously self-hating intellectuals would agree.
Why for example are average Libyans or Algerians so poor when their repsective governments have receved billions of dollars of oil revenue over the past 20 years, while say the Japanese who have no natural resources have the second wealthiest society in the world? Its a percularlily western trait that we think that we are both guilty and responsible for making everything right thats wrong, I don't know maybe its a product of eligntment thinking, or a hangover from Colonialism, but I think that while we should as human beings and societies try to do something practical to make living on the planet a generally better experience than it is for many people, we are all complicit in putting ourselves first, its not just a government thing, we all do it, and its naieve to think that its possible to change that basic human trait.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try of course, just that we need to be realistic and also get over our collective western guilt-trip because our societies are powerful and sucessful while others are not. The most effective way of making sure that inequaliy is tackled as much as is possible is by getting people to realize that it is actually in our own long-term interest to help others, and then they will not want to take what we have as they won't need to.
And if you want to know who is slacking, its the West, with their need to make the 3rd world in some way pay for the food and water that goes into their mouth, very often with their lives, grind them into the ground as they pay back the loans. Throw them a few sacks of grain when the rains dont come and a few more when the floods wipe out what the drought didnt. Expecting them to be grateful.
Lets just watch our governments concentrate on helping the ordinary Iraqi. They are so benevolant toward ordinary folk aint they. I dont see anybody this side of never releaving the Zimbabweans of their dictator. Nothing in it for us. Nothing that would line our pockets in the way of oil (And I am blaming no one but Mugabe for it)
Why do we cheer at the down fall of Saddam and preach to the world how benevolent we are, yet ignore the pleas from those other worse off places that most of us have never even heard of
"To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities" may well be a cute platitude but its a maxim that might put food in kids mouths, while we all argue on the most efficient way of managing it all
I understand completely where you are coming from in terms of the moral need to do something to relieve the utter poverty that many people in the world live in, and obviously their conditions seem indefensible when compared to those who live in wealthy countries. But I have to be bit cynical here and say that the government of say the U.K. or Germany, or the U.S.A. are not elected to actually feed people in say Zimbabwe or Malawi, but to maintain the interests of the country's over which they are sovereign. And people, despite genuine good intentions and occasional bursts of altruism expect them to do just that and vote accordingly.
One of the major problems in third world poverty is a scewed international trading system that definetly favours richer countries over poorer one, and people are justifyably indignant about that, until of course any measures to change them threaten their own immeadiate economic needs. On the one hand people rail against third world poverty, while on the other completely distrust the globalization of capitalism, manufacturing, and agrigculture (justifyably in many circumstances), which has already delievered tens of millions from poverty in south east asia and china, and would (if applied fairly) mean that farmers in the third world would have as big an advantage over first world farmers as chinese manufacturers have over british ones, but its pretty hard to get that message to European farmers who are resisting all attempts to reform the Common Agricultural Policy, because naturally they don't want to lose their livilhoods.
I also think that although yes, western countries do exploit poorer, weaker regions and nations they don't have a monoply on that and its simplistic to just blame the west for the worlds ills. If you think of the trillions of dollars of revenue that about 5 or 6 oil rich countries have enjoyed since 1973, what have they done with their money? Spent it on propping up their failed regiemes and indulging in an orgy of luxury spending on their elites that would make a Byzantine Emperor blush. Not a lot of that money went to feed poor people in Africa, or even help the palestians build their infrastructure. So why are these regiemes (Saudi Arabia is the prime example) ever held to account? I suspect that its because if they were lectured, they would just call that economic impearlism and western hypocrisy, and our own curiously self-hating intellectuals would agree.
Why for example are average Libyans or Algerians so poor when their repsective governments have receved billions of dollars of oil revenue over the past 20 years, while say the Japanese who have no natural resources have the second wealthiest society in the world? Its a percularlily western trait that we think that we are both guilty and responsible for making everything right thats wrong, I don't know maybe its a product of eligntment thinking, or a hangover from Colonialism, but I think that while we should as human beings and societies try to do something practical to make living on the planet a generally better experience than it is for many people, we are all complicit in putting ourselves first, its not just a government thing, we all do it, and its naieve to think that its possible to change that basic human trait.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try of course, just that we need to be realistic and also get over our collective western guilt-trip because our societies are powerful and sucessful while others are not. The most effective way of making sure that inequaliy is tackled as much as is possible is by getting people to realize that it is actually in our own long-term interest to help others, and then they will not want to take what we have as they won't need to.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What is fair share?
ArnoldLayne wrote: I completely understand what you are saying. Absolutely. My frustration is borne from the statement Bryn made about the obscene overproducing of food in the EU only for it to be ploughed straight back into the ground rather than giving it to someone deserving, where ever that may be in the world. God forbid we should GIVE something away for FREE. I can see the Beaurocrats making the sign of the cross at the very thought.Nothing's free, Arn. It's not like we can tell them "come on over and grab yourself a plate." As frustrating as it is, the logistics and planning are real and necessary, and unless a gov't is willing to donate military or other state-owned aircraft, it's expensive too.
This is an ideal job for charities and those rich celebrities looking for a way to give back. I honestly believe that would be the most efficient way, not to mention more likely to be accepted by those crooked governments.
This is an ideal job for charities and those rich celebrities looking for a way to give back. I honestly believe that would be the most efficient way, not to mention more likely to be accepted by those crooked governments.
What is fair share?
ArnoldLayne wrote: I completely understand what you are saying. Absolutely. My frustration is borne from the statement Bryn made about the obscene overproducing of food in the EU only for it to be ploughed straight back into the ground rather than giving it to someone deserving, where ever that may be in the world. God forbid we should GIVE something away for FREE. I can see the Beaurocrats making the sign of the cross at the very thought.
I'm fully aware that what I am ranting about isnt the full answer either. Of course it is short term. Of course many other factors must be figured in for the long term survival of 3rd world people. Of course there are many wealthy countries who shun any responsibility. Of course those 3rd world countries have evil, greedy presidents who bleed their people dry while drinking expensive Scotch in their marbled palaces and buying arms to subjugate them.
But lets feed the poor bastards first before we pat ourselves on the back for the efficient running, well managed, perfectly orginised, long term logistical excercise that we know should happen. Lets smack these faceless cretins in Brussels upside the head and load up the food before it is ploughed back into the ground. Its obscene.
Lets write off the debt to countries like Malawi, who will NEVER be able to honour it AND feed its people.
If Bush, Blair et al, really are concerned with ordinary people, if they truly wish to liberate people from tyranny, let them stretch their muscles in places it really matters and not where we will get a nice fat earner out of it
We can do ALL of this, without it impacting the way our government runs our respective countries
Again, without turning this into a mutual appreciation society I also completely understand your sentiments and I know you are not an unthinking or naive man, far from it.
I think actually that despite the patent absurdity of the Common Agricultural Policy, which is actually the creature of the national governments and not Brussels, the EU does do an enourmous amount of good in that regard, and it seems that once national politicans from whatever EU country get into Brussels they seem to immeadiatly get a "bigger picture" approach than the National governments. After all its the EU that has made the indivdual Nations make a pledge to donate 0.7 percent GDP of their income to alleviating world poverty, and its the EU that is trying to institute a rapid reaction force that could be really useful in Darfur right now. Of course though, the EU is a multinational beuraracy whose primary purpose is to serve the interests of its member states so its patchy at best in its ability to do anything decisievly, and is complicit in many unfair trade practices. I dunno, it seems to me, that arguing for the EU is a bit of a lost cause in Britain, as British people just seem instinctively against the whole thing now, which is a shame, but its up to British people to decide what they want for their own country of course. What I do find hard to understand is that in Britain there is this total fear and mistrust of Brussels as some kind of malevolent power that is eroding their soverignty, and yet Britain is currently engaged in a very dangerous war completely against its own interests just because a U.S. president wants them involved and no one seems to see the irony in that.
Also to be maddeningly fair to the U.S. I would also say that for all his ills (god knows he has caused a lot of problems) George Bush's administration has recently done some very enlightened things in relation to Africa in terms of AIDs and even some debt relief, though of course they could do a lot more if it was a serious election issue, which realistically it isn't. But the U.S, has done a lot of generally positive things in terms of helping other countries along with the more cynical policies it has.
I'm fully aware that what I am ranting about isnt the full answer either. Of course it is short term. Of course many other factors must be figured in for the long term survival of 3rd world people. Of course there are many wealthy countries who shun any responsibility. Of course those 3rd world countries have evil, greedy presidents who bleed their people dry while drinking expensive Scotch in their marbled palaces and buying arms to subjugate them.
But lets feed the poor bastards first before we pat ourselves on the back for the efficient running, well managed, perfectly orginised, long term logistical excercise that we know should happen. Lets smack these faceless cretins in Brussels upside the head and load up the food before it is ploughed back into the ground. Its obscene.
Lets write off the debt to countries like Malawi, who will NEVER be able to honour it AND feed its people.
If Bush, Blair et al, really are concerned with ordinary people, if they truly wish to liberate people from tyranny, let them stretch their muscles in places it really matters and not where we will get a nice fat earner out of it
We can do ALL of this, without it impacting the way our government runs our respective countries
Again, without turning this into a mutual appreciation society I also completely understand your sentiments and I know you are not an unthinking or naive man, far from it.
I think actually that despite the patent absurdity of the Common Agricultural Policy, which is actually the creature of the national governments and not Brussels, the EU does do an enourmous amount of good in that regard, and it seems that once national politicans from whatever EU country get into Brussels they seem to immeadiatly get a "bigger picture" approach than the National governments. After all its the EU that has made the indivdual Nations make a pledge to donate 0.7 percent GDP of their income to alleviating world poverty, and its the EU that is trying to institute a rapid reaction force that could be really useful in Darfur right now. Of course though, the EU is a multinational beuraracy whose primary purpose is to serve the interests of its member states so its patchy at best in its ability to do anything decisievly, and is complicit in many unfair trade practices. I dunno, it seems to me, that arguing for the EU is a bit of a lost cause in Britain, as British people just seem instinctively against the whole thing now, which is a shame, but its up to British people to decide what they want for their own country of course. What I do find hard to understand is that in Britain there is this total fear and mistrust of Brussels as some kind of malevolent power that is eroding their soverignty, and yet Britain is currently engaged in a very dangerous war completely against its own interests just because a U.S. president wants them involved and no one seems to see the irony in that.
Also to be maddeningly fair to the U.S. I would also say that for all his ills (god knows he has caused a lot of problems) George Bush's administration has recently done some very enlightened things in relation to Africa in terms of AIDs and even some debt relief, though of course they could do a lot more if it was a serious election issue, which realistically it isn't. But the U.S, has done a lot of generally positive things in terms of helping other countries along with the more cynical policies it has.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What is fair share?
Accountable wrote: Nothing's free, Arn. It's not like we can tell them "come on over and grab yourself a plate." As frustrating as it is, the logistics and planning are real and necessary, and unless a gov't is willing to donate military or other state-owned aircraft, it's expensive too.
This is an ideal job for charities and those rich celebrities looking for a way to give back. I honestly believe that would be the most efficient way, not to mention more likely to be accepted by those crooked governments.
Sorry, Acc. The infrastructure is there already. Children in Need, the Red Cross, Medicein Sans Frontiers etc have the ability to distribute the aid if and when someone will donate it.
Stop blocking the aid and we'll get it to the people in need.
This is an ideal job for charities and those rich celebrities looking for a way to give back. I honestly believe that would be the most efficient way, not to mention more likely to be accepted by those crooked governments.
Sorry, Acc. The infrastructure is there already. Children in Need, the Red Cross, Medicein Sans Frontiers etc have the ability to distribute the aid if and when someone will donate it.
Stop blocking the aid and we'll get it to the people in need.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What is fair share?
Bryn Mawr wrote: Sorry, Acc. The infrastructure is there already. Children in Need, the Red Cross, Medicein Sans Frontiers etc have the ability to distribute the aid if and when someone will donate it.Which is why I said: Accountable wrote: This is an ideal job for charities and those rich celebrities looking for a way to give back. I honestly believe that would be the most efficient way, not to mention more likely to be accepted by those crooked governments.
Bryn Mawr wrote: Stop blocking the aid and we'll get it to the people in need.Who is blocking the aid? And who are you including as "we"?
Bryn Mawr wrote: Stop blocking the aid and we'll get it to the people in need.Who is blocking the aid? And who are you including as "we"?
What is fair share?
Accountable wrote: Which is why I said:
Who is blocking the aid? And who are you including as "we"?
Certainly "the authorities" - The EU is absolutely refusing to allof the surplice from the CAP to go anywhere but the crematorium
Who is blocking the aid? And who are you including as "we"?
Certainly "the authorities" - The EU is absolutely refusing to allof the surplice from the CAP to go anywhere but the crematorium
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What is fair share?
Bryn Mawr wrote: Certainly "the authorities" - The EU is absolutely refusing to allof the surplice from the CAP to go anywhere but the crematorium :-(I'm sorry. what is CAP? Aren't farmers allowed to sell to whomever they choose?
What is fair share?
I know a man who has a large ag business. Several times a year he loads a simi truck with food and takes it to orphanages in Mexico. When he goes people will send clothes with him for the kids. To get the clothes across the border, people helping him have actually had to smuggle them. Those helping him have had their trucks impounded by the Mexican government. In general, it is a difficult, costly and sometimes danerous task to just help some kids in an orphanage.
If the orphanages were further into Mexico it would be even more difficult. If they were in a country where the goods had to be sent by sea or air it would take, as Accountable says, an army to be sure they reach the people who need them. Accountable sounds like he's been where he can see how things really work.
To help most of these countries you would have to get rid of the government that is choking them. If the corrupt governments were out of the way we probably wouldn't need to help for very long.
If the orphanages were further into Mexico it would be even more difficult. If they were in a country where the goods had to be sent by sea or air it would take, as Accountable says, an army to be sure they reach the people who need them. Accountable sounds like he's been where he can see how things really work.
To help most of these countries you would have to get rid of the government that is choking them. If the corrupt governments were out of the way we probably wouldn't need to help for very long.
Schooling results in matriculation. Education is a process that changes the learner.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What is fair share?
Thanks Clint. I was feeling a bit lonely.
What is fair share?
Bryn Mawr wrote: Certainly "the authorities" - The EU is absolutely refusing to allof the surplice from the CAP to go anywhere but the crematorium
Actually thats a misreprestation, the EU does on occasion use CAP surpluses as food aid, also one of the main problems Britain or America face in donating large agricultural surpluses is that local farmers in third world countries generally are against it, as it floods their own markets in cheap or free food and can ruin their meagre livilhoods, also local governments often unfortunatly use food aid as a currency or a way of rewarding those who it sees as being politically in line with their regieme. That happened in Ethopia in the 1980s and is happening now in Zimbabwe and the Congo and many other countries. The only way of stopping that effectively would be to intervene using force in getting food to local people, and of course when you do that you become outside aggressors. One of the saddest facts about humanitarian intervention is that in some ways it inevitably helds in keeping the crappy status quo going in many countries, and also allows these governments to continue with irresponsible policies and then plead to rich countries about the suffering of their people when their policies result in disaster. Don't forget the U.S. went into Somalia in the 1990's becuase of a humanitarian crisis and look how they were repaid for that. It just outlines that these things are much more difficult than just turning up with aid whenever its needed.
Actually thats a misreprestation, the EU does on occasion use CAP surpluses as food aid, also one of the main problems Britain or America face in donating large agricultural surpluses is that local farmers in third world countries generally are against it, as it floods their own markets in cheap or free food and can ruin their meagre livilhoods, also local governments often unfortunatly use food aid as a currency or a way of rewarding those who it sees as being politically in line with their regieme. That happened in Ethopia in the 1980s and is happening now in Zimbabwe and the Congo and many other countries. The only way of stopping that effectively would be to intervene using force in getting food to local people, and of course when you do that you become outside aggressors. One of the saddest facts about humanitarian intervention is that in some ways it inevitably helds in keeping the crappy status quo going in many countries, and also allows these governments to continue with irresponsible policies and then plead to rich countries about the suffering of their people when their policies result in disaster. Don't forget the U.S. went into Somalia in the 1990's becuase of a humanitarian crisis and look how they were repaid for that. It just outlines that these things are much more difficult than just turning up with aid whenever its needed.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What is fair share?
It's all fair and well to do good and feel good about giving food, supplies, medical aid etc to those of destitution, but along with these things we need to supply education, teach them how to harvest, good health, how to build a future for themselves and how to sustain themselves.
�You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough.�
• Mae West
• Mae West
What is fair share?
Accountable wrote: I'm sorry. what is CAP? Aren't farmers allowed to sell to whomever they choose?
The Common Agricultural Policy. The EU central buys "surplus" produce from the farmers in order to keep the market rate high (because the French and, especially, the German farmers have a very strong lobby (lots of part time smallholders who want their cut of the EU budget) so the veto is used to protect their interests). This produce is stored for a couple of years and then destroyed.
The Common Agricultural Policy. The EU central buys "surplus" produce from the farmers in order to keep the market rate high (because the French and, especially, the German farmers have a very strong lobby (lots of part time smallholders who want their cut of the EU budget) so the veto is used to protect their interests). This produce is stored for a couple of years and then destroyed.
What is fair share?
Clint wrote: I know a man who has a large ag business. Several times a year he loads a simi truck with food and takes it to orphanages in Mexico. When he goes people will send clothes with him for the kids. To get the clothes across the border, people helping him have actually had to smuggle them. Those helping him have had their trucks impounded by the Mexican government. In general, it is a difficult, costly and sometimes danerous task to just help some kids in an orphanage.
If the orphanages were further into Mexico it would be even more difficult. If they were in a country where the goods had to be sent by sea or air it would take, as Accountable says, an army to be sure they reach the people who need them. Accountable sounds like he's been where he can see how things really work.
To help most of these countries you would have to get rid of the government that is choking them. If the corrupt governments were out of the way we probably wouldn't need to help for very long.
I too have a friend, three times a year he loads his truck up with donated goods (usually medicines or medical equipment) and drives down through France and Spain to North Africa - Morocco one trip, Dakar another, etc.
Calls himself Arfica Aid although it's only Dave and his truck. He's welcomed with open arms and makes a worthwhile difference for saying it's only one man running Concerts and Barn Dances to raise money.
I don't know about the government of Mexico and what is causing their attitude but they do not represent the whole world. Yes, I know that in Ethiopia the waring factions prevented aid getting to the other sides people but aid does get through and destroying good food because it is not policy to "donate" it as aid does not do our governments credit.
If the orphanages were further into Mexico it would be even more difficult. If they were in a country where the goods had to be sent by sea or air it would take, as Accountable says, an army to be sure they reach the people who need them. Accountable sounds like he's been where he can see how things really work.
To help most of these countries you would have to get rid of the government that is choking them. If the corrupt governments were out of the way we probably wouldn't need to help for very long.
I too have a friend, three times a year he loads his truck up with donated goods (usually medicines or medical equipment) and drives down through France and Spain to North Africa - Morocco one trip, Dakar another, etc.
Calls himself Arfica Aid although it's only Dave and his truck. He's welcomed with open arms and makes a worthwhile difference for saying it's only one man running Concerts and Barn Dances to raise money.
I don't know about the government of Mexico and what is causing their attitude but they do not represent the whole world. Yes, I know that in Ethiopia the waring factions prevented aid getting to the other sides people but aid does get through and destroying good food because it is not policy to "donate" it as aid does not do our governments credit.
What is fair share?
Galbally wrote: Actually thats a misreprestation, the EU does on occasion use CAP surpluses as food aid, also one of the main problems Britain or America face in donating large agricultural surpluses is that local farmers in third world countries generally are against it, as it floods their own markets in cheap or free food and can ruin their meagre livilhoods, also local governments often unfortunatly use food aid as a currency or a way of rewarding those who it sees as being politically in line with their regieme. That happened in Ethopia in the 1980s and is happening now in Zimbabwe and the Congo and many other countries. The only way of stopping that effectively would be to intervene using force in getting food to local people, and of course when you do that you become outside aggressors. One of the saddest facts about humanitarian intervention is that in some ways it inevitably helds in keeping the crappy status quo going in many countries, and also allows these governments to continue with irresponsible policies and then plead to rich countries about the suffering of their people when their policies result in disaster. Don't forget the U.S. went into Somalia in the 1990's becuase of a humanitarian crisis and look how they were repaid for that. It just outlines that these things are much more difficult than just turning up with aid whenever its needed.
There is a huge difference between going into a working ecconomy with free handouts and humanitarian relief in times of mass starvation. As I recall, in Ethiopia the south was still producing enough food to provide for the entire country and it was only the civil war that resulted in the extreme starvation in the drought hit north.
There is a huge difference between going into a working ecconomy with free handouts and humanitarian relief in times of mass starvation. As I recall, in Ethiopia the south was still producing enough food to provide for the entire country and it was only the civil war that resulted in the extreme starvation in the drought hit north.
What is fair share?
minks wrote: It's all fair and well to do good and feel good about giving food, supplies, medical aid etc to those of destitution, but along with these things we need to supply education, teach them how to harvest, good health, how to build a future for themselves and how to sustain themselves.
The one goes hand in glove with the other - relieve the immediate suffering whilst teaching the people how to avoid a recurrance.
The one goes hand in glove with the other - relieve the immediate suffering whilst teaching the people how to avoid a recurrance.
What is fair share?
Bryn Mawr wrote: There is a huge difference between going into a working ecconomy with free handouts and humanitarian relief in times of mass starvation. As I recall, in Ethiopia the south was still producing enough food to provide for the entire country and it was only the civil war that resulted in the extreme starvation in the drought hit north.
I completely agree, frankly I can't understand why EU contries and other rich nations dont intervene more quiclky when these type of famines occur, if they have to use air power to get the food in so what, they have the ability and the food. If the local government doesn't like it so what, threaten them. There will be some cant and navel gazing from the usual suspects, but at least people will get fed, they should stop farting about. Its just a lack of political will, and they don't like paying the bill. I'm not going to defend all European policies cause some of them suck, but then the national governments are usually to blame.
I completely agree, frankly I can't understand why EU contries and other rich nations dont intervene more quiclky when these type of famines occur, if they have to use air power to get the food in so what, they have the ability and the food. If the local government doesn't like it so what, threaten them. There will be some cant and navel gazing from the usual suspects, but at least people will get fed, they should stop farting about. Its just a lack of political will, and they don't like paying the bill. I'm not going to defend all European policies cause some of them suck, but then the national governments are usually to blame.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What is fair share?
Galbally wrote: I completely agree, frankly I can't understand why EU contries and other rich nations dont intervene more quiclky when these type of famines occur, if they have to use air power to get the food in so what, they have the ability and the food. If the local government doesn't like it so what, threaten them. There will be some cant and navel gazing from the usual suspects, but at least people will get fed, they should stop farting about. Its just a lack of political will, and they don't like paying the bill. I'm not going to defend all European policies cause some of them suck, but then the national governments are usually to blame.
I lay it at the door of the Eurocrats myself - too much authority and not enough responsibility.
I lay it at the door of the Eurocrats myself - too much authority and not enough responsibility.
What is fair share?
Bryn Mawr wrote: I lay it at the door of the Eurocrats myself - too much authority and not enough responsibility.
I think that definetly the bereaucratic nature of the EU is one of problems, but I think the national governments, and particularly Britain and France have been very good at scapegoating the EU, which they actually run, (as its the council of ministers that actually holds the real power), for their failure to agree with each other on policies like the CAP. One of the things that people don't seem to realize is that although the EU commission is responsible for co-ordinating European policies of 25 countries on things like trade, standards, health and safety, agriculture, fisheries, travel, etc etc, its actually smaller in terms of people emplyed by it, and its working budget than the GLC in the 1980s and is actually quite an effcient bereaucracis as these things go. I mean the Irish civil service is byzantine compared to the EU, and it wastes a hell of lot more money (for example they paid something like €160 million on a computer spoftware system for paying health care workers that basically doesn't work), (no one told them about microsoft's accounting software obviously) and thats just Ireland.
There is a lot of very biased reporting on the EU in Britain, which I don't really understand, as it seems that people in Britain just don't like the EU idea, which is fine, but if thats the case then Britain should just leave the fillipin EU, and be a non-aliniged commercial partner like Norway is and stop messing about.
I think that definetly the bereaucratic nature of the EU is one of problems, but I think the national governments, and particularly Britain and France have been very good at scapegoating the EU, which they actually run, (as its the council of ministers that actually holds the real power), for their failure to agree with each other on policies like the CAP. One of the things that people don't seem to realize is that although the EU commission is responsible for co-ordinating European policies of 25 countries on things like trade, standards, health and safety, agriculture, fisheries, travel, etc etc, its actually smaller in terms of people emplyed by it, and its working budget than the GLC in the 1980s and is actually quite an effcient bereaucracis as these things go. I mean the Irish civil service is byzantine compared to the EU, and it wastes a hell of lot more money (for example they paid something like €160 million on a computer spoftware system for paying health care workers that basically doesn't work), (no one told them about microsoft's accounting software obviously) and thats just Ireland.
There is a lot of very biased reporting on the EU in Britain, which I don't really understand, as it seems that people in Britain just don't like the EU idea, which is fine, but if thats the case then Britain should just leave the fillipin EU, and be a non-aliniged commercial partner like Norway is and stop messing about.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What is fair share?
ArnoldLayne wrote: Where do I sign ? 
At the end of the day we've turned our back on our traditional trading partners and thrown our lot in with the EU - it's too late now.
I think a lot of our problem with the EU as the threat of the Federal States of Europe. Admittedly this is the logical conclusion of the concept and the only way in which it will work effectively but there is still a lot of resistance.
At the end of the day we've turned our back on our traditional trading partners and thrown our lot in with the EU - it's too late now.
I think a lot of our problem with the EU as the threat of the Federal States of Europe. Admittedly this is the logical conclusion of the concept and the only way in which it will work effectively but there is still a lot of resistance.
What is fair share?
ArnoldLayne wrote: Where do I sign ?
I dunno arnie, somewhere in Washington D.C. perhaps? :sneaky:
I dunno arnie, somewhere in Washington D.C. perhaps? :sneaky:
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What is fair share?
Bryn Mawr wrote: At the end of the day we've turned our back on our traditional trading partners and thrown our lot in with the EU - it's too late now.
I think a lot of our problem with the EU as the threat of the Federal States of Europe. Admittedly this is the logical conclusion of the concept and the only way in which it will work effectively but there is still a lot of resistance.
Brwn, who exactly are Britains traditional trading partners? Britain doesn't trade with other European countries out of altuism, but because its profitable. You don't get to pick who you trade with at any given moment in time, you trade with those whom it is in your interests to trade with. Japan is hardly one of Britain's traditional trading partners, but it does a tidy bit of business with them, along with China, India, and the U.S.A. Britain's trade may be different than it was in 1950, but thats because its 56 years later and the world has changed, you can't base your economic policy based on wanting everything to be like it was 100 years ago, its not sensible.
In terms of leaving, I don't think its "too late" to do anything Bryn, Britain is still a soveriegn nation state I believe, so what exactly is stopping it from leaving? French troops are not going to turn up at Waterloo station if Britain leaves the EU, they would probably actually pay you to leave at this stage. Obviously there will be problems, but just like Norway, Britain could still have a special trading relationship with the rest of the EU, but remove itself from the governance polcitically of the EU intitutions. The EU is not Nazi germany or Soviet Russia, and its not a federal or even con-federal state, its not even a state, its an international organization.
Obviously it might turn into a federation or something eventually, though I doubt it would ever be possible or even desirable to have a EU that was like the united states as it just wouldn't work, people don't want it, and none of the nations would ever (or at least in the forseeable future) get into something like that unless they could also at some stage, if they wanted to, get out. As the French, and the Germans, and the Italians, and the Polish, and even the Irish as just as nationalistic when it comes down to it as the British.
I personally would be sad if Britain left, because Britain could be a very positive influence on the thing, especially the newer members, that are only young democracies, and Britain has a long tradition of civil and political freedom that is very good and to be admired and its language has become the linga franca of Europe. But then again, with the current British attitude to all things Europe, they (and probably everyone else) would be better off if they just called it a day and went home. Better than than continually whining about the metric system, funny coloured passports, and the fascist imposition of straight bananas by untrustworthy foriegners, which from the outside looks like a policy based on being the moany uncle on the sofa. Sorry, but thats the way I see it.
I think a lot of our problem with the EU as the threat of the Federal States of Europe. Admittedly this is the logical conclusion of the concept and the only way in which it will work effectively but there is still a lot of resistance.
Brwn, who exactly are Britains traditional trading partners? Britain doesn't trade with other European countries out of altuism, but because its profitable. You don't get to pick who you trade with at any given moment in time, you trade with those whom it is in your interests to trade with. Japan is hardly one of Britain's traditional trading partners, but it does a tidy bit of business with them, along with China, India, and the U.S.A. Britain's trade may be different than it was in 1950, but thats because its 56 years later and the world has changed, you can't base your economic policy based on wanting everything to be like it was 100 years ago, its not sensible.
In terms of leaving, I don't think its "too late" to do anything Bryn, Britain is still a soveriegn nation state I believe, so what exactly is stopping it from leaving? French troops are not going to turn up at Waterloo station if Britain leaves the EU, they would probably actually pay you to leave at this stage. Obviously there will be problems, but just like Norway, Britain could still have a special trading relationship with the rest of the EU, but remove itself from the governance polcitically of the EU intitutions. The EU is not Nazi germany or Soviet Russia, and its not a federal or even con-federal state, its not even a state, its an international organization.
Obviously it might turn into a federation or something eventually, though I doubt it would ever be possible or even desirable to have a EU that was like the united states as it just wouldn't work, people don't want it, and none of the nations would ever (or at least in the forseeable future) get into something like that unless they could also at some stage, if they wanted to, get out. As the French, and the Germans, and the Italians, and the Polish, and even the Irish as just as nationalistic when it comes down to it as the British.
I personally would be sad if Britain left, because Britain could be a very positive influence on the thing, especially the newer members, that are only young democracies, and Britain has a long tradition of civil and political freedom that is very good and to be admired and its language has become the linga franca of Europe. But then again, with the current British attitude to all things Europe, they (and probably everyone else) would be better off if they just called it a day and went home. Better than than continually whining about the metric system, funny coloured passports, and the fascist imposition of straight bananas by untrustworthy foriegners, which from the outside looks like a policy based on being the moany uncle on the sofa. Sorry, but thats the way I see it.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
What is fair share?
Diuretic wrote: That's not a platitude, it's a philosophy ("each according to his needs" I mean). I believe it may have been attributed to Karl Marx (but will stand corrected of course).
yes it's marx - and it's a corrupt philosophy. this quote sums it up neatly.
'From Each according to his Abilities, To Each according to his Needs' is a pretty sweet deal, if you're a needy incompetent, but it makes a slave of the capable and independent. Advocating such a position says an awful lot about the individual who does so, and which side of the equation he expects to be on.
- Richard Chandler (10/15/04)
yes it's marx - and it's a corrupt philosophy. this quote sums it up neatly.
'From Each according to his Abilities, To Each according to his Needs' is a pretty sweet deal, if you're a needy incompetent, but it makes a slave of the capable and independent. Advocating such a position says an awful lot about the individual who does so, and which side of the equation he expects to be on.
- Richard Chandler (10/15/04)
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
What is fair share?
anastrophe wrote: yes it's marx - and it's a corrupt philosophy. this quote sums it up neatly.
'From Each according to his Abilities, To Each according to his Needs' is a pretty sweet deal, if you're a needy incompetent, but it makes a slave of the capable and independent. Advocating such a position says an awful lot about the individual who does so, and which side of the equation he expects to be on.
- Richard Chandler (10/15/04)
Yeah, marx was a clever fello, far too clever, his ideas were interesting, but basically completely wrong. If he had spent more time actually looking at how society works and what motivates people, and less time in the reading room of the British library we would all have been better off. Its interesting that although he wrote his thesis for the advanced industrial countries of his day Britain, Germany, France, and the U.S.A, none of them ever fully went for his ideas, only the peasant countries of Russia and China ever bought his philiosphies. Look how that turned out.
'From Each according to his Abilities, To Each according to his Needs' is a pretty sweet deal, if you're a needy incompetent, but it makes a slave of the capable and independent. Advocating such a position says an awful lot about the individual who does so, and which side of the equation he expects to be on.
- Richard Chandler (10/15/04)
Yeah, marx was a clever fello, far too clever, his ideas were interesting, but basically completely wrong. If he had spent more time actually looking at how society works and what motivates people, and less time in the reading room of the British library we would all have been better off. Its interesting that although he wrote his thesis for the advanced industrial countries of his day Britain, Germany, France, and the U.S.A, none of them ever fully went for his ideas, only the peasant countries of Russia and China ever bought his philiosphies. Look how that turned out.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What is fair share?
Diuretic wrote: Oh well in Karl's defence he also once said, "I am not a Marxist" 
Yes, that was quite witty, well I suppose being Marx, he didn't have to follow himself.
Yes, that was quite witty, well I suppose being Marx, he didn't have to follow himself.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What is fair share?
Diuretic wrote: Good point - I can't remember in what circumstances he said it but I remember reading about him getting cranky after one of the big meetings - can't think of the collective name they used - the Left had and that may have been when he said it. Engels' eulogy is still a good read though.
I read "Das Capital" (though not very diligently), I have to admit it bored me silly. I must admit I'm more an Adam Smith kinda guy.
I read "Das Capital" (though not very diligently), I have to admit it bored me silly. I must admit I'm more an Adam Smith kinda guy.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What is fair share?
Diuretic wrote: Turgid prose - that's code for me being unable to understand it
Yes he was a terrible writer aside from the theories. Like trying to read a manual for a VCR in German.
Yes he was a terrible writer aside from the theories. Like trying to read a manual for a VCR in German.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What is fair share?
ArnoldLayne wrote: G, I am a little nieve sometimes when it comes to politics. A dreamer maybe, I certainly dream about ideals and how perfect the world could be. Maybe I just see things through blinkered eyes. Who knows ?
I just think things could, on occasions, be done on a more evenly balanced keel. I seem to remember a history of trading with the commonwealth when the EEC was just a twinkle in someones eye. It wasnt called the commonwealth for nothing and while we do still trade, that relationship just isnt the same since we were part of the bigger picture in Europe.
Yes we whine about the metric system because selling spuds by the pound is fundemental to who we are. I worked in Ireland through 2001 and returned in 2002 to find everybody thoroughly pissed off at having to use this "funny money". Why ? everybody asked. It just meant the price of guinness went through the roof. And that just aint on
I understand Arnold and I don't think you are naive I think that you are simply expressing the honest opinion of a lot of British people, and why shouldn't you? Its up to the people of Britain to decide what the country does, no one else.
I do think though that a lot of British people (understandably) long for what seems a more certain and safe past, but you can't go back. And you know what, the past wasn't that safe or certain anyway. The economic system that was in place during the British Empire was a product of the times, those times have past and its time for new ways. But seriously I wasn't being narky about Britain leaving the EU, if people feel that strongly they are better off being out of it, and then developing a more healthy relationship with the rest of Europe from the outside. What I would say is in my opinion it would be better for Britain to be one of the strongest and most influential members of the EU than the 51st unrecognized state of the U.S.A which is what Tony Blair seems to have turned the country into.
As for us in Ireland, I think we are pragmatic, we are a small country and we don't have any illusions about what little power we have in this big bad world. Although some things about the EU are not great, we are Europeans and we are better off as a small nation inside the EU where at least our voice is heard if not always listened to. As for the metric system and the money, thats just technical stuff, whatever works best, use. We do still have pints by special order of course, even if we do pay for them in euro's. My attitude to money is, its not what it looks like, its how much of it you have, and as long as its hard currency, that'll do nicely.
I just think things could, on occasions, be done on a more evenly balanced keel. I seem to remember a history of trading with the commonwealth when the EEC was just a twinkle in someones eye. It wasnt called the commonwealth for nothing and while we do still trade, that relationship just isnt the same since we were part of the bigger picture in Europe.
Yes we whine about the metric system because selling spuds by the pound is fundemental to who we are. I worked in Ireland through 2001 and returned in 2002 to find everybody thoroughly pissed off at having to use this "funny money". Why ? everybody asked. It just meant the price of guinness went through the roof. And that just aint on
I understand Arnold and I don't think you are naive I think that you are simply expressing the honest opinion of a lot of British people, and why shouldn't you? Its up to the people of Britain to decide what the country does, no one else.
I do think though that a lot of British people (understandably) long for what seems a more certain and safe past, but you can't go back. And you know what, the past wasn't that safe or certain anyway. The economic system that was in place during the British Empire was a product of the times, those times have past and its time for new ways. But seriously I wasn't being narky about Britain leaving the EU, if people feel that strongly they are better off being out of it, and then developing a more healthy relationship with the rest of Europe from the outside. What I would say is in my opinion it would be better for Britain to be one of the strongest and most influential members of the EU than the 51st unrecognized state of the U.S.A which is what Tony Blair seems to have turned the country into.
As for us in Ireland, I think we are pragmatic, we are a small country and we don't have any illusions about what little power we have in this big bad world. Although some things about the EU are not great, we are Europeans and we are better off as a small nation inside the EU where at least our voice is heard if not always listened to. As for the metric system and the money, thats just technical stuff, whatever works best, use. We do still have pints by special order of course, even if we do pay for them in euro's. My attitude to money is, its not what it looks like, its how much of it you have, and as long as its hard currency, that'll do nicely.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What is fair share?
Before we joined the EEC there was a referendum and people voted yes. Opponents conveniently forget that. We were not taken in against our will by an uncaring government bent on selling us down the river and refusing to listen to the people. It took us 12 years to finally get permission to join and the vote was 2-1 in favour of joining. In case you are wondering I voted yes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static ... 0_1979.stm
In part it was because the war generation was still around in significant numbers and wanted to see a europe changed for the better. The issues were understood all to well by those that had fought for their country better than most of the politicians gave them credfit for. we had to bribe our way in and the death of our fishing fleet was part of the price.
had we not joined the EEC there would have been no inward investment from companies like Toyota, honda, hitachi and a whole host of others because tnebtrade barriers would have made it economic for them to locate here.
Many parts of the UK have benefited from the EEC regional development fund in a way that just would not have happened had we stayed out of it. That is why so many are now bleating about the funding being withdrawn, as it's original intention has been achieved, and the funds are going to the new members like spain and the eastern european countries. You can't have it both ways, complain about the EEC and then ask to keep the money. our economy was up the spout in the seventies in large part because companies were trying to live in past glories and deluded themselves products like cars would sell because they were british.
Eire would not have become he celtic tiger without the EEC
Trade with the commonwealth was already declining and changing as those countries developed their own economies with the pacific nations becoming more and more important to them, their growth isn't due to the good old UK trading with them. They owe us nothing and will trade where it is most profitable. Our trade with the EEC was expanding exponentially and they are our major trading partners.
posted by Arnold layne
I just think things could, on occasions, be done on a more evenly balanced keel. I seem to remember a history of trading with the commonwealth when the EEC was just a twinkle in someones eye. It wasnt called the commonwealth for nothing and while we do still trade, that relationship just isnt the same since we were part of the bigger picture in Europe.
Sod sentimentality the reality was very different. British farmers used to conplain about prefrential treatment for new zealand lamb and dairy produce. After they lost that preferential treatment they reformed their agrcultural and found new markets.
Whether we are in the EU or not we are affected by their rules, as a member at least we have some influence and with new members coming on board the franco german power bloc is weakened.
As a member of an economic power bloc we have some say in our future, without it we just sit around hoping everbody will be nice to us and trade fairly. there are a lot of isues in dispute with the EU and the US. As a non member we would just have to take what is offered. Anyone who thinks differently I would respectfully suggest needs to sit down and take a reality check. We aint an empire any more.
there is a great deal wrong with the EEC and most europeans feel the same as us about it. The common agricultural policy is just one of a number of issues needing sorted. None of them is going to stand for a superstate either. It would be a pity to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Try asking companies that trade with europe about what they think would happen if we leave. Most of the industrialists that speak out have little to lose in terms of business. It's the bureaucracy and lack of accountability that causes problems. If we leave the EEC you can look forward to companies like Nissan deciding to invest in France rather than Newcastle. It was a toss up whether they were going to build the new micra as it was, uncertainty about the future was one of the reasons for procrastination. toyota have as good as said the same thing, it's a major factor in the decision.
What's wrong with metrication? 16 ozs one pound, 14 pounds one stone, 12 stones une hundredweight oh yeah that really was a better system. How about 12 pennies one shilling, 20 shillings one pound you can keep that as well.
If you are going to look at fair share you need also to consider theb role played by the World trade orgamisation whose decisons are arguable not basd on what is good for people in poorer countries but rather on what is good for big business.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe ... 429503.stm
posted by galbally
I read "Das Capital" (though not very diligently), I have to admit it bored me silly. I must admit I'm more an Adam Smith kinda guy.
Adam Smith was Scots of course and from fife at that. I reckon he would be birling in his grave at the way his ideas have been hijacked and perverted. Rare it is to find a politician or political pundit that cites him who has actually read what he had to say.
How about Engels, the condition of the working class in england? Boy did he have plenty to say about the irish.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static ... 0_1979.stm
In part it was because the war generation was still around in significant numbers and wanted to see a europe changed for the better. The issues were understood all to well by those that had fought for their country better than most of the politicians gave them credfit for. we had to bribe our way in and the death of our fishing fleet was part of the price.
had we not joined the EEC there would have been no inward investment from companies like Toyota, honda, hitachi and a whole host of others because tnebtrade barriers would have made it economic for them to locate here.
Many parts of the UK have benefited from the EEC regional development fund in a way that just would not have happened had we stayed out of it. That is why so many are now bleating about the funding being withdrawn, as it's original intention has been achieved, and the funds are going to the new members like spain and the eastern european countries. You can't have it both ways, complain about the EEC and then ask to keep the money. our economy was up the spout in the seventies in large part because companies were trying to live in past glories and deluded themselves products like cars would sell because they were british.
Eire would not have become he celtic tiger without the EEC
Trade with the commonwealth was already declining and changing as those countries developed their own economies with the pacific nations becoming more and more important to them, their growth isn't due to the good old UK trading with them. They owe us nothing and will trade where it is most profitable. Our trade with the EEC was expanding exponentially and they are our major trading partners.
posted by Arnold layne
I just think things could, on occasions, be done on a more evenly balanced keel. I seem to remember a history of trading with the commonwealth when the EEC was just a twinkle in someones eye. It wasnt called the commonwealth for nothing and while we do still trade, that relationship just isnt the same since we were part of the bigger picture in Europe.
Sod sentimentality the reality was very different. British farmers used to conplain about prefrential treatment for new zealand lamb and dairy produce. After they lost that preferential treatment they reformed their agrcultural and found new markets.
Whether we are in the EU or not we are affected by their rules, as a member at least we have some influence and with new members coming on board the franco german power bloc is weakened.
As a member of an economic power bloc we have some say in our future, without it we just sit around hoping everbody will be nice to us and trade fairly. there are a lot of isues in dispute with the EU and the US. As a non member we would just have to take what is offered. Anyone who thinks differently I would respectfully suggest needs to sit down and take a reality check. We aint an empire any more.
there is a great deal wrong with the EEC and most europeans feel the same as us about it. The common agricultural policy is just one of a number of issues needing sorted. None of them is going to stand for a superstate either. It would be a pity to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Try asking companies that trade with europe about what they think would happen if we leave. Most of the industrialists that speak out have little to lose in terms of business. It's the bureaucracy and lack of accountability that causes problems. If we leave the EEC you can look forward to companies like Nissan deciding to invest in France rather than Newcastle. It was a toss up whether they were going to build the new micra as it was, uncertainty about the future was one of the reasons for procrastination. toyota have as good as said the same thing, it's a major factor in the decision.
What's wrong with metrication? 16 ozs one pound, 14 pounds one stone, 12 stones une hundredweight oh yeah that really was a better system. How about 12 pennies one shilling, 20 shillings one pound you can keep that as well.
If you are going to look at fair share you need also to consider theb role played by the World trade orgamisation whose decisons are arguable not basd on what is good for people in poorer countries but rather on what is good for big business.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe ... 429503.stm
posted by galbally
I read "Das Capital" (though not very diligently), I have to admit it bored me silly. I must admit I'm more an Adam Smith kinda guy.
Adam Smith was Scots of course and from fife at that. I reckon he would be birling in his grave at the way his ideas have been hijacked and perverted. Rare it is to find a politician or political pundit that cites him who has actually read what he had to say.
How about Engels, the condition of the working class in england? Boy did he have plenty to say about the irish.
What is fair share?
ArnoldLayne wrote: Nothing at all wrong with metrication. I'm in the building trade and everything is in metres, I havent used feet and inches in donkeys years. But I still want to travel a MILE to have my beer in a pint pot
My old man god bless him, always maintained he could add up £ S D quicker than i could in a base of ten. He'd grown up with it, got taught it at school (well so did I) but it never left him
I got told off something rotten by my son in law whose in the building trade for using centimeters - everything had to be expressed in mill so you're working in numbers in the thousands. He just couldn't read the kitchen layouts I drew up for him because of it.
As to complete metrication in the UK :-
Would you move your pint measure to a litre as per the German Stein or a half litre and be short changed all the while? (You can guarantee that they'd charge the same for 500 ml as they do now for 565 ml in a pint).
The old spirit measure of 1/24 of a pint equated quite well to the metric 25 ml shot and a double matched fairly well in alcohol to a pint so why have they upped a shot to 40 ml? The only result will have been more drunk drivers.
On the river Nene the speed limit is 7 MPH. Due to EU legislation the limit must be displayed in KPH as the dispensation for road signs does not cover us so the signs now read 11.4KPH - do they really expect us to judge our speed to the nearest 1/10 of a KPH? (and yes, they do have speed cameras!)
Standardization can be a good idea if everything is standardized across the board but, if you take the example of tax harmonization, that can only happen if you have a central government with a common tax policy. It's no goods saying that the same set of items must appear in the same set of VAT bands if the VAT rates and the underlying rates of purchase tax are different in the different countries of the EU. That does not lead to standardization of taxes but does reduce the ability of the National Governments to tune their tax policies which is one of the few ecconomic adjustments they have available (the main one being interest rates).
My old man god bless him, always maintained he could add up £ S D quicker than i could in a base of ten. He'd grown up with it, got taught it at school (well so did I) but it never left him
I got told off something rotten by my son in law whose in the building trade for using centimeters - everything had to be expressed in mill so you're working in numbers in the thousands. He just couldn't read the kitchen layouts I drew up for him because of it.
As to complete metrication in the UK :-
Would you move your pint measure to a litre as per the German Stein or a half litre and be short changed all the while? (You can guarantee that they'd charge the same for 500 ml as they do now for 565 ml in a pint).
The old spirit measure of 1/24 of a pint equated quite well to the metric 25 ml shot and a double matched fairly well in alcohol to a pint so why have they upped a shot to 40 ml? The only result will have been more drunk drivers.
On the river Nene the speed limit is 7 MPH. Due to EU legislation the limit must be displayed in KPH as the dispensation for road signs does not cover us so the signs now read 11.4KPH - do they really expect us to judge our speed to the nearest 1/10 of a KPH? (and yes, they do have speed cameras!)
Standardization can be a good idea if everything is standardized across the board but, if you take the example of tax harmonization, that can only happen if you have a central government with a common tax policy. It's no goods saying that the same set of items must appear in the same set of VAT bands if the VAT rates and the underlying rates of purchase tax are different in the different countries of the EU. That does not lead to standardization of taxes but does reduce the ability of the National Governments to tune their tax policies which is one of the few ecconomic adjustments they have available (the main one being interest rates).
What is fair share?
Adam Smith was Scots of course and from fife at that. I reckon he would be birling in his grave at the way his ideas have been hijacked and perverted. Rare it is to find a politician or political pundit that cites him who has actually read what he had to say.
How about Engels, the condition of the working class in england? Boy did he have plenty to say about the irish.
I understand what you are saying. Adam Smith is probably one of the most used authors in terms of justifications ever. But his critque of society and its relationship to economcis was stunning considering when it was written, that said, it ain't the 18th century either, but people are still people.
I am not as familar with Engles to be perfectly honest, I will get around to him someday I'm sure. As for the Irish, unfortunatly I understand history all too well, but whats done is done, I don't hold grudges.
How about Engels, the condition of the working class in england? Boy did he have plenty to say about the irish.
I understand what you are saying. Adam Smith is probably one of the most used authors in terms of justifications ever. But his critque of society and its relationship to economcis was stunning considering when it was written, that said, it ain't the 18th century either, but people are still people.
I am not as familar with Engles to be perfectly honest, I will get around to him someday I'm sure. As for the Irish, unfortunatly I understand history all too well, but whats done is done, I don't hold grudges.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
What is fair share?
posted by bryn mawr
Standardization can be a good idea if everything is standardized across the board but, if you take the example of tax harmonization, that can only happen if you have a central government with a common tax policy. It's no goods saying that the same set of items must appear in the same set of VAT bands if the VAT rates and the underlying rates of purchase tax are different in the different countries of the EU. That does not lead to standardization of taxes but does reduce the ability of the National Governments to tune their tax policies which is one of the few ecconomic adjustments they have available (the main one being interest rates).
While there are a lot of god things about the EEC there are also a lot of daft things as well. Tax harmonisation is one of the areas I am sceptical about. In trade it makes sense but not right across the board just because it seems like the thing to do. Some of the bureaucracy is ludicrous-make work for pen pushers and bean counters that couldn't hold down a job in the real world where they have to justify their salary. But if we left we would have no say and still have to out up with the rules.
Being scots and having a lot in common with the north of England we have had to put up with economic policy aimed at the situation in the south East of England.
remember this from the governor of the Bank of England?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the ... 197995.stm
The row erupted on Wednesday over comments Mr George made on Tuesday at a lunch for regional newspaper executives in London that unemployment in the north was a price worth paying to help the south.
When I hear people complaining about control from the eec by people with no interest on local economies I find it hard to resist the temptation to point out that now they know what it feels like.
posted by galbally
I am not as familar with Engles to be perfectly honest, I will get around to him someday I'm sure. As for the Irish, unfortunatly I understand history all too well, but whats done is done, I don't hold grudges.
I suspect religon had a lot to do with it. I often find the most rabid marxists often haven't read much for themselves but can quote bits from leaflets.
posted by Clint
To help most of these countries you would have to get rid of the government that is choking them. If the corrupt governments were out of the way we probably wouldn't need to help for very long.
That is I think a fair comment, but i also think you need to take in to account the actions of both the EEC and US and the WTO and IMF. In a very real way I think you can ague that they are stopping countries sorting out their own problems. But then you need an alternative don't you.
Much of the islamic terrorism we see is less to do with hatred of the west per se and more to do with a response to the political and economic situation in their own countries. Look at the gulf states, arab emirates and the like and where all the oil money is being spent. If you were one of the poor and disadvantaged how would you feel. Whose oil is it anyway and should the descendants of medeival warlords and rulers be allowed to control it?:sneaky:
In the US and UK we elect our govts and give them authority to allow the exploitation of resources and dictate to them how the money is spent and if we are not pleased we can protest and kick them out of office. Every now and then control is lost and you get a group that think they have a right to rule and need to be put back in their place.
What would you do if you lived in a country where you had no say? Before you say you wouldn't be a terrorist just have a quick look back at and check how peaceful the transition to a liberal democracy was in reality.
Were those who ran the undergrond railroad to to help excaping slaves in america terrorists and threatening to bring down society by attacking another man's property or believers and fighters for liberty and freedom for all?
Take the Edwardian suffragettes for instance. At the time they were viewed as terrorists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3153024.stm
Within weeks, the police were using it against what the government then regarded as the biggest threat to the British Empire: the suffragettes.
Documents uncovered at the National Archives reveal that the votes-for-women movement probably became the first "terrorist" organisation subjected to secret surveillance photography in the UK, if not the world.
Yes your granny's, granny's, granny was a hooligan. She probably wore bloomers and threatened the institution of marraige by going out to work as well.
Standardization can be a good idea if everything is standardized across the board but, if you take the example of tax harmonization, that can only happen if you have a central government with a common tax policy. It's no goods saying that the same set of items must appear in the same set of VAT bands if the VAT rates and the underlying rates of purchase tax are different in the different countries of the EU. That does not lead to standardization of taxes but does reduce the ability of the National Governments to tune their tax policies which is one of the few ecconomic adjustments they have available (the main one being interest rates).
While there are a lot of god things about the EEC there are also a lot of daft things as well. Tax harmonisation is one of the areas I am sceptical about. In trade it makes sense but not right across the board just because it seems like the thing to do. Some of the bureaucracy is ludicrous-make work for pen pushers and bean counters that couldn't hold down a job in the real world where they have to justify their salary. But if we left we would have no say and still have to out up with the rules.
Being scots and having a lot in common with the north of England we have had to put up with economic policy aimed at the situation in the south East of England.
remember this from the governor of the Bank of England?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/the ... 197995.stm
The row erupted on Wednesday over comments Mr George made on Tuesday at a lunch for regional newspaper executives in London that unemployment in the north was a price worth paying to help the south.
When I hear people complaining about control from the eec by people with no interest on local economies I find it hard to resist the temptation to point out that now they know what it feels like.
posted by galbally
I am not as familar with Engles to be perfectly honest, I will get around to him someday I'm sure. As for the Irish, unfortunatly I understand history all too well, but whats done is done, I don't hold grudges.
I suspect religon had a lot to do with it. I often find the most rabid marxists often haven't read much for themselves but can quote bits from leaflets.
posted by Clint
To help most of these countries you would have to get rid of the government that is choking them. If the corrupt governments were out of the way we probably wouldn't need to help for very long.
That is I think a fair comment, but i also think you need to take in to account the actions of both the EEC and US and the WTO and IMF. In a very real way I think you can ague that they are stopping countries sorting out their own problems. But then you need an alternative don't you.
Much of the islamic terrorism we see is less to do with hatred of the west per se and more to do with a response to the political and economic situation in their own countries. Look at the gulf states, arab emirates and the like and where all the oil money is being spent. If you were one of the poor and disadvantaged how would you feel. Whose oil is it anyway and should the descendants of medeival warlords and rulers be allowed to control it?:sneaky:
In the US and UK we elect our govts and give them authority to allow the exploitation of resources and dictate to them how the money is spent and if we are not pleased we can protest and kick them out of office. Every now and then control is lost and you get a group that think they have a right to rule and need to be put back in their place.
What would you do if you lived in a country where you had no say? Before you say you wouldn't be a terrorist just have a quick look back at and check how peaceful the transition to a liberal democracy was in reality.
Were those who ran the undergrond railroad to to help excaping slaves in america terrorists and threatening to bring down society by attacking another man's property or believers and fighters for liberty and freedom for all?
Take the Edwardian suffragettes for instance. At the time they were viewed as terrorists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3153024.stm
Within weeks, the police were using it against what the government then regarded as the biggest threat to the British Empire: the suffragettes.
Documents uncovered at the National Archives reveal that the votes-for-women movement probably became the first "terrorist" organisation subjected to secret surveillance photography in the UK, if not the world.
Yes your granny's, granny's, granny was a hooligan. She probably wore bloomers and threatened the institution of marraige by going out to work as well.