BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

The Moral Case for R&D.

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:42 / 16.06.05
And I quote Tom Coates back to you:

I really think we need to shed this idea that it's lack of money or food that causes these problems. I'll state again that we already produce enough food to keep the planet comfortable, there's more than enough money to feed and clothe the vast majority of mankind, and it's not being spent on R&D.

We have enough capital and enough resources and we are misusing them. There is no need to cut Nasa's budget because the levels of consumption, particularly in America are above those needed in any one country. We don't need to raise more capital, we need to redistribute the wealth that already exists so that people are treated with equal importance. The US processes food in huge amounts and throws it away.
 
 
jbsay
00:02 / 17.06.05
We have enough capital and enough resources and we are misusing them. There is no need to cut Nasa's budget because the levels of consumption, particularly in America are above those needed in any one country. We don't need to raise more capital, we need to redistribute the wealth that already exists so that people are treated with equal importance. The US processes food in huge amounts and throws it away.

I would strongly disagree. America does NOT have enough capital. The savings rate in america is effictively negative. People consume by taking on debt. Or, nowadays, by using their house (a depreciating, consumer durable good that due to inflation looks like a good investment) as an ATM (again, more debt). If you net out the balance sheet of America (assets and liabilities), on any level (personal/corporate/municipal/state/federal) you will see a DEARTH of capital. It LOOKS like their is a surfeit of capital because everyone has houses/cars/etc, but these goods have been consumed but not yet paid for--huge debts are still owed.

Further, even if there WERE surplus capital, you can literally never have enough capital. Capital is the engine of civilization. Therefore, you could STILL cut fat from NASA's budget and make everyone better off by using the resources more productively.

Finally, redistributing wealth is a sure-fire way to make EVERYONE equally poor. What you really need to do is to make sure that third-world countries a) make private property sacrosanct b) have a just rule of law (equally applicable to everyone). This is the ONLY way to have these countries raise a capital base and thus improve their standards of living. Simply redistributing wealth will not work--what happens when it is all distributed? How then do you form more capital to re-distribute?
 
 
jbsay
00:13 / 17.06.05
I do entirely agree with Tom's point about corrupt regimes and war, however.

If you would like the textbook case of 1) corrupt regimes and 2) how well wealth redistribution works, I would point you to the current situation in Zimbabwe. A friend of mine is from there, and his family (white farmers) have lived there for several generations. Mugabe confiscated and redistributed private property (farm land etc). Starvation went through the roof, and he has also managed to set the world record for single greatest hyperinflation in recorded history.

Please, spare me the wealth redistribution. It can't work in theory, and it has never ever worked in practice except to make everyone poor and starving.

Or, if you would like, you could compare the great experiments in Russia (communism) v. Jefferson's republic (laissez faire) for the hundred years or so following the revolutions. The story is the same the world over, every single time.
 
 
bobotheanticlown
03:46 / 17.06.05
I have had this idea for a long time, even befor i joined the site. wouldent the world be a better place if defence spending would be lowered drasticaly? then governments would have much more money for food.

one other thing, i known this is a bit unethical but if all the people in the third world were to be reduce some how it would REALY free up some space on the planet for food growing and the like
 
 
Evil Scientist
07:19 / 17.06.05
Increasing the actual amount of food produced in the world is not the problem. It is the distribution of the food that we already have that is the problem. As has been said further up the thread, we already produce more than enough food to keep every hungry mouth in the world fed. However many of those hungry mouths are in regions which are ruled over by undemocratic, corrupt governments/ in the middle of a conflict of some kind/ remote/ all three.

Theoretically you could utilise the combined military might of G8 level countries to move food into these regions on a regular basis. It wouldn't need any re-diversion of funds, all it would take would be a total shift in the belief systems of Western political systems.

This is not a financial problem. This is a problem that has come about due to politics. Taking money out of research and design and throwing it at the problem WILL NOT HELP. What will help is for people in affluent Western societies to change the way they think about the world on a fundamental level.
 
 
jbsay
09:55 / 17.06.05
Agreed, taking money out of NASA R&D funding will not directly help distribute food. I am NOT an advocate of distributing food in the first place. I AM an advocate of raising the living standards of the third world such that they can BUY their own food. Then everybody is better off (the whole beauty of trade, a positive-sum game!), rather than zero sum (making someone in the first world worse off to help someone in the third world). This cannot be done without elminating the dictators who hold private property in as low esteem as those who advocate direct wealth transfers from the first world to the third world!!!!

So, i agree that there is no way to improve the living standards of third world countries as long as they are run by (collectivist, for the most part) dictators. However, cutting the NASA budget (and all other unconstitutional government boondoggles) WILL make everybody in the first world better off.

Speaking of cutting unconstitutional boondoggles, the best way to help the third world countries would be to slash the collectivist stupidity of the IMF/Worldbank. These organizations follow Marx's prescription to redistribute wealth, in this case from the productive individuals in the first world directly into the coffers of the dictators and oppressive regimes we are complaining about!

Again, note that I am not against research for space travel, I am only against using the coercive force of GOVERNMENTS (taxing and inflating) to pay for this research. I am all for private individuals voluntarily researching space exploration, for example the PRIVATELY-funded SpaceShip-One program (which, in October 2004, climbed 70 miles into the atmosphere and won the $10m "X Prize"). Many analysts were excited by the prospects for commercial space travel, and the day when orbital or even interplanetary flights would be affordable for the average person. Las Vegas hotel magnate Robert Bigelow capitalized on the event by announcing a $50 million prize for the first team to put a privately funded space station into orbit.
 
 
jbsay
10:14 / 17.06.05
Contrast the privately funded SpaceShip One program with the government's program:

NASA's finances in disarray; auditor quits

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As NASA sets course for the moon and Mars, the space agency's finances are in disarray, with significant errors in its last financial statements and inadequate documentation for $565 billion posted to its accounts, its former auditor reported.
 
 
Emerald
10:10 / 19.06.05
I still don't know If i have to consider this a threadrot or not...

meanwhile, I'm polishing my critique-to-ultraliberalism arsenal!
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:27 / 19.06.05
one other thing, i known this is a bit unethical but if all the people in the third world were to be reduce some how it would REALY free up some space on the planet for food growing and the like

Well, first up, people in the third world do not, comparatively, use that much food. It would be far more efficient to wipe out all Americans and Europeans, which would also have the bonus of freeing up lots of rich agricultural land and massively reducing energy consumption and pollution.

Next question - if "all the people in the third world were to be reduce some how" (I assume you mean in numbers rather than in height, although a continent of two-foot high people would certainly require less food), who would farm all this space that has been freed up? You seem to have this image of the entire third world being pack ed with people, none able to extend their hands fully from their sides without touching another. That's not quite how it works, any more than it does in the richer nations. The AIDS crisis in parts of Africa is a crisis precisely because it affects adults - the people who actually produce the food and do the work.

One major problem for farming in Africa is that subsidised agriculture from the first world is being dumped on its markets, in doing so driving down the value of agricultural produce, which is then bought up for peanuts and shipped to the richer nations. Odd, innit?
 
 
jbsay
22:51 / 19.06.05
Agree with Haus. There is no need to resort to neo-Malthusian economics or "final solution" social engineering here. Resources are scarce otherwise there would be no need for studying economics--but this is not a problem. In the absence of too much government interference far-sighted entrepreuners find ways of squeezing more productivity out of nature's limited bounty. That's the whole point.

Stop subsidizing (and otherwise interfering with) industries such as agriculture in the first world, and cut off wealth transfers to dictators (i'm looking in your general direction, IMF/Worldbank), and then the third world would have a much better shot at becoming self-sufficient, agriculturally and otherwise.

For all you advocates of wealth redistribution as the solution (e.g. Nina). If you cut out NASA's budget, with the savings (lets say you get a tax refund) you could
a) take a couple extra weeks of vacation and volunteer for the resistance armies in africa
b) donate your proceeds to buying food for third world countries and bribing bureaucrats to ensure that it ends up in the right hands
note that you dont have to forcibly interfere with the rest of us by taxation.
 
 
hoatzin
12:54 / 20.06.05
People in the third world do not need money or food to be given. They need to be able to earn their own money, grow their own food. Corrupt regimes, natural disasters, climate change are all taking their toll, and does anyone in the richer world KNOW how to help them get access to the resources they need?
How many times does it have to be said that reducing money spent on R&D [or defence for that matter] will not make an iota of difference to this problem. It isn't either/or. And discussions of whether or not capitalism is the best way to run our economies is also not helpful. Just because other ways haven't worked yet doesn't mean they can't. Capitalism running rampant is a very ugly, greedy, and selfish thing to watch.
Are we going to have an embargo on new knowledge? Who gets to decide what we should or should not know?
[rant over]
 
 
Tryphena Absent
17:07 / 20.06.05
note that you dont have to forcibly interfere with the rest of us by taxation.

Sorry but I believe that you should be interfered with through taxation. I believe that everybody should and that they have a social and moral responsibility to pay those taxes and that we also have a responsibility to continue to explore both our earth and the regions beyond it and that NASA should be required to release technology that it develops for the benefit of the wider world. I think your basic analysis of the problems in the third world is accurate but that you draw conclusions that are wrong. And if I had my way no one would be earning more than the next person no matter their job. So you see, when I discuss wealth redistribution I mean real redistribution, not the half arsed attempt to save the third world that you seem to be condoning.

It has already been emphatically stated that the problem with the budget doesn't lie in the area of NASA, which proportionally isn't given much anyway but in the area of defence. This isn't a money or capital problem because money is only a hugely complicated bartering system that is effected by people with power. This problem is political as people keep repeating. It's about the way that we play with our resources and that's why volunteering for two weeks and donating a measly amount of money is only going to get you so far. We need to change the way the world works. You say we need to get people to a point where they can buy yet apparently donating food is a perfectly adequate individual solution? Even as a capitalist your points aren't working.
 
 
Lurid Archive
22:58 / 20.06.05
The NASA budget for 2005 seems to be about 16 billion US dollars link. The cost of the war in Iraq to date is about 178 billion US dollars link.

Thats right, ten years of NASA funding and going up every day (though, to be fair, the Iraq War has been going for two years now). Now, what are the priority cuts?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
00:30 / 21.06.05
The NASA budget is going up to 16.5 billion under an appropriations bill, which is being marked up by the senate today and on Thursday.
 
 
bobotheanticlown
02:55 / 21.06.05
Isnt there the small fact of corrupt governments harding aid food from the people? like in iraq or south africa- the rulers in each have been casugh either sellin food from aid programs at high prices to the needy, or outright just holding it off from them.
 
 
bobotheanticlown
02:57 / 21.06.05
thats an important fact. there is enouhgt food, but some people just want it all for themselves and wont share it with the needy- the rich and powerfull have billons of dollars, but how often do you see corprate presidents going around with tax refund money and handing it out to the poor and homless?
 
 
jbsay
22:58 / 30.06.05
Lurid--for once i'm with you.

Cut spending on the unconstitutional, illegal (under international law), and immoral war on Iraq AND the unconstitutional and immoral Nasa funding. In fact, why not cut everything that's not specifically enumerated in the constitution. Novel idea, that. Was kind of the point of the whole document, which obviously failed miserably. To think that a piece of paper could restrain politicians...

Also, impeach the Bushkyites as war criminals too while you're at it.
 
 
jbsay
23:15 / 30.06.05
Nina

Effectively we are having two different discussions

All else equal, cutting interventionism and the budget in the FIRST world (e.g., NASA) will not DIRECTLY help improve the wellbeing of people in the THIRD world. On this, you and I agree. It will, however, dramatically raise the living standards of people in the first world and therefore should be done regardless of the impact on the third world

Similarly, cutting interventionism in the THIRD world (e.g., by deposing dictators and socialists) WILL directly fix the problem we are discussing, namely poverty and starvation in the third world. That this should be done is obvious. How it should be done is open to debate.

However, since much of the third-world-dictator funding comes from interventionist policies in the FIRST world (taxation/inflation), using the same philosophy of intervnetionism that funds NASA et al, cutting off the source of funding to the dictators by stopping the interventions will, on the margin, improve the lot of the starving third world inhabitents insofar as it weakens the government regimes in those countries

Bottom line: cut intervention at home and abroad, and its a first step to everyone living in peace and prosperity
 
 
astrojax69
01:28 / 01.07.05
It will, however, dramatically raise the living standards of people in the first world and therefore should be done regardless of the impact on the third world

sorry, bjsay, but i don't agree that cutting NASA funding will affect the living standards of first world people - in fact, i would argue the opposite is true. what is it about NASA you find so disarming and alarming? (do i hazard a guess and wonder if, say norway were running it, not the US, it mightn't be such a bad thing..? perhaps i am mistaken..)

this funding of science is a critical human exploration and should be encouraged and funded to the hilt. the living standard increases through this engagement with cosmology, aeronautics and astronomy, not to mention biology, physics and geology to name a few more, are legion. what other science funding should you cut?

on the other hand, going back to an earlier post of mine on this thread, the same cannot be said for the obscene billions poured by the first world into military spending. imagine spending just half of a percent of the current military budget of the first world on neuroscience. or literacy. or nutrition research. or youth suicide prevention. or [insert research hobby horse here...]

leave off advocating the reduction (let alone the abolition) of NASA funding and pour your rebellion into dismantling all military, in first and third worlds.

wouldn't this planet be nicer then?
 
 
jbsay
02:19 / 01.07.05
sorry, bjsay, but i don't agree that cutting NASA funding will affect the living standards of first world people - in fact, i would argue the opposite is true.

explain how?

NASA funding has no feedback mechanism in profit/loss. you have no way of judging consumer demand for space travel, since the taxes are taken coercively instead of voluntarily by market forces. so while we can all agree that space travel is great, can you say that NASA is fulfilling the most urgent wants of consumers? the answer is clearly no. they are not paying for NASA voluntarily. economics is about human choices. resources, given to us by nature, are scarce. we need to figure out how to maximize the benefit. government is economically blind. only people trading to improve their own individual circumstances (aka intelligent agents forming a complex adaptive system) can spontaneouslt allocate resources

what is it about NASA you find so disarming and alarming?
i have no problem with space research. i have a problem with government-funded space research. government funded means taxation. taxation means that you are coercively forcing people to pay for something. this means that you are effectively holding a gun to their heads. if they wanted it, they would have paid for it themselves. that is what i find so disarming--that you would revert to violent coercion to fund your pet projects

(do i hazard a guess and wonder if, say norway were running it, not the US, it mightn't be such a bad thing..? perhaps i am mistaken..)
if norway were running it it would be equally bad for the norwegians, and in this global economy of ours, the long run opportunity cost would lower the living standards the world over.


this funding of science is a critical human exploration and should be encouraged and funded to the hilt.
couldn't agree more. why is the government doing it tho? how can they figure out how much to spend optimally for [NASA] v. [suicide] v. [whatever]? they can't. it's called "pretence of knowledge". look it up

the living standard increases through this engagement with cosmology, aeronautics and astronomy, not to mention biology, physics and geology to name a few more, are legion. what other science funding should you cut?
false. living standards improve with capital per person. only when science is directly translated into CAPITAL can it improve living standards.

i couldnt agree more that science can help lead to improved living standards. for the record, i have four years worth of biochem in college. i analyze technology-related companies and industries all day long, from semiconductors to energy to nanotech to biotech. i'm all for science funding. i just think it should be done privately. therefore, cut all government science funding.


on the other hand, going back to an earlier post of mine on this thread, the same cannot be said for the obscene billions poured by the first world into military spending. imagine spending just half of a percent of the current military budget of the first world on neuroscience. or literacy. or nutrition research. or youth suicide prevention. or [insert research hobby horse here...]

i'm saying, imagine the government not spending ANY of this money on war OR neuroscience OR any [insert pet research project here]. i'm going to guess that you've never heard of Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy. aka, opportunity costs. or, "what is seen v. what is not seen". go look those up. I'd recommend reading Economics in One Lesson .

now, imagine all of this capital that the government is not wasting floating around in the private sector. the venture-capital and other funded research projects that can be undertaken because the government is not spending on war, NASA, social security, foreign aid to dictators, etc.

are you familiar with Celera? do you remember how Celera killed the government project? thats not an exception to the rule. [yes, i'm sure some dullards are going to say that celera piggybacked on the government. go learn the actual history, i was there for it] there are huge incentives for private individuals and companies to research space travel, literacy (US was ~90% literate before govt mandated public education, for the record), nutrition research, etc.

just because the GOVERNMENT is doing it now, doesnt mean that it can't be done infinitely better in the private sector.



leave off advocating the reduction (let alone the abolition) of NASA funding and pour your rebellion into dismantling all military, in first and third worlds.
i am 100% for dismantling the military in first and third worlds.

i just dont see much differnece philsopohically between warfare socialism (military) and welfare socialism (which could be bent to include NASA). economically, they are more or less in the same boat.
 
 
bobotheanticlown
03:23 / 01.07.05
wy is it that you want the living standerds in the first world to impove so much? it will jsut make the rich richer, worstenign our problems- more seperation of the clases- the 1st world ruich get ricehr still, tthe spance industry is cut back masivly and so as a result will otehr sciences, and due to the know wact that teh first world govenmants are known to favor trhe rich over the poor in THEIR OWN COUNTIRES then the poor in the first world will not get so much!!!

SO Ya lets cut back on snasa fundig... so the rich can get more money and power- a very bad idea- we want world harmony and peace rite? not a rigid classs system of th eperpatualy wealthey and favored rich lording over the poor.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
09:20 / 01.07.05
Erm, there are poor people in the first world too Bobo.

According to some naysayers debt cancellation for Africa is a bad thing because to qualify the countries have to open their countries to 100% privatisation of everything, which will probably please first world businesses no end.
 
 
Emerald
16:57 / 01.07.05
Err... perhaps I'm too naive and I can't see this discussion from an American point of view, being European myself, but I think we're gone completely off topic.

I see another thread here: are (supposedly) market-driven private corporate companies or (supposedly) democracy-driven public institutions best enforcing the Will of the People? Or People's best interest?

As I already said, I'm naive and European.
But I'd bet on the second.
(although Western democracy is WAY FAR from perfect).
 
 
Tryphena Absent
18:05 / 01.07.05
But NASA research has consistently leaked over to people in everyday life. When you break your leg where do you think the metal for the crutches and wheelchairs that you are using comes from? NASA's R&D department. When you open your vacuum sealed coffee jar or have consistent medical back pains where do you think the technology was developed? Do you think that NASA's budget gets spent solely on sending spaceships up?

How do you think people can watch Bush's state of the union address live in the UK or get semi-accurate weather reports? It's all satellite technology. Irrigation, hydroponics, the computer that you are using to post to barbelith- there are hundreds of technologies that have been developed through partial development by institutions like NASA. All science funding should be government funded so that the technology can be utilised in ways that do not relate to the specific organisation that developed them.
 
 
jbsay
20:33 / 01.07.05
this is threadrot, but....

why do i want standards of living in the first world to improve?

the whole bloody point of economics is to raise the standards of living. jfc. you want to go back to hunter-gathering?

and lay off the class warfare spiel....to raise the standards of living has nothing to do with class segmentation or making the rich richer. it makes--on average--the rich richer and the poor richer. but this is on average. some rich get poor and some poor get rich. but on average, everyone is better off than they would be otherwise.

to go one step futher, poor people who make the community better off (by most economically satisfying consumer wants) become rich, and rich people who dont make the community better off become poor. aka the invisible hand.


and as for the trickle-down effect from NASA....i dont even know where to start. do you have any idea how many more products could be develope in the private sector using NASA's budget? i dont think you have any conception of the sheer amount of money involved or how much the average private company spends on R&D.
 
 
jbsay
21:19 / 01.07.05
Nina et al.

Since economic reasoning is clearly not persuasive, let's try the moral hypothetical.

Suppose the Corleone family and Mafia protect every city in the country. They charge every individual "protection" money for this good deed. Let's say it's 30% of income per person per year. If you don't pay, you will be punished (let's say the punishment is going to "jail").

Now let's say with their protection income racket they fund space research, and NASA''s research budget trickles down to consumer items. And they also pay to keep some poor women and children clothed and fed and with shelter. And maybe some of the money goes to a defense budget to protect them against competing Mafias in other countries who might want to come and hurt the citizens under their protection.

Does it bother you at all that a bunch of murderous criminals are stealing money from innocent people? Or does the fact that some of this stolen money goes to support research that eventually helps some people justify the theft in the first place (ends justifying means)?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
00:52 / 02.07.05
dont even know where to start. do you have any idea how many more products could be develope in the private sector using NASA's budget?

Do you have any idea how many products can be kept back from other organisations unless vast amounts of money are paid to the companies that develop them? How many products were created under different intentions? How much we wouldn't have if those products hadn't been developed inadvertently and then utilised for other reasons?

Does it bother you at all that a bunch of murderous criminals are stealing money from innocent people?

Yes, it does bother me that so much is patented and kept under capitalist ownership and identity laws.
 
 
Lurid Archive
22:09 / 02.07.05
Celera is, of course, an excellent example that demonstrates why research should be publicly funded. They refused to share research, while relying heavily on the public results they were supposedly overtaking. Then, when Clinton refused to promise patent rights - that is, refused to exercise government might to support an intellectual property right in a way that should please any supposed libertarian - the Celera share price plummetted.

You can read Sulston's book, here.

Some scientists have written articles that uncritically reproduce Celera’s claims to sequence much faster and much more cheaply than anyone else. In so doing they acted as volunteer advertisers, for as we’ve seen these statements are not supported by the facts. The whole affair has been a remarkable example of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

What we could have gained by supporting Government enforcement of patents is a bunch of millionaires, more expensive and exclusive medical treatments and a boost to private sector power. Call me a dullard if you wish, but I'm not really seeing the good there. This is just a small instance of why you should support publicly funded R&D.
 
 
jbsay
02:01 / 06.07.05
Easy there lurid, I wasn’t referring to you

They refused to share research, while relying heavily on the public results they were supposedly overtaking.

If the government (“the public”) is involved in funding, then those results should be free to all for use, since all have paid for them. Celera piggybacking on this research is neither unethical or immoral. This is a “tragedy of the commons” scenario, brought about by “public property”, best avoided by not having the government fund research in the first place.


Then, when Clinton refused to promise patent rights - that is, refused to exercise government might to support an intellectual property right in a way that should please any supposed libertarian - the Celera share price plummetted.

First off, you are confusing issues. I have never supported Government granting or enforcement of patents. I agree with you there. That is state-enforced monopoly: i.e., the granting of privelge to some at the expense of others. This is not free-market, by definition. And more to the point, this has nothing to do with the issue of government-funded R&D

Second, there were greater macro issues at stake. The whole market was crashing and burning, on the face of the largest-ever credit expansion (thanks government!) in history, collapsing under its own weight. Celera et al were caught in a huge bubble. The valuations were absurd. Clinton’s refusal might very well have helped pop the bubble, but it doesn’t prove your point. What’s your excuse for telecom/tech bursting?

Third, government grant of patent monopoly increase the value of future cash flows to the stock, and hence the stock price. A removal of this grant obviously will take down the stock price. Lots of protected government industries go up—military etc. This has nothing to do with libertarianism.

Why did so many businesses pay money to subscribe to Celera’s databse when the government DB was available for free, if they were of comparable quality?

I don’t know about you, but I have visited numerous private and publicly funded biotech labs, from Celera to Whitehead, to TIGR. No one in industry or publicly held labs that I’ve ever encountered dispute Celera’s claims to speed outside of your book.

Finally, Celera did a horrible job of translating the genomic information into WISDOM. They have virtually no drugs. Hence, the stock price where it is. Similarly, the government has done a horrible job of bringing drugs to market

Bottom line: technology advancements are irrelevant. Only when they are brought to MARKET are they relevant. Name 10 blockbuster drugs that came out of the government genomics and celera databases.
 
 
jbsay
02:40 / 06.07.05
Nina,

Have you ever been within 100 yards of a business? Have you ever analyzed one?

I’m going to guess…..no

Yeah, a lot of companies (that aren’t party to government intervention) withhold products for ransom. They are trying to reduce sales and make everybody worse off. Capitalists are trying to make less money??? Less profit? No cog dissonance there, right? Capitalists hold ideas for ransom. They don’t try to expand the market to maximize profit and so forth. Again, back to point A. That's why McDonalds, WalMart, Cell Phones, Clothes are so expensie relative to 100 years ago.

You’ve never been within a missile launch of capitalism have you?

I agree with you on the patent issue. I hate patents. Filthy scam, that.

I don’t understand why you never bring up the government failures. Stalin and the Aral Sea. Mercury in Vaccines? Flouride in the Water? Just for starters, off the top of my head. Governments have killed people (and ideas) on an order of magnitude above capitalism. Not to mention the wars. Guess it's impolite to point that out to a rabid Statist.


You never answered my question, btw. Capitalists—true capitalists—never force people to buy their products. Voluntary exchange and so forth. Governments, on the other hand, by definition, force people to do their Will at gun point. You don’t see any difference between these two systems? Coercision versus voluntary exchange? Of course not. Tough to see the diff when you're brainwashed and all. Remind me...when have you ever looked inside a business?

Note that when I was talking about Corleon I wasn’t talking about your hero Ted Kennedy. Well, we’ll jump off that bridge when we get there, eh?
 
 
jbsay
03:34 / 08.07.05
From a Der Spiegel interview with Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-363663,00.html

SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa...

Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor.

SPIEGEL: Do you have an explanation for this paradox?

Shikwati: Huge bureaucracies are financed (with the aid money), corruption and complacency are promoted, Africans are taught to be beggars and not to be independent. In addition, development aid weakens the local markets everywhere and dampens the spirit of entrepreneurship that we so desperately need. As absurd as it may sound: Development aid is one of the reasons for Africa's problems. If the West were to cancel these payments, normal Africans wouldn't even notice. Only the functionaries would be hard hit. Which is why they maintain that the world would stop turning without this development aid.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:30 / 08.07.05
jbsays: I don't see anything in the topic summary here about aid for Africa; your obsession is not relevant. Also, since there is no evidence to support your claim to be a business analyst, your constant attempts to denigrate others on the grounds that they have never studied a business like wot you have are pretty unimpressive. Less ad hominem, if you please. Play with the grown-ups or take your toys home.
 
 
Tom Coates
14:22 / 08.07.05
jbsay - please, calm down. Issues are worth getting heated about but on Barbelith we don't attack other people personally for their views, we attack the views themselves with solid argument. Barbelith is a place to persuade other people, not to harrangue them, into your mind-set. With regard to your latest point, some might argue that governments are appointed by the people and as such are just as accountable or more so in their ideal form than business which is only accountable to the bottom-line. And while the perfect business would only operate in ways that were in its own long-term best interest (ie. it wouldn't allow the earth to be destroyed by its practices), perfect businesses are as rare as perfect governments. All of which is beyond the point - we're talking about R&D and how / whether it is morally defensible when people in the world suffer.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:41 / 08.07.05
And can I just add that Ted Kennedy is definitely not my hero.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
07:13 / 09.07.05
Apologies for the off-topicness, but I'm glad to see that, Nina- I was expecting an indignant response within seconds, and was getting a leetle worried as time went on!
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply