World Government

[Audley Strange]

Well sure, you are talking about 800 billion or so a year if taxed at 95% which is a lot in total, but unless all of those 85 are paying full taxation in one country it soon thins out.

It seems to me unfair to just penalise those who are good at exploiting a system which is bugged. Much better to remove the exploits, so that the less scrupulous cannot exploit them at all. Also full share financial liability would mean that the Government would not need to bail out banks or failing industry at the taxpayers expense but at the owners and investors.

[Blind groper]

On poverty.

What a lot of you guys are overlooking is that the process of removing poverty is already well under way. As I pointed out, the 'poor' in western nations are only defined as poor because we have adjusted the official definition upwards. Western 'poor' own cars, colour TV's, computers, cell phones, and eat like horses. They are only poor compared to the wealthier people in their own nations, and they are rich compared to the middle class of 100 years previously.

The growth away from poverty is also happening in third world nations. Sub Saharan Africa right now is experiencing an average growth in GDP of 3.5% per annum. Over 50 years, that adds up to a massive reduction in poverty. The reason for that is simply political change, in which governments are becoming less corrupt.

Singapore showed what can be done. After the end of World War II, when the Japanese left, Singapore was an economic mess, with abject poverty everywhere. But the government, while not hot on human rights issues, was smart on economic matters, and corrupt only in a limited way. The economy of Singapore grew to the point where, today, it is definitely first world, and the average Singaporean has a higher income than most white westerners.

This can be done for other third world nations, and is being done. Even Bangla Desh has a high GDP growth. Nations throughout Asia are showing such economic growth that it is apparent they are repeating the Singapore experience.

REvo tried to make fun of my suggestion that everyone will become middle class, and strictly speaking, rEvo is right, since the definition of 'poor' keeps getting altered as economies grow. But it is predictable that, barring disasters, in another 50 years pretty much the whole world will be middle class by today's definitions.

As an aside, did you know that 70% of all the families in the world now have a cell phone? Even in poverty stricken Africa. It is predictable that, within 10 years, a similar number will have lap tops and be connected to the internet.

[JimC]

A step in the right direction would be reducing any ability of the extremely wealthy to buy political influence, by reforming the process of contributions to election campaigns...

[Blind groper]

Nice thought Jim. For the USA it will never happen, because decisions are always based on who gives the biggest bribe.

[JimC]

A step in the right direction would be reducing any ability of the extremely wealthy to buy political influence, by reforming the process of contributions to election campaigns...

Nice thought Jim. For the USA it will never happen, because decisions are always based on who gives the biggest bribe.

It's a world wide phenomenon, it's just bigger and more obvious in the US because of the sheer scale of wealth involved...

[Svartalf]

A step in the right direction would be reducing any ability of the extremely wealthy to buy political influence, by reforming the process of contributions to election campaigns...

So they'd go back to Roman style and start buying votes directly?

[JimC]

A step in the right direction would be reducing any ability of the extremely wealthy to buy political influence, by reforming the process of contributions to election campaigns...

So they'd go back to Roman style and start buying votes directly?

That is the effect of current practice, simply done more indirectly...

[Svartalf]

Yeah, but back in the day, the money trickled down, however briefly.

[Blind groper]

The biggest barrier to raising the poor out of poverty in third world nations is, and probably always has been, the corruption of the authorities. This, to a large extent is the cause of the conflict in places like Egypt and Syria. The people see how the government has its collective snouts in the public trough, and resent it.

I do not think there is an easy answer, though. Social change to eliminate corruption is likely only through a slow and painful process of evolution.

[Hermit]

The biggest barrier to raising the poor out of poverty in third world nations is, and probably always has been, the corruption of the authorities.

I think it's the rapacious exploitation of the natives, beginning with the replacement of their subsistence agriculture with vast monocultural plantations producing coffee, tea, rubber and whatnot by colonial powers and continuing with mining, oil extraction by modern corporations. Sure, they needed to enlist or create a locally grown elite to collude with them, and to that end they offered bribes of one sort or another, but corruption per se is not the problem you think it is.

Corruption is no less prevalent in first world regions. It is either hidden in plain view, such as with lobbies and campaign donations, or hidden in account books under the rubrics of commissions, consultation fees and a few other common classifications that are abused to paper over what is really happening.

[JimC]

The biggest barrier to raising the poor out of poverty in third world nations is, and probably always has been, the corruption of the authorities.

I think it's the rapacious exploitation of the natives, beginning with the replacement of their subsistence agriculture with vast monocultural plantations producing coffee, tea, rubber and whatnot by colonial powers and continuing with mining, oil extraction by modern corporations. Sure, they needed to enlist or create a locally grown elite to collude with them, and to that end they offered bribes of one sort or another, but corruption per se is not the problem you think it is.

Corruption is no less prevalent in first world regions. It is either hidden in plain view, such as with lobbies and campaign donations, or hidden in account books under the rubrics of commissions, consultation fees and a few other common classifications that are abused to paper over what is really happening.

You have a point about the exploitation of the third world by large corporations being a major factor, but I don't think you can equate the level of corruption (and its ill-effects) in many third world countries with campaign payments in the west. Corruption that directly and clearly results in dangerous, sub-standard building work, for example, has been largely eliminated in competent western democracies, by sheer hard work and persistence by law enforcement. Not so in many other places in the world. The scale of corruption is huge (as it was, of course, in Europe in the past)

[Hermit]

Yes, the type of corruption that allows unconscionable cutting of corners that results in impairing safety is definitely a lot less prevalent in first world countries than elsewhere, but I still don't think corruption is the biggest barrier to raising the poor out of poverty in third world nations. Exploitation by external powers is. First it was colonial power. Now it's corporate might. I also remain convinced that corruption is as prevalent in the first world as elsewhere. It just is of different character, and campaign payments are just a minuscule part of it in comparison to other forms.

[pErvinalia]

Corruption is no less prevalent in first world regions. It is either hidden in plain view, such as with lobbies and campaign donations, or hidden in account books under the rubrics of commissions, consultation fees and a few other common classifications that are abused to paper over what is really happening.

Yeah, this is my feeling as well.

[Blind groper]

I disagree on the exploitation by external powers. They do not do enough to help, true. But they do not hinder. In fact, the opposite is frequently true. If an American corporation decides to move its manufacturing from the USA to a poor nation, due to getting labour at low cost, it still helps the poor country. The poor workers who earn low wages, are still earning a hell of a lot more than if they had no jobs.

No, the biggest harm is generally done by evil bastards who are part of those poor countries. Ferdinand Marcos stole from the Filipino people and salted away billions in Swiss bank accounts. In African nations where civil war kills and destroys, that civil war is generally started by some would-be president who tries for power through military force. Syria is a disaster area due to an evil bastard who hangs on to power despite the fact that his people have made it abundantly clear that his time is up. Egypt is in turmoil due to a military coup (by Egyptians) and conflict with a Muslim group. Sudan is a disaster due to Sudanese fighting Sudanese. Somalia is chaos due to Somalians, not foreign corporations. Robert Mugabe is not some foreign corporation. I could go on. Example after example.

[Audley Strange]

I urge you guys to watch "The Act of Killing." I don't want to discuss it too much but it deals with the ramifications of some of the posts.

I'm of the opinion that humans are gifted at exploiting rule systems, those who are the most successful in exploiting those systems we call corrupt.