What would be considered an equitable distribution of resources?

Question

As we all know there are people in third world country’s starving while those in industrialized nations are becoming morbidly obese. The industrialized nations take advantage of their positions to exploit the poor of the world through sweat shops and outsourcing and the cheap mining of their natural resources, without environmental oversight, causing devastation and blight. What is the most equitable way to address this issue.

Answer 1

This is a tough question. Things are not necessarily what they seem or get reported as by American journalists. Consider this essay on what it is like to be from one of these third world countries and work in one of these "sweatshops".

http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles&articleid=53

In 2004 I worked for an internet company that was adding telephone customer service jobs in Bangalore, India. I had the privilege of making the journey over to interview candidates for the positions we had open and it was rather eye opening. I had women literally breaking down and crying after the interview begging for a job claiming this was a "chance of a lifetime" for them to get to work for an American company. This was a relatively simple job that in our offices in America we only required a high school diploma and paid about $7.50 an hour. In India I interviewed people with Masters degrees in Chemistry because we paid better than anything else they could get. Outsourcing and "sweatshops" may be bad for Americans in terms of jobs lost here, but those who have the benefit of receiving these jobs think differently. Globalization is the answer, not the problem, but it takes time.

Answer 2

Equitable Distribution Of Resources

Answer 3

The inequitable distribution of resources exists both within America and between America and other nations. To be equitable, no one on the planet should be without enough food to eat, shelter appropriate for the environment, healthcare, and access to educational resources. People who more than their fair share of money and power have a moral obligation to share their resources.

This political mumbo-jumbo that we keep hearing, "tax relief," is just another way of taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

I don't know how this utopian distribution of resources could be accomplished with so many greedy and selfish people, but it would make a better world for all.

Makes me think of John Lennon's song "Imagine."

Answer 4

Equitable is those who produce get the benefits.

See first two sources.

However, if the producers wish to voluntarilly assist those in need that's great. Many third world countries have abundant resources, but lack the will or leadership to advance economically.

This would a great opportunity for the Gates Foundation. They have abundant resources to provide seed money and management expertice. However, there must be a stable government for this to work well.

Answer 5

Equitable distribution of resources should be sold cheaper to third world countries where minerals or raw materials were taken instead of charging them exorbitant prices when the manufactured goods are sold to them. This is the irony of the world, the developed countries often exploit the poor countries making them poorer and poorer and the rich becomes more richer.

Answer 6

You have forgotten to take into account the corrupt nature of many 3rd world governments. The people have nothing while the President has gazillions stashed away in banks in Switzerland and the Bahamas.

Answer 7

It is a horny neat notion. Douglas Mallete in his documentary Awakening illustrates that money was once a well procedure while you're in an atmosphere of shortage and monetary progress. Money is awesome while allocating scarce assets. But what occurs while assets, like technological labour, is now not scarce? Anything that's in abundance turns into less expensive in a capitalist-cash centered procedure, to the factor in which the benefit margin turns into beside the point and consequently is now not invested in. For illustration, you produce a widget for 10$ and promote it for a 20% mark-up. That is 12$ complete with two$ benefit. Your complete marketplace for those widgets (that means the tough quantity you'll be able to promote to satisfy the desire on the present fee) is 10,000 items a yr. You are making 20,000$ a yr. Technological improvements makes it possible for you to provide the identical widget for five$, so long as you have been the primary to innovate you'll be able to maintain the benefit margin top first of all (7$ as an alternative of two$) however finally you must drop your fee to six$ (five greenbacks fee and a million$ benefit = 20% markup). Now as your fee drops, your marketplace might broaden as individuals can manage to pay for 2 widgets in which they most of the time would manage to pay for a million. But the marketplace hits the saturation factor so much quicker than your bills drop. So on this situation let's imagine that your revenue items expand 50% (very beneficiant) at the same time your bills dropped 50%, you're now making 15,000$ a yr (a million$ benefit * (10,000*a million.five)). So you'll be able to see that technological innovation is finally the enemy of benefit. As lengthy as technological knowledge is conferred on a couple of, earnings can stay top allowing you to out-compete your opponents, however as soon as every body has the identical science, your margins turn out to be squeezed. It is, correctly, in each corporations curiosity to paintings co-operatively and fee repair (i.e. cartels) or spoil their pageant and determine any margin they want (monopoly). In a useful resource centered economic climate, the powers of creation would be grew to become free to furnish the low priced abundance of the neccessities that individuals require with out being hemmed in by means of such matters as benefit. Mises could have the objection that an RBE are not able to clear up the Economic calculation situation that's adressed by means of the fee mechanism (which makes it possible for you to determine our fee of assets and insist of a product). But I consider that by means of utilizing a significant automatic useful resource leadership procedure this situation would be easily solved.

Answer 8

Level the trading field. It's time to lift workers up instead of pushing them down!

Answer 9

Communism and Socialism.

All levels of government whatever you call it are too self serving.

Answer 10

Nuclear war, ends all of everyone's misery's