Does our wealth depend on the third world being poor?

Question

This question was asked at the Dropping Knowledge event on 9th September by Tom Henze 30, Berlin, Germany. To find out more about Dropping Knowledge check out our blogs:

Dropping Knowledge in the UK: http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-qT1KKPQoRKdVT4lowpJCljbFokkuIzI8?p=1048

Dropping Knowledge in the US: http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-d8pH0dcoRKeB12yOcnUQp.9VCFos?p=12745

To discuss this subject in more detail follow this link to the official Dropping Knowledge website: http://www.droppingknowledge.org/bin/posts/focus/16993.page

Answer 1

There are a number of things contributing to the generation of wealth, foreign poverty doesn't quite help us at all.

One, being the consumption of energy. As soon as it was discovered that the consumption of energy was directly proportional to the generation of wealth in a country, foreign states volleyed to try to get the US to sign the Kyoto protocol. This is one reason China is starting to do well in spite of economic oppression, they're consuming monstrous amounts of energy and using it towards constructive purposes for the consumer market.

The concept of a true capitalist market is that the people elect who has power by using their dollar to only purchase what products and services they see adequate, that, being with the necessary protections to stop those who the people have given power from being an oppressive force. Certainly you wouldn't feel free to walk down the streets if others were free to murder you, there need to be certain protections to preserve the integrity of freedom, similarly, there need to be certain protections to preserve the integrity of economic freedom, but a free market economy that isn't dragged down by taxes, as capital gains directly multiply themselves if they keep getting invested, then the economic growth rate is expotential, indepedently of any foreign market. Japan adapted a system like this after WWII, and they're one of our only speakable competitors, and Japan has to import every natural resource you can name.

The generation and accumulation of wealth requires that the people be free to accumulate it, and is dependant on little more than that. The US was quite isolated in its early years, but independent of particularly much global interaction, by 1870, the US became the economic world power.

If all of the other countries were to become rich, it would simply be more wealth for us to trade with, it's actually a shame for us that we're so rich in comparison, the US doesn't represent a particularly large percentage of the earth's population, quite small in fact, but it represents over half of the earth's wealth, so either we work four times harder than any chinese laborer in comparison to the generation of wealth linked to labor, or we're doing something economically right to allow labor to generate the wealth to which it deserves, and in fact, eventually return more than that which is rendered. It's just the genius of the free system not having been completely corrupted yet that the generation of wealth is possible, not by any foreign deficiency.

Answer 2

yes wealth doe's produce standards. Not just for the poor but for everybody. I have known very rich people and have known poor people but the only thing in common with the both is what they both desire at the end whether luxury and happiness or poor and happiness, it,s only the zero,s at the end . Unfortunately the third world have no choose, mechanisation or poverty or nothing !!! not much of a choose ? but in some respects if you never had nothing you never worry about it.. I am not religious in any shape or form but , ask your self a question, if you were rich would you help anyone in need no matter what the cost ? weather you knew them or not ? or why would you only help only the people you know, or doe's it depend on how much money you have.?

I don't why I heard something from the bible, it may have non bearing but, Jesus was supposed to say that : an old lady went to pay her taxes and she said witch is richer if I earn 5 pence per week and I give the tax 2 pence or someone earning five pounds per week and giving a pound a week. So witch is morally richer.Someone wanting to give there last pence or someone rich not really wanting to give?
I don't understand celebrities ,polatitions etc they seem to get extortionates amounts of money but never seem to pay for the servis that they get ? But you have to charge your frends to a certain degree. Bugt the earn fourtunes ?
The only thing I have known people that have had money then lost it by some means said that they in themselves are far happier, but other that who have heard them say this said that they are WAN***RS
So whot is right 10 comandments ?
Or whotever works best ?
Thats the life of today.
MONEY.We all need somthing to aim for, the only universal thing that we have in common is money, with out it we have nothing with it you can have as much as you have ! So do we reley on morrals or rely on cash!!!

Answer 3

Oh! So you do admit to being well off. Well you are correct. By keeping the third world in the dark and hungry we are able exploit them for everything they are worth.

And it is not a matter of JUST the third world being poor. In America the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. IE A poor American laborer will loose his family to starvation and illness because he cannot get a job because the rich guy who owns the factory or the farm hires illegal immigrants to do the job for a fraction of the cost. The poor will need social security when they are old, but the fund will be empty because the rich raped it for their own programs and to make sure the illegals had an income more than what they earned.

Yes the rich ARE rich off the backs of the poor, no doubt about it. As for the third world thing, well that is the same deal on a grander scale, IE Gold and gem stones out of Africa, sex out of the Philippines, and cheap labor out of Mexico. The word for it is exploitation.

Answer 4

The third world has its share of wealthy people - so not, wealth does not depend on the 3rd World being poor.

However, according to the Chinese government, that to maintain the wealth there must be peons. I interpret that as, wealth must built on the backs of the poor wherever they are.

I do not agree with those sentiments - but the sad reality appears to be close to that. Would the wealthy pick up garbage, mop floors, pick crops in the field, wait on tables, work in the restaurant kitchens as a cook or busboy, clean the chicken pens, dress out the meat of cows, pics and... other tasks it takes to make the world operate in sanitary conditions?

I can see why the Chinese government would say that - but I think these workers who do these jobs should all be paid well for their services, to at least place these hard workers in a comfortable living zone.., effectively turning the image of the peon around.

Answer 5

Not just for the poor but for everybody. I have known very rich people and have known poor people but the only thing in common with the both is what they both desire at the end whether luxury and happiness or poor and happiness, it,s only the zero,s at the end . Unfortunately the third world have no choose, mechanisation or poverty or nothing !!! not much of a choose ? but in some respects if you never had nothing you never worry about it.. I am not religious in any shape or form but , ask your self a question, if you were rich would you help anyone in need no matter what the cost ? weather you knew them or not ? or why would you only help only the people you know, or doe's it depend on how much money you have.?

Answer 6

If by 'our', you are referring to America or the Western world, no. I am a little surprised that a well-informed person would ask such a question. [I hope you are not intending this to be a question leading people to think that America's wealth does depend on the third world being poor. ]

Nobody's wealth depends on the third world, or on anybody else, being poor-- except in the sense that we tend to compare ourselves to each other and think that one person (or one nation) is richer or poorer than ourselves. People who think this way have subscribed to a zero sum view of wealth, where they assume that there is only a fixed amount of wealth in the world and that in order for one to have it another must lose it. This is not the case.

Wealth (or, more properly, buying power), is generated by the sale of products or services. We have all seen the example of a person who imrpoves their run down home by adding aluminum siding to it, and the value increases. The taxes also go up, then. The value of the house does not go up simply by the amount it cost to nail the siding onto the house. The value goes up by the increased value to the owner (who now has better insulation, leading to lower heating costs in the wintertime, etc.) and to the buyer (for whome the house will last longer.) This goes far beyond mere adding of value, this is a growth, or multiplication of value.

The wealth of the West built slowly. Recall that when the American colonies were founded, this was the equivalent of a third world nation.

Consider: if all the third world nations were to vanish, how badly would America be affected...? Now, consider the alternative: if America were to suddenly vanish, how badly would the thrid wolrd nations be affected....? It should only take in instant of honest reflection to realize that there would be huge ramifictions in either case.

In any event, the short answer to the question is no. The third wolrd is not a major market for American products (with the possible exception of tobacco products, which the world might well be better off without), nor a major supplier of staple goods for America.

Now, the wealth of some leaders of third world contries depends on their people being poor. It has been estimated that less than 1/10 of all the foreign aid sent by America to the third world actually reaches those for whom it is intended. Their leaders take big slices off the top, and put them straight into their numbered bank accounts overseas. Only the bones and gristle reach the hungry people.

Answer 7

Wealth does depend on others being poor. You cannot have without others having not. However, if you distribute that wealth rather than hang on to it, if you use it to fight poverty, that is a different matter. But then, if you give away your wealth you are no longer as wealthy.

This does not need a huge amount of thought. Think of celebrities that make more money in a day than a poor family can make in a year. The solution is there, but it means fighting greed and selfishness which are part of the human condition.

Answer 8

Yes wealth of modern reach world depend on the third world being poor.

Answer 9

We have the brains and resources to re-invent ourselves so as not to need much of what comes from elsewhere. In doing so we would be much more well off and more capable of helping "third world countries." By keeping them poor and taking in their refugees...I don't see how that helps us any as it's our social structure that has to support and carry that burden.

If people shopped Canadian or USA then we could open many more manufacturing plants rather than sending all our money over to foreign countries, enriching them and having them come over and buy us all out.

Whose brainchild was free trade? That's where all the hassles started. But people should have the brains to know that they should shop locally and keep the money here in the w

Answer 10

The fact that you're asking such a question shows you are suffering from white man's guilt. It's just not fair that you should have it so well when there's so much suffering in the world. The United States, and the west in general, have done so much to help the third world countries. When someone says we shouldn't be there helping them advance and developed their resources, we leave in guilt, and a dictator takes over that uses the wealth for military might while making his people suffer more than they ever did. We are guilty of developing third world countries, then leaving, because before we developed them, they were so poor it didn't matter who ruled them, because there wasn't enough wealth to finance a military that could be much of a threat to the world. Had Britain stayed in the middle east, kept colonies, they would have done so much more for the people than the dictators have. So we should feel guilty, for developing those countries, then giving them their freedom.

Answer 11

It's my belief that all countries need to learn to be self-reliant. The best we can do for third world countries is to help their governments to help their people. Unfortunately, in desserts and deep rainforests, they're not exactly accessible and mate without concern or consequence.

If we are to help them all get back on their feet, we likely would be broke, especially if we do so by years and years and years of war with bills charged to the west, and the care and concern of social well being in the west going to pot. I guess I am talking about the middle east here which is far from poor with all the oil they have...it's just our involvement and desire for thier resources that are making the US poor, taking everyone else along with them.

We have the brains and resources to re-invent ourselves so as not to need much of what comes from elsewhere. In doing so we would be much more well off and more capable of helping "third world countries." By keeping them poor and taking in their refugees...I don't see how that helps us any as it's our social structure that has to support and carry that burden.

If people shopped Canadian or USA then we could open many more manufacturing plants rather than sending all our money over to foreign countries, enriching them and having them come over and buy us all out.

Whose brainchild was free trade? That's where all the hassles started. But people should have the brains to know that they should shop locally and keep the money here in the west.