tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post5439381151310082729..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Poorest of the PoorAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-68197555382883580532016-01-20T06:22:03.128-07:002016-01-20T06:22:03.128-07:00Concerning the Iraq sanctions - a policy such as t...Concerning the Iraq sanctions - a policy such as that can only be evaluated in the light of available alternatives. Clinton came into office after the sanctions were already in place. Among the options were (1) an invasion of Iraq (we saw how well that worked out), (2) empowering Saddam Hussein (or practice of propping up despotic dictators has not been one of our most shining accomplishments), or (3) supporting civil war, or (4) supporting an Iranian conquest of Iraq. And there was the fact that Saddam Hussein could have brought the sanctions to an end easily enough. Why is he always let off the hook? The point being that this is a highly complex issue and a red herring.<br /><br />Now, as for the actual subject under consideration:<br /><br />To start, one must take some care with a phrase such as "your beliefs about free trade".<br /><br />What is commonly known as "free trade" - particularly in some conservative circles - would be more accurately described as "corporate feudalism" in the ways that it distributes powers and immunities among the lords (corporate executives) and serfs (workers). For example, there is the fact that the people in one group can kill millions through pollution and are merely fines, while the people in the second group are executed if they kill only one. The former group can rob people of billions of dollars with impunity, and the latter group gets shot taking a pair of shoes.<br /><br />The way some "free trade" advocates treats an issue like climate change is actually the definition of communism - the environment (the climate) is held in commons until it is destroyed.<br /><br />With those things understood, I would like to know a better explanation as to how 900 million people were brought out of extreme poverty without the so-called "exportation of jobs" that tooks place in that same era. And it was not the case that their benefit came at a reduction in the standard of living in the United States. In that same time period, the standard of living in the US continued to grow - though slowly - while the poorest of the poor caught up.<br /><br />Even if it is "highly disputed" (I regard that it is highly disputed in the same way that man-made climate change is "highly disputed") Sanders does not even acknowledge a dispute. It would be one thing for Sanders to say, "There are worries over the effects these policies would have on global poverty - here are my ideas on global poverty."<br /><br />Instead, Sanders answer to these concerns is to ignore them, or to literally say that a policy that aids the poorest of the poor can be rejected if it makes those who are better off poorer. That was his actual answer to the question discussed in the article above. That is the principle he put forth. The fate of the poorer of the poor cannot be addressed by policies that make those who are better off poorer.<br /><br />Finally, I can (and have) provided a number of arguments favoring a redistribution of wealth. Not in the way that Sanders would redistribute wealth. Sanders' policies regarding wealth distribution also ignore the poorest of the poor. In effect, he wants to take the wealth of the top 5% and redistribute it to people in the top 60-95% range - and ignore the bottom 60%. For example, I would argue for a 100% estate tax on wealth above a certain limit, which an individual can only avoid by donating it to a viable charity that serves those with the greatest need (e.g., the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation).Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-69703630030439290362016-01-19T22:57:41.212-07:002016-01-19T22:57:41.212-07:00Sanders is the only candidate running in either pa...<i>Sanders is the only candidate running in either party who is actively campaigning on a platform that would reverse that progress.</i><br /><br />Assuming that your beliefs about free trade are correct. <b>But they are highly, highly disputed.</b> Surely you acknowledge this?mojo.rhythmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14901306439675127615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-174168447001851412016-01-19T22:55:02.704-07:002016-01-19T22:55:02.704-07:00If a policy - such as restricting international tr...<i>If a policy - such as restricting international trade - would have the effect of throwing 100 million foreigners back into extreme poverty, Sanders' attitude suggests that he would not see this as a relevant concern.</i><br />Ha Joon Chan, a very good economist from the London School of Economics, showed in his book <i>Kicking Out the Ladder</i>, that nearly every single major economic powerhouse got to where it is today by disobeying the free trade mantra. It was only after they got huge and wealthy that they 'kicked out the ladder' and pursued free trade policies.<br /><br /><i>The activities that Jimmy Carter, the senior George Bush, and Bill Clinton engaged in demonstrated that they did, in fact, care about the well-being of the poorest of the poor.</i><br />Bill Clinton? The same man who endorsed sanctions in Iraq which caused over 500,000 Iraqi children to starve to death? You regard that man as having concern for the world's poor? To put it into perspective, the two UN diplomats who were charged with overseeing the sanctions resigned in protest because they stated that the sanctions were "genocidal". Or what about the fact that NAFTA caused countless numbers of poor people from Mexico to flee to the United States because the trade liberalization caused their places of work to shut down (as they were out-competed by massive multinationals)? Does none of this enter into your equation?mojo.rhythmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14901306439675127615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-91883611335780513952016-01-19T05:48:42.481-07:002016-01-19T05:48:42.481-07:00Since I write so many posts objecting to the makin...Since I write so many posts objecting to the making of derogatory overgeneralizations (which, indeed, was the first of the objections to the Sanders campaign that I posted), it would hardly suit me now to make derogatory overgeneralizations.<br /><br />The activities that Jimmy Carter, the senior George Bush, and Bill Clinton engaged in demonstrated that they did, in fact, care about the well-being of the poorest of the poor. There's a reason why the world was able to cut extreme global poverty in half - and much of that reason was the trade liberalization that these politicians pursued. Then, you look at the private activities of these individuals. All of them show great concern for the poorest of the poor.<br /><br />Sanders is the only candidate running in either party who is actively campaigning on a platform that would reverse that progress. As he does so, he explicitly states that it is wrong to transfer wealth from those who have more to those who have less. And all of this while he insists on the moral imperative of redistributing the wealth of the very rich.<br />Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-32424143961844384122016-01-18T18:31:55.863-07:002016-01-18T18:31:55.863-07:00The brute fact is, nobody in the USA cares about &...The brute fact is, nobody in the USA cares about "the poorest of the poor". Insofar as they think about them at all, Americans consistently overestimate the amount of aid that the US provides, and would prefer that we spend less. Any politician who expressed the moral sentiments you endorse would substantially reduce their chances of electoral success. Why should any candidate do so?<br /><br />Your blog piece would make more sense if you replaced <b>"Sanders"</b> with <b>"all politicians"</b> (<i>mutatis mutandis</i>). Instead, you seem to focus on Sanders. Why?Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521391745343783288noreply@blogger.com