|
I had a discussion with a three of my friends (we're all econ majors), J is just as cynical about human nature as I am, while K and C are two of those sheltered-and-wrapped-in-their-hardened-shield type of girls that cry every time a puppy dies. We argued about the economic conditions in third-world countries, the fucked up industries that continue to thrive (TL's thread on Nigerian "Baby Factorie"), and what people are and could do about the matter.
Long story short, J and I made some harsh yet true arguments, while K and C made some terrible counter arguments because they're blinded by their big and warm hearts. Then J presented an enlightening counter argument that shut those bitches up for good:
Imagine for a second that everyone in industrialized nations, with tons of disposable income to spare, all had an application on their cellphones that's simplistic yet effective: the application is always "live" (through wifi, 3G, whatever), and presents simple yes/no questions with two yes/no buttons to vote on the issue.
Then one day, all the leaders of industrialized nations gathered together and holds a "world referendum". Here's a question that's presented to EVERYONE in the world who could afford at least a cellphone (with the aforementioned application installed, of course):
We are going to introduce a "humane tax" that is aimed at balancing all the economies in the world. This tax [varies per individual] will be pooled, and distributed to other countries such that the GDP per capita/after-tax disposable income/etc. of everyone on the planet becomes the same in 2 years. Would you allow this tax to come into effect?
For reference: world GDP per capita sits are around $8500 USD while GPD per capita of industrialized nations sits around ~$40000 USD ($47000 for the U.S.). That would mean the average TL user would have to give up almost 80% after the tax is introduced.
Poll: Would would your vote be? (yes for the tax, no against)No (23) 82% Yes (5) 18% 28 total votes Your vote: Would would your vote be? (yes for the tax, no against) (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Poll: What percentage of the votes would be yes?0-10% (13) 62% 11-20% (4) 19% 51-60% (2) 10% 21-30% (1) 5% 61-70% (1) 5% 31-40% (0) 0% 41-50% (0) 0% 71-80% (0) 0% 81-90% (0) 0% 91-100% (0) 0% 21 total votes Your vote: What percentage of the votes would be yes? (Vote): 0-10%
(Vote): 11-20%
(Vote): 21-30%
(Vote): 31-40%
(Vote): 41-50%
(Vote): 51-60%
(Vote): 61-70%
(Vote): 71-80%
(Vote): 81-90%
(Vote): 91-100%
 
|
Your mathematics don't seem to account for the relative populations of poor vs rich countries.
|
everyone in industrialized nations, with tons of disposable income to spare
Here's a question that's presented to EVERYONE in the world who could afford at least a cellphone
Your hypothetical is a bit confusing. If only people with large amounts of disposable income were to vote then the voting pool would be rather small. Also you're making a generalization in my opinion. There's a difference between "saving the world" and ensuring that income is perfectly distributed. It's entirely possible for us to provide basic necessities of life to the citizens of lesser developed countries and end abhorrent practices such as child and worker exploitation without giving everyone a perfectly equal income.
|
On June 02 2011 18:01 Ravencruiser wrote:
Long story short, J and I made some harsh yet true arguments, while K and C made some terrible counter arguments because they're blinded by their big and warm hearts. Then J presented an enlightening counter argument that shut those bitches up for good:
Not to say that you were wrong or they were right in any fashion, but why try to portray them in such a negative light and use offensive language towards them. Can't you just accept they have a differing viewpoint from you and leave it at that? Ultimately when it comes down to it some people just don't want to believe what others say no matter what, if that is the case then just leave it be and accept that they see things differently to you due to any number of factors that you might not know about. I'm in no way suggesting don't "argue" with them (i mean i really enjoy a good argument with some of my friends).
As for your actual question, no i don't think that any significant amount of people would vote yes. What you're essentially proposing here is world wide communism (don't get me wrong communism isn't a bad idea in theory) which would be at the expense of the people voting. i.e the ones voting would be the ones impacted in a negative way. This isn't the right way in my opinion to go about trying to solve world poverty, even if the vote was to go through simply having money won't necessarily bring the standard of living in a third world countries up to that of first world. There are many reasons why third world countries are as they are, such as governmental problems or the infrastructure of the country is lacking, etc. Simply injecting a whole pile of money into the people who live there won't necessarily fix these issues.
|
On June 02 2011 18:26 chaokel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 18:01 Ravencruiser wrote:
Long story short, J and I made some harsh yet true arguments, while K and C made some terrible counter arguments because they're blinded by their big and warm hearts. Then J presented an enlightening counter argument that shut those bitches up for good:
As for your actual question, no i don't think that any significant amount of people would vote yes. What you're essentially proposing here is world wide communism (don't get me wrong communism isn't a bad idea in theory) which would be at the expense of the people voting. i.e the ones voting would be the ones impacted in a negative way.
Exactly, the argument was about the desire of humans to help each other. the scenario is extreme and quite flawed, but the idea is still there.
I guess the better question to ask would be, would you give up 1/3 of your disposable income to help those in 3rd world countries? Or would you prefer to maintain your quality of life at the expense of the suffering of others?
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On June 02 2011 19:13 Ravencruiser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 18:26 chaokel wrote:On June 02 2011 18:01 Ravencruiser wrote:
Long story short, J and I made some harsh yet true arguments, while K and C made some terrible counter arguments because they're blinded by their big and warm hearts. Then J presented an enlightening counter argument that shut those bitches up for good:
As for your actual question, no i don't think that any significant amount of people would vote yes. What you're essentially proposing here is world wide communism (don't get me wrong communism isn't a bad idea in theory) which would be at the expense of the people voting. i.e the ones voting would be the ones impacted in a negative way. Exactly, the argument was about the desire of humans to help each other. the scenario is extreme and quite flawed, but the idea is still there. I guess the better question to ask would be, would you give up 1/3 of your disposable income to help those in 3rd world countries? Or would you prefer to maintain your quality of life at the expense of the suffering of others?
Thats a very suggestive way of putting it, we don't even know where and how the money is used, and seeing as corruption can be kind of a bitch a large portion of the money will be lost.
|
lets say the only food is bananas
bananas cost $1 per pound in America and 10 cents per pound in Columbia lets say because of labor costs, opportunity costs, etc.. Everybody has lets say $8k. people in america get 8k bananas and people in columbia get 80k bananas. Real income equality.
this isn't saving the world, this is just going to cause conflict
not to mention this is a very charged question, "are you willing to sustain your lifestyle at the expense of others"
this isn't the imperialist era, sure people are still not as well off as they are in other places but i highly doubt me quitting my job and not spending any money is going to make people more well off in some far off land. If anything because I'm not buying stuff anymore the companies that hire people in far away lands will lose business, etc. etc.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
don't really see this as an argument. in particular, assumption of voluntary taxation is silly.
|
5003 Posts
We are going to introduce a "humane tax" that is aimed at balancing all the economies in the world. This tax [varies per individual] will be pooled, and distributed to other countries such that the GDP per capita/after-tax disposable income/etc. of everyone on the planet becomes the same in 2 years. Would you allow this tax to come into effect?
So basically you want communism for countries.
No thank you.
|
The only way we'll ever "save the world" is if we have world leaders who genuinely care about the worst off people in their countries and in the world.
Basically, I would suggest that the majority of politicians, if given the choice between keeping their own standard of living or lowering their standard of living to raise someone else's then they would choose to keep their own, and I think that would apply to the majority of developed countries voting populations as well. It's this mindset which needs to be changed if we're to make any difference towards having an equal world society. Unfortunately it's in human nature to be selfish, and most politics descends into bruised ego's and grabbing for cash. So a vote like what you are suggesting will never even get off the ground, let alone be passed.
|
Just as it's easy for politicians to start wars because they don't have to fight in them, It's also easy for people to vote yes on a poll on an online forum without losing their internet access, homes, and quality of food.
|
On June 02 2011 19:13 Ravencruiser wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 18:26 chaokel wrote:On June 02 2011 18:01 Ravencruiser wrote:
Long story short, J and I made some harsh yet true arguments, while K and C made some terrible counter arguments because they're blinded by their big and warm hearts. Then J presented an enlightening counter argument that shut those bitches up for good:
As for your actual question, no i don't think that any significant amount of people would vote yes. What you're essentially proposing here is world wide communism (don't get me wrong communism isn't a bad idea in theory) which would be at the expense of the people voting. i.e the ones voting would be the ones impacted in a negative way. Exactly, the argument was about the desire of humans to help each other. the scenario is extreme and quite flawed, but the idea is still there. I guess the better question to ask would be, would you give up 1/3 of your disposable income to help those in 3rd world countries? Or would you prefer to maintain your quality of life at the expense of the suffering of others?
Theres a difference between a desire to help others and having to give up what you perceive as your own. The desire can still be there without wanting to just abandon the majority of your lifestyle, and one can still help without doing so. Look to all the charitable organisations, most of these are setup and maintained by people in first world countries, does that mean that all of those people now own 80% less things than when they first started? No, does that mean they haven't made a difference? Absolutely not.
I just think the way you're approaching the solution is flawed, you're trying to make it into a Win/Lose situation. "Well if you don't do this, then obviously this won't ever change." In my eyes that's just not true, or even a reasonable way to approach the situation. You should be asking something more like, "Well how can i do the things i like as well as fix this problem?"
Thats just my view on it, feel free to debate it.
|
no, throwing money at poor countries has never worked before, and it will not work now.
If you are interested in 'saving the world', lifting poor countries from poverty, improving the standard of living, basically international development, you should read william easterly's the elusive quest for growth.
most people don't know why humanitarian efforts and aid don't work. hell, even many of my fellow international relations majors have no idea. they think they know, and they come up with all sorts of great plans to try and stimulate growth in poor countries, raise gdp per capita levels, improve health and sanitation, work around government corruption, etc etc etc.
and none of it will ever work in real life. because lifting a country out of poverty takes a LOT, and unfortunately, luck and other uncontrollable circumstances are a necessary part of it. easterly starts off by analyzing what the international community has been doing for the past few decades and how and why most of that has failed. he then discusses all the different factors that go into whether a poor country will develop or not. and then finally, what are possible solutions for integrating all of this.
|
This is pure unbridled communism. Fascism is the only policy proven to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
