The article is a bit over dramatic but it's applicable not necessarily to the OP but to other comments made here.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news...654067790.html
Printable View
The article is a bit over dramatic but it's applicable not necessarily to the OP but to other comments made here.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news...654067790.html
That is part of the Mormon faith, too. They are supposed to keep X number of weeks of food on hand at all times. I'm not sure what X is, though, and it may be up to the whim of the individual.
Something not directly related to the above:Quote:
Originally Posted by brad jones
A few years back, I had the impression of a truly democratic, developed, free society when I thought of the US. Today the view has become much more realistic, as I have observed the events of the past. So I am not surprised today when I see the once-idolized nation having problems or crises that would not have come in my dreams. It's only because today I am not as ignorant as I was a few years back, or today I have access to sources of knowledge that I didn't have a few years back.
Similarly when you express shock at the poor and starving population of the world, is it more for the revelation? I guess the world has never been fully fed anytime in its history, and the population of the poor hasn't suddenly taken a massive jump.
This is not to undermine the intent of your post. Just a side-thought.
.
When did you travel to India/Pakistan, in your last birth? I don't know about Pakistan, but India has changed a lot since independence about its caste and religion system. We have already had a woman prime minister as well as a woman president, a number of muslim presidents, a president from a backward caste. Compare that with any other democracy and let me know which other democracy has shown such diversity in the position of the head of the state. And these are just the heads of state. People from various castes, tribes and religions have been holding various offices throughout the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurfDemon
Corruption? Which country is free from corruption? Just the other day I read on BBC News that the US administration spent close to US$ 8 billion in Iraq without as much as a written receipt or any documents of goods/services received against the money.
Enough ranting. Coming back to the point if it's going to help or not, or if you are willing to help or not. For whatever reason we cite for helping or not helping, I simply ask: Do you really wish to make a difference? The answer can be Yes or can be No. When we just give excuses like there is a corrupt government in Nigeria or other reasons why we wouldn't like to help, it simply means that our commitment is not strong enough. Mind you, I am including myself in the lot too. Where there is a will, there is a way. To just give two examples from India itself, you have Mother Theresa and you have Baba Amte (he created a whole new colony for lepers and worked with them to make them self-sufficient). These individuals didn't get the best of circumstances. But they braved everything. And you can find similar examples in each place.
.
I don't know that shock is what I expressed. Rather, I thought it a topic worth discussing in chit chat.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
Ok then my reading of it was probably not correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by brad jones
You shook the system in your first post. Did anything fall down from it? Did you find out what's broken?
.
Shaking the System is a book and a theme that has come up in circles I hang with.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
As to answering your question - yes, I found out some information on where things are broken in the world. Take a look at some of the responses in this thread and you'll either think it is obvious where some things are broken, or you won't :)
Brad!
And what makes you so sure the remarks are incorrect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer
Corn prices are rising in the US, and as a result the food items using corn as an ingredient are bound to rise. The fuel prices have risen and this will push up every other commodity in the market that is transported or produced by burning fuel. You cannot have a scientific formula to calculate these impacts, you can often not see a direct relationship between two entities immediately, but over a period of time you may be able to make the connection.
When bio-fuels were invented, everyone joined the bandwagon with their numerous advantages over fossil fuels. Did anyone make the connection between a switch to bio-fuel and a shortage of corn? Bio-fuel may have been good for the auto industry, but has it been good to the food industry?
The reasons for any event are not as simple as numbering them 1 and 2.
.
I believe as a mass we are not good at analysing or finding out the cause and effect relationship. This is my personal opinion. Individually, everyone will make guesses about the cause and the effect, depending upon their knowledge, backgrounds, socio-economic environments, current moodswings and so on, and the chances of these findings of being correct are probably as good as me guessing what my CEO's driver ate yesterday night.Quote:
Originally Posted by brad jones
What we might be able to do is collect a set of probable reasons which collectively influence a particular outcome. However, as I said in my earlier post, it's often hasty to conclude just one or two reasons exist for a particular situation.
.
No argument here - I would agree that there are a multitude of variables leading to current conditions. I also, however, believe that one person can have an impact ("butterfly effect").
Brad!
And what about the fertility of the soil? As [Tom Sawyer] observed above, we are exhausing the fertility of the soil by pumping it with chemical fertilizers, modern harvesting techniques and what not. You may not realize the gravity of the situation when you own a thousand acres of land, but when you own about 2 acres and grow crops on it to see your family through the year, you realize the importance to ensure those two acres will remain fertile year after year.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
Also the habitable land on the planet is limited, no matter what you do. The wise choice today is to ensure your habitat survived with you and not the other way round.
.
Whose greed? And who encouraged it?Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
Today the Pepsi and Cola factories are busy pumping out the ground water to feed their bottling plants, selling tasteless chemicals to people at exhorbitant prices. Ground water levels have gone down and people are unable to get drinking water. Is it not a gift from the developed countries to the world?
.
You are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by brad jones
.
I was just in Pakistan in January. The caste system is very noticable to me, maybe you've become immune.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
As for India, last year I was working with two computer science graduates from India (same course). One was very good, came from a lower caste and had obviously worked hard for his degree - the other could hardly turn on the computer, but had apparently been awarded his degree because he was from a very wealthy caste (I gotta believe this given his stunning inability to operate the computer).
This information came from the owner of the company who was also of higher caste. He pretty much said that he was just giving him a job, and to assign the work between them and let the lower caste guy do it all.....
True, corruption exists in all governments, but in Pakistan it's been taken to a whole new level. I've never considered bribing an immigration official in Canada/US/UK etc. , it's very common in Pakistan, we feel like right idiots standing in line with our $300 work visas while people walk past, up the guards and blatently hand over $100 to walk through immigration with no questions asked.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
If I want to bring equipment into Canada/US/UK I go through the proper channels, pay my taxes and we're good. In Pakistan we have to pay bribes to the customs officials to let us take our equipment into the country... equipment that we will use to keep the lights on I might add, and keep people employed..... what happens if we don't pay the bribes? Well our equipment gets confiscated..... and if we want someone to sort it out, then we have to bribe them with even more money.....
So lets look at all this. The tax money that should go to the government never gets collected, but nobody cares because "everyone is on the take" or "it's the way business is done" or some other justification.
Of course, the officials taking the bribes never declare them as income, so they don't get taxed on them..... the country is never going to be wealthy at this rate. If the country doesn't have any spare cash, then there can be no social wellfare or support mechanisms, and once again people fall through the cracks (or in Pakistans case, gaping holes)
I can't comment about Pakistan as I have never been there nor heard any authentic tales, but I can imagine what you must have gone through.
Re the software techies, I don't believe it's a generalization that people of higher caste are given a job just for the name's sake and people of lower castes do all the work. It may be the attitude of the particular owner in question. My own boss is from a lower caste than myself, but I never think of his caste, only his abilities.
Back in my schooldays, I have shared a bench with kids of lower castes and also of lower economic status, we have had teachers from lower castes teaching us (remember this is approx 20 years ago). And neither teachers nor students ever cared about the race or caste of each others.
I personally consider it abnormal that I should be finger-printed and generally treated like a criminal-until-proven-innocent strategy adopted by the US immigration department. This is not to counter your argument on bribing the officials, but just an example of a reality that I wouldn't even imagine in my dreams.
What you are saying about the lost revenues and resulting circle of poverty is correct. However it's also the choice of the people involved. As I mentioned earlier and also Brad did, even a single person can make a difference, provided he/she/it wants to. There may be honest officials within even the Pakistani government who are trying to work for their government or people, and not themselves.
Justifications (rather lame excuses) exist even on the state level, not just on individual level.
(PS: I wonder why India has progressed and Pakistan hasn't. Among the multitude of factors, I think we must also count the individual will. The leadership of India has had quite a few visionaries who did some thinking ahead and ensured the country generally stayed on the progress path. On the other hand Pakistan has been in turmoil almost ever since independence.)
.
If you have access to the New York Times, here is an interesting article that continues this discussion and brings the topic to the United States....
Study Shows Colorado Has Largest Rise in Child Poverty
By DAN FROSCH
The study said that the most recent census data show that
180,000 children -- 15.7 percent of the state total -- were
living in poverty in Colorado in 2006, a 73 percent
increase since 2000.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/us...html?th&emc=th
What is the criteria for being classes as "living in poverty". Is it an income level? Savings? and if so what is it? or is it Income-debts?Quote:
Originally Posted by brad jones
The reason I ask is that it's very difficult to judge relative wealth/poverty even within one state. I might be earning $10,000 a year, but have my house paid off, no debt and a well stocked garden. As an extension, I might run a farm, with plenty of food, millions of dollars of equipment, but for tax purposes my income is minimal. On the other end of the scale, I might earn $100,000 a year, but be struggling to pay off my $700,000 mortgage, my two vehicles and feed my coke habit..... so my children end up going without...
I'm not arguing that there aren't a lot of poor people in Colorado, I'm just curious as to how they are measuring it.
Of course, as we look overseas the difference becomes even more complex. Looking around at Canada, nobody starves to death, and (with the noteable exception of the homeless), people who we would generally consider poor (by western standards) have way more than many wealthy people in other countries (a house, ten year old car in the driveway, a wide selection of food on the table, furniture from Walmart, healthcare, education, security).
So, I'm not sure that poverty is the true definition of the worlds problems. It is a lack of the basics - access to healthy food, shelter, healthcare and personal security (non-violent society) would be the things I would look at.
That criteria is all over the place - and in political and economic times like we have now I'm leary attach myself to the definitions and descriptions being put forth...
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line
I have often asked myself this question. It's a fairly unique situation, two neighbouring nations coming from the same situation, both starting out within a day of each other, and one going up and the other going down. The Pakistani's are quite open in their belief that each leader they have had since independence has been progressively more corrupt than the last. What started out as a dream has declined into a nightmare.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
India has re-invested in it's infrastructure and it's education system. None of that is/has happened in Pakistan, with many of the nicer buildings and roads actually being legacies of the colonial days, and little improvement done since then. Of course, there are exceptions, but it is very noticable.
I think though India and Pakistan are neighbouring nations and were born just a day apart, the similarity would probably end there. The geographical, topographical and demographical diversity found in India may not exist in Pakistan.
Going back to brad's post, we may not be able to define a generalized rule of thumb to determine who falls below the poverty line and who doesn't. But we could always use the individual yardsticks used by each state/community. I don't think the parameters for defining the poverty line have anywhere changed drastically, no matter which country you talk about.
An observation or more an opinion from what I have been reading of the economic crisis in the US: Do you think the past few years (or decades maybe) the governments have been gradually pushing people to spend more instead of saving? It would be an impact of all the fiscal policies together, but I believe there has been a noticeable shift over the years from encouraging people to save to encouraging them to spend. One common reason cited for this is if people spend, only then the economy progresses. I believe this ultimately will make the people lose. Because when the economy prospers, it most likely divides its benefits unequally.
.
Gradually pushing? Didn't Bush encourage people to go shopping after 9/11?
That is totally unfair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
NYC was devastated psychologically from 9/11.
It is a city of shopping, eating, partying, Broadway shows - it all stopped on 9/11. The morale of the people needed to be pushed back into play.
I'm still not over the loss of the twin towers - I drove by them today - saw lady liberty out on the water - but only the Empire State bldg stood out in the city scape as I drove up the NJ turnpike (but gas in NJ was $3.89 today - beats the $4.49 I'm paying in CT!).
Yep, I would not count that towards what I meant as a policy shift. To elaborate, the dwindling interest on savings, the increasing amount of income taxes, availability of cheaper and cheaper credit: Aren't all these pushing up the habit of spending rather than saving?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
.
Our US government doesn't create policies or shift policies that change habits of consumers in the ways you have described - we don't get official gvmt documents telling us to spend or do this or do that. I cannot imagine where you get this idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by honeybee
The Federal Reserve board controls the interest rate that it loans large blocks of money to major banks. This allows the banks to lower or raise consumer interest rates.
But they do that to help manage inflation and other aspects of our economy.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqei.htm
Right now they should raise interest rates to bring back foreign investment (that left as interest rates fell). Bringing back foreign investment would increase the value of our dollar against other currencies. This is something we drastically need right now - as oil is traded in US $$'s (means low dollar value translates into "more dollars" to buy that barrel of oil). Our low exchange rate means our exports cost less - but all our imports cost more.
But the Fed is stuck - since we are in a moment of high inflation - inflation = products cost more for us then our income increases can attain - a rise in interest rates would hurt the consumer badly (potentially a recession - has it been three months in a row yet?).
US consumer spending accounts for 70% of our gross-domestic product. We are also becoming a "service-based economy". All we do is buy services - buy fast food - have lawn boys cut our grass - domestic people to clean our houses. Back in the 70's we bought products - now we buy services. Back in the 70's we made our own products that we bought!
Our ecomony is a lot more complex then some four year administration in the White House can really effect. I would venture to say that Bush has had absolutely no effect on my personal ecomony - certainly not my pocket-book.
We've also had some truly bad trade policies enacted by our law makers. And that all happened with the prior administration...
This link gives some good info
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...mzI&refer=home
The govt sent out these silly "tax rebate checks" - really just giving back to consumers a bit of the taxes they pre-paid (but they will pay that back come tax season). They were hoping to jump-start some buying - which increases production - which increases income
But...
Quote:
Rebate Checks
The extra money may not bring much relief. Households will spend about $90 billion more this year on gasoline if fuel prices remain at current levels, according to a forecast by economists at Credit Suisse Holdings in New York. That will consume about 80 percent of the more than $110 billion in rebate checks being sent.
At the risk of wandering off topic, I would argue that the reason there is little foreign investment is a direct impact of having Bush in power. We (a Canadian company) used to purchase lots of US gas turbines for many countries around the world (and quote in US dollars). Now, about 90% of requests specify European or Canadian engines. This can be put down to a very simple reason (usually).Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Europeans/Middle Easterners don't want to travel to the states and be treated like criminals (at airports) when they come to view the manufacturing plants. It's a simple thing, but suprisingly important to a businessman. So he meets us in Canada or the UK and there is no problem.... We had one of the head honcho's of EDF (look them up, they're a pretty big organisation - their Q1 sales for 2008 where 18.3 billion Euro) detained in US immigration for about 4-5 hours (he is of Middle Eastern extraction), he was let go out of the airport at about 8pm - he had a 4 hour drive ahead of him for a 7am meeting the following day. Now, you can see his point when he says he never wants to go back to the States if he can help it.
Given that these engines are $10 million a pop, and most customers are buying 2 or 3, this alone represents a fair amount of foreign investment that just isn't going to the US.
We are one small company, how many others have similar tales.... and now the US wants 72 hours before foreigners can fly to the states. Many of our deal meetings are set up 24 to 48 hours before travelling (sometimes even less - I was on a plane to Trinidad within 12 hours of getting the call). Honestly, it looks like your government is actively trying to discourage foreign investment.
Oh - and then there's the whole middle eastern countries not wanting to give the US money so they can buy more weapons and bomb the daylights out of their neighbours.... :ehh:
You have a different perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I live on the far side of the country. Out here, I have never before heard anybody suggest that Bush was trying to boost NY morale, though your explanation certainly makes sense. Instead, that statement has always been discussed in the context of boosting the sagging economy by "spending our way out of it".
I have no idea which is right, but I have heard the statement discussed dozens, if not hundreds, of times, and yours is the first time I have seen it being given a positive interpretation rather than a cynical consumer one. I have no idea which is right, but I think it is fairly safe to say that my interpretation is the more common one in the bulk of the country.
I guess you are pretty ok with your knowledge of economics, but if you think your government does not influence anything and everything that goes on in the Fed Reserve, you will fail a politics paper for sure. Though Greenspan or Bernanke may be the people announcing the policies, they have been appointed by the government and have to seek prior approval to whatever they plan/announce/implement.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
On SD's views, I can echo the same feeling. My cousin sister who married and is now in Germany, recently went on a Europe tour and she too reports that the people from Asian countries (or those who look like they are Asian) are discriminated against. She went through all immigration/security checks without a hitch as she passed off as a Latino, but her sister-in-law was made to open her baggage and was thoroughly checked every time because she definitely looked Asian.
.
My "ecomony" - what I've got in my pocket and what my life costs is more in the hands of my senator's and rep's. They fight to get another contract for Sikorsky - who has a bigger impact on our local econony then the Fed setting interest rates up or down 1/2 point. They employee thousands in our area.
I always get the feeling that those who don't live in the US judge us as a whole. Some mid-west crop producing state doesn't have the same formula as a highly populated corporate state. Those mid-west states are hoping for their senator's and rep's to fight for breaks on their bottomline. And there are 50 variations on each of these themes.
Bush has had 0 impact on what I spend - how I do or don't save. The path I've been stuck on has been on auto-pilot for 30 years. If some president wanted to be visionary they should have fixed our energy dependence in the 1970's. But instead they get 4 or 8 years in office and the world thinks we actually start following a different "lead". Half the laws congress and the president can agree on are worthless - and the other half barely make a difference.
Al Gore is now backing Obama and Obama's praising him as the ecological idea man to follow. He was in the white house 10 years ago - why didn't he start thinking about our economy in relation to oil/ethanol/world food consumption? Because they really just don't care...
That's true! We in Idaho, for instance, are just hoping our senator will leave our bottom line alone, though he takes a wide stance on the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Bush didn't directly impact the economy, nor has any president. However, they have all had impacts on the economy. Starting a war that has sucked up a huge amount of cash will impact the economy, though depending on the war, the impact can be positive or negative in the long run. However, if you look far enough down the road, we all impact the economy thoroughly. It may take years for the economy as a whole to reflect the impact of an individual, yet chaos theory states that the impact must be there.
On the other hand, we have just been receiving that economic stimulus check. Most economists I have heard have suggested that the check has boosted something, they just can't seem to agree on what. Wal-Mart was cashing the checks for free, and it appears to have boosted their sales during the time the checks came out. Was it the checks? Maybe, but Wal-Mart sells lots of imported goods, so who got the money in the end? If they sell more, they ship more, so warehouse and shippers gain more...or not, if they are paid the same regardless of whether they move five trucks or twenty. The stimulus had an impact. The remaining question is where it had an impact, and how big was it?
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Too bad our foreign friends probably don't get that joke...
szlamany probably will. I really should lay off our senator, there isn't anything new in that story. He was involved in that congressional page scandal back in the 80's, and stories have just kept bubbling up for all the years inbetween, but there are so many parts of that toe tapping story that are ripe for comedy that it's hard to pass up.
From wiki
I think he just wanted to say "naughty boy" :DQuote:
In 1999, Craig became sharply critical of U.S. President Bill Clinton for the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Speaking on NBC's Meet The Press, Craig told Tim Russert: "The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy - a naughty boy. I’m going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.”
Interesting, the careers of every person mentioned in that article are over.
Well, if you were to ask the honest opinion of any sane person around, they would echo your feelings: it's best if the politicians played their own dirty games in their backyards and left the public at large alone. But sadly it's the public out of whom the politicians earn their bread and butter (or cakes and wine?).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
.