decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (01/31/84)
From charm!tpkq:
Yes, children can quickly produce more wealth than it takes to keep
them alive. This is also true of adults, despite the low level of
technology in the "Third World." The problem is that the bulk of
this surplus wealth ends up in the pockets of capitalists in the "First
World."
Indeed, the fact that a person can produce more than is necessary to keep
him alive is what makes the "Third World" so interesting to capitalists,
why they are so concerned with rescuing these countries from the "communist
menace."
------------------------------------------
Dave Decot's (my) reply to this and to jj's reply (indented below):
The situations in different third world countries is different, so it would
be more communicative for both of you to be more specific in your statements.
Generalizations necessarily cause over-simplification. Also, wealth is
not made or produced, it is obtained in varying amounts by persons who want
it. The labor of poor people of underdeveloped countries is easy to take
advantage of, and it is in this respect that their wealth is attractive to
SOME Western countries, and also to SOME other countries. People who make
more than they need to stay alive can be exploited if they are not wise to the
methods of land speculators.
Most of jj's response is a sarcastic demand for proof of a claim that he
has created and attributed to Timothy. I originally thought that perhaps jj
had accidentally misread Timothy's assertion, but it soon became clear that
he had intentionally changed it.
It is clear that Timothy refers to the BULK of the wealth produced
NOT ONLY by children (he never said "babies", of any age) but also
by adults, too. JJ removes (without noting the deletion) the words
"the bulk" so that he attributes Timothy with the rash
...assertion that *all* the wealth made by a two year old baby (yes,
that's the relevant age in this discussion, damnit!) is stolen by us
big, bad westerners. [emphasis Decot's]
Also, nobody said that it was "us big, bad westerners"; this term is a
distortion of "capitalists in the 'First World'." Not every westerner
is a capitalist, nor is every capitalist big or bad. JJ uses generalization
to put words into Timothy's keyboard. The term 'First World' is again not
specific, but this is no license to invent the most convenient meaning.
"Damnit" adds nothing to the argument but hostility.
Oh Joy! How do we DO that? With a TIME machine??? Would you care to
elaborate? No?? Didn't think so.
OK. Prove it, Timothy. You've been telling us all how bad we are for the
last year. You've never *once* made a constructive suggestion. You don't
like anything, and you make it clear that you expect everyone else to have
the same nihilistic philosophy.
I am sure that Timothy would indeed care to elaborate, but JJ again answers
for him. Sarcasm is not constructive, yet jj implores Timothy to be so.
I don't think Timothy has been telling anyone how bad they are for the
past year, unless it has been via private correspondance which jj does not
mention. He certainly hasn't been telling "us all". Who is us? This usage
is an attempt to ally the readers with jj against Timothy. I have seen in
other articles that Timothy *does* like things. I see no reference to
anyone else's philosophy, nihilistic or otherwise.
Spill it. What DO you like. Can you even explain it. Do you know what
you like? ENOUGH! You complain about hate, even as you spread it.
ENOUGH what? Enough interrogation without allowing responses?
My constructive suggestion: Be fair and honest with uneducated people and they
will have no reason to shoot at you. Developing countries can help learn to
help themselves, and once developed are an asset to the world at large.
Dave Decot Teddy bears are not people, but are treated better.
decvax!cwruecmp!decot (Decot.Case@rand-relay)