janw@inmet.UUCP (09/19/85)
> Note that Jan has quoted me out of context. The sentence following the above > was essentially "The distribution of wealth is what determines whether > the poor eat." Mike Huybenz has just accused me of QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT !! To the rest of you this may be vieux jeu, but I really took it to heart; so I made an experiment to test it. Mike feels I should have quoted TWO sentences of his, where I quoted ONE. So, I looked through my article to check - what would have to change, had that second sentence been there ? You won't believe it, but there WAS a change. Right at the beginning! Where I say "Omit the "not" to get a fact", I would now have to say "Omit the "not" IN MIKE'S FIRST SENTENCE to get a fact". Because, you see, his SECOND sentence does not CONTAIN a "not" ! To make IT yield a fact, you'd have to ADD a "not", and only at the appropriate place ... Otherwise, my article answers his amplified quote even BETTER than its short version. You see, his first sentence says wealth of a nation does not feed its poor. His second sentence adds the distribution of wealth is what determines whether the poor eat (his own paraphrase). And *my* whole argument is (quote) "the problem of poverty hinges on wealth creation, NOT on its DISTRIBUTION". So much for misquotation. But see for yourself, below. The quote now is in the form Mike favors. My text stands. ............................................................................ > [Mike Huybenz] > The fact is that the wealth of a nation does not feed the poor. It is the > distribution of the wealth that does. Omit the "not" to get a fact [in Mike's 1st sentence; and add "not" after "is" in the 2nd sentence]. In the USA, one can eat like a king off a garbage dump. One hour's work at McDonald's could feed a 3d world citizen for a week. To prove his point, Mike would have to name a rich nation whose poor are *poor* not by THAT country's standards, but *by poor country standards*. There's no such place. The poor of any nation know they profit by its wealth. Proof: they seldom or never migrate to poorer countries, at least for economic reasons. If "distribution of wealth" mattered more to the poor popula- tions than its abundance in society, you would observe them flocking from wealthier countries to poorer but more welfare- oriented countries - e.g., from Hongkong to PRC. Or from USA to Great Britain. All economic migrations go the other way. Even inside a poor country, refugees from a famine area know that reaching a prosperous province means life. Try telling *them* trickle-down does not work. The problem of poverty hinges on wealth creation, NOT on its distribution. To verify this, list nations, first in the order of per capita GNP; then according to *per capita consumption of pro- tein*. This is a nice indicator because it tells you how the great mass of citizens live. The rich can only eat so much pro- tein, so they cannot distort the picture. I haven't done it be- cause I have no doubt of the result. Distribution takes care of itself, one way or another. Jan Wasilewsky
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/19/85)
>>> , > = [Mike Huybenz] >>> The fact is that the wealth of a nation does not feed the poor. It is the >>> distribution of the wealth that does. >> To prove his point, Mike would have to name a rich nation whose >> poor are *poor* not by THAT nation's standards, but *by poor >> nation standards*. There's no such place. > What a non-sequiteur. All I need to demonstrate my complete point, is to > name a nation that has sufficient wealth to feed more of its citizens > than are fed, but doesn't feed them. Non-sequiteur?? Oh, you mean non-sequitur? You mean it does not follow ?! O.K., let us go through the logical steps. Factor A can be said not to feed person B if person B would eat as well in the absence of A (other things being equal) as s/he does in its presence. Let A be the wealth of a nation, B - its poor people. We AGREE they are only poor by their nation's standards, but not by a poor nation's standards (that is the hypothesis from which you say the conclusion does not follow). In the absence of A, the nation would be poor. Its poor people would then be poor by poor nation standards. Are these standards lower ? They are. Poor people would eat less, or worse, in the absence of their nation's wealth. Ergo, the wealth of a nation does feed the poor. Q. E. D. This takes care of the logical argument. What is proved is that nutrition of the poor CAN be improved solely through wealth creation, with no change in distribution. In itself, it does not exclude the possibility that it can be improved as much by a different distribution system, with no creation of new wealth. This is the *factual* point I was making - and, I believe, have made - in the original posting: that, with all the diversity of distribution systems and national income levels present on the globe today, nutrition of the masses is essentially the function of only ONE of these factors - namely the wealth of a nation. Basically, this is the trickle-down theory, and facts confirm it. Let me hazard a guess, Mike, about what you really mean. Not to put words in your mouth - it is an honest guess, intended to salvage something out of what seems, on the face of it, a clear logical and factual fallacy. To me, you seem to mean that wealth of a nation, though it does feed the poor, does not always feed them *as it should*. If so, that makes your assertion neither factual nor logical, but normative, i.e. ethical (because of the presence of that word "should"). No use discussing it, though, unless you actually make it. Jan Wasilewsky
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/20/85)
In article <28200081@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > > [Mike Huybenz] > > The fact is that the wealth of a nation does not feed the poor. It is the > > distribution of the wealth that does. > > Omit the "not" to get a fact [in Mike's 1st sentence; and add "not" > after "is" in the 2nd sentence]. In the USA, one can eat like a > king off a garbage dump. One hour's work at McDonald's could feed > a 3d world citizen for a week. A perfect example of my point. There aren't garbage dumps overflowing with food everywhere people are hungry. There weren't when there was major malnutrition in Appalachia, and there isn't in the back country of Ethiopia. In both cases, wealth is not the problem: its distribution is. > To prove his point, Mike would have to name a rich nation whose > poor are *poor* not by THAT country's standards, but *by poor > country standards*. There's no such place. To prove my point I need only name a nation that can feed its poor who cannot afford to eat well. > The poor of any nation know they profit by its wealth. Proof: > they seldom or never migrate to poorer countries, at least for > economic reasons. They HOPE to profit. The fact is that they often remain poor and starving in other countries as well. > If "distribution of wealth" mattered more to the poor popula- > tions than its abundance in society, you would observe them > flocking from wealthier countries to poorer but more welfare- > oriented countries - e.g., from Hongkong to PRC. Or from USA > to Great Britain. All economic migrations go the other way. What about the settlement of the USA? For centuries poor from GB and other wealthier nations came here: for free land. There was unused land available in those nations, but it tended to be tied up in large private estates because of the poor distribution of wealth. There are similar migrations today, from nations where a few large land owners own most of the commercially and agriculturally productive land. > Even inside a poor country, refugees from a famine area know > that reaching a prosperous province means life. Try telling > *them* trickle-down does not work. Try telling the starving in Ethiopia that the government is trickling down the food for them sent by us, and not pilfering, reselling, and otherwise keeping it out of their hands. I hope they eat you. :-( > The problem of poverty hinges on wealth creation, NOT on its > distribution. To verify this, list nations, first in the order of > per capita GNP; then according to *per capita consumption of pro- > tein*. This is a nice indicator because it tells you how the > great mass of citizens live. The rich can only eat so much pro- > tein, so they cannot distort the picture. I haven't done it be- > cause I have no doubt of the result. Distribution takes care of > itself, one way or another. Distribution may take care of itself if there is enough wealth, but only if the powerful and wealthy are willing to allow it or subsidize it. There are too many examples of export of food from famine areas by force of arms or force of market. The poor in a subsistance economy cannot outbid the rich for foodstuffs, even if the rich wish to feed it to pigs. Wealth creation too is dependent upon distribution of wealth. Small private farms tend to be much more productive than large communal farms or large estates (depending on the agricultural conditions), and thus are the goal of many types of land reform. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh