[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2014-January-25, 11:34, said:

It seems this article supports my earlier claim that odd or even bad decision-making is a property of humankind regardless of economic status:

You get no argument from me on this, and I definitely include myself..

Winstonm, on 2014-January-25, 11:34, said:

Agreed, but it is deeper than even that. One must also take into account the meaning of the usage within the data:

The article has many intersting bits. If I cherry-pick to find agreement with my views I find:

Quote

But it's a lot more complicated, and controversial, than it at first appears.

and

Quote

It's a wildly successful PR device that I think has been a failure in terms of achieving the objectives of improving human well-being in the world,

But far more interesting is the discussion of the success:

Quote

But one major reason the number took off and gained a life of its own, was the adoption as the first UN Millennium Development goal to "halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than $1 a day". This high-profile target was agreed by the UN General Assembly and embraced by most of the world's development institutions.

Ten days ago, the World Bank declared the goal had been met early.

It appears that there is some serious discussion going on. I applaud it. As I get it, we could look at two extreme cases. One would be that you go around and give a small amount of money to many people, enough to bring their income up to $1.05/day and then declare the program a great success because you have cut in half the number of people living on less that $1/day. At the other extreme you build in some regional economic growth that, as a natural consequence, brings many people above that threshold and perhaps some of them a good deal above the threshold. Let's hope it is more of the latter than of the former that is going on.

In the meantime, I had no idea that there was enough progress being made that would generate such a discussion and I am pleased to hear it.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2014-January-26, 06:18, said:

You get no argument from me on this, and I definitely include myself..




The article has many intersting bits. If I cherry-pick to find agreement with my views I find:



and




But far more interesting is the discussion of the success:




It appears that there is some serious discussion going on. I applaud it. As I get it, we could look at two extreme cases. One would be that you go around and give a small amount of money to many people, enough to bring their income up to $1.05/day and then declare the program a great success because you have cut in half the number of people living on less that $1/day. At the other extreme you build in some regional economic growth that, as a natural consequence, brings many people above that threshold and perhaps some of them a good deal above the threshold. Let's hope it is more of the latter than of the former that is going on.

In the meantime, I had no idea that there was enough progress being made that would generate such a discussion and I am pleased to hear it.

I hope you understand that I was not being critical as I had no idea either about the meanings of 1 and 2-dollars a day. I was only posting what I found out through investigation.

Although I still don't know how beneficial it is, placing some kind of number assignment to buying power does provide a method to quantify, but how valid those numbers are is still confusing to me.

At the same time, I am pretty certain that someone who earns per day in buying power the equivalent of what $2 would buy in the U.S.A. is broke, regardless of where he lives.

I do find it interesting that during our discussion this was came out in the Huffington Post, quoting an op-ed piece from the Wall Street Journal:

Quote

Venture capitalist Thomas Perkins wrote a letter to the editors at the Wall Street Journal, comparing the plight of the rich to the Holocaust, called "Progressive Kristallnacht Coming?"... and the WSJ published it.

"I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its 'one percent,' namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the 'rich,'" Perkins writes. Thomas Perkins, one of the founders of venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers, was comparing taxes on the super rich to the slaughter of millions in the Holocaust

That has a rather French flair to it, does it not?

[kenberg]

I dunno about French, i don't get that, but the analogy with kristallnacht seems extremely strained. I do think though that the fundamental problem is that many people are very poor rather than that some people are very rich.

There was a piece in the NYT today speculating about success in overcoming poverty here in the USA:
http://www.nytimes.c...h_20140126&_r=0

They speak of a Triple Package: A feeling of superiority coupled with worries of inferiority, all supported by impulse control. I particularly liked learning that
"Thomas Jefferson sent a giant moose carcass to Paris to prove that America's animals were bigger than Europe's"


I don't recognize this Triple Package, at least not fundamentally, in my own gestalt but then again I am neither rich nor famous so perhaps there is something to their explanation.

[Winstonm]

He reminds me of the French aristocracy prior to the revolution.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2014-January-25, 15:20, said:

His argument is taking 1 million immigrants from poor countries into the USA not only does not help poor countries it hurts them because we take the best and brightest and they return nothing or close to nothing to the old country.

He offers no proof.

I think his proof is simply a reference to our immigration laws, and the criteria they have for granting work visas; he didn't go into detail in the talk because he seemed to assume the audience was familiar with them. Most visas are only available for skilled workers. The Statue of Liberty may still have the words "Give us your tired, your poor, etc." but that sentiment is not reflected in our immigration laws these days.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2014-January-27, 01:24, said:

I think his proof is simply a reference to our immigration laws, and the criteria they have for granting work visas; he didn't go into detail in the talk because he seemed to assume the audience was familiar with them. Most visas are only available for skilled workers. The Statue of Liberty may still have the words "Give us your tired, your poor, etc." but that sentiment is not reflected in our immigration laws these days.

This speaks to a long held view of mine. My father came to this country in 1910.That was about 24 years after Miss Liberty, and fifty some years after Minnesota, where i grew up, became a state. New Mexico and Arizona were not yet states, I believe..We had a lot of land and not that many people. My father, age 10, came with his brother, age 16. They became Americans and good citizens. That's what was needed then. Our immigration policy was a "build the country" plan, not a "save the world" plan. Every country has myths and these myths can serve as useful ideals. But we need to keep myths in check. Our immigration policy then was intended to serve the interests of the nation. This is natural and, if done wisely, it is a good thing. Our cities may be overcrowded but the country as a whole is not, and a wise immigration policy, attuned to our needs, will serve us well.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2014-January-27, 01:24, said:

I think his proof is simply a reference to our immigration laws, and the criteria they have for granting work visas; he didn't go into detail in the talk because he seemed to assume the audience was familiar with them. Most visas are only available for skilled workers. The Statue of Liberty may still have the words "Give us your tired, your poor, etc." but that sentiment is not reflected in our immigration laws these days.

Again he offers no proof that they don't help the old country.

But even if we assume they don't..so what.

He seems to desire a Rousseau view of the world.

http://en.wikipedia....acques_Rousseau

He rejects Hobbes philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia....i/Thomas_Hobbes

He advocates not letting them leave the old poor country because it will hurt the old country. That is fascist. That is like saying Ken should not be allowed to leave MD or Winston OK because they must stay and help the state.

It is enough that it may help the individual and it may help the new country.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2014-January-27, 09:40, said:

Again he offers no proof that they don't help the old country.

But even if we assume they don't..so what.

He seems to desire a Rousseau view of the world.

http://en.wikipedia....acques_Rousseau

He rejects Hobbes philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia....i/Thomas_Hobbes

He advocates not letting them leave the old poor country because it will hurt the old country. That is fascist. That is like saying Ken should not be allowed to leave MD or Winston OK because they must stay and help the state.

It is enough that it may help the individual and it may help the new country.

I think you may be misunderstanding the point of the talk (or maybe I was).

He's not advocating closing our borders. He's only responding to people who say "We should keep our borders open, because it will reduce worldwide poverty". We might want to keep our borders open, but we should not delude ourselves into thinking it will serve that particular purpose. Immigration will help a negligible fraction of people in those poor countries, like spitting into the ocean. If your goal is to reduce worldwide poverty, there are more effective ways to go about it.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2014-January-27, 11:19, said:

I think you may be misunderstanding the point of the talk (or maybe I was).

He's not advocating closing our borders. He's only responding to people who say "We should keep our borders open, because it will reduce worldwide poverty". We might want to keep our borders open, but we should not delude ourselves into thinking it will serve that particular purpose. Immigration will help a negligible fraction of people in those poor countries, like spitting into the ocean. If your goal is to reduce worldwide poverty, there are more effective ways to go about it.

Ok clearly we disagree. I think open immigration around the world, free movement of labor, is a very important factor in reducing world wide poverty. Not the only factor but a really big one.

He is advocating closing the borders of poor countries to stop the flight of the best and brightest. He wants these 1M-2m-5M Immigrants to stay home. His basic premise is just wrong. to stop, to not encourage, a free flow of labor hurts poverty it does not help it.


The thesis is really pretty basic, more immigration free flow of labor leads to more innovation, more innovation leads to more world wide growth and a reduction of worldwide poverty.


1M-2M per year over 2 generations=80M. Now add in another 100M or more immigrant children. That is a lot of human capital to create innovation which will increase world wide growth and productivity. Now add in other countries not just the USA.

---

This whole overpopulation thesis rests on 1) lack of innovation, 2) limited earth based resources.

So that means we need more innovation and we need to look at space based resources. That mankinds future lies in the universe not just planet Earth. One future hope is to somehow use the Sun to help create food, cheap energy, wood for houses, etc. But so many think looking to space based resources and more innovation is a death spiral dream. This guys whole thesis is that USA or other rich countries based innovation cannot be more than a spit in the ocean to helping the poorest of the poor.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2014-January-27, 14:40, said:

He is advocating closing the borders of poor countries to stop the flight of the best and brightest. He wants these 1M-2m-5M Immigrants to stay home. His basic premise is just wrong. to stop, to not encourage, a free flow of labor hurts poverty it does not help it.

The thesis is really pretty basic, more immigration free flow of labor leads to more innovation, more innovation leads to more world wide growth and a reduction of worldwide poverty.

I see your point. The issue isn't America's immigration policy, it's the emigration policy of the poor countries. If they try to hold on to all their best and brightest, these people will not achieve as much as if they were allowed to leave. They won't have the resources to achieve their full potential, and their morale will be worse.

Although from their country's perspective, it may be a lesser-of-evils choice. If these people leave, they might achieve greatness, but it won't necessarily help their country of origin. By keeping them at home, they might not achieve as much as if they'd left, but at least it will be for the benefit of that country.

But this misses the "rising tide lifts all boats" point. If these people are able to solve worldwide problems, it should benefit everyone, including their homeland. And who will be more sympathetic to the poor countries' needs than researchers who grew in them.

[mike777]

Yes, but even if we accept that they will never help the poorest of the poor in the old country if they leave, he advocates a fascist viewpoint of keeping them trapped to help the state because the state is more important than their freedom to leave.

-----

To put it another way he says that their duty to the state or duty to the will of the people is more important than individual choice and freedom.
He seems to desire a Rousseau view of the world.

In many ways this goes back to the Platonic vs Aristotelian view of the world.

[onoway]

One thing that comes to mind is that in Canada at least, the desirability of immigrants seems to be linked to the amount of money they have to make the move. If they have lots of money, then they are fast tracked. If otoh they are refugees on the run from reprisals for political activity trying to redress problems in their country, they are frequently treated as undesirables that we maybe, reluctantly, have to do something for. It appears as though many of these are now being refused.

The last couple of years have seen people, usually women, legally in the country - in one case a couple of students- booted out of the country because they were working too hard and that's not allowed. It's difficult to imagine that there are so many Canadians anxious to be housekeepers and babysitters for working families that they were depriving any Canadians of work.

I have to wonder if fast tracking extremely wealthy folk who come from countries where the average daily wage, as they say, is $1 or $2 is really getting us the best and brightest, or people who may possibly be just the least scrupulous about how they make money.

[blackshoe]

"Duty" is not an obligation to others; certainly not to the State. It is an obligation to oneself, freely assumed.

[mike777]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-27, 22:54, said:

"Duty" is not an obligation to others; certainly not to the State. It is an obligation to oneself, freely assumed.

that is the debate.....not sure the answer over thousands of years is so easy as you assume. I only want to point out that this debate over thousands of years is not that easy as one may assume.

At the very least in 2014 many would say they have a moral duty if not legal duty to the poorest of the poor.

But clearly in 2014 many would say there is a legal duty to the point you are a criminal if


Keep in mind a democratic Athens put Socrates to death, Plato thought Sparta not Athens was the better city/state to duplicate.


To be fair most forget that Socrates was guilty of the crime thus the debate starts.

[mike777]

onoway, on 2014-January-27, 22:38, said:

One thing that comes to mind is that in Canada at least, the desirability of immigrants seems to be linked to the amount of money they have to make the move. If they have lots of money, then they are fast tracked. If otoh they are refugees on the run from reprisals for political activity trying to redress problems in their country, they are frequently treated as undesirables that we maybe, reluctantly, have to do something for. It appears as though many of these are now being refused.

The last couple of years have seen people, usually women, legally in the country - in one case a couple of students- booted out of the country because they were working too hard and that's not allowed. It's difficult to imagine that there are so many Canadians anxious to be housekeepers and babysitters for working families that they were depriving any Canadians of work.

I have to wonder if fast tracking extremely wealthy folk who come from countries where the average daily wage, as they say, is $1 or $2 is really getting us the best and brightest, or people who may possibly be just the least scrupulous about how they make money.

good questions but I don't think the answers matter in the great scheme of life.

You are really just asking can we devise a better immigration scheme...the answer is always yes but learn to be happy with imperfection and politics.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2014-January-28, 00:12, said:

learn to be happy with imperfection and politics.

Imperfection in politics is the "new normal" here in the US.

[mycroft]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-27, 22:54, said:

"Duty" is not an obligation to others; certainly not to the State. It is an obligation to oneself, freely assumed.

Tell that to one of your older colleagues, pre-suspension of Selective Service.

[blackshoe]

Had I not enlisted in the Army in 1967, I would have been drafted. That's not "duty," it's slavery; the enlistment was an attempt to make the best of a bad deal. I suppose I could have run to Canada, but frankly, while the thought did cross my mind, it didn't hang around long.

[barmar]

Just because something is legally required it doesn't mean it isn't a duty. "duty" is a cultural thing, and the law often exists just to codify it, as well as enforce it on the few who try to violate the cultural norms (they're essentially cheating -- they get the privileges of citizenship, without the same obligations as everyone else).

[blackshoe]

Quote

Do not confuse “duty” with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe yourself to fulfill obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail anytbing from years of patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect. But there is no reward at all for doing what other people expect of you, and to do so is not merely difficult, but impossible. It is easier to deal with a footpad than it is with the leech who wants “just a few minutes of your time, please--this won’t take long.” Time is your total capital, and the minutes of your life are painfully few. If you allow yourself to fall into the vice of agreeing to such requests, they quickly snowball to the point where these parasites will use up 100 percent of your time--and squawk for more! So learn to say No--and to be rude about it when necessary. Otherwise you will not have time to carry out your duty, or to do your own work, and certainly no time for love and happiness. The termites will nibble away your life and leave none of it for you. (This rule does not mean that you must not do a favor for a friend, or even a stranger. But let the choice be yours. Don’t do it because it is “expected” of you.) -- Robert A. Heinlein

If I am a member of a society, one of the obligations I freely assume is the "duty" to defend that society when necessary. Parasites who are unwilling to do that deserve neither the respect nor the support of their society - but forcing them to do so is still wrong - and in the end, futile.