Comments on: It’s obscene when…

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:54:42 +0000

I wish your teacher friend all the best, and yes, its a shame that the standard of living there is so low…but once again, its not the US or the E.U’s fault that this is the case. Nobody gave the US handouts, and we have become the greatest nation on Earth(a little patriotism there). It is my understanding that the US is helping with the Cambodian problem, according to the CIA World Factbook, and I’d like to know who’s doing more to help Cambodia than we are!

By: Josh

Josh — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:43:33 +0000

Yes, but its not the United States fault that Cambodia is the way it is. If somebody has been genuinely successful, you shouldn’t take from him and give his money to the homeless guy on the street!
You can’t say that its a lack of natural resources, so its not like these people live in an underpriviliged place on Earth. Africa is a prime example. The amount of natural resources there are immense, but the majority of the people live in abject poverty, simply because of a complete lack of spiritual, moral, and governmental foundation. On the other hand, Switzerland, and Singapore for that matter, are both very prosperous countries even when there is very little natural resources located there.
Lastly, most rich people aren’t given money….they make it.
Big difference…

By: Murray

Murray — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 07:42:12 +0000

Josh – There’s a big difference between giving money to someone in a rich country (with plenty of social security perks) and providing opportunities to the poorest of the poor.

You’re right – handouts breed dependency — if the person has plenty of other choices. Your family was giving choices to the foster child but he was abusing his opportunities.

However, the Cambodian teacher I was talking about in the article was not asking for a handout. It is my view that he is worth more than the few dollars a day he was going to earn.

Rachel – I agree with you about the coffee farmers. It’s the trade practices of the richer countries (strong pressure from the farmers of USA, Japan and some European countries have created this situation) that guarantee an unfair outcome.

By: Rachel

Rachel — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 01:15:08 +0000

@Josh: The article wasn’t talking about giving handouts for the poor. It was suggesting that there should be more equality in pay for work done.

For example, the poor coffee farmer who gets a few measly cents for each cup of coffee, while Starbuck$ charges several dollars for the end product is scandalous.

Not handouts – fair pay.

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:41:48 +0000

Pheps is completely right…you work hard, you will have success. Giving the poor money has not solved the problem! We have spent billions of dollars on the “War on Poverty”, and all we have is people dependant on the government. A story to show you this.
My parents had a foster-child in their home who was from a very poor neighborhood. My mom asked him what he wanted to do in life, and instead of talking about his dreams, he said he had only one purpose in life.
He would fake injuries and other disabilities so he could get more money from welfare. When you take away the principle of living your life to be better than you are, you have a people without a purpose or a hope. No reason for living…no hope, and there is few things worse than a person with no hope for his life or for his future.

By: Josh

Josh — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:35:40 +0000

4 Billion making under 2 dollars a day? What is your source?

By: Joshua E

Joshua E — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:32:33 +0000

If you don’t want these stars to have all their money, STOP WATCHING AND BUYING THEIR ALBUMS. Don’t tax them for their success!!! Once again, I was hoping that you could keep math separate from your political views, but so far it appears wrong.
Giving poor people money doesn’t solve the problem! I know of a young man who’s only dream in life was to fake injuries to get more money from the Feds via welfare. That is what this “equality” stuff brings up…If you don’t work, don’t expect any rewards. Taking from the successful doesn’t sound wise to me.

By: Murray

Murray — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 01:31:03 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Arlo. I totally agree we should have sports rather than wars, and if it takes fortunes to attract people to the former rather than the latter, then I’ll change my stand immediately.

Thanks for the support of teachers.

By: Arlo

Arlo — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 15:24:58 +0000

Sports are valuable. Alternatively, we could have more wars, but I prefer sports.

Of course, teachers are also valuable. and should never be mistreated

By: Murray

Murray — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:20:38 +0000

Hello “Adam Smith” and thanks for your input.

You did manage to inspire me to use some neurons, so I went and found out some more about the 18th century father of modern economics, Adam Smith.

His notion of the “invisible hand” is relevant to my post:

In The Wealth of Nations and other writings, Smith demonstrated that, in a free market, an individual pursuing his own self-interest tends to also promote the good of his community as a whole through a principle that he called “the invisible hand”. He argued that each individual maximizing revenue for himself maximizes the total revenue of society as a whole, as this is identical with the sum total of individual revenues. [Source]

OK – so the issue here is perhaps that you and I have a different view of the extent of “society as a whole”. Within the rich, western world, it may be fine to pay an entertainer vast amounts because he has value as an entertainer and “gives enjoyment” as you say.

But where I’m coming from is that “society as a whole” is actually the whole world.

My feel is that it is not fine to pay those vast sums when you have billions living in abject poverty. While the footballer may provide an avenue for lifting a small number out of that poverty (by inspiring some kid to practice hard so that he becomes a highly paid professional player), it is far more likely that the teacher can help to lift far more people out of poverty by giving them an education and increasing their options a thousand-fold.

I don’t accept that the footballer is “maximizing total revenue” for everyone. He’s just maximizing it for himself and a small number of advertisers and promoters.

You’re right though – there’s no workable mechanism to ensure a more fair and equitable salary structure. But surely we should try…