NationStates Jolt Archive

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L12878083&WTmodLoc=World-R5-Alertnet-6

VATICAN CITY, Nov 12 (Reuters) - The global economic system must be radically altered if the world is to start reducing the number of people who live in hunger, Pope Benedict said on Sunday.

Citing a recent United Nations report that found there had been no reduction in the number of hungry people since 1990, the Pope condemned "structural" problems in the global economy that diverted riches to a minority of the world's population.

"There is certainly a need to eliminate the structural causes linked to the system of governance of the economic model which allots the majority of resources to a minority of the population," Benedict said in his weekly Sunday address.

The Pope echoed the opinions of his predecessor, John Paul II, who often spoke out against the negative sides of globalisation and several times called for a "new world order" which would give priority to the needs of the poor and hungry.

"To make a large impact, it is necessary to convert the model of global development -- something which is not only required by the scandal of hunger, but also by environmental and energy emergencies," he told pilgrims in St. Peter's Square.

The U.N.'s Human Development Index (HDI) for 2006, released last week, said the combined income of the 500 richest people in the world now exceeds that of the poorest 416 million people.

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation said in a report last month that there were 854 million underfed people in the world and that number was increasing by 4 million a year.

"Jesus taught his disciples to pray and ask the heavenly Father, not for 'my', but for 'our' daily bread," the Pope said ahead of his weekly blessing.

As well as calling for changes at a global level, Benedict said individuals also needed to ensure their own lifestyles did not add to the problems of hunger and environmental damage.

"Every person and every family must do something to alleviate hunger in the world, adopting a life style and consumption that are compatible with safeguarding creation and with criteria of fairness towards those who cultivate the land in every country," he said.
What a disgrace that there has been no progress since 1990 on this issue. What a disgrace that so many Western individuals and corporations insist on exploiting others to live in the lap of luxury.

Thanks to Ben 16 for again adding the Vatican's voice to this matter. We must ensure that the issue of world hunger is a thorn in the side of every Western government and large corporation.

More proof of the Vaticans changes over the past years.

*applauds the Pope*

Of course, this probably won't change much, as many of the protestants I have come into contact with think the the Pope is evil, and that they only care about themselves more than anything else, but meh same goes for many American Catholics.

Makes me almost want to become Catholic again. I really find the Catholic church is at least trying to do something good these days.

Of course, this probably won't change much, as many of the protestants I have come into contact with think the the Pope is evil, and that they only care about themselves more than anything else, but meh same goes for many American Catholics.
I know. Too many people are too selfish to heed what they surely know to be the truth.

It'd probably help if the vatican would stop telling people to breed like bunnies too.

Stupid anti-birth control stance is killing us.

It'd probably help if the vatican would stop telling people to breed like bunnies too.

Stupid anti-birth control stance is killing us.

Well, the Church's stance on sex is that it's supposed to be saved for marriage. So, eh.

It'd probably help if the vatican would stop telling people to breed like bunnies too.
That's exactly what abstinence is, though even I can see that in terms of Africa that is a far too idealistic stance. I think that the Vatican may come out in the next couple of years and accept the need for the use of contraception, but they'll never be enthusiastic about it.

We need to more fully embrace capitalism and democracy if we want to see real progress. We cannot blame the rich for the problems of the poor any more than we can blame the intelligent for the suffering of the dumb.

We need to more fully embrace capitalism and democracy if we want to see real progress. We cannot blame the rich for the problems of the poor any more than we can blame the intelligent for the suffering of the dumb.
Don't feed the troll, folks. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11947450&postcount=11)

Trying ...to ...resist ...feeding ...troll

But kudos to the Pope anyway :)

What a disgrace that there has been no progress since 1990 on this issue. What a disgrace that so many Western individuals and corporations insist on exploiting others to live in the lap of luxury.

Thanks to Ben 16 for again adding the Vatican's voice to this matter. We must ensure that the issue of world hunger is a thorn in the side of every Western government and large corporation.

I hope that he's not just giving lip service. However, something must be done to stop this injustice. Therefore, nothing ever will be done.

Don't feed the troll, folks. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11947450&postcount=11)

That's not a wrong statement. Market capitalism and democratic government do vastly improve the living standards of their people; just look at the progress India has made since it began to open up in the 1980's, or the countries of Eastern Europe, or even China whose, albeit somewhat reckless, powerful economic growth is improving living standards for millions of people.

The key is to balance capitalism and democracy with sensible legislation that encourages a functioning market, rather than opens it to predatory forces and government corruption.

So how about the magnanimous Pope sell off some of the Church's riches and property and such, and use the proceeds to "do something to alleviate hunger in the world, adopting a life style and consumption that are compatible with safeguarding creation and with criteria of fairness towards those who cultivate the land in every country." You know, set a good example. It doesn't have to be everything, just a cathedral or something to start. I say this because all he's suggested is praying like Jesus and the Disciples did, for "our daily bread."

That's not a wrong statement. Market capitalism and democratic government do vastly improve the living standards of their people; just look at the progress India has made since it began to open up in the 1980's, or the countries of Eastern Europe, or even China whose, albeit somewhat reckless, powerful economic growth is improving living standards for millions of people.

The key is to balance capitalism and democracy with sensible legislation that encourages a functioning market, rather than opens it to predatory forces and government corruption.

And leaving millions of more behind. That cannot be ignored.

And leaving millions of more behind. That cannot be ignored.

That's why government has to play a role in social development. Otherwise, you cause imbalances in the economy that will eventually cause more problems than they solve.

That's why government has to play a role in social development. Otherwise, you cause imbalances in the economy that will eventually cause more problems than they solve.

At least someone recognizes it! Sorry, whenever I hear someone praising the free-market, inevitably its a right-wing libertarian anti-interventionist who is saying it.

That's not a wrong statement.
But unlike you, he probably won't know why he believes it.

Market capitalism and democratic government do vastly improve the living standards of their people; just look at the progress India has made since it began to open up in the 1980's, or the countries of Eastern Europe, or even China whose, albeit somewhat reckless, powerful economic growth is improving living standards for millions of people.
This is somewhat true, and I don't think the Pope is calling for socialist reform in the third world, more in the first world, and reform in the operating practices of wealthy corporations and individuals. Indeed, a free market is a necessary step for undeveloped countries. For example in Tanzania, liberalisation of the past decade has created enough tax revenue to fund universal primary education.

The problem is that currently the chiefs of western capitalism view the third world as a resource to be exploited for their own benefit, and for the fruit of the labour of the world's poor to be sold to the world's rich people. The world's poor often don't even earn the just fruits of their own labour.

Sorry for my ineloquence.

At least someone recognizes it! Sorry, whenever I hear someone praising the free-market, inevitably its a right-wing libertarian anti-interventionist who is saying it.

I agree as well. Government intervention is almost a necessity if one wants a "fair" market, that is actually somewhat free. Without at least some intervention, it is almost impossible to stop those with the means of production to over exploit, in a manner of speaking.

We cannot blame the rich for the problems of the poor any more than we can blame the intelligent for the suffering of the dumb.

Blame your suffering on the Pope.
...nope...the Pope is intelligent.

That's not a wrong statement. Market capitalism and democratic government do vastly improve the living standards of their people; just look at the progress India has made since it began to open up in the 1980's, or the countries of Eastern Europe, or even China whose, albeit somewhat reckless, powerful economic growth is improving living standards for millions of people.

The causal relation is questionable.

Firstly, just as a side-note, the "progress" in Eastern Europe has been dubious and double-edged at best. Admittedly, some of that can be blamed on the shock of transition.

Secondly, all you really have shown is that changes in stagnant economic policies can lead to growth; this is undoubtedly true, but does not affirm the supremacy of capitalism in terms of economic development. The Soviet Union, for instance, did not industrialize through neoliberalism.

Thirdly, much of the progress in China to a great extent, and India to a lesser extent, can be partially attributed to investments in health care and education made by the governments preceding the economic reforms.

I don;t care what the pope say.

So how about the magnanimous Pope sell off some of the Church's riches and property and such, and use the proceeds to "do something to alleviate hunger in the world, adopting a life style and consumption that are compatible with safeguarding creation and with criteria of fairness towards those who cultivate the land in every country." You know, set a good example. It doesn't have to be everything, just a cathedral or something to start. I say this because all he's suggested is praying like Jesus and the Disciples did, for "our daily bread."
As of now, the Church views itself as the "protector" of its extravagant possessions, such as its incredible collection of Classic, Medieval, and Renaissance art. What I think Church leaders don't understand is that, if they sell these works, the world isn't going to lose them. Michealangelo's David, for example, would probably be bought by the Louvre or some other museum that would put it to good use. That's because noone would spend millions of dollars on something and then not use it wisely. Yay for Coase theorem!

We need to more fully embrace capitalism and democracy if we want to see real progress. We cannot blame the rich for the problems of the poor any more than we can blame the intelligent for the suffering of the dumb.

There might be some truth in that... if 3rd world companies stood up to Western buyers demanding fair prices for their products, some problems could be solved on the spot.
For general impact it would help though if they worked hand in hand with other companies supplying te same goods.
And had viable workers' rights.

At least someone recognizes it! Sorry, whenever I hear someone praising the free-market, inevitably its a right-wing libertarian anti-interventionist who is saying it.

If there's one thing for certain, I don't adhere to ideology when it comes to real-world decision making...I go with what works, and it's clear that that method works.

So how about the magnanimous Pope sell off some of the Church's riches and property and such, and use the proceeds to "do something to alleviate hunger in the world, adopting a life style and consumption that are compatible with safeguarding creation and with criteria of fairness towards those who cultivate the land in every country." You know, set a good example. It doesn't have to be everything, just a cathedral or something to start. I say this because all he's suggested is praying like Jesus and the Disciples did, for "our daily bread."
I agree with you too. In recent years the Vatican has already sold many heirlooms including artworks and the old gold throne.

However this is the same type of thinking that says "Bono should shut up about world hunger because he is rich" and not giving all his money to the poor. Bono is rich, but his money is small cheese compared to the people he's lobbying.

So how about the magnanimous Pope sell off some of the Church's riches and property and such, and use the proceeds to "do something to alleviate hunger in the world, adopting a life style and consumption that are compatible with safeguarding creation and with criteria of fairness towards those who cultivate the land in every country." You know, set a good example. It doesn't have to be everything, just a cathedral or something to start. I say this because all he's suggested is praying like Jesus and the Disciples did, for "our daily bread."

What do the poor need with a cathedral? And the Pope does not really need to sell off Church property because: http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/news/content_displays.cfm?fuseaction=display_document&id=886&location=3
and more.

We need to more fully embrace capitalism and democracy if we want to see real progress. We cannot blame the rich for the problems of the poor any more than we can blame the intelligent for the suffering of the dumb.


True, you are correct once again.

The Soviet Union, for instance, did not industrialize through neoliberalism.

The Soviet Union was a Third World shithole entirely dependent on Western trade. Read, for example, East - Minus = 0 by Werner Keller and the multi-volume Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development by Antony Sutton.

What do the poor need with a cathedral? And the Pope does not really need to sell off Church property because: http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/news/content_displays.cfm?fuseaction=display_document&id=886&location=3
and more.

Tsk, you know I didn't mean "give the poor a cathedral." And sure, Catholic Charities is fine, but that's donations from individuals. I was talking about the Pope leading the way by making some donations on his own.

But when people actually go out and demand this "new world order," they ought to be condemned, of course.

Lest the masses get too restless.

The Soviet Union was a Third World shithole entirely dependent on Western trade.

Western aid, you mean?

Because last time I checked, dependence on trade was not supposed to be necessarily a bad thing when it comes to successful economies.

The causal relation is questionable.

Firstly, just as a side-note, the "progress" in Eastern Europe has been dubious and double-edged at best. Admittedly, some of that can be blamed on the shock of transition.

That's true. Countries that reformed more gradually, prior to the disintegration of the Eastern Bloc like Hungary or to a lesser degree Czechoslovakia, tended to have a much more stable transition than the ones that did the "shock treatment" like the Soviet Union.

However, the performance of the Baltic nations is also admirable, primarily because these regions were the target of the USSR's most advanced industrial investments and so were better prepared to compete on the global market.

Secondly, all you really have shown is that changes in stagnant economic policies can lead to growth; this is undoubtedly true, but does not affirm the supremacy of capitalism in terms of economic development. The Soviet Union, for instance, did not industrialize through neoliberalism.

That's true, but the USSR also had a much more imbalanced industrial base that didn't really respond to the demands of the citizens; it also suffered stagnating productivity and technological gains in the 1970's that couldn't be easily managed within the bureaucracy that flourished as a result of economic development.

However, a significant portion of that is due to defense spending rather than any necessary shortfall in the economy itself. For example, China in the 1970's and 1980's had very strong economic growth despite the fact that the economy was generally as state-controlled as the USSR, but they didn't have the same defense expenditures as a share of GDP which enabled them to better meet domestic and investment demand.

Thirdly, much of the progress in China to a great extent, and India to a lesser extent, can be partially attributed to investments in health care and education made by the governments preceding the economic reforms.

They go hand in hand; you can't develop an economy without good health care or education.

Western aid, you mean?

Because last time I checked, dependence on trade was not supposed to be necessarily a bad thing when it comes to successful economies.

Both, I mean.

The Soviet Union was a Third World shithole entirely dependent on Western trade. Read, for example, East - Minus = 0 by Werner Keller and the multi-volume Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development by Antony Sutton.

Western aid, more like it. But that was more of a 1970's onward thing; before that, aid and trade with the West were much smaller components of the Soviet economy.

The Soviet Union was significantly more developed than Third World countries; it wasn't near the West, but was far better off than the developing world. Its dependence on Western trade didn't really start to accelerate until the early 1970's, which interestingly also coincided with the beginning of economic stagnation and declines in living standards in the USSR.

Much famine is caused by local mismanagement. I feel no need to aid people who seem to go out of their way to make their own lives miserable.

Look at Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe had a thriving agricultural sector, and now thousands of residents are starving because they simply no longer produce enough food.

Much famine is caused by local mismanagement. I feel no need to aid people who seem to go out of their way to make their own lives miserable.

Look at Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe had a thriving agricultural sector, and now thousands of residents are starving because they simply no longer produce enough food.

That's not the people's fault, that's the fault of a blatantly corrupt government mismanaging its economy and using food as a weapon to control their people.

That's true, but the USSR also had a much more imbalanced industrial base that didn't really respond to the demands of the citizens;

And a government that "didn't really respond to the demands of its citizens," either.

it also suffered stagnating productivity and technological gains in the 1970's that couldn't be easily managed within the bureaucracy that flourished as a result of economic development.

They also failed to make much of an attempt to modernize - to undertake the sort of decentralization and refocusing that might have solved that problem.

The Soviet Union's failure of a political system was a significant influence on its failure of an economy.

For what it's worth, within modern economic frameworks, I do support a substantially more market-oriented - but not capitalist - approach to economic development than the Soviet Union did.

Both, I mean.

How much aid was given to the Soviet Union by the West?

And a government that "didn't really respond to the demands of its citizens," either.

It makes sense; a government that doesn't respond to its citizens probably won't manage the economy it controls according to the same guidelines.


They also failed to make much of an attempt to modernize - to undertake the sort of decentralization and refocusing that might have solved that problem. The Soviet Union's failure of a political system was a significant influence on its failure of an economy.

That's true. Arguably the biggest mistake was the arms buildup of the 1960's; that cost them a lot of money and manpower as well as caused the share that defense consumed of GDP to grow and thereby reduced the amount of capital that could be reinvested in the economy. If they had used that money to buy equipment, import economic specialists, and modernize their infrastructure they could have averted many of the problems that hurt them in the 1970's.

Along with politics, infrastructure constraints made decentralization next to impossible following the removal of Khrushchev.

For what it's worth, within modern economic frameworks, I do support a substantially more market-oriented - but not capitalist - approach to economic development than the Soviet Union did.

That would make sense; the "market" in and of itself doesn't necessitate the development of a capitalist economic system.

How much aid was given to the Soviet Union by the West?

Well, there were the cut-rate deals on wheat ...

Well, there were the cut-rate deals on wheat ...

Which began primarily in the late 1960's following the failure of the Virgin Lands program to boost agriculture and cost the Soviets more and more in the balance of trade; in reality, agriculture proved to be the biggest

Now, if the USSR had adjusted its policies in the Virgin Lands they most likely would not have suffered the same problems from food imports in the late 60's onward. Another issue was the distribution system, which caused a significant amount of produce to either spoil or fail to reach market and worsened the situation, particularly in the 1980's.

That's not the people's fault, that's the fault of a blatantly corrupt government mismanaging its economy and using food as a weapon to control their people.
A government that turns away international aid.

Canada sent a big shipment of food aid to Zimbabwe, and Mugabe refused it because it contained genetically modified food (most food in Canada is genetically modified).

As long as helping them isn't allowed to extend to removing their government by force, I won't help.

A government that turns away international aid.

Canada sent a big shipment of food aid to Zimbabwe, and Mugabe refused it because it contained genetically modified food (most food in Canada is genetically modified).

Mugabe is a jackass...there's not much else I can say but that.

As long as helping them isn't allowed to extend to removing their government by force, I won't help.

I'd continue to help to make sure there will be people to help after the regime disintegrates.

What do the Pope's plans entail? Killing free market?

Mugabe is a jackass...there's not much else I can say but that.

I'd continue to help to make sure there will be people to help after the regime disintegrates.
They elected him.

They elected him.
Yes, with people breaking your kneecaps if you voted for someone else...

I won't help them if they won't help themselves.

Ultimately the economy is a reflection of people themselves; we can fiddle with the economy all we want, but if nobody really wants to help anybody but themselves, all the economic policies in the world can't change that. Ultimately this brings up questions of human nature, and depending on your definition of human nature, we might be stuck with world hunger, even if we could prevent it.

They elected him.

Do you really think someone like Mugabe hold free elections?

What do the Pope's plans entail? Killing free market?
As someone with no political power, he's not the one to be making plans.

I won't help them if they won't help themselves.
They would if they could. Libertarians make this naive assumption that anyone anywhere can make themselves rich. You need some degree of infrastructure to make it so.

As someone with no political power, he's not the one to be making plans.


They would if they could. Libertarians make this naive assumption that anyone anywhere can make themselves rich. You need some degree of infrastructure to make it so.

As Comrade Stalin said, how many divisions does the Pope have?

They would if they could. Libertarians make this naive assumption that anyone anywhere can make themselves rich. You need some degree of infrastructure to make it so.
I was referring to Zimbabwe. The only way to help them is to remove their government, and if they're not working toward that end I see no reason why I should.

On that unrelated and impossibly broad point about libertarianism, everyone does have labour to sell.

I was referring to Zimbabwe. The only way to help them is to remove their government, and if they're not working toward that end I see no reason why I should.

It's really hard to revolt when you have almost no money, no food, and nothing to fight with.

As someone with no political power, he's not the one to be making plans.

He could stop condemning those who try to change things, though.