NationStates Jolt Archive

This one might be a bit controversial. ;)

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9080048&subjectID=348918&fsrc=nwl&emailauth=%2527%252A%2520%253E%253F%2525%255CT%253B1PD%2520%250A
It is almost an “item of faith” among development economists that the poor act rationally, however straitened their circumstances. If their undertakings are too small, or their efforts too thinly spread, to be efficient, it is not because they have miscalculated, but because the markets for land, credit or insurance have failed them. As one economist argued in 1993, “More than 40 years of research...should at last have laid to rest the thought that such folk may not know where their real interests lie.”

But just such a thought is stirring again in the minds of Mr Banerjee and Ms Duflo. Why, for example, do more Ghanaian farmers not cultivate pineapples, which would fetch returns of 250-300% by some estimates? Why do so few farmers in western Kenya dress their fields with fertiliser, even after the benefits have been demonstrated to them?

“One senses a reluctance of poor people to commit themselves psychologically to a project of making more money,” the authors write. When you live on a dollar a day it may be painful to confront your circumstances too squarely, or even to aspire to better things. The “great redeeming feature of poverty,” George Orwell wrote after his excursions in the social gutters of Paris and London, is “the fact that it annihilates the future”.

The study in question can be found here: http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=1346

What do you reckon? If it is in fact the case that for whatever reason very poor people are not doing as much as they could to help their economic situation, what can or should be done about it?

This one might be a bit controversial. ;)

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9080048&subjectID=348918&fsrc=nwl&emailauth=%2527%252A%2520%253E%253F%2525%255CT%253B1PD%2520%250A


The study in question can be found here: http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=1346

What do you reckon? If it is in fact the case that for whatever reason very poor people are not doing as much as they could to help their economic situation, what can or should be done about it?

That's how they get poor in the first place, and obviously they prefer it that way.

It's hard to generalize. Many of the poor genuinely strive to better their lives; some just resign themselves to poverty.

Here in my country, the some of the poor have a weird attitude of always wanting dole-outs and acting as if they deserve it. They think that society owes them something or had wronged them; therefore, we must cuddle them with giveaways while they do nothing positive to help themselves.

I didn't mean to sound mean (yeah, what a nice sentence), but sometimes that attitude is really irritating.

That's how they get poor in the first place, and obviously they prefer it that way.

Now you see, Neu Leonstein was controversial, but you're just bordering on trollish. This isn't about preferring to be poor, it is, as George Orwell put it, not seeing the point in trying harder. It all comes down to feelings of success. You can see the same in computer games: If you lose too much, too often in a computer game, but you continue playing, you lose all hope and just start making half-hearted attempts.

Or homework. If it's too difficult and you waste too much time, you'll find that people simply ignore it and do something else.

Or farming. If there's constant drought, militias always stealing your money and rampant disease, you might forget that you do have a chance, if you act rationally, to get above it all.

Just to make sure we're all on the same page: The article is about extreme poverty. That's those people in the world living on less than $1.08 a day.

Those people usually don't get welfare payments, so that's not the topic of the thread.

A question I would have though is why are they not doing so? Skimming through the study (Sorry, at 42 pages it wasn't engaging enough for me to read throughly), some of the suggestions given sounded like a no brainier, but I can't help but think that there's more to it.

For example, the authors of the study made a big deal about how the poor could save a lot more money and improve their food situation if they simply did not pay for any festivals, which left me going, "Well, it's a nice idea, but to you it's just a festival, to them it is a necessary part of their culture."

As to what we can do about it, well, once we find out why, perhaps then we can address it with better education that targets the block.

hang on, where are these people who live on a dollar a day supposed to get their fertiliser?

As a general proposition he is correct. There are differences from place to place. In Kenya, for example, it is almost impossible for farmers to get property rights over their land. Formal ownership in Africa is extremely difficult in most places. This lack of ownership, combined with regulations, corruption, and high taxes, reduce the choices otherwise available to the poor to get themselves out of poverty.

Having formal ownership of land and property would make it possible to make genuine loans to farmers, giving them the capital needed to make them more productive.

As for the poor saving money, most don't really have bank accounts, and the fiscal policies of their governments make saving a waste of time (because the savings are destroyed by inflation in a short time)

I think it's bloody easy for us to sit here in warmth and comfort, with large disposable incomes and food on the table, to go "well, they should work harder".

I think it's bloody easy for us to sit here in warmth and comfort, with large disposable incomes and food on the table, to go "well, they should work harder".
Not "work harder", I don't think anyone has claimed they're not working hard. Or that they don't have really crappy lives.

The question is why they seem to be picking funny allocations of the little money they actually have. It seems strange that someone would use money to celebrate a festival and then starve for a week because they're broke, or that a farmer would choose to grow a crop that clearly doesn't make as money as another one.

As for the fertiliser, I'm not sure what the specifics of the case were. I'm sure that as economists the two sorta thought about his budget before mentioning it.

hang on, where are these people who live on a dollar a day supposed to get their fertiliser?

If we were to provide them with computers then they could harvest bullshit off the internet.

The question is why they seem to be picking funny allocations of the little money they actually have. It seems strange that someone would use money to celebrate a festival and then starve for a week because they're broke, or that a farmer would choose to grow a crop that clearly doesn't make as money as another one.

I think spending money on festivals is fair enough, and is really what I was referring to above; it's easy for us to sit here and criticise, but could you give up your leisure time without losing your sanity?

As for growing pineapples, at a guess, it may have something to do with whether you can eat what you fail to sell.

A better point is how can people indulge their leisure when they can't provide for their necessities.

[QUOTE]As for growing pineapples, at a guess, it may have something to do with whether you can eat what you fail to sell.

You can't live on one thing alone.

hang on, where are these people who live on a dollar a day supposed to get their fertiliser?

If the legal systems in these countries were any good, and the system of private property rights any good, they could use their land as collateral to get a loan to buy the things they need to grow crops, but in places like Kenya, this is not possible.

"Well, it's a nice idea, but to you it's just a festival, to them it is a necessary part of their culture."

Eating is also necessary. You can't live on circuses.

Having formal ownership of land and property would make it possible to make genuine loans to farmers, giving them the capital needed to make them more productive.And in the hypothetical situation where the farmer gets a loan and there's a drought and he is unable to repay the loan...?

The effect of malnutrition in intellectual capacity has been proved scientifically lately. And yes, sorry, I don't like it, I think it is the worst shit ever, but it's mainly true, poor people are dumber, (as a rule and average, doesn't mean it doesn't have exceptions) mostly if they went through malnutrition during their infancy.

Are you really asking someone poor, really, really poor to save money? Two reasons, most poor people, even if they get money, they don't get it in a regular fashion, making monetary planification difficult, and second, they just don't have the education to even think about it. (Again, if the suffered from malnutrition during infancy their intellectual capacities are greatly reduced).

This doesn't mean they don't deserve to be helped, although, but don't expect a child who almost died several times from starvation during infancy to suddenly become a brilliant scientist. If he does, even then, perhaps it is more due to organization and hard work than out of just intellectual talent. For them is harder.

If we were to provide them with computers then they could harvest bullshit off the internet.

Especially off threads about poverty..

You can't live on one thing alone.

My point precisely.

A better point is how can people indulge their leisure when they can't provide for their necessities.

Perhaps what they are thinking is that, "Hey I've been poor and got nothing to eat for all of my life, yet on this date once a year, why don't I indulge and spend? It doesn't matter even if I have to borrow money, I've been wallowing in debt anyway."

Actually I hear that.

Perhaps what they are thinking is that, "Hey I've been poor and got nothing to eat for all of my life, yet on this date once a year, why don't I indulge and spend? It doesn't matter even if I have to borrow money, I've been wallowing in debt anyway."

Actually I hear that.

Yep, it happens a lot.

And in the hypothetical situation where the farmer gets a loan and there's a drought and he is unable to repay the loan...?
Then the same thing happens that happens to anyone who doesn't repay a loan: the security gets reposessed.

The thing is, if you have nothing to put there as security you can't get a loan in the first place. Which means you can't borrow money to improve your farm, or to put that great invention you have in your head into practice.

Like it or not, but access to capital is a massive part of economic (and to some extent technological) progress. Having no access to capital keeps people as poor as they are. That's why microcredit schemes like the Grameen Bank are so important...but a regular financial system is the next step above that. Without legally guaranteed property rights you can't build a financial system.

Especially off threads about poverty..
You know, you can kill something witty by getting too obvious...

But seriously, read the article.

Then the same thing happens that happens to anyone who doesn't repay a loan: the security gets reposessed.

The thing is, if you have nothing to put there as security you can't get a loan in the first place. Which means you can't borrow money to improve your farm, or to put that great invention you have in your head into practice.Certainly, but why would you expect people to risk what little they have?

If the legal systems in these countries were any good, and the system of private property rights any good, they could use their land as collateral to get a loan to buy the things they need to grow crops, but in places like Kenya, this is not possible.


if they can't buy fertiliser how do you imagine they can buy land to begin with? loans are no good to people that have nothing to begin with, they just make things worse.

You know, you can kill something witty by getting too obvious...

But seriously, read the article.

if only it stopped devoting money to alcohol, tobacco and festivals. That last item, which includes weddings, funerals and religious events, typically accounts for about a tenth of the household's budget.
Major cultural events. Asking them to stop doing those might as well ask them to give up their culture and history entirely.

The farmers of Udaipur cultivate the land they own, no more, no less, but only a fifth rely on their plots as their chief source of income.
Is it being used for sustenance? Can and are they growing enough to sustain themselves and sell enough for profit to replace any other income?

Why, for example, do more Ghanaian farmers not cultivate pineapples, which would fetch returns of 250-300% by some estimates?
What would they do during the time it takes a pineapple plant to become fruit bearing? Do they know how to cultivate pineapples? Do they have access to land useful for pineapple cultivation?

Why do so few farmers in western Kenya dress their fields with fertiliser, even after the benefits have been demonstrated to them?
Can they afford enough fertilizer to cover their field?



Bean counters don't usually make the best judges of anything but how many beans there are in the jar.

if they can't buy fertiliser how do you imagine they can buy land to begin with? loans are no good to people that have nothing to begin with, they just make things worse.

You've missed the point. The ownership arrangements in Africa are frequently informal, or tribal, and that is a problem in securing loans.

As Neu Leonstein said, "Without legally guaranteed property rights you can't build a financial system."

Certainly, but why would you expect people to risk what little they have?

The people lending the money are also risking what they have. Without the ability to secure loans, the people there won't get loans. Without risking what they have, they are locked into poverty. Is that better than taking risks to get out of poverty?

Major cultural events. Asking them to stop doing those might as well ask them to give up their culture and history entirely.
And why shouldn't they? It's what everyone else is doing.
Bean counters don't usually make the best judges of anything but how many beans there are in the jar.
Well, the issue at hand is farmining . . .

What do you reckon? If it is in fact the case that for whatever reason very poor people are not doing as much as they could to help their economic situation, what can or should be done about it?
I don't think anythng needs to be done about it. As long as the alternatives are genuinely available to the poor, that they elect not to choose them is their decision. I shan't question it.

farmers are very conservative people. they dont take wild risks. they do the things they know how to do and they do them in the way they know how to do them. changes are made only after careful consideration and only if it makes sense to the particular farmer.

for a ghanan to suddenly trust the world pineapple market would take a leap that few farmers are able to make. what does he do in 5 years when all his fields are converted to pineapples and the bottom falls out of the market? you cant live on pineapples and you cant sell them all locally. he would be completely screwed in a way that his current farming practices will never do. he is a poor man, he cant ride out a bad year. a bad year leads to death.

he is a poor man, he cant ride out a bad year. a bad year leads to death.
He could if he'd spent 5 years as a successful pineapple farmer. He'd be sitting on a surplus worth 5-10 times his pre-pineapple annual harvest.

He could if he'd spent 5 years as a successful pineapple farmer. He'd be sitting on a surplus worth 5-10 times his pre-pineapple annual harvest.
I want to know where he is going to get all these already fruit bearing pineapple trees to plant.

He could if he'd spent 5 years as a successful pineapple farmer. He'd be sitting on a surplus worth 5-10 times his pre-pineapple annual harvest.

what surplus? if he made more money, he would spend it. he is POOR. he would be buying his kids shoes and sending them to school. he would be putting another room on the house they live in. whatever.

he wouldnt be making enough money to save any.

This one might be a bit controversial. ;)

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9080048&subjectID=348918&fsrc=nwl&emailauth=%2527%252A%2520%253E%253F%2525%255CT%253B1PD%2520%250A


The study in question can be found here: http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=1346

What do you reckon? If it is in fact the case that for whatever reason very poor people are not doing as much as they could to help their economic situation, what can or should be done about it?
I have said over and over again that poor people are poor because they make bad decisions. Seems like the folks at MIT agree with me.

And I see the usual suspects are already apologizing for the state of the poor.

I want to know where he is going to get all these already fruit bearing pineapple trees to plant.

pineapples dont grow on trees but i DO wonder where they are supposed to get the money to buy ....well whatever one buys to start a field of pineapples. im thinking that they must start with cuttings rather than any kind of seeds.

the farmer may well have all he needs to plant his traditional crops but have to take out a loan to get the equipment and cuttings to start a field of pineapples.

I have said over and over again that poor people are poor because they make bad decisions. Seems like the folks at MIT agree with me.

I do not think it can be simplistically represented like that. Compare a child born to a wealthy family in England; and a child born to a poor sharecropper family somewhere in Honduras. Right there and then, you can see that people can be poor even if they haven't even got the capability to make decisions!

I agree with you, though, that you can be poor because of bad decisions: what if that wealthy kid spends everything of luxuries, then suddenly goes broke? Or, it can be otherwise: what if the poor kid grows up to be a successful businessperson? Bad decisions are just part of the reason why people are poor, but it won't entirely explain why some folks are poor.

I firmly believe that people should work for the betterment of their lives. But in many instances, the circumstances and the environment won't just work for you.

I do not think it can be simplistically represented like that. Compare a child born to a wealthy family in England; and a child born to a poor sharecropper family somewhere in Honduras. Right there and then, you can see that people can be poor even if they haven't even got the capability to make decisions!

I agree with you, though, that you can be poor because of bad decisions: what if that wealthy kid spends everything of luxuries, then suddenly goes broke? Or, it can be otherwise: what if the poor kid grows up to be a successful businessperson? Bad decisions are just part of the reason why people are poor, but it won't entirely explain why some folks are poor.

I firmly believe that people should work for the betterment of their lives. But in many instances, the circumstances and the environment won't just work for you.
The one example that was pointed out in the Economist article about underweight men spending money on tobacco and alcohol is key. One simple decision to quit buying stuff with no nutrition would put more food on the table and create a healthier family. Where would that one act lead? It sure wouldn't do any harm, now, would it?

It seems strange that someone would use money to celebrate a festival and then starve for a week because they’re broke...
Think of all the thousands, if not millions, of families in the rich part of the world who put themselves into serious and sometimes dangerous debt, ‘just’ to celebrate the festival of Christmas.

what surplus? if he made more money, he would spend it. he is POOR. he would be buying his kids shoes and sending them to school. he would be putting another room on the house they live in. whatever.

he wouldnt be making enough money to save any.
He was getting by before on 1/3 the revenue. If he starts spending excessively that's his own fault.

The farmers could protect themselves from this sort of problem by forming a cooperative.

The one example that was pointed out in the Economist article about underweight men spending money on tobacco and alcohol is key. One simple decision to quit buying stuff with no nutrition would put more food on the table and create a healthier family. Where would that one act lead? It sure wouldn't do any harm, now, would it?

Um, there is such a thing called addiction, my friend. ;)

True, their addiction might keep them from getting rich, and part of the blame needs to be placed (if any should be) to the person. But again you cannot assign that as the cause of them being poor. It's most likely a combination of factors. Heck, that addiction might even be a manifestation of poverty, not a cause. [Stress from trying to work so hard just to survive, why not treat yourself to some cancer sticks? They're a great stress reliever... Dang, I shouldn't be promoting them cigarettes.]

I understand that you are trying to point out that bad decisions can cause poverty. It's true. But I would like to add that even if everyone makes "good" decisions (whoever ascertains what a "good" decision is, anyway), some folks would still be poor because: 1.) circumstances may not be conducive enough to haul them out of poverty; and 2.) poverty is relative.

The one example that was pointed out in the Economist article about underweight men spending money on tobacco and alcohol is key. One simple decision to quit buying stuff with no nutrition would put more food on the table and create a healthier family. Where would that one act lead? It sure wouldn’t do any harm, now, would it?
So those misusing drugs find it hard to stop taking drugs? What has that got to do with poverty? Drug misuse afflicts people from all social strata, not just the poor.

Being poor is so much more than bad decision-making. Unless you consider being born into one of the millions upon millions of families who live in abject poverty as a ‘bad decision’ on the baby’s part?

pineapples dont grow on trees
I don't care if they grow on prairie dogs, they still don't magically start sprouting fruit soon as you plant them.

I have said over and over again that poor people are poor because they make bad decisions. Seems like the folks at MIT agree with me.

And I see the usual suspects are already apologizing for the state of the poor.
And the usual suspects start throwing around uninformed bullshit demonizing the poor.

He was getting by before on 1/3 the revenue. If he starts spending excessively that's his own fault.

The farmers could protect themselves from this sort of problem by forming a cooperative.

yeah they could do a lot of things if they werent who they are.

put a dozen MIT economists onto those fields and in a decade they might be the richest farmers in all of ghana.

Um, there is such a thing called addiction, my friend. ;)


So those misusing drugs find it hard to stop taking drugs? What has that got to do with poverty? Drug misuse afflicts people from all social strata, not just the poor.


Like I said, the usual apologists are working overtime to make excuses for poor people making poor decisions. Just like the addictions you want to rely on, the first step is recognizing that there is a problem. In this case, it isn't the addiction, but the lousy decisions that are documented in a reputable study.

What do you reckon? If it is in fact the case that for whatever reason very poor people are not doing as much as they could to help their economic situation, what can or should be done about it?
The system would ideally allow anyone to make their choice of career without worrying about its economic value. It is not fair to force someone to give up on their dreams just to allow them to continue to live.

Like I said, the usual apologists are working overtime to make excuses for poor people making poor decisions.
Really? People are here excusing drug use (before you decided to pull the shit up)? I want to know what thread you are reading. I'm pointing out the lack of intermediary facts in a number of their findings.

You are instead pretending we are excusing alcoholism and nicotine addiction. You are making a point of not only demonizing the poor but passive aggressively attacking people you disagree with on the basis of things they didn't say.

Like I said, the usual apologists are working overtime to make excuses for poor people making poor decisions. Just like the addictions you want to rely on, the first step is recognizing that there is a problem. In this case, it isn't the addiction, but the lousy decisions that are documented in a reputable study.

Yeah there is a problem: poverty.
1.) We just do not want to pin all blame on the poor, because frankly, the morass they are in is not entirely their own making.
2.) We do not exonerate the poor from blame. We are just saying that not all of those blame should be heaped upon them.
3.) Why blame anyway? Positively thinking, something constructive would come out of it, pinpoint the causes, and hopefully do something about it.
4.) Bad decisions are part of the cause. Therefore we must address it. However, we must keep in mind that it is only a part, not the entire cause. Even if we solve it with respectable studies and whatnot, poverty could still remain. We must tackle the problem holistically.
5.) Poverty is relative; and it is a complex problem that cannot be solved simplistically.

As far as spending on ‘festivals’ goes, an economist does not make value judgments on whether or not those festivals are important – he merely notes that they exist and that people choose to spend their money on them.

Working with non-profits I am constantly struck by how futile most of their efforts are especially when compounded with the horridly bad management endemic to the NFP community. Unfortunately people of influence in the non-profit sector are highly prejudiced against business and thus work to exclude business-minded people and management techniques in favor of those most similar to themselves and the well-meaning but useless. Fortunately there is the occasional exception which actually cares about results and not just maintaining the organization for the sake of having the organization.

Food aid in Africa is an area with which I am very familiar. Manufacturing a food aid commodity (such as a vitamin fortified corn-soy blend) in Kansas City and shipping it out to Africa for distribution may be useful for one-shot emergency aid, but is the worst way to provide long-term assistance.

The pineapple example is something which twitches the businessman’s spirit – instead of shipping bulk food to people, why not actually try to teach them to fish (surprisingly that has a slight literal meaning as well as just the metaphorical)?

Take some money and start a ‘teaching farm’. We have teaching hospitals here – healthcare is provided and students learn how to be doctors. A teaching farm would take a similar view of farming. Farmers will be very cautious about switching to a new crop, even if it is more profitable, because they lack the experience to be successful at it. Agriculture takes a lot of knowledge to function properly – you can’t just take someone who has never seen a pineapple, give them a few to plant, and tell them they are now a pineapple grower.

Start a large plantation and hire lots of workers. There must be a few experienced pineapple growers willing to work on the plantation for a year or two – a 2 year Peace Corps stint would be perfect. The initial experienced growers will spend the time teaching the local staff. Those teachers go home after the initial 2 years (which takes them from planting through the first harvests) and the remaining, now experienced, staff works the plantation.

Development grants can fund the plantation for the first 2 years, after which the proceeds from the harvest can keep it going. Hire locals for a 2 year contract – one year as student, the second as teacher. Exceptional teachers could be asked to stay on permanently. At the end of the contract, a worker will have the knowledge and experience (plus a large batch of pineapples) to get started on his own farm.

Thus an industry is born. The local economy gets a big boost, which will have knock-on effects for all the other sectors as well. Little things like this is what will bring about long-term stable development to help people out of poverty. A gift of a bowl of gruel a day just isn't going to do it.

The system would ideally allow anyone to make their choice of career without worrying about its economic value. It is not fair to force someone to give up on their dreams just to allow them to continue to live.
Is it fair to force someone else to pay for the dreams of someone else either? I see it as entirely fair that buyers pay for what they want as opposed to what the provider wants. I mean, I wouldn't want to walk into a mall and be forced to buy 20 dolls made out of ear-wax because it is someone else's dream to create dolls of that nature for a living.

...
The pineapple example is something which twitches the businessman’s spirit – instead of shipping bulk food to people, why not actually try to teach them to fish (surprisingly that has a slight literal meaning as well as just the metaphorical)?

Take some money and start a ‘teaching farm’. We have teaching hospitals here – healthcare is provided and students learn how to be doctors. A teaching farm would take a similar view of farming. Farmers will be very cautious about switching to a new crop, even if it is more profitable, because they lack the experience to be successful at it. Agriculture takes a lot of knowledge to function properly – you can’t just take someone who has never seen a pineapple, give them a few to plant, and tell them they are now a pineapple grower.

Start a large plantation and hire lots of workers. There must be a few experienced pineapple growers willing to work on the plantation for a year or two – a 2 year Peace Corps stint would be perfect. The initial experienced growers will spend the time teaching the local staff. Those teachers go home after the initial 2 years (which takes them from planting through the first harvests) and the remaining, now experienced, staff works the plantation.
...
Thus an industry is born. The local economy gets a big boost, which will have knock-on effects for all the other sectors as well. Little things like this is what will bring about long-term stable development to help people out of poverty. A gift of a bowl of gruel a day just isn't going to do it.
There's one problem that trumps all of the possibilities for success in Africa, anyway. That's government. And the corruption that seems to run rampant through most of it. In most African countries, I would expect to see your plantation turned into a state-run fiasco the moment it turned the first dollar of profit. Possibly earlier, if the government could figure out a way to siphon off the foreign aid that was supporting the plantation.

Corrupt governments are probably the barrier, hardest to surmount, in the pursuit of a wealthy Africa.

Is it fair to force someone else to pay for the dreams of someone else either? I see it as entirely fair that buyers pay for what they want as opposed to what the provider wants. I mean, I wouldn't want to walk into a mall and be forced to buy 20 dolls made out of ear-wax because it is someone else's dream to create dolls of that nature for a living.
That's what National Endowment for the Arts is for. We all get to participate in the purchase of those earwax dolls for the betterment of society.

This one might be a bit controversial. ;)

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9080048&subjectID=348918&fsrc=nwl&emailauth=%2527%252A%2520%253E%253F%2525%255CT%253B1PD%2520%250A


The study in question can be found here: http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=1346

What do you reckon? If it is in fact the case that for whatever reason very poor people are not doing as much as they could to help their economic situation, what can or should be done about it?


I remember reading an article in the economist a while back looking into this.
One of the main problems was land ownership. In many african countries there seems to be few laws protecting your property. Then there also appears to be varying systems. Maybe what is your land, because your family has farmed it for x generation is not your according to the government has you never filed the right form or what have you.
With situations like this you the farmer are less likely to invest in your land as your not sure if it will be your tomorow.

hang on, where are these people who live on a dollar a day supposed to get their fertiliser?

Give me a week and I can send you a ten pound bag.

You can't live on one thing alone.

The point of the article is that they seem to apply their labor and income inefficiently on purpose. These people trade their wares in the market, yet they do so in extremely diverse and inefficient ways, and it seems to be somewhat purposeful.

He could if he'd spent 5 years as a successful pineapple farmer. He'd be sitting on a surplus worth 5-10 times his pre-pineapple annual harvest.

Even if they could afford the seedstock.

Even if they could somehow make a legitimate claim to land.

Even if they could afford the fertiliser.

Even if they could afford the labour (and let's bear in mind, starving people are not good labourers).


Even if all those things, and a good season, and a bumper crop - the market only pays a good return on pineapples because demand outstretches supply.

If we actually listened to the 'advice' of the article, and everyone planted pineapples... they'd make less from the deal than they paid to start...

Even if they could afford the seedstock.

Even if they could somehow make a legitimate claim to land.

Even if they could afford the fertiliser.

Even if they could afford the labour (and let's bear in mind, starving people are not good labourers).


Even if all those things, and a good season, and a bumper crop - the market only pays a good return on pineapples because demand outstretches supply.

If we actually listened to the 'advice' of the article, and everyone planted pineapples... they'd make less from the deal than they paid to start...

Which has happened more than once...

One group is successful, others copy, prices crash. Oh well, sucks to be them.

The original successes will have some money by but the followers will probably be WORSE off.

There's one problem that trumps all of the possibilities for success in Africa, anyway. That's government. And the corruption that seems to run rampant through most of it. In most African countries, I would expect to see your plantation turned into a state-run fiasco the moment it turned the first dollar of profit. Possibly earlier, if the government could figure out a way to siphon off the foreign aid that was supporting the plantation.

Corrupt governments are probably the barrier, hardest to surmount, in the pursuit of a wealthy Africa.

I think a bigger problem is the external interference of richer (usually Western) nations with vested interests in the status quo.

Which has happened more than once...

One group is successful, others copy, prices crash. Oh well, sucks to be them.

The original successes will have some money by but the followers will probably be WORSE off.

If only one or two people grow pineapples (like the example suggested), they might do okay out of the deal. But, I think that happens anyway.

One might as well ask why every American isn't a millionaire. If it were really simple and obvious to work out where money was going to be available down the line, everyone would be rich.

I'm not surprised a couple of economists have decided that the system works if it's done right - they have a vested interest in convincing themselves (and others) that a capitalist model can actually work. These are, after all, the people who make a living out of trading a resource that has no intrinsic value.

Even if they could somehow make a legitimate claim to land.

I would be interested in learning more about the land relations in these areas, while it is obvious they do not resemble our own, it doesn't seem that they are as tenuous as they are made out to be in this thread.

Even if all those things, and a good season, and a bumper crop - the market only pays a good return on pineapples because demand outstretches supply.

If we actually listened to the 'advice' of the article, and everyone planted pineapples... they'd make less from the deal than they paid to start...

I am sure that pineapples were just an example, and not the only possible specialized crop.

I'm not surprised a couple of economists have decided that the system works if it's done right - they have a vested interest in convincing themselves (and others) that a capitalist model can actually work. These are, after all, the people who make a living out of trading a resource that has no intrinsic value.

Ideas?

Ideas?
Tell bean counters to go count beans?

Ideas?

Ideas - don't be surprised when people who's job is talking about how groovy 'money' is, talk about how groovy money is.

Just bear in mind their vested interest when you listen to what they have to say - as you do with anyone else.

I see it as entirely fair that buyers pay for what they want as opposed to what the provider wants. I mean, I wouldn't want to walk into a mall and be forced to buy 20 dolls made out of ear-wax because it is someone else's dream to create dolls of that nature for a living.
Suppose the cost of living was eliminated (perhaps through the centralised automated creation, management and distribution of those necessities for life). Wouldn't it be fine to allow them to sell/make whatever they wanted?

I would be interested in learning more about the land relations in these areas, while it is obvious they do not resemble our own, it doesn't seem that they are as tenuous as they are made out to be in this thread.


I live in America. The 'nation' I stand in is an artificial construct of property allocations, layered over the top of the property ideas of a people who already 'had' this land. Even now, this government can decide they need my land more than I do.

Property rights are rarely as concrete as we like to pretend. They often come down to a simple matter of majority. Or minority, with guns.


I am sure that pineapples were just an example, and not the only possible specialized crop.

I see where you are going. Farmer A should grow pineapples, Farmer B should grow watermelons. Farmer C should be out there planting guavas.

But how do you coordinate? Most of the very same people who bitch about the poor not helping themselves, would fight (and, sometimes - this is literal - we have a history of fighting people for such ideas) any communal or governmentally regulated model.

Of course, what they should be growing are drug crops. Good return on investment.

If we actually listened to the 'advice' of the article, and everyone planted pineapples... they'd make less from the deal than they paid to start...
Okay, I hate this argument, and it happens a lot.

Just because the plan breaks down if everyone follows it, doesn't mean it can't still apply to anyone. Because everyone isn't going to follow it, and as long as that's true anyone can and get ahead through doing so.

A plan can still apply to anyone even if it can't apply everyone.

This used to happen all the time in threads started by MTAE, and it drove me nuts.

Of course, what they should be growing are drug crops. Good return on investment.
Of course, they shouldn't be growing or harvesting anything. Why should they, when machinery is many times better at it, can regulate needs and resources much more effectively and doesn't involve forcing them into an unrewarding occupation?

Stupid economists. I haven't read the article properly, just the bit that Neu quoted. They seem like they're missing out some common sense.

Why does someone who earns $1/day plant the seed produced from last years crop rather than buy all the stuff they need to convert their farm to produce cash crops? I think the answer is fairly self-evident... they can't afford to, what with being subsistance farmers and all... idiot economsts.

Another thing to look at is that people who have converted to selling cash crops have got quite badly burned in the past. Latin American coffee anyone? Loads of people converted to producing coffee and then the bottom fell out of the market because there was too much coffee. But no one had enough money to go back to staple crop farming. So the reason people stay with staple crops is because there always is and always will be a market for staple crops.

I would like to question why this economist hasn't brought himself a brain when it would make perfect economic sense to allieviate the problems caused by his lack of said gray matter.

Eating is also necessary. You can't live on circuses.
True, but like it or not, humans belong to their cultures and embeded cultural activities are VERY hard to override.

Certainly, but why would you expect people to risk what little they have?
Not all of them. Some will, I don't expect it to be any different from the situation in developed economies. Some people come up with a plan and are so convinced that they'll risk everything to put it into practice.

Some fail, others win. But if no one did it, then there'd be much fewer entrepreneurs and probably less progress in the long term.

But even aside from loans and mortgages, a lack of land property rights ends up leading to suboptimal decisions:
The land market is an issue for the poor because, for historical reasons, land is the one asset they tend to own. The one obvious problem with owning land is that land records in developing countries are often incomplete and many people do not have titles to their land. This, as many, including most famously, Hernando De Soto (2003), have emphasized, means that it is harder to sell the land or mortgage it.

From the point of view of the poor, this is especially troubling, because they tend to own a lot of the land that was either recently cleared or recently encroached upon, which is typically the land where tilling is incomplete. Field (2006) suggests that, in Peru, the poor, as a result, spend a lot of time protecting their claims to the land (since they have no title, they have no legal recourse).

The poor also suffer because where titles are missing or imperfectly enforced, political influence matters. In parts of Ghana, land belongs either to lineages or to the village, and cultivators have only rights of use. In this context, Goldstein and Udry (2005) show that the people who lack the political clout to protect them from having their land taken away from them by the village or their lineage (which typically includes the poor), do not leave their land fallow for long enough. Leaving land to fallow increases its productivity, but increases the risk that someone may seize it.

Finally there is a long tradition of research in agricultural economics that argues that the poor lack the incentives to make the best use of the land they are cultivating because they are agents rather than owners (Shaban, 1987). Banerjee, Gertler, and Ghatak (2002) found that a reform of tenancy that forced landlords to raise the share of output going to the sharecroppers (improving sharecroppers’ incentives) and also gave them a secure right to the land, raised productivity by about 50 percent.

Major cultural events. Asking them to stop doing those might as well ask them to give up their culture and history entirely.
No one is actually asking them to do anything. It is merely being noted that they could live better economic lives by allocating their resources differently.

Is it being used for sustenance? Can and are they growing enough to sustain themselves and sell enough for profit to replace any other income?
Poor families do seek out economic opportunities, but they tend not to get too specialized. They do some agriculture, but not to the point where it would afford them a full living (for example by buying/renting/sharecropping more land). They also work outside, but only in short bursts─they do not move permanently to their place of occupation.

What would they do during the time it takes a pineapple plant to become fruit bearing? Do they know how to cultivate pineapples? Do they have access to land useful for pineapple cultivation?
They are farmers. And besides, if you don't know something, you go and ask. Ignorance has never been an excuse for anything, not in the 1st world and not in the 3rd.

Can they afford enough fertilizer to cover their field?
Hey, it's enough if they bought even a little and put it on a part of their field. And besides, if they're spending money on parties and alcohol, there's room for maneuvre.

I think a bigger problem is the external interference of richer (usually Western) nations with vested interests in the status quo.
And here we go again. People use their resources in such a way that they starve more than they have to? Western governments' fault!

Tell bean counters to go count beans?
Accountants are typically called bean counters. Economists aren't, at least to my knowledge.

These are economists doing a study on the economic lives of the extremely poor. They note the resources they have and the way they use them, and they did it with on the ground research, actually spending time with those people.

Exactly how any of this isn't within the job description of an economic researcher eludes me. Who else would you have it do? PoliSci researchers? Philosophy professors? Or maybe kids studying the history of modern art...

Just because you don't like what the study found doesn't mean it is invalid.

Stupid economists. I haven't read the article properly, just the bit that Neu quoted.
Well, then it looks like maybe you are the one looking a bit silly, not the economists.

Poor families do seek out economic opportunities, but they tend not to get too specialized. They do some agriculture, but not to the point where it would afford them a full living (for example by buying/renting/sharecropping more land). They also work outside, but only in short bursts─they do not move permanently to their place of occupation.
Doesn't answer the question.

They are farmers.
I can grow coffee therefore I can grow bananas?

And besides, if you don't know something, you go and ask.
The internet?

And this ignores what they are going to do while the plant matures to a fruit bearing age.


Hey, it's enough if they bought even a little and put it on a part of their field. And besides, if they're spending money on parties and alcohol, there's room for maneuvre.
Parties? I'm pretty sure culturally significant festivals arn't "parties" how you are trying to portray them.

These are economists doing a study on the economic lives of the extremely poor. They note the resources they have and the way they use them, and they did it with on the ground research, actually spending time with those people.
And failing to note any affecting circumstances.

No one is actually asking them to do anything. It is merely being noted that they could live better economic lives by allocating their resources differently.
True, but, again, I think that is missing the point as to why they continue to spend a lot of money on various festivals. The ecconomist might note that they would be able to eat better or buy more things if they didn't spend so much money on weddings. The antropologist; however, would note that given their culture, they would not be able to get their daughters married if they didn't spend money on weddings.

That's why I was asking about the reasons behind their apparent unwillingness to gorw pineapples or use fetilizer. Some might be education, or lack thereof, but I'm wondering if parts of it are not cultural as well.

Ideas - don't be surprised when people who's job is talking about how groovy 'money' is, talk about how groovy money is.

Just bear in mind their vested interest when you listen to what they have to say - as you do with anyone else.

I will agree with your point, but many economists also talk about how positively ungroovy money is (or at least capitalism), especially those employed by universities.

EDIT: But are ideas the "resource(s) that has no intrinsic value"?

Doesn't answer the question.
Is it being used for sustenance?: It may or may not. Since it was said that they don't rely on farming exclusively, probably not.
Can and are they growing enough to sustain themselves?: They probably can, but if they are not, it may be due to the fact that they're not actually specialising in farming.
...and sell enough for profit to replace any other income?: Not at this point, obviously. But with cash crops the chance is much greater.

What I mean is that if they don't specialise in farming, then farming is never going to be their ticket out of a crappy situation. It doesn't really seem like there's an alternative path either (short of going into the city maybe), so there's an avenue they should be thinking about.

I can grow coffee therefore I can grow bananas?
You have the basic skills, yes. It's a matter of informing yourself about the details in which coffee plants are different from banana plants.

The internet?
It shouldn't be that hard to find some sort of development agency in India. Hell, one could even ask the government in that country.

And this ignores what they are going to do while the plant matures to a fruit bearing age.
Wait for them to do so. Not only can you shift your production in stages, but you can get a loan in the meantime or simply help out other farmers or take other little jobs. It's not all that different to what they're doing at the moment, except that this time the crop will be worth a lot more.

Parties? I'm pretty sure culturally significant festivals arn't "parties" how you are trying to portray them.
Food > Culture.

If that weren't the case, we should just stop complaining about starving people and make sure everyone can celebrate whatever festivals they have.

And failing to note any affecting circumstances.
I really think you should read the study. It's not as long as it looks, many pages are just tables and stats stuff you can ignore.

The thing is that your criticism seems to be based entirely on you not liking the framework of economics. So you use some sort of undefined set of "affecting circumstances" as if that would somehow make economic logic disappear.

The question is whether starving is an objectively good choice. An economist would normally say "not really, because food is a precursor to all the other nice stuff". Or in a more general form "good economic management is a precursor to nice stuff". And I would argue that this is a pretty solid argument, even when the other guy is an anthropologist or an arts student.

The study only notes that people aren't living as well as they could materially, that they make choices that seem irrational. This can be due to a lack of information, but it can also be due to the people themselves. The Economist asks the latter question moreso than the actual study, but you'd expect as much since it is an editorial.

That's why I was asking about the reasons behind their apparent unwillingness to gorw pineapples or use fetilizer. Some might be education, or lack thereof, but I'm wondering if parts of it are not cultural as well.
Which might then end up forcing us back to the whole "are some cultures better than others" thing. I mean, if there is a culture which more or less leads to people starving if they don't have to...is that something bad, and is there scope for trying to improve it?

Not all of them. Some will, I don't expect it to be any different from the situation in developed economies. Some people come up with a plan and are so convinced that they'll risk everything to put it into practice.I would say that it's different because the farmer risks more - both a place to live and his livelihood - than someone who merely takes out a loan on their business or another mortgage. In the latter case, they only risk one thing.
There are also programs to help the poor if the investment fails in western countries.

Some fail, others win. But if no one did it, then there'd be much fewer entrepreneurs and probably less progress in the long term.True, but I don't see why anyone would take the risk unless there was some cushion to catch them if it failed.

I live in America. The 'nation' I stand in is an artificial construct of property allocations, layered over the top of the property ideas of a people who already 'had' this land. Even now, this government can decide they need my land more than I do.

Property rights are rarely as concrete as we like to pretend. They often come down to a simple matter of majority. Or minority, with guns.

This is true, but there are generally no stronger property rights than those that exist simply through the expression of cultural norms.

Everyone seems to want to imply that, without some government providing a legal basis for land, the claim that the families have on their land are of little or no stability. It seems much more likely that a general feeling of what belongs to this family belongs to this family within the society will secure land far better than government writ.

I see where you are going. Farmer A should grow pineapples, Farmer B should grow watermelons. Farmer C should be out there planting guavas.

But how do you coordinate? Most of the very same people who bitch about the poor not helping themselves, would fight (and, sometimes - this is literal - we have a history of fighting people for such ideas) any communal or governmentally regulated model.

People don't need government to tell them what to grow. The farmer has daily, relevant, and accurate information as to what will be the best crop for them to grow.

Of course, what they should be growing are drug crops. Good return on investment.

Good for them, then.

I have said over and over again that poor people are poor because they make bad decisions.

Poor is relative, not absolute, no?

Food > Culture.

If that weren't the case, we should just stop complaining about starving people and make sure everyone can celebrate whatever festivals they have.
Not quite. You're forgetting that humans are more than animals. If all we did was stand around and eat and breed, that absolute would work. We don't though. And we're enough of a social animal that those cultural aspects are very important.

Which might then end up forcing us back to the whole "are some cultures better than others" thing. I mean, if there is a culture which more or less leads to people starving if they don't have to...is that something bad, and is there scope for trying to improve it?
I think you're missing the point, EVERY culture does it. I'm sure you spend money on cultural events, maybe even more than you should, without thinking about it because they are YOUR cultural events.

How much will you send for Mother's Day (If it's celebrated in Australia)? How much for Christmas? A friend or relation's wedding? A new baby? How much did you fork out for a birthday? See what I mean?

It's not so much a matter of which culture is better as it seems to be human nature to do so.

Probably because it makes social relations between people go so much more smoothly, something even the very poor have to worry about.

Poor people are more risk averse. That's why they don't plant cash crops.

Why does this need a multiple page study?

I see where you are going. Farmer A should grow pineapples, Farmer B should grow watermelons. Farmer C should be out there planting guavas.

But how do you coordinate? Most of the very same people who bitch about the poor not helping themselves, would fight (and, sometimes - this is literal - we have a history of fighting people for such ideas) any communal or governmentally regulated model.

Of course, what they should be growing are drug crops. Good return on investment.

Governments are notoriously bad at coordinating economic activity.

Governments are notoriously bad at coordinating economic activity.

But only when government seeks to replace the market with central planning. A cooperative system could still work if the government were to retain market elements in pricing and production.

Of course, the question would be if that is even possible.

Poor is relative, not absolute, no?
I'd probably agree with that.

You have the basic skills, yes. It's a matter of informing yourself about the details in which coffee plants are different from banana plants.
Not necessarily. Farmers here can't grow strawberries or grapes. They simply can't, because of the climate. So even if strawberries suddenly fetched $1000 per pound and the farmer studied how to grow them, they can't plant 'em because the climate/terrain/soil is unsuitable. Again, there are other factors involved other than purely bad decisions.

And also, many farmers, (I am not being condescending) have had little education. You don't really expect them to go to a school of agriculture, do you? (As in many of your countries)

The point of the article is that they seem to apply their labor and income inefficiently on purpose. These people trade their wares in the market, yet they do so in extremely diverse and inefficient ways, and it seems to be somewhat purposeful.
Yep, but the economists thinking is probably more different that them poor in other countries. Yes, as somebody trained in Western thinking, I'd agree with them in the economist's point of view, but probably they have their own thinking too... just as correct as them economists think theirs is.

I would be interested in learning more about the land relations in these areas, while it is obvious they do not resemble our own, it doesn't seem that they are as tenuous as they are made out to be in this thread.
Many of the poor farmers in my country are actually sharecroppers; that means the owner of the land would give them a share of the crop. This means that: 1.) it is the owner that determines how much to give (and it is usually small); 2.) if the crop fails/ or the market bursts, they get paid smaller; and 3.) they don't really get to decide what to plant either.

Some are tenants, which means that they rent the land from a landlord, which means that: 1.) although they can get to decide what to plant; 2.) the landlord (if greedy enough) can take away the land from the farmer at any moment, most likely near the time of harvest, so s/he gets all the crops for him/herself.

If you own the land you farm, you must be somewhat well off... but then, it depends on the size of the land. If it's small and can't provide for your own needs, oh well...

And while we're at it, why are we forgetting the poor in the urban areas? They can't plant pineapples, you know.

Mind you, this study certainly exploded some commonly held myths. See, The Economic Lives of the Poor, Abhijit V. Banerjee and Esther Duflo, 4 (October 2006) "One reason the population is young is that there is a lot of younger people"

Wow. I never thought of that.

As for growing pineapples, at a guess, it may have something to do with whether you can eat what you fail to sell.
Perhaps it's also to do with the time it'd take to cultivate pineapples. A farmer living off next to nothing can hardly be expected to wipe out his current land use and plant pineapples and then wait a year or two for them to come into fruit. Also, pineapple plants need a fairly decent amount of water and nitrogen in order to fruit. Are either those readily available to our poor farmer?
It's all very well for an economist to say those people should be growing pineapples, but did they actually research to see whether it's actually feasible for them to do so?


Another possible reason for them 'wanting' to remain poor is that their poverty saves them from criminals. In a place where everyone is poor, criminals and the odd local insurgent/terrorist/freedom fighter is going to prey on anyone wealthy enough to supply them with monies. $1 a day ain't gonna help their cause much.

Then there's education. At $1 /day, we can safely assume that these people are uneducated, and have always been uneducated. They go on what they know and what they learnt from their parents. That's all they've had to rely on for survival.
Someone waltzing in and telling them to do everything they've always done is wrong and they need to do everything differently is probably not going to be listened to.

Not quite. You're forgetting that humans are more than animals. If all we did was stand around and eat and breed, that absolute would work. We don't though. And we're enough of a social animal that those cultural aspects are very important.
But more important than eating?

How much will you send for Mother's Day (If it's celebrated in Australia)? How much for Christmas? A friend or relation's wedding? A new baby? How much did you fork out for a birthday? See what I mean?
I see what you mean, but I'm not only an incredibly tight bastard when it comes to my money, but I can also afford to eat enough every day despite me spending money on cultural events.

Probably because it makes social relations between people go so much more smoothly, something even the very poor have to worry about.
But in that case we should stop talking about malnutrition in the third world. According to the findings of the study a lot of people could stop their malnutrition all by themselves but don't. So it's really none of our business to come in there and spend money to shove food down their throats (quite literally :p)

Not necessarily. Farmers here can't grow strawberries or grapes. They simply can't, because of the climate. So even if strawberries suddenly fetched $1000 per pound and the farmer studied how to grow them, they can't plant 'em because the climate/terrain/soil is unsuitable. Again, there are other factors involved other than purely bad decisions.
Yeah, economists can be silly sometimes, but not that silly. Rest assured that they did consider climate and the like, ie everything that was actually within the agent's consumption set, to be academic about it.

And also, many farmers, (I am not being condescending) have had little education. You don't really expect them to go to a school of agriculture, do you? (As in many of your countries)
That's one issue, yes. But even then, you would think that it should be fairly easy for someone to understand if a crop makes double or more than another, even without schooling.

Yes, as somebody trained in Western thinking, I'd agree with them in the economist's point of view, but probably they have their own thinking too... just as correct as them economists think theirs is.
The point of microeconomics is to move beyond "correct" thinking. It's about making things so general that it doesn't matter what the agent's character or culture is.

And as such it was noted that people are apparently willingly going hungry and forgoing opportunities to improve their lot, and I would argue that there is something objectively wrong with that, regardless of culture. But then, according to the study the extremely poor don't seem to be particularly unhappy about their lives, which strikes me as odd.

The study has in fact put forward many of the things that have been said in this thread. The thing that the economists thought was puzzling that even allowing for the difficulties in saving or investing in the future, these people are still very reluctant to actually do it. They have a really, really strong risk minimisation focus which is perhaps understandable, but also holding them back.

But more important than eating?
In a way, yes. Those cultural bits are how humans show that they belong to their culture. For some tribal groups this can take the place of a coming of age ceremony where they become a man (or woman), for us first worlders it can be putting up a Christmas tree. The whole point is that we follow these festivals and cultural activities because if we didn't do it, we wouldn't be part of the group because only people of the group know the right way to go about doing said festival. What was, at one point in time, a way to bind tribes together and help ID tribal members has changed with human society to knowing the proper gift to get your girlfriend on Valentine's Day.

As I said, we are social animals and belonging is VERY important.

I see what you mean, but I'm not only an incredibly tight bastard when it comes to my money, but I can also afford to eat enough every day despite me spending money on cultural events.
I have a feeling that these folks walk a very tight line between trying to get enough to eat and their social obligations.

But in that case we should stop talking about malnutrition in the third world. According to the findings of the study a lot of people could stop their malnutrition all by themselves but don't. So it's really none of our business to come in there and spend money to shove food down their throats (quite literally :p)
Why? See, this is where I think the study doesn't take into account real people. Yeah, they could drop their culture, but how willing would said economist be willing to drop their culture? They could, after all, save up far more money if their told their family and friends to go jump in a lake during the holidays and suchlike. I think that we can help these people have their cake and eat it too. After all, WE as first world nations can celebrate, very extravagantly, our cultural festivals and eat (way too much) as well. I see no reason why the very poor should be forced to make a choice we do not.

The study has in fact put forward many of the things that have been said in this thread. The thing that the economists thought was puzzling that even allowing for the difficulties in saving or investing in the future, these people are still very reluctant to actually do it. They have a really, really strong risk minimisation focus which is perhaps understandable, but also holding them back.

Why would that be puzzling? These people aren't screwing around with a E*Trade account, it's a life or death decision for them what they plant.

Fuck, I could give you a million dollars and tell you to invest it for a year, the only condition being that if you don't return the million to me at the end of the year I'll kill you. You know that you'll just shove it into FDIC money market accounts at that point. Would it be puzzling that you didn't take more risk and make more money? No, of course not.

I'm sorry, but if this 'paper' passes as research, we should all shoot ourselves in the face right now.

Yeah, economists can be silly sometimes, but not that silly. Rest assured that they did consider climate and the like, ie everything that was actually within the agent's consumption set, to be academic about it.

But what I was saying was that economists can't possibly put very little factor in their calculations. And even if they has realized every factor that can be anticipated, others can't: natural disasters; coup d'etat (should be plural, but meh, I don't know how to pluralize that); civil unrest, and the like. Goes on to show that bad decisions aren't the only ones to blame.

The point of microeconomics is to move ... <-snipped for length->
But then, according to the study the extremely poor don't seem to be particularly unhappy about their lives, which strikes me as odd.
(In this section I am going to use words which might sound condescending, but I'm not) Apparently that macroeconomics had not done enough. For a people that had been downtrodden for most of the time, merely surviving can be a joy in itself. (Or if they can eat three meals a day, much much better.) Some don't really bother about planting lots of pineapples that they cannot eat as meals everyday, some would rather want to eat the products of their own labor, some would rather plant crops that their ancestors had planted for a long time, and so on. Cultural influences really do influence decisions, sometimes to the economist's dismay. People's decisions are not influenced by the economy alone; and economics is usually just a model and belies the assertion that people would act reasonably within the rules of economics.

Also, some may have had bad experiences on a money-based economy. For example, if the farmer turned to pineapples and made lots of money, there are many ways in which he could end up as poor or poorer than he was: if the evil state/government officials wants most of them riches and confiscates them (yeah, the state can be that evil); if the economy suddenly crashes; if the money suddenly becomes worthless due to inflation; if evil pests ruin them pineapples... these are mostly outside their realm of control.

You'd be surprised that many folks' lives don't revolve around money - they are not materialistic. That is why they prefer that they live on subsistence and rarely participate (or reduce participation) on any money-based transaction. Money alone cannot make you rich; lack of it won't necessarily make you poor.

But only when government seeks to replace the market with central planning. A cooperative system could still work if the government were to retain market elements in pricing and production.

Of course, the question would be if that is even possible.

Well, I'd argue that they should just ditch the government, make use of available microfinance and pool their resources into a single microcorporation.

Apparently that macroeconomics had not done enough. For a people that had been downtrodden for most of the time, merely surviving can be a joy in itself. Also, they have the festivals to look forward to.

Okay, I hate this argument, and it happens a lot.

Just because the plan breaks down if everyone follows it, doesn't mean it can't still apply to anyone. Because everyone isn't going to follow it, and as long as that's true anyone can and get ahead through doing so.

A plan can still apply to anyone even if it can't apply everyone.

This used to happen all the time in threads started by MTAE, and it drove me nuts.

"Just because the plan breaks down if everyone follows it, doesn't mean it can't still apply to anyone."

They aren't making a point about one person. They are making a point about a whole big load of people. So - their little 'fixes', which you have just admitted can only work on the micro-problems, not the macro... are useless in the context they are discussing.

Of course, they shouldn't be growing or harvesting anything. Why should they, when machinery is many times better at it, can regulate needs and resources much more effectively and doesn't involve forcing them into an unrewarding occupation?

Where are the desperately poor getting the machines from?

Answer - they aren't. Other people have the machines, which they can use to do work that previously would have put food on tables for several families.

Machines are not the answer to poverty. They are part of the problem.

And here we go again. People use their resources in such a way that they starve more than they have to? Western governments' fault!


It has historically been a western thing, but not solely a western thing now.

Rather than create a hysterical response that doesn't actually ADDRESS what I said, why not sit and think about if there might be a small grain of truth.

In all honesty, can you say you don't think (mainly, historically) western concerns have capitalised on cheap work forces and lax labour laws? Do you honestly think poorer nations have always been given fair return on their resources?

I will agree with your point, but many economists also talk about how positively ungroovy money is (or at least capitalism), especially those employed by universities.

EDIT: But are ideas the "resource(s) that has no intrinsic value"?

The resource with "no intrinsic value" is 'money'... in whatever guise we find it.

But more important than eating?

When faced with a choice between a complete mental breakdown coupled with hunger and being sane, but slightly hungrier, I'd choose the latter every time. They're already starving. An additional day of food is not going to change that.

Governments are notoriously bad at coordinating economic activity.

I've seen this argument before.

I look at the nationalised health service I grew up with in the UK, and compare it to the healthcare system in the US - and find the US version more costly on the universal and individual scale.

It seems to me that anyone can be bad at coordinating economic activity... and that, it really depends on perspective. I'm sure the pharmaceutical and insurance companies in the US just love the way the US system works.

If the Muslim world would only embrace the drinking of alcohol...they could develop such an industry around it, high paying, technical jobs that are always in demand. An Arab Budweiser (after all, beer does come from Mesopotamia) would employ and provide enjoyment, and more importantly, a pressure valve that western societies have long had.

I've seen this argument before.

I look at the nationalised health service I grew up with in the UK, and compare it to the healthcare system in the US - and find the US version more costly on the universal and individual scale.

It seems to me that anyone can be bad at coordinating economic activity... and that, it really depends on perspective. I'm sure the pharmaceutical and insurance companies in the US just love the way the US system works.

The US problem has a lot to do with the development of our insurance industry into a quasi-bureaucratic structure, focused more on institutional accountability than on delivering results. This situation has only been made worse by government intervention and regulation within the healthcare market, although this is not the primary cause of the problems. Rather, the nature of the delivery mechanisms are.

Rather, the US needs serious health insurance industry reforms, both in administration and in the delivery of goods. To steal a term from the Clinton Administration, American health insurance needs "reinvented" around a more customer-centric model, more in tune with the rest of the private sector. Nowadays, the insurance industry more closely resembles a 1950's government bureaucracy than a private sector industry.

Honestly, a government run health insurance scheme would be better than this clusterfuck, although a reinvented private health insurance industry would be even better than that.

The US problem has a lot to do with the development of our insurance industry into a quasi-bureaucratic structure, focused more on institutional accountability than on delivering results. This situation has only been made worse by government intervention and regulation within the healthcare market, although this is not the primary cause of the problems. Rather, the nature of the delivery mechanisms are.

Rather, the US needs serious health insurance industry reforms, both in administration and in the delivery of goods. To steal a term from the Clinton Administration, American health insurance needs "reinvented" around a more customer-centric model, more in tune with the rest of the private sector. Nowadays, the insurance industry more closely resembles a 1950's government bureaucracy than a private sector industry.

Honestly, a government run health insurance scheme would be better than this clusterfuck, although a reinvented private health insurance industry would be even better than that.

No arguments there. I've lived with both models, and I vastly prefer the UK version.

But, I'm not sure that the problems of the insurance industry in the US are about delivery mechanisms. The US model lacks regulation of any real kind. The medical industry is less regulated than it should be, because it can 'blame' the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies... and both of those institutions 'own' the government. The pharmaceutical ndustry is effectively unregulated. The insurance industry is unregulated.

A nationalised universal healthcare program would immediately reduce national spending, and individual costs. Then, the only remaining hurdle to a working system, would be the protectionist agenda with pharmaceutical companies. If we had anything like the 'free market' we are supposed to have, that particular spectre would evapourate in minutes also.

No arguments there. I've lived with both models, and I vastly prefer the UK version.

But, I'm not sure that the problems of the insurance industry in the US are about delivery mechanisms. The US model lacks regulation of any real kind. The medical industry is less regulated than it should be, because it can 'blame' the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies... and both of those institutions 'own' the government. The pharmaceutical ndustry is effectively unregulated. The insurance industry is unregulated.

A nationalised universal healthcare program would immediately reduce national spending, and individual costs. Then, the only remaining hurdle to a working system, would be the protectionist agenda with pharmaceutical companies. If we had anything like the 'free market' we are supposed to have, that particular spectre would evapourate in minutes also.

I spent some years under military healthcare. It's essentially socialized medicine.

It also seeks to lower costs, by screwing the patients out of drugs that work (narrowed formulary), piling on the workload of doctors, etc. More modern surgical techniques are expressly forbidden, until they are tested somewhere else. People have died waiting for a doctor.

I've also used Kaiser as insurance, and it's got the same problems - they run it along the same model as military healthcare.

I have Canadian relatives who would have died, had they gone with the surgical waiting list, or the cancer treatment waiting list. They came to the US and had the treatments done - and paid for it themselves. Hardly what I would call a good system.

Point of fact is, whether private or Government, once you start caring about costs, the game theory is going to drive you to fuck the patients.

I spent some years under military healthcare. It's essentially socialized medicine.

It also seeks to lower costs, by screwing the patients out of drugs that work (narrowed formulary), piling on the workload of doctors, etc. More modern surgical techniques are expressly forbidden, until they are tested somewhere else. People have died waiting for a doctor.

I've also used Kaiser as insurance, and it's got the same problems - they run it along the same model as military healthcare.

I have Canadian relatives who would have died, had they gone with the surgical waiting list, or the cancer treatment waiting list. They came to the US and had the treatments done - and paid for it themselves. Hardly what I would call a good system.

Point of fact is, whether private or Government, once you start caring about costs, the game theory is going to drive you to fuck the patients.

First - under the UK system (I can't really speak to US military or Canadian models), if you have a serious problem, you are bumped up the list. Yes - there are waiting times for some things... but emergency care is done as emergency care, ASAP. Similarly - 'risky' conditions are bumped over less risky, but below emergency.

So - I had three hernia surgeries. Two of them were on a roughly 6 week waiting list. The other looked like it might have a risk of complication (strangulation), so I had my surgery within a week. If it had strangulated, I would have been admitted immediately.

That is how the system should work. I'd be surprised if the Candian model really doesn't work something like that.

The other point is - in the UK, if you don't want waiting lists, you can also have medical insurance, and/or get private treatment out of your own pocket. That's actually how I handled my dental medical care in the UK. A system that allows both models works pretty well, and caters for the least fortunate as well as for the most. And - to me, that is the real measure of how 'civilised' a culture is.

That is how the system should work. I'd be surprised if the Candian model really doesn't work something like that.

It doesn't. If your surgery requires a specialist, and the specialists are booked doing the same kinds of surgery (say, on your pancreas) you're fucked.

They have a major problem with Canadian surgeons leaving Canada. For good.

The resource with "no intrinsic value" is 'money'... in whatever guise we find it.

Currency has intrinsic liquidity value. $1000 in hand is worth more than a good that is valued on the market at $1000.

Yep, but the economists thinking is probably more different that them poor in other countries. Yes, as somebody trained in Western thinking, I'd agree with them in the economist's point of view, but probably they have their own thinking too... just as correct as them economists think theirs is.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, here. The economists are making a pretty objective statement: the poor often have routes to increase their income that they simply don't take.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, here. The economists are making a pretty objective statement: the poor often have routes to increase their income that they simply don't take.

thats economic thinking. a non economist realizes that there are things that they MUST spend their meager resources on even if it doesnt make strict economic sense.

sure a farmer can tell the rest of society to fuck off. no festivals, no weddings, no funerals, no sitting around with the other men smoking and drinking.

but what would he have? NOTHING. when something bad happens and he needs the help of his neighbors, they arent going to come. he cut those ties. his children wont get married, his wife will have no friends, he will have 10% more income but it still wont cover the emergencies that neighbors and friends can help him with.

How much will you send for Mother's Day (If it's celebrated in Australia)? How much for Christmas? A friend or relation's wedding? A new baby? How much did you fork out for a birthday? See what I mean?

It's not so much a matter of which culture is better as it seems to be human nature to do so.

Yep, M's day is celebrated here (though I only give plants to mum).

Each year there is a fairly large amount of debt generated due to Chirstmas.

thats economic thinking. a non economist realizes that there are things that they MUST spend their meager resources on even if it doesnt make strict economic sense.

sure a farmer can tell the rest of society to fuck off. no festivals, no weddings, no funerals, no sitting around with the other men smoking and drinking.

but what would he have? NOTHING. when something bad happens and he needs the help of his neighbors, they arent going to come. he cut those ties. his children wont get married, his wife will have no friends, he will have 10% more income but it still wont cover the emergencies that neighbors and friends can help him with.

Not only does the article say that they could free up to 30% of their earnings (they spend more of their earnings on entertainment than I do), but it also says:

This spending might be motivated by escapism—the poor have a lot to escape—or perhaps by social emulation. Even those in absolute poverty care about their relative standing.

Economic thinking deals with values and has no problem incorporating the value of social lives and entertainment.

That is simply not the major point of the article, though. The poor can increase their income, but do not, it has little to do with spending.

The statements in this article are objective.

Not only does the article say that they could free up to 30% of their earnings (they spend more of their earnings on entertainment than I do), but it also says:

This spending might be motivated by escapism—the poor have a lot to escape—or perhaps by social emulation. Even those in absolute poverty care about their relative standing.

Economic thinking deals with values and has no problem incorporating the value of social lives and entertainment.

That is simply not the major point of the article, though. The poor can increase their income, but do not, it has little to do with spending.

The statements in this article are objective.

i read the article but not the pdf.

the suggestion that they could save money by not participating in society is useless. no one lives on their own. no one lives without joining in on the things that are required by their society.

if that is paying out for weddings, funerals, and festivals then that is what they HAVE to do. there is no way to go without no matter how much economic sense it might seem to make.

if men are expected to get together to smoke and drink, then how is he going to be a man if he doesnt do that? and WHY would he ever make the decision to not be a man?

i dont know how the pdf suggested that kenyan farmers were supposed to pay for fertilizer but its a big upfront expense. you have to have a good chunk of money to pay for it. where do you get that money at planting time? even if you can convince an illiterate farmer that he will make more money in the long run if he does this thing that no one he knows has ever done how will he pay for it?

i dont know what they grow in ghana now but what subsistence farmer can wait the 18months upfront time until he can possibly get his first pineapple crop? where does he get the plants to begin with? where does he get the equipment? where does he get the fertilizer and pesticides? its an incredible thing to expect of an illiterate man who has the lives of his family at stake. if he screws it up, they all starve.

Machines are not the answer to poverty. They are part of the problem.
A luddite? Seriously?

In all honesty, can you say you don't think (mainly, historically) western concerns have capitalised on cheap work forces and lax labour laws?
Of course they have, but nothing about that exchange harms the poor country or its people.

I think that we can help these people have their cake and eat it too. After all, WE as first world nations can celebrate, very extravagantly, our cultural festivals and eat (way too much) as well. I see no reason why the very poor should be forced to make a choice we do not.
I agree that development policy is still necessary. I'm just not sure that we should be spending so much time worrying about malnutrition if these people apparently make a choice to go hungry occasionally.

Money alone cannot make you rich; lack of it won't necessarily make you poor.
But doesn't that then have implications for development policy?

I'm sorry, but if this 'paper' passes as research, we should all shoot ourselves in the face right now.
The thing is that if we simply took this "of course they're going to do that" approach, we're going to hear the criticism of "you always just use your theory, you never actually see what real people do".

This is empirical research. A fact-finding mission if you will.

In all honesty, can you say you don't think (mainly, historically) western concerns have capitalised on cheap work forces and lax labour laws?
Cheap labour, definitely. Though not directly, but usually through local contractors. But even then Western multinationals actually pay about double what domestic employers pay in poor countries.

I'd dare say that no one who works for a multinational has to worry about getting enough food.

Do you honestly think poorer nations have always been given fair return on their resources?
I reject the idea that anything "belongs" to a nation in the first place. Things belong to people, not colourful blobs on the map.

That being said, of course they haven't always had an easy time. I mean, colonialism will do that.

But people need to stop using that as an excuse for stupid decisions made in the 3rd World, whether it is governments or private individuals. South Korea hasn't exactly had it easy under Japanese rule either, and today their biggest problem is that their kids are internet addicts.

When faced with a choice between a complete mental breakdown coupled with hunger and being sane, but slightly hungrier, I'd choose the latter every time. They're already starving. An additional day of food is not going to change that.
The thing is that they wouldn't have to be starving, because many do have the means to increase their calorie intake.

So basically they're starving because they think other things are more important. Like radios and TV sets. Which seems silly to me, but I'm not gonna make their decisions for them.

But I think it does have implications for policy regarding 3rd World hunger.

That is how the system should work. I'd be surprised if the Candian model really doesn't work something like that.
The Canadian system works much like that for emergent cases - if you're going to die right away without treatment, you get bumped to the front of the queue. But if your case isn't emergent (and under the Canadian defintions none of yours were), you languish at the back of the queue (which can take over a year, depending in which province you live and what sort of specialist you're booked to see) until you either die or your case becomes emergent.

You would have waited until your hernia DID strangulate, and then you would have been bumped to the front of the queue to receive your now much riskier procedure.

The primary difference between the UK and Canadian healthcare systems is that while they are both single-payer systems (all costs are covered by the government), Canada is also a single-provider system. In Canada, all doctors are employed by the government. All hospitals are constructed and owned by the government. As such, there's almost no efficiency built into the actual delivery of healthcare. Britain has private healthcare provision, even though it's still paid for by the government. And it is thus vastly more efficient and provides better care.

Japan and Iceland are probably the best examples of how well that sort of system (the British system) can work. Canada's failure only reinforces the point.

i read the article but not the pdf.

the suggestion that they could save money by not participating in society is useless. no one lives on their own. no one lives without joining in on the things that are required by their society.

if that is paying out for weddings, funerals, and festivals then that is what they HAVE to do. there is no way to go without no matter how much economic sense it might seem to make.

if men are expected to get together to smoke and drink, then how is he going to be a man if he doesnt do that? and WHY would he ever make the decision to not be a man?

Neither I, nor the article disagree with you.

It makes it quite obvious that the low income and low expenditure upon food is not a great cause of unhappiness, likely because of the social relations.

i dont know how the pdf suggested that kenyan farmers were supposed to pay for fertilizer but its a big upfront expense. you have to have a good chunk of money to pay for it. where do you get that money at planting time? even if you can convince an illiterate farmer that he will make more money in the long run if he does this thing that no one he knows has ever done how will he pay for it?

i dont know what they grow in ghana now but what subsistence farmer can wait the 18months upfront time until he can possibly get his first pineapple crop? where does he get the plants to begin with? where does he get the equipment? where does he get the fertilizer and pesticides? its an incredible thing to expect of an illiterate man who has the lives of his family at stake. if he screws it up, they all starve.

They are growing food already that does not fully support their subsistence. They are already plying wares in the marketplace. The point of the article is that it is only necessary for the individual to partake in a little financial planning to improve their lifestyles. Instead of growing a bunch of nearly worthless crop, why don't they devote 1/3 of their crop to a marketable item that will be more valuable than all of the rest of their crops combined. Instead of trying seven or eight trades within the market, why not specialize in one?

It is not an all or nothing deal, here. They could improve their situation by simply devoting one-tenth of their efforts to a more marketable investment, but they do not.

Never once does the article state that the people must change their entire lifestyles, it only states that there are opportunities to improve their food consumption (as well as other life sustaining goods) that are simply not taken.

If anybody is projecting, it is not the economists who conducted the study, but those who think that these folks are in desperate need of financial help, but cannot do it themselves.

And how far gone is this discussion that, when the idea of a farmer tending his small plot of land comes up, people begin crying out "But how could he afford fertilizer and pesticides?" If we cannot seriously fathom food production without fertilizer and pesticides, we have seriously distanced ourselves from history. How does everyone think that food was grown prior to manufactured fertilizer and pesticides?

And also: Fertilizer is not that expensive. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manure)

Fertilizer is not that expensive. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manure)
Many African cultures already use manure as fuel and as a construction material, but not as fertilizer. One wonders why.

Neither I, nor the article disagree with you.

It makes it quite obvious that the low income and low expenditure upon food is not a great cause of unhappiness, likely because of the social relations.



They are growing food already that does not fully support their subsistence. They are already plying wares in the marketplace. The point of the article is that it is only necessary for the individual to partake in a little financial planning to improve their lifestyles. Instead of growing a bunch of nearly worthless crop, why don't they devote 1/3 of their crop to a marketable item that will be more valuable than all of the rest of their crops combined. Instead of trying seven or eight trades within the market, why not specialize in one?

It is not an all or nothing deal, here. They could improve their situation by simply devoting one-tenth of their efforts to a more marketable investment, but they do not.

Never once does the article state that the people must change their entire lifestyles, it only states that there are opportunities to improve their food consumption (as well as other life sustaining goods) that are simply not taken.

If anybody is projecting, it is not the economists who conducted the study, but those who think that these folks are in desperate need of financial help, but cannot do it themselves.

And how far gone is this discussion that, when the idea of a farmer tending his small plot of land comes up, people begin crying out "But how could he afford fertilizer and pesticides?" If we cannot seriously fathom food production without fertilizer and pesticides, we have seriously distanced ourselves from history. How does everyone think that food was grown prior to manufactured fertilizer and pesticides?

And also: Fertilizer is not that expensive. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manure)

if the PDF is suggesting that there is a great local market for pineapple, then perhaps there is. pineapple needs fertile soil and is subject to pests that need to be taken care of in order to get a good crop. if locals will pay good money for pineapples that cant be sold on the international market then it makes better sense. its still at least an 18 month wait to get any return on the planting. even if you only put 1/3 of your land into the new crop, its a long wait for a return.

collecting manure from the grazing fields, composting it and spreading on the crop fields might be quite a chore. it doesnt seem to have much of a downside but i bet there IS one that needs to be taken into consideration before you can expect the farmers to put in the needed effort.

my real point is that you cant expect anything but extremely conservative behavior out of extremely conservative people. there might be dozens of things that could be done to improve their finanaces. i wouldnt know. but you cant expect them to jump to any improvement when no one they know has ever done it before.

Many African cultures already use manure as fuel and as a construction material, but not as fertilizer. One wonders why.

deforestation.

perhaps its more valuable as fuel than as fertilizer.

Neither I, nor the article disagree with you.

It makes it quite obvious that the low income and low expenditure upon food is not a great cause of unhappiness, likely because of the social relations.



They are growing food already that does not fully support their subsistence. They are already plying wares in the marketplace. The point of the article is that it is only necessary for the individual to partake in a little financial planning to improve their lifestyles. Instead of growing a bunch of nearly worthless crop, why don't they devote 1/3 of their crop to a marketable item that will be more valuable than all of the rest of their crops combined. Instead of trying seven or eight trades within the market, why not specialize in one?

It is not an all or nothing deal, here. They could improve their situation by simply devoting one-tenth of their efforts to a more marketable investment, but they do not.

Never once does the article state that the people must change their entire lifestyles, it only states that there are opportunities to improve their food consumption (as well as other life sustaining goods) that are simply not taken.

If anybody is projecting, it is not the economists who conducted the study, but those who think that these folks are in desperate need of financial help, but cannot do it themselves.

And how far gone is this discussion that, when the idea of a farmer tending his small plot of land comes up, people begin crying out "But how could he afford fertilizer and pesticides?" If we cannot seriously fathom food production without fertilizer and pesticides, we have seriously distanced ourselves from history. How does everyone think that food was grown prior to manufactured fertilizer and pesticides?

And also: Fertilizer is not that expensive. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manure)

Very poorly, with a minimum of excess that is not fit to travel 50 miles, let alone around the globe. In other words, in a manner inconsistent with modern commercial capitalism, which is really the heart of the problem.

As I've tried to explain to you before Vittos, farming is an enterprise that is very much at odds with modern capitalism and does not fit very well. It requires immense startup costs, has a very risky investment, and the payoff in return is never very high and spread out over many years. In other words, it's the opposite of what modern capitalism looks for in an investment: high-yield, relatively safe investments with quick turnovers.

It is also the heart of the problem in this particular circumstance: it isn't simply as simple as waving a hand and saying "Here there be pineapples!" A farmer has to know how to grow pineapples, he has to know what to look for in good and bad growing in the pineapple trees, he needs to plant and tend the trees for years before he starts seeing a return on his investment, he needs the right pollinating insects in the area, he needs the right amount of water and proper irrigation systems to deliver it, he needs to know how to successfully harvest and package his crops, he needs the proper equipment to harvest his crop, he needs not just access to the right kinds of fertilizer but also to know when and how much to use, he needs to know what kind of pests and weeds grow around pineapple trees and what kind of pesticides and herbicides best deal with them. This is not even a full list, yet it should be clear that these are not trivial concerns. Even a single failure, and your crop gets ruined. Hell, you can get everything right and the chance infestation of some kind of weevil or blight will still ruin it. I don't see you paying attention to any of this at all, and neither for that matter do the economists. All of which suggests to me that you and they don't really understand farming, because if you did, you'd perfectly understand farmer's reluctance to switch crops and be recommending ways of dealing with these issues.

if the PDF is suggesting that there is a great local market for pineapple, then perhaps there is.
I don't think the pdf mentions the choice of crop. That's been done in other studies.

if the PDF is suggesting that there is a great local market for pineapple, then perhaps there is. pineapple needs fertile soil and is subject to pests that need to be taken care of in order to get a good crop. if locals will pay good money for pineapples that cant be sold on the international market then it makes better sense. its still at least an 18 month wait to get any return on the planting. even if you only put 1/3 of your land into the new crop, its a long wait for a return.

collecting manure from the grazing fields, composting it and spreading on the crop fields might be quite a chore. it doesnt seem to have much of a downside but i bet there IS one that needs to be taken into consideration before you can expect the farmers to put in the needed effort.

my real point is that you cant expect anything but extremely conservative behavior out of extremely conservative people. there might be dozens of things that could be done to improve their finanaces. i wouldnt know. but you cant expect them to jump to any improvement when no one they know has ever done it before.

I don't think individuals who have an income of 30 dollars a month who spend 10 dollars a month on festivals and other manners of social entertainment could be considered "conservative", and I have not read the pdf.

I am simply going by what the article says (I would imagine that it is a accurate assessment of the study), and assuming that, were there dynamic hindrances that barred these people from changing what they grew on their plots, this would be accounted for. Do you seriously think that these two MIT researchers have neglected the cost of fertilizer in growing pineapples?

In the end, the economists are not projecting their opinions upon these people, they are simply reporting economic facts about their situations. It is those who continuously say stuff like "you cant expect anything but extremely conservative behavior out of extremely conservative people" who are subjectively categorizing these people.

I don't think individuals who have an income of 30 dollars a month who spend 10 dollars a month on festivals and other manners of social entertainment could be considered "conservative", and I have not read the pdf.

I am simply going by what the article says (I would imagine that it is a accurate assessment of the study), and assuming that, were there dynamic hindrances that barred these people from changing what they grew on their plots, this would be accounted for. Do you seriously think that these two MIT researchers have neglected the cost of fertilizer in growing pineapples?

In the end, the economists are not projecting their opinions upon these people, they are simply reporting economic facts about their situations. It is those who continuously say stuff like "you cant expect anything but extremely conservative behavior out of extremely conservative people" who are subjectively categorizing these people.

i dont think you know what conservative means. conservative means resistant to change. they do things the way their parents did them and their grandparents before them. they will not do anything different unless everyone else is doing something different. even then, it might be their children who do the new thing instead of them.

so if their way of life is spending and average of $10/month on things that an MIT economist considers frivolous they will not change just because some white man suggests that they will make more money if they stop smoking and drinking.

smart people have been trying to force changes in africa for decades. they have tended to do as much harm as good. i dont see why these 2 economists shouldnt be any different.

im hoping that someone who is willing to read the large pdf will quote something that will show one of us is more right than the other.

Very poorly, with a minimum of excess that is not fit to travel 50 miles, let alone around the globe. In other words, in a manner inconsistent with modern commercial capitalism, which is really the heart of the problem.

These people aren't global capitalists, they are subsistence farmers who can walk to their local marketplace.

As I've tried to explain to you before Vittos, farming is an enterprise that is very much at odds with modern capitalism and does not fit very well. It requires immense startup costs, has a very risky investment, and the payoff in return is never very high and spread out over many years. In other words, it's the opposite of what modern capitalism looks for in an investment: high-yield, relatively safe investments with quick turnovers.

Which is why we see huge farming conglomerates who are able to exploit the economies of scale and the massive amount of farm subsidies handed out by the government.

What does that have to do with this discussion? I don't think these people do not grow more marketable products because they cannot afford a harvester.

It is also the heart of the problem in this particular circumstance: it isn't simply as simple as waving a hand and saying "Here there be pineapples!" A farmer has to know how to grow pineapples, he has to know what to look for in good and bad growing in the pineapple trees, he needs to plant and tend the trees for years before he starts seeing a return on his investment, he needs the right pollinating insects in the area, he needs the right amount of water and proper irrigation systems to deliver it, he needs to know how to successfully harvest and package his crops, he needs the proper equipment to harvest his crop, he needs not just access to the right kinds of fertilizer but also to know when and how much to use, he needs to know what kind of pests and weeds grow around pineapple trees and what kind of pesticides and herbicides best deal with them. This is not even a full list, yet it should be clear that these are not trivial concerns. Even a single failure, and your crop gets ruined. Hell, you can get everything right and the chance infestation of some kind of weevil or blight will still ruin it. I don't see you paying attention to any of this at all, and neither for that matter do the economists.

Or he can plant two or three pineapple plants and keep an eye on them, seriously: http://www.floridagardener.com/misc/hgpa.htm.

All of which suggests to me that you and they don't really understand farming, because if you did, you'd perfectly understand farmer's reluctance to switch crops and be recommending ways of dealing with these issues.

Well, I grew up in southern Illinois, actually on my Grandpa's farm, I lived on a farm from the ages of 6 to 19, and I worked at a grain elevator for two years.

I really just think that you don't understand the article.

Currency has intrinsic liquidity value. $1000 in hand is worth more than a good that is valued on the market at $1000.

That sounds like no intrinsic value to me.

A luddite? Seriously?

No.

I didn't say I wanted to destroy machines. I'm not throwing wooden shoes into the gears.

On the other hand, I'm not going to pretend that automation is not expressly doing the same jobs, with less invested manhours.

Of course they have, but nothing about that exchange harms the poor country or its people.

I don't think you are being realistic if you would argue that virtual slavery, and effective theft of any material wealth are not harm.

i dont think you know what conservative means. conservative means resistant to change. they do things the way their parents did them and their grandparents before them. they will not do anything different unless everyone else is doing something different. even then, it might be their children who do the new thing instead of them.

so if their way of life is spending and average of $10/month on things that an MIT economist considers frivolous they will not change just because some white man suggests that they will make more money if they stop smoking and drinking.

smart people have been trying to force changes in africa for decades. they have tended to do as much harm as good. i dont see why these 2 economists shouldnt be any different.

im hoping that someone who is willing to read the large pdf will quote something that will show one of us is more right than the other.

I know what conservative means, and it doesn't appear that these people are conservative with their money, and to imply that they are conservative in the plants they are willing to cultivate seems rather unfounded.

Neither I nor the economists have called the spending frivolous, the economists actually tried to guess the value of the action (as it is generally assumed that people do not simply throw their money away, rather trade it for some other thing of value).

I don't know if the economists are proposing intervention, but it seems to me that their studies are a great argument for non-intervention.

That sounds like no intrinsic value to me.

An analogy would be hats. Hats are not valuable on their own, it is because we possess heads that we wish to dress that they have value. If we have no heads, hats have no value, but why even consider that?

Money too, derives its values from other goods, in that it represents them and makes them more liquid. If I have 20 chickens and I need the bicycle that you have, it would take a remarkable coincidence for us to conclude our trade right then and there. Money provides us with a medium for trade.

Because of this liquidity, money itself has its own value above and beyond the basket of goods it represents. Sure it would have none of this value if the basket of goods were to disappear, but would we even be considering money if that were to happen?

Well, I grew up in southern Illinois, actually on my Grandpa's farm, I lived on a farm from the ages of 6 to 19, and I worked at a grain elevator for two years.

I really just think that you don't understand the article.

then you must be aware of how many farmers lost their farms due to following the great advice of the big thinkers in the agriculture department.

in the US when you take some outsiders advice on what and how to plant, you dont starve to death when it turns out to be bad advice. in a dirt poor country you have to be extremely careful about whose advice you take and when you take it. one wrong move and there is no recovering from it.

An analogy would be hats. Hats are not valuable on their own, it is because we possess heads that we wish to dress that they have value. If we have no heads, hats have no value, but why even consider that?

Money too, derives its values from other goods, in that it represents them and makes them more liquid. If I have 20 chickens and I need the bicycle that you have, it would take a remarkable coincidence for us to conclude our trade right then and there. Money provides us with a medium for trade.

Because of this liquidity, money itself has its own value above and beyond the basket of goods it represents. Sure it would have none of this value if the basket of goods were to disappear, but would we even be considering money if that were to happen?

Desperate and kind of silly.

Money has value as a track of exchanable value, and you know it. It has no other intrinsic value of note, unless it happens to be made of something valuable.

then you must be aware of how many farmers lost their farms due to following the great advice of the big thinkers in the agriculture department.

in the US when you take some outsiders advice on what and how to plant, you dont starve to death when it turns out to be bad advice. in a dirt poor country you have to be extremely careful about whose advice you take and when you take it. one wrong move and there is no recovering from it.

I am also aware just how remarkably dissimilar American farmers are from these people are or how little these comments seem to mesh with the article.

Money has value as a track of exchanable value, and you know it.

What?

What?

Can you eat it? Make something from it? Keep yourself warm? No - unless we are talking about a currency actually constructed from something of worth, the only value that 'money' has, at all, is as a measure of equivalence.

I have a pig. You have three goats. How many goats is a pig worth? Money is the 'mechanism' that we use to balance pigs against goats. It has no value aside from that.

These people aren't global capitalists, they are subsistence farmers who can walk to their local marketplace.

. . .And dare I ask, what is the local market for pineapples like? Cause if it isn't all that hot, then you've just found a rational reason why they don't grow pineapples, hence undercutting the purpose of the article: to say that the tenet of "the rational poor" is ill-founded.


Which is why we see huge farming conglomerates who are able to exploit the economies of scale and the massive amount of farm subsidies handed out by the government.

What does that have to do with this discussion? I don't think these people do not grow more marketable products because they cannot afford a harvester.


Triple negative aside, I do in fact think that is a very pertinent reason. If you can't afford the tools needed to produce the food, you produce something else.


Or he can plant two or three pineapple plants and keep an eye on them, seriously: http://www.floridagardener.com/misc/hgpa.htm.


Dear God man, and you're the one telling us that we don't understand the article? Was I the only one who noted the whole discussion about "lack of specialization" as a major correlative with poverty?

Planting two or three plants isn't going to raise them from poverty; you'd have to convert the entire farm. Planting to or three would only increase the amount of jobs done in the average farm household beyond the 7 jobs performed by 3 breadwinners. In other words it would, dare I say it, not be rational to do that.


Well, I grew up in southern Illinois, actually on my Grandpa's farm, I lived on a farm from the ages of 6 to 19, and I worked at a grain elevator for two years.

I really just think that you don't understand the article.

You apparently didn't take much from it, otherwise you'd have noted that there is no such thing as a successfully imprudent farmer. What would be the prudent option in this case: switching production to a crop you don't know how to grow, requires a multi-year investment of time during which you collect no crops, and could fail on you more easily, or grow what you always grow with less chance of success in exchange for less chance of failure? Maybe it's my time on the farm coming back to me all skewed or something, but I know what my answer is.

It has no other intrinsic value of note, unless it happens to be made of something valuable.
Assuming said thing of value has value.

The dream of money and value is that we all dream the same dream. If we didn't, it wouldn't work.

Just injecting that in. :D

I'm not sure what you are getting at, here. The economists are making a pretty objective statement: the poor often have routes to increase their income that they simply don't take.
But the poor, and I assume even most of you too, simply don't make financial decisions purely based on economics. Yeah, they said an objective statement economically speaking, but the other factors and influences can tilt the decision to the other side. If they find the other factors and influences more weighty than the economic factor, them economists are saying that they made a bad decision economically, but I don't think the people themselves would think of that it as the wrong decision at the time.

(And usually, the "decisions" may not be usually apparent, you know. Them farmers don't read the Wall Street Journal or something.)

But doesn't that then have implications for development policy?
I am saying it at an individual level, you took it to the national level. You were puzzled why people make odd decisions that may not be economically sound. That is the answer: there are things more than money that influences decisions. There are folks who don't think that lots of money can make you wealthy or lack of it would make you poor. Some would be satisfied at their present conditions that they do not want more, even money. Some are simply contented that they live.

Yes, it has implications, and only it is now that a few countries have realized that a big GDP is not the only thing that can keep their citizens happy.

It's hard to generalize. Many of the poor genuinely strive to better their lives; some just resign themselves to poverty.

Here in my country, the some of the poor have a weird attitude of always wanting dole-outs and acting as if they deserve it. They think that society owes them something or had wronged them; therefore, we must cuddle them with giveaways while they do nothing positive to help themselves.

I didn't mean to sound mean (yeah, what a nice sentence), but sometimes that attitude is really irritating.

It's the same in this country. In fact the attitude is so prevalent that it exists in both the very poor, the lower class, the working class, the middle class, and the wealthy. About the only people it doesn't seem to afflict is the politicians.

Well, the Conservative politicians. Only those august personages seem to have sprung fully formed from their own bold vision generating money out of the deified notion of hard work itself.

Yes, it has implications, and only it is now that a few countries have realized that a big GDP is not the only thing that can keep their citizens happy.
That's a different debate entirely.

This one might be a bit controversial. ;)

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=9080048&subjectID=348918&fsrc=nwl&emailauth=%2527%252A%2520%253E%253F%2525%255CT%253B1PD%2520%250A


The study in question can be found here: http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=1346

What do you reckon? If it is in fact the case that for whatever reason very poor people are not doing as much as they could to help their economic situation, what can or should be done about it?

This idea is one that pops up whenever Conservative politicians are in power or are loosing it. There's nothing novel or innovative about it. There's also nothing rational about it. It's an idea born of rich people looking to justify their privilege.

The poor don't want to be poor, and generally don't get that way out of some sort of moral or intellectual failure. If they did, George W. Bush and Paris Hilton would be broke.

The poor may not always seem to make the best financial choices, but it has to be remembered that they don't actually have many financial choices. My wife and I for example, both work so many hours a week that we only see each other for about an hour a day Monday to Friday. I am aware of several places for sale around here that would be wonderful business opportunities, if I had the capital to get them going and the time to work on them.

Several years ago I pushed the idea of buying gold, but didn't have any money to do it myself. People I knew who had the money to do it told me that it was to low a risk to be profitable in the long run. Had they done it when I said to, they'd have turned a healthy profit now with the drop in the dollar's value.

A less personal case would be farmers in Rwanda before the genocide. Farms were so small that it took almost all a family's time to get enough food out of one to survive. If a farm was slightly too small, then one could survive by putting in a lot of extra work to get a little extra food out of the land. The family's with slightly more land could do a little less work on the farm and make some extra money with part-time jobs in the towns. They then used this money to buy the land of the full-time farmers when they got sick and couldn't work the land. Making their situation even worse. Things got so bad it turned to genocide. We're told that it was all about race-relations, but just as many people got killed in areas where there were no Tutsi's as they did in areas where Tutsi-Hutu relations had already been strained.

This idea is one that pops up whenever Conservative politicians are in power or are loosing it. There's nothing novel or innovative about it. There's also nothing rational about it. It's an idea born of rich people looking to justify their privilege.
So how about you read the study then?

. . .And dare I ask, what is the local market for pineapples like? Cause if it isn't all that hot, then you've just found a rational reason why they don't grow pineapples, hence undercutting the purpose of the article: to say that the tenet of "the rational poor" is ill-founded.

Markets also tend to shift. If you're living on a subsistence farm then it's a big risk to grow a potential cash crop. Forces that you can't perceive and have no control over, can financially destroy you. That was part of what drove the great depression in the US.

Farmers got good at growing particular crops, and even when the price of those crops dropped, their initial response was to grow more of them to make up the difference. They weren't economists and didn't know that this only compounded the problem.

But if you grow all the food you need, then you don't need to worry about what your food will be worth next year. As long as it's worth 365 dinners you'll be fine.

African farmers in particular have tremendous reason to be leery of outsiders pushing cash-crops on them. Colonial imposed cash-crop farming was nothing but disaster for them. And then when the market on tropical oils dried up they were left pretty much in the lurch. That's why it galls me so much when supposed intellectuals like Ayn Rand complain about Western efforts to aid countries that "have produced nothing to deserve it."

Economies don't grow by people abandoning subsistence farming for cash-crop farming. Unless you can go through a period of "subsistence plus" (a subsistence farm with enough land left over to grow some cash crops) then you are almost guaranteed to have one minor hiccup that results in famine.

In China, independent farmers grew mulberry trees for silk, and rice for food. Bit by bit they began to specialize. Instead of spinning all their raw silk into thread and weaving all their thread bolts of silk, they would make a few bolts, then sell the thread, or devote less of their land to mulberry bushes and buy thread to weave into bolts. Or buy bolts to fashion clothes. Those that found they made more money by specializing continued to specialize, those who did not found a balance that worked for them. And in doing so, they built an Empire whose only failing in the world-domination game was that they weren't playing it at the time.

So how about you read the study then?

I've read many such studies. They all look nice in theory, and all have the problems I mentioned.

Assuming said thing of value has value.

The dream of money and value is that we all dream the same dream. If we didn't, it wouldn't work.

Just injecting that in. :D

So very true. Indeed, that is the only real purpose 'money' serves... enabling us to assign arbitrary equivalences that aren't dependent on individual aesthetics.

"Even those in absolute poverty have choices"

Yes, we all have choices.

Can you eat it? Make something from it? Keep yourself warm? No - unless we are talking about a currency actually constructed from something of worth, the only value that 'money' has, at all, is as a measure of equivalence.

I have a pig. You have three goats. How many goats is a pig worth? Money is the 'mechanism' that we use to balance pigs against goats. It has no value aside from that.

No, it has liquidity value. Let us assume that you have a goat for purely trade purposes; you raise goats and more at home than can provide you with all your goat-related needs. It has no value to you, outside what you can get for it.

Now let us assume that this goat will fetch you $100 in the marketplace.

Would you rather have this goat worth $100 or a $100 in cash?

Obviously you would rather have the cash, as the cash is liquid, you do not have to find a coincidence of wants to obtain what you want.

You could ask the question, if you could dispose of the goat immediately at a discount from market price, would you do it. If you could avoid searcing for this coincidence of wants and simply go to the market to buy goods, would you take $90 for the goat? Likely you would.

This is because money has a natural value above and beyond the basket of goods it represents.

No, it has liquidity value. Let us assume that you have a goat for purely trade purposes; you raise goats and more at home than can provide you with all your goat-related needs. It has no value to you, outside what you can get for it.

Now let us assume that this goat will fetch you $100 in the marketplace.

Would you rather have this goat worth $100 or a $100 in cash?

Obviously you would rather have the cash, as the cash is liquid, you do not have to find a coincidence of wants to obtain what you want.

You could ask the question, if you could dispose of the goat immediately at a discount from market price, would you do it. If you could avoid searcing for this coincidence of wants and simply go to the market to buy goods, would you take $90 for the goat? Likely you would.

This is because money has a natural value above and beyond the basket of goods it represents.
The point being made though is that money's value is ONLY what we assign to it. It's liquid value as you put it is because it does make it easier to trade, or consume later on down the line instead of figuring out the goats to pizzas exchange rate. But money in and of itself has no value.

Or to put it another way, if you got stuck on a desert island, what would have more value, the $100 or the goat?

No, it has liquidity value. Let us assume that you have a goat for purely trade purposes; you raise goats and more at home than can provide you with all your goat-related needs. It has no value to you, outside what you can get for it.

Now let us assume that this goat will fetch you $100 in the marketplace.

Would you rather have this goat worth $100 or a $100 in cash?

Obviously you would rather have the cash, as the cash is liquid, you do not have to find a coincidence of wants to obtain what you want.

You could ask the question, if you could dispose of the goat immediately at a discount from market price, would you do it. If you could avoid searcing for this coincidence of wants and simply go to the market to buy goods, would you take $90 for the goat? Likely you would.

This is because money has a natural value above and beyond the basket of goods it represents.


I make the other chap right, you example shows only that the vaule of the cash is a representation of the vaule of the goat. The cash has no inherent vaule in and of itself.

You could also have said, lets use logs as money, would you rather have the goat worth $100 or a log in the size that represents $100. The only benift that the log(token) has over the actual goods is ease of use.

The log, like cash money is only a token of the worth of the goods.

The cash has no inherent vaule in and of itself.

Not true in all cases.

With credit money, that is true, and with fiat money, it is true.

(Fiat money, for those who don't know, means money the value of which is set by the state, the reason they use the word fiat is that fiat money systems are badly built, unreliable, and tend to break down)

With commodity money, that is not true. Commodity money is simply the use of a single commodity (be it slaves, gold, salt, grain, or almost anything else) as the medium of exchange, it therefore has value not only as a medium of exchange, but in the original use of the commodity in question.

Not true in all cases.

With credit money, that is true, and with fiat money, it is true.

(Fiat money, for those who don't know, means money the value of which is set by the state, the reason they use the word fiat is that fiat money systems are badly built, unreliable, and tend to break down)

With commodity money, that is not true. Commodity money is simply the use of a single commodity (be it slaves, gold, salt, grain, or almost anything else) as the medium of exchange, it therefore has value not only as a medium of exchange, but in the original use of the commodity in question.

Well true enough Mr Pedant!:D but as you know I was taking about the money we use in everday situations. You know that stuff otherwise known as promisry notes, your paper money(or folding stuff if ya prefer) with things like £5, and I promise to pay the bearer....etc.., printed on it.

Well true enough Mr Pedant!:D but as you know I was taking about the money we use in everday situations. You know that stuff otherwise known as promisry notes, your paper money(or folding stuff if ya prefer) with things like £5, and I promise to pay the bearer....etc.., printed on it.

And, of course - if you look back through what has been discussed, that point has already been covered - the 'money' has no intrinsic value, unless the 'money' is made of something valuable.

No.

I didn't say I wanted to destroy machines. I'm not throwing wooden shoes into the gears.
That would technically make you a saboteur.
On the other hand, I'm not going to pretend that automation is not expressly doing the same jobs, with less invested manhours.
But why is that a bad thing? Automation makes those invested manhours vastly more productive.

I don't think you are being realistic if you would argue that virtual slavery, and effective theft of any material wealth are not harm.
I wasn't discussing resources - just the cheap labour and lax labour laws you mentioned (which is why I only quoted that section of your remark).

Usually those characteristics are used to refer to sweatshops, but I see no reason to believe sweatshops are bad things. Let's investigate that:

Do sweatshops help people?

First, let's agree on a definition of sweatshop.

- extremely low wages
- hard, unpleasant work
- uses child labour
- long hours
- dangerous working conditions that shorten life

Now that we know what we're talking about, are sweatshops good things?

I assert that they are. Much of the world's population already lives under conditions as described above; disease and famine shorten lives, children have to work from dawn to dusk, and wages (if there are any) are below subsistence level. By building a sweatshop, you're pumping wealth into their local economy. You're paying them to live the lives they were already living. Plus, most sweatshops feed their workers at least once a day, something those workers might not otherwise get.

Sweatshops improve people's lives.

Sweatshops improve people's lives.

But not that much.

But I know many poor people would rather work in a sweatshop than die hungry. A little something is better than nothing at all.

I am not defending sweatshops, but then I think there's something goin' on. Them companies using sweatshops cut their labor expenses right to the bone so as to increase profits that much... There is some truth to the idea that some companies do exploit the desperation of some people (and countries) for jobs in order to make hefty profits.

But not that much.

But I know many poor people would rather work in a sweatshop than die hungry. A little something is better than nothing at all.

I am not defending sweatshops, but then I think there's something goin' on. Them companies using sweatshops cut their labor expenses right to the bone so as to increase profits that much... There is some truth to the idea that some companies do exploit the desperation of some people (and countries) for jobs in order to make hefty profits.

That is not a bad thing.
Upon hearing someone only makes 20 cents and hour in a sweatshop, a lot of ignorant anti-capitalists scream "exploitation!!1!!1" before realizing that 20c/hr is better than they could otherwise get. It would be a horrid wage if you lived in the US, but if you live in a country where that is the prevailing wage, the cost of living is such that it is actually a pretty decent wage.

The sweatshop brings employment. Employment allows the workers to then purchase other goods and services. Thus the economy grows and brings benefits to everyone.

Unfortunately ignorance of basic economics is fairly rife which tends to lead to revolution of the ignorant masses overthrowing the 'exploitative' productive people. Then you have the modern paradise that is Zimbabwe now that they got rid of those evil land owners who ran profitable farms. Now the breadbasket of sub-Saharan Africa is facing mass starvation.

Unfortunately ignorance of basic economics is fairly rife which tends to lead to revolution of the ignorant masses overthrowing the 'exploitative' productive people. Then you have the modern paradise that is Zimbabwe now that they got rid of those evil land owners who ran profitable farms. Now the breadbasket of sub-Saharan Africa is facing mass starvation.

I'm sure someone will claim that they're starving because whitey is keeping them down, or colonialist powers are manipulating their markets.

No, they won't admit they're starving because they were fucking stupid.

But not that much.
But some.
A little something is better than nothing at all.
Exactly.
There is some truth to the idea that some companies do exploit the desperation of some people (and countries) for jobs in order to make hefty profits.
Yes they do. And that's a good thing for everyone involved.

With commodity money, that is not true. Commodity money is simply the use of a single commodity (be it slaves, gold, salt, grain, or almost anything else) as the medium of exchange, it therefore has value not only as a medium of exchange, but in the original use of the commodity in question.

Is it Gold Standard Currency? In that case it is again a representative item.

I'm sure someone will claim that they're starving because whitey is keeping them down, or colonialist powers are manipulating their markets.

No, they won't admit they're starving because they were fucking stupid.

Zimbabwe is the modern case of a stupid ruling group (they appropriated the land from the caucasian people and deceided not to actually run it properly and by trying to keep the ruling clique in power ended up tanking the economy), many of the other african countries are not like that.

That is not a bad thing. Upon hearing someone only makes 20 cents and hour in a sweatshop, a lot of ignorant anti-capitalists scream "exploitation!!1!!1" before realizing that 20c/hr is better than they could otherwise get. It would be a horrid wage if you lived in the US, but if you live in a country where that is the prevailing wage, the cost of living is such that it is actually a pretty decent wage.

The sweatshop brings employment. Employment allows the workers to then purchase other goods and services. Thus the economy grows and brings benefits to everyone.

Uh, not necessarily. It would be "decent" if you would work for twelve hours every day, or if you are living alone, or both.

Okay. Let me paint you a picture. I live in one of the cheapest cities to live in the world. To survive, a family of five would have to earn at least $15.36 a day to survive. How can you get that from a sweatshop work paying only 20 cents per hour? Let us assume that everyone in that family can work. Yes, they can get that amount by working in the sweatshop for about fifteen hours a day... If they do, let me just point out some things: 1.) why does it seem okay for you for the poor to work for fifteen hours per day when some folks from other countries are already balking at 40 hours per week and they get paid well! 2.) What if there are children? How about their education? If they would work, how are they going to study? Children should be studying, not working. I don't see how intensive child labor, especially in sweatshops, is good. 3.) There is a legislated minimum wage in most countries. If them sweatshops pay 20cents/hour, then they are circumventing laws.

And that employment - that sweatshop employment - would only allow them to purchase only a fraction of their barest necessities. I think that increasing their wages would make economy grow more robustly. Sweatshop wages do provide some money for the poor, but they they still go hungry anyway, despite all of those hard work.

Uh, not necessarily. It would be "decent" if you would work for twelve hours every day, or if you are living alone, or both.

Okay. Let me paint you a picture. I live in one of the cheapest cities to live in the world. To survive, a family of five would have to earn at least $15.36 a day to survive. How can you get that from a sweatshop work paying only 20 cents per hour?
This is obviously not an appropriate comparison. If you want to use the cost of living in your city, you must use the actual wages paid in your city. Otherwise you are just giving us all a perfect example of the problem I was trying to point out. Using the wages paid somewhere else and comparing it to the cost of living where you live is a useless misrepresentation.

1.) why does it seem okay for you for the poor to work for fifteen hours per day when some folks from other countries are already balking at 40 hours per week and they get paid well!
Because they choose to work 15 hours a day. I could choose to work 15 hours a day if I wanted. I have friends who do actually work 15 hours a day and they make about $150/hr. Nobody is forcing them to work that - they do it because it is a lot better than the alternative.

2.) What if there are children? How about their education? If they would work, how are they going to study? Children should be studying, not working. I don't see how intensive child labor, especially in sweatshops, is good.
Child working > child starving.
Somehow I think a well educated corpse of a child is not as good as a poorly educated but living child. If I were in that situation, I would make the same choice.

3.) There is a legislated minimum wage in most countries. If them sweatshops pay 20cents/hour, then they are circumventing laws.
Only in countries where there are minimum wage laws. Once again you are proving to be exceptionally self-centered. Not everyone in the world lives in your city.

And that employment - that sweatshop employment - would only allow them to purchase only a fraction of their barest necessities. I think that increasing their wages would make economy grow more robustly. Sweatshop wages do provide some money for the poor, but they they still go hungry anyway, despite all of those hard work.

Sweatshop wages are still wages. Poorly paid work is much better than no work at all. Simply pay them better!!1! is not a solution. Why dont you just pay the hotdog vendor $100 for a hotdog? it would really boost their economic situation. Just pay them better and they wouldnt be poor - see, I just solved world poverty :rolleyes:

This is obviously not an appropriate comparison. If you want to use the cost of living in your city, you must use the actual wages paid in your city. Otherwise you are just giving us all a perfect example of the problem I was trying to point out. Using the wages paid somewhere else and comparing it to the cost of living where you live is a useless misrepresentation.
Okay, you wanted figures, here are the figures: (Manila, Philippines - the 131st most expensive city out of the field of 132 cities. Find it here (http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10009395.shtml). Only Tehran, Iran is cheaper to live in.)
Minimum wage: P350/day ~ US$7
Cost of living (family of five): P768/day ~ US$15.36
here (http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view_article.php?article_id=63594)

Because they choose to work 15 hours a day. I could choose to work 15 hours a day if I wanted. I have friends who do actually work 15 hours a day and they make about $150/hr. Nobody is forcing them to work that - they do it because it is a lot better than the alternative.
No. They must work that way because there is no other way to live decently. Lucky you, you have a choice.

Child working > child starving.
Somehow I think a well educated corpse of a child is not as good as a poorly educated but living child. If I were in that situation, I would make the same choice.
Do you really think we should choose between the two? Oh yeah, a child working might be the lesser of the two evils, but then, it is still evil. A case of false dilemma here. We don't have to choose between "putting a child to work" or "making the child starve". If we pay workers good wages, then people don't have to choose between any of these.

Only in countries where there are minimum wage laws. Once again you are proving to be exceptionally self-centered. Not everyone in the world lives in your city.
I am not self-centered. I am giving my cheap city as an example. Now, if your 20cents per hour won't even suffice for one of the cheapest cities in the world to live in, how much more in other areas where the cost of living is higher?

Sweatshop wages are still wages. Poorly paid work is much better than no work at all. Simply pay them better!!1! is not a solution. Why dont you just pay the hotdog vendor $100 for a hotdog? it would really boost their economic situation. Just pay them better and they wouldnt be poor - see, I just solved world poverty :rolleyes:
A rotten apple is still an apple? Again, a false dilemma. Do we really need to choose between "no wage" and "measly wage"?
Yeah, simply pay them better. And that hotdog thing - it's not the appropriate analogy, buddy. You know, multinationals who use sweatshops generate an awful lot of profit. My question is, why don't they return at least some to their workers who had made their business prosperous anyway?

Perhaps you might be thinking that I am an anti-capitalist. I'll just laugh at that. For me it's more of business tricks. Paying your workers more can mean an awful lot of things: worker loyalty; maybe increase worker enthusiasm. As I may have said earlier on, it's not always money that can make someone (or a company, for that matter) rich. But then, it's a materialistic world out there...

No. They must work that way because there is no other way to live decently. Lucky you, you have a choice.
But they don't. Isn't that the point?

Given that they have no other alternative, and that without the sweatshops they would starve and die, by opening a sweatshop and hiring them at $2/day I'm HELPING them. They are better off as a result of working in my sweatshop.

That is not a bad thing.
Upon hearing someone only makes 20 cents and hour in a sweatshop, a lot of ignorant anti-capitalists scream "exploitation!!1!!1" before realizing that 20c/hr is better than they could otherwise get. Of course 20 cents an hour is better than they could otherwise get in a capitalist system. This doesn't mean that there isn't exploitation.

Yes they do. And that's a good thing for everyone involved.But it would be better for them if they weren't in such a position where they would accept a sweatshop job?

Only in countries where there are minimum wage laws. Many of the countries with sweatshops do have minimum wage laws, and some sweatshops are paying less than the legal minimum wage.

But they don't. Isn't that the point?

Given that they have no other alternative, and that without the sweatshops they would starve and die, by opening a sweatshop and hiring them at $2/day I'm HELPING them. They are better off as a result of working in my sweatshop.

no. i disagree with you.

if a foreign company comes in to take advantage of lower wages in a poor country they still have a duty to pay a living local wage.


so to use brutland's example of manilla, the company would be required to pay....$1/hour. that way a man could work 15 hours a day and support his wife and 3 children. if the wife could find the time to work also--say 8 hours a day, their combined income would be enough to buy school uniforms for the kids, have a better nutritional status, maybe have a home with a seperate bedroom for the parents, whatever.

to pay less is to take unfair advantage of desperate people and should be outlawed by the government. it is unconscionable for a prosperous company from a prosperous nation to pay only enough to survive if both parents AND the children work 15 hours day. if it cant make a profit on $1/hour, it shouldnt be there.

. . .And dare I ask, what is the local market for pineapples like? Cause if it isn't all that hot, then you've just found a rational reason why they don't grow pineapples, hence undercutting the purpose of the article: to say that the tenet of "the rational poor" is ill-founded.

The study states that pineapples would have a 250-300% return, but I doubt that is universal.

That is not the point, I don't think these economists based their findings on whether or not they grew pineapple or even whether they maximized their returns. It seems that they simply showed that those in poverty are not particularly upset by their poverty, and that they are not doing much to change it.

I don't find it all that surprising.

Triple negative aside, I do in fact think that is a very pertinent reason. If you can't afford the tools needed to produce the food, you produce something else.

They already grow food on what land they have, the point is that they often do not make any attempt to improve their income.

Seriously, what tools do you think are necessary to maintain what amounts to a garden?

Dear God man, and you're the one telling us that we don't understand the article? Was I the only one who noted the whole discussion about "lack of specialization" as a major correlative with poverty?

Planting two or three plants isn't going to raise them from poverty; you'd have to convert the entire farm. Planting to or three would only increase the amount of jobs done in the average farm household beyond the 7 jobs performed by 3 breadwinners. In other words it would, dare I say it, not be rational to do that.

Actually I have mentioned that the topic is about the lack of specialisation and not about the difficulties of planting pineapples or the cost of fertilizer many times. It is only because other posters who will remain nameless have completely danced around the topic by arguing that these people can't grow pineapples that I posted that link.

The question I have now is: When has the idea ever come up that these people can actually raise themselves out of poverty? We are talking about the drastically poor here, $1 a day. Considering that these people already farm their plots and only one-fifth manage enough to subsist off of, I don't think that getting out of poverty is even relevant.

The entire point of the article and this discussion is asking "Why, since these people are what we would consider extremely impoverished, do they not make any attempts at improving their income?

Never once has it been asked why don't these people become commercial farmers and convert all of their crops to pineapples. We are only discussing why these people do not cut out 3 or 4 of these extra trades they take part in and begin specializing in a more marketable one.

I am getting horribly sick of discussing the practicality of increased production of pineapples, when the article has already stated that it would be practical. Furthermore, it is not even an important issue.

You apparently didn't take much from it, otherwise you'd have noted that there is no such thing as a successfully imprudent farmer. What would be the prudent option in this case: switching production to a crop you don't know how to grow, requires a multi-year investment of time during which you collect no crops, and could fail on you more easily, or grow what you always grow with less chance of success in exchange for less chance of failure? Maybe it's my time on the farm coming back to me all skewed or something, but I know what my answer is.

You are right, I didn't learn much about the lifestyles of West Bangalese and Kenyan subsistence farmers while I was working at a grain elevator in Bridgeport, fucking Illinois.

Luckily I have a pair of economists who can tell me what their lifestyle is like because they have studied them. Perhaps you could learn a few things from them, as well:

However, when the extremely poor do own land, the plots tend to be quite small. The median landholding among the poor who own land is one hectare or less in Udaipur, Indonesia, Guatemala and Timor, between 1 and 2 hectares in Peru, Tanzania, Pakistan, and between 2 and 3 hectares in
Nicaragua, Cote d’Ivoire, and Panama.

A hectare is roughly two and a half acres. This is not switching crops in a farm, this is managing fruit in a garden.

But the poor, and I assume even most of you too, simply don't make financial decisions purely based on economics. Yeah, they said an objective statement economically speaking, but the other factors and influences can tilt the decision to the other side. If they find the other factors and influences more weighty than the economic factor, them economists are saying that they made a bad decision economically, but I don't think the people themselves would think of that it as the wrong decision at the time.

Right, they are making poor economic decisions, the task is to now identify the factors that cause them to make bad decisions, not to pour over the whether or not these are actually bad decisions.

The point being made though is that money's value is ONLY what we assign to it.

Nothing has value other than what we assign to it.

It's liquid value as you put it is because it does make it easier to trade, or consume later on down the line instead of figuring out the goats to pizzas exchange rate. But money in and of itself has no value.

Or to put it another way, if you got stuck on a desert island, what would have more value, the $100 or the goat?

Why even ask that question?

Which would I value more, a Lexus or a goat?

Obviously on a desert island I assign no value to the Lexus. Does that mean the Lexus has no intrinsic value?

You could also have said, lets use logs as money, would you rather have the goat worth $100 or a log in the size that represents $100. The only benift that the log(token) has over the actual goods is ease of use.


And benefit is value, therefore if the log has added benefit over the goat, it has added value over the value of the goat. It has value of its own.

That would technically make you a saboteur.


Well done. And? 'Sabotage' is often referenced as the first real evidence of the Luddite movement.


But why is that a bad thing? Automation makes those invested manhours vastly more productive.

I won't argue with that. However, it makes those hours more productive for less people. From the point of view of the 18 out of 20 people displaced by the machine, the machine is "a bad thing".

I wasn't discussing resources - just the cheap labour and lax labour laws you mentioned (which is why I only quoted that section of your remark).

Usually those characteristics are used to refer to sweatshops, but I see no reason to believe sweatshops are bad things. Let's investigate that:

Do sweatshops help people?

First, let's agree on a definition of sweatshop.

- extremely low wages
- hard, unpleasant work
- uses child labour
- long hours
- dangerous working conditions that shorten life

Now that we know what we're talking about, are sweatshops good things?

I assert that they are. Much of the world's population already lives under conditions as described above; disease and famine shorten lives, children have to work from dawn to dusk, and wages (if there are any) are below subsistence level. By building a sweatshop, you're pumping wealth into their local economy. You're paying them to live the lives they were already living. Plus, most sweatshops feed their workers at least once a day, something those workers might not otherwise get.

Sweatshops improve people's lives.

It's an interesting perspective. I wodner if you use that rationale all the way.

If you had children, and one of them were to be a daughter, and she were to run away from home... if you are being honest, you'd applaud the pimp who hooked her on coke and traded her by the docks... yes?

But they don't. Isn't that the point?

Given that they have no other alternative, and that without the sweatshops they would starve and die, by opening a sweatshop and hiring them at $2/day I'm HELPING them. They are better off as a result of working in my sweatshop.

By paying $6 dollars an hour, you'd be helping them a lot more, and probably still making a profit.

I don't see how someone can compare quality of life for their employees, against maximising profit margins, and (in good conscience) decide that squeezing the very last penny out is somehow the 'right' thing to do.

Right, they are making poor economic decisions, the task is to now identify the factors that cause them to make bad decisions, not to pour over the whether or not these are actually bad decisions.

you keep calling them bad decisions when they are just (perhaps) bad ECONOMIC decisions.

people are people. we arent economic machines. we make the decisions that make the best sense to us within our humanity. (for example it might make great economic sense to become a sneak thief but its a bad human decision).

any solution that does not take humanity into consideration is doomed to failure.

And benefit is value, therefore if the log has added benefit over the goat, it has added value over the value of the goat. It has value of its own.

No - it has the benefit of portability that the goat might not have - but it still has no actual value of it's own. You still can't use it for anything, except for the further exchange back to something that does have intrinsic value.

If the world became a communist paradise overnight, and all currency became irrelevent... how much would you want 'money'?

(And, let's compare that to a food source - it doesn't have to be a goat.).

you keep calling them bad decisions when they are just (perhaps) bad ECONOMIC decisions.

people are people. we arent economic machines. we make the decisions that make the best sense to us within our humanity. (for example it might make great economic sense to become a sneak thief but its a bad human decision).

any solution that does not take humanity into consideration is doomed to failure.

You are correct. I specified that they were poor economic decisions.

No - it has the benefit of portability that the goat might not have - but it still has no actual value of it's own.

Nonsensical, you contradict yourself.

If the world became a communist paradise overnight, and all currency became irrelevent... how much would you want 'money'?

How much would I value my factory?

Right, they are making poor economic decisions, the task is to now identify the factors that cause them to make bad decisions, not to pour over the whether or not these are actually bad decisions.

You are correct. I specified that they were poor economic decisions.

nicely dismissive but really you have avoided the point.

in retrospect, in a particular year with particular market conditions, ghanan farmers could have made much more money if 18 months earlier they had invested in pineapples.

in actuality, they have other considerations than just making the maximum profits. avoiding the question of whether or not they ARE bad decisions leads to bad foreign aid programs, bad government policies, bad charity work, and useless trips to africa for MIT economists.

Nonsensical, you contradict yourself.


Not at all. There are hundreds of things that have the 'benefit' of portability, but also serve some intrinsic purpose. What is there about 'money' that gives it 'intrinsic' value? Just it's portability?

Serving as a means of exchange, but not as something with an intrinsic worth in the exchange, means 'money' has no intrinsic value. Unless it's maybe made of gold or something, in which case it is valuable for it's constructional elements... not for what it 'is'.


How much would I value my factory?

I'm not sure if this is pure red herring, deliberate evasion, or you just didn't 'get' it.

But it would be better for them if they weren't in such a position where they would accept a sweatshop job?
Yes it would. But they ARE in a position where they would accept a sweatshop job.

The fact remains that the sweatshops DO help these people. Whether it's possible to help them more is beside the point.

nicely dismissive but really you have avoided the point.

No that was your point. I have been saying all along that they make bad economic decisions, and we must figure out why they are making these bad economic decisions.

It is obvious that they are satisfied with their lifestyles, but we need to know if that is true satisfaction or more a matter of learned hopelessness.

All of this comes from the article.

in retrospect, in a particular year with particular market conditions, ghanan farmers could have made much more money if 18 months earlier they had invested in pineapples.

in actuality, they have other considerations than just making the maximum profits. avoiding the question of whether or not they ARE bad decisions leads to bad foreign aid programs, bad government policies, bad charity work, and useless trips to africa for MIT economists.

The study is trying to determine whether these people are destitute because of lack of options or because of lack of effort. It is EXTREMELY important to determine whether they are willingly poor or not, and once we have determined this we can then begin to ask the question of foreign aid.

no. i disagree with you.

if a foreign company comes in to take advantage of lower wages in a poor country they still have a duty to pay a living local wage.
Sweatshops usually do. cheap-labour factories in China and Indonesia (two very popular sweatshop locations) tend to pay about $2/day, which is great than the average person's income in those areas.

If earning more than the average isn't a living wage, something is seriously wrong with that local economy.
so to use brutland's example of manilla, the company would be required to pay....$1/hour. that way a man could work 15 hours a day and support his wife and 3 children. if the wife could find the time to work also--say 8 hours a day, their combined income would be enough to buy school uniforms for the kids, have a better nutritional status, maybe have a home with a seperate bedroom for the parents, whatever.
That's a an unnecessary level of luxury. I object when poor people in western nations complain they can't afford to live in their own homes. Why do they expect to be able to afford their own homes? Why don't they share homes with other poor people?
to pay less is to take unfair advantage of desperate people and should be outlawed by the government. it is unconscionable for a prosperous company from a prosperous nation to pay only enough to survive if both parents AND the children work 15 hours day. if it cant make a profit on $1/hour, it shouldnt be there.
Whether it can make a profit doesn't really matter. The company will always pay as little as it can while still attracting volutneers. To pay more would reduce productivity.

Not at all. There are hundreds of things that have the 'benefit' of portability, but also serve some intrinsic purpose. What is there about 'money' that gives it 'intrinsic' value? Just it's portability?

Serving as a means of exchange, but not as something with an intrinsic worth in the exchange, means 'money' has no intrinsic value. Unless it's maybe made of gold or something, in which case it is valuable for it's constructional elements... not for what it 'is'.

Benefit = value. If any scarce commodity provides a benefit it has economic value, so whenever you say that money provides a benefit (you say portability, I say liquidity), you implicitly state that it has value.

I'm not sure if this is pure red herring, deliberate evasion, or you just didn't 'get' it.

I am trying to show you that all value is SUBJECTIVE, nothing has value on its own, it only has value in that it provides a person with utility.

You would probably say that a factory has intrinsic value, but when revolutionaries are killing factory owners, it probably has no value.

The fact remains that the sweatshops DO help these people.

I think that is inaccurate, at best... and purely dishonest, at worst.

An economy cannot balance in, and of, iteself, if there is an external pressure applied. So - there are two choices, either admit that no attempt will be made to affect the economy (in which case, you can extort labour at local rates, but you are a complicit part of a corrupt and broken economy)... or apply external pressure (in which case you can pay a fair trade value for labour and resources, bringing the poorer country into line with more developed markets - but without making quite such huge profits).

Sweatshops don't 'help' people - they perpetuate the poverty. You can argue that they are no worse than the extant environment, but that ignores the fact that the huge multinationals have access to resources the local environment cannot tap. As such - while the local environment may be complicit in poverty through inactivity or lack of ability, corporate vultures in the third world are complicit by choice.

It's an interesting perspective. I wodner if you use that rationale all the way.

If you had children, and one of them were to be a daughter, and she were to run away from home... if you are being honest, you'd applaud the pimp who hooked her on coke and traded her by the docks... yes?
Am I applauding sweatshop owners? I'm simply objecting to the assertion that they don't help poor help people, because they do.

Now, there are two ways in which your scenario isn't analogous. First, unless the daughter is an adult (in which case she can do what she wants), she'd only be working for the pimp with my consent. Otherwise this is relevantly unlike the sweatshops. Furthermore, cut the drugs from the equation. The association needs to be voluntary.

Now, if when my daughter turned 18 she decided she wanted to head out on her own, I wouldn't object to the guy who gave her a job as a stripper or a prostitute. If she's willing to take those jobs (voluntarily - no drugs), why should I stop her?

The kids in the sweatshops I'm assuming are working there with their parents' approval or even at their parents' behest. But I'm not going to approve of my daughter being prostituted as long as I'm making decisions on her behalf, so that's where your analogy failed.

No that was your point. I have been saying all along that they make bad economic decisions, and we must figure out why they are making these bad economic decisions.

It is obvious that they are satisfied with their lifestyles, but we need to know if that is true satisfaction or more a matter of learned hopelessness.

All of this comes from the article.



The study is trying to determine whether these people are destitute because of lack of options or because of lack of effort. It is EXTREMELY important to determine whether they are willingly poor or not, and once we have determined this we can then begin to ask the question of foreign aid.

"willingly poor"

yeah. there are people in the world who say "ya know i could easily make enough money to send my kids to school but, ya know, i just love being this poor"

its not a question of willingly poor. its a question of HOW to spur economic development. especially since we have been at it for decades and have mostly wasted our money on big projects, arms and palaces for rulers.

as i said before any solution MUST take the lives of the people into consideration. if it requires them to do things that NO human being does, its not going to work. if it requires skill sets that the local farmers dont have, its doomed. if it requires more risk than the local farmers are willing to assume, its doomed. you cant expect anyone to do things that people dont do. spurning local traditions and practices just isnt a solution to poverty.

By paying $6 dollars an hour, you'd be helping them a lot more, and probably still making a profit.
If it's a publicly traded company, simply making a profit isn't the goal. The company needs to earn a larger profit than it did last year - otherwise the share price will fall. The desire of the shareholders is that the share price rise, and that requires increased profitability.

Furthermore, the company likely has competitors. One of them probably will open that sweatshop, thus allowing even greater profitability which this company now cannot match.
I don't see how someone can compare quality of life for their employees, against maximising profit margins, and (in good conscience) decide that squeezing the very last penny out is somehow the 'right' thing to do.
If you appeal to morality, I'm going to have to ask you to justify that moral position. And I doubt you can.

but its a bad human decision
I have no idea what that means.

Benefit = value. If any scarce commodity provides a benefit it has economic value, so whenever you say that money provides a benefit (you say portability, I say liquidity), you implicitly state that it has value.


No - that is an assigned or associated value - nothing 'intrinsic'. To steer the point towards 'economic value' shows the fatal flaw in your reasoning... 'economic value' is meaningless... it only refers to the relevence to 'money' - about which we are debating the presence of absence of value.

By your logic, if 'money' is rare, it somehow becomes 'worth' more. Clearly, it doesn't - it just has to be used as a reference against larger and larger quantities of exchange.

Similarly, if 'money' had intrinsic value, it would be impossible to ever reach a point like the pre-WW@ hyperinflation of Germany, where the 'money' was substantially 'worth' less than the paper it was printed on.


I am trying to show you that all value is SUBJECTIVE, nothing has value on its own, it only has value in that it provides a person with utility.

You would probably say that a factory has intrinsic value, but when revolutionaries are killing factory owners, it probably has no value.

The factory has intrinsic value for what it does. Paper money (for example) has no 'intrinsic' value, except to the person with too much coke and no way to sniff it.

Sweatshops usually do. cheap-labour factories in China and Indonesia (two very popular sweatshop locations) tend to pay about $2/day, which is great than the average person's income in those areas.

If earning more than the average isn't a living wage, something is seriously wrong with that local economy.

That's a an unnecessary level of luxury. I object when poor people in western nations complain they can't afford to live in their own homes. Why do they expect to be able to afford their own homes? Why don't they share homes with other poor people?

Whether it can make a profit doesn't really matter. The company will always pay as little as it can while still attracting volutneers. To pay more would reduce productivity.

if they pay the prevailing wage, they are not sweatshops.

if a man working 15 hours a day and his wife working 8 hours a day cant afford a home of their own (im not saying they have to own it), they need to be paid more. they shouldnt have to share a one room shack with other families. (now if they choose to do so in order to save up money for some goal that is their business)

that is why the government must take a hand in forcing companies to pay a living wage. companies arent charities. they will pay as little as they can get away with.

"willingly poor"

yeah. there are people in the world who say "ya know i could easily make enough money to send my kids to school but, ya know, i just love being this poor"

its not a question of willingly poor. its a question of HOW to spur economic development. especially since we have been at it for decades and have mostly wasted our money on big projects, arms and palaces for rulers.

as i said before any solution MUST take the lives of the people into consideration. if it requires them to do things that NO human being does, its not going to work. if it requires skill sets that the local farmers dont have, its doomed. if it requires more risk than the local farmers are willing to assume, its doomed. you cant expect anyone to do things that people dont do. spurning local traditions and practices just isnt a solution to poverty.

people are people. we arent economic machines. we make the decisions that make the best sense to us within our humanity. (for example it might make great economic sense to become a sneak thief but its a bad human decision).

any solution that does not take humanity into consideration is doomed to failure.

Don't inaccurately accuse me of projecting my own opinions on to these people and then do it yourself.

Am I applauding sweatshop owners? I'm simply objecting to the assertion that they don't help poor help people, because they do.

Now, there are two ways in which your scenario isn't analogous. First, unless the daughter is an adult (in which case she can do what she wants), she'd only be working for the pimp with my consent. Otherwise this is relevantly unlike the sweatshops. Furthermore, cut the drugs from the equation. The association needs to be voluntary.

Now, if when my daughter turned 18 she decided she wanted to head out on her own, I wouldn't object to the guy who gave her a job as a stripper or a prostitute. If she's willing to take those jobs (voluntarily - no drugs), why should I stop her?

The kids in the sweatshops I'm assuming are working there with their parents' approval or even at their parents' behest. But I'm not going to approve of my daughter being prostituted as long as I'm making decisions on her behalf, so that's where your analogy failed.

You honestly believe that poor families, with children in sweatshops just to put food on the table... are doing so with no external pressure to consider?

Your (weak) argument is that sweatshops 'help' because they are better than many of the alternatives. Since your hypothetical daughter could be murdered, gang-raped or sold into slavery, a drug-dealing pimp that sells her for $30 a shot, is actually 'helping' her. And you've stated your approval for such ideas.

I have no idea what that means.

really?

even with my example of taking up theft to supliment their income? you cant think of how that might be a "bad human decision".

maybe if you substitute "moral", "societal", "family", or "lifestyle" for "human"

If it's a publicly traded company, simply making a profit isn't the goal. The company needs to earn a larger profit than it did last year - otherwise the share price will fall. The desire of the shareholders is that the share price rise, and that requires increased profitability.

Furthermore, the company likely has competitors. One of them probably will open that sweatshop, thus allowing even greater profitability which this company now cannot match.


So - it's okay to kill, rape or steal, if it stops someone else doing it first?

It is okay to kill for profit?

Shareholder value is more important than any other consideration?


If you appeal to morality, I'm going to have to ask you to justify that moral position. And I doubt you can.

Of course I can defend it. (Although, I'm not sure I ever actually invoked 'morality').

In a civilised society, we treat each other as we would like them to treat us. Very few of us want to be coerced, exploited, and held in a leverage position by others... certainly, to the point where we could live or die based on their caprice.

people are people. we arent economic machines. we make the decisions that make the best sense to us within our humanity. (for example it might make great economic sense to become a sneak thief but its a bad human decision).

any solution that does not take humanity into consideration is doomed to failure.

Don't inaccurately accuse me of projecting my own opinions on to these people and then do it yourself.

having a problem with thinking?

one might make a bad economic decision for other good reasons. being forced into poverty by making one of these decisions isnt the same as being willingly poor. its making the best of a bad situation. if they saw a way to make money that didnt violate local custom, take too much risk, or force them to trust strangers who are incountry temporarily, they might well do it.

No - that is an assigned or associated value - nothing 'intrinsic'. To steer the point towards 'economic value' shows the fatal flaw in your reasoning... 'economic value' is meaningless... it only refers to the relevence to 'money' - about which we are debating the presence of absence of value.

What?

By your logic, if 'money' is rare, it somehow becomes 'worth' more. Clearly, it doesn't - it just has to be used as a reference against larger and larger quantities of exchange.

Only if it becomes so rare that people have a difficult time obtaining it.

Although that was not my logic.

Similarly, if 'money' had intrinsic value, it would be impossible to ever reach a point like the pre-WW@ hyperinflation of Germany, where the 'money' was substantially 'worth' less than the paper it was printed on.

Any oversaturated market can find the goods worth less than their constituent resources.

If there were a drastic increase in the production of chairs to the point that no one needed chairs, with an aggregate inventory of chairs being left over, those chairs will likely be used as kindling, as they are valued much less than warmth.

The factory has intrinsic value for what it does. Paper money (for example) has no 'intrinsic' value, except to the person with too much coke and no way to sniff it.

Money is not used to sniff coke, it is used as a facilitator of trade.

having a problem with thinking?

You tell me that people are not economic machines, and then you imply that they couldn't possibly be happy with their impoverished lifestyles. My thinking is perfectly fine, as I recognize inconsistency.

one might make a bad economic decision for other good reasons. being forced into poverty by making one of these decisions isnt the same as being willingly poor. its making the best of a bad situation. if they saw a way to make money that didnt violate local custom, take too much risk, or force them to trust strangers who are incountry temporarily, they might well do it.

Only 9% of people in their Udaipur survey say their life makes them generally unhappy

These people are satisfied with their lives.

Furthermore, who are we to intervene upon their local customs?

Oh, it's also used to sniff coke. And you could roll cigarettes with it too, though I would definitely recommend paper instead. Who knows where that bill has been?

I don't want to inhale that ink or the magnetic strip.

Money is not used to sniff coke, it is used as a facilitator of trade.

Oh, it's also used to sniff coke. And you could roll cigarettes with it too, though I would definitely recommend paper instead. Who knows where that bill has been?

What?


'Economic value' relies on the concept of the 'money' mechanism. To cite 'economic value' as evidence of the 'intrinsic value' is, therefore, circular.


Only if it becomes so rare that people have a difficult time obtaining it.


Follow the logic. If rarity increases value... 'few' are worth more than 'many', and 'one' is 'worth' more than any other permutation.

Which clearly doesn't hold true for 'money'.


Although that was not my logic.


You said: "If any scarce commodity provides a benefit it has economic value, so whenever you say that money provides a benefit ..."

You argue economic value for scarcity, and claim that 'money' provides a benefit. It is the logic you stated, whether or not you thought it through.


Any oversaturated market can find the goods worth less than their constituent resources.

If there were a drastic increase in the production of chairs to the point that no one needed chairs, with an aggregate inventory of chairs being left over, those chairs will likely be used as kindling, as they are valued much less than warmth.


But 'hyperinflation' doesn't happen with barter. Only with currency - because currency has no intrinsic value.


Money is not used to sniff coke, it is used as a facilitator of trade.

http://www.teennewhorizons.com/cocaine.htm

"Smoking "crack" cocaine is the most common method used today. Some users still snort [sniff] the white powder into the nose with a straw or rolled up dollar bill. By both methods of administration, the cocaine travels into the bloodstream quickly, producing immediate effects on the central nervous and cardiovascular systems.

The study states that pineapples would have a 250-300% return, but I doubt that is universal.

That is not the point, I don't think these economists based their findings on whether or not they grew pineapple or even whether they maximized their returns. It seems that they simply showed that those in poverty are not particularly upset by their poverty, and that they are not doing much to change it.

Or perhaps poor Ghanan farmers making a subsistence living can't afford to hire economists to perform detailed market analysis. It is human nature to reject opinions that are unsolicited.

I make herbal remedies that treat a handful of chronic health conditions more effectively than a lot of prescription medicines, yet I can only convince people to switch to them when I mention them in some off-handed manner on a tangential subject, leading them to believe that they discovered the remedy themselves. I gave my brother-in-law a tonic to treat his bleeding stomach ulcer, and he said that the first night he drank it was the first time he slept through the night (without waking up in pain) in over a year. Yet he didn't ask me for more for almost another year and a half.

Third-world farmers have suffered tremendously when educated western economists tell them how to run their business and agronomists tell them how to run their farms while pretending that agricultural engineering designed to grow food in northern Europe will work just fine on the African Savannah and south Pacific tropics. They have good reason not to accept the word of western scholars until they have a comfortable margin of financial error to work with.

'Economic value' relies on the concept of the 'money' mechanism.

Not at all. Economics predates currency and exists without it. So too does economic value, which is merely the subjective worth individuals and groups place on various economic goods and activities. I hope you're not denying that.

Follow the logic. If rarity increases value... 'few' are worth more than 'many', and 'one' is 'worth' more than any other permutation.

Which clearly doesn't hold true for 'money'.

Well, actually it does. Ever hear of devaluing the currency? Print up lots and lots of currency, it becomes worthless.

But there are other factors than scarcity to determine value. Rarity only increases value if there is demand for the good to begin with. You're acting as if only supply counts as far as price, but that's obviously not true.

'Economic value' relies on the concept of the 'money' mechanism.

Economic value does not, in any way, rely on the concept of "the 'money' mechanism".

Follow the logic. If rarity increases value... 'few' are worth more than 'many', and 'one' is 'worth' more than any other permutation.

Which clearly doesn't hold true for 'money'.

Well certainly 20 bucks increases in value in times of money contractions, but money is a service that breaks down in times of great scarcity, as does phone service.

You said: "If any scarce commodity provides a benefit it has economic value, so whenever you say that money provides a benefit ..."

You argue economic value for scarcity, and claim that 'money' provides a benefit. It is the logic you stated, whether or not you thought it through.

I add scarcity because it is a prerequisite for economic value. If someone can have all of something they want with no effort, then it has no value.

If the atmosphere was completely composed of money, money would have no value.

But 'hyperinflation' doesn't happen with barter. Only with currency - because currency has no intrinsic value.

If the oversaturated chair market was purely one of bartering, those chairs would still have no intrinsic value, because nobody would value them.

And the dollar bill that you mention there is being used as paper, not as money. One cannot snort cocaine through gold bullion.

Or perhaps poor Ghanan farmers making a subsistence living can't afford to hire economists to perform detailed market analysis. It is human nature to reject opinions that are unsolicited.

The farmer sees pineapples selling for a much higher price than his fruit and decides to grow them. Sign him up for the MIT School of Economics!

I make herbal remedies that treat a handful of chronic health conditions more effectively than a lot of prescription medicines, yet I can only convince people to switch to them when I mention them in some off-handed manner on a tangential subject, leading them to believe that they discovered the remedy themselves. I gave my brother-in-law a tonic to treat his bleeding stomach ulcer, and he said that the first night he drank it was the first time he slept through the night (without waking up in pain) in over a year. Yet he didn't ask me for more for almost another year and a half.

I think this is the second time you have brought this up on NSG, but I cannot see why it is relevant this time.

Third-world farmers have suffered tremendously when educated western economists tell them how to run their business and agronomists tell them how to run their farms while pretending that agricultural engineering designed to grow food in northern Europe will work just fine on the African Savannah and south Pacific tropics. They have good reason not to accept the word of western scholars until they have a comfortable margin of financial error to work with.

Can we please drop the PINEAPPLES WON'T WORK!!!! argument? They were simply an example.

Economic value does not, in any way, rely on the concept of "the 'money' mechanism".



Well certainly 20 bucks increases in value in times of money contractions, but money is a service that breaks down in times of great scarcity, as does phone service.



I add scarcity because it is a prerequisite for economic value. If someone can have all of something they want with no effort, then it has no value.

If the atmosphere was completely composed of money, money would have no value.



If the oversaturated chair market was purely one of bartering, those chairs would still have no intrinsic value, because nobody would value them.

And the dollar bill that you mention there is being used as paper, not as money. One cannot snort cocaine through gold bullion.

I give up. You win.

I assume obtuse is a tactic, and I'm bored with it.

Grave_n_Idle's a sore loser

EDIT: But surely you can point to some way we assign value to money that isn't analogous to something that you would say has "intrinsic value".

Grave_n_Idle's a sore loser

EDIT: But surely you can point to some way we assign value to money that isn't analogous to something that you would say has "intrinsic value".

I'm a sore loser because I said you win?

Or because I think you are being deliberately obtuse when you quibble about whether a dollar bill used for snorting coke is still 'money'?

I've retired. Any intercourse you engage in now is masturbation.

Or because I think you are being deliberately obtuse when you quibble about whether a dollar bill used for snorting coke is still 'money'?

I thought that you meant the rest of my arguments. My apologies, it is certainly not really important if dollar bills double as toots in the evenings. More power to them.

I've retired. Any intercourse you engage in now is masturbation.

I have never been opposed to that.

I'm a sore loser because I said you win?

Or because I think you are being deliberately obtuse when you quibble about whether a dollar bill used for snorting coke is still 'money'?

I've retired. Any intercourse you engage in now is masturbation.

ive never subscribed to the "repeating the same thing over and over and pretending not to understand the other guy" theory of winning.

he never made a reasonable arguement. you still "win"

EDIT: But surely you can point to some way we assign value to money that isn't analogous to something that you would say has "intrinsic value".

Money is useless without exchange.

Things with intrinsic value are not.

Yes it would. But they ARE in a position where they would accept a sweatshop job.

The fact remains that the sweatshops DO help these people. Whether it's possible to help them more is beside the point.No, it's exactly the point, except for the people who oppose sweatshops because they take jobs away from Western countries.
It's entirely possible to believe that the people in the third world countries should be able to earn a living and have their job live up to a bare minimum of labor standards as well.

Money is useless without exchange.

Things with intrinsic value are not.

Nothing has intrinsic value.

All value is derived from the utility that the good provides. As money provides utility on its own account, it has value on its own account.

ive never subscribed to the "repeating the same thing over and over and pretending not to understand the other guy" theory of winning.

he never made a reasonable arguement. you still "win"

Great call on that one.

I have never been opposed to that.

But if you're going to masturbate, it's still better to do it with others.

Nothing has intrinsic value.

No, but there is still a distinction between something that has (subjective) utility in its own right (like a computer) and something that has (subjective) utility only insofar as it can be transferred for something of the first sort (like money.)

But if you're going to masturbate, it's still better to do it with others.

And there is no one I would rather masturbate with than you, Soheran!

No, but there is still a distinction between something that has (subjective) utility in its own right (like a computer) and something that has (subjective) utility only insofar as it can be transferred for something of the first sort (like money.)

And as I have repeatedly said money has utility in its liquid nature. It is a facilitator of trade.

Let us make an example:

There exists a market that exists solely on barter. The chicken farmer brings her chickens, the weaver brings his socks, the doctor offers his powers of healing. Each person brings these things to the market and begins to look for another who has what he or she needs all the while needing what she or she is offering.

It goes on like this for a period of time until and enterprising young woman realizes that these people come to the market and spend an entire day searching for this coincidence of needs. She happens upon a fantastic idea and puts it in motion: She opens a shop and invites all buyers and sellers to tell her just what goods they are seeking and offering, and takes this constant influx of information and begins sorting it, matching people by their wants. Those coming to the market can now come directly to her shop and find someone with whom they can trade.

Is she offering a service of value?

And there is no one I would rather masturbate with than you, Soheran!

:fluffle:

And as I have repeatedly said money has utility in its liquid nature. It is a facilitator of trade.

I thought you might be getting at that.

Indeed, the simple fact that we pay for things with dollars and not with chickens is a pretty good indication that there is some "intrinsic value" to money.

Still, though, this "intrinsic value" is relative to the exchange system... we get a more efficient facilitator, but still something that is facilitating something else.

Grave n idle's point about post-revolutionary moneyless communist society is relevant here: while factories would continue to be valuable (if not to their owners, to society), bills of any denomination would be relegated to the level of toilet paper.

I thought you might be getting at that.

Indeed, the simple fact that we pay for things with dollars and not with chickens is a pretty good indication that there is some "intrinsic value" to money.

Still, though, this "intrinsic value" is relative to the exchange system... we get a more efficient facilitator, but still something that is facilitating something else.

Grave n idle's point about post-revolutionary moneyless communist society is relevant here: while factories would continue to be valuable (if not to their owners, to society), bills of any denomination would be relegated to the level of toilet paper.

This is all true, money's only utility is as a trade facilitator. But there is no economic good whose value is invulnerable to the social climate, and namely how that shifts our own values.

The farmer sees pineapples selling for a much higher price than his fruit and decides to grow them. Sign him up for the MIT School of Economics!

But then what's the cost of setting up a pineapple plantation? How stable is the price of pineapples? Will they still be worth enough to replace the food he isn't growing? Will the price of commercially available food remain low relative to the revenue to be gained by selling pineapples? How easy is it to learn how to care for pineapples? How many times has the farmer been burned by these enterprises in the past?

Do you ever see the scenes in those action movies where a guy is hanging form a window ledge, or a cliff and someone is reaching out a hand to grab him. The guy can't hold on for long, but if he lets go of the ledge with one hand to grab the hand he's being offered he suspects he may not be able to hold himself up at all.

That's the subsistence farmer contemplating expanding into cash crops.


I think this is the second time you have brought this up on NSG, but I cannot see why it is relevant this time.

Because despite suffering excruciating pain, and being presented with a way to stop it, he still failed to avail himself of that relief for a very long time because someone suggested the means to him without him asking for it, or even complaining about the problem.


Can we please drop the PINEAPPLES WON'T WORK!!!! argument? They were simply an example.

I don't quite get your point here. I'm not talking about pineapples in any way that is unique to pineapples. The pineapples are only an example of how farmers could make more money, and arguments about them are only examples of arguments over similar examples. They're also only an example of uneducated third world farmers being told by educated third world economists and agronomists how they should run their farms. When this happens it often goes badly for the farmers. The pineapples isn't even an example of that, because its only hypothetical. Why should we drop it just because it's an example?

Other examples would be well meaning agronomists in New Guinea who told the natives that they shouldn't dig vertical furrows down the mountain side where they grow their yams. They should be horizontal to prevent water runoff. Those natives who listened to white agronomists ended up causing landslides destroying their own farms and the farms of their downland neighbors. Very few white agronomists suffered famine because of this.

Another example would be farmers in Indonesia who timed their planting seasons according to local religious festivals. European scientists told them that this was a superstitious method of land management and they would generate better rice yields if they did it scientifically. When they followed the scientists' advice they ended up with water-logged, rotting, rat-infested soil in some areas and drought in others because the festivals were also a rationing system, a fact that the Europeans ignored.

And those are the disasters that third world farmers suffer when the Europeans are trying to help! I'll leave you to guess how much worse it goes when the Europeans are duplicitously trying to exploit them.

But they don't. Isn't that the point?
Confuse, confuse...

Okay, don't generalize. Some of the poor (as I said in my very first post in my thread) don't work and expect dole-outs - I am annoyed by that. Everyone should be trying to make themselves better off. But since there are so few economic opportunities, they go to sweatshops. And they work, trying to be better off. But then, their measly wages won't suffice and they still go hungry.

Given that they have no other alternative, and that without the sweatshops they would starve and die, by opening a sweatshop and hiring them at $2/day I'm HELPING them. They are better off as a result of working in my sweatshop.
Yeah, they are better off, but still starving. So, you are giving them the choice of "having no money and starving" or "having a measly wage, working like a slave, and still starving". Hardly helping to me, it seems. Having some pocket change does not mean you are better off.

Yes they do. And that's a good thing for everyone involved.
:eek: exploitation is good? Good for you, not for everyone.

Again, by better off does not necessarily mean having a few pocket change. You are taking the phrase "better off" to mean simply having some tiniest amount of money. No. Having money =/ the real meaning of "better off". Being better off means able to have the basic necessities in life.

Given that they have no other alternative

But this is not "given."

This is the deliberate result of a certain economic order that prioritizes the interests of the sweatshop owner over the interests of the sweatshop worker.

To abstract away from the fact in favor of an exclusive focus on "mutual benefit" is to miss the point entirely.

Right, they are making poor economic decisions, the task is to now identify the factors that cause them to make bad decisions, not to pour over the whether or not these are actually bad decisions.

You were slightly off point. These are bad decisions economically but as a whole, considering other factors, it might not be a bad decision. "Good" and "bad" are relative, it depends on which point of view you are looking at it.

I've read many such studies. They all look nice in theory, and all have the problems I mentioned.
So that's a "no" then.

You were slightly off point. These are bad decisions economically but as a whole, considering other factors, it might not be a bad decision. "Good" and "bad" are relative, it depends on which point of view you are looking at it.

Yes, I understand that. In that I said they were "poor economic decisions" and hoped that when I called them bad decisions, it would be clear that I only meant bad economic decisions.

Yeah, they are better off, but still starving. So, you are giving them the choice of "having no money and starving" or "having a measly wage, working like a slave, and still starving". Hardly helping to me, it seems. Having some pocket change does not mean you are better off.
So you think it better to just not give them the opportunity at all?
Sure, since they cannot afford to live a life of opulence just let them starve.

There are always choices, it is never 'work in my sweatshop or die', that is absurd. Work might be scarce and life is difficult, this does not mean we should remove all choice from them because it doesnt magically turn their life into all rainbows and butterflies.

Cheap labor induces companies to open a facility there. These companies offer jobs to the locals. Locals who decide that working there will make them better off take those jobs and are better off. Preventing those companies from operating only harms those who would be workers, and by extension, the rest of the local economy.

-snip-

Again, you seem to be restricting yourself to those two miserable choices.

And when did I say that we should remove them choices? All I'm saying is that those are measly choices and that their choices should be better than that.