Are the very wealthy paying their share?

[Aeson]

I have no idea what you're on about here, but the point as I read it was:

1) There is some efficiency benefit
2) The marginal value of a dollar to the very poor Third Worlder is worth so much more than it is to the relatively well-fed, secure, healthy, educated, pampered First Worlder that (1) is massively dwarfed

First of all, **** you for getting me to load the first 4 pages of this thread... took me 10 minutes on this connection. (It's better today than it often is though.)

As to the point of the matter, Kuci made an unqualified claim that there are no possible times when spending a dollar in the first world is more efficient than spending it in the third. This is a patently false statement because of the issues I raised (among other factors that likely exist). There are times when even though the beneficiary is better off than the "worst case", it still is efficient to help out.

For example, if we pay for a vaccination of a child in the US, we get a known benefit. That direct benefit to the individual is the same as the same vaccination of a child in a third world country. There are additional costs to vaccinating the kid in the third world though because of logistics. There is the increased possibility that the money or supplies will be intercepted by a warlord or corrupt government official. (Though corruption in the US is also a problem, but to a lesser extent in most cases.) It's more complicated than this of course, given the likelihood of contracting and passing on the specific disease and what the economic impacts of doing so would be to the world economy and further ability to help out...

Essentially we are talking about acceptable levels of risk here. For me, I feel it's an acceptable level of risk to be here and spending money, even though there are risks involved in that too. I would not feel it's an acceptable level of risk to send money to an NGO here without being able to verify first hand what is happening with the organization. Now factor in a war torn state to get to the truly worst off (since it's not that bad here really), and you get completely unacceptable levels of risk IMO. Even if I could get the money to those who need it, they're just going to be robbed and killed for it most likely, or end up burning it for fuel because the inflation is so bad.

Then you get to a granularity issue. If I have $10 to send to someone who is needy, do I have to divide that up between everyone at the lowest level? By giving a penny to X, they are now better off than Y, so I have to give the next penny to Y... and a 1000 starving people get a penny that's not going to do them any good because there is no food to buy anyways.

[Aeson]

Given the granularity issue, it makes sense to help out at least enough to get someone to an "acceptable level" before focusing on the next poor soul. What that "acceptable level" is, will vary from philanthropist to philanthropist... or government to government... I have some thoughts about what the best acceptable level is, but I don't pretend it's a fact or even well supported enough to damn people for helping out the wrong people.

[Thorn]

Most people are hypocrits if they truely believe that their behavioral economic reactions represent their intended defined morality systems that they claim are important to them.

[Kuciwalker]

As to the point of the matter, Kuci made an unqualified claim that there are no possible times when spending a dollar in the first world is more efficient than spending it in the third.

I don't believe I did. I said that the marginal dollar is better spent in the third world.

That is, if the government were to spend an extra dollar, it would be better to spend that dollar on someone in the third world than the first.

[Thorn]

For the time being third world won't define the future as much as 1st world does, until imperalist class based economic systems are broken and are able to integrate other economies into them.... you got to start somewhere, and while idealistically, and moral/ethical to help people that need it the most... its not pragmatic, efficient nor effective to progress the species to a golden era.

[Aeson]

Another issue with the "acceptable level" is that it may lead to instances where helping out those who are seen as already relatively well off may be more efficient than helping those who have nothing. If that acceptable level is say, being able to run a business or at least have a well paying job. If for instance, I could get a land-owner here to have a profitable commercial farm, they will create wealth... more than I have given them... and doing so would be more efficient than if I were to buy land (additional cost) to give to someone to start a profitable commercial farm. (Ignoring what the previous land owner does with their money, which will be less valuable than what I would have done with it on average because of fees involved in transferring the land.)

[Aeson]

I don't believe I did. I said that the marginal dollar is better spent in the third world.

That is, if the government were to spend an extra dollar, it would be better to spend that dollar on someone in the third world than the first.

I forgot the "marginal", and "government" sorry.

Same reasoning still applies though (and more-so because of "government" which I had also dropped). The expected value (towards the desired end) of that marginal dollar will still be affected by corruption, logistics, and inability to verify.

[Thorn]

corruption and selfishness seems to go hand and hand.

[notyoueither]

When there are vastly more desirable ends available (i.e. preventing people from starving)? Yes.

How about preventing you and other priviledged boys from being pulled from your beds and being necklaced?

Are you down for some social order then?

Neither I nor anyone else here that I have seen has claimed that every dollar spent is the best dollar spent.

You, on the other hand have agreed with or made the extraordinary claim that any dollar spent in preference to people in our local communities are dollars spent immorally.

Oh, and where, exactly is there a famine going on in the world, right now? Can you drop the appeal to Biafrans? Your appeal to them as a smoke screen to discredit the welfare state is nausiating. I understand you would rather not pay taxes, for anything, but your use of actual people suffering for your personal gain is disgusting.

It is not a moral question. That's the point.

The correct disposition of public funds is definitely a moral question.

No, I'm thinking it is a political question. Morals may be involved, but whose morals get satisfied? Yours? Fred Phelps?

I'm predicting that you have never lived through a rebellion by the lower classes in a neighbourhood, or city near you. That is the only explanation for your position (actually, I can think of more, but ignorance is the best). If you actually knew the history of your country, and mine, you would know where our welfare states came from, and why they exist.

Alternatively, you could turn on CNN or dial in Youtube and focus on Tunisia as a recent example of why our welfare states exist.

Jesus Christ you are ****ing illiterate. I know exactly the historical and present reasons that the welfare state exists.

To the degree that the Western social welfare state is necessary to maintain social order so that we may produce wealth to help bring the rest of the world out of poverty (and maintain the political will to do so), it is extraordinarily valuable. The dollars spent past that point are very wasteful.

I'm doubting very much that you have much of a clue about the history of Western societies. If you did, you would not be being such an insufferable dink about the topic in the face of recent and forceful demonstrations on the topic.

Is it really your claim that Western society exists to bring the rest up? When did you subscribe to Marx and Engles Weekly?

[Thorn]

That is the claim of an ethical/moral society, not of reasons for Western Society. notyoueither is right.

[Kuciwalker]

I forgot the "marginal", and "government" sorry.

Same reasoning still applies though (and more-so because of "government" which I had also dropped). The expected value (towards the desired end) of that marginal dollar will still be affected by corruption, logistics, and inability to verify.

I agree. This is a huge challenge for conventional foreign aid.

[Kuciwalker]

How about preventing you and other priviledged boys from being pulled from your beds and being necklaced?

It would take some very deep cuts to government spending for that to be a risk. It's not clear how that's related to claims about marginal government spending.

Oh, and where, exactly is there a famine going on in the world, right now? Can you drop the appeal to Biafrans? Your appeal to them as a smoke screen to discredit the welfare state is nausiating. I understand you would rather not pay taxes, for anything, but your use of actual people suffering for your personal gain is disgusting.

The government policies I support would generally increase my total tax burden.

I'm doubting very much that you have much of a clue about the history of Western societies. If you did, you would not be being such an insufferable dink about the topic in the face of recent and forceful demonstrations on the topic.

Is it really your claim that Western society exists to bring the rest up?

HOW DID YOU SURVIVE TO ADULTHOOD WHEN YOU ARE THIS STUPID DSLA;KFJAS;LDJFSD

Holy ****.

"Is it really your claim that Western society exists to bring the rest up?"

Western society doesn't have a ****ing purpose any more than hurricanes do, it's just THERE.

The welfare state has a purpose, since it was deliberately created, but it is not designed in the morally correct fashion.

In NEITHER case does the "purpose" matter to the moral question of "what policies should our government enact".

[giblets]

Luckily, we already know of a form of foreign aid that is extremely effective: free trade and Western economic growth, the direct result of which is economic development and industrialization in the third world.

So there really isn't a tradeoff between domestic spending and foreign aid, because developing countries are supposed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Or are you saying that at the margin domestic redistribution of wealth is harming economic growth?

[Hauldren Collider]

So there really isn't a tradeoff between domestic spending and foreign aid, because developing countries are supposed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps? Or are you saying that at the margin domestic redistribution of wealth is harming economic growth?

Trade is mutually beneficial, no? It stands to reason that we are capable of significantly more activity that is mutually beneficial than otherwise.

[giblets]

I'm sorry, that doesn't seem to address the question of the relationship between domestic redistribution of wealth in developed countries and the welfare of people in developing countries.