Christopher Coleman wrote:
>
> > Obviously they never looked out their front doors to see the
> > overpopulation and the decreasing space and food, water, etc,
> > available.
>
> I knew someone would be dull enough to say something like this. None
> of these three are saying that there are no needs, no hunger, no
> poverty. But do you really think that poverty in a capitalist nation
> is produced by lack of food and water? Do you really think that
> there are just not enough resources in America to feed everyone?
Do many people die of starvation in the West? It doesn't seem
that many do. Most people in the West have adequate access to food and
water and other essentials. Their poverty is relative: they have less
access to "luxuries" than do people who are more well off. That does
not mean that their basic material needs are not adequately met. It
does mean that, in their social being, they will be *less* valued than
those who are able to secure for themselves greater access to resources.
Wealth commands respect, to be sure.
In America, goods, by virtue of the relative efficiency with
which they are produced, are plentiful. The issue is not so much that
the needs of most Americans are not being met. Capitalist countries, on
the whole, are doing well enough on their own. *Developing* countries,
it is sometimes argued, would benefit from a simple transfer of, say,
grain, but this too has its problems--particularly, the welfare of the
indigenous farmers.
Nicholas
>
> > Obviously they never looked out their front doors to see the
> > overpopulation and the decreasing space and food, water, etc,
> > available.
>
> I knew someone would be dull enough to say something like this. None
> of these three are saying that there are no needs, no hunger, no
> poverty. But do you really think that poverty in a capitalist nation
> is produced by lack of food and water? Do you really think that
> there are just not enough resources in America to feed everyone?
Do many people die of starvation in the West? It doesn't seem
that many do. Most people in the West have adequate access to food and
water and other essentials. Their poverty is relative: they have less
access to "luxuries" than do people who are more well off. That does
not mean that their basic material needs are not adequately met. It
does mean that, in their social being, they will be *less* valued than
those who are able to secure for themselves greater access to resources.
Wealth commands respect, to be sure.
In America, goods, by virtue of the relative efficiency with
which they are produced, are plentiful. The issue is not so much that
the needs of most Americans are not being met. Capitalist countries, on
the whole, are doing well enough on their own. *Developing* countries,
it is sometimes argued, would benefit from a simple transfer of, say,
grain, but this too has its problems--particularly, the welfare of the
indigenous farmers.
Nicholas