>> I still fail to see how supplying free clothes will cause people to go
>> from having almost no money to no money.
>
> Free clothes => local clothes industry collapses => local clothes
> industry employees lose their jobs => local would-be clothes industry
> employees get no money => local would-be clothes industry employees have
> no money to spend => local non-clothes economy suffers as well.

That's exactly the logic I'm questioning, it doesn't consider any of the 
benefits (eg that other economies may grow as a result).

> Oh, sure, the would-be clothes industry employees could switch over to
> some other job, like... well, what is it that the better-off people will
> now do with their money instead of buying clothes? Buy luxury products,
> maybe?

Maybe, maybe they still need more and higher quality food, tools, 
repairs to their home, vaccinations etc before considering imported 
luxury goods.

> To me this discussion sounded more like /you/ simply saying "unlimited
> free clothes equal closed textile industry does /not/ equal bad for the
> economy", and Shay saying "think again and reconsider".

I said I didn't know for sure whether it would be better or worse, but 
suspected it would be better overall. The point I made that seemed to 
cause so much resistance was that giving out free clothes (to people who 
could afford them anyway) is not as bad as you think, because the people 
will still spend the money, just not on clothes.

Post a reply to this message

> - Ban the dumping of goods, food, etc in the third world.
> - Stop the IMF from dumping loans in the third world.
> - Critically assess what /exactly/ the net results of providing
> micro-credits are, and /how/ they are provided. All is not well there.
> - The western countries being the world leaders in armament production
> should stop exporting them (or dumping older versions). This is utopia,
> I know.
> - we have replaced colonialism by a subtle form of neocolonialism in
> some countries.

Corruption is also a huge problem.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2013 9:37, scott wrote:

> I said I didn't know for sure whether it would be better or worse, but
> suspected it would be better overall. The point I made that seemed to
> cause so much resistance was that giving out free clothes (to people who
> could afford them anyway) is not as bad as you think, because the people
> will still spend the money, just not on clothes.
>

I know that I am grossly generalizing as there is more to the problem 
than this, but sadly enough, if what you say were true, Africa would 
have been out of the problems half a century ago...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

>> I said I didn't know for sure whether it would be better or worse, but
>> suspected it would be better overall. The point I made that seemed to
>> cause so much resistance was that giving out free clothes (to people who
>> could afford them anyway) is not as bad as you think, because the people
>> will still spend the money, just not on clothes.
>
> I know that I am grossly generalizing as there is more to the problem
> than this, but sadly enough, if what you say were true, Africa would
> have been out of the problems half a century ago...

Are you saying they are not spending the money at all then, that they 
would have previously spent on clothes? Don't forget we're only 
considering the people who could afford to buy clothes, but don't know 
because they are available for free. I highly doubt those people are now 
just saving that money instead.

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2013 10:01, scott wrote:

> Are you saying they are not spending the money at all then, that they
> would have previously spent on clothes? Don't forget we're only
> considering the people who could afford to buy clothes, but don't know
> because they are available for free. I highly doubt those people are now
> just saving that money instead.
>

How much /money/ do you think people in Africa really have to spend? 
Except for the very small upper layers of society? It is mostly survival 
with the little you have got.

My brother was a Roman Catholic missionary (died in Africa). 90% of his 
work was about learning people about health, hygiene, making better use 
of water, natural resources, education, etc and just 1% about religion. 
They did not distribute stuff for free precisely in order not to upset 
the local economy, instead learning people to be self sufficient in a 
harsh environment and trying to survive and growing towards better 
living conditions in a sustainable way. I am talking about the sixties 
here and I know for a fact that all his work has (probably) come to 
naught because of greed and corruption of the upper levels of society in 
the country spending their money on weapons and luxury goods and finally 
bringing the country into civil war. This was not Congo, but another 
country but the scheme has been repetitively identical.

I have become rather sceptical (and cynical I am sorry to say) about all 
that easy talk about /helping/ the Third World. In most cases the rich 
countries get most out of it.

Thomas

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2013 9:41, scott wrote:
>> - Ban the dumping of goods, food, etc in the third world.
>> - Stop the IMF from dumping loans in the third world.
>> - Critically assess what /exactly/ the net results of providing
>> micro-credits are, and /how/ they are provided. All is not well there.
>> - The western countries being the world leaders in armament production
>> should stop exporting them (or dumping older versions). This is utopia,
>> I know.
>> - we have replaced colonialism by a subtle form of neocolonialism in
>> some countries.
>
> Corruption is also a huge problem.

Yes, and we feed it.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

>> Are you saying they are not spending the money at all then, that they
>> would have previously spent on clothes? Don't forget we're only
>> considering the people who could afford to buy clothes, but don't know
>> because they are available for free. I highly doubt those people are now
>> just saving that money instead.
>
> How much /money/ do you think people in Africa really have to spend?

Enough to support a local textile industry. If they get free clothes 
where does that money then go that previously supported the textile 
industry? If it stays locally (eg food, tools, education) then it's not 
easy to argue the local economy will be badly affected.

> My brother was a Roman Catholic missionary (died in Africa). 90% of his
> work was about learning people about health, hygiene, making better use
> of water, natural resources, education, etc and just 1% about religion.
> They did not distribute stuff for free precisely in order not to upset
> the local economy,

I assume they thought about it a bit more than any of us here have 
though before coming to that decision not to give away free stuff? After 
all a wrong decision (either way) could result in needless suffering and 
deaths.

> instead learning people to be self sufficient in a
> harsh environment and trying to survive and growing towards better
> living conditions in a sustainable way. I am talking about the sixties
> here and I know for a fact that all his work has (probably) come to
> naught because of greed and corruption of the upper levels of society

Greed and corruption is certainly a huge obstacle to overcome.

Post a reply to this message

Le 02/08/2013 10:34, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> 
> I have become rather sceptical (and cynical I am sorry to say) about all
> that easy talk about /helping/ the Third World. In most cases the rich
> countries get most out of it.

Please do not look at the financial aspect of most big charity organisation:

when small/start-up, may be 10 or 20% is spent on management,
advertisement, and other local (rich-country) posts.

But once big enough, it happens often than 80% of received money get
spent on structural posts ("we are big, we need a central office; we
need permanent staff; we need efficient advertisement to collect more
money; our directing board needs accommodations for planes & hotels
worldwide; we need to rent exposition centres to achieve better
knowledge of our actions in our donators... ")

-- 
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> "Urs Holzer"  wrote in message news:51fabb28$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>> So:
>> - Free (as in beer) closed source software is bad.
>> - Free (as in speach and beer) software is good.
>> - Free (as in speach but not beer) software is good too.
> 
> Here's where the second makes me nervous:
> 
> Let's say I set up a perfectly free (beer and speech), Stallmanesque
> computer.

Stallman does not require the "beer" part. In fact, I am slightly 
opposed to it. Why not sell the free software you produce? When someone 
hires a software company to produce a solution for some problem, why 
shouldn't the software become free software? The company gets paid, the 
customer can use the software and hand give it to others. For low level 
things (webserver, databases, kernels), one can get money through 
donations (Kickstarter comes to mind).

> I've still purchased "closed-source" hardware. And, the first time I
> visit an Internet forum to learn about my software, I've "purchased"
> support: By reading the forum I've most-likely viewed advertisements
> or solicitations, and by posting on the forum I've drawn other patrons
> and/or donors to the site. Some sites are owned by a software project
> (say, KDE), but KDE is pretty useless to me without other software
> projects that do not own the site. I might even (have, with Suse)
> purchase books. By even telling anyone something positive about my
> Stallmanesque computer, I've acted as an advertiser for the hardware
> manufacturers, forum owners, and book publishers.

But you are not bound to some certified software and hardware and you do 
not bind others. For example, this makes it possible for a new hardware 
manufacturer to produce hardware without the windows logo (i.e. without 
undeactivatable Secure Boot).
Personal example: http://8devices.com/carambola
I use this thing as a router for my home.

> I don't mind that any of those people profit indirectly from software,
> but I realize I'm making it impossible to profit from actually
> creating that software. 

No, you make it better:
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch16s01.html
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch16s02.html
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch16s03.html
If you are interested in Unix, read the whole book:
http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/

> This in turn makes software free (as in beer)
> for the large companies you've suggested I avoid. And I mitigate this
> with what? distribution of open-source learning? That's of no use to
> most people, and, I'll bet, fewer people every day due to the tablet
> "revolution."

Yes, this is the dumbing-down of society. I claim that this has been 
done throughout history. Keeping people dumb makes it easier to control 
them. Religions are particularly good at this. That is also the reason 
why I think that user-friendliness of software is not first priority, 
technical excellency is.

> As hard and expensive as it may be to learn programming and buy a
> computer to program on, it's (I suspect) a hell of a lot harder and
> more expensive to manufacture hardware, run a massive and profitable
> forum, or print and ship crates of books. Are we breaking the lowest
> rungs on the ladder?

Definitely, but hardware is actually a thing, not just a number like 
software. Same for books. The forum is more difficult and is currently 
beyond the scope of my opinion and this post.
Don't forget that the initial discussion was about giving away for free. 
Do not give hardware away for free. Dumping old computers on Africa for 
free is a sin.

And finally, please keep in mind that money is in no way an accurate 
representation of invested effort, wealth or happyness. It has lost this 
property long ago. Nowadays even money is just a number.

Post a reply to this message

Shay wrote:

> "Urs Holzer"  wrote in message news:51fabb28$1@news.povray.org...
> 
> 
>> In the case of the mosquito net, the right thing is to give them a
>> machine that produces mosquito nets and teach them how to operate it.
>> But only one such machine, because they must build further machines
>> themselves.
> 
> I gave some money to Africare last year and had a tough time deciding
> between (iirc) livestock, water wells, medicine, and building
> supplies. I tried to choose the one I thought would be hardest to take
> away.

Good decision. But I really hope that they had to build the water wells 
themselves under close guidance by water well experts? Plus points if 
they built the well with materials available locally (stones, clay, and 
such). You know, they must be able to build and fix their own wells, 
otherwise all is for nothing. Crazy thing is, as far as the reports go, 
these poor people in Africa want to learn. There is something else that 
pushes them into poverty, that's why you made the right decision to 
support something that can't be taken away easily.

Post a reply to this message