 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
We've all heard stories of misguided charity organizations destroying
micro-economies with no-cost goods. The stories go something like this:
* Wealthy people give poor people mosquito nets
* The poor people sell the nets for food
* The now-flooded mosquito-net market collapses
* The indigenous mosquito-net craftsmen disappear
* The no-cost mosquito nets get sold-off / used up
* No more mosquito nets. No more craftsmen.
Google, Apple, and Microsoft are now monetizing no/low-cost software and
*intentionally*(?) creating the above situation. The creators of that
software are making nothing or (MUCH worse) very little. The 'very little'
is much worse, imo, because I suspect the half-starved parasites will fight
to defend the host.
Not saying (or not saying) the large companies are evil, just wondering if
we should all be more careful where we put our "spare" money, time, talent,
and personal information.
Just a hunch. Definitely open to changing my mind on this one. I'm very far
away from the issue.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31/07/2013 06:42 PM, Shay wrote:
> We've all heard stories of misguided charity organizations destroying
> micro-economies with no-cost goods. The stories go something like this:
>
> * Wealthy people give poor people mosquito nets
> * The poor people sell the nets for food
> * The now-flooded mosquito-net market collapses
> * The indigenous mosquito-net craftsmen disappear
> * The no-cost mosquito nets get sold-off / used up
> * No more mosquito nets. No more craftsmen.
>
> Google, Apple, and Microsoft are now monetizing no/low-cost software and
> *intentionally*(?) creating the above situation. The creators of that
> software are making nothing or (MUCH worse) very little. The 'very
> little' is much worse, imo, because I suspect the half-starved parasites
> will fight to defend the host.
Bear in mind that it takes human effort to make each individual net.
However, software - once created - can be duplicated ad infinitum at
almost zero cost. The cost is all in the design. The point being, three
craftsmen probably can't supply an entire city, but one computer
programmer (given enough time) can.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid Win7 v1" wrote in message news:51f95292$1@news.povray.org...
> Bear in mind that it takes human effort to make each individual net.
> However, software - once created - can be duplicated ad infinitum at
> almost zero cost.
Zero cost to a distributor. The creator's cost (time) has still been paid.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Bear in mind that it takes human effort to make each individual net.
>> However, software - once created - can be duplicated ad infinitum at
>> almost zero cost.
>
> Zero cost to a distributor. The creator's cost (time) has still been paid.
Indeed. The cost is all in the creator's original effort in creating the
item.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid Win7 v1" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:51f9822d$1@news.povray.org...
>>> Bear in mind that it takes human effort to make each individual net.
>>> However, software - once created - can be duplicated ad infinitum at
>>> almost zero cost.
>>
>> Zero cost to a distributor. The creator's cost (time) has still been
>> paid.
>
> Indeed. The cost is all in the creator's original effort in creating the
> item.
... and his effort is becoming the hardest thing to monetize. If I decided
to express my good will towards man by working for free in a factory, I
think a lot of people would be upset with me.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> * Wealthy people give poor people mosquito nets
> * The poor people sell the nets for food
> * The now-flooded mosquito-net market collapses
> * The indigenous mosquito-net craftsmen disappear
One could argue that overall for society it's better to have cheaper
mosquito nets (more people will be able to afford them and disease is
then probably lower).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-8-2013 9:41, scott wrote:
>> * Wealthy people give poor people mosquito nets
>> * The poor people sell the nets for food
>> * The now-flooded mosquito-net market collapses
>> * The indigenous mosquito-net craftsmen disappear
>
> One could argue that overall for society it's better to have cheaper
> mosquito nets (more people will be able to afford them and disease is
> then probably lower).
>
However, the local craftsmen having disappeared, society becomes
dependant on charity. No win-win situation, except for the charity's
good conscience.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > * Wealthy people give poor people mosquito nets
> > * The poor people sell the nets for food
> > * The now-flooded mosquito-net market collapses
> > * The indigenous mosquito-net craftsmen disappear
> One could argue that overall for society it's better to have cheaper
> mosquito nets (more people will be able to afford them and disease is
> then probably lower).
The real-life example is clothing.
Rich countries are dumping free clothing by the ton to poor countries,
especially in Africa. Some *African* sociologists are pleading the rich
countries to stop that because they are killing the local textile economy
with it. There are actually many wealthy people there who don't buy any
clothes because they just can go and get it for free. There's an
overabundance of it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> One could argue that overall for society it's better to have cheaper
>> mosquito nets (more people will be able to afford them and disease is
>> then probably lower).
>>
> However, the local craftsmen having disappeared, society becomes
> dependant on charity.
If the charity stops then surely the craftsmen will appear again just as
quickly to return to the original situation?
> No win-win situation, except for the charity's
> good conscience.
The craftsmen who previously made mosquito nets can't make anything else?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Rich countries are dumping free clothing by the ton to poor countries,
> especially in Africa. Some *African* sociologists are pleading the rich
> countries to stop that because they are killing the local textile economy
> with it.
You'd need to weigh up what was better, having a local textile economy
with a group of people unable to afford clothes, or no local textile
economy but everyone gets clothes. I don't know for sure what the answer
would be, but I suspect it's better that everyone gets free clothes
(some proportion of the ones who worked in the textile companies would
find other jobs). It seems the majority of Africans agree otherwise
there wouldn't be the "problem".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > Rich countries are dumping free clothing by the ton to poor countries,
> > especially in Africa. Some *African* sociologists are pleading the rich
> > countries to stop that because they are killing the local textile economy
> > with it.
> You'd need to weigh up what was better, having a local textile economy
> with a group of people unable to afford clothes, or no local textile
> economy but everyone gets clothes. I don't know for sure what the answer
> would be, but I suspect it's better that everyone gets free clothes
> (some proportion of the ones who worked in the textile companies would
> find other jobs). It seems the majority of Africans agree otherwise
> there wouldn't be the "problem".
The problem is the overabundance. It's not a question of "either everybody
gets free clothes or nobody does."
Helping the poor who cannot afford clothes is ok. Saturating the market
with free stuff that even the people who could afford it otherwise is not,
because that kills even the little economy that there could be.
The best way to help a nation is not to give it as much free stuff as it
wants. It's to help it get its economy running.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Helping the poor who cannot afford clothes is ok. Saturating the market
> with free stuff that even the people who could afford it otherwise is not,
> because that kills even the little economy that there could be.
But the people who can afford the clothes in the first place will simply
buy other things instead, so some other economy will be increased to
match the decrease in textiles.
> The best way to help a nation is not to give it as much free stuff as it
> wants. It's to help it get its economy running.
Why wouldn't giving them free clothes help the economy? People would
have more to spend on things like education and medicine rather than
being trapped only barely being able to afford clothes and food.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" wrote in message news:51fa48dc$1@news.povray.org...
>> Helping the poor who cannot afford clothes is ok. Saturating the market
>> with free stuff that even the people who could afford it otherwise is
>> not,
>> because that kills even the little economy that there could be.
> But the people who can afford the clothes in the first place will simply
> buy other things instead, so some other economy will be increased to match
> the decrease in textiles.
How many of those "other things" can be produced locally with limited means?
>> The best way to help a nation is not to give it as much free stuff as it
>> wants. It's to help it get its economy running.
> Why wouldn't giving them free clothes help the economy? People would have
> more to spend on things like education and medicine rather than being
> trapped only barely being able to afford clothes and food.
People without a market for their labor or goods can't take their "clothing
money" and reallocate it to education or medicine. They have gone from
almost no money to no money at all. Please, think this one through before
making a half-dozen posts.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> But the people who can afford the clothes in the first place will
>> simply buy other things instead, so some other economy will be
>> increased to match the decrease in textiles.
>
> How many of those "other things" can be produced locally with limited
> means?
Builders, teachers, cleaners, doctors, nurses etc all will be more in
demand if people have more money to spend on education and medicine.
Even imported good need an infrastructure to deliver them, so demand for
drivers, packers etc.
> People without a market for their labor or goods can't take their
> "clothing money" and reallocate it to education or medicine.
What else would they do with the money if they didn't need to spend it
on clothes anymore?
> They have
> gone from almost no money to no money at all.
???
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" wrote in message news:51fa561a$1@news.povray.org...
>> People without a market for their labor or goods can't take their
>> "clothing money" and reallocate it to education or medicine.
>> They have
>> gone from almost no money to no money at all.
> ???
Read my last two sentences *together*.
An economy is like an ecosystem.
You might say, "if we kill off all the rabbits, the coyotes will eat the
rats."
But the foxes are eating the rats. I guess the foxes will eat the crickets.
But the robins are eating the crickets ...
Then you might say, "we're not killing the rabbits, we're adding more
rabbits."
I guess those new rabbits will eat crickets.
But the robins are eating the crickets ...
An economy, like an ecosystem, can survive a little turbulence (at least for
a while, history indicates ruin or violent revolution are inevitable).
However, too much turbulence will collapse the system. Rising unemployment
and income disparity are indicators that this is happening right now.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.08.2013 14:35, schrieb scott:
> ???
Economy in the era of globalization is a clusterfuck of epic
proportions, and it is probably wise to think thrice (at least) before
making any assertions about how things work and how they don't.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ???
>
> Economy in the era of globalization is a clusterfuck of epic
> proportions, and it is probably wise to think thrice (at least) before
> making any assertions about how things work and how they don't.
I haven't seen a valid argument yet why giving out free clothes will
make their society worse off. The arguments so far seem to revolve
around it being better that a huge number of people cannot afford to buy
clothes, but so long as there is a healthy textile industry and rich
people don't get free clothes that's ok.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> People without a market for their labor or goods can't take their
>>> "clothing money" and reallocate it to education or medicine.
>>> They have
>>> gone from almost no money to no money at all.
>
>> ???
>
> Read my last two sentences *together*.
I still fail to see how supplying free clothes will cause people to go
from having almost no money to no money.
> An economy is like an ecosystem.
> You might say, "if we kill off all the rabbits, the coyotes will eat the
> rats."
> But the foxes are eating the rats. I guess the foxes will eat the crickets.
> But the robins are eating the crickets ...
>
> Then you might say, "we're not killing the rabbits, we're adding more
> rabbits."
> I guess those new rabbits will eat crickets.
> But the robins are eating the crickets ...
>
> An economy, like an ecosystem, can survive a little turbulence (at least
> for a while, history indicates ruin or violent revolution are inevitable).
>
> However, too much turbulence will collapse the system. Rising
> unemployment and income disparity are indicators that this is happening
> right now.
I'm not saying that what I mentioned was the only additional factor to
consider, it was just one example of why you can't simply say "unlimited
free clothes equals closed textile industry equals bad for the economy".
At minimum stating that opinion makes it sound like you haven't
considered anything else.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> ???
>>
>> Economy in the era of globalization is a clusterfuck of epic
>> proportions, and it is probably wise to think thrice (at least)
>> before making any assertions about how things work and how they
>> don't.
>
> I haven't seen a valid argument yet why giving out free clothes will
> make their society worse off. The arguments so far seem to revolve
> around it being better that a huge number of people cannot afford to
> buy clothes, but so long as there is a healthy textile industry and
> rich people don't get free clothes that's ok.
Well, the reason is the same as the reason why schools shouldn't use
microsoft's "free" educational software licenses.
Wealth, health, and happiness of a society have nothing to do with how
much money people do not need to spend on something. So, giving them
something for free doesn't help them at all, it just makes them
dependent. Of course, for big industrial cothing companies, this means
mission accomplished.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> I haven't seen a valid argument yet why giving out free clothes will
> make their society worse off. The arguments so far seem to revolve
> around it being better that a huge number of people cannot afford to buy
> clothes, but so long as there is a healthy textile industry and rich
> people don't get free clothes that's ok.
You seem to still have this false dichotomy. I will quote myself:
The problem is the overabundance. It's not a question of "either everybody
gets free clothes or nobody does."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.08.2013 17:45, schrieb scott:
>>>> People without a market for their labor or goods can't take their
>>>> "clothing money" and reallocate it to education or medicine.
>>>> They have
>>>> gone from almost no money to no money at all.
>>
>>> ???
>>
>> Read my last two sentences *together*.
>
> 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.
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? Oops - there is no local luxury products industry, so that
portion of the money now goes to somewhere outlandish. Well, maybe the
better-off people /will/ increase their demand for schools and
hospitals, but let's be realistic: Would /you/ trust your health or your
children's education with a would-be cloths industry employee?
> I'm not saying that what I mentioned was the only additional factor to
> consider, it was just one example of why you can't simply say "unlimited
> free clothes equals closed textile industry equals bad for the economy".
> At minimum stating that opinion makes it sound like you haven't
> considered anything else.
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".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/1/2013 7:07 AM, Shay wrote:
>
>
> "scott" wrote in message news:51fa561a$1@news.povray.org...
>
>>> People without a market for their labor or goods can't take their
>>> "clothing money" and reallocate it to education or medicine.
>>> They have
>>> gone from almost no money to no money at all.
>
>> ???
>
> Read my last two sentences *together*.
>
> An economy is like an ecosystem.
> You might say, "if we kill off all the rabbits, the coyotes will eat the
> rats."
> But the foxes are eating the rats. I guess the foxes will eat the crickets.
> But the robins are eating the crickets ...
>
> Then you might say, "we're not killing the rabbits, we're adding more
> rabbits."
> I guess those new rabbits will eat crickets.
> But the robins are eating the crickets ...
>
> An economy, like an ecosystem, can survive a little turbulence (at least
> for a while, history indicates ruin or violent revolution are inevitable).
>
> However, too much turbulence will collapse the system. Rising
> unemployment and income disparity are indicators that this is happening
> right now.
>
> -Shay
Uh, no.. Rising unemployment and income equality is the direct result of
the wolves deciding the the rabbits where not enough, and they should be
allowed to eat "everything".
A good example of this is a recent examination of the "costs" of doing
business for McDonald's Nearly every place in the US, the minimum wage
is around $7.5 (averaged, and sort of guess at, some places it may be
$8, but the fed has it at $7.25). The actual amount, given inflation, it
should be at is like $15. Now.. The cost estimate has been that, if they
doubled the pay of every single damn person, nation wide, they would
have to increase the cost of a hamburger by like 50 cents, to compensate.
Now, that means that, if you worked there, you would be making $15 an
hour, and your burger would cost you $4.49, instead of $3.99. So.. where
the F is the problem exactly? Well, according to the people apposed to
increasing wages, "Such places run on tiny margins, and even paying $1
more would ruin them!!!!"
Uh.. bullshit! Its purely that the boards of directors, the CEOs, and
all the people they pay to lie to congress for them, want to keep all
the money, and not pay anyone anything. Oh, and... it gives them an
excuse to a) fire people, so that b) they have fewer employees, and c)
they can then pay someone else millions, to go to congress, and say,
"See! If you got rid of minimum wages, or let us start putting things
that are illegal in the burgers, we could hire back all the people we
fired!"
Nothing about the current economic problems have a damn thing to do with
the cost of labor, or the price that anything would actually "have to
be" to hire more people, or pay them more money. Its all, 100%, about
maximizing the wallets of the people at the top, then saying, "Well, I
am sure you can find a job at one of the other places that pay shit
wages, you just are not trying hard enough, obviously!"
The numbers don't lie. We could turn around everything, over night, if
they would just a) hire people, and b) actually fraking pay them for
working. They want to do neither, and they have a long, stupid, and
mathematically unfounded, list of bullshit reasons to not do it. The
biggest ones being that half the idiots in charge of companies right now
where "trained" in schools that fell for, and taught them, quite
frankly, the similarly delusional, mathematically implausible, and
purely selfish, "US libertarian free market - which fixes everything by
application of magic", economic theory of how to run businesses. Much
like modern conservatism, someone, who wasn't already an asshole, from
100 years ago, would look at the theory of how you pay people, how you
treat them, etc., in the modern economy, and go, "What they hell went
wrong here? Did everyone become a complete idiot?!"
The only answer I can, sadly, give, myself, is, "Yeah, mostly, that is
exactly what happened."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Patrick Elliott" wrote in message news:51faa419$1@news.povray.org...
> Uh, no.. Rising unemployment and income equality is the direct
> result of the wolves deciding the the rabbits where not enough,
> and they should be allowed to eat "everything".
We agree more than you think. Low-cost/no-cost goods (or labor) lead to a
loss of economic equilibrium. This is common to both our stories.
Some people in very unfortunate situations must undersell their goods or
labor. Remedies for this situation are not the subject of this thread.
I'm looking for others' views on our responsibility as comparatively rich
people with excess goods or labor to offer. Specifically, I'm interested in
what we are doing that we perhaps shouldn't, not what we aren't doing that
we perhaps should. So far, I'm not having much luck.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> We've all heard stories of misguided charity organizations destroying
> micro-economies with no-cost goods. The stories go something like
> this:
>
> * Wealthy people give poor people mosquito nets
> * The poor people sell the nets for food
> * The now-flooded mosquito-net market collapses
> * The indigenous mosquito-net craftsmen disappear
> * The no-cost mosquito nets get sold-off / used up
> * No more mosquito nets. No more craftsmen.
>
> Google, Apple, and Microsoft are now monetizing no/low-cost software
> and *intentionally*(?) creating the above situation. The creators of
> that software are making nothing or (MUCH worse) very little. The
> 'very little' is much worse, imo, because I suspect the half-starved
> parasites will fight to defend the host.
>
> Not saying (or not saying) the large companies are evil, just
> wondering if we should all be more careful where we put our "spare"
> money, time, talent, and personal information.
Let me make an attempt to answer this question by giving my personal
opinion. We indeed should be more careful:
We must not buy products from companies that don't educate people or try
to prevent people from educating themselves.
What some charity organizations don't understand is that it is much more
important to improve education than delivering finished goods, even if
the latter has the short-term effect of saving more lifes. You certainly
know the saying "Give a man a fish and he has food for one day. Teach
him how to fish and he has food for his whole life."
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. This has the advantage that
1. The number of mosquito nets increases.
2. Some workers lose their jobs because mosquito nets are now produced
more efficiently.
3. The workers who lost their jobs now build mosquito net machines.
4. They will modify the machine to improve the nets and to produce other
things.
5. Machine and net producers maybe even teach the next generation their
new skills.
Compare this with software and schools. Microsoft sells software to
schools with a huge discount. Closed source software is like a mosquito
net, because the students don't learn how to produce software. The right
thing is to give them the tools to inspect and modify software. Like
this, more students will start to write software. The irony is that
Microsoft itself is moaning about the lack software developers.
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.
Then there is something else: Some hospitals here in Switzerland are
constantly complaining that they can't find enough competent personell.
On the other hand, they only have a handful of apprenticeships. (You
know the system of apprenticeship in Switzerland? Young persons just
having finished school start working at a company for about four years.
During this period the company must thoroughly educate the apprentices
in a profession. At the end, they have an exam and get a diploma.) So a
hospital complains that they can't find enough employees, although they
are supposed to educate them? Ridiculous. (In fact, this is just a way
for the hospitals to justify the employment of foreign workers, with
smaller wages of course.)
And you know what the joke is? Every human wants to learn. But then,
there is corruption and domination, also something humans want. Efforts
of helping poor people to get an education can work against corruption,
but they are also stiffled by corruption.
In my opinion, you should avoid the following:
- Closed source software
- Stuff produced far away, except if it is of very high quality
- Cheap stuff (Always try to imagine what everything must be done to
produce a good before you buy it!)
- Large companies
- Giving something for free without the recipient learning something
from it
Greetings
Urs
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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.
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.
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. 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."
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?
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"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.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-08-01 06:52, Warp a écrit :
> Helping the poor who cannot afford clothes is ok. Saturating the market
> with free stuff that even the people who could afford it otherwise is not,
> because that kills even the little economy that there could be.
Only for discarded Sports team t-shirts and hats economy. The rest of
the economy can still thrive.
If it doesn't it's because the ruling class is too busy fleecing its
citizen and using whatever money their economy generates to buy arms on
the foreign markets, not because the Superbowl losing team sent them
100,000 t-shirts.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 01/08/2013 11:39, scott a écrit :
>>> One could argue that overall for society it's better to have cheaper
>>> mosquito nets (more people will be able to afford them and disease is
>>> then probably lower).
>>>
>> However, the local craftsmen having disappeared, society becomes
>> dependant on charity.
>
> If the charity stops then surely the craftsmen will appear again just as
> quickly to return to the original situation?
They might, if the entry cost to craft is not higher than any other
local activities.
For a simile, let's look at the textile industry (just the part that
goes from the thread to the fabric), in Europe: wealthy in the 19th
century it is now rather in near-death state. The still existing
companies are using machines that are very old and there is no
manufacturing company any more for such machines (I speak of the most
complex ones, able to make motif of threads in the fabric)). The
knowledge is lost, and the cost to reacquire it is prohibitive.
>
>> No win-win situation, except for the charity's
>> good conscience.
Every works is worth a rewards.
The charity should be inspired rather by the saying (guess the book ?):
"if you give a man a fish, he will eat one day. If you learn a man to
fish, he will eat every days".
Charity for day one is ok, but long-term repetition of the same action
become counter-productive if the charity is true to itself.
--
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-8-2013 8:14, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>
> Every works is worth a rewards.
> The charity should be inspired rather by the saying (guess the book ?):
> "if you give a man a fish, he will eat one day. If you learn a man to
> fish, he will eat every days".
> Charity for day one is ok, but long-term repetition of the same action
> become counter-productive if the charity is true to itself.
Exactly so indeed. As you may have guessed, I am quite critical about
charities as most blindly just go on distributing fish without providing
the fishing poles. I may be exaggerating some, but not much. It has been
the policies of ngo's in the past, and it is the policy of IMF.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-8-2013 20:38, Shay wrote:
> I'm looking for others' views on our responsibility as comparatively
> rich people with excess goods or labor to offer. Specifically, I'm
> interested in what we are doing that we perhaps shouldn't, not what we
> aren't doing that we perhaps should. So far, I'm not having much luck.
- 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.
I probably could go on a while by mentioning mineral resources...
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Is no-cost software irresponsible?
Date: 2 Aug 2013 04:34:55
Message: <51fb6f2f@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <lef### [at] freefr> wrote:
>
> 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... ")
>
This is why I give my charity money to people living on the street, directly.
And before anyone says that they will just spend it on drink. I don’t care. If
they need to get drunk to get to sleep then my money is doing some good.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Is no-cost software irresponsible?
Date: 2 Aug 2013 07:02:26
Message: <51fb91c2@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-8-2013 12:31, Stephen wrote:
> This is why I give my charity money to people living on the street, directly.
> And before anyone says that they will just spend it on drink. I don’t care. If
> they need to get drunk to get to sleep then my money is doing some good.
>
>
Indeed. I gave to a small local commerce selling biological food and
which was in financial difficulty. They started a local crowd funding to
keep on running. I thought that a worthwhile spending.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> biological food
I love how nonsensically redundant new-age terminology is.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-08-02 03:19, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> On 2-8-2013 8:14, Le_Forgeron wrote:
>>
>> Every works is worth a rewards.
>> The charity should be inspired rather by the saying (guess the book ?):
>> "if you give a man a fish, he will eat one day. If you learn a man to
>> fish, he will eat every days".
>> Charity for day one is ok, but long-term repetition of the same action
>> become counter-productive if the charity is true to itself.
>
> Exactly so indeed. As you may have guessed, I am quite critical about
> charities as most blindly just go on distributing fish without providing
> the fishing poles. I may be exaggerating some, but not much. It has been
> the policies of ngo's in the past, and it is the policy of IMF.
>
> Thomas
>
And even then, some of those fish are left on the port loading dock to
rot because those charities haven't thought about the logistics* of
ditributing the fish to the people in need.
*which usually include spreading vitamin Z here and there.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-08-02 03:37, scott a écrit :
>
> Maybe, maybe they still need more and higher quality food, tools,
> repairs to their home, vaccinations etc before considering imported
> luxury goods.
>
Try telling that to Mugabe.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" wrote in message news:51fb7635$1@news.povray.org...
>> 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.
The money spent on textiles disappears along with the textile market. The
money generated by the textile market no longer exists. It cannot be spent
on medicine or education because it's GONE. These people aren't receiving an
allowance.
The rules of money can unfortunately be (temporarily) bent, but money is
fundamentally a placeholder for debt. No need ... no market ... no exchange
... no debt ... no money.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thomas de Groot" wrote in message news:51fb60ab$1@news.povray.org...
> - 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.
> I probably could go on a while by mentioning mineral resources...
That is a perfectly valid answer to the question as I asked it, but it
illustrates a difference in our vernaculars: I include NONE of the
organizations responsible for those policies when I say "we." The IMF et al.
are "they."
Not that I can completely deny my own culpability for *their* actions.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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.
>
> The money spent on textiles disappears along with the textile market.
> The money generated by the textile market no longer exists. It cannot be
> spent on medicine or education because it's GONE.
And then, now that everyone has clothes, who says another market won't
open up or grow that would generate even more money than the textile
industry did? I'm not saying that will certainly happen, but it's a bit
short-sighted to not consider that possibility.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" wrote in message news:51fbab51$1@news.povray.org...
> And then, now that everyone has clothes, who says another market won't
> open up or grow that would generate even more money than the textile
> industry did? I'm not saying that will certainly happen, but it's a bit
> short-sighted to not consider that possibility.
It might. The question is whether we, the relatively powerful, should stomp
mud holes in fragile economies. Examine the track record and come to your
own conclusions, but don't off-handedly reject the premise of the original
post: Throwing free stuff into markets can and has caused suffering, and we
should think carefully before doing so.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Urs Holzer" wrote in message news:51fb8001@news.povray.org...
> Stallman does not require the "beer" part. In fact, I am slightly
> opposed to it.
I think we completely agree on this point.
One thing that bugs me about Linux is that an American is stuck choosing
between using illegal software and giving up access to (most) media. Would
be nice if I could just pay for those codecs.
> Definitely, but hardware is actually a thing, not just a number like
> software. Same for books.
I've heard this from a lot of people, but the only distinction I see is
this: Words, ones, and zeroes can be manufactured by the poor; (most)
physical goods cannot. The problem is that both are making $$$$ for
/somebody/, but, in the case of words, ones, and zeroes, the manufacturer is
too easily excluded from that $$$$.
> 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.
It makes me happy to dig ditches (seriously), but I know that digging free
ditches for a megacorp would put someone out of work and increase wealth
disparity.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
