Keith, As "exertion" is one of the basic Factors of production, one might expect the Classicals to use it in their measure of well-being - and they do.
If for the same exertion, one can get a greater return, one is better-off. If less returns, one is worse off. That's all. Harry ------------------------------------------------------------- Keith wrote: >Hi Ed, Ray and Karen, > >To Ed in particular I must say that I felt a little guilty in my posting of >last night in changing the thread from your "Relative Wretchedness" to >"Gyres" and shooting off tangentially instead of discussing the point you >were making. > >However, in getting rid of gyres for the time being I thought it would be a >good idea to change the subject of the thread (yet again!) to the name of >the economist who has clarified the matter of what figures for income and >poverty mean. In other words, it's no use simply comparing spot figures >for top, bottom and average incomes in different countries without also >taking populations, the structure of incomes and maybe differential growth >rates within countries into account, particularly if they're large ones >(such as India and China). The figures for incomes which are usually >bandied about are quite useless. > >So let me return to your main point by agreeing that more definition is >needed. Perhaps something similar to sociological classifications of A, B, >C1, C2, D, E, etc might be useful. Alphabetically, perhaps we could start >with "R", standing for rich -- or, rather a country which is fairly >uniformly rich, such as Monaco or Luxemburg (for tax evasion reasons in >their case!) and ending with "Z" -- for a country which is fairly uniformly >poor, such as Nepal or Bangladesh. That would give nine categories, which >ought to be enough. > >Perhaps not. But almost anything would be better when trying to explain to >those who protest against globalisation, or rich countries like America, >that there are entirely different sorts of poor countries and there are >several different reasons why they are poor. There are countries like North >Korea which are poor mainly because they have cut themselves off from trade >with the rest of the world, some like deeply-inland Nepal with very little >to offer by way of trade in physical goods, some like Bangladesh which are >still trapped in landlordism (in league with pretty nasty religious >fundamentalists), others like Iraq who have been basically liberal in the >past but who have fallen into despotism, others like Argentina which used >to be very prosperous but have now lost the plot, others like Columbia >which are in effect dominated by the mafia, and so on. > >Therefore, quite besides the cultural/conceptual features (which they may >share with larger regions or "gyres") each country has a unique economic >structure, and needs a unique solution if it wants to emerge into >reasonable prosperity. But who can supply this? Certainly (in my mind) the >World Bank or the IMF can't. Despite the fact that each of these >institutions has thousands of bureaucrats I'm quite certain that they don't >have enough specialists who speak the language and understand the history >of each of the countries which approach them for help. > >The only government minister I know in the present lot is Clare Short. She >and I had dealings together 20-odd years ago when we both ran schemes for >young unemployed people. She is made of tougher stuff than me and didn't >opt out of politics as I did. She's now Minister for the Department of >International Development and in today's FT she is quoted as saying: > >"We have to change the whole mindset of aid away from the idea that it is a >charitable pot of handouts to the poor after you've done your mainstream >foreign and trade policy. . . . since 1997 [since she became Minister] the >Department has massively enlarged its capacity to analyse the issues. . . . >the World Bank and the UN now treat the work that comes out of this >department with very great respect." > >Clare Short agrees with others that governmental aid to the Third World in >the past few decades has been minimally productive in raising standards of >living. The vast majority of it has ended up in the personal bank accounts >of politicians and bureaucrats and/or in paying for the personal armies of >dictators. But I'd go further than Clare Short. Even with the best possible >analyses on the part of the donors, I don't think that the IMF or World >Bank can, in fact, be of much help to the poor countries of the world >unless the latter also come up with matching analyses and plans of their >own which incorporate the general welfare and educatin of the people as >well as economic strategies and, furthermore, shows convincing evidence >that they will institute systems so that the aid will be spent sensibly and >not squandered or stolen. > >Keith ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.377 / Virus Database: 211 - Release Date: 7/15/2002
