Although I did, there really is no reaon to read your post beyond this:
Sure, sure, city walls, swords, mass graves, armor, they all deteriorate. But only before 4500 BC. Everything after that is preserved.
There is no evidence of city walls, swords, mass graves, or armor from any time period within thousands of years of 4500 BC.
In the NEOLITHIC or New Stone Age (circa 4,500 - 2,300 BC), a more settled way of life emerged; in the lowlands farms were created and animals and crops domesticated. Today, the only remains of this period, apart from the flint tools, are a handful of earth burial mounds (long mounds) and more rarely, the stone chambers where the bones were laid to rest.
The rest of your claims are thus unfounded. Even were they not, you'd still be confusing causality and correlation. Thanks for the laugh, though!
Who said anything about applying anything selectively? Remember, most major religions until recently regarded lending money for profit as a sin. Along those lines, I think anyone should be eligible for debt relief. The World Bank and the IMF have been using lending to screw with third world economies since WWII. Even they are realizing the huge amount of trouble they have caused the world, which is why they are starting to talk seriously about debt relief.
Cool, so we forgive all debt for everyone. Now, why would anyone loan anything to anyone anymore? Meet Mr. Reductio Ad Absurdum.
You seem to be assuming I have some special animosity towards the US. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was born here and have lived years of my life abroad. I love the US and consider myself a true patriot. Not the rah-rah! codependent kind of patriot, to whom any implication that his country is less than perfect is the same as a personal attack. No, the real kind who is willing to look honestly at his country and try to figure out how to make it better.
I did not assume that. There is no reason for you to get defensive.
I especially love it when people like you write things like: "A: Arrgh! No way $PERSONAL_ATTACK $AD_HOMINEM_ARGUMENT $OTHER_FALLACY_THAT_AVOIDS_THE_QUESTION," obviously trying to show that I am an idiot who would get flustered by your brilliant repartee and resort to personal attacks and logical fallacies. That in itself is a personal attack, an ad hominem argument and another fallacy that avoids the question. Hypocrite.
"People like me?" What kind would that be? Someone who asks you to answer a question you dodged? You're mighty defensive. I did not attack you personally in any way, at least I didn't try to; sorry if you took it that way. I just said "I've seen the same sequence played out several times in this thread (and, in fact, whever this topic comes up)" and then described the subject-changing answer technique you quoted. You argued against my original post with:
The problem with this argument, of course, is that the people who now have the debt on their back aren't the ones who caused it in the first place.
Then someone saliently posed the question:
How is this different from the trillions of dollars of national debt that Boomer fiscal irresponsibility is going to force on future generations? Those generations aren't to blame for the fact that Boomers have absolutely no problem whatsoever spending their children and grandchildrens future and saying "fuck it" to personal responsibility, so why shouldn't they be able to disown the debt after the Boomers are gone?
And then you utterly failed to answer the question with something that's definitely $OTHER_FALLACY_THAT_AVOIDS_THE_QUESTION if not $PERSONAL_ATTACK or $AD_HOMINEM_ARGUMENT as well:
Your a "boomer," aren't you? Looking for some excuse for a little personal debt relief? There's this concept called bankruptcy: when your debt gets to the point you can't pay it back, you can declare bankruptcy. This is better for society, as it keeps people from sinking into abject poverty. Keeping people from sinking into abject poverty is a societal good, as it keeps society stable.
IMHO, give it twenty years and the US will be the one screaming for debt relief, at least if the current crop of borrow and spend Republicans get their way.
So, you know, now that I've recapped for you and we're both on the same page let's look at your bankruptcy argument. Note that in this "concept called bankruptcy" the creditors of the bankrupt entity get to divvy up any assets the debtor has left. I didn't see that mentioned in any of the proposals for the "World Bank" to forgive Africa's debt. Can you point me to it so we can establish the validity of your analogy? Also note that bankruptcy tends to mess up one's credit rating and make lenders hesitant to extend new credit any time soon.
You asked for a source, you didn't specify whether you wanted one you agreed with or not.
Heh, funny. I assumed you were smart enough to realize I was asking for something to back up your alleged facts.
Your snide remark about 1st world welfare sorta suggested that you resented paying for the lazy poor sponging off your taxes, which describes a tiny fraction of real welfare claimants rather than the neo-con world view painted by the likes of Charles Murray.
No, you inferred that. However, I dispute that the "lazy poor" are "a tiny fraction of real welfare claimants." I'd say it's more like 99%, and I'll provide the same level of evidence you did for your claim.
If you don't want to be called on untruthful statements don't make them.
That's just silly. I stated an opinion, and that can't be "called." Yet you alleged some "facts" about the US causing the problems in Africa, yet utterly failed to substantiate them. Note that opinions can't be be untruthful (such as mine) while facts can be (such as yours.) You, sir, are a hypocrite, and I'll continue to hold my opinions and assert them whenever I and wherever I deem appropriate.
That'd be a really great source if it weren't simply a mishmash of completely unfounded allegations that "The US ensured [bad thing]" followed by no explanation, logic, or evidence. I mean, "The U.S. government which dominates the G8, has through the Pentagon, the CIA, the World Bank and the IMF, systematically demolished African economies, health and education sectors, and fueled eleven wars on the continent with arms transfers and military training. This genocidal imperial strategy has killed more than four million Africans and allowed the U.S. and the West to attain Africa's abundant natural riches cheaply. " Come on. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I'd settle for any evidence.
Charles Murray was the author of The Emerging British Underclass which was used as an excuse to remove large amounts of welfare protection by the US, UK and Australian governments. This rhetoric is still spouted even though the author has largely repudiated it now.
I know. This is irrelevant.
So you're not spouting discredited 20th century opinions because you resent paying tax?
No, I'm not.
My point is that if you are it might be an idea to see where your tax is really being wasted instead of blaming the bottom rung of society for all its ills.
I said nothing about resenting paying taxes, or my taxes being wasted. Can you read?
Yeah, I hope that never happens to you, since I'd be paying for it and all. I mean, it is my problem, right? If I put away enough to live a year in case of emergency, I should share that with you regardless. Right?
People like the parent poster don't give a shit- they want their piece of eveyone else's, and they don't care about encouraging excellence or accept any responsibility for their own failures or laziness. They just try to rationalize their greed under phrases like "socioeconomic fairness" and "progressive taxation."
Of course, they'd be first in line to vote Republican if they had a decent-paying job. They don't stand by their socialist principles enough to inconvenience themselves.
Sorry for being pedantic, but you really didn't answer his question. I'm still quite curious -- why is it OK to apply the "good" concept of debt relief selectively? Who gets to decide who deserves the relief and who doesn't? Why are they qualified to do so?
I'm really not trying to troll; I'm really curious, especially since I've seen the same sequence played out several times in this thread (and, in fact, whever this topic comes up):
A: It's good to forgive African debt because the people who incurred the debt are not alive, and we're helping the current generation of Africans.
B: OK, then this should apply to the US in a few generations if our debt gets high. Will you support US debt relief then? It's the same thing.
A: Arrgh! No way $PERSONAL_ATTACK $AD_HOMINEM_ARGUMENT $OTHER_FALLACY_THAT_AVOIDS_THE_QUESTION
Right, how about some facts again, rather than easy cut-and-dried witticisms?
I'm not sure it's necessary for me to cite facts to support my opinions, but OK. Interestingly, all the facts on your source are many of the reaosns I hold the opinions I do. Let's go.
Do you know that today foreign aid is mostly used as a tool to force poorer nations to implement the policies (e.g on energy) that the rich nations want, and that more money flows from the poor nations to the rich than the other way around?
Yes. I know you see it that way. I see it as "wise spending" and "making to most out of a crappy task that's hard to avoid."
I just wish really did result in some money flowing into the US instead of the other way around.
And let's not forget cancelling the US farmer subsidies, which do cost billions too (way more in fact), so that agricultural societies in Africa and elsewhere can actually sell their food at a competitive price AND market their way out of poverty?
I don't believe we all need to be made equal or compete on a "level" field. US farm subsidies are good as long as they help the US maintain self-sufficiency. Some call them "illegal" or "cheating." I call that rubbish, since the subsidies don't appear maqgically our of nowhere, they're ifnanced by the people (who the government taxes to get money with which to subsidize.) Since most of us are too bust to go lend a (physical) hand on the farms, we provide some money to help in the form of taxes -> subsidies. The point is I completely disagree with your pre-assumed axiom that things should be fair and even across national boundaries, or that the rich are required to help the poor. That's working against natural selection, IMHO.
The fact is that on the world scene just as in Western society the rich make the rules. They draft the laws, they have the police, the army and the resources. The poor just try to survive from year to year. Yes they take advantage of the few crumbs that the rich leave on the table from time to time to make themselves feel somewhat better, but on average the poor get raped almost every time.
OK? Nice sob story, but I don't see why that matters or why I should care.
The West needs education too.
Is Africa going to help pay for it? I don't understand.
I don't know if this comes as news to you, but Africa is big enough to have pretty huge "local variations". While people might be starving in one part of Africa they could very well have decent standards in another and luxury in a third part. This is almost as bad as reasoning that if most people have food and shelter in New York you shouldn't be helping street kids in Ecuador (or street kids in New York for that matter).
OK, so as the AC asked -- "Do the rich Africans send money to the poor Americans?" Sorry that it offends you, but I personally find socialism pretty distasteful.
Besides, it's not as if AIDS isn't a problem in US, albeit not as bad, so maybe you should keep doing the research on that.
Why should I research AIDS in the US to conclude that I don't think helping Africa with their AIDS should be a priority for the US?
(just assuming you post from the US, but the point still stands if it's somewhere else)
What point? That you disagree with me? Oh. OK.
On topic, I think it's unfortunate that MS don't want to donate software, but then, it's not the end of the world. I hear there are pretty good OSS alternatives...
Those debts were run up by our pet dictators during the cold war as part of indirect subsidies to the arms industry. Now those countries have removed said dictators why should they have to pay back money that was used to oppress them.
I don't believe this is true. Any sources?
As for the crack about the welfare state, dude you're so last century. Even Charles Murray said it was a crock a few years later.
Not that it's particularly relevant (penning a book doesn't give one universal authority over topics related to it, you know) but "a few years later" with respect to what, and in what context?
If you're unhappy about your government wasting money tell them to get out of Iraq or end corporate welfare, the few who do exploit the welfare system are a much smaller deal than those two.
It's very hard for you to understand my point when you're busy putting words in my mouth. Please consider listening, instead of simply waiting for your turn to talk.
I did (except the first, which wasn't directed to me -- did you mis-link?) thanks for your patience. Note that I have to actually take time off from slashdot to work occasionally, since I don't get to enjoy any sort of debt forgiveness.
The problem with this argument, of course, is that the people who now have the debt on their back aren't the ones who caused it in the first place. Now, one can make an argument that the current people inherited the original debt-makers, and therefore inherited the debt too; however, the debt was not caused by their actions, so I fail to see what this issue has to do with personal responsibility.
OK, as I mentioned in another reply above, should that argument not then be applied fairly? For example, if the US accumulates a huge national debt now, is it appropriate to expect forgiveness of that debt a few generations from now because the citizens at that time weren't personally responsible for accumulating the debt?
You do realize that welfare exist for the benefit of the well-of, do you ? After all, if someone has the choice between starving to death and attacking you and stealing your wallef in the street, the latter is always a better option for him, no matter how high the chances of capture or how severe the punishment - certain death vs. almost certain death, in worst case. You don't want to put the poor to the situation where all they have to lose is their chains, but they have the whole world to win.
I think welfare as a temporary safety net with a focus on encouraging self-sufficiency is a good thing. I think welfare that lacks such focus and perpetuates welfare is a bad thing. I'm not sure why you decided I am against welfare. I am against welfare states that focus on perpetuating themselves as welfare states, however.
That welfare also keeps bodies dead from starvation from littering the street, and provides a safety net - which is always a good thing to have, no matter how sure you are about your own abilities - is simply a nice side effect. But its real function is to stabilize the society by making its continued existence a better option than its violent overthrow even for the poorest members of it.
I agree. But how does this relate to forgiving Africa's debt?
Besides, trying to carry your responsibilities and succeeding in that task are two different things. Not having the safety net of welfare turns lack of success into a death penalty.
I agree. But how does this relate to forgiving Africa's debt?
You are getting into holier-than-thou territory here. Are you such an international expert on development that you can afford to make such statements without even trying to back them up with a few facts?
It's not clear how having an opinion that you (and apparently, the moderators) disagree with is "holier-than-thou," requires expertise in development, or needs to be backed up with "facts." It's my opinion. Why does that upset so many here so?
Remember that those states that are at the very bottom of the GDP/person ranking are among those that have been exploited the most by the West during and after the colonialist period, not to mention racked by war, disease, famine and natural disasters.
I think it'd be fair to say the same of any state/nation (exploited, racked by war, suffered disease and disaster.) I don't understand why Africa is special in this regard.
In fact the thinking has been going at the World Bank for some years that debt relief is the best way forward, to the point that world renowned Marxist-Trostysk-Leninist way way wayyyy to the left of the left (not) Paul Wolfvowitz, our new president of the WB, has taken upon himself to implement this idea and recently succeeded.
OK, the World Bank thinks that debt relief is "the best way forward" and a leftist has implemented the idea. How does this make it necessarily correct, or my opinion necessarily invalid or "flamebait"?
The idea is that those poorest states certainly have made mistakes in the past but that there is absolutely no reason why the new generations in those states should continue to pay forever for them, since they are already given a raw deal to start with.
That's a dangerous precedent: so let's not worry about the US deficit then, since in the future we can expect other nations and the "World Bank" to forigve it. It's not a burden for our children to bear, since they shouldn't be held accountable for their ancestors' mistakes.
If you think about it the same reasoning goes for welfare, to the point that even in one the most conservative and market driven economy on the planet, when decision makers sat down and thought about possible solutions, no one came up with a better solution.
Welfare as a temporary safety net is a good thing. Welfare as an ongoing way of life isn't. There's too much of the latter and not enough of the former, IMHO.
You can't continue punishing people for mistakes they haven't commited forever. Doing so is inhuman and counterproductive.
How is not forgiving a legitimate debt "punishment?"
I think you may have stabbed yourself. I guess it's better than having been eaten by a grue (it's dark, right?) You could have even checked my profile to discover that I'm in my 30's. I don't consider myself a libertarian.
So, is that all you've got for dispute and argument against my valid and salient point? Pretty weak, to be honest.
Oh, sweet! It's not as bad as they've been telling us? Cool. Let's cancel those billions to fight AIDS and nix the big debt forgiveness so we can tend to our problems at home!
Yes, we must drop all the debt because that helps teach an important life lessson: you are not responsibile for your actions or personal well-being, someone else is
With that lesson firmly ingrained, they'll fit right into many 1st world welfare states rather nicely.
Why'd you omit the one big qualifier that applies to all of those rights?
Article 29.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
That is, you can have the right to free speech and what have you, as long as those rights are NOT "exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
Of course, the "purposes and principles of the United Nations" are not spelled out, and they are subject to change. So, you know, all those rights -- you can have them as long as the UN says so.
Compare to the US Bill of Rights (which are unalienable, and endowed by the creator.) Which seems more permament and un-exceptionable to you?
I don't think anyone actually buys the top card every year. Everyone's upgrade cycle isn't at the same time, and someone's always upgrading. But to answer your main question: the only piece of software that can use all this power that I know of right now is Battlefield 2. And for me, that's enough to make me consider it (read: want it) but I'll wait until it drops in price a bit.
Um, when it comes to 3rd world countries, I'm sure basic highschool education is a sufficient burden that we don't need to even discuss university education. And we're not just talking about emigrants to the US. We could be talking about moving from one poor country to a neighbouring not-quite-so-poor country. Sorry but not everything the world does is about you and yours.
So you think people should have to stay where they were born and educated or pay a tax to leave? This isn't freedom in my eyes, and it's just the sort of thinking the UN is known for. That sort of thinking (socialist "fairness") makes me really concerned when I think about the UN controlling the internet in any way.
Just try to remember that poor countries get quite a raw deal in a free world market when it applies to movement of people. If all the people they spend time educating just get up and leave the country they have a problem.
I don't think this is as big of a problem as you seem to, and I think it's rather vain and short-sighted of you to impose your idea of what distinguishes "rich" and "poor" then go about feeling sorry for them because you're so caring and want to make their lives "better." Moreover, you say to me "not everything the world does is about you and yours" and yet you impose your values and ideas of "good" and "bad" on everyone else. Let me tell you a little something about "poor" countries (I've actually visited, and lived in, many of them.) Here's a list of the five poorest countries in the world, along with a link to the government website of each (yes, they all have websites, except Somalia) so you can verify my claims:
1 Timor-Leste: NO GOVERNMENT-FUNDED EDUCATION SYSTEM
Beginning in 1993, a two-year UN humanitarian effort (primarily in the south) was able to alleviate famine conditions, but when the UN withdrew in 1995, having suffered significant casualties, order still had not been restored.
ol of Mogadishu and the other southern regions.
On-going civil war occupies the minds of most DRoCongo citizens.
5 Tanzania : Spends less than 5% of budget on education
Keep going down (or up) the list of poor countries and you'll see the same thing over and over -- very little or no government money spent on education, because they have more pressing needs like survival! And these "poor" countries get a "raw deal" how? By the rich countries donating billions of dollars to them annualy, or is it the debt relief they enjoy that's the "raw" part? If you think "emigration" is even in the top 100 concerns of the world's poorest countries you're uninformed, an idiot, or both.
If you wanted a proper free world market then people should be "sold" between countries based on the costs involved in training them. The idea of taxing emigrants is just a way to formalise that.
Wow. People should be sold (?!) To have a "proper" free market economy. And taxing emigrants is "just" a way to formalize the selling of people. This is simultaneously the scariest and dumbest thing I've ever read.
And thank you for the reminder *again* of the difference between expat and emigrant. But it's not necessary.
Well, yes it was necessary, because you claimed the proposed UN tax on emigration was "ALREADY DONE BY THE US" and this error on your part stemmed from your confusion of "emigrants" (which no country, US included, taxes) and "expatriates" (which most countries, including the US, do tax.)
OK, fair enough, I should've used emigrants instead of expats in my argument. Unfortunately my argument still stands.
No, it really doesn't. Your argument was that the UN is only proposing "taxing people even when they're away from home" and that is "an idea implemented BY THE UNITED STATES ALREADY." In reality, the US only taxes expats, not emigrants. (Have you looked those up yet?) And the UN document I provided clearly states a desire to tax emigrants.
If I as an Australian citizen work as a resident of the US in the US I will pay US taxes and not Australian ones. Can you clarify for me the situation for US citizens working in Australia?
US Citizens working *anywhere* must pay US taxes. They may also be subject to taxes in the country they're working/living. To avoid double-taxation, these expats can deduct some (usually most or all) of the amount of local (host-country) taxes from the taxes owed to the US federal government. This is not unlike the way US residents can deduct state taxes paid from their federal taxes owed (though this it more limited, since state taxes are usually much lower than federal taxes.)
The article you quoted said "the United States... requires its nationals to pay United States taxes on their worldwide income regardless of where they reside". I'd be interested to know just what level of paper work is required for the US government to enforce this.
Correct. But if you leave the US permanently you then are no longer a "US national" and you owe no US taxes (i.e., if you "emigrate" to another country, rather than work there temporarily as an "expatriate.") This is trivial for the US government to enforce in that they can simply do nothing while you're away, expecting you to do what is required of you tax-wise, and bring the IRS hammer down on you when you get home if you did something wrong or didn't pay in full. You're trying to justify a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
To give an example, my university education is funded by the government in a system called HECS. Under that system, once I begin earning more than $35k per year I must pay money back to the Australian government until my debt is gone. If I go overseas to work the Australian government has no access to my income (separate tax systems) and so cannot reclaim that money. Do you think they should be able to, considering the fact that they trained me?
The US has a similar program, but we simply call it a "Federally Subsidized Student Loan." The word loan right there in the title makes it clear, so, yeah -- sure they should expect a payback on the loan, if that's what HECS is (but why not just call it a "loan"?) The US also gives students free money, called Pell Grants, for education. These are "grants" not "loans" so, if you use them and then emigrate away taking your valuable US-funded education with you, then the US neither has a right to get some money back from you, nor does it try.
While Australia isn't a 3rd world country, you can imagine how the "brain drain" is a problem. How are 3rd world countries meant to access the US taxation system to tax their citizens, trying to reclaim some of the cost of educating them?
First, I'm not aware of any 3rd world countries that can afford to significantly finance the education of very many of it's citizens, or any that have education systems that can teach someone a skill that would help one attain gainful employment in the US. Second, it would be rather stupid for a 3rd world country to spend the money on high-tech universities that it needs for, say, making potable water and stopping famine, especially since they have very few high-paying jobs to employ their own graduates and they know it. AFAIK the more common case if for smarter citizens of 3rd world countries to travel abroad for a good education, then either work abroad or bring the benefits of that education home. But
Slashdot Mirror
Although I did, there really is no reaon to read your post beyond this:
Sure, sure, city walls, swords, mass graves, armor, they all deteriorate. But only before 4500 BC. Everything after that is preserved.
There is no evidence of city walls, swords, mass graves, or armor from any time period within thousands of years of 4500 BC.
In the NEOLITHIC or New Stone Age (circa 4,500 - 2,300 BC), a more settled way of life emerged; in the lowlands farms were created and animals and crops domesticated. Today, the only remains of this period, apart from the flint tools, are a handful of earth burial mounds (long mounds) and more rarely, the stone chambers where the bones were laid to rest.
The rest of your claims are thus unfounded. Even were they not, you'd still be confusing causality and correlation. Thanks for the laugh, though!
Who said anything about applying anything selectively? Remember, most major religions until recently regarded lending money for profit as a sin. Along those lines, I think anyone should be eligible for debt relief. The World Bank and the IMF have been using lending to screw with third world economies since WWII. Even they are realizing the huge amount of trouble they have caused the world, which is why they are starting to talk seriously about debt relief.
Cool, so we forgive all debt for everyone. Now, why would anyone loan anything to anyone anymore? Meet Mr. Reductio Ad Absurdum.
You seem to be assuming I have some special animosity towards the US. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was born here and have lived years of my life abroad. I love the US and consider myself a true patriot. Not the rah-rah! codependent kind of patriot, to whom any implication that his country is less than perfect is the same as a personal attack. No, the real kind who is willing to look honestly at his country and try to figure out how to make it better.
I did not assume that. There is no reason for you to get defensive.
I especially love it when people like you write things like: "A: Arrgh! No way $PERSONAL_ATTACK $AD_HOMINEM_ARGUMENT $OTHER_FALLACY_THAT_AVOIDS_THE_QUESTION," obviously trying to show that I am an idiot who would get flustered by your brilliant repartee and resort to personal attacks and logical fallacies. That in itself is a personal attack, an ad hominem argument and another fallacy that avoids the question. Hypocrite.
"People like me?" What kind would that be? Someone who asks you to answer a question you dodged? You're mighty defensive. I did not attack you personally in any way, at least I didn't try to; sorry if you took it that way. I just said "I've seen the same sequence played out several times in this thread (and, in fact, whever this topic comes up)" and then described the subject-changing answer technique you quoted. You argued against my original post with:
The problem with this argument, of course, is that the people who now have the debt on their back aren't the ones who caused it in the first place.
Then someone saliently posed the question:
How is this different from the trillions of dollars of national debt that Boomer fiscal irresponsibility is going to force on future generations? Those generations aren't to blame for the fact that Boomers have absolutely no problem whatsoever spending their children and grandchildrens future and saying "fuck it" to personal responsibility, so why shouldn't they be able to disown the debt after the Boomers are gone?
And then you utterly failed to answer the question with something that's definitely $OTHER_FALLACY_THAT_AVOIDS_THE_QUESTION if not $PERSONAL_ATTACK or $AD_HOMINEM_ARGUMENT as well:
Your a "boomer," aren't you? Looking for some excuse for a little personal debt relief? There's this concept called bankruptcy: when your debt gets to the point you can't pay it back, you can declare bankruptcy. This is better for society, as it keeps people from sinking into abject poverty. Keeping people from sinking into abject poverty is a societal good, as it keeps society stable. IMHO, give it twenty years and the US will be the one screaming for debt relief, at least if the current crop of borrow and spend Republicans get their way.
So, you know, now that I've recapped for you and we're both on the same page let's look at your bankruptcy argument. Note that in this "concept called bankruptcy" the creditors of the bankrupt entity get to divvy up any assets the debtor has left. I didn't see that mentioned in any of the proposals for the "World Bank" to forgive Africa's debt. Can you point me to it so we can establish the validity of your analogy? Also note that bankruptcy tends to mess up one's credit rating and make lenders hesitant to extend new credit any time soon.
You asked for a source, you didn't specify whether you wanted one you agreed with or not.
Heh, funny. I assumed you were smart enough to realize I was asking for something to back up your alleged facts.
Your snide remark about 1st world welfare sorta suggested that you resented paying for the lazy poor sponging off your taxes, which describes a tiny fraction of real welfare claimants rather than the neo-con world view painted by the likes of Charles Murray.
No, you inferred that. However, I dispute that the "lazy poor" are "a tiny fraction of real welfare claimants." I'd say it's more like 99%, and I'll provide the same level of evidence you did for your claim.
If you don't want to be called on untruthful statements don't make them.
That's just silly. I stated an opinion, and that can't be "called." Yet you alleged some "facts" about the US causing the problems in Africa, yet utterly failed to substantiate them. Note that opinions can't be be untruthful (such as mine) while facts can be (such as yours.) You, sir, are a hypocrite, and I'll continue to hold my opinions and assert them whenever I and wherever I deem appropriate.
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Country/africa1 .htm
That'd be a really great source if it weren't simply a mishmash of completely unfounded allegations that "The US ensured [bad thing]" followed by no explanation, logic, or evidence. I mean, "The U.S. government which dominates the G8, has through the Pentagon, the CIA, the World Bank and the IMF, systematically demolished African economies, health and education sectors, and fueled eleven wars on the continent with arms transfers and military training. This genocidal imperial strategy has killed more than four million Africans and allowed the U.S. and the West to attain Africa's abundant natural riches cheaply. " Come on. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I'd settle for any evidence.
Charles Murray was the author of The Emerging British Underclass which was used as an excuse to remove large amounts of welfare protection by the US, UK and Australian governments. This rhetoric is still spouted even though the author has largely repudiated it now.
I know. This is irrelevant.
So you're not spouting discredited 20th century opinions because you resent paying tax?
No, I'm not.
My point is that if you are it might be an idea to see where your tax is really being wasted instead of blaming the bottom rung of society for all its ills.
I said nothing about resenting paying taxes, or my taxes being wasted. Can you read?
Yeah, I hope that never happens to you, since I'd be paying for it and all. I mean, it is my problem, right? If I put away enough to live a year in case of emergency, I should share that with you regardless. Right?
Socialism retards society.
People like the parent poster don't give a shit- they want their piece of eveyone else's, and they don't care about encouraging excellence or accept any responsibility for their own failures or laziness. They just try to rationalize their greed under phrases like "socioeconomic fairness" and "progressive taxation."
Of course, they'd be first in line to vote Republican if they had a decent-paying job. They don't stand by their socialist principles enough to inconvenience themselves.
Sorry for being pedantic, but you really didn't answer his question. I'm still quite curious -- why is it OK to apply the "good" concept of debt relief selectively? Who gets to decide who deserves the relief and who doesn't? Why are they qualified to do so?
I'm really not trying to troll; I'm really curious, especially since I've seen the same sequence played out several times in this thread (and, in fact, whever this topic comes up):
A: It's good to forgive African debt because the people who incurred the debt are not alive, and we're helping the current generation of Africans.
B: OK, then this should apply to the US in a few generations if our debt gets high. Will you support US debt relief then? It's the same thing.
A: Arrgh! No way $PERSONAL_ATTACK $AD_HOMINEM_ARGUMENT $OTHER_FALLACY_THAT_AVOIDS_THE_QUESTION
Things do deteriorate over thousands of years sometimes. A lack of evidence of something is not evidence of a lack of that something.
Right, how about some facts again, rather than easy cut-and-dried witticisms?
I'm not sure it's necessary for me to cite facts to support my opinions, but OK. Interestingly, all the facts on your source are many of the reaosns I hold the opinions I do. Let's go.
Do you know that today foreign aid is mostly used as a tool to force poorer nations to implement the policies (e.g on energy) that the rich nations want, and that more money flows from the poor nations to the rich than the other way around?
Yes. I know you see it that way. I see it as "wise spending" and "making to most out of a crappy task that's hard to avoid." I just wish really did result in some money flowing into the US instead of the other way around.
And let's not forget cancelling the US farmer subsidies, which do cost billions too (way more in fact), so that agricultural societies in Africa and elsewhere can actually sell their food at a competitive price AND market their way out of poverty?
I don't believe we all need to be made equal or compete on a "level" field. US farm subsidies are good as long as they help the US maintain self-sufficiency. Some call them "illegal" or "cheating." I call that rubbish, since the subsidies don't appear maqgically our of nowhere, they're ifnanced by the people (who the government taxes to get money with which to subsidize.) Since most of us are too bust to go lend a (physical) hand on the farms, we provide some money to help in the form of taxes -> subsidies. The point is I completely disagree with your pre-assumed axiom that things should be fair and even across national boundaries, or that the rich are required to help the poor. That's working against natural selection, IMHO.
The fact is that on the world scene just as in Western society the rich make the rules. They draft the laws, they have the police, the army and the resources. The poor just try to survive from year to year. Yes they take advantage of the few crumbs that the rich leave on the table from time to time to make themselves feel somewhat better, but on average the poor get raped almost every time.
OK? Nice sob story, but I don't see why that matters or why I should care.
The West needs education too.
Is Africa going to help pay for it? I don't understand.
I don't know if this comes as news to you, but Africa is big enough to have pretty huge "local variations". While people might be starving in one part of Africa they could very well have decent standards in another and luxury in a third part. This is almost as bad as reasoning that if most people have food and shelter in New York you shouldn't be helping street kids in Ecuador (or street kids in New York for that matter).
OK, so as the AC asked -- "Do the rich Africans send money to the poor Americans?" Sorry that it offends you, but I personally find socialism pretty distasteful.
Besides, it's not as if AIDS isn't a problem in US, albeit not as bad, so maybe you should keep doing the research on that.
Why should I research AIDS in the US to conclude that I don't think helping Africa with their AIDS should be a priority for the US?
(just assuming you post from the US, but the point still stands if it's somewhere else)
What point? That you disagree with me? Oh. OK.
On topic, I think it's unfortunate that MS don't want to donate software, but then, it's not the end of the world. I hear there are pretty good OSS alternatives...
Those debts were run up by our pet dictators during the cold war as part of indirect subsidies to the arms industry. Now those countries have removed said dictators why should they have to pay back money that was used to oppress them.
I don't believe this is true. Any sources?
As for the crack about the welfare state, dude you're so last century. Even Charles Murray said it was a crock a few years later.
Not that it's particularly relevant (penning a book doesn't give one universal authority over topics related to it, you know) but "a few years later" with respect to what, and in what context?
If you're unhappy about your government wasting money tell them to get out of Iraq or end corporate welfare, the few who do exploit the welfare system are a much smaller deal than those two.
It's very hard for you to understand my point when you're busy putting words in my mouth. Please consider listening, instead of simply waiting for your turn to talk.
I did (except the first, which wasn't directed to me -- did you mis-link?) thanks for your patience. Note that I have to actually take time off from slashdot to work occasionally, since I don't get to enjoy any sort of debt forgiveness.
The problem with this argument, of course, is that the people who now have the debt on their back aren't the ones who caused it in the first place. Now, one can make an argument that the current people inherited the original debt-makers, and therefore inherited the debt too; however, the debt was not caused by their actions, so I fail to see what this issue has to do with personal responsibility.
OK, as I mentioned in another reply above, should that argument not then be applied fairly? For example, if the US accumulates a huge national debt now, is it appropriate to expect forgiveness of that debt a few generations from now because the citizens at that time weren't personally responsible for accumulating the debt?
You do realize that welfare exist for the benefit of the well-of, do you ? After all, if someone has the choice between starving to death and attacking you and stealing your wallef in the street, the latter is always a better option for him, no matter how high the chances of capture or how severe the punishment - certain death vs. almost certain death, in worst case. You don't want to put the poor to the situation where all they have to lose is their chains, but they have the whole world to win.
I think welfare as a temporary safety net with a focus on encouraging self-sufficiency is a good thing. I think welfare that lacks such focus and perpetuates welfare is a bad thing. I'm not sure why you decided I am against welfare. I am against welfare states that focus on perpetuating themselves as welfare states, however.
That welfare also keeps bodies dead from starvation from littering the street, and provides a safety net - which is always a good thing to have, no matter how sure you are about your own abilities - is simply a nice side effect. But its real function is to stabilize the society by making its continued existence a better option than its violent overthrow even for the poorest members of it.
I agree. But how does this relate to forgiving Africa's debt?
Besides, trying to carry your responsibilities and succeeding in that task are two different things. Not having the safety net of welfare turns lack of success into a death penalty.
I agree. But how does this relate to forgiving Africa's debt?
You are getting into holier-than-thou territory here. Are you such an international expert on development that you can afford to make such statements without even trying to back them up with a few facts?
It's not clear how having an opinion that you (and apparently, the moderators) disagree with is "holier-than-thou," requires expertise in development, or needs to be backed up with "facts." It's my opinion. Why does that upset so many here so?
Remember that those states that are at the very bottom of the GDP/person ranking are among those that have been exploited the most by the West during and after the colonialist period, not to mention racked by war, disease, famine and natural disasters.
I think it'd be fair to say the same of any state/nation (exploited, racked by war, suffered disease and disaster.) I don't understand why Africa is special in this regard.
In fact the thinking has been going at the World Bank for some years that debt relief is the best way forward, to the point that world renowned Marxist-Trostysk-Leninist way way wayyyy to the left of the left (not) Paul Wolfvowitz, our new president of the WB, has taken upon himself to implement this idea and recently succeeded.
OK, the World Bank thinks that debt relief is "the best way forward" and a leftist has implemented the idea. How does this make it necessarily correct, or my opinion necessarily invalid or "flamebait"?
The idea is that those poorest states certainly have made mistakes in the past but that there is absolutely no reason why the new generations in those states should continue to pay forever for them, since they are already given a raw deal to start with.
That's a dangerous precedent: so let's not worry about the US deficit then, since in the future we can expect other nations and the "World Bank" to forigve it. It's not a burden for our children to bear, since they shouldn't be held accountable for their ancestors' mistakes.
If you think about it the same reasoning goes for welfare, to the point that even in one the most conservative and market driven economy on the planet, when decision makers sat down and thought about possible solutions, no one came up with a better solution.
Welfare as a temporary safety net is a good thing. Welfare as an ongoing way of life isn't. There's too much of the latter and not enough of the former, IMHO.
You can't continue punishing people for mistakes they haven't commited forever. Doing so is inhuman and counterproductive.
How is not forgiving a legitimate debt "punishment?"
I think you may have stabbed yourself. I guess it's better than having been eaten by a grue (it's dark, right?) You could have even checked my profile to discover that I'm in my 30's. I don't consider myself a libertarian.
So, is that all you've got for dispute and argument against my valid and salient point? Pretty weak, to be honest.
Next!
Well aren't most of them?
Oh, sweet! It's not as bad as they've been telling us? Cool. Let's cancel those billions to fight AIDS and nix the big debt forgiveness so we can tend to our problems at home!
Alert the UN!
And the same is true if you happen to be the one doing the shooting and/or pushing.
That's the problem; too many power strugglers looking for instant gratification. I wonder who could have taught them such short-sighted desires?
Yes, we must drop all the debt because that helps teach an important life lessson: you are not responsibile for your actions or personal well-being, someone else is
With that lesson firmly ingrained, they'll fit right into many 1st world welfare states rather nicely.
Um, you can't destroy what doesn't exist. Deal with that .
Nice try though. The UN still isn't getting any kind of control of the internet; at least not the internet that matters. Deal with that , too.
'Paki' jokes are "rare" in the UK? Surely you're joking mate.
Why'd you omit the one big qualifier that applies to all of those rights?
Article 29.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
That is, you can have the right to free speech and what have you, as long as those rights are NOT "exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
Of course, the "purposes and principles of the United Nations" are not spelled out, and they are subject to change. So, you know, all those rights -- you can have them as long as the UN says so.
Compare to the US Bill of Rights (which are unalienable, and endowed by the creator.) Which seems more permament and un-exceptionable to you?
I don't think anyone actually buys the top card every year. Everyone's upgrade cycle isn't at the same time, and someone's always upgrading. But to answer your main question: the only piece of software that can use all this power that I know of right now is Battlefield 2. And for me, that's enough to make me consider it (read: want it) but I'll wait until it drops in price a bit.
Um, when it comes to 3rd world countries, I'm sure basic highschool education is a sufficient burden that we don't need to even discuss university education. And we're not just talking about emigrants to the US. We could be talking about moving from one poor country to a neighbouring not-quite-so-poor country. Sorry but not everything the world does is about you and yours.
So you think people should have to stay where they were born and educated or pay a tax to leave? This isn't freedom in my eyes, and it's just the sort of thinking the UN is known for. That sort of thinking (socialist "fairness") makes me really concerned when I think about the UN controlling the internet in any way.
Just try to remember that poor countries get quite a raw deal in a free world market when it applies to movement of people. If all the people they spend time educating just get up and leave the country they have a problem.
I don't think this is as big of a problem as you seem to, and I think it's rather vain and short-sighted of you to impose your idea of what distinguishes "rich" and "poor" then go about feeling sorry for them because you're so caring and want to make their lives "better." Moreover, you say to me "not everything the world does is about you and yours" and yet you impose your values and ideas of "good" and "bad" on everyone else. Let me tell you a little something about "poor" countries (I've actually visited, and lived in, many of them.) Here's a list of the five poorest countries in the world, along with a link to the government website of each (yes, they all have websites, except Somalia) so you can verify my claims:
1 Timor-Leste: NO GOVERNMENT-FUNDED EDUCATION SYSTEM
2 Malawi : NO GOVERNMENT-FUNDED EDUCATION SYSTEM
3 Somalia : NO GOVERNMENT-FUNDED EDUCATION SYSTEM
Beginning in 1993, a two-year UN humanitarian effort (primarily in the south) was able to alleviate famine conditions, but when the UN withdrew in 1995, having suffered significant casualties, order still had not been restored. ol of Mogadishu and the other southern regions.
4 Democratic Republic of the Congo : NO GOVERNMENT-FUNDED EDUCATION SYSTEM
On-going civil war occupies the minds of most DRoCongo citizens.
5 Tanzania : Spends less than 5% of budget on education
Keep going down (or up) the list of poor countries and you'll see the same thing over and over -- very little or no government money spent on education, because they have more pressing needs like survival! And these "poor" countries get a "raw deal" how? By the rich countries donating billions of dollars to them annualy, or is it the debt relief they enjoy that's the "raw" part? If you think "emigration" is even in the top 100 concerns of the world's poorest countries you're uninformed, an idiot, or both.
If you wanted a proper free world market then people should be "sold" between countries based on the costs involved in training them. The idea of taxing emigrants is just a way to formalise that.
Wow. People should be sold (?!) To have a "proper" free market economy. And taxing emigrants is "just" a way to formalize the selling of people. This is simultaneously the scariest and dumbest thing I've ever read.
And thank you for the reminder *again* of the difference between expat and emigrant. But it's not necessary.
Well, yes it was necessary, because you claimed the proposed UN tax on emigration was "ALREADY DONE BY THE US" and this error on your part stemmed from your confusion of "emigrants" (which no country, US included, taxes) and "expatriates" (which most countries, including the US, do tax.)
It's not a question of "which country is that pe
OK, fair enough, I should've used emigrants instead of expats in my argument. Unfortunately my argument still stands.
... requires its nationals to pay United States taxes on their worldwide income regardless of where they reside". I'd be interested to know just what level of paper work is required for the US government to enforce this.
No, it really doesn't. Your argument was that the UN is only proposing "taxing people even when they're away from home" and that is "an idea implemented BY THE UNITED STATES ALREADY." In reality, the US only taxes expats, not emigrants. (Have you looked those up yet?) And the UN document I provided clearly states a desire to tax emigrants.
If I as an Australian citizen work as a resident of the US in the US I will pay US taxes and not Australian ones. Can you clarify for me the situation for US citizens working in Australia?
US Citizens working *anywhere* must pay US taxes. They may also be subject to taxes in the country they're working/living. To avoid double-taxation, these expats can deduct some (usually most or all) of the amount of local (host-country) taxes from the taxes owed to the US federal government. This is not unlike the way US residents can deduct state taxes paid from their federal taxes owed (though this it more limited, since state taxes are usually much lower than federal taxes.)
The article you quoted said "the United States
Correct. But if you leave the US permanently you then are no longer a "US national" and you owe no US taxes (i.e., if you "emigrate" to another country, rather than work there temporarily as an "expatriate.") This is trivial for the US government to enforce in that they can simply do nothing while you're away, expecting you to do what is required of you tax-wise, and bring the IRS hammer down on you when you get home if you did something wrong or didn't pay in full. You're trying to justify a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
To give an example, my university education is funded by the government in a system called HECS. Under that system, once I begin earning more than $35k per year I must pay money back to the Australian government until my debt is gone. If I go overseas to work the Australian government has no access to my income (separate tax systems) and so cannot reclaim that money. Do you think they should be able to, considering the fact that they trained me?
The US has a similar program, but we simply call it a "Federally Subsidized Student Loan." The word loan right there in the title makes it clear, so, yeah -- sure they should expect a payback on the loan, if that's what HECS is (but why not just call it a "loan"?) The US also gives students free money, called Pell Grants, for education. These are "grants" not "loans" so, if you use them and then emigrate away taking your valuable US-funded education with you, then the US neither has a right to get some money back from you, nor does it try.
While Australia isn't a 3rd world country, you can imagine how the "brain drain" is a problem. How are 3rd world countries meant to access the US taxation system to tax their citizens, trying to reclaim some of the cost of educating them?
First, I'm not aware of any 3rd world countries that can afford to significantly finance the education of very many of it's citizens, or any that have education systems that can teach someone a skill that would help one attain gainful employment in the US. Second, it would be rather stupid for a 3rd world country to spend the money on high-tech universities that it needs for, say, making potable water and stopping famine, especially since they have very few high-paying jobs to employ their own graduates and they know it. AFAIK the more common case if for smarter citizens of 3rd world countries to travel abroad for a good education, then either work abroad or bring the benefits of that education home. But