BF2S Forums Would you give up the ability to own a car for an Iraqi Citizen?

Elamdri wrote:

Something people tend to forget about the Third World is that the First World depends on the Third World in order to maintain it's wealth. By exploiting the people in nations like Iraq, we maintain our own standard of living. Thus, for the standard of living to go up in Iraq, the standard of living in the US and other advanced, industrialized nations must go down. It's fine and dandy to say you support the political and economic development of Iraq, but if that same development were to threaten your standard of living, would you be as OK with it? Ask yourself if you're willing to give up your TV, your car, your PC, your job, your home... so someone living in Iraq can have those things.

There's an alternative theory to consider.  Improving the third world actually has positive impact on the first world economy.  The standard of living in the US is not dependent on the third world.  The economy has becoming more service oriented everyday due to outsourcing industrial jobs to other countries.  It benefits both countries in this way.  Based on this, there is a positive correlation between the economic growth of both countries, since there will be an increased demand for our services.  So I'll be buying more, not less...

Last edited by Pug (2006-12-01 10:23:21)

EVieira wrote:

DonFck wrote:

Why Iraq? Why didn't you use a real third world country? Iraq is pretty damn wealthy in natural resources, you know. Oh, I see.. ..shock value.

Many third world countries are stinking rich in natural resources, Sierra Leone has some of the largest diamond mines in the world. Still, they are dirt poor. Brazil is probably one of the richest countries in natural resources, if that were enough to eradicate poverty we would have solved that a long time ago.

Economy and development is much more complex than that. But these two examples should be enough to show  that to turning a country into a developed nation has nothing to do with lowering our standards. Its has to do with raising theirs.

its getting iritating to see "3rd world" all over the place.  under the 3rd, 2nd, and 1st world systems of political classification Brazil would be considered 3rd world as well.  not trashing Brazil, from my studies, brazil has a very powerful economy.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

its getting iritating to see "3rd world" all over the place.  under the 3rd, 2nd, and 1st world systems of political classification Brazil would be considered 3rd world as well.  not trashing Brazil, from my studies, brazil has a very powerful economy.

This 1st, 2nd and 3rd world classification is completely useless actually. Argentina would also be classified as 3rd world.

We have a very strong economy, although it has been slipping in the last decade. We've used to be one of the top 10 economies of the world, but we've fallen a couple of places.

Nevertheless, my point is that development is not just about money. Having a rich sub-soil won't instantly develop Iraq into a peaceful democratic state. Much less if we start sending Ira our cars, televisions, Playstations, Playboys, BigMacs, etc. There is much more to it than that. If it were that simple, Bush woudn't be having such a hard time.

How is it our fault the oil sheiks use their money to buy yachts and $50,000 hotel rooms instead of schools and factories? You want to look at some real economic disparity look at places like dubai, saudi arabia, UAE.

I'm not sure I can give up the luxery of reading stupid forums on the internet.....

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Elamdri sorry to say but your poli sci professor is giving you a 60 year old world model.  it is generally agreed upon that there are actually 6 different classifications that modern political scientist categorize countries, and 3rd world is no longer an acceptable term as it does not pertain to modern times.

I know, but it is still fun to analyze the system from the theory's perspective. IS is too dynamic for Dependancy, but I just find the theory as a whole to be interesting.

Turquoise wrote:

Elamdri wrote:

Something people tend to forget about the Third World is that the First World depends on the Third World in order to maintain it's wealth. By exploiting the people in nations like Iraq, we maintain our own standard of living. Thus, for the standard of living to go up in Iraq, the standard of living in the US and other advanced, industrialized nations must go down. It's fine and dandy to say you support the political and economic development of Iraq, but if that same development were to threaten your standard of living, would you be as OK with it? Ask yourself if you're willing to give up your TV, your car, your PC, your job, your home... so someone living in Iraq can have those things.

Great post, Elamdri.  Honestly, my answer is no, but it's getting to the point where I don't think it's going to be a choice soon anyway.

On a global scale, most of the First World is set to fall in standard of living as the Third World rises.

I think this is a geat misconception. If you want these countries to be at the same level as Europe and the US, you don't go down to their level. You bring them to yours. And that will take alot of time. These countries need universities, schools, hospitals, industries, etc. They don't need us to lower our standard of living one bit.

And if you want and example, how about Korea? Korea back in the 50's and 60's was about as rich as Botswana now. They had nothing but rice paddies and a fishing industry. Look at them now. Did anyone have to loose anything for them to develop?

Turquoise wrote:

The difference now is that China and India are slowly rising.  China and India together comprise about 1/3 of the world's population.  Once they reach Second World status, they'll be consuming so much in resources that America and many other countries will have no choice but to live less decadently.  It's going to be a big shock to us, but I think it's necessary for the social evolution of mankind.

Granted, a resource shortage could happen in the future, and that could hurt the ferociously consumist society of the US. But thats an economic effect that can happen at any time. If war on Iran really happens and oil prices skyrocket, Americans might actually have to stop buying Hummers.

But whats being dicussed here is that for poor coutries to develop we need to lower our standards of living. I completely disagree with that. A resource shortage could force us to it, but that is completely diferent.

Turquoise wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Great post, Elamdri.  Honestly, my answer is no, but it's getting to the point where I don't think it's going to be a choice soon anyway.

On a global scale, most of the First World is set to fall in standard of living as the Third World rises.

I think this is a geat misconception. If you want these countries to be at the same level as Europe and the US, you don't go down to their level. You bring them to yours. And that will take alot of time. These countries need universities, schools, hospitals, industries, etc. They don't need us to lower our standard of living one bit.

And if you want and example, how about Korea? Korea back in the 50's and 60's was about as rich as Botswana now. They had nothing but rice paddies and a fishing industry. Look at them now. Did anyone have to loose anything for them to develop?

The difference now is that China and India are slowly rising.  China and India together comprise about 1/3 of the world's population.  Once they reach Second World status, they'll be consuming so much in resources that America and many other countries will have no choice but to live less decadently.  It's going to be a big shock to us, but I think it's necessary for the social evolution of mankind.

This would only be true if the world is currently acting at full employment of resources. The world is nowhere near it's production possibilities frontier, so we don't have to start sacrificing GDP of one country to increase another's.

Turquoise wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The difference now is that China and India are slowly rising.  China and India together comprise about 1/3 of the world's population.  Once they reach Second World status, they'll be consuming so much in resources that America and many other countries will have no choice but to live less decadently.  It's going to be a big shock to us, but I think it's necessary for the social evolution of mankind.

This would only be true if the world is currently acting at full employment of resources. The world is nowhere near it's production possibilities frontier, so we don't have to start sacrificing GDP of one country to increase another's.

Well, I agree that the world is not at full production capacity, but it soon will be.  I'd be interested in seeing some info on this.  Do you mind providing some links?  (Sorry, I'm lazy...  )

Links to what? It's hard enough to estimate natural unemployment of labor in our country, we can't even dream of approximating the whole world's PPF.  (aside from very very big)

You think somehow miraculously we're near full production? C'mon. We'd have to have exploited all natural resources to their fullest, unemployment around the world would have to be at natural levels (it isn't even in America), and we'd have to be using all our capital. We're nowhere near full production, and we never will be, so don't worry about it.

As far as some examples: Oil reserves, rain forests, all the ores in the earth, the deserts, the oceans, none of it is being employed. We're nowhere near full production, and we never will be until we've turned the environment into such a wasteland that there are no resources to be employed, and Mel Gibson will be starring.

Edit: I drew a picture for funsies.



The green point represents where the thread is claiming we are. The blue point is a much more realistic guess.

(P.S. I'm using 'rich' to mean 'everyone above the median' and 'poor' to mean 'everyone below the median)

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-12-02 13:54:46)

Fuck no. They'd just use it to suicide bomb people. Plus, I'd be out a sweet fucking car.

It would depend on how emotionally attached I was to the car. If they stopped blowing the damn things up they wouldn't be looking for cars anyway. /sarcasm [sarcasm indicator included for the sarcasm impaired, I don't usually include this]