Comments on: ETS 1: Wayne Grudem on Poverty and Wealth

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:20:53 +0000

I have read The World is Flat and thought it quite good. I do not know if it will change my view or not, but here it goes.
Charlie, you really sound like a Socialist. I do not mean that in a name calling sense, just in that is the way socialist governments would think. Free market economics is a priviledge and part of that is having the ability to look for the lowest price.
Here is Friedman thought and it is simple economics. If a country can not compete in a given endeavor due to market conditions, geographic or otherwise then it provides incintive to go to a new harvest. This is usally the best way to move an economy from being locked into “how we have always done things” to “lets try something new and be more competitive”. India is a prime example of that right now.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 23:17:55 +0000

Has anyone read “The Word is Flat” by Thomas L. Friedman? If so, did you find it helpful for understanding these issues?
Thanks!
AC

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 03:16:45 +0000

I'm not sure paying higher prices for goods solves anything, since there's no assurance that corrupt governments won't raise their taxes to take a part (or all) of that income which results in no real effect. No disagreement here. But it is absolutely certain that seeking the lowest prices will close market opportunities that some of the world's poor rely on. The principle reason Mexican coffee growers are coming to the US for work, for instance, is that Viet Nam has undercut their prices, making the formerly profitable coffee market a losing proposition for small producers in Mexico.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:48:01 +0000

“Or, we force families out of traditional means of supporting themselves into… what, exactly?”
Your question made me realize that my question assumes people we'd be “converting” to more capitalist economic systems are much like the West was prior to the Industrial Revolution. While there are some similarities, it's not necessarily the case the that traditional family structure that was in place in the West is currently in place in Third World countries. It's likely not the case they are in place, so I again wonder if there is a danger. Do they really have anything to lose?
Some of your comments, Charlie, I think are addressed by the “Protestant work ethic.” Lacking such a Biblical ethic, corruption is the rule and of course is devastating. I'm not sure paying higher prices for goods solves anything, since there's no assurance that corrupt governments won't raise their taxes to take a part (or all) of that income which results in no real effect.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 16:12:08 +0000

I think Grudem's analysis of poor nations is good. But perhaps the greatest of the secular forces keeping the poorest people poor is government corruption, not simply control and high taxes.
Too often, governments rob the people of whatever they have produced, creating a disincentive to work hard and a culture of dishonesty and hopelessness.
If governments will allow laborers to keep more of what they create, they will work harder to provide more for themselves and their families. At that point, the question becomes one of global markets. Can a small family of coffee farmers find a market for their product and earn enough to give them a decent standard of living?
Too often, the answer is no. Markets are controlled by the wealthy nations, because we are the consumers of the world's goods.
We can best encourage poor countries by pressuring their governments to act justly. We can reward such countries with markets for their goods and capital for business expansion.
To me, this implies a duty on the part of wealthy nations to be willing to pay higher prices (support levels) for manufactured goods and commodities so as to make it possible for poor people to work their way out of poverty.
If we are always searching the globe for the lowest-cost goods, we keep those poorest nations stuck in poverty. Or, we force families out of traditional means of supporting themselves into… what, exactly?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:56:15 +0000

“The Industrial Revolution is viewed as economically good but it also forced men out of the home and helped unravel good family structures.”
I think the connection between IR and the unravelling of good family structures is a bit overstated. I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense. I'm just saying that there are too many other factors during that time period that helped to unravel good family structures.
“Is there a danger of the same conflict of goods occurring assuming we are successful in changing the economic systems of the poorer countries?”
I believe that a change in the economic system without a change in the heart and mind can only lead back to the failed system that it first started with. As you said:
“Wealthy nations became wealthy because of the Industrial Revolution (technological advancement) and the

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 01:07:55 +0000

The question then, which I meant to include, is if it is a danger how do we avoid it?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:24:39 +0000

Is there a danger of the same conflict of goods occurring assuming we are successful in changing the economic systems of the poorer countries?
In a word, YES.