SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (270235)1/28/2006 3:18:21 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1573432
 
Spending to excess is not closely related to the issue of poverty. If wealthy people spent less it might cause more poverty. Whether it does or does not there isn't an kind of clear automatic connection. It wasn't Imelda Marco's buying of shoes that kept her country relatively poor.

Its a simple mathematical equation. There are finite dollars in the world. If one group is spending in excess, then there are less dollars for the rest. In the case of the Phillippines, the country generates so much wealth. Marcos and her friends were consuming a much greater %tage of that wealth than the rest of the country.

Another example......its like the US consuming 25% of the world's resources with only 4% of the world's population. These are numbers that the right conveniently wants to ignore.

The libertarian point is generally not to ignore poverty or argue that it should be ignored but rather than more freedom and more economic growth will give you the best chance to get a serious long term reduction in poverty.

More freedom and economic growth will not do the trick.......at least not alone. We have a premanent underclass of poverty in this class.....in which having food daily is a major struggle. Capitalism has not been able to cure us of that underclass.

Capitalism extends this ability beyond the ruling class because it gives wealth and freedom to more people. Giving wealth and freedom to more people is a good thing not a bad one.

No, it isn't a good thing if people are starving.

The wealth produced by free market system makes it less likely that people will starve.


That is just not true. We have been a capitalist country for centuries and we continue to have people starve. There are people making minimum wage at their jobs who live in their cars. At best, the capitalist system provides a barely subsistence level living for a sizable minority of the population. It just kills me how the right ignores this issue. It was seen very graphically in New Orleans after Katrina and now the right is shouting "shutup about New Orleans". You want to make out that these people are slackers but many of them worker harder in a week then you work in a year.

Capitalism thrives on growing consumption. In a world where resources are finite, that is not a good thing. That is why at some point capitalism will be forced to evolve into something else or humanity will experience another crash.

Perhaps our disagreement is so fundamental as to not even allow for us to really understand the other person's viewpoint. I was pretty sure we wouldn't agree but I thought that we could at least understand each other. That last statement makes me doubt it. But I guess the effort is still worth it.

If a resource runs low a capitalist system will make it more expensive and reduce its consumption. It is one of the simplest most efficient ways of allocating resources whether they are abundant or rare, and it would deal with a decline in a resource better than any other existent, historical, or proposed system.


Yes, our disagreement is very fundamental as evidenced by your statement highlighted in bold. I do not want to wait til the capitalist system kicks in after we have depleted a resource to the point where it is in short supply. It pontentially could cause huge economic dislocations and unnecessary hardache. That is why people plan for the future instead of consuming heedlessly.

Excess, excess excess........the moniker of capitalism.....it is at the core of our differences and the fatal flaw in capitalism. It suggests the belief that a solution will be found no matter what even when there are facts to the contrary. It suggests an abundance that is almost infinite. It suggests an attitude to consume now and the future will take care of itself. Its why global warming is such a hard concept for the right to consider. Its why capitalism must be replaced with an economic system that is more sensitive to the limitations we all face.

Also why resources are finite at any given time, they increase over time. We find more resources, including things that were not considered resources before. Yes there is an absolute limit, there is only so much energy and matter in the universe, and there is much less that we will probably ever be able to use. But absent a third world war, or a titanic natural disaster (like a massive impact from space that wipes out civilization), we are likely to be able to use more resources than we do now 1, 10, 500, 10,000, and a million years from now.

You assume a great deal......and I suspect that will make an ass out of you.....probably long after you are dead. Global oil reserves are not increasing; in fact, they are being revised downwards. Supply and demand are in such equilibrium nearly any geopolitical event causes the price of crude to spike up. So far, the economic dislocations have been relatively minor. However, international and internal disputes over the resource are becoming more common.......a couple of weeks ago it was the Ukraine and Russia and Congressional infighting over the ANWR, last week it was internal fighting in Nigeria, and this week its Georgia and Russia. This is likely to get much worse before it gets better. And oil is not the only commodity that is becoming less plentiful.

And who do we have weaning us off oil......an incompetent Republican who doesn't have a clue and whose best friends are in the oil business making millions. Meanwhile, we are fighting a senseless war in Iraq in the hopes of preserving our connection to their oil.

Yes, Tim, our differences are very fundamental.

ted




To: TimF who wrote (270235)1/28/2006 6:54:21 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573432
 
Iraqis leaving religiously mixed areas


By HAMZA HENDAWI
Associated Press Writer


BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- For months, the young Shiite couple could not decide whether to move from Dora, a mostly Sunni Arab neighborhood and one of Baghdad's most dangerous. After death threats, the murder of a neighbor and the birth of their first child, they decided it was time to go.

High rents kept Rana Ali and her husband, Hussein Youssef, from finding a new home in one of the capital's safest areas, where Shiites are dominant, and they could not afford refuge in Iraq's overwhelmingly Shiite south.

Instead, they settled in nearby Saydiyah, another majority Sunni area only marginally safer but with a larger Shiite population than their old neighborhood.

"It's a little better here," said Rana, a 23-year-old law graduate. "Living in Dora the past year was like being in the middle of a battlefield. But we started a life there and we lost a lot to come here."

The decision by the young couple to move is part of disturbing trend in this polarized society. As sectarian tensions rise and talk of civil war spreads, more Iraqis are moving to areas where their religious group is dominant.

The trend appears strongest among the country's Shiite majority, many of whom are targeted by the Sunni-led insurgency and live in religiously mixed or predominantly Sunni neighborhoods of Baghdad and other cities. Many are forced out by threats, often conveyed in written notes left in homes.

It is unclear how many people have fled their homes, but the numbers clearly are rising.

Hundreds of thousands are believed to have moved to Jordan or Syria. Those who cannot afford to leave the country simply head for new, safer neighborhoods or provinces.


Mohammed Ali, 51, a Baghdad truck driver, said he ferried five Shiite families with all their belongings from Dora to mainly Shiite southern Iraq last week. He said he knew other truck drivers who were busy doing the same.

Elsewhere, Kurdish and Shiite enclaves in parts of Sunni-dominated western Iraq are vanishing, ending decades of peaceful coexistence. Intimidation, threats and murders have forced most Shiites in the rural areas just south of Baghdad to head to the Shiite heartland in the south or to the capital's Shiite neighborhoods.

Mohammed Massoudi, head of Babil province's local government, said Shiites and Sunnis had lived in peace in the provincial capital of Hillah, 60 miles south of Baghdad. Lately, however, police are receiving a "large number" of complaints by both Sunnis and Shiites that they have been warned to leave rural homes.

Several major highways have become "no go" zones for one community or another. Entire neighborhoods of Baghdad and the southern city of Basra are effectively off-limits to different sects after dark.

In Basra and other southern cities, residents say mixed Shiite-Sunni marriages, often cited by politicians as a barrier to full-blown civil war, are on the decline.

Stoking tensions, Sunni Arab religious and political leaders have urged their supporters to defend themselves following the killings of three Sunni males and the abductions of 20 more by gunmen wearing Interior Ministry uniforms in a northern Baghdad district.

Shiite cleric Adel al-Lami uses language similar to that of a street gang leader when he describes the situation in Mahmoudiya, 19 miles south of Baghdad.

"When we travel, we take our weapons with us," al-Lami told The Associated Press. "Thanks be to God, we have a lot of weapons. If we see that someone is about to be shot at from a car driving by us, we will just toss one of our grenades at them."

Mahmoudiya has become a safe haven for Shiites after many of them were threatened by Sunnis and left nearby farming communities. In Mahmoudiya, they find safety under the protection of the Mahdi Army militia of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and the government's Shiite-dominated security forces.

Students in Baghdad's Mustansiriyah University have split into Shiite and Sunni cliques, say lecturers and students there. Tensions, they say, are invariably heightened when Shiite students practice such religious rituals as self-flagellation on campus.

"They disrupt classes and anger Sunni students," said a lecturer who asked not to be identified for fear of reprisals.

Officials consistently deny Shiites are fleeing parts of Baghdad, a mixed city of some 6 million people that wakes up virtually daily to the sound of explosions, gunfire and the clatter of low-flying U.S. helicopters.

Although the extent of the population reshuffling is unclear, the fact that some movement is taking place is undisputed.

Harith al-Yasiri, a bank employee, said he recently sold his home in a mixed neighborhood and moved to Sadr City, the Shiite-dominated district where Shiite militiamen maintain tight control.

"Shiites are being targeted," he said.

After Rana and Youssef were married two years ago, the couple moved from a family home in the New Baghdad neighborhood to Dora to build an independent life. Hussein, 31, converted space at the front of the house they rented into a grocery store.

Threats started coming a year later after Rana became pregnant with their first child. They did not want to leave and brief respites in the fighting in their neighborhood encouraged them to stay.

Finally, they decided the situation was hopeless. Rana gave birth to a baby boy in late September. Days later, a real estate agent who worked next door was killed by suspected insurgents.

"He was a Sunni and that scared us more," she said.

Sensing that the danger was moving perilously close, the couple moved when their baby was only 10 days old. A few days later, they realized that they may not have moved far enough. A translator for the U.S. military was murdered in his house across the street from their home.

"I still live in fear here," Rana said by telephone. "My husband forces me to go out to the food market with him. When I do, I just pray all the time that nothing happens to us."

She longs for the safety of the Shiite-dominated south but cannot afford to move.

"I wish we just leave the whole of Baghdad and move to the south. It's safe there," she said. "I don't think that things will get any better or any worse. People will just continue to be killed."

hosted.ap.org



To: TimF who wrote (270235)1/28/2006 6:58:28 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1573432
 
Afghans see mixed results post-Taliban

By DANIEL COONEY

Associated Press Writer

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- International donors have funneled billions of dollars of aid into Afghanistan in the four years since the ouster of the Taliban.

But as donors prepare to meet in London next week to discuss the country's needs for the next five years, most Afghans remain mired in poverty and many are increasingly frustrated about the aid effort, amid complaints that money has been wasted.

Even though hundreds of hospitals and medical clinics have been built or refurbished, Afghanistan still has some of the highest mortality rates in the world for women and children - a woman dies in childbirth every 30 minutes and nearly a quarter of all children perish before age 5, according to the United Nations.

"Thousands of women are still dying unnecessarily," said Azziz Khaza, an anesthesiologist, as she watched a baby delivered by caesarian section at Rabia Balkhi Hospital, which the U.S. spent $1.8 million refurbishing. "We need many more hospitals like this."

Signs of poverty are everywhere. On the streets of Kabul, crippled men compete with ragged children begging for change. Slums have sprung up as millions of people flock to the capital in search of work.

President Hamid Karzai told reporters last week, as his government and international donors drafted a blueprint for future development to be signed at the London conference, that his country will "need years of help before it can stand on its own legs."


Foreign aid has "brought tremendous improvements to the lives of the Afghan people," he said. But some of it has been misspent on high salaries for foreign consultants and other unnecessary costs, he said.

The president said future aid should be channeled through his government's coffers so it can be better managed - a request that has raised fears that much of it may disappear because of alleged widespread corruption.

Despite ongoing problems, the last four years have seen successes.

School enrollment has soared from 900,000 to 5 million. Many of those students are girls attending classes for the first time in nearly a decade after being banned from studying by the hard-line Islamic Taliban.

Roads have been rebuilt, including one linking the cities of Mazar-e-Sharif in the north to Kabul in the center, Kandahar in the south and Herat in the west.

Two national elections were held, one that saw Karzai elected as president and a second for a new parliament. A new currency has been introduced, and the economy is growing.

Some 4.4 million refugees have returned home. Thousands of militiamen who fought against the Taliban or Soviet troops in the 1980s have been demobilized, while 33,000 soldiers have been recruited and trained for a new army.

"What has happened here in the last few years is a major success story, but we are not under any illusion that it's ... in the bag," said Richard Norland, deputy chief of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. "There are still major problems to be resolved and it could slide backward."

One of the biggest problems is a lack of security.

Last year was the deadliest since 2001, with some 1,600 people killed in militant violence, including 91 U.S. troops. The past four months have seen an unprecedented spate of 20 suicide bombings, raising fears of Iraq-style bloodshed.

The fighting has left parts of southern and eastern regions off-limits to aid workers, while a series of attacks on schools - three were burned down Friday and a principal was beheaded this month - has forced many to close.


Another major challenge is a booming trade in opium and heroin, which has sparked warnings that the country is fast becoming a "narco-state" and stoked fears of drug-related violence.

The development plan to be signed next week, called the "Afghanistan Compact," lists a series of targets to be achieved by 2011, according to a draft provided to The Associated Press.

Many are vague, such as one that stipulates foreign forces will "ensure increased security and stability in all regions" but gives no indication of how to reach such a goal.

Others are specific, like tripling the size of the army to nearly 70,000, and reducing the number of people living on less than $1 a day by 3 percent a year.

Such targets, though, mean little to many here.

"We need jobs now," said Mohammed Anwar, a 40-year-old father of eight, as he trudged through Kabul's mud-clogged streets in search of snow-shoveling work that might earn him a couple of dollars a day.

"People may say things are getting better, but my family never eats meat, and we live in one room," he said. "We need more help."


hosted.ap.org