China vs. US
The countries of China and US are compared on the grounds of wealth by the POOREST, the level of human abuses going on by the leaders, and the chances of the creater majority of "ordinary" people to become more prosperous. This is not something we (humanity) used to do!
In only a few centuries past, we would be talking about the intrinsic "being better" of one subspecies over the other. We might be comparing the size of palaces of our leaders: the country with the biggest palace for its leader probably was superior. Sadly some (otherwise aparently valid) pro-US commentaries are still comparing the size of armies, but other then that, we seem to have progressed some. This is very good, because we are all just one country on one Earth now.
Every sub-country faces the same problems, of which crime (low level as in stealing/robbing, high level as in power-abuse) seems to be THE problem (because think about it, what would a country be if there was no desire for crime (or need for it because we were all wealthy enough already)). Land-borders are fictional devides, (look at the past, we didn't have them).
If we were to look at countries as crime-hierarchy's of the powerfull possessing a portion of land in order to retrieve "payments" from the rest of the residents, perhaps we would be much closer to the truth of things then if we were to believe that countries really are seperate entities and that peoples actually are in essense just one being, with workers being the "muscles" of sorts, the intelligent people being the nerves
and the leaders being the decision center.
We aren't groups of moving people anymore, who might fight over recources "may the best man win", (not usually anyway, the USA excluded, but it might not be a miracle that the most powerful brute force globally is the last to wise up morally, being too occupied with taking the spoils and being in the heat of the fight). Our leaders decisions are all just of maintanence nature (usually). The fact that most leaders are extremely boring
people in suits these days, twisting and turning like snakes, it shows they are no longer in real power. Nor should they be.
Thanks to population-growth and technology, we are now one interconnected entity/country, and we should take responsibility for all people wherever they are. We can no longer say "the USA has great wealth, so must be occupied by a superior subspecies", we have to take a different approach because the wealth of for instance the USA is often produced
in other reagons.
The USA is just a province, China is a province, India is a province, Africa is a province, Europe is a province. We have to judge the success of humanity as a whole, and the activities of a region in view of the whole. The East has taken advantage of
discoveries in the West, the West of discoveries in the East. The South (Africa) has suffered from Western greed, but Africa would have been a long way from developing any advanced technology soon on its own, if it wasn't brought there from the rest of the world.
We should say "the USA is a rich province, if it is so rich, is someone else paying
for this, and where ?".
Only if the riches are really home-grown we could say "nice province", but its usually not the case: companies in the West are exploiting other parts of the world under the guise of "creating jobs", but these people are payed below the mininum wages in the home-country. The same is true for internal regions: if one part of town is very rich, is another part of town paying for this? Probably yes, because rich poeple often employ others doing the work that could have been payed more if the rich weren't so greedy.
Why do (very) rich people get rich anyway; do poor people work less hard? No, they usually work much harder then the really rich on average from what i can tell. It is all a matter of distribution now, we are one global country, we should be responsible for every part of it, every human in the world is our fellow. It should be a human right to
be owner of 1/6th billionth of the global wealth in raw resources, and of all wealth if one is ready to pitch in an average effort.
We are still a long way from realizing this though, both conceptionally, and in facts. The Earth seems to be a total chaos regardless of outward appearances, because the forces of greed are so strong, and the forces for ultimate enocomic equality are so weak.
But just as judicial equality was once unthought off, and we have it now as a normal fact of life, hopefully it would go that way with economic equality as well. A poor country might even be seen as superior if it is paying for wealth somewhere else.
How many products are currently made in the East, and sold cheaper in the West then they would have been if created in the West ? I bet a good bunch of USA armaments are in fact produced from Eastern parts, but what wages are these Chinese being given for it? Blaming it on Chinese traders is no excuse, without buyers the traders would be powerless. If the West/USA were to take up their moral claims seriously, they would refuse (outlaw) to do business with traders/countries who use workers below the standards of the buyers country.
It would be a just flow of money towards the East, because the are real products coming back for it. The West is not taking its responsibility towards the Chinese people (and other high poverty peoples): not using its power the way it could be used.
Why not? I guess it is the motivator of all too many: greed above everything (and the indifference of too many who benefit from what they don't care to know about, much less desire to improve upon).
Western democracy as a system is nice, but who is paying for the unusual wealth? Why are democracies doing business with certain countries, and not restricting its own residents from exploiting these regions?
Western civilization is very greedy, a predator in sheep clothing. We may have overcome the injustices of the centuries before, but only to throw the injustices on peoples outside our own borders and become the benefactors of the injustice.
The West has a moral weight of 0, if even that. To gain moral weight, make sacrifices for the benefit of others. Do we? Mostly just in name, to quiet our consciences down. Often,
even that money is thrown in in the form of "help" only to end up helping our very own companies to even more of the third-world spoils (materials, and cheap (to our own standards: extortion) labour).
The Chinese farmer might not be wealthy, at least he/she isn't taking advantage of cheap-labour elsewhere. Maybe the West should take an example with that, and start paying the Chinese and Eastern honest money for their products, as a matter of fairness/justice and economic help.
I bet it helps a lot more then IMF projects. What are you waiting for USA? Show your moral superiority if any; and the EU likewise: The EU has a debt to pay down with the world: the age of colonization. That debt only increases until the net flow of wealth towards the West is at least 0. A few Euro's "help" doesn't cut it. Economic superiority is not a goal, economic equality is the only thing which is sustainable and therefore the only ultimate goal.
When China and the USA and all other regions are equal in economic power and personal prosperity, we have a chance of peace too, and we will all be richer as a result of it (on average), the sky is the limit (not even the sky is the limit actually). Poverty breeds crime, and rightly so even, you can't blame people from grabbing if they are pushed into an unfair situation.
Almost no country is today fair towards its people, because in which country do the people have the option to use the portion of the Earth's resources freely to build their lives if they can't do it any other way? Often they are just pushed into poverty and denied access to the country's resources.
This is a crime against fairness, and it proves to a degree that governments are not natural, and don't measure up to the job of ruling a people in the interest of them ALL, in a fair way giving each equal and opportunity against the natural resources under control in the patch of Earth occupied by its armed forces (army/police).
Resources should be appointed at birth, and revert to the pool at death, this is the only way a government could claim to be in just control of the resources under its control.
I recommend one should have a transitional period where all land ownership is frozen
until death, and those who have more then average have it revert to the pool. Ownership of land should be for life, patches could be swapped between people in any way desired, or rented out. THAT would mean equal chances for all people against the great equalizer: nature itself. Such a system would in a sense make every person a king of a patch of land, and land-borders aren't necessary for the system to operate. Think outside of the box!
It would also mean an end to the unemployement problem and how to prevent the unemployed from dying/looting (they could just develop their own land, or rent it out). Keep a certain percentage of land undivided for nature and we could have a nice new system for (a more enlightened) society (i think).
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.