3 ms·

I don't want to downplay the issues at hand, but when we talk about poverty and wealth, we should always be aware of the definition. AFAIK poverty is often defi

I don't want to downplay the issues at hand, but when we talk about poverty and wealth, we should always be aware of the definition. AFAIK poverty is often defined as a relative ratio, leading to very different absolute conditions in different countries. For example, in the US or Europe, it is presumably something very different than in Africa. For my taste, Anand Giridharadas mixes those things a bit too loosely. One moment he is talking about the elite that is fighting for a better future in Africa and the next minute he talks about how the funding of public schools in the US is organized. Sure, his point is that the US elites are helping Africa because (it is cheaper and) it doesn't endanger the system of their wealth in the US, but I wonder if helping the people in Africa isn't more urgent than the ones in the developed part of the world. That said, I like how he presents and explains his view to the audience at Google.

maxxxxx 8y ago
That's pretty problematic. A major reason for the rise of nationalistic movements in the US and Europe is that a lot of middle class people feel left behind. If people realize that the elites of their countries prefer to invest somewhere else while letting their own countries decay we will see a lot more social upheaval and rightfully so.
- arendtio 8y ago
  > we will see a lot more social upheaval and rightfully so. No. You either don't know what 'social upheaval' means in the minds of nationalists or I wonder why you would judge it as 'rightfully'. There is absolutely nothing rightful about killing people. I don't know if that movement is just a based on feeling 'left behind', maybe as a symptom. I mean, there are serious issues connected to all of this. For example, there are companies in Europe which systematically conquer specific African industries (e.g., milk products), which is one of the reasons why the Africans migrate (no job -> no food -> certain death). The worst about it is that the same industries receive EU subsidies. So the European people pay money which causes the Africans to come to Europe (great job). After all, stopping the European companies from doing that wouldn't solve the problem as the US or the Chinese would just see the opportunity, but I doubt that shutting down the own country is a proper solution to that problem either (and nationalists don't stop there).
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    "You either don't know what 'social upheaval' means in the minds of nationalists or I wonder why you would judge it as 'rightfully'. There is absolutely nothing rightful about killing people. " Just study the rise of the Nazi party or the Russian revolution or even the Iranian revolution. Ordinary citizens started to feel that the country is not working for them anymore and looked for somebody to change that. Maybe they picked the wrong leaders to make those changes but the trigger was dissatisfaction with the current state. So if our current elite focuses on helping other countries while enjoying tax cuts for themselves but decaying infrastructure and wage stagnation at home there will at some point be a movement to change peacefully or forcefully.
    - arendtio 8y ago
      That is true but not the point. You wrote '[...] rightfully so' which I have to object clearly.
      - maxxxxx 8y ago
        Are you saying the people living in a country have no right to try to change things when their elites fail them?
        arendtio 8y ago
        No. I am saying that what nationalists call 'social upheaval' is often against the law and therefore not rightful. So if you are using the established democratic processes (voting, demonstrating, etc.) to change the political situation that is okay. But if you do so forcefully, that is most likely not okay (depending on the law of the country you live in).
        maxxxxx 8y ago
        History is full of situations where people decided that the current environment is not working for them and changed them through unlawful actions. Gandhi did it, the French revolution, the USA was created by unlawful means, the civil Rights movement Al were unlawful, a lot of unlawful stuff happened in East Germany before the wall fell. This happens when the general population decides that their leadership is not working for them anymore.
danans 8y ago
> the next minute he talks about how the funding of public schools in the US is organized. It's really not that different. The inequality in conditions between poor public schools and wealthier schools (public and private) is dangerous for the future of American productivity, causing gainful participation in the economy to become ever more correlated with prior socioeconomic privilege. If that productivity growth runs out, and the relative conditions worsen for non-wealthy people in the US, there will be no more helping Africa, due to economic decline, or domestic political instability. Basically, these aren't independent problems. Increasing inequality at home makes it harder to help people elsewhere. Spiraling poverty elsewhere results in conflicts in those places, and we eventually experience the effects of those conflicts one way or another.
- arendtio 8y ago
  While I agree that there is a connection, those are extremely different issues. Not having food or water is entirely different from having a low-level education and being discriminated. I don't think that the current system of funding public schools in the US is good. The opposite is the case. Yes, I do believe that education is a critical instrument to fight inequality and racism and that every human should have free access to high-quality education (which is not that difficult to achieve with modern technologies). By the way, your argument is missing a decisive point: The help for Africa is done by the elite, not by the broad population. Therefore, even if the inequality in the US would rise, it would take a while before there would be 'no help for Africa' anymore (until it would be politically problematic).
  - danans 8y ago
    > Therefore, even if the inequality in the US would rise, it would take a while before there would be 'no help for Africa' anymore (until it would be politically problematic). Given the speed of information dispersal, it might become politically problematic quickly, especially once a narrative is established. However, due to the length of election cycles, it may not be an electoral issue as quickly.

maxxxxx 8y ago

That's pretty problematic. A major reason for the rise of nationalistic movements in the US and Europe is that a lot of middle class people feel left behind. If people realize that the elites of their countries prefer to invest somewhere else while letting their own countries decay we will see a lot more social upheaval and rightfully so.

arendtio 8y ago
> we will see a lot more social upheaval and rightfully so. No. You either don't know what 'social upheaval' means in the minds of nationalists or I wonder why you would judge it as 'rightfully'. There is absolutely nothing rightful about killing people. I don't know if that movement is just a based on feeling 'left behind', maybe as a symptom. I mean, there are serious issues connected to all of this. For example, there are companies in Europe which systematically conquer specific African industries (e.g., milk products), which is one of the reasons why the Africans migrate (no job -> no food -> certain death). The worst about it is that the same industries receive EU subsidies. So the European people pay money which causes the Africans to come to Europe (great job). After all, stopping the European companies from doing that wouldn't solve the problem as the US or the Chinese would just see the opportunity, but I doubt that shutting down the own country is a proper solution to that problem either (and nationalists don't stop there).
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  "You either don't know what 'social upheaval' means in the minds of nationalists or I wonder why you would judge it as 'rightfully'. There is absolutely nothing rightful about killing people. " Just study the rise of the Nazi party or the Russian revolution or even the Iranian revolution. Ordinary citizens started to feel that the country is not working for them anymore and looked for somebody to change that. Maybe they picked the wrong leaders to make those changes but the trigger was dissatisfaction with the current state. So if our current elite focuses on helping other countries while enjoying tax cuts for themselves but decaying infrastructure and wage stagnation at home there will at some point be a movement to change peacefully or forcefully.
  - arendtio 8y ago
    That is true but not the point. You wrote '[...] rightfully so' which I have to object clearly.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      Are you saying the people living in a country have no right to try to change things when their elites fail them?
      - arendtio 8y ago
        No. I am saying that what nationalists call 'social upheaval' is often against the law and therefore not rightful. So if you are using the established democratic processes (voting, demonstrating, etc.) to change the political situation that is okay. But if you do so forcefully, that is most likely not okay (depending on the law of the country you live in).
        maxxxxx 8y ago
        History is full of situations where people decided that the current environment is not working for them and changed them through unlawful actions. Gandhi did it, the French revolution, the USA was created by unlawful means, the civil Rights movement Al were unlawful, a lot of unlawful stuff happened in East Germany before the wall fell. This happens when the general population decides that their leadership is not working for them anymore.

danans 8y ago

> the next minute he talks about how the funding of public schools in the US is organized. It's really not that different. The inequality in conditions between poor public schools and wealthier schools (public and private) is dangerous for the future of American productivity, causing gainful participation in the economy to become ever more correlated with prior socioeconomic privilege. If that productivity growth runs out, and the relative conditions worsen for non-wealthy people in the US, there will be no more helping Africa, due to economic decline, or domestic political instability. Basically, these aren't independent problems. Increasing inequality at home makes it harder to help people elsewhere. Spiraling poverty elsewhere results in conflicts in those places, and we eventually experience the effects of those conflicts one way or another.

arendtio 8y ago
While I agree that there is a connection, those are extremely different issues. Not having food or water is entirely different from having a low-level education and being discriminated. I don't think that the current system of funding public schools in the US is good. The opposite is the case. Yes, I do believe that education is a critical instrument to fight inequality and racism and that every human should have free access to high-quality education (which is not that difficult to achieve with modern technologies). By the way, your argument is missing a decisive point: The help for Africa is done by the elite, not by the broad population. Therefore, even if the inequality in the US would rise, it would take a while before there would be 'no help for Africa' anymore (until it would be politically problematic).
- danans 8y ago
  > Therefore, even if the inequality in the US would rise, it would take a while before there would be 'no help for Africa' anymore (until it would be politically problematic). Given the speed of information dispersal, it might become politically problematic quickly, especially once a narrative is established. However, due to the length of election cycles, it may not be an electoral issue as quickly.