[Graeme]

Common Wealth - Jeffery Sachs

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ach’s essential thrust is how to eliminate poverty, indeed a noble goal, and to do so with our most “important responsibility [being] a commitment to know the truth as best we can, truth that is both technical and ethical.” One needs to add complete, for in discussing the global situation in relation to poverty, the distribution of wealth, the unequal relationship between the haves and have-nots, he covers much valid territory but no work on global economics can be fully valid, can fully argue about poverty and its causes, effects, and cures without including to a fairly large degree significant information on two parameters: militarization and corporate power.

In Chapter 11, “Economic Security in a Changing World,” Sachs examines several levels of social democracy, starting with the Scandinavian countries (that are conveniently forgotten in most economic treatises trying to debunk socialism), passing through the slightly less socialist levels of Europe (called ‘mixed economies’), to those of us on the right that are mainly ‘free market’, at least at the government-corporate level if not at the level of the people. His conclusion is clear: “…uniquely among the world’s high-income countries [the U.S.] has carried on a decades-long assault on social insurance in a manner contrary to the evidence, and with increasingly adverse results.” In other words, democratic socialist policies do provide benefits to the poor and the over-all economy of the countries they live in.

Almost redeems himself, but not quite, as he then turns to “Rethinking Foreign Policy” and on into “Achieving Global Goals” where – although some of his ideas are sound – there again is no recognition of militarism and corporate power. Without addressing those problems, the other ideas and proposed solutions are purely academic.

[americandream]

There's nothing necessarily noble about wanting to eliminate poverty when looked at in the correct manner. In fact, suppress all sentiment when considering the pros and cons of embracing egalitarian notions (I prefer to avoid emotive language when considering how we should administer this planet sustainably.)

The question that should cross our minds in embarking on such an exercise is what steps do we take as a global species with a supposed advanced degree of intellect, to create a global civilisation that serves to minimise conflict, wastage, instability and at the same time, serves to preserve our rich diversity of regional cultures and identities, in those regions, thereby reversing the current dilution of those identities.

I suspect that were we to remove the core drivers of all the above, namely poverty, we will have laid the foundation stones for unleashing humankinds infinite potential as well as secured the means to achieve a reasonable degree of stability during the span of each of our finite lives.

[Graeme]

Wow. An intelligent non-threatening reply! Thanks.

Young people from Australia and NZ tend to forget that it was the American military that saved them (well at least their parents) during WW2. They (I) might not be here if it wasn't for the American military. For that, I am grateful.

Anyway, my main point was that the social democracy model that Scandanavian countries have embraced could be adopted by other countries as mentioned in the middle paragraph.

[Nickel]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', '�')��…uniquely among the world’s high-income countries [the U.S.] has carried on a decades-long assault on social insurance in a manner contrary to the evidence, and with increasingly adverse results.” In other words, democratic socialist policies do provide benefits to the poor and the over-all economy of the countries they live in.