The Socialistic Shit-Case

[lucy]

Ah, yes. The country that does more to help people than any other. The country that led the fight to get relief into Myanmar during their recent calamity. The country that leaps to send searchers and doctors and workers to countries destroyed by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.

The first world doesn't help the third. We don't help, we exploit. Not as brutal as in colonial days, today it's more subtle: Closing our borders for agricultural products so a couple of American sugar farmers can have a good living is just one of many examples. Same with rice, meat, just about every agricultural product is protected by taxes in the western civ, while we demand from the developing countries that they open their borders for our services and technological products. There's a good reason why Brazil, India and some African countries brought down the newest round of the World Trading Organization talks.

About sending doctors: Screw that. Screw that big time. In fact what happens right now is that America, Britain, Canada and to a lesser extent other countries of the western civilization are actually draining medical personnel from developing countries such as Ghana and Malawi. There are more Ghanese nurses working outside of Ghana than there are in Ghana, same with Malawian doctors.

True, far too many Americans think they are better than anyone else. So, too, do people of other countries. Most people believe their country is the best. It's taught to us from birth. But don't include me in them. I've seen the limitations of my country. Don't blame the people or the country, blame the politicians. They are why people hate us!

Umm, now i could say that the people and the country get the politicians they elected (or deserve), but that would be cheap. It's still true, though.

[Thorne]

Umm, now i could say that the people and the country get the politicians they elected (or deserve), but that would be cheap. It's still true, though.

I agree to some extent. But in many cases it always seems to be a choice between bad and worse. There are very few independent politicians any more. They all have some sort of heavy, business backing, which generally taints there terms in office. I suppose I could blame my lack of interest in politics in general, but in my experience it really doesn't seem to matter. We're stuck with the people that big business (for want of a better term) foists upon us.

[lucy]

Yeah, sometimes, when i look at the candidates i can vote for i feel as if i have to choose between a dog turd and a heap of cowshit too

[js207]

The first world doesn't help the third. We don't help, we exploit. Not as brutal as in colonial days, today it's more subtle: Closing our borders for agricultural products so a couple of American sugar farmers can have a good living is just one of many examples. Same with rice, meat, just about every agricultural product is protected by taxes in the western civ, while we demand from the developing countries that they open their borders for our services and technological products. There's a good reason why Brazil, India and some African countries brought down the newest round of the World Trading Organization talks.

Yes, which is one reason I'm strongly opposed to protectionism like this. I would love to see all the tariffs and subsidies eradicated, but there are too many votes to be bought by keeping them.

About sending doctors: Screw that. Screw that big time. In fact what happens right now is that America, Britain, Canada and to a lesser extent other countries of the western civilization are actually draining medical personnel from developing countries such as Ghana and Malawi. There are more Ghanese nurses working outside of Ghana than there are in Ghana, same with Malawian doctors.

No. Absolutely not. I hate this sort of speech, because of the implicit assumption that when someone chooses to move from one place to another this represents an asset - property - being taken from its owner. I may live in the UK, and bear a British passport, but I am not the property of the British government: if I choose to lead a better life elsewhere, that is my decision and my right. I am not being "drained" or "taken": I am under no obligation whatsoever to stay or work here - and any country which I choose for myself is entirely blameless. The notion that being born in Ghana or Malawi should somehow oblige me to stay there rather than lead the best life I can is not just absurd to me, but smacks very much of slavery or feudalism. Not to mention hypocrisy, as you complain about barriers to free movement of goods, then complain about a lack of barriers to movement of people!

[lucy]

No. Absolutely not. I hate this sort of speech, because of the implicit assumption that when someone chooses to move from one place to another this represents an asset - property - being taken from its owner. I may live in the UK, and bear a British passport, but I am not the property of the British government: if I choose to lead a better life elsewhere, that is my decision and my right. I am not being "drained" or "taken": I am under no obligation whatsoever to stay or work here - and any country which I choose for myself is entirely blameless. The notion that being born in Ghana or Malawi should somehow oblige me to stay there rather than lead the best life I can is not just absurd to me, but smacks very much of slavery or feudalism. Not to mention hypocrisy, as you complain about barriers to free movement of goods, then complain about a lack of barriers to movement of people!

I don't say the people should be made to stay in Ghana or wherever, i just wanted to point out that those countries invest a lot of money to educate a nurse or a physician which then goes abroad. It's just another form of draining resources.
They of course have all the right on earth to move. Sorry if i didn't make that clear at all.

[js207]

I don't say the people should be made to stay in Ghana or wherever, i just wanted to point out that those countries invest a lot of money to educate a nurse or a physician which then goes abroad. It's just another form of draining resources.
They of course have all the right on earth to move. Sorry if i didn't make that clear at all.

It seems clear enough, but my objection remains: it is not "draining resources" for them to leave - rather, the countries are failing to attract and retain people they need. It's something I see here, which is probably why it irritates me so much: people talk of a "brain drain" when people like me (the IT profession has been particularly affected, for obvious reasons) and talk of creating obstacles to us leaving, rather than identifying and fixing the root problem: rather than changing the country's laws and systems so we *can't* leave as easily, change them so we don't *want* to leave any more!

(Companies occasionally fall into this trap, too, regarding their customers and staff as an entitlement to be prevented from leaving, rather than people on whom their existence depends, people they need to attract and convince to stay voluntarily. Long term, that never works.)

[lucy]

Fair enough, of course much of the world would be a much better place if people hadn't to leave their home for whatever reason. I'm agree completely with you.
But i was referring to Thorne saying "we send doctors" when in fact it's exactly vice versa. In the end it's poor countries financing the education of doctors and nurses and other professionals for very rich countries.
Ok, now you can say "well, that's global competition". That's not exactly good in my opinion, but i guess it's not completely wrong either. What is wrong, though, is that the first world drains all that educated personnel and then goes around bragging what good guys we all are when we send some relief goods or the odd doc when a catastrophe has occurred or people die of cholera or leprosy. That's hipocrisy at it's best.