Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Children, Hunger and School Lunches
Message-ID: <641@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Mar-86 13:04:41 EST
Article-I.D.: kontron.641
Posted: Mon Mar 24 13:04:41 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Mar-86 09:13:15 EST
References: <358@ihnet.UUCP> <28200625@inmet.UUCP> <363@ihnet.UUCP> <810@well.UUCP> <101@gilbbs.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA
Lines: 32
Xref: lsuc net.politics:3883 net.politics.theory:1013

>    Oh, really?  Maybe not.  I'm not a "leftist/socialist" misinformer, either.
> And yes, *WE* create much of the poverty of the world...We have not "created
> welath for ourselves" out of a vacuum.  Check out world resource consumption
> figures.  I don't have recent ones, but in the recent past, the United States
> was using some 40% of world resources.  What percentage of the world population
> do we support?  Removing those resources from the countries where theyare
> found directly contributes to the poverty of those countries.
> 

At one time the United States was using 40% of the world's energy -- 40% of
world resources seems unlikely, since "resources" includes hydropower, soil,
water for irrigation, wood, metal, etc.

Most of the wealth of this country is because of our OWN resources -- not
the rest of the world.  If you take a careful look, you will see that
colonialism was bad economics for the colonial powers -- America's relatively
low level of colonialism is part of why we are so rich.

Concerning removing resources from other countries: industrial countries
use materials like chromium ore and petroleum.  The non-industrial countries
where these materials were and are located have no use for these resources
themselves.  Buying these resources might make us rich, but in no sense does
it contribute to the poverty of these countries.  (Not the same issue as
cash crop farming vs. subsistence farming.)

>    We are not *SOLELY* responsibile for the poverty of the world, no.  We
> cannot, however, abrogate the responsibility we do bear.
> 
> tom keller

If the United States put up a ten mile high wall around our country tomorrow,
we would be poorer.  But the rest of the world would be VASTLY poorer.