Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!think!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Production vs. Distribution Message-ID: <28200082@inmet.UUCP> Date: Thu, 19-Sep-85 01:07:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.28200082 Posted: Thu Sep 19 01:07:00 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 15:58:49 EDT References: <28200081@inmet.UUCP> Lines: 54 Nf-ID: #R:inmet:28200081:inmet:28200082:000:2552 Nf-From: inmet!janw Sep 19 01:07:00 1985 >>> , > = [Mike Huybenz] >>> The fact is that the wealth of a nation does not feed the poor. It is the >>> distribution of the wealth that does. >> To prove his point, Mike would have to name a rich nation whose >> poor are *poor* not by THAT nation's standards, but *by poor >> nation standards*. There's no such place. > What a non-sequiteur. All I need to demonstrate my complete point, is to > name a nation that has sufficient wealth to feed more of its citizens > than are fed, but doesn't feed them. Non-sequiteur?? Oh, you mean non-sequitur? You mean it does not follow ?! O.K., let us go through the logical steps. Factor A can be said not to feed person B if person B would eat as well in the absence of A (other things being equal) as s/he does in its presence. Let A be the wealth of a nation, B - its poor people. We AGREE they are only poor by their nation's standards, but not by a poor nation's standards (that is the hypothesis from which you say the conclusion does not follow). In the absence of A, the nation would be poor. Its poor people would then be poor by poor nation standards. Are these standards lower ? They are. Poor people would eat less, or worse, in the absence of their nation's wealth. Ergo, the wealth of a nation does feed the poor. Q. E. D. This takes care of the logical argument. What is proved is that nutrition of the poor CAN be improved solely through wealth creation, with no change in distribution. In itself, it does not exclude the possibility that it can be improved as much by a different distribution system, with no creation of new wealth. This is the *factual* point I was making - and, I believe, have made - in the original posting: that, with all the diversity of distribution systems and national income levels present on the globe today, nutrition of the masses is essentially the function of only ONE of these factors - namely the wealth of a nation. Basically, this is the trickle-down theory, and facts confirm it. Let me hazard a guess, Mike, about what you really mean. Not to put words in your mouth - it is an honest guess, intended to salvage something out of what seems, on the face of it, a clear logical and factual fallacy. To me, you seem to mean that wealth of a nation, though it does feed the poor, does not always feed them *as it should*. If so, that makes your assertion neither factual nor logical, but normative, i.e. ethical (because of the presence of that word "should"). No use discussing it, though, unless you actually make it. Jan Wasilewsky