Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $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: Production vs. Distribution
Message-ID: <28200081@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 23:26:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200081
Posted: Wed Sep 18 23:26:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 15:58:18 EDT
Lines: 68
Nf-ID: #N:inmet:28200081:000:3121
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Sep 18 23:26:00 1985


> Note that Jan has quoted me out of context.  The sentence following the above
> was essentially "The distribution of wealth is what determines whether
> the poor eat."

 Mike Huybenz has just accused me of QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT !!
To the rest of you this may be vieux jeu, but I really took it
to heart; so I made an experiment to test it. Mike feels I should
have quoted TWO sentences of his, where I quoted ONE. So, I looked
through my article to check - what would have to change, had
that second sentence been there ? You won't believe it, but
there WAS a change. Right at the beginning! Where I say 
"Omit the "not" to get a fact", I would now have to say
"Omit the "not" IN MIKE'S FIRST SENTENCE to get a fact".
Because, you see, his SECOND sentence does not CONTAIN a
"not" ! To make IT yield a fact, you'd have to ADD a "not",
and only at the appropriate place ...

 Otherwise, my article answers his amplified quote even BETTER
than its short version. You see, his first sentence says
wealth of  a nation does not feed its poor. His second sentence
adds the distribution of wealth is what determines whether the poor eat 
(his own paraphrase).

 And *my* whole argument is (quote) "the problem of poverty hinges 
on wealth creation, NOT on its DISTRIBUTION".

 So much for misquotation. But see for yourself, below.
The quote now is in the form Mike favors.
My text stands.
............................................................................

> [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.  

 Omit the "not" to get a fact [in Mike's 1st sentence; and add "not"
after "is" in the 2nd sentence].  In the USA, one can eat like a
king off a garbage dump. One hour's work at McDonald's could feed
a 3d world citizen for a week. 

 To prove his point, Mike would have to name a rich nation whose
poor are *poor*  not by THAT country's standards, but *by poor
country standards*. There's no such place. 

 The poor of any nation know they profit by its wealth. Proof:
they seldom or never migrate to poorer countries, at least for
economic reasons.
 If "distribution of wealth" mattered more to the poor popula-
tions than its abundance in society, you would observe them
flocking from wealthier countries to poorer but more welfare-
oriented countries  - e.g., from Hongkong to PRC. Or from USA
to Great Britain. All economic migrations go the other way.

 Even inside a poor country, refugees from a  famine area know
that reaching a  prosperous province means life. Try telling
*them* trickle-down does not work.

 The problem of poverty hinges on wealth creation, NOT on its
distribution.  To verify this, list nations, first in the order of
per capita GNP; then according to *per capita consumption of pro-
tein*.  This is a  nice indicator because it tells you how the
great mass of citizens live. The rich can only eat so much pro-
tein, so they cannot distort the picture. I haven't done it be-
cause I have no doubt of the result. Distribution takes care of
itself, one way or another.

        Jan Wasilewsky