Apologies for the length of this post, but full quotes are needed for context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
How do they define wealth? No idea - and probably wouldn't understand it if I tried. But here's a secret for you, even if the property in question isn't physically transferrable, ownership is. The west "owns" much of the wealth that is rooted in the third world. Next, there's an awful lot of wealth that is physically movable. That's how the West got it: digging it out of African soil and shipping it back where they could "deal" in it.
I infer that you are referring to the precious stone/metals trade. That's a drain to be sure, however the countries that those companies operate in allow them to persist. Bad government is the responsibility of the people it governs as any government can only exist when the people allow it to. Not to mention that you don't need significant natural resources to have a healthy economy. Look at Hong Kong.

Alright, say we transfer some ownership. It can't be to something outside of the region as what good does that accomplish when they have no access? To whom do we give it to? As what good does that gift do for anybody, if they don't have the vaguest idea what to do with it? Unless you are proposing handing it over to the very same bad governments that are responsible for the country's continued mess in the first place.
Pretty much the only wealth that cannot be moved is land. Land in the third world has been acquired by the West using both fair and foul means, and it is being used primarily for the benefit of the developed countries. I can cite one example I came across recently. A well-known Italian fashion group has purchased land in a South American country which it uses to produce wool from enormous herds of sheep so that this can be turned into expensive clothing for fashion conscious dilettantes in Europe and North America. A few shepherd might be paid reasonably well by South American standards: let's hope so. However, the land that is being used was originally acquired by driving the Indian occupiers off and into city slums without compensation. Now that a few Indians have tried to repossess their homeland, the company in question (pursuing its “ethical” policy) has offered to purchase an alternative site for them, hundreds of miles away from their original location, but it will not yield at all with regard the original land. I suppose the Indians can consider themselves lucky to be dealing with an “ethical” company!

Give the land back, I say. It will damage the company's finances for a while, but that's the cost of exploitation, isn't it?

Regarding precious minerals, and even mundane products such as sheep and cattle, the West “takes” them at knock-down prices so that the work that goes into extracting or producing them barely pays for the workers' subsistence. In other words, any aid we grudgingly give is counterbalanced by the price subsidies drawn out of the poor miners/farmers who sell to us. Fair Trade? Right!

There may be bad government, but, where it is sufficiently bad, I contend that we should ignore it or remove it. Who cares that it is the “legitimate” Government if it is killing its subjects by neglect! As I said before, sovereignty is subject to laws of humanity, and foreign powers have a right and duty to enforce humane regimes where such laws are being flouted.

You're right about Hong Kong, though. Virtually no natural resources of its own. It makes its fortunes by receiving investment from international conglomerates which, in turn, invest in other countries and by buying and selling their produce. The wealthy creating more wealth out of other people's labour and resources. Oh … and tax evasion, too.
Quote:
The reasons impoverished countries are that way are (1) they are underdeveloped (2) they are/have been exploited and/or (3) they are badly governed.
There's more to it than that, but that is a good start. Another particularly common issue is civil unrest, a culture that doesn't support economic principals, wide spread corruption, etc. Only in one of those cases can large scale charity do anything more than provide temporary relief and prolong the conditions they currently suffer. It's easy to blame it on 'exploitation'. Though just like in any bad relationship, it takes two to tango.
Aid can be given, exploitation can cease and bad governments can be neutralised/removed.

Two to tango: an oppressor and the oppressed. But the West is sometimes a third dancer, dancing to the oppressor's tune, and at other times, it is the musician, leading the whole dance.
Quote:
It is within our power to address each of those reasons if we want to,
Yes, however you want to address it through a gross violation of their right to self govern, massive social upheaval, and who knows what else.
Indeed, who knows? But see above: the right of self-government is limited by the obligation to govern responsibly.
Quote:
and it is appalling to realise how many people here consider their fellow man is not worth getting off their fat arses for, and who resent my pointing this out. If that makes me high and mighty, then, good!
See, this is where you get in trouble. You start going off like it is a moral crusade. You know what? That just pisses people off.
I care not one whit whether those who cavil about sending foreign aid to the needy find me annoying. And I find myself in not the slightest bit of trouble over it.
Quote:
And the acquisition of wealth did happen by chance. Oil in the Middle East wasn't put there by design.
No it wasn't, but they chose to sell it. The creation and acquisition of wealth is always a conscious choice. Long term economic success does not happen at random. Sure, anybody can win the lottery, but lottery winnings don't build and maintain continents.
It's a conscious choice, perhaps. But the discovery of wealth isn't.

Where it is a choice, the wherewithal to create or acquire wealth is a prerequisite, too. Britain didn't have the wealth and resources it needed to become the world's richest and most influential nation in the 19th century without appropriating the wealth of other places. It wouldn't have mattered how often it decided to get rich if it never had an empire, nor how hard its labourers worked: it just wouldn't have happened.
Quote:
South Africa's gold wasn't the result of someone's careful planning. Zimbabwe's diamonds weren't left there as a present for Robert Mugabe. America's wealth was due to its natural resources first of all - to wheat, tobacco, and timber, to coal, iron and so on, not its "work ethic".
Have to disagree with you there. Natural resources were a great boon to be sure, however the "protestant work ethic" led to a very high investment in capital goods and education which has paid off many times over. A country can have great natural resources and still be dirt poor, without even being exploited (imagine that!).
The American colonies were rich before any protestant landed on American soil, and they remained so even after those religious misfits left their European homes to live in their own Utopias.

But my point was, America had the natural resources, exploited them for their own good and kept the wealth generated thereby. Compare that with Africa … ah, it completely breaks down after, “had the natural resources...”
Quote:
That came later, when people like that Mr Ford introduced mass production on an industrial scale.
Actually, it was the cotton gin that is generally considered the "start" of the industrial revolution. What really kicked the economy into high gear and brought us to the fore was WWII. We built a ton of manufacturing capacity while helping to destroy everyone else's. Combine that with the national highway system and the best capital markets in the world, and that's why we became a super power, instead of just another 1st world country.
Cotton gin … Spinning Jenny … whatever.

As for the rest of your comment here, I couldn't agree more … keeping everything for ourselves … destroying what we can't have … creating wealth by paper transactions … nothing here for the poor, is there?
Quote:
It also came when commodity dealers started buying and selling those raw materials dug out of African soils even while they were still lying in some ship's hold awaiting embarcation, and sold over and over again before they arrived. "Wealth" was created that way too, but it didn't go back to Africa. It stayed in the West.
Buying and selling the same thing over and over doesn't create wealth, it just helps what ever is being bought and sold reach it's peak value.
Consider your comments regarding Hong Kong at the start of your post.

Consider the NY Stock Exchange and tell me how much wealth isn't created there.

Explain to me how it is that merchant bankers have so little working capital yet grow fat by floating huge corporations, or if not that, then how is it that stockbrokers make fortunes buying and selling bits of paper called shares (or, nowadays, their electronic equivalents), but they never actually own any.

Then tell me none of them got wealthy that way.

Quote:
As for your example of the Middle East, I would make these points: the Middle East has not suffered as a result of oil discoveries, it has become enormously wealthy. As a result, a number of emirates have grown up which are highly stable and which enjoy a very high standard of living in a physically hostile environment.
The 'standard of living' in oil dependent countries is very very top heavy, so looking at averages isn't very telling. What do you think is would happen if the oil market dried up?
I think your original point was that these places did get rich and couldn't cope with it. Now you seem to be saying, Oh alright, they are coping with their riches, but what will they do when they get poor again.
Quote:

Many public and social services are available there which are the equal of those in America, or are better, even. Given a stable and peacful political environment, they would assuredly and rapidly develop into western-style economies; they would gradually redistribute their wealth as a middle class grew up, and they would deal with their own poverty problems. This would be to everyone's benefit.

However, the political environment is not peaceful. There is Israel, which seems to be permanently at war with its neightbours, there is Palestine, whose rulers are bent on the destruction of Israel. There is Syria, once in line for an American invasion, but luckily escaped because the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan turned out to be more protracted affairs than Bush planned. My point is, the troubles in the Middle East are not due to the fact that Arab states are massively rich or are still poor, they are due to political reasons which the West is responsible for.
I would counter with these points:

Israel isn't at a permanent state of war with it's neighbors. It's neighbors are at a permanent state of war with Israel. Big difference. Much of the Mideast has chosen their unstable political climate because they can afford it due to their essentially free money. That is what happens when the economics of choice are skewed by long term, essentially free, money.

We funnel so much money into that area that it's ridiculous. Sure, they have great social services if you are a straight muslim male, they could practically afford to pave the region in asphalt at this point. Expect varying degrees of "Fuck You" if you are anything else though (including, but not limited to; ostracization, death by stoning, death by hanging, murder by family...).

A lot of the current ongoing conflicts there are financed by our money (or some other country's). Palestine's war against Israel? Paid for by other middle east countries, who can afford it why? Iraq's attempt to commit genocide against the Kurds. Thank the soviets for the equipment. Continued social oppression/murder of minorities, secularists, and intellectuals? Allowed to continue due to the governments being propped up by outside money.

We bootstrapped them so fast that they never had to develop a sense of human rights, hence the ongoing violations when it comes to religious doctrine, women, secularism, and anyone just plain different. Yes, the Western money is largely responsible for the fact that the Middle East never learned the religious/social/sexual/racial tolerances that the rest of the first world had to. Now let's multiply that over a couple continents. That's the result of the kind of massive charity you are talking about.

Arguably, the west is also responsible for Japan's little rampage during WWII because the west forced their basically still medieval country's ports open at gunpoint. Once again, it is a culture that never had to abandon their xenophobia in order to achieve economic success (yes, the xenophobia and sense of racial superiority were major fuels). If it wasn't for the fact that Japan's military was effectively abolished post-WWII, well the prospects wouldn't be good. Bootstrapping economies comes at a major human cost. You end up paying Paul's present by robbing Peter's future.
Whether Israel is at war with its neighbours, or its neighbours are at war with it is a difference with no meaning at all. Israel is on a permanent war footing, and is perfectly happy to launch reprisal attacks before, during or after any attack is made on it. And its declared policy is to ensure that all fighting takes place outside its own territory.

I don't believe the Arab nations decided to fight Israel simply because they could afford it. The notion is preposterous. They are fighting because their brother Palestinians were driven out of their homes in order to create a Zionist country where their homeland used to be: a total anathema to them.

The rest of that particular section of your post seems like a right-wing rant and is best passed over with as little comment as possible. So I will content myself by disagreeing with every word of it:the relief of poverty does not create, cause or lead to religious fundamentalism, funding for anti-American causes, genocide, xenophobia, or any of the other evils mentioned. However, the provision of aid to places where such conditions exist without attempting to change them is foolhardy.

Quote:
Pardon me! My field of expertise is in another area entirely. I should have realised I have no right to form an opinion based on other people's research.
You didn't claim to have an opinion. You claimed to be right and implied that others were morally inferior for not agreeing with you. Those are two different things. "I like the color blue" is an opinion.
I cannot fault you for liking blue: that's a question of taste. I can fault you for not helping the poor. That's a question of morality, and your position is inferior.

Quote:
But, then, your reseach seems to be no better than mine ...
Judging from things so far, I would posit that my understanding seems to be a lot better. It just isn't palatable to you. But then, that's just my opinion
Just because you have disagreed with me doesn't demonstrate your superior understanding. Just your contrariness.

I have stated my position and supported it from a reputable source. You have asked inane questions in order to undermine the validity of the research I rely upon. You have offered no viable alternative. Let me tell you this, it doesn't matter how wealth is defined because whatever sensible means of measuring it you use, the West has most of it and the third world has virtually none. This is an inequitable position which should be put right as soon as possible. No amount of smug self-satisfied nit-picking is going to change that.

If you want to maintain that providing just enough aid to keep people alive in fear and misery a little bit longer is a better way of dealing with the world's impoverished countries than feeding them and helping them to develop into stronger, stable and reliable nations – possibly friendly ones too – then you are profoundly wrong, but wealthier. That's not aid, it's torture.