he got the equivalent of a 1500 of so my his SATs.

< still lost. Forget it. I'm slow.

Not much, yet those countries are still behind. That means we're doing something right (or better) then, doesn't it?

Either that, or we just have more opportunities.

Where do opportunities come from?

In the case of America, a lot of it can be attributed to the massive resources at our disposal, something many other countries in the world do not have.

How do we acquire those resources?

...?

You've studied American history, yes? That should give you the answers to that question.

Did you not guessed the intention of the the question? I wanted to point out the fact that we have such resources at our disposals while others do not goes back to what I said about we're doing something better. After all, we've acquired it, others did not.

Oh, and yes, dear, I studied American History. I don't remember much, but I'm not completely clueless.

Not necessarily. Certainly American ingenuity has contributed greatly to our success; I just mean to say that you cannot chalk up the lack of success on the part of other countries to a lack of ingenuity.

A parallel to the women's rights movements can be drawn here. Say men represent America, and women represent second- and third-world countries. You argue that women did not invent the airplane or penicillin or rubber because they were simply not as capable as men; I argue that women were just as capable of inventing those things, but they did not have the opportunity to do so.

And why not? Ingenuity would be a part of something we're doing right. If I invented the car and all you can do is invent the bike... well, you get the point. I'm not saying that you cannot invent the car, I'm just saying that I have it first and that means I did something right.


Again this goes back to my question of where do opportunities come from? Also, do we make opportunity or do we wait for it? The answer varies, I believe.

This post has been edited by uninspiredfae: Jul 12 2005, 11:09 PM

If I don't have gasoline, what good is a car? If I don't have gasoline, how would I even think of such a thing as a car?

The point is that other countries suffer not necessarily from a lack of a talent or motivation, but a lack of natural resources.

Japan lacks natural resources, but we don't see it classified as third world.

But Japan has one very important resource: money. They have enough money to pump into economic and education programs, because they don't waste^h^h^h^h^hspend it on the military.

Are you telling me that Japan always had the money? They don't have to spend it on military because they did something right (or better). Which goes back to what I said about the US doing something better than Cambodia...etc.

Anyway, China is doing something better as well, don't you think?

OHH, and by the way, MONEY is not a natural resource. Resource? Yes, it is. Natural? No. Lets try for consistency. I get confused easily.

This post has been edited by uninspiredfae: Jul 12 2005, 11:24 PM

Uh, no, they don't spend it on the military because they are not allowed to, according to the constitution imposed upon them after World War II.


Money is a resource, and an important one in economic development.

Thank you, Jesus, that you know this fact because it leads to my point: I guess that means having such laws imposed upon them is an opportunity?

Again, resource yes. Natural resource, no. I said that already. We were talking about NATURAL RESOURCES, I think. You were accusing America of having more natural resources and I simply pointed out a successful nation that lacked them.

I also asked if Japan always had the money or did they do something right to gain it.

Japan is an interesting example to use. Japan got a kickstart after World War II when the United States funneled billions of dollars of aide into the country, in order to rebuild their industrial complex. So yes, Japan has performed admirably given the nation's stunning lack of resources, but they didn't exactly build their economy themselves; they had a lot of help from the United States. Prior to their military buildup around World War II, Japan was a relatively primitive nation; and they certainly didn't even begin developing until 1863, which shows that their lack of resources did in fact hinder their economic and technological development. Due to influences from the outside, especially the US and its financial resources, they were able to build their economy into one of the strongest today, and they are one of the most technologically-advanced nations on Earth. This happened due to a lot of outside influences, however, and was not completely built on their own natural resources; however, it shows that the country did have a fair amount of ingenuity, and just needed some resources (and yes, I am once again considering money to be a resource here, because it is--and I never specified completely natural resources) to get itself started. So yes, I think Japan supports the argument that a country and its economy fails not always due to a lack of ingenuity, ability, and achievement, but sometimes due to a lack of resources and opportunity.

......
*cheers*
Go go go!

Lol, just wanted someone else to post in between you two mauling eachother....

Mr. Mipadi, get on AIM will you.

Anyway, I think I'm going with Fae on this particulary arguement - Japan does quite well due to its technology knowledge.

First you say "imposed", now you say "help", so I want to know if by imposing, we helped?
Anyway, no, they definitely didn't build their economy on their own and yes outside forces helped the nation to be what it is today. So would you say that they did something right, or was the opportunity to be successful given to them?

Japan may have lacked natural resources, but are you sure about opportunity? If you say they lacked opportunity, how did they gained the opportunity? Was it given?

All these questions are asked with intent, please do not think I'm simple-minded for asking them... lol.

And you did specified. You said natural resources in a previous post and that is why I chose a country that lacked natural resources. Oh, here it is...

And please correct me if I'm wrong (since I've forgotten a lot of what I've learned in economics), money is capital, right? Yes, I know capital is a resource, but saying calling money a resource is kind of like calling pie a dessert instead of pie, isn't it?


Sammi, lol, we are not mauling! Well, I'm learning at least.

This post has been edited by uninspiredfae: Jul 13 2005, 12:19 AM

Mipadi, you astound me on a regular basis with your knowledge on things that many know nothing or little about. Speaking my mind.

which reduce the rest of us to be ill-educated idiots...
< jealous talk.
you are indeed a very good debator.

Of course I didn't mean it like that. You make your share of great points as well, but Mipadi I believe shut me down in a different debate which I forget the name of.

no no.. lol i was kidding see i said was speaking from jealousy. you're fine.. lol.

Haha I know. But I felt the need to correct myself :X

So, I'm trying to understand exactly what you guys are arguing about here...

The root of the argument had to do with the United States' advantage over countries like Cambodia and the Philippines, and then you two got into it about 'why'.

Ingenuity vs. Privilege?

Despite this, the 'United States' advantage' harangue always leads into 'If it's so rich, why doesn't the United States of America try to help underprivileged countries more?'

We do, and more privately than anything...

US donations to Africa outstrip Europe by 15 to 1

Frasier Nelson


Private American citizens donated almost 15 times more to the developing world than their European counterparts, research reveals this weekend ahead of the G8 summit. Private US donors also handed over far more aid than the federal government in Washington, revealing that America is much more generous to Africa and poor countries than is claimed by the Make Poverty History and Live 8 campaigns.

Church collections, philanthropists and company-giving amounted to $22bn a year, according to a study by the Hudson Institute think-tank, easily more than the $16.3bn in overseas development sent by the US government. American churches, synagogues and mosques alone gave $7.5bn in 2003 - a figure which exceeds the government totals for France ($7.2bn) and Britain ($6.3bn) - according to numbers from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which deal a blow to those who claim moral superiority over the US on aid...

Just trying to be ahead of the game.