Think about what you need to know to understand this section. Your answer might include some of the following:
What does this section do to support Kuper’s argument/alternatives
What does this section do to support Kuper’s argument/alternatives
What major claims? – What does this mean?
What evidence? What does this evidence do?
What lists? – What do these lists do?
What words/ideas do you need to know?
11 comments:
Production is one of the suggestions that he says will help the nations struggling with poverty. Production, not only makes goods for people to buy, but it also makes more job opportunity's for people. In this case Kuper claims that if certain regions allow big busines's to come in and use their natural resources, the region could benefit greatly. They could use this opportunity to make deals with the big business and get somethings in return. Profit for a purpose, the big business is profiting from using the resources in their area, so part of the profit they give back to the region to help bring up their standard of living and their quality of life. Production Kuper claims would benefit many people and many aspects in both cases.
In reply to Megan Campbell's comment,
This was one of my favorite points from Kuper. It is extremely more rational to take actions that will benefit EVERYONE. The consumers who like to spend lavishly and the producers and sellers. In his "Why Charity is Never Enough" section, he talks about increasing the percent of tourism in places in Africa from 2.5% to 10% or 15% in order to help increase the income of the selling families. But in reference back to his conclusion section, reemphasizes points that suggests that we need to engage in "sensitive support" that will allow the poor to help themselves, which includes producing goods to sell so that they are able to make profits and incomes. Kuper also explains how these productions can be "tied to obligations to manage medical and social needs arising out of HIV/AIDS in the regions in which companies wish to operate." So as you explains, everyone seems to be winning and doing what they all love and getting the help they need, opposed to simply giving up what you like to give out and donate.
Good point Megan!
-Adrianna Boles
I’m commenting on Megan’s post.
I would definitely agree with what she says about production providing jobs, and having resources available. To me production is almost what keeps the world going round. As she said it provides people with jobs and everyone products. Kuper’s idea of buying clothes from a company in a country that is in poverty is a great idea. We still get our clothes and the country makes money off of us, while providing someone a job there. Stopping our luxurious as Kuper says could actually hurt those countries, we wouldn’t be vacationing there, or buying products made from other places beyond the U.S. Production is an important part in helping poverty places.
Kuper talks about how production and spending benefits poorer countries while Singer demands that we stop wasting our money and donate it. I believe both these authors have valid points but the way i see it is that no matter what, a countries gain is another countries loss. So no matter what people do, there will always be poverty in this world which is unfortunate.
In this final chapter Kuper talks about four cosmopolitan solutions to poverty relief that basically sum up what he is trying to address in his article. These solutions concentrate on Consumption, Production, Activism, and aid. His solutions give an alternative to the generic idea if just donating or giving up our luxuries like Singer does. He claims that if such suggestions are followed “support of [that] kind can enable the poor to help themselves”. For example in consumption he suggests that we should consume good from ethnic manufacturers and take vacation in places that need the tourist dollar. This would enable the poor to help themselves because with more income from foreign consumers there is a greater chance of being able to grow and provide jobs for the greater community. As evidence he provides the example of the South African governments clothing brand SA, which is government run and therefore helping the national revenue. More over it is important to know that Kuper does not encourage us to rush into action, not all plans of action work in all situations. Details have to be planned out because the poor are very concerned for what consequences can be of such cosmopolitan movements. More over, he also argues that charities do produce improvements but in the long run they end up harming. For a long-term approach diplomatic strategies need to be executed that help create sustainability with in under developed countries. Also one of his final claims is that “corporations [need to be] conditioned by the interest of the globally disadvantaged”. In other words if large corporations worked to help poorer countries it would help in the process of creating sustainability.
Consumption is one the few limited suggestions that Kuper gives as an alternative to donating and sacrificing your things. Kuper claims that we do not have to just give and donate your money and stop buying materialistic things, but all you have to do is spend your money wisely in ethical places. Consumption is a pretty good alternative because first of all you do not have to stop buying things that you want, but instead you just have to look for a new stores that have ties with good charities that sells the things you want. Also if you want to go somewhere for vacation, you should just go to places that need the economic boost and could use your money. And Kuper brings up "Brand SA" to build credibility because that does exactly what consumption is meant to do.
In response to EC Mina Mansour:
Kuper does talk about how production benefits poorer countries and he gives the example of buying furniture and how this can help the poor be able to provide for themselves because they are making something people want to buy. And Singer, as you said, does in fact state that money should be donated if it is not being spent on essential.
My response to your belief that, "no matter what, a countries gain is another countries loss. So no matter what people do, there will always be poverty in this world" is that this is not entirely true. Yes, poverty is a part of our world because in our world we have managed to build a economic hierarchy so there will be those at the top and those at the bottom. But, those at the top can actually do something to help those less fortunate. Those in charge of large companies can give work to those in poverty instead of exporting their work to sweatshops for cheap labor. By doing this, they give those who are poor the ability to provide for themselves and their families.
Kuper suggests that sacrifice isn’t the means in which we can use to solve the issue. Instead a better way is to redeploy resources. Kuper talks about activism, and how we shouldn’t rely on states to fund international organizations or wealthy individuals to fun non government organizations. Instead we should lobby for taxes on capita flows that five the UN and similar bodies a minimal independent revenue base and take action when large corporations violate labor standards or rights.
In response to Ryo's comment;
The one word that caught me in your explanation is the word "wisely". What Kuper is trying to tell us is for us to use our money wisely, in places that are in need. Like he says, we should spend our vacations at places that need the money, because it is a way to boost their economy. I feel as though Kuper wants us to think and reflect more on the products we buy or the things we spend our money on because there are other products we should use our money to stimulate their economy. Consumption is a good alternative because that is where most of our money goes to. I think the fact that Kuper was able to find a method that can incorporate comsumption and aiding a country in poverty is brilliant.
Aid is also one of the limited suggestions that Kuper mentions about the importance of the allocation of resources within the nations. Kuper claims that the advancement and many innovations of technology play an essential role when it comes to labor because it creates more opportunities for work. He argues that people who are in poverty can help themselves when he addresses examples that were successful. Kuper argues that this system with technology encourages people to become entrepreneurs; however, he believes that they may not do the job right if they have selfish purposes. If they do, they will tend to be more acceptant to"social clauses."
Becca Cohen
The idea of having people (American's in mind) lobby for taxes on capital flows that essentially give the United Nations a relevant cash base While the idea of moderating large corporations seems like a positive move in the right direction, I don't think that should be on our priority list till other issues are in order. To be honest, it surprised me that Kuper would even mention that as something we should aim to change. i think it's going to be really hard to get people to donate to anything during this economic downfall, let alone donate to something that can be fixed later down the line. Initially, it is going to have to take a cross effect to make a difference, but I don't feel that this approach needs to be one of them. The UN should collect money to send people overseas to help live with the people in need and help put them on their feet on a day to day basis in addition to the funding for supplies. It's efforts like this that I feel will support the needy and bring them into acceptance into our society.
Post a Comment