[jaguar]

Jag, it isn't permissible to frame the definition of one thing in terms of another that points back to the first, like this: A=B; B=A. That is a circular definition. It also is Not Done to illustrate your definition by re-stating your initial point.

So you’re basically saying that poverty is an abstract concept instead of relative. But then you go on to site a list that makes the idea of poverty relative - the 47 poorest? Argh make your mind up already - then again don't bother - i'm setting the definitions.

1)take the definition of the 47 poorest countries shown in http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/databa...es/received.htm, the definition of poverty as shown in http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/copen3.htm, and the mushy definition of 'lifestyle' as a typical list of expenditures by a family of four whose income is $50K US/yr and see whether these 47 countries have -any- impact on it, or

I already stated a source for countries, the UNDP - use it.
As for this definition it is not poverty it is *extreme poverty* not poverty. I made the statement as a result I get to choose the definitions - I’m not going to argue my point inside your structure that’s just plain silly so if you want to talk about poverty use the UNDP that i listed not whater source you choose then try to use that as a basis to attack my statement. As for lifestyle, once again this is very hard ot nail down, forget whatever vague structure and listing you were planning on disecting, its so narrow its irrelavent, try statistics, much more useful.

TO possible give a better picture of the scope of whats in volved you have to think not jsut of what is in your house but the impact on companies and therefore the impact on thier workins and workforce size. If nike had to move its operations of let say 100,000 workers based mostly in indonesia nad VIetnam (very rough estimate) to the US, from between currant hourly income of $.60 - $2 for 10 6 hours a day to the US, with a $5-8 a hour fee - how much would it eat into thier profits? Would they go for automation and therefore leave tens of thousands out of work eventully? Think bigger when it comes to impact.

Since hypertheticals are the order of the day try this - imagien if that happened to every company that curarntly uses labour in these counties - how large would the resulting impact be on our economies, severly reduced profits casuing shareprice slides triggers a possible recesion as thousands are laid off.

2)point you to the aforementioned http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/copen3.htm and ask why the OECD and the UN president both think -lowering- trade barriers with "developing" countries is a swell idea - the idea to make -more- trade happen, not less, in case that was not obvious. Given that the thesis of your argument is that my lifestyle is somehow owes a debt to the poor in the third world, these organizations seem to be calling for more of the same.

I tried to make sense of this but how this was relevant stumped me completely. Of course they want to lower trade barriers, as I’ve stated once or twice before it does benefit the countries involved on both sides - it’s mutually beneficial. Since it doesn't strike me as likely that the hypothetical f the entire third world disappearing overnight then I don't see why more trade shouldn't happen inside my statement.

This little exercise has made me profoundly grateful that I stuck with engineering and didn't try any of the pseudosciences, like business administration or sociology.

I'm glad you liek black and white but reality like this is allll grey.