"Not true. This idea, that rich nations want to keep poor nations poor, really pisses me off. "
You missed this one Herb, seems you will be doing a lot of peeing. On the hour, 24/7.
Quote:
Originally posted by Guidance: Respect Rasp, the underdeveloped world is at the mercy of the developed world and basically will not be allowed anything but the crumbs that fall from the table.
HL we are on different wavelengths AM vs. FM. Obviously it is hard for you to grasp what the third/fourth world has and is going thru and may never understand. Do one thing for your education: compare the interest rates and terms that rich/developed countries are allowed to borrow at to that secured by poor/underdeveloped countries. Oh yes I they didn't have to boorow at those rates, right!! Peace.
_________________________
One possible reason why things are not going according to plans is there never was a plan
Haha! It may piss me off, but I'll continue to rebuke the claims.
The so-called "tiger economies" in South-East Asia have managed to get a foothold on the ladder of economic development, and they are realizing how precarious the ladder is. Financial markets rise and fall all over the world, but if the countries in South-East Asia can continue to supply what is demanded (with quality and competitive prices), then they will prosper.
I raise this point to give an example of how countries that are poor can develop themselves and become a bigger player on the worldwide economic scene. I must also add that the emergence of the "tiger economies" depended, in no small way, on investment from richer countries/corporations (not just in terms of money, but also in education).
To claim that the richer countries do not want poorer countries to develop is nonsense. It does, however, provide a convenient excuse for the mismanagement of a poorer country's industry and economy. Keep saying "it's not our fault" if it makes you feel better, but you'll be saying that forever unless you play your part in improving your country's future - from small acorns, large oak trees grow.
Interest rates.... I am a financial adviser by profession, and one of the jobs I do is to help people borrow money to buy houses. If someone has a poor credit history, (e.g. because they have failed to repay previous loans), I have difficulty finding a suitable lender. When I do find one, their interest rates are far higher than they would be for someone who has always repaid their previous debts. The higher the risk to the lender, the higher their interest rates will be. Simple. This is accepted because people understand the reasons. It seems you don't.
In my humble opinion, time would be better spent trying to think of ways that your country can develop, rather than thinking of ways to complain about the situation. The latter will only make you bitter (as it evidently has already, in some cases).
I like the responses so far and I think somewhere in there I will find what I'm looking for. I won't respond in dept at this point because I am swamped with reading training materials for my new position at work. I especially want to read Shaggy's article on the Moors but it is too long and I'm strapped for time. RHM yuh messed up the flow with your usual poorly thought out nonsense, so I can't see any sense in responding to you. DDread, Guidance, rasputin, Bolton B, hold tight. I will respond with more details on Thursday as I have another full day of training tomorrow. Please continue the dialog.
Tiger Economies. Yes the bankers poured billions into these economies, more than they needed which in the end caused the economic collapse in the 90s because the bankers did not attach strigent rules. And do not forget the Preferred Trader status these countries enjoyed which is given only to a select few.
So you are verifying my argument that the playing field is not level since the criteria by which countries are given loans that 'Can Be Paid Back' and the selection of which countries to give special trading partner(lower custom fees, etc.) is not done on a fair and equitable basis.
And neither is loan sharking in banking, we all known about the REDLINING that goes on.
I am not trying to find out a easy way out for developed countries to blame for lack of development jus telling the injustices as I see it.
And corruption is jus as prevalent in developed as in underdeveloped countries. The poor citizens of the US did not get a red cent from the S & L crisis but have to pay their unfair share of the billions, oops, Trillion!
AM vs FM still. Double Six pose!!
[This message has been edited by Guidance (edited 09-18-2001).]
_________________________
One possible reason why things are not going according to plans is there never was a plan
Guidance. When you have a bad credit rating you are charged a higher rate of interest because of the greater risk of loss involved. That happens to everyone.
I won't blame them for that and I think we would be victims of the system in that situation.
I haven't read everything everyone has said but I think I have a vague idea what's going on.
What we have to remember is that we are only in a good situation if the western "developed" countries want something from us.
Many factors...
1. US helped us a lot when Cuba was considered a threat.
2. America was only too happy to help Japan develop to make sure they posed no threat. The US poured money into Japan and Germany. Neither country had to expend the 25% of their GDP necessary to defend their country
3. Africa was raped of its riches through imperialism/colonialism. Europe benefited directly from the wealth it took/stole out of Africa. Nothing of those riches were put back into the country Europe still has its claws in Africa...e.g. Zimbabwe, where the big mining companies mainly from the U.K. Australia and the U.S. have "treaties" by which they retain their rights to take gold out of the country. You hear much being made of land being taken from white farmers there. IF you want to make reparations, have Europe pay the farmers for the land they are losing. After all they went to Africa and took it and then pushed the native people to the fringes of society.
Guess what would happen if the Govt. of Zimbabwe was to tell these foreign operations to get out of the country. (You think Mugabe doesn't want to?). You already see the US and UK talking up as if they're ready to jump into the country. It will be under the pretense of trying to protect the farmers there and to restore fair elections to Zimbabwe. I will agree that I do not advocate having Mugame remain in power for ever, because such always results in corruption. I support term limits there. However, I am concerned that the people who would take his place don't have his balls.
Keep in mind the opposition party in Zimbabwe is run by Foreigners!
Look at South Africa, another example of a country taken from its peoples and where the people were pushed to the fringe of society to live in abject poverty and squalor.
Noone is going to give Jamaica money to develop unless they think they may get a return. We are killing our own selves because with all this violence, our biggest money earner -- tourism -- is going to take a nose dive. People in the cities who are already poor don't give a **** because they have nothing to eat and nothing to lose and resort to acting upon the whims of some corrupt politician who gives him 50 bucks or a urinal or some other token...and don't forget the dope being brought in here. It's not coming from JA...it's being passed through JA. More violence, less tourism...more poverty...higher interest rates.
Bottom line...western countries do what they want...they exploit. They take/steal what they want from you and leave you with nothing. Once everything is gone then and you have nothing they don't give a **** about you. They then dictate the terms of unconscionable contracts which you have little choice but to accept if you want to survive, or get the one tractor.
Japan can be a threat as it was in the past, so what do you do, you build it and try to grow within it and control it. Most Japanese theories of production came straight from the U.S. Since the U.S. was "protecting" them they could focus on industry.
China was left alone and now it is broke. Since it has become a threat, a souce of cheap labor, the U.S. is bending over backwards to give the country favored trading partner status even though it supposedly has gross human rights violations.
Countries like Israel are guilty to this day of crimes not entirely unlike those committed by the U.K. in S.A., yet they we stand by and watch as palestinians are marginalized in a land in which they once represented 95+% of the population as late as the late 1920's-1930's. Israelis refuse to deconstruct settlements in the West Bank in the name of peace and, contrarily, raze palestinians houses at every opportunity inside Israel. No one says anything to Israel. No one does anything. They get support from the mighty U.S. as they use rockets and jets against rock throwing Palestinians. Palestinians are powerless. What does someone do when they are powerless and they can't possibly win a war (against the Western World)? We saw that over the last few months and last week. I don't condone it, because it results in the suffering of innocent people.
I point this out only to show the type of mentality exhibited by the Western World (from which much if not most if not all jewish support comes) in taking what they want.
Fortunately for the West they have been able to turn brother against brother in Africa in the name of rights to Diamonds and Gold. But who wins? Noone in Africa...not the man who has just had his arm hacked off, but the man with his claws in the diamond and gold mines.
A lot of crimes to answer for.
_________________________
Obama/Biden 2012 - We need people who actually think in charge, though they should learn to lead!
The African has a great history, however it has been slowly and methodically wiped out by Europeans beginning in the 1300's. It is the hegemony of imperialism and imperialist mentality.
I realize that a man with nothing cannot really expect to succeed against a man with everything. An army of 100 with spears cannot beat and army of 100 with rocket launchers and AK-47's. Some time the lickle man have to work within the system and then when he has gained enough strenghth noone can tell him NO!
In reality just by being in the U.S. we are all accepting the benefits of many of the crimes of this society.
Things are changing slowly, and black people are again slowly but surely rising. It is not our goal to conquer and oppress as narrow minded peons and tools -- such as the Klan -- of an insecure, jealous and greedy few would have you believe. It IS our goal merely to achieve true equality to the extent possible when races differ (there are always going to be those who look for a reason to say why one is better than the other) and to reassume our rightful positions of dignity and glory.
_________________________
Obama/Biden 2012 - We need people who actually think in charge, though they should learn to lead!
Africa unite 'cause we're moving righ out of Babylon and we're going to our fathers' land.
How good and how pleasant it would be before god and man to see the unification of all Africans -Nesta
One solution to the problem of development in the third world is the socialist solution. It worked wonders for China and Russia but it would deny "the west" of huge makets it needs to exploit and so they would "stop it dead in its tracks".
Let's consider another! How about a pinko, Kaynesian watered down socialism? Would work too! But that would take too much work on our part and some of us would be required to think for ourselves.
I got it! How about capitalism? Yes, good old fashion capitalism. Wait, you can't be a capitalist without caplital? That does not matter though, we can do it. This seems like the way to go all we need is some low interest startup capital. IMF? WorldBank? Damn, failed the low interest criteria. We would be paying more interest than our investments could possibly yield.
I nuh get too caught up into economic systems still and I refuse to kill anyone over the choice of one over the other but it is interesting to me how the boundaries of what is expressable in these "democratic" societies so limited. I know seh nuff man hear the word SOCIALISM and done get turned off an' a run.
Anyway, RasP I hear you through the cracks myYouth regarding history: "Is its use limited to being merely a source of pride?" hehehehe. Them say Africans are a people with a great history the question is do we have a future?
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 234
Loc: Miami, FL USA
Offline
1. I'll look into Cayman's relationship with UK, if i'm wrong I'll admit it.
2. You people are the manifestation of why minorities accross the globe cannot prosper. You memorize books that only support your views and quote them -- who cares. So what if blacks used to rule the world. We don't now. And sitting around quoting books wqe like isn't going to impress anybody but the people on this forum who can't do any thing except complain.
Since i've been coming on this forum, there have been topics related to socioeconomics that get y'all all emotional. But nothing is resolved because you don't have any practical suggestions. Why don't y'all tell me something specific the US should do to show empathy for the 3rd world. And no, just saying "US should change its policies" aint specific enough.
You curse the US for adopting policies that contribute to its prominance. Realistically, what is wrong with that. US owes no one nothing except its citizens and allies.
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 234
Loc: Miami, FL USA
Offline
OK, Ichecked it out and admit I did not know that Cayman was not indipendent.
But this brings to mind a new question. How come a tiny country who is openly dipendent on the first world is thriving, but the so-called soveriegn thrid world countries are starving, even though y'all say that the first world forces us to depend on them.
Originally posted by Red Hills Man: OK, Ichecked it out and admit I did not know that Cayman was not indipendent.
But this brings to mind a new question. How come a tiny country who is openly dipendent on the first world is thriving, but the so-called soveriegn thrid world countries are starving, even though y'all say that the first world forces us to depend on them.
It is in the interest of the mother country to keep its dependents happy.
The Cayman Islands is one of the largest centres for money laundering/tax evasion in the world. Remove these illegal and dubious activities, and let's see how they prosper.
RHM: you have to consider that if you weren't aware of something so obvious as the fact that the Cayman Islands are a UK dependency, that you are missing a LOT of other things.
For instance you said instead of sitting on our behinds we should go make a suggestion to the U.S. (I think that's what you said). That statement alone reveals that you have acknowledged that if we want to accomplish anything WE HAVE TO GO TO THE U.S. for help. But the thing is...why don't you go to the U.S. and make a suggestion and see how much help you get. If it was as simple as you said we could get low interest loans to aid in development. But remember, there are lots of other factors in the equation...factors which affect our economy. For instance if you look at theOserver web page you will see that there has been a SHARP decline in tourism since the WTC bombing. More crosses for JA to bear.
As far as why the Cayman Islands are thriving, I don't think Jamaica was doing too badly while it was still a dependency. However, it meant Jamaica and Jamaicans had no opportunity for self determination. I wasn't there, but I can only assume that the relationship did not do much for national identity. Preference shown to white people in a black country and all that nonsense. Besides...I am sure England was only too ready to spin it off because it was probably becoming a pricy endeavor.
Look at little ass Bermuda. They are VERY successful there. Probably the biggest reinsurance industry in the World. In little Bermuda!
There are presently voices in that country talking about independence. Can you say capital and industrial flight. Because ANYOW that country goes independent...an the black population starts to rule, you are going to see a lot of European Reinsurance operations leave.
The west will only put money in your country if they see it as stable. Bermuda and Cayman are considered "stable" because they are run by the U.K. However, you go to those countries and you probably still see a colonial mentality. In spite of who is prime minister...or governor...It's Europe running things while the locals ...well...
You order, ask, politely request, complain then curse. We've been through the first 4 stages and nothing has happened. There's a lot at work.
_________________________
Obama/Biden 2012 - We need people who actually think in charge, though they should learn to lead!
RHM, Cayman serves the interests of the UK and benefits as a result. Remove off-shore banking, etc. and see what happens. Interesting Question though!
Many people of my parents' and grandparents' generations will say that conditions were better under the British than they are in Jam. today.
Is this true?
International capital no longer has the same interests in the small economies of the Caribbean as it did with sugar and banana. But what we they still produce? Diversificatrion remains a myth.
The Cold War done, no need to pretend anymore. The economies of Eastern Europe and Asia carry the swing now. Places like Cayman will dry clean money-- or is it money laundering?.
For all intents and purposes 'we' are locked into a 'dependent' economic relationship with the developed world whether we are politically independent or not. When the G7.5 (Russia), countries meet and collude on finincial arrangements, they MAY discuss aid to developing countries. Those developing countries are now in the East\ Europe. Or they may provide cheap arms to idiots in Nigeria,for example, where real petential lies.
Mi neva know sey Cayman was Jamaican. Wonder if we can renationalise them retroactively.
Any legal precedent Shaggy?
Think of the possibilities 'ites. This could be our 'Two China' thing. Would the US recognize us?
Cayman-Taiwan could bring in the money and Jam'- China live large.
Nuff practise games.
Bring back Clovis give him a real chance.
FIX THE FIELD!!!!!!!!!!! YESSSSSSSSSS
Play the Payers to Pay the players
Soccer academies!! (we don't need TnT now)
Pay off Burell
Build Stadia
HOST THE BLUESUIT WORLD CUP- that way we reach. 'THE ROAD to JAMAICA 2006 NOT FAR to GO'
RECRUITMENT OF JAMAICAN TEACHERS from NY.
BAN TOURISM
HOSPITALS NATIONWIDE
BUY IMF
CURE NANDI'S AILMENTS (WE owe HIM THAT MUCH)
BURTON FOR PRIME MINISTER
Constitutional reform: WALTER BOYD PRESIDENT for LIFE
[This message has been edited by rasputin (edited 09-19-2001).]
[This message has been edited by rasputin (edited 09-19-2001).]
[This message has been edited by rasputin (edited 09-19-2001).]
Originally posted by Herb-luva: [B]Not true. This idea, that rich nations want to keep poor nations poor, really pisses me off.[b]
It pisses me off too but that doesn't make it less true Heb luva. Although I will widen or explain it better on my part.
The rich corporate leaders from rich nations, wish to make the poor people in poor nations poorer.
Quote:
[b]The bombing of Iraq was a response to the illegal invasion of a sovereign state. It does not prevent Iraq from developing, as you suggest, it merely stops it from attacking it's weaker neighbours (something I thought you would be in favour of). I don't want to get into an argument about the Gulf war here, save it for another thread (please) - maybe the "terrorism and the Just-War theory" thread (?)[B]
I'm sure no one wants to get into an argument about the Gulf war but when you say things like the above, one must respond.
Kuwait IS Iraq. There is no formal border agreement between the two.
Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil. No one mentions these things.
If the powers that be were interested in protecting invaded conutries why not force Indonesia to get out of East Timor back in 1975.
Difference: Iraq threatened western interests (and what they really mean is corporate interests) and Indonesia promoted western interests by securing another area under western econimic controls where low wages and sweat shops can prosper.
Which leads us back to rich people enforcing more misery on the poor.
Originally posted by Red Hills Man: You curse the US for adopting policies that contribute to its prominance. Realistically, what is wrong with that. US owes no one nothing except its citizens and allies.[/B]
Hmmmmmm.......you raise an interesting point RHM. It's a kind of "survival of the fittest" thing. Why should rich countries give a f**k about the poor countries? After all, they are obviously not contributing much to human development. Let them all die-off from starvation, more oxygen for the rest of us!
Before anyone starts trying to kill me I would like to emphasise that the above is not my REAL view. It would be easy for the richer countries to think in this way, BUT THEY DON'T! The work that goes on (right on my doorstep) to try and help people in poorer countries, is incredible. Then all I hear on this forum is how we don't give a damn about poor countries. Keep going, maybe one day I'll say "F**k it! Why bother trying if they think I don't give a damn?"
My main goal has been to try to encourage people to come-up with suggestions on how poor countries can improve the situation. They cannot rely on rich countries all the time, they need to be radical and focussed. A strong leader is vital. Anyone got any ideas?
Bolton, the seychelles appears to have a good thing going and I wish them well. Consider that they got their independence in 1976 and have been run by the same leader.
Presently their birth rate is 17/ 1000 and death rate it 6/1000. and 6/1000 leaving, so the population is slowly growing.
They are importing 400+ million while exporting only about 91 million. Not atypical for a small country without much industrial background. The imbalance iresults in a severe trade deficit and will cause the value of their dollar to slide, because they have to pay for these imported goods somehow.
Already their currency has slipped from 4.70-1US in 1995 to 5.50-1U.S today. That's how we started.
That's about 17%
They are a much smaller country than JA and have a population of not yet 80,000. They don't have the friction that we have.
They will remain somewhat stable also if they continue to have this one guy in power. He is white guy who was educated in Europe Switzerland...he runs the show, holding multiple posts. It's like THREE people running the entire thing. They assume. (I don't know about the other two, but I would bet that they are white as well).
They only recently totally liberalized freedom of speech in that country in 1993 with the end of ONE PARTY RULE. Give it time brethren, when the non-white people want a chance to rule we will se what happens.
heh heh. Then, as Richard Pryor says.."Then that racism come out" You want WHAT nigga?!?!?"
_________________________
Obama/Biden 2012 - We need people who actually think in charge, though they should learn to lead!
Okay from the dawn of time you have had differences amongst the human population. On an individual basis, some are taller, heavier, faster, stronger and some are richer.
However, the gap between rich and poor has increased dramatically over the last 200 years.
It is a shame that these arguments denigrate themselves in to a case of black man/white man. This is complete trite because when it is analysed further we see that the rich are a select group of all races and the poor are a much much larger group of all races.
At the time that slavery started, the economic, social and political systems that we now take as given, were just being formulated. Europe was still very feudal and achieved things mainly through the sword.
Through the use of force and exploiting and heinously building upon an already existing local structure, the Atlantic Slave Trade was started.
It was the profits from this that kick-started the Industrial Revolution and set up Western Europe as the first modern economic superpower.
What about Eastern Europe I hear you say. Well In the 15th century, Europe began to divide, the west started developing and the east became its service area, i.e. the original Third World. It wasn’t until the Soviets came and removes themselves from this problem that they took themselves and the rest of Eastern Europe out of that problem.
Back to the rich.
With Western Europe controlling the world, it grew economically and inhibited the growth of its colonies. However one colony removed itself from this process. It’s name the United States of America.
The fact that it escaped from long term European control is a large contributing factor to the US pre-eminent place in the world.
I have not forgotten Japan who also were never under European control. In fact, Japan had its own colonies but while it was an oppressive ruler, it never robbed its colonies to the extent of Europe. In fact it developed them to almost the same extent of Japan.
So we have three essential blocs; Western Europe and the US and Japan (both who escaped European power) who we could probably say are the three economic power areas.
So how do countries grow or develop economically?
If one studies the written record he/she will see that there needs to be a degree of state control and responsibility.
At the time these places were growing there was no free market mantra to confuse them.
Economic history recognizes that state intervention has played a CENTRAL role in economic growth. The industrial revolution relied on cheap cotton, mainly from the United States. It was kept cheap and available not by market forces, but by elimination of the indigenous population and slavery. It was the state that allowed Indian massacres and slavery. The methods are poor but they are state intervention nonetheless.
However, there were other cotton producers. Prominent among them was India, a British colony. Its resources flowed to Britain, while its own advanced textile industry was destroyed by British protectionism and force i.e. state intervention.
Egypt is another case. It took steps toward development at the same time as the United States but was blocked by British force, on the quite explicit grounds that Britain would not tolerate independent development in that region. State intevention again.
New England, in contrast, was able to follow the path of the former mother country, barring cheaper British textiles by very high tariffs as Britain had done to India. Without such measures, half of the emerging textile industry of New England would have been destroyed, economic historians estimate, with large-scale effects on industrial growth generally.
Since Japan was hardly dealing with ANYONE at the time, its industry rose to its level of prominence on the same principle of protectionism of national interests. Immediately after its temporary demise in WW2, it returned to an industrial policy with the state at a central role which protected Japanese interests. Result: Japan is the world’s second largest economy and by the beginning of the 1990s was the world’s leading source of foreign investment and accounted for HALF of the world’s net savings and was even financing US debts.
Throughout the growth of these areas i.e. Western Europe, the US and Japan, we see a guiding hand that is the government supporting business and using its force or coercion to disrupt the actions of any potential competitor and the result is these three areas are the most economically dominant.
When we study the economic climate we have to discuss WW2 as this event was so powerful that its impact is immeasurable.
Post WW2, the US, whose mainland was not ravaged by war, rose to prominence as the economic power of the world. As a result, it sought to maintain its dominance and resent a level playing field. Marshall Plan aid was tied to US agricultural products, one of the main reasons the US world grain trade share rose from 10% pre WW2 to over 50% by 1950.
It is at present the accepted wisdom that free trade i.e.no governmental interference, is the way forward and what is best. It has become accepted wisdom because all other alternatives are vilified by means of propaganda or force.
Those that have been most vocal in support of free trade are themselves the architects of free trade and it is they who stand to gain the most. These guys are the huge corporations.
It is they that buy politicians with their lobbying groups and remove democracy from the people. By ensuring that the governments they buy bring in policy that removes state control from trade and national economic growth they ensure their continual growth and success.
By asking the government (essentially the population since they elect the government) to get out of the way, they are saying democratic control over trade is not what they want.
Until we can remove the complacency that only continues to force us to continue to believe that the present system is right, we will not alleviate poverty. The existence of this present system that concentrates the money (and hence power) in the hands of the few while increasing the gap between poor and rich is a slap in the face to democracy.
I leave it there guys, Chez could go on.
Surely I now have the longest post ever. LOL No cut and past though! LOL
Originally posted by Herb-luva: It would be easy for the richer countries to think in this way, BUT THEY DON'T! The work that goes on (right on my doorstep) to try and help people in poorer countries, is incredible. Then all I hear on this forum is how we don't give a damn about poor countries. Keep going, maybe one day I'll say "F**k it! Why bother trying if they think I don't give a damn?"
Of which work are you talking Herbluva? Charity work etc...?
I can only speak for myself but when I say richer nations like the US and the UK, I am not taking about John Smith who has a small detached house and a 9 to 5 job in Bolton or Hull or Billy Bob Jones who lives in Memphis in a trailer home.
I'm talking about the corporate interests of the nation (which is usually what national interests means) that are set by a totally different set of people on a different agenda.
HL, my friend, you and I reside in the UK, we may get to go to the polls and chose if we want the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrats in power but rest assured whoever we elect, is a big business party who will make policy based on what they want and how they'll pressure him.
I resent US foreign policy as it is inexplicably wound up with US corporate interests and has very little to do with humanitarianism. That does not mean I am anti-US citizen.
Don't take an attack on rich nations as an attack on the citizens of rich nations. The two are not always linked
Quote:
My main goal has been to try to encourage people to come-up with suggestions on how poor countries can improve the situation. They cannot rely on rich countries all the time, they need to be radical and focussed. A strong leader is vital. Anyone got any ideas?
Democratic intervention in the form of state intervention. i.e. the government who people elected particpating and deliberately planning and supervising the execution of those plans. Once we hand over control of our lives to undemocratic corporations and allow our parliaments and congresses to become corrupt and the lap-boys of big business, we get the rich creaming off of the poor. And the poor in this case includes you and me.
[This message has been edited by Chez (edited 09-19-2001).]
Originally posted by shaggybear: Guidance. When you have a bad credit rating you are charged a higher rate of interest because of the greater risk of loss involved. That happens to everyone.
Shaggy take a look again at the premise:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guidance: [B] So you are verifying my argument that the playing field is not level since the criteria by which countries are given loans that 'Can Be Paid Back' and the selection of which countries to give special trading partner(lower custom fees, etc.) is not done on a fair and equitable basis.
And neither is loan sharking in banking, we all known about the REDLINING that goes on.
QUOTE]
As you well know the greater risk in many instances is assumed and not real. Real estate brokers and bankers scheme in countless instances to keep the overall value of the housing market in 'certain neighborhoods' depressing low to the point where at times an entire neighborhood has to move out and is replaced by a different class or ethnic group.
It happens in the rental market and in fact I recently heard because of new technolgy 'redlined' groups will now try to sue real estate agents who discriminate by approving applicants over the phone by wheter they sound 'white' or 'black'. Whether they succeed or not the people they represent who more than qualify for rent or purchase a home a just fed up of the tactics used to 'redline' them.
So there is a difference between one not qualifying for a loan bcause they have a low score THAN having a high score and being told to STEP BACK!!!
_________________________
One possible reason why things are not going according to plans is there never was a plan
