I don't even know where to start with this one but I am not buying into this conspiracy theory in regards to the develop nation deliberately destroying the underdeveloped economies of the world. The world is now a global economy which means that our economies are also America's economy. Don't think of America as a country but has a corporation who is always looking to expand its market shares, if these markets are underdeveloped hence the people can't afford their goods and services then the corporation can't increase its profit. So it is in the best interest of America to have healthy economies around the world that can purchase it goods and services, destroying these economies is the same as killing your customers.
A lender of capital has to take into consideration the risk associated with every borrower's ability to pay which includes political risk, infrastructure, GDP, credit history etc..and base on their assessment apply a rate of interest. The developing nations economies are weak hence the probability of them repaying the loans are doubtful so they pay a higher rate of interest. Even America has debts and for the first time in years had a surplus under the Clinton administration, as a matter of fact if a country doesn't have debts it's probably not being run effectively.
Our leaders have failed us plain and simple! Yes, preferential treatment is being given to some countries but name any aspect of life where this isn't being done. We got ourselves in this mess and now we're trying to pass the buck. It's no different from running up your credit card then turn around and blame the company for giving it to you in the first place. We should be held accountable for our own mismanagement and arrogance and stop looking to blame. The same crap that we blame America of doing we're also guilty of, so as Jesus said let the first man throw a stone who haven't committed a sin.
[This message has been edited by terminator (edited 09-19-2001).]
Fair enough...I see your point. And I'm not saying that "third world" countries with a "better score" are not getting screwed -- I don't know that. The reason I don't know is that I am under the impression that most of the countries do have a "poorer score." I would think it is a consequence, cause or effect of being a third world country. The question in my mind would be how the countries got to that point in the first place.
_________________________
Obama/Biden 2012 - We need people who actually think in charge, though they should learn to lead!
Well Shag the plan from the beginning is once the resources are transferred from: -S. African goldmines -Jamaican bauxite pits -Congo mineral mines -etc.
do you allow a lax in your lending procedures to allow an equal reversal of the wealth? Sure you throw a bone or two and setup some philanthropies eg. UN, IMF, IAB and World Bank to supervise the distribution of the scarce resources which are investments to reap even more out of these poverty stricken countries. Also you still need a world market for the cheap mass produced goods and services pouring out of these developed countries.
Btw Chez I did comment on Iraq's legitimacy in Kuwait:
Quote:
Originally posted by Guidance: Iraq became the center of the Arab world in commerce, culture, education and the works but when the made a claim on land that once was under their domain the G7 formed a posse to pulverise them into the sand
Anyway isn't it interesting that the US has spent billions on the war against drugs but the amount of drugs from the two biggest exporters of drugs, Colombia and Afghanistan has not being affected. All that money poured into Colombia, military aid included and the coke still flows.
So now they are moving into Afghan, will the drug trade slow, stop or jus monitored as in Colombia. Who is benefiting from all this US aid?? Hehheh Military Industrial Complex. A Wah dat? A jus me Guidance thinking loud!!
God Bless America and the Rest of the World!
_________________________
One possible reason why things are not going according to plans is there never was a plan
yes baddas, but do it in english and in sentence case (not all caps)...both those factors make what you write extremely hard to read. This issue is complex enough as it is.
[This message has been edited by shaggybear (edited 09-19-2001).]
_________________________
Obama/Biden 2012 - We need people who actually think in charge, though they should learn to lead!
Terminator, thanks mi fren, you saved me a lot of typing!!
An excellent point:
Quote:
So it is in the best interest of America to have healthy economies around the world that can purchase it goods and services, destroying these economies is the same as killing your customers.
Rich countries do not want poor countries to be so poor that they can't buy the rich country's produce. I would admit that rich countries want to be richer than others, but this competitive approach is what drives their success. This doesn't mean that they don't want to see the poor countries develop too.
Chez, yet again you make some excellent points, respect to you my friend! I can't agree with your solution though:
Quote:
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.
Sounds like communism to me (?), a brilliant idea IN THEORY, but some animals will be more equal than others!
The debate so far is really interesting, I'm learning a lot from different people. Respect to all the 'ites who've taken the trouble to share their views on this topic.
I LOVE YOU ALL!!!
HL
P.S. The point about buying raw materials cheaply keeps popping-up, how do you respond to this?: Raw materials are, basically, a bunch of rocks without much use (except perhaps when hurled at Israeli soldiers ). Unless you are an alchemist/magician, it takes a lot of work (based on years of scientific/mechanical investment) to convert them into the products that they become (energy, tractors, or whatever). If rich countries stopped buying these raw materials, poor countries would be left even poorer, and all the rocks in the world wouldn't help.
[This message has been edited by Herb-luva (edited 09-19-2001).]
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Herb-luva: [B] If rich countries stopped buying these raw materials, poor countries would be left even poorer, and all the rocks in the world wouldn't help. QUOTE]
Is it bought for for a fraction of a penny, smuggled out, taken at gunpoint or robbed after a gunbutt? If a fair price was paid and the middlemen and merchants were to retain their out of control markups, what would the cost of the end products?
_________________________
One possible reason why things are not going according to plans is there never was a plan
Go back and read some of the 88 postings so far on this topic and you will find the answer. I wonder if your naivety is for real. I have said it b4 and I will say it again:
Quote:
Originally posted by Guidance: 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 [/B]
_________________________
One possible reason why things are not going according to plans is there never was a plan
Another thing you have to look at is the countries whose economies are propped up and helped along as viable markets as opposed to those which are ignored. I understand them ignoring Jamaica because it is probably an insignificant market in their eyes. But what about Africa. But then I guess someone has to get the shaft...right?
Look at how countries in Africa are RICH in resources...Oil, minerals, farmland, you name it. Support Africa and you may find yourself rewarded. But then....why support Africa...we already have our hands in its pockets and are TAKING what we want. Africa needs to get those foreign countries out of its pockets...but do you think that is possible? Africa is a continent destroyed by colonialism.
South Africa, once it ridded itself of apartheid, large companies began to relocate to England, Holland and elsewhere. Sometimes just headquarters, sometimes entire operations. Then, the millions of people forced to live in filthy shacks (while whites lived in comfort) came looking for work in companies built from the fruits of their land. They had little to offer, for they had been kept hungry and uneducated. Crime rose, understandably. Instead of trying to help. These companies continue to relocate. I haven't followed events there recently, but it will be intereresting to see how it develops there.
You would see the western world turn its back on Africa because whatever it did to excise the foreigners would be a crime.
HL: I don't know see you point about Western countries buying minerals
_________________________
Obama/Biden 2012 - We need people who actually think in charge, though they should learn to lead!
herb luva the i seems to be a very intilligent man with some insights into certain topics on the forum ,on the contrary africans did rule the world at one time ,then the Greeks ,The romans < the English,now the Americans,so its just a cycle governments & systems dont last forever,Africans & Europeans just evolve differently bacause of climatic differences think about it for a minute if you live in a country where its hot all the time there is little need to store & fight for food which if there is no drout should be in abunance if on the other hand you evolve in a climate where you have limited time in which to grow food you have to be more defenceive minded to protect your food supply so hence better weapons technology ,better orginizational skills ,more agressive always thinking ahead . that is just a small part of my whole idea but you are a smart guy you dont need the blizzard to get the drift. one luv
Skipper, you flatter me, but thank you anyway! There are lots of people on this forum (including me) who would disagree with your description of me, but I think they appreciate my efforts nonetheless.
Your point about governments and systems following a cycle seems accurate to me, nothing lasts forever. I'll be dead and gone before Western supremacy ends though, these things take a long, long time.
Guidance, I wouldn't feign a lack of understanding - it's just something I don't do. I was serious about not understanding. I think I get the gist, but I'd rather know for sure. You obviously like the idea that we're on different wavelengths, which is ok with me. Whatever turns you on mi fren!
Shaggybear, the point about minerals etc. is that the poor countries do not have the skills or the technology, at present, to process them into something far more valuable. So, for the moment at least, they sell them rather than keep them. I argued earlier that the ideal scenario would be to educate the people in processing these raw materials themselves.
There are many charitable organisations in the "evil" west who campaign tirelessly for the development I mentioned above. One example is in cocoa production. I watched a programme on TV where a group of westerners were arguing that the whole process of making chocolate (for example) could be carried-out in the region where the beans were picked. Instead, the beans are only processed to the point where they can be shipped to European countries. The commodity is far cheaper in this form than it would be if the process was completed in Africa and the resulting chocolate exported instead. Some reasons (to do with poor infrastructure and lack of machinary) were given....I can't remember the details, it was a long time ago. It is frustrating that African governments can't/don't use the aid/loans they receive to invest in schemes such as this.
bwot hl...I not going to lie to you. I honestly believe that money going into Africa, the ruler and his cronies who cover for him have to get his cut first (corruption and theft) before it makes its way down to the people, not that this doesn't happen in the west as well, but in the west people have time and resources and won't be threatened with decapitation if they check. In Africa the people are more worried about what to eat. So the leaders often times contribute to the decimation of their countries. But its a cycle, if Africa was healthy, it could not go on as it readily might now.
As far as the mineral thing, you can give a man the knowledge in schools, but the real expense comes in setting up the industrial equipment to process the minerals. Jamaica doesn't have the money to do that and in the past (and today I believe) the processing into aluminium was done overseas. They're not going to give that money or technology to Jamaica. Why would they.
Don't get me wrong. This is not a violin pull your heartstring story by any means. It is just a relation of what I know to be fact and ****ed up behavior. It is some insight into why many of the thrid world nations remain third world nations. But believe me, it will change. And the change will start in the US. The help will not come from the US government as you know it though.
Off on tangent because it just came to me:
I give you an example of bull**** that I just remembered. I know some Ites here saw the same program because I brought this up some months ago (yes this has been discussed before).
Diamonds, hardest substance on earth. Beautiful. Overvalued. Controlled by DeBeers. (European). Once Zaire (I believe) attempted to take over their own diamond industry and to benefit from it....what did DeBeers do....they flooded the market with the type of Diamonds produced by Zaire so that Zaire's diamonds became worthless. Zaire had to capitulate and fall into line behind DeBeers.
DeBeers is a cartel with no offices in America because they violate Americas antitrust laws. With all the EU coming together and with its very active antitrust arm, why doesn't it go after DeBeers?
Anyway...back to ball. We can only try to make the white brothers understand because I know most are completely unaware. You really cannot get a proper discussion here. I know I have not properly laid out arguments. It really would take a lot of time which I don't have the inclination to give right now. Though I would really want everyone to understand I can only say for now that it will get better.
_________________________
Obama/Biden 2012 - We need people who actually think in charge, though they should learn to lead!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 234
Loc: Miami, FL USA
Offline
I know yall think all i do is come on here to disagree at any cost, but that is not the case. The problem here is that most of you are idealists. You talk about how things should be or used to be, or why can't mankind take care of each other. If life was like that it would be great, but that can never and will never be. That is why capitalism is the best economic theory. Each man looks out for himself but ends up helping everyone in the big picture.
Terminator came the closest to hitting the nail on its head. geographical borders are becomiing more irrelivant everyday. Third world countries feel that power is attained with gun. Russia's collapse is evidence that joining the world economic flow is the way to go.
I knew it. As soon as I called for democratic intervention via the state, I knew someone would say sounds like communism. I am NOT advocating communism. Communism is the ultimate form of state intervention but state intervention is NOT communism.
The US has effectively through having PR allowed people to think state intervention is communism/socialism. Therefore, they resist any form of state intervention and hand power over to the companies. But no one voted for Shell or Ford so that in itself is anti-democratic.
It is state intervention that allowed the US, Western Europe, Japan, Soviet Union(though regrettably since this state intervention took the form of communism) and the Asian Tigers to grow to where they were or are. It was actually the betrayal of state intervention (i.e. adopting the Clinton/Washington consensus/ideal of the free market) that led to the slump in the Asian crisis.
If it was good enough for them, why not good enough for the rest of the world? Of course not, the corporate interests that actually control government through campaing funding and lobbying groups don't want economic challengers, they want economic dependents.
Therefore, those countries that try to go their own way are opposed as some form of threat were Western direct action is needed. Unless governments support "liberalisation" they'll find themsleves isolated.
Quote:
I don't even know where to start with this one but I am not buying into this conspiracy theory in regards to the develop nation deliberately destroying the underdeveloped economies of the world. The world is now a global economy which means that our economies are also America's economy. Don't think of America as a country but has a corporation who is always looking to expand its market shares, if these markets are underdeveloped hence the people can't afford their goods and services then the corporation can't increase its profit. So it is in the best interest of America to have healthy economies around the world that can purchase it goods and services, destroying these economies is the same as killing your customers
First of all, the world has been a global economy for centuries. This idea didn't just pop up over the last few decades. As I said before, what happened many years ago is that the democratically elected state took the lead on where a countries economy headed. Now it is the undemocratic and uncompromising corporation that lead where the economy is going.
The problem with your idea is the US, through its national interests, (which as I said before is more or less its corporate interest) IS destroying economies all over the world.
Everyone likes to claim that economies are getting better but more is being concentrated into a rich few and the people in the villages are getting poorer and starving. By stifling local industry and making them reliant on cheap subsidised imports from highly industrialised countries, the profit margin of the country increases.
Yes our leaders have failed us but they are mere pawns in a bigger game. The big players of this system are the US and Western Europe. The history of world economics and how they have exported their brand of it around the world UNDENIABLY shows that are the main ones to blame. Those who don’t want to see it are either foolhardy or ignorant of the facts. Or both.
So all who oppose the current economic viewpoint are idealists? No I believe in true democracy that all citizens have a right in determining how our world moves forward. I would love to see a world where a man is not judged on his skin colour. That's an ideal that may never come true but that doesn't mean I must not strive for it. Ideals are things all strive for.
How many people here really think they have influence on government policy? They trot us out every few year to vote and that is only when they really care about us. We've allowed our governments to sell our destinies to undemocratic corporations who exist only to support their shareholders.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a rate never before seen in history. I agree that there will always be rich and poor just like tall and short, big and small but as a civilised set of people we should be supporting economic systems that decreased the gap and do its best to remove it. The current free market/WTO/Clinton-Washington consensus/ neo-liberal global order categorically does NOT help the average man of the world but the privileged of the world.
Economists cheer at economic success stories, but they never tell you that behind the new millionaires and increased national growth, there are a few million people having to work longer hours for lower wages, unable to form unions and with no say in how their company works.
No one points out the strident moves from Western governments to destabilise countries through terror, rigging elections etc.. to put in place their man who will "liberalise" the economy. i.e. make it easier for the West to exploit.
The post war social and economic history of Latin America and the Caribbean reads like a US led campaign of terrorism and subversion in order to acheive total control over the economies of these nations.
Governments that propose any form of national self sufficiency and moving forward as a people are removed either through funding of its supporters, terrorism (as so strongly in the case of Nicaragua) or just sanctions.
Look at Jamaica (that which we know so well), Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Brazil, Mexico, Columbia, Grenada. You don't even need to go across the Atlantic to Africa. When you have finished researching these then let us say that ONLY our leaders are to blame.
[This message has been edited by Chez (edited 09-20-2001).]
The average North American consumes 5 times more than a Mexican, 10 times more than c Chinaman, and 30 times that of an Indian.
In 1997, a Canadian organisation called Adbusters made an advertisement putting forward this FACT and proclaimed Nov. 28 as "Buy Nothing Day".
NBC response: We don't want to take any advertising that's inimcal to our legitimate business inerests.
CBS response: Buy Nothing Day is in opposition to the current economic policy of the US"
Fine ok! Let's also remember that General Electric own NBC and Westinghouse own CBS.
The big boys not only own the governments they also own the fourth estate, the press.
The 100 largest multi-national corporations now control about 20% of global assets. 51 of the 100 biggest economies are corporations.
The sales of GM and Ford are greater than the GDP of the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa.
The assets of IBM, BP and General Electric outstrip those of most small nations.
Wal-Mart has higher revenues than most Central and Eastern European states including Poland, Czech Rep, Ukraine, Hungary, Slovakia and Romania.
Not only that but they are merging too.
Vodafone with Mannesmann AOl and Time Warner Smithkline Beecham and Glaxo Wellcome.
All our goods and services are ncrasingly coming under their even more powerful godfather-like control. In a heart beat they can strangle us.
These same guys run the "free" market and yet some actually belive that's great thing!!!
My whole attack is not an attack on rich nations but an attack on rich corporation and individuals and how they attack us all.
Even in the US, whose government policy ( which I state again is influenced by corporate interests) I am so critical of, from 1988 to 1998, the income of the poorest americans rose 1%, the richest by 15%.
$40bn can be found to foght terrorism instantly but the UN states that only $9bn is needed to provide clean drinking water to all.
Capitalism claims to be the best system because it looks out for the all.
Rubbish.
The spoils of capitalism as its run now are shared by the few.
To quote Malcolm X
Quote:
It is impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism needs some blood to ****. Capitalism used to be like an eagle, but now it's more like a vulture. It used to be strong enough to go and **** anybody's blood whether they were strong or not. But now it has become more cowardly, like the vulture, and it can only **** the blood of the helpless. As the nations of the world free themselves, the capitalism has less victims, less to ****, and it becomes weaker and weaker. It's only a matter of time in my opinion before it will collapse completely
Unfortunately we are doing less to free ourselves but accepting the confines in which it places us.
shaggybear, thanks for the bit about The Seychelles. I don't know your figars include tourism. I noticed I wasn't the only guy on holiday there! But I'm sure the hard currency from tourism would help with the balance of payments.
As for their leader I thought he was black but I must confess to really knowing its just I thought I'd seen his picture about. I know their foreign minister was as I played backgammon with him.
HL, Have to disagree with you on the mineral thing. Its not rocket science to extract aluminuim from bauxite and the added value should go the country who owns the ore. However as discussed Ja sold the rights to the ore so now just get shafted.
