[Changleen]

The G7 take a huge step to help Africa and other poor nations having a chance to step out of the dark ages. Brilliant! However, Gordon Brown's (UK Chancellor) plan was prevented from getting 100% of what it wanted in terms of extra aid by one country only...

LONDON (Reuters) - The Group of Seven wealthy nations on Saturday pledged to help rid the world's poorest countries of their crippling debt, launching a program that fell short of the immediate action demanded by Africa.

British finance minister Gordon Brown, hosting G7 talks in London this weekend, failed to secure U.S. backing for his proposals to stump up an extra $50 billion a year for poor countries and to completely write off their debts.

A compromise deal pledged only that the G7 would look at cancelling up to 100 percent of the debts owed to international institutions by the poorest countries on an individual basis.

Brown, who has declared 2005 as a make or break year for Africa, still hailed the deal as a major break-through. "This will be seen as the 100 percent debt relief summit," he said.

Aid organizations also saw the agreement as an important first step but they wanted to see words turn into action.

"It's better than expected but short of what it could have been, said Romilly Greenhill of ActionAid International.

The case-by-case approach may also disappoint former South African leader Nelson Mandela who launched a direct, passionate appeal for immediate debt relief to the G7 before their talks.

Mandela called for comprehensive aid now - "not just small amounts now and again, here and there." The 86-year-old political prisoner-turned democracy champion was blunt. "Do not delay while poor people continue to suffer."

I don't get the US attitude to this. With Africa introduced properly to the family of productive nations, and with it's vast natural resources, the entire world, especially the west, and even more so America (still the World's bank) have SO MUCH to potentially gain. But the US is unwilling to take that extra step which will actually enable this to really get a jump off the line, and it's always been the US who has been the principal opponent to this type of complete 3rd world debt relief.

Al this aside, even complete debt relief for these countries won't mean much until they are able to trade on equal terms with the west, which means the scrapping of EU and US agriculture subsidies. The EU has made steps towards this in terms of reducing subsidies on certain bulk crops, but the US has made no such moves and doesn't seem likely to ever do so under a republican government.

 

[valve bouncer]

Damn, does this mean no more cheap Nikes?
OECD countries need to get together and come up with a comprehensive plan of development aid for the third world. Can't see it happening though, the West doesn't really care about what happens in the third world, certainly not to the point of ensuring poor countries have the means to lift themselves up and out. Seems to suit the West to have a large number of countries struggling mightily. If we were truly concerned we would do something about. We certainly have the ability, just not the will.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I can't say I know a whole lot about this subject, but I did hear an interesting idea concerning the debt of many African nations. The debt that the Western nations "hold over" these 3rd world nations is essentially the 21st century version of slavery, just packaged differently.

 

[Silver]

You mean no more huge profits for Nike. I haven't seen their labor costs reflected in their shoe prices, have you?

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

You mean no more huge profits for Nike. I haven't seen their labor costs reflected in their shoe prices, have you?

dude, my dad had a client who makes shirts for tommy hilfiger here.
he gets around 4 bucks per shirt, they end up costing 70 bucks in the US...
66 bucks markup... niiiiiiiiiiiiiice...
the laborers get paid around 140 bucks a month for 10 hour shifts....
and the govmt wants to scrap their work rights and benefits "to make us more competitive in the world market"... which means, turn laborers in to slaves so we can compete with china`s slaves... nice race to the bottom....

and the most ironic thing.. these peruvian made shirts go to the US to get tommy hilfiger`s OK, then they come back to peru`s trendy malls and they sell here for 90 bucks... idiotic.... same thing with shoes and lots of stuff...

 

[Changleen]

Damn, does this mean no more cheap Nikes?
OECD countries need to get together and come up with a comprehensive plan of development aid for the third world. Can't see it happening though, the West doesn't really care about what happens in the third world, certainly not to the point of ensuring poor countries have the means to lift themselves up and out. Seems to suit the West to have a large number of countries struggling mightily. If we were truly concerned we would do something about. We certainly have the ability, just not the will.

I don't buy that because of the potenial amount of money we could be making from them... There must be a reason to impede their progress. I'd like to have an idea of the world bank's agenda towards these places. After all Africa apparantly has an extremly high density of natural resources of every type just waiting to be properly tapped. Why not go ahead and do it? I also can't believe it's anything as petty as 'racism' - money, or profits to be more precise, certainly aren't racist. I can't think of a good reason not to help Africa become a fully fledged world trading partner with all it has to offer. Anyone?

 

[ohio]

I'm not arguing against debt relief. I don't know enough about the subject to express an opinion, but as far as I understand, thew general argument against this type of debt relief is that it doesn't actually make it to the people of the country. Much like Oil For Food, if the government is corrupt, the bulk of this "aid" (in this case, internal funds freed up by the reduction in debt) go to corrupt government officials and off-shore accounts. Providing the aid without solving the root cause is somewhat a waste of money.

Again, this is not my opinion. I can't substantiate the argument. But I believe it answers your questions.

 

[Silver]

I'm not arguing against debt relief. I don't know enough about the subject to express an opinion, but as far as I understand, thew general argument against this type of debt relief is that it doesn't actually make it to the people of the country. Much like Oil For Food, if the government is corrupt, the bulk of this "aid" (in this case, internal funds freed up by the reduction in debt) go to corrupt government officials and off-shore accounts. Providing the aid without solving the root cause is somewhat a waste of money.

Again, this is not my opinion. I can't substantiate the argument. But I believe it answers your questions.

The flipside of that is don't lend to corrupt governments and then demand to get paid back when said corrupt leader gets deposed/couped/expired out of office.

How many democracies in the third world has the first world lent money to? There's a reason that returns tend to be higher, you pay for the risk that the guy you lend to may not be there tomorrow.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I'm not arguing against debt relief. I don't know enough about the subject to express an opinion, but as far as I understand, thew general argument against this type of debt relief is that it doesn't actually make it to the people of the country. Much like Oil For Food, if the government is corrupt, the bulk of this "aid" (in this case, internal funds freed up by the reduction in debt) go to corrupt government officials and off-shore accounts. Providing the aid without solving the root cause is somewhat a waste of money.

Again, this is not my opinion. I can't substantiate the argument. But I believe it answers your questions.

corruption is not necesarilly the root cause IMO, nor the biggest problem.
IMO corruption, as big of a problem it is, is more of a bogeyman when compared to other money leaks in third world governments.

even at the crippling levels of corruption in countries like peru, or nicaragua its % of the GNP is not even close as the % from the GNP that goes to debt....

i read an article on the TRUE effects of corruption on the national economy in the MOST CORRUPT period in peru`s history. 1985-2000. and around 4% of the national gnp and privatization during that period was un-accounted for (which means it was sucked by corruption). 32% of the national budget of peru goes to debt. that is the biggest single expense of the gvmt.
corruption`s 4% is far from the 32% the biggest single expense of the gvmt is.

stealing more than 10% of a nations gnp for a sustained period of time would be quite difficult to hide IMO.

i assume the situation of peru, and its debt and corruption levels is roughly alike in all south america, and probably is most of the third world.

 

[fluff]

I'm not arguing against debt relief. I don't know enough about the subject to express an opinion, but as far as I understand, thew general argument against this type of debt relief is that it doesn't actually make it to the people of the country. Much like Oil For Food, if the government is corrupt, the bulk of this "aid" (in this case, internal funds freed up by the reduction in debt) go to corrupt government officials and off-shore accounts. Providing the aid without solving the root cause is somewhat a waste of money.

Again, this is not my opinion. I can't substantiate the argument. But I believe it answers your questions.

It's an excuse and not a very good one at that. Debt relief will almost certainly reach the people, they're the ones who end up paying for corrupt regimes long after they're gone. $100,000,000 wiped off debt is worth far more than the same amount in aid in most cases.

 

[N8 v2.0]

What we really need is relief from third world countries who either, can not or will not, modernize.

 

[fluff]

What we really need is relief from third world countries who either, can not or will not, modernize.

Cisco - empowering the stupid generation.

 

[BigHit-Maniac]

Cisco - empowering the stupid generation.

:mumble:


With all the opportunities these "third world countries" are offered... they COULD get someplace with themselves... but they constantly delay for many reasons.

Religion is one of them (and I'm not even going down that road).

 

[fluff]

:mumble:


With all the opportunities these "third world countries" are offered... they COULD get someplace with themselves... but they constantly delay for many reasons.

Religion is one of them (and I'm not even going down that road).

Go on then - back up your post. Give us some reasoning and examples, not just generalized blanket statements.

 

[valve bouncer]

Go on then - back up your post. Give us some reasoning and examples, not just generalized blanket statements.

That'll be the last we hear of him in this thread.

 

[JRogers]

:mumble:


With all the opportunities these "third world countries" are offered... they COULD get someplace with themselves... but they constantly delay for many reasons.

Religion is one of them (and I'm not even going down that road).

Sure, entire countries delay their own advancement on purpose. The West has been a loving grandfather to these places and they don't even realize it.

Please.

 

[ohio]

i read an article on the TRUE effects of corruption on the national economy in the MOST CORRUPT period in peru`s history. 1985-2000. and around 4% of the national gnp and privatization during that period was un-accounted for (which means it was sucked by corruption). 32% of the national budget of peru goes to debt. that is the biggest single expense of the gvmt.
corruption`s 4% is far from the 32% the biggest single expense of the gvmt is.

Makes sense to me. The numbers you've posted seem reasonable and given that assumption, I would agree that corruption is a poor excuse to avoid debt relief.

At the same time, could that 50 billion be better "spent" (again quotations, because we would be in effect spending money), on direct involvement in building infrastructure? Again, I'm not implying an answer here, just posing a question. This is an area well outside my knowledge.

 

[Changleen]

I'm not arguing against debt relief. I don't know enough about the subject to express an opinion, but as far as I understand, thew general argument against this type of debt relief is that it doesn't actually make it to the people of the country. Much like Oil For Food, if the government is corrupt, the bulk of this "aid" (in this case, internal funds freed up by the reduction in debt) go to corrupt government officials and off-shore accounts. Providing the aid without solving the root cause is somewhat a waste of money.

Again, this is not my opinion. I can't substantiate the argument. But I believe it answers your questions.

The G7 agreement provides for 2 things: 1) (Hopefully) getting on for 100% of Debt relief meaning we no longer require these countries to pay us back the money they owe us. There is no chance for corruption to have anything to do with it - it'll just mean that these poor countries have a lot more of their hard earned at the end of the month. Imagine if I was to let you off your credit card debt - Basically the same thing. Since some of these countries spend 30 - 90% of their GDP on financing these debts, it should make quite a difference.
2) Finacial Aid increases. This is where corruption may be a problem, although hopefully, (hoping against human greed here) as these countries now have more cash floating around all of a sudden, the effects of corruption will be minimised.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Does anyone ever think about Ayn Rand and the many points she tried to make about "sacrificing our wealth for the greater good" "helping those less fortunate" "give others' a chance to provide us the things that we need"

Sorry - Rereading Atlas Shrugged for the zillionth time...every time I read it, I'm a little older, a little more jaded, and a little less of the idealistic youth that wanted to save the world, and more about enjoying what is mine, and what I've earned and to hell with everyone else

 

[Silver]

Does anyone ever think about Ayn Rand and the many points she tried to make about "sacrificing our wealth for the greater good" "helping those less fortunate" "give others' a chance to provide us the things that we need"

Sorry - Rereading Atlas Shrugged for the zillionth time...every time I read it, I'm a little older, a little more jaded, and a little less of the idealistic youth that wanted to save the world, and more about enjoying what is mine, and what I've earned and to hell with everyone else

You need a Randroid:

Need advice about your latest megalomaniacal scheme? If only you could ask history's greatest megalomaniac, "novelist" and "philosopher" Ayn Rand. Too bad she's dead. But wait! In 1963, a secret cabal of Objectivists intent on taking over the Student Union at MIT built the first robotic Ayn Rand, and now you can own a Randroid® based on their original design. Comes with stock phrases such as "Morality ends where the gun begins," "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent," and "Nathaniel! Bring me another gin and tonic!" (1)

Price: US$50,000 includes software*
*software tends to be rather buggy. For instance, your Randroid may oppose immigration, yet be an immigrant herself. She may oppose infidelity, yet cheat on her husband. She may espouse individuality, yet believe that only those who follow her are individuals. She may oppose the control of individuals by organizations, yet laud corporate power. These bugs can not be repaired.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

You need a Randroid:

Okay...well what about being a Hobbesian Capitalist snob and I disagree with social welfare systems in general and believe it's all about being cutthroat and the strongest surviving... Also believing that the trickle down theory seems better than give to the rich so the rich can pocket the money for themselves to spend in other 1st world nations' and pump up their economy?

 

[ohio]

There is no chance for corruption to have anything to do with it - it'll just mean that these poor countries have a lot more of their hard earned at the end of the month. Imagine if I was to let you off your credit card debt - Basically the same thing.

After reading Alexis's post, I'm actually on your side, but the above statement is wrong. If cash that would have been designated to interest payments was instead going elsewhere, there is room for skimming/stealing. A negative balance is not the same as no cash.

To use your analogy, just because I have a credit balance, doesn't mean I'm not carrying cash in my wallet that can be stolen. AND, if you relieve me of that debt, the money that I was directing to my interest payments is still flowing, only now more liberally, and along a less-structured path... where it is more exposed to skimming/stealing/misappropriation.

 

[Changleen]

After reading Alexis's post, I'm actually on your side, but the above statement is wrong. If cash that would have been designated to interest payments was instead going elsewhere, there is room for skimming/stealing. A negative balance is not the same as no cash.

To use your analogy, just because I have a credit balance, doesn't mean I'm not carrying cash in my wallet that can be stolen. AND, if you relieve me of that debt, the money that I was directing to my interest payments is still flowing, only now more liberally, and along a less-structured path... where it is more exposed to skimming/stealing/misappropriation.

Ah, I think we're both saying the same thing... You're talking about what the country would do with it's newfound cash now that it doesn't have to pay it's debts off. In that case I agree, there is more cash floating around and therefore more potential for it's abuse, but one has to hope that even with a certain degree of 'invisible overheads' being encountered that more of it does go towards genuine development - as you said earlier.

 

[fluff]

Corruption is irrelevant, the reluctance to offer debt relief rather than aid is due more to the leverage that can be exacted when someone owes you money and you give them aid. This goes when they can stand on their own two feet. Once they can stand on their own two feet they might do things that are in their own best interests...

 

[ohio]

Corruption is irrelevant, the reluctance to offer debt relief rather than aid is due more to the leverage that can be exacted when someone owes you money and you give them aid. This goes when they can stand on their own two feet. Once they can stand on their own two feet they might do things that are in their own best interests...

So I'm following you on corruption being irrelevant, but as for the US being motivated by leverage/control, I don't buy that. Right now, these countries have nothing to offer the West. If this leverage is so important, what are we using it for? These aren't even our low-cost labor centers; these places are (economically and politically speaking) nothing but a drain right now. Of course we would want them to "stand on their own two feet." There needs to be another reason.

 

[fluff]

So I'm following you on corruption being irrelevant, but as for the US being motivated by leverage/control, I don't buy that. Right now, these countries have nothing to offer the West. If this leverage is so important, what are we using it for? These aren't even our low-cost labor centers; these places are (economically and politically speaking) nothing but a drain right now. Of course we would want them to "stand on their own two feet." There needs to be another reason.

Well, we can dump our excess produce on 'em, stop 'em from becoming a threat, use their populace as nigh-on slave labor...

...and that's off the top of my head. I may even get off my fat ass and do some detailed research.

Why do we not _really_ help them if we want them to stand on their own two feet?

 

[BigHit-Maniac]

That'll be the last we hear of him in this thread.

Or not. :eviltongu

What I'm saying is that even though advanced countries pump billions of dollars into "third world" countries... it all winds up in the pockets of the elite 10% of their populations. It's called government corruption at it's finest.

Look at Peru, and countries with high "slave" labor (not actual slaves, but they're damned close to it). Look at the countires that the U.S has dumped money into, only for war-lords and "government" officials to suck all the money, and the average joe to not see a dollar of relief.

I even sat through 2 semesters in college on the very topic, so I'm not pulling it completely out of my ass..

Sorry if you disagree, but it's pretty much been proven by many countries within Africa, Southeast Asia, etc.

Oh well. :nuts:

 

[fluff]

Or not. :eviltongu

What I'm saying is that even though advanced countries pump billions of dollars into "third world" countries... it all winds up in the pockets of the elite 10% of their populations. It's called government corruption at it's finest.

Look at Peru, and countries with high "slave" labor (not actual slaves, but they're damned close to it). Look at the countires that the U.S has dumped money into, only for war-lords and "government" officials to suck all the money, and the average joe to not see a dollar of relief.

I even sat through 2 semesters in college on the very topic, so I'm not pulling it completely out of my ass..

Sorry if you disagree, but it's pretty much been proven by many countries within Africa, Southeast Asia, etc.

Oh well. :nuts:

Have you read Alex's post about Peru? Pretty much contradicts yours.

C'mon, give us some evidence not a 'I'm right because I say I am' statement.

Two semesters is bugger all frankly.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

So I'm following you on corruption being irrelevant, but as for the US being motivated by leverage/control, I don't buy that. Right now, these countries have nothing to offer the West. If this leverage is so important, what are we using it for? These aren't even our low-cost labor centers; these places are (economically and politically speaking) nothing but a drain right now. Of course we would want them to "stand on their own two feet." There needs to be another reason.

of course is for leverage.
3rd world economies might be tiny in terms of % for the US markets... but when you think about it.. peru have around 2.5 billion dollars a year trade with the US.
2.5 billion bucks might not be a lot in terms of the whole US economy.. but think about the fact that this 2.5 billion dollars are product of very few items which are controlled by very few importers in the US.
so that means its very little for the US as a whole, but is everything for those importers... and 2.5 billion bucks is enough for those importers to make lobbies...

why do you think there are currently negotiation for a free trade treaty? i

i mean if we are so small, why would the US as a whole care about a trade treaty with peru?...
truth is, its not the US as a whole.., is a lobby of a few US importers using the leverage of the whole US market.....

and if you add up all the tiny economies adding up 2 billion bucks each.. there is a lot of money in game for those US importers. more than enough to make lobbies and to protect whatever leverage they might get...

it doesnt matter how small it is for the US, or if it doesnt affects 99.9% of the US populaiton.
as long as somebody gets a lot of money from it, he/she will defend it as much as posible and use the WHOLE US as a leverage weapon....

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

according to the Department of Economics and Finance from Peru.
http://www.mef.gob.pe/propuesta/DGCP/cuadros/deuda2004setiembre/DE_ADEUDADO_POR_PAISES_AL_300904.pdf


the external debt is around 22 billion dollars.

a little pointer for those who say its their money and they arent giving it up and stuff.

in 1979 the entire external debt of the whole South America was 191 billion dollars. in the next 10 years, SA paid 350 billion dollars in interests and payments of the capital...
in the end, the debt in 1990 was 480 billion dollars.

in 1990 with the coming of the fake neoliberal wave. it was said debt was going to stop being such a problem with the money from privatization and raising taxes.
in the next 9 years, SouthAmerica paid 815 billion dollars. but in 1999 the debt still grew to 750 billion dollars. :nuts:


with the sources.
http://www.geocities.com/alangarcia_peru/cuadros2.htm


about those who talk how "aid" money goes to elites. that is not completely truth.
a small % might, but the biggest chunk always go to where it is supossed to go.
3rd world countries budgets are very limited. i´ve been trying to find peru`s but i dont see it listed.
the main expenses are debt payment (32%) social welfare (health care, education, soup kitchens), which cannot be cut, because as it is, teachers get paid 200 bucks a month, and if you cut the health care people will start dying like flies. soup kitchens are not for bums like the ones in the US. here they are for poor kids under 6, pregnant moms and seniors over 70, or people with TBC. so it cannot be cut because those people will starve. its subsidized meals for working people making less than 100 dollars a month and their kids.
defense is 7% (and that includes cops), the judicial system is 1.9%.

there is very little you can do to trim it down, other than the huge 32% of debt....

 

[ohio]

Well, we can dump our excess produce on 'em, stop 'em from becoming a threat, use their populace as nigh-on slave labor...

...and that's off the top of my head. I may even get off my fat ass and do some detailed research.

Why do we not _really_ help them if we want them to stand on their own two feet?

How is dumping our excess produce on them a benefit? If we're "dumping it" it costs us the same to let it rot in the fields. If we're selling it, it makes sense for them to be as economically viable as possible. What's the point of selling them a good if we do it on bad credit? That just leads us to where we are now... and we end up paying for the goods ourselves.

The labor argument may apply to some of the countries in question (mostly South Am. where there are unique goods/resources) but not to the African nations.

In terms "becoming a threat," do you mean economically or politically/militarily (in the form of terrorism)? If you mean economically, I don't buy it. We would certainly prefer a mutually beneficial trade partner over a money sink. If you mean politically, I still don't buy it. Poverty that can be blamed (rightly or not) on the US leads to the resentment that breeds our worst enemies.

I'm not arguing this to be a dick. I'm hoping someone from the other side will chime in, because there HAS to be a better reason for the US stonewalling this.

 

[Changleen]

So I'm following you on corruption being irrelevant, but as for the US being motivated by leverage/control, I don't buy that. Right now, these countries have nothing to offer the West.

Um, I might disagree with that - As I said, Africa is reconed to have the highest concentration of natural resources in the world. They got it all - oil, minerals, gold, diamonds, iron, tin, zinc, coal... They may not have effecient mines and processing facilities but n global business terms they are ripe for the picking.

If this leverage is so important, what are we using it for? These aren't even our low-cost labor centers; these places are (economically and politically speaking) nothing but a drain right now. Of course we would want them to "stand on their own two feet." There needs to be another reason.

They are, potentially, our next low cost labour centers once our current slaves get wise and start to demand 'rights and benefits'. Damn them. :devil:

Maybe that's what's its all about. Maybe Africa's development is being postponed so that they can serve as the next 'bottom' layer of globalised capitalism, once we've fully exhausted South America and the Far East (Once these places have developed enough to start reducing profit margins). If we introduce them too early, we end up with no super-cheap labour pool. Pretty cynical I know, but then world finance generally is.

 

[Changleen]

Kind of off the subject, but I was reading this article the other day where a bunch of psychologists asked people about their levels of happiness throughout development. Basically people stay just as happy whatever their level of development. It didn't matter if they lived in relative poverty or were rich as ****, their average happiness was the same. They only upset came when their neighbours were much richer than them, then it became a bit of a problem, but even then most people were still happy with what they had.

 

[ohio]

Kind of off the subject, but I was reading this article the other day where a bunch of psychologists asked people about their levels of happiness throughout development. Basically people stay just as happy whatever their level of development. It didn't matter if they lived in relative poverty or were rich as ****, their average happiness was the same. They only upset came when their neighbours were much richer than them, then it became a bit of a problem, but even then most people were still happy with what they had.

Simplified but true. Same thing has been shown regarding personal wealth, through studying lottery winners.

I have a feeling that the study you mention doesn't take into account places of extreme poverty and associated famine/disease. Also, what does the study suggest about when the development trend is reversed?

 

[enkidu]

Kind of off the subject, but . . . people stay just as happy whatever their level of development. even . . . most people were still happy with what they had.

How true. My husband and I were perpetual students, moving from one university to another every four years. Movers' boxes were our furniture and our children (ages 8 and 6 years old) asked their art teachers to teach them how to make furniture with arts and craft woods to help out their clueless parents at their fancy Manhattan school. We were certainly one of the poorest families at the school among famous millionaires, but we were happy and thrilled. Those primitive hand made furniture pieces are still our most prized "property".

 

[Changleen]

Simplified but true. Same thing has been shown regarding personal wealth, through studying lottery winners.

I have a feeling that the study you mention doesn't take into account places of extreme poverty and associated famine/disease.

Yes, I suspect you are right. That can't be much fun, and more importantly, that's the situation we are actually talking about here. Although I suspect those have have stayed true to proper old school tribes are just as happy. Thinking about it, it seems the 'unhappy' situations are probably those of transition - As a country/community/region makes the change from one developmental level to another. The faster the transistion (except for overnight which never actually happens) the worse it is - As evidenced in the extreme by Iraq. Maybe that's why Capitialism has so many dissatisfied 'users'. It's not greed (well clearly a little bit, but...), it's the constant change. It's good for the progress of technology and therefore humanity as a whole but it can make it's individual people unhappy.

Also, what does the study suggest about when the development trend is reversed?

Didn't say. I suspect that is also unhappy time. It's hard to lose something once you've had it. Although I did get rid of the cable TV sport channels and that made me feel better I guess after a certain period of time you get used to the loss though.

This brings up another intersting point. Many studies have suggested that if the world is to reach sustainability, America especially and the most of the West to a certain extent will be forced to take a cut in what is currently measured as 'quality of life' (although many of these measures are based on highly materialistic standards). Personally I don't buy into that. I'm all about strip mining the solar system.

 

[ioscope]

Superpowers only feign philanthropy. They are really out to exploit the third world.

 

[fluff]

How is dumping our excess produce on them a benefit? If we're "dumping it" it costs us the same to let it rot in the fields. If we're selling it, it makes sense for them to be as economically viable as possible. What's the point of selling them a good if we do it on bad credit? That just leads us to where we are now... and we end up paying for the goods ourselves.

The labor argument may apply to some of the countries in question (mostly South Am. where there are unique goods/resources) but not to the African nations.

In terms "becoming a threat," do you mean economically or politically/militarily (in the form of terrorism)? If you mean economically, I don't buy it. We would certainly prefer a mutually beneficial trade partner over a money sink. If you mean politically, I still don't buy it. Poverty that can be blamed (rightly or not) on the US leads to the resentment that breeds our worst enemies.

I'm not arguing this to be a dick. I'm hoping someone from the other side will chime in, because there HAS to be a better reason for the US stonewalling this.

'Dumping' really means compelling another nation to take your excess produce at a certain price - more cost-effective than letting it rot in the ground and achieved through a mix of subsidies (to home producers) import tariffs and trade agreements. Also wrapped up in 'aid' packages are niceties such as privatisation of utilies which leads to profits going overseas.

The 'bad credit' argument fails as you can see from Alex's post - the debt grows....

The threat is political, not economic or military - why does the US sanction Cuba?

 

[fluff]

A poor analogy –

I own my own house outright, it’s a small house with just enough room for me and my wife and we can grow sufficient produce to live and trade a bit. We get by.

Foolishly my wife decides to become pregnant, not sure how as I’m not well educated but hey, gotta deal with a small child now. Gonna cost me, gonna need to add another room to my house etc. How can I afford this? I know, I’ll get a mortgage.

Five years down the line the child heads out to school and there's another on the way (silly wife), lots more stuff to buy, I’ve run out of money, been spending on the credit card and my mortgage payments get in arrears. Those nice people at the bank foreclose on me and my house now becomes their house (for a reduced price but hey, beggars cannot be choosers). They seel it to the chap form the posh part of town, but at least he's not entirely heartless and decides to rent it back to me (after all he needs to do something with it and no-one else wants to live in this hell-hole that appears to be economically unsustainable).

Sadly my income/expenditure is going pear shaped and my life quality is going down the pan. The bank manager has a stern word with me and lends me a bit of money to get myself sorted, but ‘cos I’m a bad risk the interest rate is high. The wife and kid keep spending my money and eating food and I’m getting more in debt.

The nice man from down the road gives me a bit of cash to help me get by. He wants me to spend it on buying stuff from him and how can I refuse.

I think I'm in trouble... still, it’s my fault for not wanting to be rich, eh?

 

[enkidu]

A poor analogy –

I own my own house outright, it’s a small house with just enough room for me and my wife and we can grow sufficient produce to live and trade a bit. We get by.

Foolishly my wife decides to become pregnant, not sure how as I’m not well educated but hey, gotta deal with a small child now. Gonna cost me, gonna need to add another room to my house etc. How can I afford this? I know, I’ll get a mortgage.

Five years down the line the child heads out to school and there's another on the way (silly wife), lots more stuff to buy, I’ve run out of money, been spending on the credit card and my mortgage payments get in arrears. Those nice people at the bank foreclose on me and my house now becomes their house (for a reduced price but hey, beggars cannot be choosers). They seel it to the chap form the posh part of town, but at least he's not entirely heartless and decides to rent it back to me (after all he needs to do something with it and no-one else wants to live in this hell-hole that appears to be economically unsustainable).

Sadly my income/expenditure is going pear shaped and my life quality is going down the pan. The bank manager has a stern word with me and lends me a bit of money to get myself sorted, but ‘cos I’m a bad risk the interest rate is high. The wife and kid keep spending my money and eating food and I’m getting more in debt.

The nice man from down the road gives me a bit of cash to help me get by. He wants me to spend it on buying stuff from him and how can I refuse.

I think I'm in trouble... still, it’s my fault for not wanting to be rich, eh?

Well, would it help if the loaded banker "adopts" your whole family personally and starts looking after the needs of your family as a part of his own household, pouring over all of his cunning financial wizardry?