This is pretty disturbing>>

American · Jun 2, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
I do realise that many third world nations have faced corruption and such but this isn't true in all cases and certainly does not diminish my argument that developed countries are clearly making their poverty worse. In fact, I would argue that the latter, not the former, is more common today and is fast becoming the norm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The U.S. gives away billions of dollars in foreign aid anually to these poor third world countries that your heart bleeds so profusely for. That's money that could be instumental in solving some of our own problems. America is doing more than it's share to ease the third world plight, as far as I'm concerned.

xpanda · Jun 2, 2004

Okay, so here is where we could probably find the source of solutions that work for everyone, and will likely see actual benefits realised.

Aid money that our countries give is, essentially, just welfare. From what I can see, welfare has never really worked domestically as a long-term, single-source solution, so why would it work internationally? Opportunity is and always has been the reason why you and I have the luxury of sitting in front of pcs arguing about things we can't change anyway. What if we could say to Jamaica, for example, that we will discontinue subsidising ALL of our agri-businesses which would allow them to sell their products to us? Then, you and I will see the price of our produce decrease, while production goes up in Jamaica. Suddenly, a job market exists for them, increasing their prosperity, which in turn makes them able to buy American (and other) products that they could otherwise not afford. If we're going to have discussions about Free Trade all the time, then let's have a discussion about truly FREE trade, not lopsided let-me-know-if-this-hurts kinda trade.

While my motivation for this thought process is the result of my bleeding heartedness, it's also a concept that most right-wingers would wholeheartedly embrace. I'm not too sure I understand why you're fighting me on it.

American · Jun 2, 2004

What you are proposing is that strong countries bend there knees a little to help these third world struggling economies out, so that eventually the world will be a better place for everyone. It's a nice thought, but that's not going to happen because that would require TRUST between the cultures and nations. Different cultures and nations don't TRUST each other, if you haven't noticed. The welfare handouts that the U.S. gives to these third worlders is as good as it's going to get. At least these handouts by them some time to work out their own problems.

Oceans11 · Jun 2, 2004

Why do you neocon lunkheads think that you have so many problems with the middle east compared to other 'lesser nation' areas??

Its because can't outsource the oil to another area, you're stuck with the darn place.

You've had to drop the drivel and bullshit, and invade the place.

With human labour you can move the capital base around, and find another poverty stricken area to exploit.
Play them off against each other, bait and switch, fuk em.
(caring capitalism

)

You can't do that with the oil though chucks.
You've had to send the redcoats and the f-16 gunboats in there.

...actually...its not unlike the opium war between the UK and China.

Welcome to reality.

Oceans11 · Jun 2, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by American:
America is doing more than it's share to ease the third world plight, as far as I'm concerned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bollox.

Bollox
Bollox Bollox Bollox
Bollox
Bollox

-------------------------------

The thing is, I wouldn't mind if you just told the truth, for once.

Its the patronising assumption that we're all idiots.

Just say it how it is man.
Try it on.

"I'm a scumbag empire builder that starves, humiliates and kills poor people and if you don't like it thats tough shit, u asshole liberal fag."

[This message was edited by eek on June 02, 2004 at 08:48 PM.]

American · Jun 2, 2004

That's a nice graph...but what's your point? Net development assistance....how much is American handing out to these countries that falls into a category other than "development assistance"? Statistics lie. You could probably come up with another graph that would indicate the U.S. is the most benevolent country in history if you wanted.

Oceans11 · Jun 2, 2004

Its the first step to admitting your illness...

"Hello everybody, my name is American, and I'm an alchoholic..."

American · Jun 2, 2004

Sounds like you're familiar with AA meetings. You and your mother probably go to them together.

Oceans11 · Jun 2, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Sounds like you're familiar with AA meetings. You and your mother probably go to them together.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yikes

You've got what you deserve man, why do you think the entire world is shrugging its shoulders and turning away as you knock on doors looking for help?

'Theres no hope for him, let him crash and burn or he'll just do it again and again..'

-------------------------

But its a hollow victory when you get humiliated.(And pointless)

Clinton proved that the US can lead the civilised world and it can be trusted to do the right thing much of the time.
(No one gets it right all the time. Thats life.)

At the moment tho, the US is a loose cannon, and everyone is staying at a safe-ish distance.

xpanda · Jun 3, 2004

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by American:
What you are proposing is that strong countries bend there knees a little to help these third world struggling economies out, so that eventually the world will be a better place for everyone. It's a nice thought, but that's not going to happen because that would require TRUST between the cultures and nations. Different cultures and nations don't TRUST each other, if you haven't noticed. The welfare handouts that the U.S. gives to these third worlders is as good as it's going to get. At least these handouts by them some time to work out their own problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you are completely misunderstanding me. This is not about trust or about do-gooder-ness; this is about pure, blatant hypocrisy.

Let's say that you and I are going to discuss doing business together. Imagine also an unreal scenario in which our customer base consists solely of our employees.

In the deal that you draft, you say that your business must now be the sole provider of the widgets that my company currently produces for our own supply. Thus, I will stop making widgets and you will sell me your widgets. Now, so far I have gained little except perhaps a small price advantage. But, I have had to unemploy those widget producers and, since my employees are my only customers, I'm noticing that my revenue is slipping. To combat this problem, I raise the point that maybe your company could let me be the sole provider of thingamabobs, which my company currently manufacturers. You say no to this trade condition, and continue to sell me your widgets. Since my revenues are steadily declining because I've laid off some my customers, I am now forced to lay off some of my thingamabob manufacturers. Eventually, I am forced into bankruptcy.

Do you see now?

This is not about charity or welfare or aid or anything of the sort. It's about diplomatic trade relations between nations. The current structure, in large part to blame on the IMF (in which 17.5% of the vote goes to the US alone, Japan is #2 with 6.25% of the votes) who routinely insist on poor countries opening their markets but do not insist on rich countries doing the same. Such double-standards should not come from developed nations such as ours.

Further, what I am proposing is that free trade be given a fair shot. This is right-wing think-speak so, again, I fail to understand why you're fighting me on this.