If we spent some of the magical Bail-Out money feeding the hungry peeps of the planet, would making a better world buy us any street cred? by chrisisall

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

If we spent some of the magical Bail-Out money feeding the hungry peeps of the planet, would making a better world buy us any street cred?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 7, 2009 17:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3540
PAGE 3 of 3

Saturday, October 3, 2009 8:52 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So IMHO the question is: How do we BEST encourage local and national economies towards self-sufficiency, transparency, and equitalble distribution of resources?

Good question. Similar to what I've been asking above.

A lot of the poorer countries really just don't have enough effective government in place to provide the security necessary to make a start. Either they're divided by tribal/ethnic violence or the governments are kleptocracies. No Western country or organization, even given the best will in the world, can try providing such security without being called Imperialist. No private charity can accomplish much without wasting a good bit of their resources greasing palms and having to put up with inefficient or crooked government. The better-off countries in the poorer regions generally seem more interested in propping up existing governments so their buddies can fill up their Swiss bank accounts.

One solution might be just to step back from the whole thing, but I'm not sure that some countries, China for example, might not move into an aid vacuum in, say, Africa with arms as well as food, and try to do a little sphere-of-infulence-building of their own.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 8:57 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

China is more than welcome to make friends where they will.

Let them have at it.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 8:59 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I have always thought that the sending of food instead of money was more or less motivated as a backdoor farm subsidy, getting around trade agreements in a way that would draw little protest.

But in a lot of places, if you send money, it just disappears. Depends on the government of the needy country. WFP, to avoid the backdoor subsidy issue, buys food mostly from poor or middle income countries (they claim 80%), thus keeping the cash away from the U.S. or Western Europe. I suppose it also depends somewhat on how much food is available for sale in the poor and middle income countries versus how much food is needed. Maybe purchase from the Western countries is sometimes the only way to meet demand.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 9:19 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I wonder if there is also another danger...

If the generous governments of the world are buying up the food in poor countries to give as aid to desperate countries...

What does that do to the prices of food in poor countries? Can the locals still afford their groceries?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 9:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
No Western country or organization, even given the best will in the world, can try providing such security without being called Imperialist

But some western nations and many western corporations aid and abet these kleptocracies. From mineral and oil-extraction companies to the Swiss banks which hide stolen treasuries, corruption in Africa w0uld not exist without the cooperation (complicit and active) of western (AND CHINESE) powers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 9:56 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Signy,

Seems like another argument for pulling out of those countries entirely, and letting them become what they will.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 10:44 AM

DREAMTROVE

MD,

The purpose of aid is supposed to be "soft power" but often it's used as a total manipulation: If we hold the food supply, we can tell them to do what we want.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 3, 2009 11:49 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But some western nations and many western corporations aid and abet these kleptocracies.

Yep. And some Eastern nations and corporations. And some regional goverments in the poor regions.

As to Western nations and corporations, that's why I'd like to see a return to free-market capitalism, and get the government/business Corporatism link broken. Lose farm subsidies. Compete on the open market.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 4, 2009 9:19 PM

DREAMTROVE

I agree with Geezer. We need separation of Corporation and State, for the benefit of both.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 7:35 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

As to Western nations and corporations, that's why I'd like to see a return to free-market capitalism, and get the government/business Corporatism link broken.

Yeah, there's almost zero chance that anything could possibly go wrong with that kind of setup...

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 9:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yeah, what's this delusion that "free markets" have the answer to everything? I can't think of a single example of a so-called "free market" which hasn't devolved towards monopolism and economic tyranny. I can at least point to the EU as a successful model of government.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 11:27 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yeah, what's this delusion that "free markets" have the answer to everything?

They probably don't, any more than whatever system you're espousing has the answer to everything. I tend to believe that there would be less economic disruption if the government got out of cozy deals with players in the market - "free" or otherwise. Crop and dairy subsidies come to mind. I'd prefer they go back to just regulating and such.

Quote:
I can't think of a single example of a so-called "free market" which hasn't devolved towards monopolism and economic tyranny. I can at least point to the EU as a successful model of government.

Interesting, as the economies of most EU countries are generally described as "Free Enterprise", "Private Enterprise", "Free Market", "Market" or some such variation in, for example, the CIA World Factbook. So are the EU countries all economic tyrannies?

Wiki's article on the EU states:
"The EU operates a competition policy intended to ensure undistorted competition within the single market. The Commission as the competition regulator for the single market is responsible for antitrust issues, approving mergers, breaking up cartels, working for economic liberalisation and preventing state aid."

And under Economic Liberalism:
"Economic liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism. It is the political and economic philosophy that supports and promotes the economic system of capitalism, in the laissez-faire sense. Opposing government intervention in the economy, and supporting the maximum of free trade and competition, it contrasts with mercantilism, Keynesianism and socialism."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 1:00 PM

KWICKO

Quote:

Interesting, as the economies of most EU countries are generally described as "Free Enterprise", "Private Enterprise", "Free Market", "Market" or some such variation in, for example, the CIA World Factbook. So are the EU countries all economic tyrannies?

Interesting, since the tea-baggers always bring up the EU contries as the perfect example of the "socialist" agenda they DON'T want the U.S. having any part of. So are the EU countries all socialist tyrannies? Heck, I'll make it even simpler: Are ANY of the EU countries socialist tyrannies?

By the way, you want "free-market capitalism", yet you want the government to only be in it for the regulation aspects. You do realize that the second you introduce government regulation, you've tossed free-market capitalism out the window, right?

While you're looking for that shining example of a pure socialist system, see if you can find any examples of a pure free-market capitalist society in existence.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 1:15 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

We've had this discussion before. At least two times. I think it came down to describing most European countries as 'soft socialism' - regulating business, preserving the environment, and providing for the people it is elected by. (What a concept ! Government looking out for the interests of the citizens ! Unlike the US brand of crypto-capitalism - where government looks out for the interests of business on the theory that what's good for business is good for the country, and, one suggests, must therefore be good for the people.)

ETA: The distinction made was that as the US is not 'pure' capitalism but is still described as a form of capitalism, European countries are not 'pure' socialism but may be described as a form of socialism.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 1:27 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Interesting, since the tea-baggers always bring up the EU contries as the perfect example of the "socialist" agenda they DON'T want the U.S. having any part of. So are the EU countries all socialist tyrannies? Heck, I'll make it even simpler: Are ANY of the EU countries socialist tyrannies?

I've said again and again that no country in the EU has a Socialist economy - economies being what my post was about. Don't know why you'd think I believe they are Socialist at all.

Quote:
By the way, you want "free-market capitalism", yet you want the government to only be in it for the regulation aspects. You do realize that the second you introduce government regulation, you've tossed free-market capitalism out the window, right?

So maybe I want a "More-or-less Free-market Capitalism". I don't expect pure anything. "Free-Market" economic theorists posit that in a perfect "Free-Market" world there would be non-governmental mechanisms to control trusts, insure product safety and purity, etc. Since it's not a perfect world, we've developed government to do that stuff.

Quote:
While you're looking for that shining example of a pure socialist system, see if you can find any examples of a pure free-market capitalist society in existence.

Pure socialist system? Why would I look for something that doesn't exist?
Not going to find pure examples of either. However, you can find a lot more examples of more-or-less Capitalist economies than more-or-less Socialist ones.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 1:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Interesting, as the economies of most EU countries are generally described as "Free Enterprise", "Private Enterprise", "Free Market", "Market" or some such variation in, for example, the CIA World Factbook. So are the EU countries all economic tyrannies?

You want no government, right Geezer?

Quote:
As to Western nations and corporations, that's why I'd like to see a return to free-market capitalism, and get the government/business Corporatism link broken.

Or at least, that is what capito-libertarains claim to desire. So under your scheme, where is "the government" which regulates business?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 1:38 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
We've had this discussion before. I think it came down to describing most European countries as 'soft socialism' - regulating business, preserving the environment, and providing for the people it is elected by.

I describe them as Social Welfare states, but if you want to get "Socialism" in there somewhere, despite the fact their economies aren't socialist at all...

Quote:
Unlike the US brand of crypto-capitalism - where government looks out for the interests of business on the theory that what's good for business is good for the country, and, one suggests, must therefore be good for the people.)

Or what is called Corporatism, which I'd just as soon get rid of too, as I've noted above.

Although I wouldn't be surprised to find a little, or maybe more than a little, Corporatism in some EU governments. For example: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_43/b3805147.htm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 1:41 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
However, you can find a lot more examples of more-or-less Capitalist economies than more-or-less Socialist ones.

Interesting. I'd posit that if you've found a "more-or-less capitalist" society, it is by definition "more-or-less socialist" as well. The U.S. is one such example. I don't think you'll find "a lot more" of one than the other - I bet you'd find the exact same amount of both.

But it's good to hear that you agree that the tea-baggers have it completely wrong in their protests...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 1:46 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You want no government, right Geezer? Or at least, that is what capito-libertarains claim to desire. So under your scheme, where is "the government" which regulates business?

I'm not a particularly doctrinaire libertarian. I'd like to see a good bit less government, but I doubt it's gonna happen any time soon. Therefore, I would like the government I'm stuck with to do as good a job, from my free-market perspective, as it can.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 1:49 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Interesting. I'd posit that if you've found a "more-or-less capitalist" society, it is by definition "more-or-less socialist" as well. The U.S. is one such example.

Okay, so you don't know what a Socialist economy is. Try googling "Socialist Economy" to find out and then come back to the discussion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 2:16 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Interesting. I'd posit that if you've found a "more-or-less capitalist" society, it is by definition "more-or-less socialist" as well. The U.S. is one such example.

Okay, so you don't know what a Socialist economy is. Try googling "Socialist Economy" to find out and then come back to the discussion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

My point is that EVERY economy has some degree of socialism in it. Therefore every "capitalist" economy has at least SOME socialism involved. Ergo, a "more or less" capitalist economy is at the same time a more or less socialist one, as well.

If you disagree, can I have all my money back that your state used to build roads and schools, pay its police and firefighters, and outfit its military? I never agreed to any of that, and it's certainly not capitalist to do such things.

By the way, you might want to try googling "free-market capitalism" to find out what the adults are talking about, then try to rejoin the discussion.

Maybe this will help:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/eleven-reasons-america-is-the-new-top
-socialist-economy?pagenumber=2

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 4:15 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
My point is that EVERY economy has some degree of socialism in it. Therefore every "capitalist" economy has at least SOME socialism involved. Ergo, a "more or less" capitalist economy is at the same time a more or less socialist one, as well.

Word games. What you're doing is sort of like the old "One drop of Black blood" laws in the segregated South. When you actually want to discuss the issue, rather than playing cute, let me know.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 4:35 PM

KWICKO

It seems as if you're the one who's running away from any discussion of the issues. You *say* you want "free-market capitalism", yet you start flip-flopping when someone tries to nail you down on what exactly that "free-market" part would entail.

Our "free-market", profit-driven healthcare system, driven entirely by the "invisible hand" of the market, has netted us a healthcare system that ranks near the very bottom of all industrialized nations. Will you play "word games" and say that that's because it's regulated, even though every other (better) healthcare system with better outcomes is MORE regulated?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 5:41 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Pakistan debates US aid bill

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/10/200910794610557926.html

Pakistan's parliament has begun a debate on a US aid bill after widespread criticism in the country that some conditions attached to it are a humiliating violation of sovereignty.

The US congress approved the bill tripling aid for Pakistan to $1.5bn a year for the next five years and sent it to Barack Obama, the president, for signing into law last week.

The legislation is part of an attempt to build a new relationship with Pakistan that focuses not solely on military ties, but also on Pakistan's social and economic development.

But in an effort to address Washington's concerns that Pakistan's military may support armed groups, the bill stipulates that US military aid will cease if Pakistan does not help fight "terrorists", including Taliban and al-Qaeda members taking sanctuary on the Afghan border.

Strings attached'

Kamal Hyder, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Islamabad, said: "There are conditionalities; there are strings attached. Those strings and conditionalities seem to be very heavy handed as far as Pakistan is concerned.

"Pakistan has still been waiting for almost $1.6bn due from the Coalition Support Fund for operations in the so called war on terror"

Kamal Hyder, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Islamabad
"There is talk about the fact that Pakistan has to dismantle Muridke [headquarters of the Jamaat-ul-Dawah]. That sort of language is seen to be influenced from the Indian lobby and Washington and, therefore, there are grave reservations.

"Also, Pakistan has still been waiting for almost $1.6bn due from the Coalition Support Fund for operations in the so called war on terror."

The bill seeks Pakistani co-operation to dismantle nuclear-supplier networks by offering "relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks", a reference to nuclear scientist AQ Khan who allegedly ran a black market in atomic technology.

Pakistan has declined to let foreign investigators question Khan, saying it has passed on all information gleaned from him.

The bill, co-authored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar, both senators, also provides for an assessment of how effective civilian government's control over the powerful military has been.

'Zardari incompetence'

Opposition politicians have criticised the government of Asif Ali Zardari, the president, for allowing the humiliation of the country.

"The incompetence of the Zardari regime has brought humiliation for Pakistan," Ahsan Iqbal, a spokesman for the main opposition party PML-N, said.

"Our party appreciates the spirit behind the initiative. However, it feels that any conditionality with such assistance must respect Pakistan's sovereignty and self-respect."

Plans by the US to expand its embassy in Pakistan have also raised suspicion, as has speculation about the embassy's use of private security contractors.

But Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the Pakistani foreign minister, said in Washington that "there is no question of Pakistan's sovereignty being compromised" by the measure.

Parliament is not expected to reject the bill, but was likely to pass a resolution highlighting its concerns.

When they hate you enough to not want your money.....

You might be an American

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE