Economic Invasion

[FUNKbrs]

I've had an interesting train of thought lately. I've begun to see corporations and governments to be basically the same things, only with different explanations of existence. This causes me to wonder:

Is economic attack (ie exploiting resources, owning sweat shops in foreign countries) an act of war? Or is it just "good business"? Where is the line between the two?

[dudeitsallama]

That's a really good question. I don't think it could be considered an act of war. Large corporations don't force countries to let themselves be exploited (although they often have not choice). Let me give you an example. Let's say some third world country, let's call it Nomoneystan, has a lot of oil but, due to internal economic problems, has no money and its people are starving. Then, a big oil company comes along and offers Nomoneystan a pitance for its oil. Nomoneystan has no choice but to except the offer because its people are dying and it desperately needs money now. It's true that, in the long run, the country is getting screwed over, but the only alternative is to let the people keep starving. In a perfect world, countries would be paid fairly for their resources, but we all know that that's not going to happen any time soon. I'm not condoning exploitation, but, even though it dooms that country to years of poverty and dependency on other nations, it does help it to escape complete economic collapse and sometimes provides it with a little bit of protection (Kuwait).

The same thing goes for sweatshops. As terrible as it is that adults and even children have to slave away for hours in unsafe environments for almost no pay, people seem to forget that there are no soldiers with guns forcing them to be there (at least I don't think there are). I haven't done a lot of research on sweatshops so I'll just assume it's about the same in the rest of the world as it was in the US some number of years ago. People work in sweatshops because they don't have enough money to buy food and clothing and can't get a better job. It would be much better if they could work in safer environments for more money, but even working in a sweatshop is better than starving to death. And we can't put all the blame for the poverty in third world countries on corporations. They might contribute to the problem, but the original decline is usually the fault of the country itself and its inability to adapt to economic problems. Sweatshops and exploitation are not acts of war. They're just horrible solutions to an even more horrible problem.

It's fun playing devil's advocate.

[Slizor]

people seem to forget that there are no soldiers with guns forcing them to be there

There sometimes are. Most places are atleast guarded with soldiers.

And we can't put all the blame for the poverty in third world countries on corporations. They might contribute to the problem, but the original decline is usually the fault of the country itself and its inability to adapt to economic problems.

Nu-uh. Not true. Most third world countries are poor due to Imperialism (by Britain, France, Spain, etc) and then neo-Imperialism (by the US mainly.) Imperialism took places over and then sent the raw materials back over to the Home country to be processed (which meant they got poorly paid and never developed any industry.) Neo-imperialism forces countries to do things which benefit the rich countries (see the IMF, WTO, etc.)

[JudgeDredd]

At 10/4/03 07:15 AM, Slizor wrote: Neo-imperialism forces countries to do things which benefit the rich countries (see the IMF, WTO, etc.)

some are obvious; like the DuPont "patented process" of turning oil into plastics, then pursuading congress to outlaw marijuana AND HEMP!!
It's common knowledge in the decriminalisation-camp that Industry Protectionism over Environmental Concern is at the heart of US (government) strategy for over half a century. Such laws hurt thrid-world countries the most - the plant being a vital source of food, shelter, clothing, packing and paper, trade, jobs, etc.

America pushes it's free trade agenda for it's own benifit, then shows itself to be the worst perpetrator of sanctions and tariffs - and any old reason will do!

A Starbucks on every street corner and the loss of thousands of family-run boutique coffee-shops in the process. Even Americans who go on holiday to remote destinations are saddened to see they could just as well have stayed at home to enjoy their "All-American cuisine" (fast-foods) in a thousand foreign cities.

Will American dollars become the only currency? Take a look at the dominant Credit Card companies! Take a look at Microsoft business practises. Take a look at US military budget spending in the last few decades! Take a look at recent Intellectual Property Laws! Take a look at American protectionism, where cotton growers are paid more in subsidies than their total cotton production is actually worth. Take a look at the "America has the right to flaunt it's WMD, but no other country even has the right to even have defensive weapons (programs)" .. the approach of the current hawkish US administration.

There are 1001 such examples that i could give which all point to the same conclusion; "economic global domi-Nation" ..a Neo-SuperPower approach to international trade negotiations. Might is Right!! Money makes Money!!
Meanwhile, poverty is seen to be a third-world handicap which will continue to benefit the USA "..so long as they don't take OUR jobs"

[FUNKbrs]

wow, I was thinking this topic was too abstract, but its nice to see the regs putting up such good comments.

Clearly, our foreign posters see the truth in my words. US economic policies clearly are raping the rest of the world. Just because US corps hire local guns to enforce their will doesn't mean they aren't a foreign power subjugating a local lower class populace. The end result is the same as that of a traditional conquest. The invaders take all the money, and the locals are reduced to serfdom. Why is the US government not held responsible for the actions of its citizens?

[JudgeDredd]

At 10/4/03 08:36 PM, JudgeFUNK wrote: The invaders take all the money, and the locals are reduced to serfdom. Why is the US government not held responsible for the actions of its citizens?

i've missed a lot of SouthPark but yesterday saw the 100th episode (Anti-War Protestors vs Pro-War Advocates) ..and as funney as it was, it pointed out that; blowing away foreign sovereign states in a unilaterally selective manner, whilst allowing their own populous the "relative freedom" to moan and groan about it, is a central founding-fathers concept to saying "hey, we're also the good-guys here!"

Praise be Allah for NG BBS where US citizens like JudgeFunk who are prepared to step outside their comfort-zone and say so publically!

p.s. MANPOWER sux ass!!!!!!11 =^__^=

[JoS]

I think one of the worst parts about the imperialism that plagued (and still kicks africa in the ass) is cash-crops. These countries grew the cash crops which were then sent back home to Europe. As a result all the nutrition from the soil was sucked out and the land virtually worthless for growing. Now that these countries are free of imperalism(but no their debt to these countries) the only really know how to grow these cash crops(one biggie being cotton). Now the country can no longer produce food tho feed their own people (generally all food growing is done for export rather than internal use) and when the price of their cash crops goes down they cannot afford to pay western countries for food, increasing their debt by borrowing money from the world bank or face famine. If we could replenish the nutrients in the soil and teach them how to grow things other than the old cash crops then maybe they would be able to build up their own industry and help their own economy. As long as huge corperations or exporters controll all the good farm land and food growing, they will never be able to climb out of the hole they've been pushed into.

[JudgeDredd]

"...but wait! there's more."

ironicly, South American and African and other poverty-stricken nation's best remaining productive lands are now all designated as "Native or Tropical forests of vital importance to World's oxygen production" (besides plankton) ..not something you can bottle and sell so easily :(

I'm sure thou, if the Earths oxygen supply does get low, that the big corporations who have most helped cause the problem, will be the first to patent all known methods of chemically producing bottled O2 for international sale. </synical>

[sssuuu]

I'm sure thou, if the Earths oxygen supply does get low, that the big corporations who have most helped cause the problem, will be the first to patent all known methods of chemically producing bottled O2 for international sale.

If it ever gets that bad than just say good bye to the human race as we know it, but before then lets just hope someone will invent a way to reverse the greenhouse effect efficently and save our planet. But personally, I do my best not to destory the planet, like ride my bike to work (Which I do already) but anyways I be dead before I would have to buy chemically bottle air so I dont have to think about it all really..

[FUNKbrs]

At 10/5/03 01:00 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote: I'm sure thou, if the Earths oxygen supply does get low, that the big corporations who have most helped cause the problem, will be the first to patent all known methods of chemically producing bottled O2 for international sale. </synical>

FUCKING COPYRIGHTS!!!!! I TOLD YOU THEY WOULD BE THE DEATH OF US!!!!

Fight the copyrights before they destroy us!!! Pirate whatever you can!!!

Damn chubby devil, making me revert to anarchism after I could have sworn i'd outgrown it....