Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/18/08 07:51 PM, ZOMG3 wrote:

At 6/3/08 04:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Funny, because free trade with other countries has seen their economies grown and their poverty decrease.

Lol like subsidizing rice and selling it to African countries benefited African countries?

Free trade with African countries?

The only country in Africa that the US has a free trade agreement with is Morocco. Meanwhile,

Yeah, right. It killed off local competition and made then dependent on US goods.

Who?

Viva la Corporate Fascist Capitalism.

Viva la dumb kids who think its cool to talk about "Fascist Capitalist", no matter how stupid they look in the process.

At 6/18/08 08:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: The only country in Africa that the US has a free trade agreement with is Morocco. Meanwhile,

... trade tends to help poor countries.

I agree with you on the Health Service, but then again you should not be surprised by its backwardness. America's Health system has always been primitive, unfortunately. It is sad, I feel we will always be behind the Europeans in this area.

Our education system is extremely shoddy, and it saddens me. There is so much stuff to learn out there and we have succumbed to trying to make everyone pass; therefore, causing us to have lower standards and less rigorous material and courses.

It is also sad that our Rights have been taken away, but no one seems to care. It seems as if we have forgotten the Principles on which this country was founded on: a government that protects our "unalienable rights: life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness."

Lastly, this country is too romantic. We have succumbed to the American Dream of "equality for everyone," "making it big," and "happy endings." It would be nice to accomplish these dreams but sadly it is nothing more than a dream. We need reality to crash down on us.

At 6/18/08 07:51 PM, ZOMG3 wrote: Lol like subsidizing rice and selling it to African countries benefited African countries? Yeah, right. It killed off local competition and made then dependent on US goods. Viva la Corporate Fascist Capitalism.

Actually, the US has a net trade deficit with Africa, making it virtually impossible for the US to somehow use food imports as leverage.

At 6/3/08 09:12 AM, ZOMG3 wrote: The reasons:

1. Their health service. When you are sick the first thing they look for is your wallet. They leave the poor and defenseless to die. Universial healthcare is the way forward!!!

A little thing called natural selection was nulled out by modern society, but in things like this we still see nature at work.

2. America has has high emissions of gas and it seems like many Americans dont care about the environment.

Speak for yourself! I care plenty about the environment and the fact that many don't disgusts me.

3. Americans like the most crappy sports and don't spell words right like colour or favourite. Stop being lazy and add the extra letter. It's not hard.

Thats really more of a matter of opinion, the words are still perfectly correct, just a different dialect, and what gives you the right to hate me because I like a certain sport? None.

4. Americans are ignorant and don't pay much attention to the outside world. Most of them don't even have passports.

Once again, speak for yourself. I have a passport and travel often, I keep up with the outside world, the cultures of other places, etc. You make the rash and largely accepted generalizations and who suffers? People who travel, shit I love to travel but its so damn expensive . . .

5. America - Land of the Free...unless you are in Guantanamo, where you are convicted without evidence and don't give me this crap they are war fighters. Some were picked up from the streets in Africa, held without representation or without appeal for years and then released if they are lucky.

You do realize that after things like Guantanamo there hasn't been an attempted attack on American soil since, right? During the Clinton era they happened fairly routinely, because he tried to fight terror through the courts, a bad fucking idea.

6. For claiming they are the first to help in a natural disater, yet denying any fair trade. Fixing the world trade for themselves keeping millions in poverty for their own greed.

What? Some examples maybe . . . that sounded like bias anti-American, 100%, grade A bullshit spewing out of your mouth right there. And honestly, America's foreign policy isn't and never should be Unicef, seeing as it should mainly benefit us.

7. For fudging the fact that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi yet many use that as the reason to bomb Iraq.

Uhhh no, we bombed Iraq because of alleged reports of WMDs, which though they were there (mustard gas) weren't quite what we were looking for (dirty bombs), seriously who was afraid of Sadam's mustard gas?

8. Selling $20bn worth of defense to the Saudis where 16 of the 19 hijackers WERE from. Fucking geniuses.

Kind of old there, we didn't have our dignitaries shake hands with the extremists and hand them weapons and cash, Christ . . . back when this happened they were probably still in their papa's balls.

9. Capitalism and materialism combined with negligence and apathy are running rampant while honor, dignity, and true spirituality have gone by the wayside.

I admit that modern ethics and morality are slowly receding, but capitalism is good, with some controls of course, as it values economic freedom and private initiative. Thats where your clothing, computer, television, the plane your flying on to France, the food you eat, everything in your life comes from, and you think you can sit there and criticize it? Hell no! Eat only food you grow and use only things you make and then you have a right to criticize it, the way I see it is that only the Amish have that right. Also honor and dignity? Obviously your one of those spit on the military types, if I met you in person I'd punch you in your ugly, thirteen year old face.

10. For expeting a country bombed to pieces to thank them afterwards. "We liberated you. Now you are free, even though your home was bombed and your parents raped and mutilated!"

Thats not what happens shit head! Soldiers don't rape and kill civilians, Terrorists do! You've got it backwards, the dictatorship before hand was doing the oppressing and cold blooded murdering, we came in and took that away and replaced it with free elections and a democratic process, so not only do they have reason to thank us, but we don't demand it, you are seriously biased. Another self-hating liberal I suppose . . .

Any suggestions?

Leave, you don't deserve to live here.

I have vented my anger. That is all.

I'm moving to France and change my name, from John to Jean and enjoy the benefits of France; long lines to get medical attention, biased education, cocky dicks etc.

Fixed*

Thats not what happens shit head! Soldiers don't rape and kill civilians, Terrorists do! You've got it backwards, the dictatorship before hand was doing the oppressing and cold blooded murdering, we came in and took that away and replaced it with free elections and a democratic process, so not only do they have reason to thank us, but we don't demand it, you are seriously biased. Another self-hating liberal I suppose . . .

Really? I thought we do that. Wait no, we are sexual humiliation and torture for Prisoners of War and Rape and Pillaging. My bad.

At 6/18/08 10:49 PM, Chickidydow wrote:

At 6/3/08 09:12 AM, ZOMG3 wrote: The reasons:

1. Their health service. When you are sick the first thing they look for is your wallet. They leave the poor and defenseless to die. Universial healthcare is the way forward!!!

A little thing called natural selection was nulled out by modern society, but in things like this we still see nature at work.

wow you believe that do you okay you are a bit fucked up if you think that money counts to natural selection

2. America has has high emissions of gas and it seems like many Americans dont care about the environment.

Speak for yourself! I care plenty about the environment and the fact that many don't disgusts me.

is doesn't by the way, you care about the environment but you don't care that others mess it up. that is bit crazy

3. Americans like the most crappy sports and don't spell words right like colour or favourite. Stop being lazy and add the extra letter. It's not hard.

Thats really more of a matter of opinion, the words are still perfectly correct, just a different dialect, and what gives you the right to hate me because I like a certain sport? None.

sports i dont care i agree matter of opinion but you did fuck up the English language

4. Americans are ignorant and don't pay much attention to the outside world. Most of them don't even have passports.

Once again, speak for yourself. I have a passport and travel often, I keep up with the outside world, the cultures of other places, etc. You make the rash and largely accepted generalizations and who suffers? People who travel, shit I love to travel but its so damn expensive . . .

i agree sterotype

5. America - Land of the Free...unless you are in Guantanamo, where you are convicted without evidence and don't give me this crap they are war fighters. Some were picked up from the streets in Africa, held without representation or without appeal for years and then released if they are lucky.

You do realize that after things like Guantanamo there hasn't been an attempted attack on American soil since, right? During the Clinton era they happened fairly routinely, because he tried to fight terror through the courts, a bad fucking idea.

GOOD IDEA.... take away peoples freedoms and throw them in a ruthless jail with no evidence thumbs up to you break the law to stop lawbreaking

6. For claiming they are the first to help in a natural disater, yet denying any fair trade. Fixing the world trade for themselves keeping millions in poverty for their own greed.

:at? Some examples maybe . . . that sounded like bias anti-American, 100%, grade A bullshit spewing out of your mouth right there. And honestly, America's foreign policy isn't and never should be Unicef, seeing as it should mainly benefit us.
hmm i agreeish

7. For fudging the fact that none of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi yet many use that as the reason to bomb Iraq.

Uhhh no, we bombed Iraq because of alleged reports of WMDs, which though they were there (mustard gas) weren't quite what we were looking for (dirty bombs), seriously who was afraid of Sadam's mustard gas?

i agree with you

and materialism combined with negligence and apathy are running rampant while honor, dignity, and true spirituality have gone by the wayside.

10. For expeting a country bombed to pieces to thank them afterwards. "We liberated you. Now you are free, even though your home was bombed and your parents raped and mutilated!"

Thats not what happens shit head! Soldiers don't rape and kill civilians, Terrorists do! You've got it backwards, the dictatorship before hand was doing the oppressing and cold blooded murdering, we came in and took that away and replaced it with free elections and a democratic process, so not only do they have reason to thank us, but we don't demand it, you are seriously biased. Another self-hating liberal I suppose . . .

rape no kill yes torture yes at least in a dictorship they could be sure if they follow the rules they dont get tortured however we need to finish the job (iraq)

Any suggestions?

Leave, you don't deserve to live here.

I have vented my anger. That is all.

I'm moving to France and change my name, from John to Jean and enjoy the benefits of France; long lines to get medical attention, biased education, cocky dicks etc.

i'm a peson who doesnt want to say a bad word about my country

fixed

I'm going to throw my two cents in here:

1) Our military is overstretched, and if we stay in Iraq, it's only a matter of time until the draft is instated.In fact, at least 43,000 soldiers deemed medically unfit for combat were redeployed.

2) Our current administration has failed to provide our troops with adequate body armor and decent barracks. Instead, we see pork-barrel privatized contracts.Case in point: Blackwater mercenaries cost five times as much to hire as Army personnel.

3) Our national debt has exploded under the Bush administration, and yet Bush still insists on giving tax cuts to the rich.

I rest my case.

At 6/19/08 02:51 PM, rick8176 wrote: I'm going to throw my two cents in here:

1) Our military is overstretched, and if we stay in Iraq, it's only a matter of time until the draft is instated.In fact, at least 43,000 soldiers deemed medically unfit for combat were redeployed.

God forbid any of us have to actually fight for our country. And did you read the rest of your USAToday article. "Medically unfit" includes needing glasses, having allergies, or needing dental work. Of course, all American armies historically had perfect vision, never sneezed, and donned beautiful pearly whites, and for these reasons they were successful. For Christ's sake how do you think most of the world lives? Why do you herald softness and weakness as unalienable rights?

2) Our current administration has failed to provide our troops with adequate body armor and decent barracks. Instead, we see pork-barrel privatized contracts.Case in point: Blackwater mercenaries cost five times as much to hire as Army personnel.

Again, some barracks have cracks in the walls and are dirty, and to you this is absolutely outrageous. You know what else is dirty and full of cracks? Real life.

3) Our national debt has exploded under the Bush administration, and yet Bush still insists on giving tax cuts to the rich.

The rich, who pay 90% of all taxes and are the primary sources for all commerical investment (those bastards). And do you even know how the national debt works? All that matters is economic growth, and even though things are slowing at the moment, recovery to even 3% annual growth provides more than enough money for servicing debt.

I rest my case.

Oh, if only things were that simple.

I forgot some things, and apparently I can't edit posts.

I find it ironic you complain about national debt and budgets yet demand that 150,000 people get the absolute highest quality of everything. How much do you think it would cost to equip and maintain the entire army fully with state-of-the-art equipment? You probably think we've spent enough money in Iraq already. You wouldn't believe the logistical costs of all the things you demand.

There is NO NEED to be ashamed man! I'm actually quite upset by the fact that Britain has fallen behind! Be proud of your heritage, because China will soon rule everyone! :\/

Hey we have the exact same problams here in Brittan AND just because we aren't as big dosn't mean much. Also just think about it in these terms. You got alot more things that you could live without, plus you might or might not be doing enything to help those who havn't got the essentials. On the other hand people can be jerks. esspecially if they are rich so basicly the only way i could some this up is.....

THE WORLD IS SCREWY, UNFAIR AND PROBABLY WOULD STILL BE MISERABLE IF THERE WERE NO PROBLEMS PEOPLE ALWAYS FINDS SOMTHING TOO COMPLAIN ABOUT.

So 2 awnser your quistion ~I Have no IDEA~

At 6/24/08 06:51 AM, ZOMG3 wrote:

At 6/18/08 08:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Free trade with African countries?

The only country in Africa that the US has a free trade agreement with is Morocco.

The U.S. controls WTO and screws up African countries by opening barriers so that cheap American rice destroys their agriculture.

Trade deals allow poor people in poor countries to buy food at a cheaper price than they could get in their own countries. People in Africa have the CHOICE to purchase rice and other staple foods from all around the world, not just the US. Trade creates choice for people.

You're distorting it to suggest as if it's America's fault that this causes African agriculture to fail, yet it's their fault. The US isn't forcing them to buy our food, they agreed to it.

Anyway, I guess you'd prefer if Africans starve to death because their only choice for getting food is from their domestic markets that are rife with shortages, and would be rife with shortages regardless of their trade situation... i.e. regardless of any US involvement.

Who?

The WTO is a proxy organization created by the US.

With dozens of countries who have signed on to it willingly. Nice conspiracy theory though.

I'm sure you also believe that "teh J00z rule teh wurld!"

Viva la dumb kids who think its cool to talk about "Fascist Capitalist", no matter how stupid they look in the process.

Viva la right wing fucktards who talk about 'spreading de-mah-cracy' and freedom by blowing up other countries.

Viva la brainwashed little children like you who are way to angsty, and way to uneducated to have an opinion yet think their opinion is fact anyway.

At 6/24/08 05:11 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: The US isn't forcing them to buy our food, they agreed to it.

Actually, they are forced into it to a certain degree. The WTO, IMF and the World Bank enforce economic policies on African countries in the form of Sturcutual Adjustment Programs, one aspect of which is opening up the market. Now 'technically' you are correct, they don't have to buy American food or whatever, but lets be honest here how are small time local rice growers supposed to compete with Uncle bens Rice? Uncle Bens can sell their rice cheaper than the locals thereby driving the locals out of business menaing the only rice they can buy is from western companies. same goes for all food stuff really.

Don't know if Uncle Bens is even an American brand but you get what I mean I'm sure.

Now whilst on the surface this is good as it means people get more food, in the long run it's bad as it means the money is leaving the nations economy and going into american and Western Bank accounts thus preventing the growth of 3rd world countries economies. You don't grow unless you have cash, and you don;t get cash by big corporations coming in and taking it away ( which is essentially what they do).

South Korea is a testament to this as by doing the exact opposite, closing off their markets creating relacements ofr goods that wer elsot by protecting their interestes etc they haveaffectivley turned into quite an economic power with Companies such as LG being global brand names now.

The WTO, IMF, and World Bank are wonderful institutions in theory, and could be in practice as well, but their neo-liberal agenda is far too biased in favour of the West, and particularly America.

I read a nice book on this not long ago for one of my research essays for uni. Can't recall the exact title, was something like Ghana: the affects of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund but the book was written by a dude named Komadu Agyemang ( think that's how its spelt) and basically was an outlay of the affects the policies of the WTO and company have had on Ghana. It more or less goes into quite detailed accounts of how Strucutural Adjustment Programs enforced on the Government by the WTO, IMF and World Bank which are suppoed to combat poverty, have actually reduced Ghana into one of the bigest piles of shit on the face of Gods Green Earth.

There's other stuff as well but books entitled ' Why we we hate the world Bank!' probably doesn't quite fulfil the ' not being biased' checklist that I'm sure you'd throw at it.

At 6/24/08 12:05 PM, newreaper wrote: Hey we have the exact same problams here in Brittan AND just because we aren't as big dosn't mean much. Also just think about it in these terms. You got alot more things that you could live without, plus you might or might not be doing enything to help those who havn't got the essentials. On the other hand people can be jerks. esspecially if they are rich so basicly the only way i could some this up is.....

If you have the exact same problems in Britian why arent you hated as an imperilist when you go to a foreign country?

THE WORLD IS SCREWY, UNFAIR AND PROBABLY WOULD STILL BE MISERABLE IF THERE WERE NO PROBLEMS PEOPLE ALWAYS FINDS SOMTHING TOO COMPLAIN ABOUT.

Then why are alot of the worlds problems thrusted on the Western world?

ZOMG3 you only started this thread because in Your other thread you were brutally anhilated with logic and facts. I sincerely think that you are either just kidding around or their is something terminally wrong with you.

At 6/24/08 07:41 PM, Rockthebestmusic wrote: ZOMG3 you only started this thread because in Your other thread you were brutally anhilated with logic and facts. I sincerely think that you are either just kidding around or their is something terminally wrong with you.

Thats because the other thread was flat out offonsive.

At 6/24/08 05:46 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 6/24/08 05:11 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: The US isn't forcing them to buy our food, they agreed to it.

Actually, they are forced into it to a certain degree.

Their government is making the decision for them to be open to trade regulations that exist in the WTO. The US didn't invade them and force them to trade with us.

The WTO, IMF and the World Bank enforce economic policies on African countries in the form of Sturcutual Adjustment Programs

No... African countries agree to abide by economic/trade regulations in exchange for the benefits of trade via WTO, or loans via the IMF or WB.

They chose it. There are perceived pros and cons, and that's their problem, not ours. They supposedly want the benefits, but when there is a problem that they cause by buying foreign goods all of a sudden it's all America's fault.

The funny thing is that no matter what the US does in Africa, we'll get berated for it. If we neglected them, we'd be inhumane and we'd be monsters who care little about them. If we give too much aid, people criticize us for making them dependent on us. If we roll back the aid and instead give them access to world markets/investment people say we're supposedly destroying their domestic production of things that they can get cheaper elsewhere.

How dare you FEED those Africans, you're ruining their farmers' livelihoods, never mind that you're giving them access to cheap, quality food products that they couldn't otherwise provide for themselves!

Now 'technically' you are correct, they don't have to buy American food or whatever, but lets be honest here how are small time local rice growers supposed to compete with Uncle bens Rice?

How are people not involved in agriculture going to feed themselves if they don't have access to cheap staple foods from other countries? Should they be FORCED to buy locally grown food? Because that's basically the alternative here.

African countries have been fucked as far as agriculture for a long time. Trade didn't start that, nor will a halt in trade stop it. Even if that was true, it's pretty fucking ridiculous that someone would blame the US exclusively considering there are 152 members of WTO, several of which are industrialized nations that export food to 3rd world countries.

Uncle Bens can sell their rice cheaper than the locals thereby driving the locals out of business menaing the only rice they can buy is from western companies. same goes for all food stuff really.

Uncle Bens sells rice according to supply and demand, people in African countries demand cheap rice, and since they have access to foreign food sources, they choose to get the rice that is most affordable.

If this causes a problem for local producers, that is THEIR problem. If they want to suspend their membership in the WTO and put tariffs on foreign imports, they can do that. It's not America's obligation to fix their economic problems or babysit them especially when their country agreed to open its markets.

You don't grow unless you have cash

You don't survive unless you have food.

South Korea is a testament to this as by doing the exact opposite, closing off their markets

Um... South Korea is not only a member of the WTO, but it has a free trade agreement with the US...

It's funny that you're apparently referring to their protections on farmers as some sort of positive trait, that it helps their economy... but isn't that part of the very thing you criticize the US for? Isn't the US a big bully for protecting our farms and farmers, thus creating a strong export system that disallows foreign producers from competing in their markets? Wouldn't that mean that since the US is the devil for selling rice to Africa, South Korea is as well?

Which is it?

Smells like a double standard to me.

Double standard.

At 6/24/08 10:34 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Their government is making the decision for them to be open to trade regulations that exist in the WTO. The US didn't invade them and force them to trade with us.

Sorry to jump into your argument like this, but the US is forcing them to open their markets by threatening them with statewide bankruptcy. You see most countries in Africa actually recieved loans from the World Bank, which they could never pay off in the first place. The reason they accepted them was due to corrupt leaders who took a cut of the loans and put their countries into debt for their own gain. Some of these leaders were dictators put in place by the CIA. When it becomes clear that they can't pay off their debt the IMF comes in and tells the country they'll give them more time/ loan them some more money if they reform their economic structure. The reforms they ask for usually include opening up their markets to Western companies.

So basically they have the option of allowing western businesses into their country, or going completely bankrupt. The former choice usually leads to local businesses being wiped out, which usually means they get even further into debt. It's an endless cycle. The west benefits immensely from the instability and poverty of Africa.

At 6/24/08 09:27 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 6/24/08 07:41 PM, Rockthebestmusic wrote: ZOMG3 you only started this thread because in Your other thread you were brutally anhilated with logic and facts. I sincerely think that you are either just kidding around or their is something terminally wrong with you.

Thats because the other thread was flat out offonsive.

I thought the politics was supposed to be serious? Oh well, I have been proved wrong.

At 6/24/08 10:34 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Their government is making the decision for them to be open to trade regulations that exist in the WTO. The US didn't invade them and force them to trade with us.

SAP's force recipient Governments to abide by set rules once they default on a loan. Understandable, if you're handing out cash you wanna make sure you're gonna get it back. But the problem is, the way they're trying to ensure the cash is given back. They are genuinely trying to create development. I don't subscribe to Dependency Theory, but the manner in which they are trying to achieve their aims is flawed.

No... African countries agree to abide by economic/trade regulations in exchange for the benefits of trade via WTO, or loans via the IMF or WB.

Except the WB, WTO and IMF all enforce SAP's when a nation defaults on their loans. The SAP clearly states that in order for them to receive any more money they must fulfill certain criteria, including the opening up of markets, the rolling back of state funding to education and healthcare, essentially, whatever Neo Liberals believe in when it comes to economics.

And benefits? Be more specific in what you mean.

They chose it. There are perceived pros and cons, and that's their problem, not ours. They supposedly want the benefits, but when there is a problem that they cause by buying foreign goods all of a sudden it's all America's fault.

It isn't Americas fault. It's the fault of the west as a whole. The west is implementing these policies and as a result should bear the brunt of the blame. African countries don't make it easier on themselves what with corruption and the like, but again, that can be kind of traced back to European colonisation and the like so it's still the West's fault.

And yes, they did choose it of sorts. However the choice they made was between abiding with the WTO WB and IMF practices and regulations on trade in order to continue to receive funding, or go bankrupt. Not much of a choice really is it?

If we give too much aid, people criticize us for making them dependent on us.

Aid in itself does not always lead to dependency. Only certain types of aid do. Giving Aid to the governments leads to it as it does nothing to change the situation over all as they just build giant projects like hydroelectric dams, which whilst cool and worthwhile ( at least in a developed nation) but does bugger all to solve the problem of poverty.

You give aid to governments you get White Elephant projects.

BUT if you give that money to the people, whether directly to allow them to send their kids to school, or in the form of equipment, and education in improved farming techniques you can break the poverty cycle. They grow more food, they don't starve and have a bit left over to sell so they have cash to buy better crops, or whatever, and they actually start to make money. Now if every single farmer in Africa was able to sell even jsut a little of their crop in the local area, you'll suddenyl find that you don't need western Exports as there's food to buy, at a reasonable rate as well.

If we roll back the aid and instead give them access to world markets/investment people say we're supposedly destroying their domestic production of things that they can get cheaper elsewhere.

That would be fine as well, as long as the investment went into projects that actually helped the people instead of creating shit that won't have an affect on millions of people living on less than a dolalr a day. As it is they don't meaning the money gets wasted on lots of shiny new buildings which might attract a bit of attention but will have no affect on the majority of people in the nation.

How dare you FEED those Africans, you're ruining their farmers' livelihoods, never mind that you're giving them access to cheap, quality food products that they couldn't otherwise provide for themselves!

So why not give them the tools so they can produce it for themselves? Internal development is what we're after isn't it? So why not kill two birds with one stone when it has been consistently shown that bottom level development is more affective at bringing people out of poverty than government projects.

How are people not involved in agriculture going to feed themselves if they don't have access to cheap staple foods from other countries? Should they be FORCED to buy locally grown food? Because that's basically the alternative here.

If you enable the African agricultural population to be able to produce food more affectively then you allow for the existence of excess crops which can then be sold at a local level thus providing food for those who aren't farmers and the like. Although, due to the fact that there is a stark divide in African cities with it essentially being only Rich and poor people, very few middle classes, you do get a rather interesting situation.

The rich can afford to get food no matter what. The poor people which is where I think your argument is coming from, largely travelled to cities to try and escape poverty because they couldn't produce enough food to feed themselves and their family so they try and find jobs in cities to send money back so they can buy food etc. Now, if you enable the agricultural population to produce more food then you end up in a situation where, I'd wager at least, that a lot of the poor people leave the city and go back to their farms or whatever as they'll have a better standard of living than sitting in squalor in shanty towns, thus decreasing the number of people that need to be provided for in the city anyway.

Now whilst not all people would do that, you do then end up in a rather nice situation for the people who do stay. Suddenly there's not as much labour around. Suddenly they're in a position where they can actually start making demands for higher wages without as much fear of just being replaced. Their wages go up, their standard of living goes up, suddenly you have more of a middle class with excess cash to spend on luxuries which further stimulate the economy in some way leading to nationwide development.

African countries have been fucked as far as agriculture for a long time. Trade didn't start that, nor will a halt in trade stop it. Even if that was true, it's pretty fucking ridiculous that someone would blame the US exclusively considering there are 152 members of WTO, several of which are industrialized nations that export food to 3rd world countries.

True, trade didn't start it, exploitation by Europe did. And you're right a halt in trade won;t solve the problems, I never suggested it did. However an alteration in how trade is conducted and a shift in the way Aid is given will, potentially at any rate. You can't predict entirely what's going to happen in such a situation. And I'm not blaming the US alone. I'm pretty damn sure I've consistently said the West is to blame.

Uncle Bens sells rice according to supply and demand, people in African countries demand cheap rice, and since they have access to foreign food sources, they choose to get the rice that is most affordable.

Except this therefore makes the situation worse for the countries economy, and I'm just gonna end up repeating myself here. There are alternatives which will be just as, if not more affective.

If this causes a problem for local producers, that is THEIR problem. If they want to suspend their membership in the WTO and put tariffs on foreign imports, they can do that.

Except they then don't receive aid, or even any form of trade from the western world more or less meaning they get into an even worse position. You;re right halting trade won;t solve anything. Aint it wonderful that i never suggested it would?

It's not America's obligation to fix their economic problems or babysit them especially when their country agreed to open its markets.

The agreement, as I've stated already, was one which was based around ' Oh shit! If we don't do this then we're gonna be REALLY screwed!'. It's hardly a choice at all. Rock and a hard place. Where the hard place kills you and the rock only crushes your legs.

Um... South Korea is not only a member of the WTO, but it has a free trade agreement with the US...

Now it is yes, however before that it actually cut off importing a lot of its, I think the term is ' Light goods', though off the top of my head the actual details elude me, been a while since I've looked into it.

Quite honestly I kind of simplified it slightly too much thinking about it now.

Never debate politics when drinking Russian brandy kids. It leads to gross over simplifications.

South korea whilst participating in Import Substitution managed to stride a thin line between going OTT with protectionism and OTT with Free market, and managed to find the nice little safe zone in between which allows for optimum development until it could actually allow for proper free trade.

Either way, my point still stands though that 'Free Trade' on its own, in its current state at least, does nothing to improve the situation of developing countries. You need a bit of protectionism in there somewhere.

It's funny that you're apparently referring to their protections on farmers as some sort of positive trait, that it helps their economy... but isn't that part of the very thing you criticize the US for?

There is a difference between a subsistence farmer and a giant multi-national corporation. Uncle Bens can surive as a business without African trade. Local farmers in Kenya, can't. Thus forcing them to to then buy Uncle Bens Rice as they don't make the money to actually reinvest in stuff, or have savings so in case of disaster they can restart, making the situation worse.

Isn't the US a big bully for protecting our farms and farmers, thus creating a strong export system that disallows foreign producers from competing in their markets?

Not at all, protectionism has a lot of uses and can in-fact lead to a more self sustaining economy, especially within the first two stages of Demographic Transition and economic growth where people need all the help they can get. I'd rather a proper application of Free-trade be applied but that's about as likely as a communist revolution that's actually in the interests of the Working Classes.

Wouldn't that mean that since the US is the devil for selling rice to Africa, South Korea is as well?

As of this moment, yes essentially, South Korea bears as much blame as Europe and America for the current situation.

As to whether or not the policies of the IMF or WTO are actually beneficial, who knows. It's an important economic question that hasn't been resolved. If we're going to talk about blame, then it's only fair we talk about intentions. Most African nations were democratic after independence, followed sincerely benevolent Western advice, and at best acheived mixed success, at worst totally failed. It's still a bit early, though, to conclude that liberal economics is totally unfit as a development strategy.

It's true there has been CIA influence in African affairs, but I doubt whoever mentioned it could compile a timeline or argument that showed a deliberate US attempt to bankrupt African nations in the first place. I wonder as well, given the number of countries in Africa, if there's even a correlation between the "CIA dictators" and economic crises brought about specifically by WTO or IMF debt.

Even before colonization, famines in Africa were very common. Most of the great empires of Africa fell primarily due to famines and poor harvests. It's just a shitty place to farm.

At the very least, I find it hard to believe that the West can be "blamed" for any of these problems except indirectly through colonialism. The end result of all these economic aid packages has been a big loss for the West, whether the money has been embezzled or whatever. It's not unreasonable that nations should want some (not all, due to frequent debt forgiveness) of it back.

At 6/3/08 09:12 AM, ZOMG3 wrote:

I'm moving to France and change my name, from John to Jean and enjoy the benefits of France; universial healthcare, quality education, great people etc.

alright whats taking you so long to leave? we dont want you.

Moving to France wont help the problems in America that you hate. Why dont you vote instead of just leaving?

At 6/26/08 05:06 PM, aninjaman wrote: Moving to France wont help the problems in America that you hate. Why dont you vote instead of just leaving?

alright whats taking you so long to leave? we dont want you.

You didn't understand yet that he is not an American?

At 6/26/08 05:50 PM, zoolrule wrote:

At 6/26/08 05:06 PM, aninjaman wrote: Moving to France wont help the problems in America that you hate. Why dont you vote instead of just leaving?

alright whats taking you so long to leave? we dont want you.

You didn't understand yet that he is not an American?

He said hes an American so what am I supposed to think? Maybe he is an American and you just donk think he is.

I don't say "Colour" or "Armour"

It looks like you're adding more syllables than there are.

I say "Color" Not "Colore"
"Armor" not "Armore"

you should, so good for you!

Who the fuck cares. Everyone that is old enough to post on this thread is going to die long before anything changes for the better anyways. It DOESN'T MATTER what anybody thinks. It's pointless. People complain and cry about wanting to change the world, but YOU FUCKING CAN'T. You wont change anything. Shut the fuck up.