Political Crossfire Forums

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Cato wrote: Care to provide an argument?

When someone argues that something exists I always thought the onus was on them to provide the argument.....

garyd · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 691 Location: tulsa, ok

Don't get me wrong here I don't like farm subsidies But the fact of the matter is Third world agricultural techniques simply can't produce enough of most food crops per acre to compete on a level playing field regardless of whether subsidies exist or not. Now I'll grant you that European Crop subsidies in particular are at best ourageous and a worst amount to a proctionist tarriff which is even worse but keep in mind over the long haul this is going tohurt Europe as much if not more than the third world since such subsidies are not sustainable over the long haul.

Robin Hood · Joined: 14 Sep 2005 Posts: 3295

Quote: Now I'll grant you that European Crop subsidies in particular are at best ourageous and a worst amount to a proctionist tarriff which is even worse but keep in mind over the long haul this is going tohurt Europe as much if not more than the third world since such subsidies are not sustainable over the long haul.

A couple of years ago I was informed of a study which predicted the end of CAP would cut British food bills by a third...if someone wants to alleviate poverty over here then that seems like the absolutely easiest way imaginable.

garyd · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 691 Location: tulsa, ok

One of several reasons that such subsidies aren't sustainable over the long haul.

cassandrabandra · Joined: 03 Dec 2005 Posts: 762

garyd wrote: One of several reasons that such subsidies aren't sustainable over the long haul.

The US subsidies to primary producers have caused a great deal of ansgt here, and have damaged some of our markets - those subsidies have even been used by some to justify the baksheesh paid to Saddam's regime in our AWB scandal. Anti American sentiment is pretty big among farming communities here .... yet you say these subsidies won't work in the long run .... so why are they continuing?

re production processes ... at present, due to relatively cheap sources of fuel, and fertilizers which prop up certain industries, broadacre farming is relatively 'efficient' - although if you take into account actual energy inputs, and envorinmental cost, it is definitely not. Transport costs are also subsidized, but for how long?

this will change within the next decade whether subsidies continue or not. what then?

Cato · Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 1274 Location: Ottawa, ON

cassandra wrote: The same is happening in many African nations are trying to compete with heavily subsidized European produce. Meanwhile, in recent years this has been compounded by SAPs (Structural Assistance Programmes) where the International Financial Institutions only loan money for the right kind of projects - which do not include infrastructure, including clean water, public education and public health. Consequently you see the GDPs of many sub saharan nations going backwards - and political unrest feeds into this, exacerbating the situation further.

Also, another effect of SAPs, when multiple nations specialize their industries to produce a particular commodity, its value on the world market (of course) drops significantly. This severely compromises their economic integrity. Take, for instance, Brazil's coffee industry; to revitalize the market, the nation actually practices destroying whole harvests.

Quote: Diseases, including HIV, but also malaria and TB can only become worse unless good public health measures are adopted. Masses of people living in shantytown slums and refugee camps in some ways could make it easier to deliver health services than if people live in rural villages, but when overall levels of health are poor, education levels are virtually nonexistent for many, and communicable diseases spread more easily through crowded inadequately serviced townsites, massive injections of money and resources are needed to address the problem.

Yes, such are the horrors of poverty.

Quote: A lot of what is happening in Africa over the last 15 years or so may be part of the aftermath of the cold war. Programmes no longer have to compete with socialist ideology, so expenditure on public goods is no longer necessary according to those who dictate the terms.

And what of the World-Bank loans after the Second World War, and their legacy?

Quote: BTW - Africa did have several successful civilizations in the past. In the 14th Century, the Mali empire, which traded extensively with Europe, along with many other civilizations globally, collapsed. This was due - it appears - to a period of climatic change. Like many others they never really recovered. The one which recovered most successfully was at the time no more or less barbaric than their neighbors, and expanded to conquer the world. The weakened position of those they encountered, along with the opportunities to support resources, including South American gold especially, as well as labour - were what enabled the Europeans to keep their dominant position. And the pattern has continued on from there.

I too believe that Africa can support a successful civilization. I am also aware of the Mali civilization; after a long period of political factionalization, it was invaded by France. Africa didn't have the economic power of Europe, and so could not withstand it; this is no revelation.

social · Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:30 pm Post subject:

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: 'Dysfunctional culture'? That seems rather silly. Can you explain what makes a culture dysfunctional? Worshiping the wrong God, I'm guessing?

That guess shows what kind of shallow mind you hide behind the pretentious rhetoric.

What makes a culture dysfunctional is greed, indifference, and hate. All of which cause women and children to pay the price.

Adding a dysfunctional collectivist political ideology on top of that culture is what causes regimes like the Hitler's, Stalin's, Mao's, Pol Pot's, and Jong's of the world to happen.

You are nothing more than a petulent child with a impressive vocabulary.

I'd be wary of labbeling a culture "dysfunctional", as it seems to imply 'perfect' or 'ideal' cultures exist. Like the 'perfect' society and the 'perfect' political system, the perfect culture is a nothing more than chimera ... Culture is not something that is neccesarily right or wrong, but something which, as Geertz would have it, describes the meanings of the relations between individuals and groups.

Cato · Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 1274 Location: Ottawa, ON

cap’n wrote: That guess shows what kind of shallow mind you hide behind the pretentious rhetoric.

It was only a little joke.

Quote: What makes a culture dysfunctional is greed, indifference, and hate. All of which cause women and children to pay the price.

This is vague.

I agree with social, a culture is based on communication, that is, the interchange of concepts between people and the symbols that embody those concepts. Perhaps you mean 'society', which includes a particular group's culture, economic model, and political/social organization? Even so, you'd be hard-pressed to show me how a greedy, indifferent, and hateful society necessarily fails to meet its economic ends. Moreover, you'd be hard-pressed to show me how the societies that have fallen into poverty exhibit these qualities innately, and not as a result of poverty.

I think that the character of a society is defined by its circumstances, and not the other way around. That is, an impoverished society is likely to be a 'hateful' society, rather than a 'hateful' society an impoverished one. Anyway, I still don't really understand what you mean by 'hateful', et cetera; remember cap'n, exactitude in argument is crucial.

Quote: Adding a dysfunctional collectivist political ideology on top of that culture is what causes regimes like the Hitler's, Stalin's, Mao's, Pol Pot's, and Jong's of the world to happen.

Uhuh -- what do you mean by 'greed', 'indifference', and 'hate'? How does a culture exhibit these characteristics?

Quote: You are nothing more than a petulent child with a impressive vocabulary.

That may be, but let's stick to the argument anyway.

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13409 Location: San Diego

Cato wrote: jawsome wrote: For instance, a modern case would be US and Mexican farm goods. Unless US farm goods are heavily subsidized, they cannot compete with Mexican farms because the cost of production in Mexico is significantly lower. No one in Mexico would buy American goods because they would cost much, much more.

That's actually what I was thinking of when I wrote my example. America's subsidized goods are actually flooding into Mexico, and destroying the local industry.. Have you ever heard of the Zappastia movement? The southern Mexican farmers who went bankrupt when cheap American produce flooded the markets, and have since taken up arms against their government?

Zapatista. :wink: And yeah, they're very popular with many Latino/Chicano kids I know. It's a rather old movement, starting with Emiliano Zapata, who started a campesino/indigenous revolution against the corrupt Mexican government in the early 20th century. It's more complex than just American products entering Mexico, but that was the main source of their poverty. Oh if a truly free market existed. :wink:

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13409 Location: San Diego

cap'n queasy wrote: jawsome wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: I think the situation in the third world is one conducive to the rise of dictators; that is, the catalyst of the dictator's rise is the poverty of his nation, and not vice versa.

You're assuming that there is a rise in poverty and that it is caused by someone who did not cause it. That's what fits your dichotomy, but it is a logical fallacy.

Poverty exists for many reasons, that all can be traced back to a dysfunctional culture in some manner. And Globalization takes advantage of that, but it does not cause it. So do the dictators, who care nothing for their people, upon which Globalization depends

BTW I do not like Globalization. I think it is reprehensible.

Well, in the case of sub-Saharan Africa, I'd say the reason poverty exists is because of an immense lack of any kind of significant development, which is due mainly to geographical reasons. If you want a really awesome book about why certain civilizations evolved more quickly than others, I'd recommend "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. Great read and very convincing.

I'll keep that in mind next time I visit the local bookstore. One thing is for sure. It's not the fault of the US. Think about this, why is there a lack of significant development? Is that really the cause or is it another symptom?

Think about it.

I blame Africa's leaders, politicians, and governments. There have been countless coups d'etat, wars, etc. and the ruling class, which is almost never justly elected, continues to suck their nations dry. That is what I would say is the biggest reason (but not the only) for a very serious and complex situation.

Cato · Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 1274 Location: Ottawa, ON

Quote: Zapatista.

yes, yes, I'm aware I can't spell :cry:

Quote: And yeah, they're very popular with many Latino/Chicano kids I know. It's a rather old movement, starting with Emiliano Zapata, who started a campesino/indigenous revolution against the corrupt Mexican government in the early 20th century.

The movement's named after Zapata, but it certainly isn't the same movement as Zapata's. Zapata was a leading figure in the Mexican Revolution. The modern Zapatista movement began in 1994, the year that Mexico signed NAFTA; it actually began as a direct response to the treaty.

Quote: It's more complex than just American products entering Mexico, but that was the main source of their poverty. Oh if a truly free market existed.

But that is, in fact, the stated reason for the movement's conception...

Cato · Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 1274 Location: Ottawa, ON

Quote: I blame Africa's leaders, politicians, and governments. There have been countless coups d'etat, wars, etc. and the ruling class, which is almost never justly elected, continues to suck their nations dry. That is what I would say is the biggest reason (but not the only) for a very serious and complex situation.

You really do ignore the bigger catalysts with this explanation.

Again, Africa's dictatorships are probably the product of its poverty, and not its poverty the product of its dictatorships.

FinnMacCool · Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 2731

Nothing is wrong with greed but greed tends to cause harm to others so usually its bad.

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6289

FinnMacCool wrote: Nothing is wrong with greed but greed tends to cause harm to others so usually its bad.

i think its the opposite

usually, greed tends to help other people
only in a minority of cases does it actually harm people
but unfortunately, these cases get blown out of proportion. No one ever gives credit to the billions of cases where greed is beneficial.

FinnMacCool · Joined: 07 Sep 2005 Posts: 2731

ieatfood wrote: FinnMacCool wrote: Nothing is wrong with greed but greed tends to cause harm to others so usually its bad.

i think its the opposite

usually, greed tends to help other people
only in a minority of cases does it actually harm people
but unfortunately, these cases get blown out of proportion. No one ever gives credit to the billions of cases where greed is beneficial.
Meh. . if greed benefits one group its gonna hurt another. . .

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6289

FinnMacCool wrote: ieatfood wrote: FinnMacCool wrote: Nothing is wrong with greed but greed tends to cause harm to others so usually its bad.

i think its the opposite

usually, greed tends to help other people
only in a minority of cases does it actually harm people
but unfortunately, these cases get blown out of proportion. No one ever gives credit to the billions of cases where greed is beneficial.
Meh. . if greed benefits one group its gonna hurt another. . .

no...

when i buy a pizza, i do so because i am greedy--i find the cheapest pizza I can find that I think is the tastiest. When the pizza guy sells me his pizza, he is being greedy--he is selling for the highest price he can while maximizing his profit. Thus, this is a transaction based on greed. And yet , both parties are benefitting. I am benefitting because the pizza is worth more to me than what I paid for it. He is benefitting because the pizza is worth less to him than what he received for it. Thus, all parties are benefitting by greed. Multiply this by billions of transactions each day and you see why greed is such a great thing.

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13409 Location: San Diego

Cato wrote: Quote: I blame Africa's leaders, politicians, and governments. There have been countless coups d'etat, wars, etc. and the ruling class, which is almost never justly elected, continues to suck their nations dry. That is what I would say is the biggest reason (but not the only) for a very serious and complex situation.

You really do ignore the bigger catalysts with this explanation.

Again, Africa's dictatorships are probably the product of its poverty, and not its poverty the product of its dictatorships.

Every single person I met and talked with in Kenya blames their government for the country's poverty now because they were on a steady path to becoming wealthy (they are the wealthiest sub-Saharan country, I believe, maybe Ghana is), and corrupt governments have robbed them dry.

And, like I have said, it's not the only problem, but a major one in most every countries, though not at all.

social · Posted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:14 am Post subject:

Kenya on a steady path to becoming wealhty? :think:

Roy L · Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 1819

ieatfood wrote:
when i buy a pizza, i do so because i am greedy--i find the cheapest pizza I can find that I think is the tastiest. When the pizza guy sells me his pizza, he is being greedy--he is selling for the highest price he can while maximizing his profit. Thus, this is a transaction based on greed. And yet , both parties are benefitting. I am benefitting because the pizza is worth more to me than what I paid for it. He is benefitting because the pizza is worth less to him than what he received for it. Thus, all parties are benefitting by greed. Multiply this by billions of transactions each day and you see why greed is such a great thing. No, you are just misusing the word, "greedy." Please consult a good dictionary.

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13409 Location: San Diego

social wrote: Kenya on a steady path to becoming wealhty? :think:

In the late 60's and 70's they were definitely (relatively speaking and compared to other countries in the region). They had a semi-benevolent dictator, Jomo Mzee _____ (I forget his last name) who steadily opened their markets and provided infrastructure, which lead to investment and some development.