A change in perspective

[Osman Ghazi]

I recently read a book by the world reknowned economist Jeffrey D. Sachs that changed my entire political and economic outlook. Now, I know what every non- OP on the board is thinking. Big whoop, economists are the tool of the man, etc. Well, this particular economists first priority is the poverty of the third world. More than that though, since 1986, he has been working in an advisory role in over 100 countries representing 90% of the worlds population. And unlike most economists, he is not a stubborn neo-liberal theologian.

Rather, he practices what he calls 'clinical economics'. He has had, unlike most of us, and unlike most economists, a chance to experiment on societies in crisis. His first experiment in combatting poverty was during the hyperinflationary period in Bolivia, when over the course of just two years the peso rose from 5000 per dollar to 2 million per dollar. He helped to successfully stop inflation there, the result of a huge budget deficit financed by loans from the central bank (AKA printing money).

Basically, this book has proved to me that with the right precondtions, responsible liberalization of trade can greatly accelerate an economy. But, the facts speak for themselves. Chinas economy accelerated with the Green Revolution (introduction of climate-specific, high-yield crops) in the early 60's, but slowed downed and eventually stagnated during the cultural revolution. With Deng Xiopings reforms in 1978 (I know, ive called him a traitor just as many times as you have) the economy picked up pace substantially, and by 2000 had quadrupled GDP per capita.

Want another one? Ok. Poland, 1989. In the wake of Lech Walesa's daring 'jump to freedom' over the walls of the Gdansk Shipyard, Poland experienced a political revival, so that the Soviet overlords were forced to allow for the creation of another house of parliament (Senate) and call elections in which Solidarity would be allowed to participate as a political party. The desire for change was great, as reflected by the fact that Solidarity won 99 out of 100 Senate seats and all 33% of the Lower House seats that went up for election. Solidarity took this as a mandate to rule, and with a pro-Soviet as president they had the position of prime minister they formed their own cabinet.

Polands economy was in a bad state because of its disjointed state, and its new dicconnection from the soviet union, their former supplier of cheap energy which they used in their inefficient heavy industries. During the transitional period, there were slight declines in GDP per capita income (90-93) as the old heavy industries went out of business (thats what happens to highly innefficient and inneffective businesses). However, by 1995, GDP per capita was higher than it had been in 1989, and whats more, it continued to grow steadily, until by 2000, GDP per capita was 40% higher than it had been in 1989. As well, the number of people living in extreme (0-$1 a day) and moderate ($1-$2 a day) poverty declined by about 25%

All this had been done with the most simple of economic techniques. Price controls were stopped, commercial law now allowed the opening of private businesses, and the unprofitable state enterprises were closed or sold off. Now what is important there is the fact that they were responsibly privatised, not like what happened in Russia, the rapacious privatization that created the 'new oligarchs'. The polish currency, the zloty, was turned into a convertable currency at 9500 zlotys per USD. Sachs also pioneered the idea of a Zloty Stabilization Fund, a $1 billion fund to give Poland some foreign reserves to stabilize its currency and increase confidence in the zloty. It worked so well that the fund never had to be tapped. Goods began to return from the black markets into the shops, and as another measure of the economic success of the reforms, the finance advisor monitored a butcher shop nearby. During the days of price controls, the price was artificially set low and so you had to arrive early in the morning or you wouldnt get any sausage at all. Eventually, you could get sausages later and later (both as a result of increased supply, and lowered demand) until finally about a year after the reforms, (started Jan.1,1990), on most days, you could get them all the time.

In short, we as human beings have in our hands the tools to break years of extreme poverty which exist as a result of ignorance, both in policy and economy.

If you have any interest at all in helping the society in which you live or any other (particularly other socities) then pick up the book The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities For Our Time by Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs, Phd

[Freedom Works]

Freedom works, seems like you just proved it to yourself.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi
Well, this particular economist's first priority is the poverty of the third world.

Awww...isn't that sweet.


His first experiment in combating poverty was during the hyperinflationary period in Bolivia, when over the course of just two years the peso rose from 5000 per dollar to 2 million per dollar. He helped to successfully stop inflation there, the result of a huge budget deficit financed by loans from the central bank (AKA printing money).

And now Bolivia is a workers' paradise and the streets of La Paz are paved with gold.

Um...not exactly, right?

In fact, Bolivia is a complete shithole of human misery, right?


With Deng Xioping's reforms in 1978...the economy picked up pace substantially, and by 2000 had quadrupled GDP per capita.

Does that mean the average Chinese worker or peasant has four times the income that they had in 1978?

No, it doesn't, right?


However, by 1995, GDP per capita was higher than it had been in 1989, and what's more, it continued to grow steadily, until by 2000, GDP per capita was 40% higher than it had been in 1989. As well, the number of people living in extreme (0-$1 a day) and moderate ($1-$2 a day) poverty declined by about 25%

Yes, I actually remember reading about Poland during that glorious transition...when crowds of people were sleeping in the subways and train stations.

Even if that claim of a 25% reduction in extreme poverty were true, what about the other 75%?

Poland, like Bolivia, is a shithole of human misery.

But some folks did make out like...um, bandits -- including the fucking Catholic Church!

And as you might expect, women didn't do so good.


Price controls were stopped, commercial law now allowed the opening of private businesses, and the unprofitable state enterprises were closed or sold off.

Mostly just closed. But now that Poland is part of the EU, Polish workers are free to emigrate to western European countries and work on the black market there.

Or they can join the Polish Army and do occupation duty in Iraq...there's a real career path, right?


During the days of price controls, the price was artificially set low and so you had to arrive early in the morning or you wouldn't get any sausage at all. Eventually, you could get sausages later and later (both as a result of increased supply, and lowered demand) until finally about a year after the reforms, (started Jan.1,1990), on most days, you could get them all the time.

If you could afford them...just what do you think "lower demand" means? It means that poor people stopped eating sausages!


In short, we as human beings have in our hands the tools to break years of extreme poverty which exist as a result of ignorance, both in policy and economy.

If you have any interest at all in helping the society in which you live or any other (particularly other societies) then pick up the book The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities For Our Time by Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs, Phd

Must be fashionable; there are five people who have the book on hold at my public library.

But poverty is not a consequence of "ignorance"...it is the result of an economic system that naturally produces "winners" and "losers".

And like a casino, most of the people are losers.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[quincunx5]

But poverty is not a consequence of "ignorance"...it is the result of an economic system that naturally produces "winners" and "losers".


Your problem is that you define poverty as the losers. They are only "losers" in a relative sense compared to others, usually in the same nation. Someone living below poverty line in the US or EU is actually better of than the small middle classes in third world nations.

Compared to today, Henry VIII was living in poverty: no hot water, air-conditioning, cars, radios, TVs, computers, etc... Yet he was stinking wealthy relative to everyone else at the time.

Today, someone earning at the threshold poverty level can afford all of the above.

Should we not engage in sports? Now that is clearly a system that produces winners and losers.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by quincunx5
Your problem is that you define poverty as the losers. They are only "losers" in a relative sense compared to others, usually in the same nation.

How else can one define poverty except in comparison to what is actually possible?

Saying that poor people in America are wealthier than the middle classes in Shitholia is meaningless -- even if wealth were evenly distributed in Shitholia, they'd all still be poorer than poor Americans.

What we know is based on where we live -- we look around us and see that a few have so much wealth as to almost be incomprehensible -- while others don't have much and many have next to nothing.

Winners and losers.


Should we not engage in sports? Now that is clearly a system that produces winners and losers.

To make this "parallel" valid, the consequence of defeat in a sporting contest would have to be made much more drastic...the losing team gets to work at McDonald's or Wal-Mart for the rest of the season and has to live in their cars because they don't have the money for rent.

I don't think sports would be a real popular career path in such an environment.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Osman Ghazi]

Oh wow. Why are you trying to play me like this Redstar?

Do you honestly think Im stupid? Do you think that I dont want to help as much as you? A year ago I was your fucking disciple. I thought that you were the revolutionary shit. But you know what, since then, Ive seen real revolutions. Cedar Revolution, Lebanon 2005, Orange Revolution, Ukraine 2004, Rose Revolution, Georgia 2002(?).

And what those have proven to me is the folly of a Bolivarian revolution, with a bunch a folks sitting in computer chairs talking about how they can make a revolution. Revolutions happen when crises happen, like the assassination of Rakik Hariri or the obvious injustice of Yushchenko's opponent.


Awww...isn't that sweet.


Its sad that you would belittle someone who wants to help the world as much as you do, and unlike you, has actually been a force for positive change.


And now Bolivia is a workers' paradise and the streets of La Paz are paved with gold.

Um...not exactly, right?

In fact, Bolivia is a complete shithole of human misery, right?

I wouldn't say it was as bad as all that. Have you ever been? Didn't think so. Now, niether have I, but things are getting better. At least the citizens have the power to force out the president whenever they want, 2 in as many years. Compared to the US, Id say that looks pretty good. The thing is, its about sustaining growth. Bolivias new growth will be in the natural gas sector.


Does that mean the average Chinese worker or peasant has four times the income that they had in 1978?

No, it doesn't, right?


No, the wage of the 'average Chinese worker' is probably about double what it was then, ever since they decollectivised agriculture and subjected China to the same forces of urbanization as in other developed nations. Admittedly, most of the gains went to the post-cultural revolution graduates of Chinas universites, who became the new intellectual elite.

Again, unlike Sachs, youve never been to China. So, without any real experience other than what you read, you're going to criticize the driving force of the world economy?

Sorry, how many phds do you have again?


Yes, I actually remember reading about Poland during that glorious transition...when crowds of people were sleeping in the subways and train stations.

Even if that claim of a 25% reduction in extreme poverty were true, what about the other 75%?

Poland, like Bolivia, is a shithole of human misery.

But some folks did make out like...um, bandits -- including the fucking Catholic Church!

And as you might expect, women didn't do so good.


One thing that I didnt make clear about Sachs is that he believes (ha! believes. Proves is more like it) that the developed nations must underwrite the costs of the transition so as to alleviate the suffering of the population. He aslo shows that rural Africa, with its constant exposure to malarial infection and HIV/AIDS will never develope without foriegn assisstance, because they are in what he calls, a 'poverty trap'.

Again, though, another country youve never been to and he has. Look at it from my opinion, two people are telling different things about the same place. Both are equally moral people, yet one has been there and one has not. Who would you believe. In 1989 Polands per capita GDP was a mere 2500USD and now it is just under 4000. What, is its growth simply not fast enough for you?

As to the Catholic Church, well there influence is, as always, regrettable. If I could, Id charge them with fraud, but I cant so I wont. Generally though, the real problem of women in developing nations is that they are forced to remain forever pregnant. Economic opportunities have always brought down birth rates and brought higher female literacy and participation in society. Women suffer all over the former CP-ruled world, but their suffering is probably lightest in Poland.



If you could afford them...just what do you think "lower demand" means? It means that poor people stopped eating sausages!


And they started eating more fruits and vegetables leading to a 13% decline in heart disease since the end of CP rule in that country. Meat is expensive, thats true, but its a lot more expensive when you dont get there on time and you have to go buy it off the black market, which means committing a crime and dealing with very shady people. How many things have you purchased off the black market? Is it as easy as going to the corner store? Is that really worth sausage? I don't know. You tell me.


Mostly just closed. But now that Poland is part of the EU, Polish workers are free to emigrate to western European countries and work on the black market there.

Or they can join the Polish Army and do occupation duty in Iraq...there's a real career path, right?


Youre kidding me right? How many anti-Iraq 'debates' did I have your back in? Besides, I think they already pulled out their mega-powerful 300-man Iraq Brigade.


Must be fashionable; there are five people who have the book on hold at my public library.

Oh it is. It has a foreword by Bono :o :lol:
You know what, it wouldn't surprise me if it were popular among the 'free tibeters' but if so, it's a good thing. This book, first of all has a very simple style of writing that even the most dedicated member of the 'free tibet' movement could understand( :lol: :lol: .) Sorry, ex-girlfriend was a fan. This is scientifically conducted economics, different than anything Ive ever heard of in my life. Before this I thought an economics degree was the equivalent of a BA in recreational studies.

It's also quite new though.


But poverty is not a consequence of "ignorance"...it is the result of an economic system that naturally produces "winners" and "losers".

And like a casino, most of the people are losers.


You know what, don't confuse relative losers (American service workers who make 7 bucks an hour) with the real losers of this world, the billion people who live on a dollar or less a day, and the 1.5 billion who live on between 1 and 2 bucks a day. Just like Marx knew 150 years ago, capitalism will raise the incomes of those unfortunates with the right amount of political will and the right preconditions in place.

[Publius]

If you have any interest at all in helping the society in which you live or any other (particularly other socities) then pick up the book The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities For Our Time by Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs, Phd

I plan on it.

The list is long though.

On a related note, In Defense of Globalization by Jagdish Bhagwati is an excellent book.

[Osman Ghazi]

Honestly, I started it on Saturday and Im already done. It was incredible, but what I liked about it was that it wasn't theory. It was a series of case studies from which he drew a large set of conclusions on how to comabt extreme poverty.

The first thing that needs to happen is to bring a green revolution to Africa, to foster the high-yield agriculture necessary to draw people into the cities. However, that cant be done without massive foreign aid, to the tune of about $100 per person for a good decade or so. It is a lot, but it is a fraction of the cost of the war in Iraq, and if the US is willing to go into debt to kill people they should be willing to give out a quarter of as much money over 10 years to save millions of lives.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi
Do you honestly think I'm stupid?

Not yet...but you do seem to be trying to make a case for that unhappy proposition.


A year ago I was your fucking disciple.

Naturally, I regret losing a "fan"...I don't have very many, after all.

But during the period of your "discipleship", didn't you even notice the number of times that I made reference to the need for critical examination of everything?

Did you ever see me flopping on my belly before some fashionable revelation of capitalist "truth"?

If you were ever a "disciple" of mine, you certainly were an extremely inattentive one.


But you know what, since then, I've seen real revolutions. Cedar Revolution, Lebanon 2005, Orange Revolution, Ukraine 2004, Rose Revolution, Georgia 2002(?).

Lovely...all of which, of course, were "revolutions" that changed nothing of consequence.

Yeah, some local crooks got the boot and some new crooks took over.

Oh wow, man! That's like so cool.


And what those have proven to me is the folly of a Bolivarian revolution...

Well, I'm still waiting for those working class organs of power to emerge in Venezuela myself...not to mention the expropriation of the capitalist class.

You know, revolution without the quotation marks.

But Venezuela at the present time is head and shoulders and fucking kneecaps above your models.


...with a bunch a folks sitting in computer chairs talking about how they can make a revolution.

This is a message board -- it's where talk about revolution takes place.


It's sad that you would belittle someone who wants to help the world as much as you do, and unlike you, has actually been a force for positive change.

I don't think his changes are "positive" in the least -- he's a shill for imperialism, that's all.

So yes, I belittle him and his "desire" to "help the world".


I wouldn't say [Bolivia] was as bad as all that.

I guess you wouldn't...but there seem to be a hell of a lot of Bolivians who disagree with you.


Have you ever been [there]?

First hand knowledge of any given country is very useful...no question about it. But one must be careful to question what kind of first-hand knowledge is being offered us?

A guy like this Sachs fellow goes to La Paz (or Warsaw or wherever), stays in the best available hotel, eats and drinks the best available stuff, spends his working hours in plush government offices, perhaps makes a quick tour of a few locations, and then writes in his book, "When I was in Bolivia, I saw blah, blah, blah...".

Did he ever live like a Bolivian or a Pole or like the ordinary person lives in any of his destinations?

Even for just a day? Even for just a few hours?

:lol:


So, without any real experience other than what you read, you're going to criticize the driving force of the world economy?

Aren't you overlooking something? I live in this "world economy"...I can look around me and see some portion of its effects.

It's pretty bad and looks like it's getting worse.


Sorry, how many phds do you have again?

Same as Engels...none.


One thing that I didn't make clear about Sachs is that he believes (ha! believes. Proves is more like it) that the developed nations must underwrite the costs of the transition so as to alleviate the suffering of the population.

And we all just know how "eager" the ruling classes in the "developed nations" are to do that, don't we?

The more you talk about this book, the less eager I am to read it. The guy sounds like a moron!


Again, though, another country you've never been to and he has.

Yes, I'd pay careful attention to his evaluation of the quality of the room service at the Warsaw Intercontinental Hotel.


And they started eating more fruits and vegetables leading to a 13% decline in heart disease since the end of CP rule in that country.

:lol:

Poverty is good for us!

The arguments that the defenders of capitalism will "reach for" are sometimes quite surprising.


It has a foreword by Bono.

One rich hustler fronts for another. No surprise there.


You know what, don't confuse relative losers (American service workers who make 7 bucks an hour) with the real losers of this world, the billion people who live on a dollar or less a day, and the 1.5 billion who live on between 1 and 2 bucks a day.

They don't "live"...they just die slowly. And neither Mr. Sachs nor Mr. Bono will do anything to stop that.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Freedom Works]

They don't "live"...they just die slowly.
Everyone dies. Remember, the cause of death is life.

..Until about 2050 when we are able to live forever, unless we are collectivist in which case I don't see such a thing ever coming about.

[Osman Ghazi]

But during the period of your "discipleship", didn't you even notice the number of times that I made reference to the need for critical examination of everything?


Exactly, critical examination even of you and of this place. Sachs can predict what will and wont help developing nations and why and what the factors are limiting their economy.

I have to critically examine your propositions: that the world is getting worse for most people as a result of the capitlalst economic system. But the thing is, that just isnt true. The number of people living in extreme and moderate poverty is declining, and you know what, people living in relative poverty are really not that bad off.

My buddy made a whopping 14000 CDN last year, and he spends pretty much all of his time in the pursuit of sex, getting high and drunk and just generally entertaining himself. He's happy as a fucking clam, and yet, hes living in 'poverty'. :o

Could that even be possible? :o


Lovely...all of which, of course, were "revolutions" that changed nothing of consequence.

Yeah, some local crooks got the boot and some new crooks took over.

Im sorry that they couldnt make one giant leap from being poor unindustrialized nations to awesome and 100 percent successful commmunist ones.

But ending Syrian domination based on military power and the ability to make people disappear when they make trouble is most certainly an accomplishment of great consequence.

Ending a good deal of government corruption like the Orange revolution did certainly wasnt a good thing either. Like my momma always says, if you cant end a 100 percent of corruption, why doesnt everyone just take a bribe?


Oh wow, man! That's like so cool.


Sadly, thats sounds a lot more like the folks round here. "Killing people for communism is the bomb-diggity! Yay socialism!"


Well, I'm still waiting for those working class organs of power to emerge in Venezuela myself...not to mention the expropriation of the capitalist class.

You know, revolution without the quotation marks.

But Venezuela at the present time is head and shoulders and fucking kneecaps above your models.


Ha! Well a) I wasn't referring to Venezuela but to Bolivarianism (meeting and planning a revolution.) The only revolution are the ones people make for themselves. They are forced to be there by anyone, they realize that only popular protest can ever really change anything.

But b) I don't really have much info on Venezuela and I dont like to rely on shitty statisitcs so I wont comment on how good it is there, but its telling that even after all his years in power, Chavez is still trying to address the very same issues as when he was elected. Now that's progress.

And c) I would say that the most effective, possibly the only effective organs of popular power are the organizations formed when a group of people decide they need change, and decide to form a group to fight for change. Saying "Hey, this is your organ of popular power!" is somewhat less effective. You should check out some info on the Slum Dwellers Associations of India.


This is a message board -- it's where talk about revolution takes place.


Its where useless talk about revolution takes place. Not only has this board not advanced ideologically, its stagnated since ive been gone. The comments seem to get more childish everyday, more "Yay Che!" You can talk all you want, but the next revolution that comes wont be yours, and most of the people who make it wont have read this site, and youll probably find them hostile to a number of your ideas.


I don't think his changes are "positive" in the least -- he's a shill for imperialism, that's all.

How so? He was against the war in Iraq, hes pro-debt cancallation, hes anti-IMF and World Bank, pro-UN. God damn! Hes starting to sound like Wolfowitz or Cheney, aint he?


I guess you wouldn't...but there seem to be a hell of a lot of Bolivians who disagree with you.


But I bet that there parents will tell them of a land that was a hell of a lot worse. A land in which everything in stores was valued in USD, because the currency was devaluing itself every single day. A land, where the government paid the wages of the workers of state-owned industries by printing money so that they could garner votes. Now that sounds like a workers paradise.


First hand knowledge of any given country is very useful...no question about it. But one must be careful to question what kind of first-hand knowledge is being offered us?


When he actually had the chance to travel in the countryside (he didnt in Poland), hes very detailed about what he saw there and what living conditions were like. He talks about in China where he saw what 8% growth really means: buildings going up everywhere the eye can see, and not with cranes but with bare hands and bamboo scaffolding. They are being built 24 hours a day.

To be fair, the book is mainly about ending poverty in Africa, and there he travelled to many countries to talk to the villagers, notably Malwai and Kenya. And most of his strategies are based off a combination of his work in other countries and what the villagers say their main needs are. Again, unlike you, he has sat down and talked to these people.

And, a word to the wise, Poland certainly didn't have 'plush' government offices, especially the newly legalized solidarity.


Did he ever live like a Bolivian or a Pole or like the ordinary person lives in any of his destinations?


Have you? Do you know what its like to live in real poverty?


Aren't you overlooking something? I live in this "world economy"...I can look around me and see some portion of its effects.

So do I. Canada's unemployment is the lowest its been in 30 years. Are you going to dispute pure fact again? 'Oh, but what about the people without a job?' You know what? If youre willing to take a lot of shit, and sometimes you gotta, there are places out there. I know people who have come halfway across the world, with the thought of working here, only to find out that they cant get hired. Ive worked at Tim Hortons with people who have Masters degrees. Its ridiculous, I know, but there isnt another option. At least it isnt Germany, where two-thirds of those on unemployment have been there for over a year.


It's pretty bad and looks like it's getting worse.


Well, yes, but there are reasons for that, which are completely seperate from the need for capitalist systems (particularly free-trade zones) in impoverished nations.

You see, your government is taking out a lot of loans in order to finance its war in Iraq. Ultimately, this can lead them only to economic ruin, just as Bolivias constant and massive deficit led them there 20 years ago. The United States also refuses to invest in its human capital, with things like decent primary education, free or cheap public healthcare and most notably in subsidization of post-secondary education.


And we all just know how "eager" the ruling classes in the "developed nations" are to do that, don't we?

The more you talk about this book, the less eager I am to read it. The guy sounds like a moron!


Well, it is in their economic interests, and occasionally they can be convinced of that. Mostly they cant. In 1992 he was probably as naive as you say, when he campaigned for a 5 billion dollar Ruble Stabilization Fund. Sadly, no money was forthcoming, and so no one inside or outside Russia had any confidence in the economic reforms. The reformers barely held on and then were finally pushed out of office and kept flipping in and out of the duma for the next few years. This led to the criminal privitisation that gave rise to the new oligarchs. As well, it led to economic chaos, which led to political chaos, which led back to economic chaos and so on and so forth in a hugely destructive chain of events that left millions in misery and hundreds of thousands dead. Its unfortunate, but thats what happens when we fail our brothers and sisters.

But, in Poland, he got them to contribute a billion bucks, and he also got them to write off half (15 billion) of Polands debt. But Wolfowitz and Cheney didint think that Russia was worth it. To them, a strong Russia was inimical to American interests. As well, the IMF insisted on keeping the ruble as the currency of all the successor states, and what happens when 15 countries all have money printing presses? That's right children: Inflation! Yay!


Poverty is good for us!

The arguments that the defenders of capitalism will "reach for" are sometimes quite surprising.


Here is the argument Im reaching for. State businesses were told to make certain foods, thus subsidizing them and what is more they then sold these foods at an artificially low price, which induced people to make most of their meals consist of these fatty foods. Well, when Polands economy collapsed, and they had to suspend debt repayment and when you could only find the things you need on the black market, things were rather more difficult than now. People began to import fruits and vegetables, some things they couldnt get before, like bananas. (You see, its mostly the concept of autarky whcih hurt their economy.) In fact, whatever you say about the transitional economy, Poland today is the best Eastern European country to live in, bar none.


One rich hustler fronts for another. No surprise there.

Bono might be a fool, but I think hes genuine. He seems to invest too much time and effort for it to just be an act.


They don't "live"...they just die slowly. And neither Mr. Sachs nor Mr. Bono will do anything to stop that.


And here we come to the crux of the issue.

Do you think that by sitting around talking about revolution, that you will?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi
I have to critically examine your propositions: that the world is getting worse for most people as a result of the capitalist economic system. But the thing is, that just isn't true. The number of people living in extreme and moderate poverty is declining, and you know what, people living in relative poverty are really not that bad off.

In my father's day, a young working man (telephone lineman) could buy a house, support a wife and two kids, own a late-model car...and even visit the racetrack on the weekends.

In my lifetime, I have seen that cease to be true.

When I was growing up, the working class ideal was to get a good job (preferably unionized) with a solid corporation and never have to worry about job security again.

That, of course, is now unattainable.

When I was in high school, we were instructed to budget 25% of our take-home pay for rent and utilities; now it's 50-60%!

I could continue...but the point is obvious. However you manipulate the numbers, things are clearly getting worse for working people in the U.S. and, I think, in all the advanced capitalist countries.

Only an enormous mountain of credit-card and mortgage debt stands between our "middle-class" standard-of-living and the standards of the 1940s. (!)

Real wages for ordinary workers have not risen (in the U.S.) since 1964...and the average work-week has now climbed to figures not seen since the late 1920s. (!)


I'm sorry that they couldn't make one giant leap from being poor unindustrialized nations to awesome and 100 percent successful communist ones.

I'm sorry too...but you are the one who claimed that they were "real revolutions".

When they were and are not any such thing.


You should check out some info on the Slum Dwellers Associations of India.

Very well, how about this...

Slum dwellers seek better facilities (http://www.hindu.com/2004/11/21/stories/2004112102500300.htm)


MYSORE, NOV. 20. The Federation of Slum Dwellers' Associations today urged the Government to extend basic amenities and free education to help slum dwellers ameliorate their living condition.

Did the capitalist government respond to this respectful request?

Is the pope a Hindu?


It's where useless talk about revolution takes place...You can talk all you want, but the next revolution that comes won't be yours, and most of the people who make it won't have read this site, and you'll probably find them hostile to a number of your ideas.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :lol:

Judging by what you mean when you (mis)use the word "revolution", you're probably right.

But right or wrong, I will hold out for "the real thing".


How so? [Sachs] was against the war in Iraq, he's pro-debt cancellation, he's anti-IMF and World Bank, pro-UN. God damn! He's starting to sound like Wolfowitz or Cheney, ain't he?

His pro-forma verbal opposition to some of the excesses of modern capital hardly qualify him as "the next Che".

All he wants is a more "enlightened" version of imperialism -- which is fundamentally defined as an imperialism which puts people like him "in charge".

Fat chance! :lol:


But I bet that there parents will tell them of a land that was a hell of a lot worse.

Maybe, maybe not. At least in the days of their parents, people could make a living growing cocaine.


He talks about in China where he saw what 8% growth really means: buildings going up everywhere the eye can see, and not with cranes but with bare hands and bamboo scaffolding. They are being built 24 hours a day.

The Chinese "building boom" has been noticed by others besides Mr. Sachs. In fact, there was an article about the "boom" in Shanghai in a recent issue of Harper's Magazine. Unlike your Mr. Sachs, the article mentions the massive (and often brutal) evictions connected with this "boom".

But hey, as Stalin used to say, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs.


Again, unlike you, he has sat down and talked to these people.

Yes...fluent as he is in all the languages of Africa. :lol:


And, a word to the wise, Poland certainly didn't have 'plush' government offices, especially the newly legalized solidarity.

I'm sure they did the best they could for Mr. Sachs...at least he didn't have to sleep in the train station. :lol:


Have you? Do you know what it's like to live in real poverty?

Well, I've seen a few pretty grim times. But, you see, unlike the overpaid Mr. Sachs, I don't present myself as a "world-class expert" on "ending poverty".


If you're willing to take a lot of shit, and sometimes you gotta, there are places out there.

A diet of shit, eh? Yum!

At least you're honest enough to admit what's on the menu.


Well, it is in their economic interests, and occasionally they can be convinced of that.

As I noted above, "if only" they'd put Mr. Sachs in charge, everything would be "just wonderful". :lol:


In fact, whatever you say about the transitional economy, Poland today is the best Eastern European country to live in, bar none.

That's not what I've heard -- both Hungary and the Czech Republic have somewhat higher standards.

But it's not a big deal either way; the lucky winners in the transition probably live pretty close to western European standards -- the losers are in the shit.


Bono might be a fool, but I think he's genuine.

A sincere fool is still a fool.


Do you think that by sitting around talking about revolution, that [b]you will?

I won't...but the ideas that I talk about will.

The ideas that Mr. Sachs, Bono, et.al., won't!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

PS: Although it's not normally our policy on this board to edit the signatures of members, I have taken the liberty of removing the link to my site from your signature. I find it embarrassing to be associated, even indirectly, with the views that you now advocate.

[Osman Ghazi]

I'm sorry too...but you are the one who claimed that they were "real revolutions".

When they were and are not any such thing.

You dont even know what a revolution is.
It is when a bunch of people decide that they wont tolerate a certain privilege, a certain level of corruption or a certain interference, ans then they stand up and do something about it. They dont have to burn the place to the ground, they dont have to kill a bunch of people, but they do have to make a significant difference, and that is exactly what happened in all those situations.


Did the capitalist government respond to this respectful request?

Is the pope a Hindu?


They have in the past and they will in the future.


His pro-forma verbal opposition to some of the excesses of modern capital hardly qualify him as "the next Che".

:lol: Yeah, that's what I want. Somone who believes enough in their ideas to kill for them but who, ultimately, didn't know what the fuck he was talking about. Did he make things great in Bolivia? Or is it more likely that his little putsch set Bolivia back a few years? Just like SL in Peru.


Maybe, maybe not. At least in the days of their parents, people could make a living growing cocaine.

For which Sachs also criticized the US government. What they fail to realize, (actually they must realize it, they just don't care) is that they destroyed the livelihoods of thousands of fairly well-organized cocaleros, without providing any viable economic alternative, just as they are now in Columbia.


The Chinese "building boom" has been noticed by others besides Mr. Sachs. In fact, there was an article about the "boom" in Shanghai in a recent issue of Harper's Magazine. Unlike your Mr. Sachs, the article mentions the massive (and often brutal) evictions connected with this "boom".

The Chinese government forcibly dispersed hundreds of thousands of people from Tianamen Square, killing thousands, and you honestly expect them to offer compensation to their citizens? I mean, they recently befriended fucking Mugabe that murdering old faux-black nationalist bastard.

I don't know what you are trying to prove though. The brutality of the Chinese government has nothing to do with their economic growth, nor does it disprove the success of their market reforms.


Yes...fluent as he is in all the languages of Africa.

You mean, English and French? Well, hes got at least one of them. You see, English is what they speak in Kenya, where he did the main research for his solutions for ending rural poverty there.


Well, I've seen a few pretty grim times. But, you see, unlike the overpaid Mr. Sachs, I don't present myself as a "world-class expert" on "ending poverty".

Exactly. In fact, your only solution is that they should overthrow the government. Realistically though, without any kind of popualr support, that will only result in an insurgency or a civil war which will destroy a lot of lives and livelihoods, but ultimately be defeated.

What I'm getting at here is that it is easy to criticize when you have no viable alternative to present. That way you can say whatever you want and no one can retaliate.


A diet of shit, eh? Yum!

At least you're honest enough to admit what's on the menu.


Shit will be on humanities menu for a few generations to come at least, and thats if we do things right. But, considering that weve been taking shit for the past 500,000 years or so, and it keeps getting tastier every day, Im not too worried at the prospect. Im also lucky enough to live in a country where the shit I have to take is minor compared to the sufferings of others.


That's not what I've heard -- both Hungary and the Czech Republic have somewhat higher standards.

But it's not a big deal either way; the lucky winners in the transition probably live pretty close to western European standards -- the losers are in the shit.


Hungary is a surprise, and I consider the Czechs to be Central Europe, but your right, it doesn't make a big difference. Th epoint is, what would have happened if they continued to live like they were?

Answer: They would all be in the shit. The only time you could purchase commodites would be if you knew someone who had stolen them from state-owned enterprises. You would be guaranteed a job and a steady wage, but as the currency hyperinflated, you wouldn't able to buy jack shit with it anyways.


A sincere fool is still a fool.


That's what I think about the people around here. And it pains me, because they could be doing so much good, but if your trying to hammer in screws and screw in nails, your gonna have a bit of a tough time. Without the right tools, they'll always be dissappointed, because they can't help people like they want to.


I won't...but the ideas that I talk about will.

The ideas that Mr. Sachs, Bono, et.al., won't!


Well, that's interesting, because the main point you make is that we have to wait for the revolution to come. You say that we have to do what we can while we can, but according to you, what we can do for the third world right now is nothing.

According to Sachs, what we can do is to bring the Green Revolution to Africa, just as it has been brought to the rest of the world. Through that, they can finally have enough food to eat, and enough left over to save some. They can reduce their vulnerability to malaria, afford contraceptive measures to limit overpopulation and reduce vulnerability to HIV/AIDS and begin to improve their standards of living.

So my choices are this: do nothing, and wait for the Holy Revolution of Salvation to come. Or, I can help in the campaign to get Africans the money they need to jump start their economy now, before the AIDS epidemic gets out of control, before overpopulation exacerbates tribal and ethnic conflict and in short, before they all starve and die in this poverty trap in which they are stuck.

Which would you do if you were me?


PS: Although it's not normally our policy on this board to edit the signatures of members, I have taken the liberty of removing the link to my site from your signature. I find it embarrassing to be associated, even indirectly, with the views that you now advocate.

What ev, and thanks for removing me from Commie Club too. I don't belong there anymore. I didn't in the first place.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2005, 07:08 PM
I wouldn't say it was as bad as all that. Have you ever been? Didn't think so. Now, niether have I, but things are getting better. At least the citizens have the power to force out the president whenever they want, 2 in as many years. Compared to the US, Id say that looks pretty good.
Excuse me, but those huge protests were against the shithole conditions people have to live in, and the consequences of capitalist underdevelopment and the "trade liberalization" imposed on Sach's advice.

You really can't support that economic course and the massive protests against it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi
You don't even know what a revolution is...They don't have to burn the place to the ground, they don't have to kill a bunch of people, but they do have to make a significant difference, and that is exactly what happened in all those situations.

They have made no significant difference at all...thus far.

Of course, if, for example, the Ukraine joins the EU, that would make some differences...for the lucky winners.

What the Ukrainians are going to get, in all likelihood, is some direct foreign investment from Germany...perhaps an auto plant or two.

But it's not going to be a "big deal" -- South Carolina has a German auto plant and it's still a pretty wretched place to live.


They have in the past and they will in the future.

The reformist poem...

Jam yesterday
and jam tomorrow;
but never jam today.


Someone who believes enough in their ideas to kill for them but who, ultimately, didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.

Unlike the humane and knowledgeable Mr. Sachs...who wouldn't hurt a fly but believes in "enlightened imperialism".


For which Sachs also criticized the US government.

Yes, the fangs of his "criticism" bite deeply into the neck of U.S. imperialism.

But accomplish no more than my own "utopian ramblings" on a small message board.


The brutality of the Chinese government has nothing to do with their economic growth, nor does it disprove the success of their market reforms.

Oh? The historical connection between capitalist development and government brutality has escaped your notice? And that of Mr. Sachs as well?

Time to make another omelette?


You see, English is what they speak in Kenya, where he did the main research for his solutions for ending rural poverty there.

English might be widely spoken in the cities...but I think it implausible that it would be spoken in the countryside.


Exactly. In fact, your only solution is that they should overthrow the government. Realistically though, without any kind of popular support, that will only result in an insurgency or a civil war which will destroy a lot of lives and livelihoods, but ultimately be defeated.

No, I think a "1789" in "third world" countries will be ultimately successful...though it may take several tries.

The schemes of Mr. Sachs, on the other hand, will not be successful ever...because they depend on imperialist "good will" -- something that is as imaginary as the "Holy Ghost".


What I'm getting at here is that it is easy to criticize when you have no viable alternative to present.

I do not need a "viable alternative" to criticize an "alternative" that is itself non-viable.

No matter how many audiences Mr. Sachs or Mr. Bono or their disciples have with Bush, Blair, and Company and no matter how eloquently they plead the case of the poor, exactly nothing will be achieved.


Shit will be on humanity's menu for a few generations to come at least, and that's if we do things right.

The path that you and Mr. Sachs propose is one of indefinite servitude to capital...in other words, shit forever!

No thanks!


The point is, what would have happened if they continued to live like they were?

Everyone would get a chance to eat some sausage?

Horrors!

Most people on this board know that I am not a "big fan" of the state capitalist despotisms in the USSR, China, eastern Europe, etc. They were corrupt, incompetent, and occasionally brutal.

But it seems to me that what has replaced them has generally been worse and, in some respects, much worse.

Many people in those countries thought that when "communism" was dismantled, that they'd get modern capitalism like that of western Europe or North America.

Instead, what they've received is gangster capitalism...like the U.S. in the period 1865-1915.

Or, indeed, like Africa right now.

You and Mr. Sachs may think that gangster capitalism and more imperialist intervention is the "engine of world development"...I will reserve judgment on that one.

But when you cloak this formula in the costume of "really caring about the poor", I'm afraid you've exceeded all bounds of decency...or credibility.


Well, that's interesting, because the main point you make is that we have to wait for the revolution to come. You say that we have to do what we can while we can, but according to you, what we can do for the third world right now is nothing.

There is one thing we can do "for the third world" and only one thing -- build an anti-imperialist movement at home that is so strong and so intransigent that it is virtually impossible for the imperialist countries to militarily intervene in the "third world" without risking enormous domestic upheavals.

That's a tough task...and progress thus far has been very disappointing (at least to me). I have to constantly remind myself that we live, after all, in a period of reaction -- when people like you, truthaddict11, and others who showed some promise end up defecting to the class enemy.

It's just something that's going to inevitably happen.

It's a damn shame...but those are the breaks. :(

But some have kept and will continue to keep the revolutionary fires burning...and, who knows, in time they may rise again.

If Marx was right, they will rise again...and the wisdom of Mr. Sachs will be relegated to the basement stacks where the mice will make nests of it.


Which would you do if you were me?

I could never "be you".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Hiero]

What Marxist works have you read Osman Ghazi?

[Osman Ghazi]

capitalist underdevelopment

Let me address a little issue here. Most people around here seem to think that when a nation is underdeveloped, it is owing to something called 'capitalist underdevelopment'.

But no one ever says anything about geographic underdevelopment, which is a large part of Sachs' 'clinical economics' theory. For example, Bolivia is a highly mountainous country. I think La Paz is something like 10000 ft above sea level. Let us also consider that Bolivia is a landlocked nation, therefore, since it cannot have any low-cost sea trade (proximity to navigable water being one of the most important geographic determinants of wealth) it must do everything by road and rail, and ships all their exports through Chile. It is very difficult for export economies to develop without access to the oceans. Almost all the impoverished nations of the world have some geographic strike against them. Islands tend to be very easy to develop and grow much faster than other environments. Look at the top Asian markets: Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, Hainan Island, Penang Island, Singapore. These are some of the richest places in Asia, all islands.


What Marxist works have you read Osman Ghazi?

I can't even remember what I read anymore. I know that I read the manifesto, but not Capital. In either case, I have no interest in learning Marxist economics, or neo-liberal economics for that matter. What I have always had profound interest in, and what Sachs does, is experimental economics. He recommends certain policies and then they follow through with them and he measures the results. I don't want to learn any economic theory ever again. All I want to know is economic reality.


What the Ukrainians are going to get, in all likelihood, is some direct foreign investment from Germany...perhaps an auto plant or two.


Your disdain for the early processes of capitalism, which even Marx admitted all countries must go through is somewhat surprising. An autoplant would increase technical knowledge in the area quite widely, and would begin to bring some wealth into a few more peoples hands.


But it's not going to be a "big deal" -- South Carolina has a German auto plant and it's still a pretty wretched place to live.


How many people in South Carolina live on less than 2$ per day? Is the alcoholism prevalency rate like 70% there too?
That would even compare South Carolina and Ukraine is practically insane. If South Carolina is wretched, then Ukraine and 70% of all other countries are the living incarnationsof hell on earth.


The reformist poem...

Jam yesterday
and jam tomorrow;
but never jam today.


Cute. But I could see it called 'the revolutionary poem' with as much meaning. Kinda of sad that when you desribe what you hate it sounds a lot like yourself.


Unlike the humane and knowledgeable Mr. Sachs...who wouldn't hurt a fly but believes in "enlightened imperialism".


Do you think it was possible for the French to actually come out of their revolution victorious? Or were the odds simply stacked too high against them, too many Kings for the first truly free people?

What you have to understand is, your ideas aren't even popular enough to be talked about in the salons yet. So what we have to do, what humanity will always have to do if they are not strong enough to overthrow the powers that be, is to work with them. Dismantle their structures slowly, not through the spread of violence, but through the spread of knowledge.

Look at Iraq, or Serbia. People called into question the usefulness and justness of those wars far more than they ever did for interventions in Panama, Haiti, in short, than any other of the US's military adventures. What you are suggesting is that we rise up and smash a near-invincible giant, or if we cant do that we hurt the giant anyway we can, even if through our ignorance of their plight, or even from our direct actions we will bring harm to billions of people. I just think its unfeasible. Excuse me if I think its unrealistic.


Yes, the fangs of his "criticism" bite deeply into the neck of U.S. imperialism.

But accomplish no more than my own "utopian ramblings" on a small message board.


Except that he is known by statesman all accross the world, and some of them Im sure even respect him (maybe.) That means that his criticism will actually accomplish more than your 'utopian ramblings'. Even if it isnt much more.


Oh? The historical connection between capitalist development and government brutality has escaped your notice? And that of Mr. Sachs as well?


It is actually a fairly tenous connection. You really give far too much credence to it. Its not so much that the developed nations 'steal' wealth from poor nation, so much as they (in the interests of national security of course :lol: ) take steps, often violent, to secure resources seen as strategic or of great importance. This allows their economy to maintain constant growth at levels much higher than poor nations, whose growth rate often suffers as a result of their violent monopolizing.

Consider this the growth rate in North America from 1820 to 2000 was 1.7%. In Africa in 1820, GDP per capita was one-third of that in North America, but their growth rate was a mere 0.7% Which means that NA's GDP grew something like 30 times, whereas Africas grew a mere four times or so. Even during the midst of massive population growth and chafing as they were under colonial rule, there was still some growth in Africa. Actually its interesting that since 1820, the GWP has expnded by 50 times.


English might be widely spoken in the cities...but I think it implausible that it would be spoken in the countryside.


He didnt mention anything about an interpreter, although its possible that he wouldnt have. In either case, it doesn't really matter whether or not he can speak all the languages of Africa does it? Do you know someone who can? I dont.


No, I think a "1789" in "third world" countries will be ultimately successful...though it may take several tries.


What about the thrid world countries that are already as democratic as France in the age of the National Directory? What would it accomplish there?


No matter how many audiences Mr. Sachs or Mr. Bono or their disciples have with Bush, Blair, and Company and no matter how eloquently they plead the case of the poor, exactly nothing will be achieved.


Then explain to me Blairs champinoing of the debt cancellation in Africa and Bushs tacit support of it. What sinister plan is it a mere footnote to? Is it just a multi-billion dollar diversion from Iraq?


The path that you and Mr. Sachs propose is one of indefinite servitude to capital...in other words, shit forever!


How indefinite is your period of resistance to capital? :rolleyes:

What you propose is shit now and shit until the revolution comes, which even you acknowledge is at least a couple generations. Are we just supposed to sit with our thumbs in our asses waiting? Or do we help who needs help now, and make revolution when the time is right.


Everyone would get a chance to eat some sausage?


How could everyone get sausage if you couldnt get it past 8 in the morning. Explain that theory to me, please. You really dont understand economics at all do you? Economic systems that dont take into account how much it costs to make something wont ever be able to make enough to satisfy everybody. That is what was wrong with Polands economy, half of all transactions were black market.


You and Mr. Sachs may think that gangster capitalism and more imperialist intervention is the "engine of world development"...I will reserve judgment on that one.


Your right. I think corruption and war are the only two things driving us forward. :huh: :rolleyes:
What I advocate is village capitalism, and imperialist intervention in the form of Official Development Assistance (ODA).


But when you cloak this formula in the costume of "really caring about the poor", I'm afraid you've exceeded all bounds of decency...or credibility.


How did you know that Im a massive fraud? How did you know about my plans to bui;d a widget factory in Africa after I decimate their economy with false theory? Muahahahahaha! :lol:


There is one thing we can do "for the third world" and only one thing -- build an anti-imperialist movement at home that is so strong and so intransigent that it is virtually impossible for the imperialist countries to militarily intervene in the "third world" without risking enormous domestic upheavals.


Well, the US is the main military interventionists, and not only have their military interventions been discredited the world over, more importantly, they have been seriously discredited at home as well, with a record 58% of Americans unhappy with the way the 'war' is going.

The Republicans will lose the next election, and I think the Democrats will want to use their peacenikhood to gather votes for the election after that, so I dont predict and serious adventurism in the next decade or so. But what do we do after that? What do we do when weve built an anti-war movement that ensures a lack of military intervention?

Wouldn't it be plausible to build a movement for increased foreign aid, responsible foriegn aid to Africa and the rest of the stagnating world?


I could never "be you".


Of course, that armchair is a little too comfortable to ever accept the possibilty that you could be wrong about some things.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2005, 07:08 PM
A year ago I was your fucking disciple.
And this year you're Sachs disciple. Next week maybe you'll be the Maharishi's disciple. Whatever. Unless you learn to think critically you'll just go from one guru to another.


I thought that you were the revolutionary shit. But you know what, since then, Ive seen real revolutions. Cedar Revolution, Lebanon 2005, Orange Revolution, Ukraine 2004, Rose Revolution, Georgia 2002(?).

Hmmm...so what distinguishes a real revolution is...when not much changes? Certainly power was not transferred from one class to another in any of those, nor was their any major social or economic transformation.


And what those have proven to me is the folly of a Bolivarian revolution, with a bunch a folks sitting in computer chairs talking about how they can make a revolution.

Is that what's happening in Venezuela? Heh.


Revolutions happen when crises happen, like the assassination of Rakik Hariri or the obvious injustice of Yushchenko's opponent.

Why yes. You just discovered that? Marxists have explained for decades if not centuries that we don't produce revolutionary situations...we're just ready for 'em or not. Which affects the outcome of those crises.


Its sad that you would belittle someone who wants to help the world as much as you do, and unlike you, has actually been a force for positive change.

Let's be clear: the "trade liberalization" Sachs advocates is not about ending poverty. It is about opening countries to more ruthless exploitation.

Third World countries which have industrialized successfully have not done so through "trade liberalization"...the "Asian tigers", for example, followed a "developmental state" approach similar to Japan's. When the U.S. finally pressed them to "open up"...the result was the Asian financial crisis, which re-impoverished millions...and gave GM the chance to buy Daewoo, etc.

Heck, the U.S. didn't industrialize through "free trade"...when its industries were new, Uncle Sam protected them with high tariffs against British competition.


No, the wage of the 'average Chinese worker' is probably about double what it was then, ever since they decollectivised agriculture and subjected China to the same forces of urbanization as in other developed nations.

Why, yes. China has achieved impressive rates of growth....thanks to growing urbanization and industrialization, essentially the same factors that fueled rapid Soviet growth during the early Five-Year Plans.. And Chinese workers and peasants are better off than in most Third World countries.

But how is this an argument for "trade liberalization"? No matter how far Deng and his heirs have gone down the road to capitalism, China is far from the policies Sachs advocates...and doing better than those who are following those policies.

It's really amazing that people hold up China as proof of the wonderfulness of capitalism. Yes, it's more capitalist than 20 years ago. But it's still less capitalist than, say, India, a country of roughly the same size and, in 1949, roughly equivalent level of development. So why is China ahead of India - in growth, standard of living, health, education - if capitalism is the cause of all good things?


One thing that I didnt make clear about Sachs is that he believes (ha! believes. Proves is more like it) that the developed nations must underwrite the costs of the transition so as to alleviate the suffering of the population.

But they won't.

What aid is sent, is designed to perpetuate dependency. And even that is little enough: the Third World pays more to the First in interest on the debt, than it receives back in aid. And that's without even getting into other forms of exploitation.

States act in the world to advance their interests, and the interests of the classes they serve...such as U.S. business...not out of the goodness of their nonexistent hearts.

A corporation has no conscience...and neither does a government.

It's possible for one or another country to become a "showcase" of course, through aid and favorable terms of trade.

As in your example of Poland. The overall picture of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, however, is of greatly increased misery as a result of the attempts to restore capitalism; life expectancy plummeted in Russia, to the point where the population actually declined. I could go on.

The "Asian tigers" I mentioned earlier are another example; the U.S. allowed them preferential access to its market, while they kept their own domestic markets closed. This was done against the U.S. for Cold War strategic reasons.

So they owe their economic success, not only to the "developmental state" strategy I mentioned earlier, but to...the existence of the USSR, PRC, north Korea, Vietnam....

And it should be pointed out that it was relatively easy for the U.S. to subsidize a few small countries this way; the same wouldn't have been possible for the whole Third World.


Again, though, another country youve never been to and he has. Look at it from my opinion, two people are telling different things about the same place.

Gee...believe Sachs or believe Redstar? How about: think for yourself!

And consider Sachs is hardly the only one who's been to these countries, heck millions of people live there y'know! They don't all agree with him by a long shot. On the contrary, there's been widespread popular resistance to "trade liberalization" in many countries.


As to the Catholic Church, well there influence is, as always, regrettable. If I could, Id charge them with fraud, but I cant so I wont. Generally though, the real problem of women in developing nations is that they are forced to remain forever pregnant. Economic opportunities have always brought down birth rates and brought higher female literacy and participation in society. Women suffer all over the former CP-ruled world, but their suffering is probably lightest in Poland.

Well that's an odd juxtaposition; first you praise "higher female literacy and participation in society" and decry "women...forced to remain forever pregnant"...then you say "Women suffer all over the former CP-ruled world" when in fact female literacy and participation is higher, and birthrates lower, precisely in those countries!

(Compared to those which have never been anything but capitalist, of course...comparing before and after the attempts to restore capitalism began, women's participation in the workforce plummeted.



If you could afford them...just what do you think "lower demand" means? It means that poor people stopped eating sausages!


And they started eating more fruits and vegetables leading to a 13% decline in heart disease since the end of CP rule in that country. Meat is expensive, thats true, but its a lot more expensive when you dont get there on time and you have to go buy it off the black market, which means committing a crime and dealing with very shady people. How many things have you purchased off the black market? Is it as easy as going to the corner store? Is that really worth sausage? I don't know. You tell me.

Oh bullshit. The imposition of middle-class First World diet and health fads on people who have real problems is especially revolting.

The reason there wasn't anything on the shelves in "CP-ruled" countries is because the prices were subsidized. I.e. stuff was cheap. It flew off the shelves. So if you jack up prices, yeah, it stays on the shelves. Big triumph.

And a decline of heart disease doesn't necessarily mean and improvement in public health. For example, I'm willing to bet heart disease is a much larger cause of death in the U.S. than in Mexico...because people live longer in the U.S.! If people die young of malnutrition and preventable diseases, they're not going to have a lot of heart attacks.

As I mentioned before, life expectancy fell in Russia after the attempt to restore capitalism began....what is the real public health picture in Poland? We sure don't know from that one stat.


You know what, don't confuse relative losers (American service workers who make 7 bucks an hour) with the real losers of this world, the billion people who live on a dollar or less a day, and the 1.5 billion who live on between 1 and 2 bucks a day.
And just like in a casino, most people are losers. What you describe is the outcome of the roulette of global capitalism.


Just like Marx knew 150 years ago, capitalism will raise the incomes of those unfortunates with the right amount of political will and the right preconditions in place.

Uh, Marx said capitalism will raise up the poor? Don't think so.

If someone predicted the spread of capitalism worldwide would end poverty, obviously they were wrong....it has spread worldwide. It has supplanted or subordinated all the older forms of exploitation in the world. And the situation of most of humanity remains as awful as you've described!

"capitalism will raise the incomes of those unfortunates with the right amount of political will"

Yeah, that's exactly what's missing, what has always been missing and if history is any guide will always be missing: the desire of the exploiters to end exploitation!

But you're right about one thing: Redstar tends to argue that there's nothing you can do that will make any difference. That objective conditions are everything, and subjective conditions nothing.

In contrast, Marx and Engels argued that objective conditions are primary, that subjective conditions arise from them...and react back on the objective conditions, changing them. That history is made by human beings, just not in conditions of their choosing.

Redstar oversimplifies this. Let me suggest this kind of oversimplification is exactly why he attracts "disciples" like you who are too mentally lazy to think for themselves. His schemas and doctrines are easy to memorize and repeat, and apply uniformly to everything.

Here's something that can be done to help the billions in the world who are malnourished and sick from readily preventable diseases: Demand the Third World debt be canceled! Publicize that demand through whatever means or tactic comes to hand, from literature to demonstrations. It's the demand that millions in the Third World have raised themselves, so it has the advantage of being solidarity in a common fight, not charity for helpless victims.

Does Sachs call for that? Not just limited and conditional "relief" of part of the debt, but the cancellation of the whole bloodsucking monster?

If not, I gotta say I doubt the sincerity of his concern.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi
Most people around here seem to think that when a nation is underdeveloped, it is owing to something called 'capitalist underdevelopment'.

Yes. The historical experience of direct foreign investment seems to be one of "hyper-development" of one or two "industries" that imperialists find particularly profitable...and complete neglect of the rest of the economy -- which remains primitive or nonexistent.

The "normal" path of capitalist development is one that develops a well-rounded economy...but this is not possible (or at least exceptionally difficult) in countries that are dominated by foreign investors.


But no one ever says anything about geographic underdevelopment, which is a large part of Sachs' 'clinical economics' theory.

And which he doubtless plagiarized from Jared Diamond.

Mr. Diamond, of course, had the honorable motive of trying to discover the underlying role of geographic factors in economic development.

He wasn't looking for excuses to justify imperialism.


Islands tend to be very easy to develop and grow much faster than other environments.

Someday New Zealand will own the world! :lol:

Oh...and is western Europe an "island"?


I can't even remember what I read anymore.

It shows.


An autoplant would increase technical knowledge in the area quite widely, and would begin to bring some wealth into a few more peoples hands.

No, it would generate 500 or so jobs (auto plants are a lot smaller these days than they once were). The most highly skilled people at the plant would probably come from Germany...as would most of the parts and supplies.

It would inject a degree of prosperity in its immediate vicinity...until the German firm decided to move it to Mongolia.


If South Carolina is wretched, then the Ukraine and 70% of all other countries are the living incarnations of hell on earth.

Yes, that pretty much sums it up.


Do you think it was possible for the French to actually come out of their revolution victorious?

I do not know...nor does anyone else. We can always ask "what if" questions and try to develop plausible answers.

But what we have to "work with" is what actually happened. The French bourgeoisie failed in 1794, failed again in 1848, but after the defeat of the Paris Commune in 1871, the French bourgeoisie came to power once more...and this time held onto it!


What you have to understand is, your ideas aren't even popular enough to be talked about in the salons yet.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

And I hope very much they never will be!!!

The "ideas" that are "talked about in the salons" are, in my view, as significant as the static on a busted radio.


So what we have to do, what humanity will always have to do if they are not strong enough to overthrow the powers that be, is to work with them.

The traditional "wisdom" passed from the old to the young.

How ironic in this case: the old guy (me) says resist and the young guy (you) says surrender.


What you are suggesting is that we rise up and smash a near-invincible giant, or if we can't do that, we hurt the giant any way we can, even if through our ignorance of their plight, or even from our direct actions, we will bring harm to billions of people. I just think it's unfeasible. Excuse me if I think it's unrealistic.

Think whatever you wish; just don't kid yourself that "working with the powers that be" is going to accomplish anything useful.

My perspective may well be "unfeasible" or "unrealistic" or even "utopian".

Yours is flatly impossible.


Except that [Sachs] is known by statesman all across the world, and some of them I'm sure even respect him (maybe).

Woo hoo! He "hangs out" with war criminals and plutocrats...now that's a real "character reference".

It sounds as if Sachs is becoming a real "role model" for you. You sound like you can't wait for the chance to get your own nose in the crack of some rich bastard's ass.

Say hello to Bono for me. :lol:


In Africa in 1820, GDP per capita was one-third of that in North America...

I regret to inform you that no one knows what the GDP of either North America nor Africa "was" in 1820. Economic statistics were few and unreliable in the U.S. prior to 1840...and I doubt very much if the numbers from most of Africa are reliable now -- much less back in 1820.

What should be included in the "GDP" and how it should be valued are contentious issues in and of themselves.

Bourgeois economists have erected an enormous mountain of statistical conjecture that non-economists are too often awed by...but remember the actual track-record of those same economists in explaining/predicting real world events.

The Tarot or the I Ching are cheaper and easier to use...and work just as well.


What about the third world countries that are already as democratic as France in the age of the National Directory?

It's not a matter of "democracy" -- it's a matter of achieving the national autonomy to make development possible.

What Africa needs to do is kick out the imperialists first! That means confiscate their property without compensation and totally repudiate all their debts to them.

It means close their countries to foreign direct investment for at least 50 to 100 years. It means produce almost nothing for the "world market" and purchase almost nothing from it -- perhaps subscriptions to technical journals for the local libraries.

Then Africa can produce or learn to produce to meet its own needs first...gradually developing a rounded modern capitalist economy.

In time, Africa can re-enter the world market...on its own terms. But even then, it should do so only to purchase modern technology and should accept no loans from the developed countries.

If there were Maoists in Africa, they might be able to do something like this -- but there don't appear to be any there at this time. The existing political forces there do not seem to be capable of anything but semi-organized looting and plundering.

So the Africans do seem to be "trapped".

But no "developmental aid" from the "west" will help them...they must learn to help themselves first.

Your new guru, Mr. Sachs, would, if successful, just pile on more chains for Africa and bury them even deeper in the shit.


Then explain to me Blair's championing of the debt cancellation in Africa and Bush's tacit support of it. What sinister plan is it a mere footnote to?

To figure out and implement even more profitable ways to rob the Africans, of course. I don't know what exactly they have in mind...but I do know how imperialists look at things.

"Humanitarianism" is not in their vocabulary.


How indefinite is your period of resistance to capital?

As long as it takes to overthrow and destroy it.


Or do we help who needs help now, and make revolution when the time is right.

You are not going to help anybody (except perhaps yourself to a lucrative position with some pro-imperialist institution)...and if revolution comes in your lifetime, you will oppose it as much as you can.


Economic systems that don't take into account how much it costs to make something won't ever be able to make enough to satisfy everybody.

Unlike capitalism, which always makes "enough" to "satisfy everybody" with money.


What I advocate is village capitalism, and imperialist intervention in the form of Official Development Assistance (ODA).

The first already exists and the second is pure fantasy.


How did you know that I'm a massive fraud?

Well...it shows. No matter how much humanitarian rhetoric you pollute the board with, it's pretty plain what your real intentions are.

You're like those little fish that feed by cleaning the teeth of sharks.

Well, it's a living.


What do we do when we've built an anti-war movement that ensures a lack of military intervention?

Good question...even though you are not entitled to use the word "we" in this context.

I think that the radical critique of imperialism and the resistance developed to it will spontaneously spread into the workplace (it started to do that -- a little bit -- in the 60s)...and the next step could well be a very radicalized labor movement that would be ready to attack capitalism itself.

Perhaps by 2030 or 2040, we'd see some really interesting things start to happen.


Wouldn't it be plausible to build a movement for increased foreign aid, responsible foreign aid to Africa and the rest of the stagnating world?

The people who have money are not "responsible" to anyone save themselves. Whatever aid they "give" in front of the cameras is taken back when the cameras are turned off.


Of course, that armchair is a little too comfortable to ever accept the possibility that you could be wrong about some things.

I'm always aware that I "could be wrong about some things".

But about this, I am not wrong.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Osman Ghazi]

Wow. Lot to reply to. Okay. As to accusations that Im not a free thinker, fuck you! (In the nicest possible way of course :lol: ) I regret it, but Im usually too strong in my wording and people often take a different meaning than the one I want.

What I meant was that I saw Redstar as a clear honest voice. But now I've realized that it doesn't matter how lcear or honest a person is, they can't help anyone if the ideas they espouse with voice is just plain wrong.

Severian, nothing personal, but a lot of what you said sounds like what Redstar has already said, but just briefly:

1)Classes - Ha! Like 4 groups could really contain 6.5 billion people
2)Bolivarian does not equal Venezuela. What I was referring to was a revolution created by people sitting around drinking cognac and planning a revolution.
3)AS to trade liberalization, Sachs is not a neo-liberal in that he strongly criticizes the IMF for focusing on just four or so issues, instead of the 50 or so, which all need to be addressed in order for them to create a functioning economy.


It's really amazing that people hold up China as proof of the wonderfulness of capitalism. Yes, it's more capitalist than 20 years ago. But it's still less capitalist than, say, India, a country of roughly the same size and, in 1949, roughly equivalent level of development.

Actually not true, India made their reforms starting in 1991, whereas Chinas started in 1978.


Demand the Third World debt be canceled!

Didnt we just do that? Wasnt there a G7 organized initiative led by Blair and heavily pushed by Bob Geldof (some kind of Rock-n-roll 'star' that I hadn't ever heard of before this)

But yes, to answer your question Sachs not only advocates the cancellation of debt, he succeeded in getting half of Polands debt cancelled, and I believe all of Bolivias as well. You just have to explain it so that it makes economic sense. Many claim that cancelling debt makes these countries less creditworthy, but the simple fact is, how much money would you lend to someone who couldnt pay back their debts, vs. someone who, in good faith negotiates to have some of their debt cancelled?

Now Redtar, I haven't forgot about you.


Yes. The historical experience of direct foreign investment seems to be one of "hyper-development" of one or two "industries" that imperialists find particularly profitable...and complete neglect of the rest of the economy -- which remains primitive or nonexistent.


And the money coming from those industries finances the domestic capitalists, who expand into other markets that they find particularly profitable. Just like happened in all of the 'Asian Tiger' countries.


And which he doubtless plagiarized from Jared Diamond.

Except that he gives credit to Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel. However, Diamond doesn't even attempt to address the period of 'modern economic growth' (1820-present). That is where Sachs fills in the gap with Angus Maddison, and a tiny bit of Adam Smith. But he does apply Diamonds important work on the matter, that generally speaking geography, more than any other factor influences the economic destiny of a people.


Someday New Zealand will own the world!

Oh...and is western Europe an "island"?


It is telling that New Zealand industrialized much faster than Say, South Africa. I mean, Capetown was founded in 1615, and they didnt get to New Zealand until the 1770's.

I dont know why you have to be so difficult on this issue. I mean, you agree obviously with Diamonds theory, and yet, you wont apply it to the modern world. The less people that have to grow food (Western Europe being one of the most fertile regions on the earth) the more people there are to innovate, to build, in short a better future.

In places like Africa, where almost every person, with few exceptions gets an anemic bout of malaria every single year, there are an overwhelming number of factors of geography that inhibit economic development.


It would inject a degree of prosperity in its immediate vicinity...until the German firm decided to move it to Mongolia.


:lol: Yeah, they are probably going to put the factory on the back of a truck and just send it out there. While they may not sell it lock, stock and barrel, almost all of the capital that goes to Ukraine will stay there. Someone else will probably want to make cars for the workers whose incomes are growing slightly.


The "ideas" that are "talked about in the salons" are, in my view, as significant as the static on a busted radio.


:rolleyes: *sigh* Another metaphor woefully misunderstood.


How ironic in this case: the old guy (me) says resist and the young guy (you) says surrender.


I think of it more as me saying 'play dead' and you saying 'bite them!' I wont ever forget what is right and what is wrong, nor will I forget to whom my duty lies.


Think whatever you wish; just don't kid yourself that "working with the powers that be" is going to accomplish anything useful.


Are you kidding? Although your degree of influence is small, working with the powers that be will always be a more effective way of exercising your agenda than fighting uselessly. Id take ineffectual influence over futile resistance anyday.


Woo hoo! He "hangs out" with war criminals and plutocrats...now that's a real "character reference".

It wasn't meant to be. It was meant to show that he a certain degree of influence, however small.


It sounds as if Sachs is becoming a real "role model" for you. You sound like you can't wait for the chance to get your own nose in the crack of some rich bastard's ass.


That a sad old man like would ever think that he had a clue as to what I was like has got to be one of the more ridiculous things that I've heard today. Even the people who know me best don't know me that well.


I regret to inform you that no one knows what the GDP of either North America nor Africa "was" in 1820. Economic statistics were few and unreliable in the U.S. prior to 1840...and I doubt very much if the numbers from most of Africa are reliable now -- much less back in 1820.

Sachs source is one Angus Maddison, an economic historian. I hadn't ever heard of him before this though, if you want to call his credentials into question.


It's not a matter of "democracy" -- it's a matter of achieving the national autonomy to make development possible.


Now things are getting interesting. Apparently, Japan, SK, Taiwan et alia were puppets of the US, and we know (or presume) that puppets lack the ' national autonomy to make development possible', and yet, their economies seem to have expanded. Go on, what magic bullet of causality do you have for me now?


What Africa needs to do is kick out the imperialists first! That means confiscate their property without compensation and totally repudiate all their debts to them.


All they would be doing by that is aquiring the capital necessary to jumpstart their economy. There is the possibilty, however slight, that they could aquire the capital through aid. In fact, I would say that that is more likely than anyone rising up and overtrowing any country's government.

They absolutley need to stand up and say that they wont take any shit and wont pay the debts of dictators, however.

But this is a change in policy for you. You said yourself, your no expert on ending poverty in the third world. And now you have yourself a solution, one that, if I may say so myself, is totally useless. How do you expect them to cambat AIDS or malaria without medicine. Oh, they'll make it themselves? With what?

Thats what you dont seem to understand. There is more involved here than simply human factors.

If there is one thing that has been proved a hundreds times over in our lifetimes, let alone the last century, it is that notions of autarky are rewarded with poverty, isolation, both economic and political, the results of which are devastating to a nations citizens.


So the Africans do seem to be "trapped".

But no "developmental aid" from the "west" will help them...they must learn to help themselves first.

Your new guru, Mr. Sachs, would, if successful, just pile on more chains for Africa and bury them even deeper in the shit.


Now I think its really interesting. Your not an expert on poverty, nor on Africa and you don't even know what Sachs' strategy is, and yet, you know, you are so confident in your ignorance that no matter what he says, it wont work. Now if I were to think critically, as you advocate, I would have to say that the words you just wrote sound an awful lot like totally ignorant bullshit.


As long as it takes to overthrow and destroy it.


And during this period, Africans and Asians should suffer unimaginable evils while you tell everyone to focus on strikes and other frist world bullshit? I think you have it mixed up. One part of the world needs help to get it back on track. The other is perfectly capable of fixing its own problems.


You are not going to help anybody (except perhaps yourself to a lucrative position with some pro-imperialist institution)...and if revolution comes in your lifetime, you will oppose it as much as you can.


If it is as violent and misguided as you say, it wont be any different than a thousand murdering assholes weve seen before, all of whom think they are doing some form of good.


Well...it shows. No matter how much humanitarian rhetoric you pollute the board with, it's pretty plain what your real intentions are.

You're like those little fish that feed by cleaning the teeth of sharks.

Well, it's a living.


Well, having debates on the Internet (for the CIA, obviously) isnt really a living, its more of a hobby, actually.

That you would even dare call into question my morals just shows how little you know me.


The people who have money are not "responsible" to anyone save themselves. Whatever aid they "give" in front of the cameras is taken back when the cameras are turned off.


Except that the cameras aren't the only way to find out whats going on. If people read that their politicans are liars, and about their particular corruptions, then they will take action, like they did in Ukraine, like they did in Lebanon, like they did in Georgia. People who steal are hemmed in by notions of just how much they can steal without getting caught.


But about this, I am not wrong.


Ive seen your problem so many times its ridiculous that you still talk about 'critical thinking'. You have decades of experience to prove what you say(to yourself, at least), how could you ever be wrong? As long as you choose to beleive that you can never be wrong about something, you will always be wrong.

[NovelGentry]

I wont ever forget what is right and what is wrong, nor will I forget to whom my duty lies.

It seems to me you already have.

[Osman Ghazi]

It seems to me you already have.

Ooh, that sounds very theatrical. But it lacks substance. Its not an argument, its a flippant remark. Couldn't you have just thought it to yourself, and saved us both some time?

[NovelGentry]

But it lacks substance

There's plenty of substance to it -- if you thought about it as something other than simply an argument and actually reread what you've been saying here, then you might grasp some of that substance. Somehow I find the possibility of you doing this to extremely unlikely.

But let's put it in simple concepts for a moment. You suggest that somehow, this Sachs character (who's arguments I'm not here to refute), by working within the system, has developed a positive change in the world. You claim his contacts with senators, state official, etc, -- the same people (many of which are quite literally the same people) who economically devastated south American, central American, African, and south east Asian countries over the past 50 years -- is somehow producing real, positive change.

Now you've already made it apparent you're not willing to accept a class perspective with your prophetic statement of, "Classes - Ha!" Then somehow you go on to claim you will not forget to whom your duties lie. Well who do they lie with? A class? Mr. Sachs? The people Mr. Sachs works with -- Senators? State officials? Global business? Bono?

Do they lie with the poor? The hungry? The proletarian? The peasant? The homeless? Do they in some fantasy land of yours lie with both? Well that must be it, because certainly you think the people like Mr. Sachs... and the ones he works with, also have their interests with the hungry, the poor, the proletarians, the peasants, the homeless etc...

I fail to see how the people who's interest it was in to bomb Cambodia, supply arms to Indonesia to erradicate East Timor, create economic downturn for Guatemala and construct a weapons trade embargo forcing them to align with the Soviet union so they would have a reasonable cause for intervention, use biological warfare against Cuba, invade the Dominican Republic, Establish dictatorships in Iran, Iraq, and Chile, etc, can have any interest in helping these people.

No doubt Mr. Sachs has a solution for rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure too... he must be doing a great deal of work with all those "statesman all across the world" too... certainly he must be talking with those responsible for destroying that infrastructure.

So let me ask you plainly, with whom does your duty lie?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi
What I was referring to was a revolution created by people sitting around drinking cognac and planning a revolution.

I've never done that myself and I don't know that anyone here ever has.

On quite a few occasions, in fact, I've criticized the Leninist conceit that revolutions can be "planned" at all.

Cognac is quite tasty if a bit expensive for my budget; I've probably not had any more than half-a-dozen times in my life.

Say what Mr. Sachs, Mr. Bono, etc. consume in a week. :lol:


But yes, to answer your question, Sachs not only advocates the cancellation of debt, he succeeded in getting half of Poland's debt canceled, and I believe all of Bolivia's as well.

On the Polish debt "relief"...

Capital Goes East (http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1991/06/hockenos.html)

Poland: Even with external aid, stabilization measures hit harder and deeper than expected (http://www.cipe.org/publications/fs/ert/e01/4poland.htm)

On Bolivia's debt relief (not cancellation)...

Bolivia: World Bank And IMF Support US$1.2 Billion In Additional Debt Service Relief For Bolivia Under Enhanced HIPC Initiative (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20016048~menuPK:34466~pagePK:6400301 5~piPK:64003012~theSitePK:4607,00.html)

In terms of the real world consequences of these events, it's clear that Poland was a disaster for ordinary people and nothing much changed in Bolivia.

Thanks, Mr. Sachs.


And the money coming from those industries finances the domestic capitalists, who expand into other markets that they find particularly profitable. Just like happened in all of the 'Asian Tiger' countries.

No...when foreign capitalists invest in your country, the profits go back to the foreign country.

Obviously.

Only the wages paid to the locals stay in your country...and some of that may be spent on imported consumer goods, sending more money back to where it came from.

If the foreign owned firm buys from local suppliers...that will keep some of the money in your country and, in principle, could create a network of local suppliers that might begin a small "industrial boomlet".


I mean, you agree obviously with Diamond's theory, and yet, you won't apply it to the modern world. The less people that have to grow food (Western Europe being one of the most fertile regions on the earth), the more people there are to innovate, to build, in short a better future.

Diamond was investigating the rise of early class societies -- agricultural despotisms -- in which fertility and climate played essential roles.

With modern technology, these elements are much less important...wheat has actually been grown in the Arabian desert (I don't know if it still is or not).

The role of urbanization in economic development is a platitude -- but despite the enormous growth of "third world" cities, growth is highly uneven.


In places like Africa, where almost every person, with few exceptions gets an anemic bout of malaria every single year, there are an overwhelming number of factors of geography that inhibit economic development.

So malaria "causes" underdevelopment? Any excuse to get the imperialists off the hook, eh?


Yeah, they are probably going to put the factory on the back of a truck and just send it out there.

No, they will remove anything of value from the factory and "just send it out there". The buildings, with or without some scraps of obsolete machinery, will be left behind.

You can take a ride on Amtrak from Buffalo to Chicago and see what's left behind...a sprawling industrial wasteland.

Like a dinosaur graveyard.


I'd take ineffectual influence over futile resistance anyday.

Well, your choice does pay better. :lol:


Apparently, Japan, SK, Taiwan et alia were puppets of the US, and we know (or presume) that puppets lack the ' national autonomy to make development possible', and yet, their economies seem to have expanded. Go on, what magic bullet of causality do you have for me now?

No "magic". To begin with, the Japanese already had a well-established history of reverse engineering, making things from scratch, etc. In addition, they looted and plundered extensively during World War II...and successfully hid what they stole until the Americans backed off enough for the Japanese capitalists to use it. But what really made the difference in Japan, in my view, was its use as a permanent "aircraft carrier" and "resupply base" for U.S. wars in Korea and Vietnam. The American money poured in and the Japanese were quick to respond.

Also, as was pointed out by others, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan erected stiff tariff barriers against imports -- both protecting weak Japanese industries and encouraging Japanese capitalists to fill those needs themselves.

In theory, imperialists would normally force countries to lower their tariffs -- but Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan were all "strategic" places in the eyes of U.S. imperialism...granted more autonomy than is normally the case.

Finally, those countries, like many in Asia, had a "pro-savings" culture...even now, people save money at a far higher rate than people in the "west". This generates an important source of domestic capital that imperialists have no control over.


There is the possibility, however slight, that they could acquire the capital through aid. In fact, I would say that that is more likely than anyone rising up and overthrowing any country's government.

Well, my estimate is different than yours. African-wide revolution may seem "unlikely". The possibility that Mr. Sachs and Mr. Bono will convince imperialists to provide the capital to develop Africa ranks equal to the possibility of groundhogs growing wings and learning to fly.


How do you expect them to combat AIDS or malaria without medicine? Oh, they'll make it themselves? With what?

Africa has "no" scientists? "No" doctors? They are "too stupid" to figure out how to make the drugs they need?


If there is one thing that has been proved a hundred times over in our lifetimes, let alone the last century, it is that notions of autarky are rewarded with poverty, isolation, both economic and political, the results of which are devastating to a nation's citizens.

Bah! Absolute autarky is probably not the best idea. But a lengthy period of "practical autarky" would probably benefit Africa more than anything else -- especially if implemented on a continental basis.

What has been proven "a hundred times over" is that if you don't know how to make it yourself, you're fucked!


You're not an expert on poverty, nor on Africa and you don't even know what Sachs' strategy is, and yet, you know, you are so confident in your ignorance that no matter what he says, it won't work.

I am, if you will, an "expert" on imperialism...and I'm assuming that you are accurately representing the views of Mr. Sachs.

From this, I conclude that (1) His proposals will never be implemented (except in a cosmetic sense); and (2) Even if they were implemented, they would not work.


And during this period, Africans and Asians should suffer unimaginable evils while you tell everyone to focus on strikes and other first world bullshit?

The "first world" is where we live...in case you've forgotten.

Would you rather go off to Shitholia and "teach the natives" how to "do capitalism"?

Have a nice trip! :lol:


That you would even dare call into question my morals just shows how little you know me.

I don't give a rat's ass about your "morals"...I'm just going by what you have written in this thread.

Your ideas and your intentions really suck!

Otherwise, you might be a nice guy...who cares?


People who steal are hemmed in by notions of just how much they can steal without getting caught.

True, there are some practical limits.

Did you hear the funny story about the time when Russia was re-establishing capitalism? The IMF/World Bank made a $5 billion loan to Yeltsin's regime. Within hours, a billion dollars of it had completely vanished...I don't think it was ever located.

The limits are pretty high. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Osman Ghazi]

You suggest that somehow, this Sachs character (who's arguments I'm not here to refute), by working within the system, has developed a positive change in the world.

Even simply with his development of clinical economics, economics based on policies implemented in the real world and their effects in the real world, he has made a positive change.

He doesn't have much contact with Senators, though. His 'contacts' are mostly economists, many local, former finance, or planning ministers. He also has extensive contacts at Harvard, where he taught for 20-odd years, and is the leader of Columbia's Earth Institute. I would say most importantly though he has contacts with most branches of the UN. He served as chairman of the council on the Millenium Development Goals. It was mostly through that job and others at the UN that he makes this difference by focusing on the important issues with a clarity and resolve that I rarely see in that organization.


"Classes - Ha!"

Its like Redstar said to me. Have you ever tried to predict anybody's behaviour with class? Cause you'll probably be better off with the Tarot or I Ching. Class is meaninglyess. You can't predict someone's politics, or their attitudes, or anything else about them based on useless notions of economic class. After using it and being wrong so many times, I simply recognized it for what it was: a useless tool.


On the Polish debt "relief"...

Capital Goes East

Poland: Even with external aid, stabilization measures hit harder and deeper than expected


Thank you for these delightfully outdated articles. But it isn't 1991 anymore. These people are writing a) in the midst of a global recession and b) without the benefit of seeing incomes rise in Poland. What they do say is that Polands GNP was declining in every year of the of the 80's, even as the Soviet government tried to make its own futile reforms.

So yeah, the transition was hell for a lot of people. But suppose they did nothing and allowed the currency to hyperinflate? How much worse would it have been then? Its a question we can't answer, but I'd imagine the popular support for Solidarity reflects the view of most Poles that reform was needed.

The article about Bolivia is about the current round of debt servicing. I was talking about the events of 1986. But it is interesting that Bolivia qualified for debt servicing by achieving a certain amount of growth, as well as other positive economic indicators.


No...when foreign capitalists invest in your country, the profits go back to the foreign country.


Except that the profits are usually not the largest part of revenues. The question is, what percentage of the expenses will stay in the country? The wages obviously, and if the economy is fairly-well equipped, like Ukraine's, I imagine they would use local suppliers for many things.

Oh, what you are forgetting about 'importing consumer goods' is that they will probably be bought at a shop owned by a local, because they'll sell for less than big companies.


Diamond was investigating the rise of early class societies -- agricultural despotisms -- in which fertility and climate played essential roles.


But from that experience we can draw so much more than wahts there.


With modern technology, these elements are much less important...wheat has actually been grown in the Arabian desert (I don't know if it still is or not).


Oh really? Lets ask ourselves something. Why will Tibet almost always be poor? Some would say that it is because they are ruled over by China. I think the main reason is geographic isolation. They lack a strong enough domestic demand for consumer items to be built there and, not only are they 1000 miles fromthe nearest port that can carry in and out vital resources, they are an extremely mountainous country, which increases the cost of land-based transport infrastructure. Roads and rail must make huge detours or cut through mountains to get where they are going, vastly increasing the size of investment needed to complete any project, and thus vastly reducing the lengths of roads and rail within the country.

That is what I am referring to when I talk about geographic factors. The reason islands develop faster is because they are usually low-altitude plains, often with navigable rivers linking up the major population centers. Sea transport is super cheap compared to the cost of laying down hundreds or thousands of kilometres of roads or rail. And as we all know, it is the low hanging fruit which is first plucked.


So malaria "causes" underdevelopment?

Let me guess, your an expert on anemia now too? Yes it causes underdevelopment! When 90% of people get malaria every single year? Hell yes! Malaria does kill people you know, especially if you cant afford the medicine, like pretty much everybody. It destroys human capital, by having kids miss school and by killing people. It destroys a family's ability to make money by keeping them home from work. It does all sorts of things to limit economic growth.

AIDS is probably worse though, because it has left 10 million orphans so far. Those parents will never be able to pass on their knowledge to their children, thus weaking even more the knowledge capital of the region.


In addition, they looted and plundered extensively during World War II

Your telling me that the Japanese successfully plundered and hid from the Americans billions of dollars of Chinese wealth? Not only have I never heard of such a thing (on minor scale its inevitable, but enough to effect macroeconomics?), but it seems highly unlikely, given that most Japanese soldiers surrendered in China, meaning that they couldn't have hidden or returned with this myriad of plunder.


Finally, those countries, like many in Asia, had a "pro-savings" culture...even now, people save money at a far higher rate than people in the "west". This generates an important source of domestic capital that imperialists have no control over.

And there you have the cusp of the argument for limited liberalization. No matter how much influence or control the foreigners have, you will be enriching a people, and they will save that money and then they will start their own businesses, or find other ways of expanding that capital to their own benefit, and indirectly to the benefit of others around them. They always have old friend and they always will.

You actually made some major concessions. Not only did you admit the possibilty of growth from FDI (foreign direct investment) given the right circumstances, you also admitted that people will be enriched in the country, no matter what the imperialists try to do. That is all I could ever ask of you. Because while these things seem to pale in comparison with our standard of living, they are the beginnings of a real domestic economy, well-rounded, and serving the citizens, not the foreigners(though no doubt they too will derive some benefit).


Well, my estimate is different than yours. African-wide revolution may seem "unlikely". The possibility that Mr. Sachs and Mr. Bono will convince imperialists to provide the capital to develop Africa ranks equal to the possibility of groundhogs growing wings and learning to fly.


Did no one on this site read about the Gleneagles G8 Summit that decided on a policy of debt cancellation for Africa? (To be fair, like I like to be, they are only doing it to look good because the Africans cant pay the money anyways and its a choice of looking like Robin Hood or Scrooge.) As long as we proceed with exaclty the right amount of cynicism about the motivation of politicans, they can be goaded into doing what we want.


Africa has "no" scientists? "No" doctors? They are "too stupid" to figure out how to make the drugs they need?


Generally speaking, the 'Brain Drain' takes away pretty much anyone with a usable degree. But there aren't enough doctors to run the clinics that already exist, no. There certainly isn't much grant money for scientists, so you wont find many of them. And considering that they haven't the technical knowhow to produce vaccines of their own, nor laboratories to produce them in, nor scientists to produce them, I'm gonna say that at best, they'll have a bit of a tough time with it.

They aren't 'stupid' (which to me implies making mistakes even though you possess the information necessary to make the right one) but they are ignorant. Ignorance will probably always be inseperable from societies where the average life expectantcy is less than 40.

Oh, and I love how you are trying to imply that I'm a racist now too. Nice work.


What has been proven "a hundred times over" is that if you don't know how to make it yourself, you're fucked!


Isolating yourself from the world wont exactly cause an intelectual revolution. The best way to learn how to make something is to have someone come over and invest the money in these technologies, which the workers then become proficient in.


I am, if you will, an "expert" on imperialism...and I'm assuming that you are accurately representing the views of Mr. Sachs.


What I've said is accurate, but he wrote a fucking book, and I've written a couple pages on an internet message board. The clarity that his book possesses is somewhat greater than I can express in my ramblings. If you read it though, and come up with specific points about it, then that will mean something to me. But basically, you can't refute what you don't understand.


The "first world" is where we live...in case you've forgotten.

Would you rather go off to Shitholia and "teach the natives" how to "do capitalism"?


And they can help themselves, for the most part. What Im proposing is not 'going off' anywhere. Rather, I will campaign, in Canada for our aid to fall in line with the policies that Sachs recommends. I have little interest in helping out the people around me, because in many cases I see no reason for their failure. I mean, I know people who spends $2000 a year on fuckin cigarettes, or weed or booze or whatever else and then complain that they don't have enough money. I know that in this country, as in most other developed countries, if you can't help yourself, you can find help. But if you wont change the stupid things in your life to help yourself, how can anyone else help you? How can I help them?


Did you hear the funny story about the time when Russia was re-establishing capitalism? The IMF/World Bank made a $5 billion loan to Yeltsin's regime. Within hours, a billion dollars of it had completely vanished...I don't think it was ever located.


Yeah, just like Marie Antoinette said 'let the eat cake'. There have been so many hilarious apocryphal stories that I don't trust anything that doesn't come with at least three sources.

[NovelGentry]

Even simply with his development of clinical economics, economics based on policies implemented in the real world and their effects in the real world, he has made a positive change.

Yes, no doubt the poor and working people of these countries are happy they could be the guinea pig for a foreign capitalist living off a nation which has historically exploited them and caused much of their grief.


Have you ever tried to predict anybody's behaviour with class?

No, I think it's wholely possible to determine class behavior with class, not an individuals.


You can't predict someone's politics, or their attitudes, or anything else about them based on useless notions of economic class.

No, you're right, it generally works the other way around. But then again, my goal is not to predict someone's politics or their attitudes... my goal is to determine when it will become socially and materially necessary for the working class's politics and attitudes to change and conclusively manifest itself into something more than just politics and attitudes.


After using it and being wrong so many times, I simply recognized it for what it was: a useless tool.

Classes were never designed to be a tool for you to predict something with. Classes (in the general sense of the word) are groupings of objects or things with similar attributes or features. In the Marxist sense, that specific relational feature is primarily the relationship to the means of production. -- it says absolutely nothing about who they vote for, or whether they're nice or mean, etc...etc.

So let me ask you plainly (AGAIN), with whom does your duty lie?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi
Have you ever tried to predict anybody's behaviour with class?

Class as a determinant of behavior is only really useful when it involves large numbers of people.

It's not very reliable for predicting the behavior of a single individual.


You can't predict someone's politics, or their attitudes, or anything else about them based on useless notions of economic class.

No, I'd say you'd do somewhat better than chance in making such predictions, even on an individual basis.

But you'd still need a good-sized sample before the relationship would really start to "bite".

I imagine that you're raising this objection to lay the foundation for an argument about "good imperialists" who will "make nice" with the "third world".

You are building on sand; the really "big dogs" in the imperialist countries are universally ruthless in practice...regardless of humanitarian rhetoric.


Why will Tibet almost always be poor?

I don't see why it should be. Railroads and airports and even highways could be and probably are being built by the Chinese to "open the place up". Yes, they will be costly to construct and operate...but China can afford it.

The climate there is quite harsh...and I don't expect it will ever be as densely populated as the more agreeable parts of China.

But look at Alberta. Now there's a place that's pretty damn harsh...but it still has a couple of modern cities worthy of the name. I don't see why the same won't eventually be true of Tibet.


Let me guess, you're an expert on anemia now too? Yes, [malaria] causes underdevelopment!

Well, here's a source...

http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/impact/index.htm


It has been estimated in a retrospective analysis that economic growth per year of countries with intensive malaria was 1.3% lower than that of countries without malaria.

Sounds pretty grim...but a lower growth rate is not really the same as "underdevelopment", is it?

And why are those "humanitarians" at the World Health Organization interfering with the Africans using DDT...it's the cheapest and most effective form of malaria control in existence. The WHO won't even let people spray it on the walls of their houses!


You're telling me that the Japanese successfully plundered and hid from the Americans billions of dollars of Chinese wealth?

Not the soldiers (who may have done much of the grunt work). Japanese corporations looted gold in China and buried it in Japan; they also looted and buried gold in the Philippines, Indonesia, etc. -- especially in the last year or so of their occupations. In the fifties they started digging it up.

No one knows how much gold was involved...probably no more than a few billions of dollars worth. But it was there at a key time -- when Japanese corporations needed capital but didn't want to open up to the "first world". (Corporations in the Third Reich also hid hard currency reserves in neutral country banks...the German "economic miracle" was not quite as miraculous as some folks like to think.)


And there you have the cusp of the argument for limited liberalization. No matter how much influence or control the foreigners have, you will be enriching a people, and they will save that money and then they will start their own businesses, or find other ways of expanding that capital to their own benefit, and indirectly to the benefit of others around them.

Um...no.

In Africa, as I understand it, the cultural norms demand that if a family member prospers, he (or she) must "share the wealth" with all the members of his/her extended family...which can number dozens of people. I've read that in some countries, it's so bad that people with regular employment have bank accounts in fake names to avoid the demands of their insatiable relatives.

I imagine that Africans save very little...perhaps even less than "westerners". The needs of daily consumption suck up every unit of currency earned.


Not only did you admit the possibility of growth from FDI (foreign direct investment) given the right circumstances, you also admitted that people will be enriched in the country, no matter what the imperialists try to do. That is all I could ever ask of you. Because while these things seem to pale in comparison with our standard of living, they are the beginnings of a real domestic economy, well-rounded, and serving the citizens, not the foreigners(though no doubt they too will derive some benefit).

I think you are reading way too much into what I have said in this thread.

If the only source of capital is FDI (and/or development loans from the IMF/World Bank), then a well-rounded economy will not result from that process.

The country will end up producing one or two commodities for the world market, the local income generated from that will be used to pay for imported consumer goods and to pay the interest on the loans...and the recipient country as a whole will remain poor and underdeveloped.


Did no one on this site read about the Gleneagles G8 Summit that decided on a policy of debt cancellation for Africa?

I didn't bother to...and even if I had, why should I believe them? As I said earlier, if they choose to "forgive debt", it can only be because they have a fresh scheme to plunder Africa in a more thorough and effective way.


As long as we proceed with exactly the right amount of cynicism about the motivation of politicians, they can be goaded into doing what we want.

:lol: They can at best be "goaded" into giving the appearance of doing what you want.

Given the number, complexity, and utter deviousness of modern "financial instruments", it is probably impossible for the non-expert to locate the "worm in the apple".

But you can bet the rent money that it's there.


Isolating yourself from the world won't exactly cause an intellectual revolution. The best way to learn how to make something is to have someone come over and invest the money in these technologies, which the workers then become proficient in.

Knowing how to operate a machine is not the same as knowing how to design and build one yourself. That is what Africa needs to do.

As to an "intellectual revolution", I think they should freely appropriate every scrap of technical knowledge that's in the public domain...including, of course, that which they acquire when they seize the property of the imperialists.


If you read it though, and come up with specific points about it, then that will mean something to me. But basically, you can't refute what you don't understand.

Well, I noted that there was a waiting list...the earliest it will become available to me is probably around the end of November.

But really, isn't observing Mr. Sachs' role in Poland sufficient? How many lives did he utterly wreck there? How many suicides? How many deaths from malnutrition and exposure? How many women and children forced into prostitution?

I think I understand Mr. Sachs quite well...as I said much earlier in this thread, he is a shill for imperialism.


I mean, I know people who spend $2000 a year on fuckin cigarettes, or weed or booze or whatever else and then complain that they don't have enough money.

Outrageous, isn't it! The common rabble actually think they are entitled to some pleasure in life! :o

Don't they realize that they are supposed to work, sleep, and watch the dummyvision???

And, if they have any extra money, buy stocks!

Just wait until Mr. Sachs or one of his clones (maybe even you!) gets to be in charge of Canada!

Those lazy fuckers will hear the crack of the whip then, dammit! They'll eat shit and like it!

Just like Poland. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Osman Ghazi]

I don't see why it should be. Railroads and airports and even highways could be and probably are being built by the Chinese to "open the place up". Yes, they will be costly to construct and operate...but China can afford it.


The Chinese really aren't all that interested in doing anything to help Tibet and because Tibet really is the definition of Shitholia, Xizang Autonomous Region recieves almost no FDI, compared to the coastal provinces of China, which recieve hundreds of millions if not more every year.


But look at Alberta. Now there's a place that's pretty damn harsh...but it still has a couple of modern cities worthy of the name. I don't see why the same won't eventually be true of Tibet.


One major difference: mountains. In Alberta, the Rockys run through the province on a north-south axis. The mountains in Tibet are pretty much the whole country. You'll notice that Calgary and Edmonton aren't situated in the mountains, whereas Lhasa and Nagqu are.

Plus, Calgary right now is experiencing something of an oil boom, which Tibet never will.


Sounds pretty grim...but a lower growth rate is not really the same as "underdevelopment", is it?


Oh? That's interesting. Because that's exactly what it is. I mean, underdevelopment could also mean no growth rate, or a negative growth rate, but the two are definately quite similar.


And why are those "humanitarians" at the World Health Organization interfering with the Africans using DDT...it's the cheapest and most effective form of malaria control in existence.

I would say that there are things like screen doors or antimalarial bed nets that are cheaper and more effective, but DDT should be used in conjunction with those. It has a regrettable environmental influence, but my motto is humanity first, then everything else. Although, it could have a negative effect on human health as well. i know I wouldn't spray DDT on my walls, no matter what the problem.



Not the soldiers (who may have done much of the grunt work). Japanese corporations looted gold in China and buried it in Japan; they also looted and buried gold in the Philippines, Indonesia, etc. -- especially in the last year or so of their occupations. In the fifties they started digging it up

Its possible, but Im skeptical is all, especially about its macroeconomic effect.


I imagine that Africans save very little...perhaps even less than "westerners". The needs of daily consumption suck up every unit of currency earned.


This is the poverty trap. This is probably the main point of the book. How can you save anything if you make $250 a year and it costs $300 to survive? In actuality of course, Africans rarely see currency. They grow what food they can, usually, on plots the size of 0.1 hectares and if it isn't enough, they do what they can to get more, or they go without.

Which is why he recommends that donor aid be stepped up massively to about $110 per year per African. This will be within the limits of 0.7% of GDP, which is what the donor nations have been promising for years. The book is intended mainly to raise conciouness about this issue, so that people can demand that their government follows through on its promises. Look, you want to resist the imperialists? You want to make the world a better place? There is no better nor more feasible way to do it than this.

Imagine, which is more feasible, that people could goad their government into doing what they already promised to do, or that that government could be overthrown, that society turned upside-down and made to believe the exact opposite of what they have been taught?


Outrageous, isn't it! The common rabble actually think they are entitled to some pleasure in life!

Don't they realize that they are supposed to work, sleep, and watch the dummyvision???

And, if they have any extra money, buy stocks!

Just wait until Mr. Sachs or one of his clones (maybe even you!) gets to be in charge of Canada!

Those lazy fuckers will hear the crack of the whip then, dammit! They'll eat shit and like it!

Just like Poland.


My domestic agenda is a little different than my ideas about Africa. Mostly they involve shifting the tax burden onto the backs of the corporations, even introducing a graduated commercial tax. What I dislike least is how the government spends millions of dollars to take money from people and then give it right back to the same people.

But you know, why would I even bother talking about such things with you?

Only the revolution can save us.
Anyone who tries to help is the tool of the Devil.
Capital is the Bible. Now we just have to sit back and wait for the Messiah.

As to questions of to whom my duty lies, I am a human being. My duty therefore lies to them, and it lies first to those who cannot help themselves.

Peace out, homies. It was nice talking to you again, if a little repetitive and pointless.

And Redstar, 'Listen to the worm of doubt, for it speaks the truth'. ;)

[violencia.Proletariat]

since the subject of poland is continually being brought up, i question on what this guy accomplished thats so great. i saw on a bbc news broadcast of how poland was still pretty shitty even though its in the eu, etc. in the south western section, the big mining section, the factories closed down. now most of the town steals coal off the train that rolls through in order to make a small ammount of money. for one man it was just enough to feed his kids. he used to work in that factory and did pretty well, but now its settled to stealing off a train everyday. sounds like a paradise of well off people :lol:

[NovelGentry]

Osman Ghazi, I've taken my time to respond to you, so could you please answer my simple question?


So let me ask you plainly (AGAIN), with whom does your duty lie?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 25 2005, 02:18 PM

Demand the Third World debt be canceled!

Didnt we just do that? Wasnt there a G7 organized initiative led by Blair and heavily pushed by Bob Geldof (some kind of Rock-n-roll 'star' that I hadn't ever heard of before this)
Yeah...Tony Blair and the British Empire as the leaders of the fight against global poverty. Right.

In fact, Blair proposed to cancel a small part of the total Third World debt with numerous strings attached. I specified, cancelling the whole debt with no strings attached. You seem to be evading.


vs. someone who, in good faith negotiates to have some of their debt cancelled?

Emphasis, some. So the answer is, once we get past the evasions, that Sachs doesn't advocate completely cancelling the debt....and so of course neither does his disciple.


And the money coming from those industries finances the domestic capitalists, who expand into other markets that they find particularly profitable. Just like happened in all of the 'Asian Tiger' countries.

Hardly an example of "trade liberalization". As I explained in my last post.


:lol: Yeah, they are probably going to put the factory on the back of a truck and just send it out there.

What planet are you from? Here on planet Earth, factories are moved to lower-wage countries all the time. And yes,that includes from Third World countries to less-developed, lower-wage Third World countries.


All they would be doing by that is aquiring the capital necessary to jumpstart their economy.

Yeah, "All".


How do you expect them to cambat AIDS or malaria without medicine. Oh, they'll make it themselves? With what?

The main obstacle to acquiring AIDS medicines at affordable prices is in fact the patents of U.S. and European pharmaceutical companies. It is in fact the imperialist governments which expect each African company to manufacture its own medicines if they don't want to pay exorbitant prices to Merck, etc.

There are Indian, Brazilian, etc., companies willing and able to sell generics cheap if that imperialist obstacle was removed or disregarded.


If there is one thing that has been proved a hundreds times over in our lifetimes, let alone the last century, it is that notions of autarky are rewarded with poverty, isolation, both economic and political, the results of which are devastating to a nations citizens.

Who says autarky and imperialist-imposed "trade liberalization" are the only options? Regional trade blocs are one other option that comes to mind, for starters....


And during this period, Africans and Asians should suffer unimaginable evils while you tell everyone to focus on strikes and other frist world bullshit?

Strikes are first world bullshit? African and Asian workers are incapable of doing anything today?

Nigeria fuel price rises, union says will fight it (http://za.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2005-08-26T141503Z_01_ALL649569_RTRIDST_0_OZABS-ENERGY-NIGERIA-FUEL-20050826.XML)

Nigeria's main labour union said it will fight a rise in fuel prices, hiked by 40 to 50 percent on Friday to 70-75 naira (53-57 cents) per litre in many filling stations.

Previous government attempts to raise fuel prices have led to general strikes.
.....
The state oil company, which imports and subsidises fuel, has been arguing the level of subsidy had become unsustainable due to the rise of oil prices on world markets.

Removing price subsidies is of course one of the main proposals of the IMF and other advocates of "trade liberalization."

Funny how ungrateful workers in the Third World usually seem to be, towards Sachs and other imperialist "benefactors".....

[Led Zeppelin]

The French bourgeoisie failed in 1794, failed again in 1848, but after the defeat of the Paris Commune in 1871, the French bourgeoisie came to power once more...and this time held onto it!


I wonder, why is redstar of the opinion that the bourgeois is "allowed" to fail while the proletariat is not?

The proletariat has only failed once in the USSR, but they took over the power, yet redstar seems to have "given up" on the theory which brought them to power in the first place!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
The proletariat has only failed once in the USSR, but they took over the power, yet redstar seems to have "given up" on the theory which brought them to power in the first place!

"Marxism"-Leninism has had 85 or so years to "achieve something" in the advanced capitalist countries.

Results: 0

Yeah...I have given up on a bad theory.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

"Marxism"-Leninism has had 85 or so years to "achieve something" in the advanced capitalist countries.

Results: 0

Yeah...I have given up on a bad theory.

"The French bourgeoisie failed in 1794, failed again in 1848, but after the defeat of the Paris Commune in 1871, the French bourgeoisie came to power once more...and this time held onto it!"

That's 77 years, pretty close isn't it?

[LamarLatrell]

Originally posted by Marxism-[email protected]ug 28 2005, 02:36 AM

"Marxism"-Leninism has had 85 or so years to "achieve something" in the advanced capitalist countries.

Results: 0

Yeah...I have given up on a bad theory.

"The French bourgeoisie failed in 1794, failed again in 1848, but after the defeat of the Paris Commune in 1871, the French bourgeoisie came to power once more...and this time held onto it!"

That's 77 years, pretty close isn't it?
Well, America has proved that a strong middle class makes for the greatest country the world
has ever seen. Communism in all its forms has proven to be a complete and total failure. Even democratic socialism has proven to be economically sketchy as well.

Free markets are the true way to go. A strong nation to provide security for your family is the way to go. Chaos is for suckers.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by LamarLatrell+Aug 28 2005, 06:10 PM--> (LamarLatrell @ Aug 28 2005, 06:10 PM)
Marxism-[email protected] 28 2005, 02:36 AM

"Marxism"-Leninism has had 85 or so years to "achieve something" in the advanced capitalist countries.

Results: 0

Yeah...I have given up on a bad theory.

"The French bourgeoisie failed in 1794, failed again in 1848, but after the defeat of the Paris Commune in 1871, the French bourgeoisie came to power once more...and this time held onto it!"

That's 77 years, pretty close isn't it?
Well, America has proved that a strong middle class makes for the greatest country the world
has ever seen. Communism in all its forms has proven to be a complete and total failure. Even democratic socialism has proven to be economically sketchy as well.

Free markets are the true way to go. A strong nation to provide security for your family is the way to go. Chaos is for suckers. [/b]
Get this one back in the propaganda machine, I don't think he's ready yet.

I doubt very much that the US is the "greatest country in the world."
Also- if "a strong nation that provides for your family" is an indicator of being a great country, you should move to Scandinavia. :rolleyes:
And who said anything about chaos?

[Freedom Works]

Wow Mujer Libre, great job twisting his words there!



I doubt very much that the US is the "greatest country in the world."
He said that a strong middle class is what makes a nation strong, not that America is (even though it once was).


Also- if "a strong nation that provides for your family" is an indicator of being a great country, you should move to Scandinavia.
He said provides security, not that it provides for it.
I don't agree with that however, a "government" sucks wealth from a society, and returns very little.


And who said anything about chaos?
I don't know, I think he does not understand anarcho-capitalism.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

"Marxism"-Leninism has had 85 or so years to "achieve something" in the advanced capitalist countries.

Results: 0

Yeah...I have given up on a bad theory.

What has Marxism done?

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Aug 24 2005, 12:20 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Aug 24 2005, 12:20 AM)
Osman Ghazi
Well, this particular economist's first priority is the poverty of the third world.

Awww...isn't that sweet. [/b]
Wow, I never thought you could prove a communist isn't looking out for human rights and equality. And then you admit to it. Guess I was wrong. Ideology before helping the poor is RedTsar's way I guess.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

http://www.ihmec.ucl.ac.uk/images/js2.jpg

Hello, this is Jeffrey D. Sachs speaking. I am wearing a suit. I say again, as you can see, I am wearing a suit. If you google me and look at my images, you will notice that you will only find pictures of me wrapped up in a suit. But a as a man of the people, I want to do something for the ordinary guy. Because you see, ordinary guys like me wear suits. Common people in Africa wear suits!

[quincunx5]

Hello, this is Jeffrey D. Sachs speaking. I am wearing a suit. I say again, as you can see, I am wearing a suit. If you google me and look at my images, you will notice that you will only find pictures of me wrapped up in a suit. But a as a man of the people, I want to do something for the ordinary guy. Because you see, ordinary guys like me wear suits. Common people in Africa wear suits!


You're pathetic. There is no argument here, just slander.

[farleft]

Just a note on the language thing.

A county may have English as their official national language but that does not mean the people speak it, In Kenya English is not the language that people speak to each other in, it depends on what tribe they are from, for example, my girlfriend is Kenyan, her mother tongue is Luo, english is a second language and only because she is well educated, not everyone speaks english.

That goes for most african countries.

[Freedom Works]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 09:42 PM
There is no argument here, just slander.
Do you have something against slander quincunx5? :D

[quincunx5]

Do you have something against slander quincunx5?


Only as a means of arguments.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

You're pathetic.

Oh no, Jeffrey is the pathetic here. In case you didn't notice, I did make a point.

[truthaddict11]

welcome to the other side hope AnarchistTension doesnt go off on you check out the funny title they gave me