Progressives of the World Unite!

[DAVOUT]

The evocation of the European Structural funds is just misleading. The poorest countries members of the EU have had to meet a number of conditions regarding the political regime, the administrative, legal, fiscal, social and justice organization.

The underdevelopped countries would not meet these conditions, and the development issue in Africa is still as it was (and sometimes worse) after the decolonization : how could they fill the gap between the current state and the level where structural investments would be efficient.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Saras
The poor have not been getting poorer. Thay have been getting rich less fast. Read your stats right.

And the rich have been getting poor less fast.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
i never understood something... isn't an infussion of capital into these countries enough to get things going? i mean bring in businesses (which can be taxed reasonably), jobs, etc. (which give an income, even if it is meager) and these will beget more businesses and jobs (and that tax money can go towards education) and so on...

Eventually yes. You could provide Africans with all their needs and educate them. This would take a tremendous amount of resources though, and no one is willing to provide that much. Even if they were those resources would have to come from somewhere else because there isn't spare resources. That would create a shortage in other places.

Originally posted by Albert Speer
seems so simple and logical. unfortunately, the IMF, in its attempt to secure lendees that will pay them back, forces countries to cut tariffs, not provide better infrastructure for local (non-export) industries, etc. and this all only results in the destruction of any hope of internal business growth in these countries... no funds or loans to improve infrastructure nor the tariffs to compete with cheap foreign goods. so the infusion of capital does not work... globalization and foreign businesses establishing themselves in the third world though would be a different story entirely and would more likely lead to success for third world countries if not for petty dictators and what not who love to portray themselves as the stalwart defenders of the third world against american corporate imperialism

The IMF is screwed up. They should be held accountable for their forced policies. If their policies fail (and they usually do) the developing nations should have their debt cancelled.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Saras
The poor have not been getting poorer. Thay have been getting rich less fast. Read your stats right.

No.

This is the first generation of Usians who will get less $ than their parents for the first time after WWII.

The poor are really getting poorer.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


No.

This is the first generation of Usians who will get less $ than their parents for the first time after WWII.

The poor are really getting poorer.

Actually my generation was the first. I was born in 1968.

[Al B. Sure!]

Expecting Third World villagers to have low birth rates is like expecting Westerners to forgo economic growth. Not going to happen

China?


Kidicious:

The IMF is screwed up. They should be held accountable for their forced policies. If their policies fail (and they usually do) the developing nations should have their debt cancelled.

maybe there's a need for a Muslim style banking group... one that operates like a stock system, giving money in exchange for a percentage of the profits. such an IMF would have a vested interest in third world countries becoming economically sound as they would only get paid once they do

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
No.

This is the first generation of Usians who will get less $ than their parents for the first time after WWII.

The poor are really getting poorer.

UR is right. But even if Saras were correct, the fact that the rich were getting much richer much faster than the poor would (1) eradicate the middle class by making the middle class almost poor by comparison with the rich, and (2) thereby remove the buffer that allows for confidence in the free market - that .00001% chance that you too could be rich.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
maybe there's a need for a Muslim style banking group... one that operates like a stock system, giving money in exchange for a percentage of the profits. such an IMF would have a vested interest in third world countries becoming economically sound as they would only get paid once they do

So if the policies failed the IMF would lose the principle. That's probably a better idea than trying to get the principle back from impoverished nations who can't afford to pay it back. African just really needs a lot of aid though. They also need some really good leadership. If they get the aid eventually they will get the leadership.

[Al B. Sure!]

and of course Kidicious... globalizing businesses do have a vested interest in the economic security of the third world as 1) they don't want to be chased out by revolution and 2) they seek consumers...

so yeah... globalization will solve everything... and third world countries won't even have to worry about principle or interest...

[Dinner]

The Guardian is a total rag; everyone knows that. I remember in interview NPR did with the Editor of the Guardian (I can't remember the fellows name but he's the editor in chief) where the editor said he wanted all of the pieces in the Guardian to be leftist social activists pieces. The NPR interviewer asked him how people could trust the Guardian as a news source if everything is tilted towards one point of view and the editor couldn't really anwser that question. He just mumbled all sorts of nonsense about "we'll still be objective" while they're busy putting out leftist social activist pieces.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
and of course Kidicious... globalizing businesses do have a vested interest in the economic security of the third world as 1) they don't want to be chased out by revolution and 2) they seek consumers...

so yeah... globalization will solve everything... and third world countries won't even have to worry about principle or interest...

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic of not. I don't believe that globalization will work especially in Africa. Let's just wait and see what happens to China. Once the foreign capital starts leaving there it will collapse.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The Guardian is a total rag; everyone knows that. I remember in interview NPR did with the Editor of the Guardian (I can't remember the fellows name but he's the editor in chief) where the editor said he wanted all of the pieces in the Guardian to be leftist social activists pieces. The NPR interviewer asked him how people could trust the Guardian as a news source if everything is tilted towards one point of view and the editor couldn't really anwser that question. He just mumbled all sorts of nonsense about "we'll still be objective" while they're busy putting out leftist social activist pieces.

This isn't news its opinion

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic of not. I don't believe that globalization will work especially in Africa. Let's just wait and see what happens to China. Once the foreign capital starts leaving there it will collapse.

Globalization would work in Africa if 1) African goods were allowed in to foreign markets without having to compete agaisnt subsidized goods from the industrialized countries, and 2) The Africans would get their houses in order so people would feel safe investing in Africa.

If the country has a uneducated work force, if there is no infastructure, and rampet corruption and lawlessness is the rule of the day then no one in their right mind will set up factories.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kidicious
This isn't news its opinion

Exactly my point. The guardian is giving opinion and editorial instead of news.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Globalization would work in Africa if 1) African goods were allowed in to foreign markets without having to compete agaisnt subsidized goods from the industrialized countries

That would be some real efficient capitalism