So all WTO protestors are rich, white people?

[chequita guevara]

Vandana Shiva and Aruhndata Roy (not mentioned but better than Shiva politicaly) are both Indian women. Both are major leaders of the "anti-globalization" movement. Yet another lie about the left bites the dust.

[Harry Seldon]

"... corporate and political bigwigs..."

Make that "anybody"

I care.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drogue
All I ask is that you stop subsidising and putting tariffs on the imports from developing countries.

All I said is that I was uncomfortable with it. Personally, I'd like it if our environmental regulations applied to imports, but they don't.

[Dinner]

I remember about four years ago when several school kids here in the states died after eatting Mexican strawberries which had be fertlized with raw sewage. Sewage has lots of bacteria in it.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Snotty
So we have farmers losing their jobs because they cannot produce food as cheaply as the outside markets, yet the food for everyone in the country is cheaper, presumably stopping starvation and increasing the quality of live for the rest.

Simply because of the lives saved through people not starving, in this case I would say the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

But then again I could be missing something.

You are. They can produce food as cheaply, but do not get subsidies, and have EU surplus dumped on them. Food might be cheaper, but the many are farmers. These are predominantly agricultural economies. If the farmers get mroe money, it means that they can invest and spend more, helping the whole economy. Prices would rise, but wages would rise by much much more.

As I said, the farmers are the many. These nations cannot get richer if they cannot export. They cannot develop. Indeed, money is flowing out of these countries.

[Sava]

Re: Re: So all WTO protestors are rich, white people?

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


There are ignorant leftists everywhere to serve other people's agendas. Hippie gringos wouldn't go to Cancun to protest because the Mexican police would have their sorry asses, and the hippie gringos would rather party anyway.

If it's an issue of agendas, frankly, I'm more scared of the profiteering agendas of omnipotent multinational corporations rather than some poor farmers in Korea.

I'll quote good old Teddy Roosevelt...

“The reactionaries of the business world and their allies and instruments among politicians and newspaper editors demand for themselves an immunity from government control… Many of them are evil men, unable to understand what the public interest really is… Of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of plutocracy…”

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Vandana Shiva and Aruhndata Roy (not mentioned but better than Shiva politicaly) are both Indian women. Both are major leaders of the "anti-globalization" movement. Yet another lie about the left bites the dust.

What lie? It's been pretty well known for a long time that the commie left agenda relating to agriculture (including land redistribution, collectives, protectionism, direct subsidy, etc.) will have the effect (intentionally or otherwise) of keeping lots of small, barely surviving farmers stuck being lots of small, barely surviving farmers in perpetuity.

There is no real long-term economic growth in agriculture at the third-world scale, and clinging to an agricultural economy simply dooms people to being in a permanent underclass. But of course, that can be cured by further state intervention.

[Chemical Ollie]

One less

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Snotty
So we have farmers losing their jobs because they cannot produce food as cheaply as the outside markets, yet the food for everyone in the country is cheaper, presumably stopping starvation and increasing the quality of live for the rest.

. . .

But then again I could be missing something.

Yes, you are missing the fact that when farmers lose their farms, they no longer have an ability to purchace. If theyre lucky, and live someplace with 0% unemployment, they can probably get a job which will compenstate the loss of land and income. If they live in the 3rd world, then they may very well starve.

[Drogue]

Re: Re: Re: So all WTO protestors are rich, white people?

Originally posted by Sava
If it's an issue of agendas, frankly, I'm more scared of the profiteering agendas of omnipotent multinational corporations rather than some poor farmers in Korea.

I'm the other way. I care more about what our governments are doing than these companies. These MNCs are providing employment to millions in the developing world. However our governments are stopping these nations from progressing, with their anti-competetive practices. The WTO needs to stop it now. WTF does the US still have farm subsidies? I know the EU only has it because of the French veto, but why the US? Both need to go.

Thanks for posting this too Sava a very important issue IMHO. Not for this Korean, but for the massive problem it represents. Millions die every year because of this, and we are stopping the entire agricultural nations of the developing world from developing.

[GePap]

The only way to know that US and EU farners can produce with lower cost s to end their subsidies and let them compete...Oh lord, but we can;t have that, can we!?

Subsidies and tariffs by the rch states on the poor is the greatest hypocrasy in the world economy today.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
What lie? It's been pretty well known for a long time that the commie left agenda relating to agriculture (including land redistribution, collectives, protectionism, direct subsidy, etc.) will have the effect (intentionally or otherwise) of keeping lots of small, barely surviving farmers stuck being lots of small, barely surviving farmers in perpetuity.

Better that than starving to death in a shanty town, which is where all those displaced farmers end up.

[Sava]

There is no real long-term economic growth in agriculture at the third-world scale, and clinging to an agricultural economy simply dooms people to being in a permanent underclass.

Yes, we should force them to work for less pay and more brutal working conditions in corporate factories producing Nike's for 5 cents a pair when they are resold for $150 a pair in the US.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes, you are missing the fact that when farmers lose their farms, they no longer have an ability to purchace. If theyre lucky, and live someplace with 0%, they can probably get a job which will compenstate the loss of land and income. If they live in the 3rd world, then they may very well starve.

And if both third world domestic politics and the focus of globalization was directed towards achieving a managed transition out of an agriculture dominated economy, then you wouldn't have the displacements that occur anyway in the third world when natural disasters, market crashes, new pests, erosion, or soil exhaustion occur.

Small scale third world agriculture is a multi-generation life sentence to poverty.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
What lie? It's been pretty well known for a long time that the commie left agenda relating to agriculture (including land redistribution, collectives, protectionism, direct subsidy, etc.) will have the effect (intentionally or otherwise) of keeping lots of small, barely surviving farmers stuck being lots of small, barely surviving farmers in perpetuity.
That is true.

There is no real long-term economic growth in agriculture at the third-world scale, and clinging to an agricultural economy simply dooms people to being in a permanent underclass. But of course, that can be cured by further state intervention.

All false. There is long term growth in agriculture, espcially for the third world. There are more mouths to feed, and without state intervention, the first world agriculture would be dying (it is anyway, but slowly). That means more agriculture needs to come from the third world. There is huge growth there, however without investment, and without intermediate technology and a market to export to (most importantly), it cannot grow. Agricultural produce is unstable, due to the nature of being a natural product, however there is much more money in it for the third world, as long as we stop our state intervention. Remove the agricultural subsides and the free market will make developing nations wealthier. Allow them a small measure of unreplied protectionism, until they have developed a little further, and they will develop much quicker. However since that isn't good for the US and EU in the short-term, it is not politically viable. That is the problem.