Privatizatizing Water: Another World Bank Disaster

[Dinner]

Apparently it does but in this case it is sad and short sighted. Saddam's presience is weighting down Iraq's economic progress. Once he's out of the picture and a new secular government is in place then Iraq will be set to rejoin the world economy and economic growth will be set to take off.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Oerdin - yes you can.

Take cares for example

Everyone is like 'minimum gas mileage in certain classes'. We need to research alternate cell cars. Instead of subsidizing alternate cell cars and putting limits on mileage, tax cars which use gas and tax cars on a progressive scale if their mileage is over a certain point.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Molly: I can only say that you are sorely in need of rereading history books because you evidientally missed major themes the first time around.

At first this could be hidden from the world by using subsidies but eventually the economy became so bad that the socialists forced nationally owned comapnies to hire tens of thousands of unneeded works as a way of lowering the sky high unemployment rate the socialist's incompetence had created. the socialists also put political appointicies in charge of companies instead of people who had experience managing the industries in question. .

I ask for dates and facts, you give me rhetoric...

Who nationalized, for instance, Rolls Royce, and why?

Edward Heath's Conservative government in 1971, to save the privately owned firm from bankruptcy.

Which government presided over the highest post WWII unemployment figures?

Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government. Officially put at 3.8 million people out of work, owing to government decreed massaging of figures, the real figure was 4 million. At least twice as many as were out of work under any previous post war socialist administration.

When unemployment reached 1 million under a Labour government, this was seen as shameful- the Tories came to power under the slogan 'Labour isn't working' in 1979. Yet under Thatcher, Great Britain evidently wasn't working, because her policies tripled the number of unemployed.

Which government was in power when house repossessions reached a record high?

Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government.

Evidently the history books you read miss out some major facts.

Such as conservative political appointees being hired to run quangoes- a way that a Conservative government could pretend it was against big government whilst simultaneously creating sinecures for the party faithful, lap dog civil servants and political toadies.

Such as political appointees being installed as governors of the B.B.C.- something which never fails to amuse me whenever yet another crusty conservative bemoans the supposed left-wing bias of the B.B.C. .

Such as political appointees being hired to run newly privatized industries- then voting themselves triple salary increases within the space of two years- as water authority chairman did.

I don't think I missed much when I lived in Great Britain- I had the misfortune to be coming back from a highly enjoyable Roxy Music Manifesto tour concert to the news that Thatcher had been elected Prime Minister in 1979, and was in Great Britain throughout the years of misrule, the Falklands fiasco (partly caused by Conservative government cost-cutting sending the wrong signals to the Argentinian junta), the Poll Tax riots (if only Thatcher had believed in 'society' she might have read or understood history and recalled what happened when the first poll tax was introduced), record unemployment, the reappearance of beggars on the streets of major cities, the closing down of facilities for the mentally ill (ensuring the dumping of violent paranoid schizophrenics on the streets, euphemistically known as 'care in the community') and the running down of the National Health system and the railway networks.

No, I don't think I missed any major themes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government. Officially put at 3.8 million people out of work, owing to government decreed massaging of figures, the real figure was 4 million. At least twice as many as were out of work under any previous post war socialist administration.

When unemployment reached 1 million under a Labour government, this was seen as shameful- the Tories came to power under the slogan 'Labour isn't working' in 1979. Yet under Thatcher, Great Britain evidently wasn't working, because her policies tripled the number of unemployed.

You just proved Oerdin's point about leftist governments hiring people simply for the sake of hiring (leading to massive hidden employment).

[Dinner]

1981 and 1982 were recessionary years so of course unemployment rose, however, that's were the **** hit the fan for the bloated state run companies. All the excess overhead, lack of capital investments, poor politically appointed management, and massive subsideis came to a head because the British government was no longer capable or willing to continue providing the subsidies. Without the massive subsidies the state monopolies began to fold one after another.

The state tried to find privite investors but the privite investors cherry picked the best assets only and the remaining unprofitable hulks were all forced out of business. The labor government made the mess and Thacher, along with old fashioned market forces, had to clean up the mess. That's why unemployment was so high when the conservatives took power.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Sure there were problems with borders spliting different ethnic groups and the colonial powers used their colonies for raw materials but by and large it has been a half century of total mismanagement by the African political elites which has resulted in Africa being the ****-hole that it is.

Yeah, and by and large these "little" problems like borders and draining resources are a MAJOR reason why there are civil wars and other conflicts which are no good to these countries' economies. And the policies of the IMF and WB do nothing but deepen the crisis as they only serve to put their economies in a stranglehold. Look at the AIDS crisis, a crisis which spread first in the west, but now hits Africa harder than anyone. Are they getting cheap drugs? NOOOOOOOO

Show at least SOME responsibility for the caos you have created in huge chunks of the world.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Look at the AIDS crisis, a crisis which spread first in the west, but now hits Africa harder than anyone.

Say what?

[Master Zen]

AIDS as an epidemic began with the homosexual community in the US. It spread first among developed countries and only later did it hit Africa hard.

[Dinner]

AIDS started in Africa and that is why there are so many cases there.

Also before you go blaming the IMF and the World Bank you might consider what the world would be like without a lender of last resort. Just about every third world country would default on their debt and have their economy permently ruined without the IMF bail outs. The IMF asks that the debter make certain reforms which will make a repeat of the crisis less likely and so help the country get back on its feet.

Without those intitutions the poor would most likely remain dirt poor and would never have a real chance to grow their way out of poverty.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Master Zen
AIDS as an epidemic began with the homosexual community in the US. It spread first among developed countries and only later did it hit Africa hard.

Aids was first identified in the US because the US has a better health care system and they were able to ID the new virus. Since then scientists have used DNA modeling for the virus to map it's mutations and have traced the origins back to southern Africa. They've even ID'd several possible AIDS like source viruses which infect primates in southern Africa. It is unknown how the infection spread from animals to people but it is believed the practice of eating raw "bush meat" had something to do with it. *If one had bloody gums or an ulcerated stomich then you could get infected from raw virul infected meat.*

[Dinner]

here is a good link about the origin and spread of AIDS. Here's a quote:

So where did HIV come from? Did HIV come from an SIV?

It is now generally accepted that HIV is a descendant of simian (monkey) immunodeficiency virus (SIV). Certain simian immunodeficiency viruses bear a very close resemblance to HIV-1 and HIV-2, the two types of HIV.

For example, HIV-2 corresponds to a simian immunodeficiency virus found in the sooty mangabey monkey (SIVsm), sometimes known as the green monkey, which is indigenous to western Africa.

The more virulent strain of HIV, namely HIV-1, was until very recently more difficult to place. Until 1999 the closest counterpart that had been identified was the simian (monkey) immunodeficiency virus that was known to infect chimpanzees (SIVcpz), but this virus had significant differences between it and HIV.

Please don't let science get in the way of you blaming the US for all the world's ills. Please feel free to continue.

[Berzerker]

Oerdin -

Apparently it does but in this case it is sad and short sighted. Saddam's presience is weighting down Iraq's economic progress. Once he's out of the picture and a new secular government is in place then Iraq will be set to rejoin the world economy and economic growth will be set to take off.

That's an optimistic outlook, Saddam is a lead weight on the Iraqi economy, but not so much because he's an idiot, but because he is constantly seeking weapons for protection and the sanctions to prevent those acquisitions. Iraq was one of the more improved countries in the region until it's invasion of Iran. I say leave 'em alone, lift the sanctions, and tell him we won't tolerate invading other countries. If Bush 1 had told him that during the dispute over Kuwait side-drilling into Iraqi oil reserves, there would have been no invasion and no gulf war and Saddam wouldn't be a threat. But Bush 1 really screwed up, he sent Saddam a wishy washy message about having no treaty with Kuwait and how the US had no desire to get involved in inter-Arab disputes. Inspite of the BS some Republicans are giving us now about opposing Iraq's behavior in the 80's, the US was quite happy to help him with his war in Iran. It's not surprising Saddam thought we wouldn't mind much if he took Kuwait...He was our "friend"...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You just proved Oerdin's point about leftist governments hiring people simply for the sake of hiring (leading to massive hidden employment).

I did nothing of the sort- at no point has he shown when or how a Labour government forced or persuaded nationalized industries to employ 'extra' staff.

One expects this of conservatives- long on hot air, short on facts and figures when dealing with the damage caused by right wing economic theory.

From oerdin:

'1981 and 1982 were recessionary years so of course unemployment rose, however, that's were the **** hit the fan for the bloated state run companies. '

See, there's always someone else or something else to blame when conservative economic policies wreak havoc.

'Recessionary years'- what, these are a 'natural' occurrence are they, like tree rings, or leaf mould, or snow falling on cedars? They obviously have nothing to do with conservative economic policies, they just happen upon us out of the blue, errant whirlwinds alighting on the world scene.

Of course the small insignificant occurrence of the OPEC oil crisis in the Seventies rarely gets a look in when conservatives are lambasting socialist economic 'mismanagement' -but then John Major's corrupt, nepotistic and shambolic conservative government blamed everything and everyone else for its failures- much as Thatcher blamed the permissive Sixties for her and her government's failings. As if somehow, after three terms in office, over twenty years later, her government's ineptitude was all the fault of Roy Jenkins when he was Labour Home Secretary in 1965.

And oerdin- when the tories took power, they inherited unemployment figures one third of what they became under the tories- so get your facts right. If you're going to criticise Labour for high unemployment, be aware that under the Tories it became much, much worse.

[DuncanK]

I just saw news that the World Bank published a study that shows that Unionization improves the economy in all sorts of ways. Wow! That's a 180. I don't now if another thread should be started or not. Ming might say it's and Iraq thread.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I did nothing of the sort- at no point has he shown when or how a Labour government forced or persuaded nationalized industries to employ 'extra' staff.

Seems to be a case of seeing the forest, but not the trees.

Why do you think such unemployment just happened to get so high under conservatives? Maybe because they eliminated unnecessary jobs?

It wasn't like the growth rates were anything spectacular before Thatcher. Hidden employment may, of course, account for much of that.