600M Asian Children in Poverty, Group Says

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Sandman
The sooner we can scrap grossly unfair arrangements like this, the better. I've never understood Che and Spiffor's views on this issue, and I doubt I ever will.

In a few words, it boils down to who will benefit in these countries. It's not the small farmer who'll benefit, but the agrobusinesses and the Lantifundistas.

Also, keep in mind that I'm not exactly supportive of the agrosubsidies we have now. For their most part, our agrosubsidies are corporate pork, and it's merely a side-effect of the subsidies that it helps the small farmers. I'm favourable to subsidies that only keep the "side effect", but that stop giving pork to the fat cats. Our fat cats can well compete with third world fat cats.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

In a few words, it boils down to who will benefit in these countries. It's not the small farmer who'll benefit, but the agrobusinesses and the Lantifundistas.

Given even a moderately inelastic supply of labor, an increase in production of say sugar by agribusinesses in country X will raise wages for labor.

I mean if we killed the steel industry in third world countries by subsidizing 1st world steel, no one would doubt that it would hurt workers in 3rd world countries, despite the steel firms being large. Farming, we seem to have a blind spot.

[Bosh]

You're such a tool of the corporations.

So let me get this straight, I'm a tool of the corporations because I DON'T want to give agribusiness free money? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Then the solution isn't to make things worse by turning the 3rd world into farms for the 1st (moreso than it already is).

Why not? What the hell is wrong with exporting stuff? It's done a lot of good for a whole lot of countries.

Increasing their GDP be selling crops to the West won't help the poor of these countries. It will only help the rich, and they will put their money in Western banks.

That's like saying increasing industrial exports doesn't do anything to help the poor in those countries. What's the difference?

Being a poor peasant make suck, but it beats being a peasant with no land and having to move to a shanty on the edges of a city.

You really think that having the prices for their produce go UP with bankrupt more peasants? Huge numbers of peasants are being bankrupted and forced into urban shanties every day because of dumping which allows 1st world agribusiness to sell stuff to the 3rd world at artificially-low prices that 3rd world farmers can't compete with.

Then the solution is tarrifs, not dicking over 3rd world peasants and 1st world consumers.

If the 1st world has tariffs and the 3rd world has tariffs everyone's in the same boat and the same goes for if neither have tariffs, but if the 1st world has tariffs and the 3rd world doesn't, then the 3rd world really gets the shaft and that's where we are now.

And how does making more money for your products possibly "dick" peasants? That's just stupid.

Aaaaah the magical world of chegitz where taking subsidies away from agribusiness would be the best thing that could ever happen to then and where having peasants get more money would destroy them.

It's not the small farmer who'll benefit, but the agrobusinesses and the Lantifundistas.

Even if that's the case, its better than the whole country getting the shaft as things are now. And your arguement doesn't make sense in any case, ALL non-subsidized farmers would get more income, its very basic economics.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Bosh
So let me get this straight, I'm a tool of the corporations because I DON'T want to give agribusiness free money? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

No, you're a tool because you buy the arguments of libertarians and right-wingers who are lying about helping 3rd world poor when their only interest is enriching the ruling classes. Its like that BS about GMOs being about making golden rice to help the poor, even though in order to grow that rice, it will require massive amounts of energy and chemicals and the rice doesn't deliver anything close to enough vitamin A to do any good. It's propaganda pure and simple, and you've bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

Why not? What the hell is wrong with exporting stuff? It's done a lot of good for a whole lot of countries.

It hasn't really. As the 3rd world has become more export oriented, away from trying to develop their own internal markets, poverty in the 3rd world has exploded. The market cannot solve poverty. The market creates poverty. If you expand the market, you will expand poverty, even while a tiny sliver of the world's poulation benefits. A handful of countries, which pursued very statist-export oriented agendas, i.e., the Asian tigers, managed to develop.

That's like saying increasing industrial exports doesn't do anything to help the poor in those countries.

And that would be true. What helps the poor are government programs, land reform, unions, etc. The only reason South Koreans have a good standard of living is because of their combativeness that you and other bourgeois socialists seem to find distasteful.

You really think that having the prices for their produce go UP with bankrupt more peasants?

Yes. In order to buy the seeds they need to sell to our markets, they will have to go into debt. They will need to buy chemicals in order to grow their geneticaly identical monocrops. They won't make enough money to pay off their loans and will be forced to sell. Many, however, will simply be driven off the land by hired thugs of the latifundias, ala Chiapas and Columbia.

Huge numbers of peasants are being bankrupted and forced into urban shanties every day because of dumping

Then the problem isn't subsidies on our part, but lack of tarrifs on theirs. They have a right to proect themselves from dumping. But I don't want my food budget to go up just so rich people in the 3rd world can get even richer. How does it help the 3rd world poor to make the 1st world poor even more precarious?

If the 1st world has tariffs and the 3rd world has tariffs everyone's in the same boat

But it's a different boat. If both sides have tarrifs, it's easier for internal markets to develp. That's why the U.S. had such high tarrifs in the 19th Century. To develop itself.

And how does making more money for your products possibly "dick" peasants? That's just stupid.

Because, they aren't the ones who will be making the money. IF there is more profit to be made, the first cut will go to the middle men. After that, any additional profits will be sucked up by the latifundias, as marginal land suddenly becomes profitable to seize.

Aaaaah the magical world of chegitz where taking subsidies away from agribusiness would be the best thing that could ever happen to then and where having peasants get more money would destroy them.

As opposed to the magical world of Boshko where the the rich suddenly won't screw the poor when new opportunities to do so arise.

your arguement doesn't make sense in any case, ALL non-subsidized farmers would get more income, its very basic economics.

I'm sorry reality fails to make sense to you. Perhaps you should try and study Mexico, and see what happened to the peasants there after NAFTA was enacted. There were illegal land seizures all over the place, and the cporrupt government sided not with the peasants, whose constitutional rights were being violated, but with the land pirates. Why do you think that countries that are even more corrupt than Mexico are going to be miracles of the market? What kind of anarchist are you!?!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
[Q] Originally posted by Bosh
But it's a different boat. If both sides have tarrifs, it's easier for internal markets to develp. That's why the U.S. had such high tarrifs in the 19th Century. To develop itself.

The US had high tariffs in the 19th century so Northern capitalists could exploit the South. The tariffs hurt southern exports of cotton, and so harmed both landowners and labor in the south. Classic imperialism, I think. Though I suppose you could argue that by making southern land less valuable, it made it less likely that the landowning class would engage in illegal land seizures.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The US had high tariffs in the 19th century so Northern capitalists could exploit the South. The tariffs hurt southern exports of cotton, and so harmed both landowners and labor in the south. Classic imperialism, I think.

Well, the mean reason was not to inhibit the export of Southern cotton, and I don't think it did. It was to make foreign goods more expensive, so Americans would buy American goods, rather than cheaper British goods. This enabled the Northern capitalist class to accumulate enough capital to be able to compete with European trade.

Though I suppose you could argue that by making southern land less valuable, it made it less likely that the landowning class would engage in illegal land seizures.

Exactly. And however much being a dirt farmer in the South may have sucked, I'm sure it beat the heck out of living in a big city tenement and working 12-hour days in industrial hells.

[lord of the mark]

1. Im not sure what local conditions made land seizures possible in Mexico - Im not sure either the same political conditions, or the same land tenure situations exist everywhere in the 3rd world
2. Whatever happened in terms of land ownership, wages went up in Mexico after NAFTA. CG seems to assume the existence of only a peasantry living on marginal land, and neglects the entire question of the wages of agricultural laborers. If on the one hand, peasants are living on subsistence, they may well be better off receiving wages on cash crop farms. On the other hand, if theyre doing better than subsistence, its not clear why their land isnt already worth expropriating. There would seem to be a cost function to expropriating land, implicit in CGs statements.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The US had high tariffs in the 19th century so Northern capitalists could exploit the South. The tariffs hurt southern exports of cotton, and so harmed both landowners and labor in the south. Classic imperialism, I think.

Well, the mean reason was not to inhibit the export of Southern cotton, and I don't think it did. It was to make foreign goods more expensive, so Americans would buy American goods, rather than cheaper British goods. This enabled the Northern capitalist class to accumulate enough capital to be able to compete with European trade.

Of course it inhibited cotton exports. Under the gold standard, imports and exports tended to balance. When you reduce imports, you mean more gold stays in the country, which makes prices higher, which makes exports less competitive, until the system returns to equilibrium. Thats the math - the reality was a south sunk in poverty from end of the civil war till the New Deal. Oh, and at the same time their cotton sales were hurt, the prices of manufactured goods were higher, so they were hit with a double whammy.

Though I suppose you could argue that by making southern land less valuable, it made it less likely that the landowning class would engage in illegal land seizures.

Exactly. And however much being a dirt farmer in the South may have sucked, I'm sure it beat the heck out of living in a big city tenement and working 12-hour days in industrial hells.

Well i was about to mention that one of the side benefits to the northern capitalists, was that the depressed conditions of the south made (another) cheap labor force available. Though black migration to the north was modest as long as free immigration kept wages at bare subsistence levels. Southerners looking to improve conditions began to develop industry in the south - but in order to keep the working class divided, they reserved industrial jobs for whites - despite the horrors of southern textile mill towns, whites flocked to them, to escape rural poverty. Blacks would have, but they were excluded.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The US had high tariffs in the 19th century so Northern capitalists could exploit the South. The tariffs hurt southern exports of cotton, and so harmed both landowners and labor in the south. Classic imperialism, I think.

Well, the mean reason was not to inhibit the export of Southern cotton, and I don't think it did. It was to make foreign goods more expensive, so Americans would buy American goods, rather than cheaper British goods. This enabled the Northern capitalist class to accumulate enough capital to be able to compete with European trade.
.

tarriffs werent necessary for capital accumulation. Capital had been flooding in from Britain even before the civil war, and the tariffs. Brits invested in railroad stocks, etc. Tariffs were increased to make SOMEBODY pay more for manufactured goods than they otherwise would, enriching the manufacturers (wanting to get richer is NOT the same as overcoming a constraint on investment capital) - IE to exploit somebody. The net losers are folks whose livelihoods are tied to the export industries.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. Im not sure what local conditions made land seizures possible in Mexico - Im not sure either the same political conditions, or the same land tenure situations exist everywhere in the 3rd world

Basically, one of the same conditions that exists throughout most of the 3rd world. Corruption and violence. In Mexico, unlike in many places, the peasants have a inviolable right to their communal land. It cannot be taken from them, legally. They would have to change the Constitution to do so. So the government is just ignoring the Constitution. Elsewhere, peasants lack even that protection.

2. Whatever happened in terms of land ownership, wages went up in Mexico after NAFTA.

Wouldn't be hard, as the currency collapsed right after NAFTA was signed. Wages had no where to go but up.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. Im not sure what local conditions made land seizures possible in Mexico - Im not sure either the same political conditions, or the same land tenure situations exist everywhere in the 3rd world

Basically, one of the same conditions that exists throughout most of the 3rd world. Corruption and violence. In Mexico, unlike in many places, the peasants have a inviolable right to their communal land. It cannot be taken from them, legally. They would have to change the Constitution to do so. So the government is just ignoring the Constitution. Elsewhere, peasants lack even that protection.

It would seem possible that where peasants hold land individually, rather than communally, tenure might in fact be more secure. Communal tenures are notoriously insecure in developing capitalist societies, back to 16th century england.

[Bosh]

Chegitz: some of your arguements are getting so surreal that you have me really confused. You seem to be saving that in increase in farm good prices IN AND OF ITSELF is a bad things for farmers. Which doesn't make any sense.

Lets take the subsidies out of the debate for a moment and just take a hypothetical case in which a huge-ass hurricane or tsunami or something hits Colombia and completely whipes out the coffee industry there and screw up all the soil in a way that'd make it hard to restart it. This of course would lead to a significant increase in world coffee prices. So would this event be a good thing or not for, say, a coffee farmer in Java?

No, you're a tool because you buy the arguments of libertarians and right-wingers who are lying about helping 3rd world poor when their only interest is enriching the ruling classes

Real free trade isn't necessarily an optimal arraignment, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

As the 3rd world has become more export oriented, away from trying to develop their own internal markets, poverty in the 3rd world has exploded.

The opposite has happened here in Korea. The ones that've had poverty increasing have either had huge political problems/instability, have had their industries killed off by subsidized first world import or have had a hard time getting their goods to the 1st world. The ones that have had success in making imports a significant part of their GDP (again, like Korea) have done relatively well. The expension to this would be countries exporting cash crops that have to compete against subsidized first world crops or try to sell to a glutted market.
HOWEVER, inthose countries who produce the sort of cash crops that don't have to compete against subsidized 1st world crops would have the subsistence/staple part of the farming economy STRENGTHENED vis a vi the cash crop chunk, since the cash crop sector would be the same as before while the staple/subsistence bit would have an easier time selling to the local market since it wouldn't have to compete with subsidized imported grain as much.

And that would be true. What helps the poor are government programs, land reform, unions, etc.

Those are all well and good, (Korea had a very nice land reform program that basically destroyed rural landlords as a class) but unless you have an economic base to support all that government programs can't be paid for.

The only reason South Koreans have a good standard of living is because of their combativeness

So you're saying that the success of Korea's export industries has nothing to do with the increase of South Korea's standard of living? That's a very, um, original opinion.

You really think that having the prices for their produce go UP with bankrupt more peasants?

Yes.

That's stupid. That's like saying that having the wage of website developers going up would be a bad thing for you. How could getting money for your crops possibly be a bad thing?

In order to buy the seeds they need to sell to our markets, they will have to go into debt. They will need to buy chemicals in order to grow their geneticaly identical monocrops. They won't make enough money to pay off their loans and will be forced to sell.

And they don't need all those things now to be competitive? You're not making any sense.

Many, however, will simply be driven off the land by hired thugs of the latifundias, ala Chiapas and Columbia.

And this doesn't happen now? So what you're saying is that people getting more money would be a bad thing since then people would be more likely to steal it? That makes every bit as much sense as your boss saying that he won't give you a raise since he thinks that doing so would make it more likely for people to steal your money and then expecting you to be grateful.

Then the problem isn't subsidies on our part, but lack of tarrifs on theirs.

Right, but with the stregth of the WTO and the IMF, that's not a realistic option in the short term. All I'm saying is that a end of 1st world farm subsidies would be better than the status quo.

Because, they aren't the ones who will be making the money.

*sigh*
That's like saying that the industrial revolution hasn't increased western standard of living since so much of the profits have gone to capitalists. If nothing else, an increase in GDP gives the government a bigger tax base to use to fund social programs. An economy based on low-tech subsistence farming can't afford **** all in the way of social programs.

As opposed to the magical world of Boshko where the the rich suddenly won't screw the poor when new opportunities to do so arise.

The rich screwing over the poor is a constant that doesn't have anything to do with your bizarre arguements that getting more money for their crops makes farmers poorer.

Why do you think that countries that are even more corrupt than Mexico are going to be miracles of the market?

Don't put words in my mouth. I just said that an end of 1st world farm subsidies would be better than the status quo.
Again you're making the strange arguement that it's bad for people to have more money since that makes it more likely that people will steal from them.

What kind of anarchist are you!?!

The kind that doesn't like Corporatist economic policy and subsidies to big business.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Bosh
Chegitz: some of your arguements are getting so surreal that you have me really confused.

LotM disagrees with me, but he understands my point. It's not that hard. Simply put, peasants right now own marginal lands which aren't profitable enough to be worth the effort of seizing right now, so they can grow enough food for themselves and their local markets markets. Once it becomes profitable to use that land for cash crops in the first world, they will lose their land, because those with the power will steal it from them.

You seem to be saving that in increase in farm good prices IN AND OF ITSELF is a bad things for farmers. Which doesn't make any sense.

The problem is, the situation doesn't exist IN AND OF ITSELF, but within an existing social context and history which must be looked at in oreder to understand what the real world results of ending subsidies will be.

So would this event be a good thing or not for, say, a coffee farmer in Java?

Possibly, but not likely. The far more likely scenario is that it would be very good for the middle men who buy the coffee from the farmers and sell it to the 1st world. In the event that the farmers have their own marketting co-operative then it would be a good thing for the farmers in Java.

Real free trade isn't necessarily an optimal arraignment, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

Free trade has always screwed the people on the bottom. The reason Marx supported free trade is because it exaserbates the instability inherent in capitalism and theoretically leads to greater worker politicization and thence to socialism. This didn't happen. Making the world worse to hasten the arrival of socialism is immoral.

The opposite has happened here in Korea.

Because Korea was the opposite of a free trade regime, and instead was an extremely statist regime. It's hard to tell where the government begins and the chaibols end sometimes.

The ones that've had poverty increasing have either had huge political problems/instability,

Well that's the real world. You have to factor that in to your dreamy little dream that imagines that free trade will somehow benefit 3rd world proeducers.

have had their industries killed off by subsidized first world import or have had a hard time getting their goods to the 1st world.

They had to lower their barriers to such commodities because they were [i]froced[/o] to do so by the IMF and World Bank. The solution isn't to make things worse, but to allow the 3rd world to rerasie their trade barriers.

The ones that have had success in making imports a significant part of their GDP (again, like Korea) have done relatively well.

And those countries had high tarrif barriers and massive state help. The opposite of what you propose.

Those are all well and good, (Korea had a very nice land reform program that basically destroyed rural landlords as a class) but unless you have an economic base to support all that government programs can't be paid for.

That's a seperate problem, but opening your country to free trade won't solve it, as capital will not be stored in the local currency and banks, but will instead flee to secure currencies, thus ensuring that the 3rd world must take out more foreign loans and stay forever in debt. Honestly, did you ever study the third world?

So you're saying that the success of Korea's export industries has nothing to do with the increase of South Korea's standard of living?

If Korean labor hadn't fought for its rights, it would look more like China, with massive growth and profitablity and a desititute working class. Obviously Korean capital couldn't have retreated before labor if they hadn't built up their economy, which they did by raising barriers to foreign goods and creating a secure economy first.

That's stupid. That's like saying that having the wage of website developers going up would be a bad thing for you. How could getting money for your crops possibly be a bad thing?

Apples an oranges. No one can steal my mind, thus I cannot be alienated from my source of wealth. Peasants can have their land stolen once it becomes profitable to do so. For example, the U.S., time after time, shoved the Indians on to what were perceived as marginal lands, lands they saw no use for. Once we saw we could exploit that land, we drove the Indians off it, over, and over and over. Once that marginal land becomes valuable, the peasants will have it stolen from them.

And they don't need all those things now to be competitive? You're not making any sense.

Right now, most of their produce is not export oriented. You don't need all of those things because they are producing for small, local markets, as well as for subsistence. The land doesn't require intensive exploitation. Once it becomes possible to plant and sell cash crops, they will attempt to use every bit of land to its maximum capacity, which means trying to increase yields through energy and chemical intensive labor. At the same time, Western markets will demand particular types of crops, crops which require the same. Peasants which aren't driven off by force will be driven off by economics. This will also be an environmental catastrophe for the 3rd world, as all unfarmed land gets plowed under.

And this doesn't happen now?

It does, but not as much, because the land isn't worth that much right now. For example, certain oil wells aren't worth usin when the price of a barrel of oil is less than $30 a barrel, cuz it costs more to get the oil out of the ground. When the price goes up, it's worth exploiting. When the land becomes more valuable, it's worth stealing.

Right, but with the stregth of the WTO and the IMF, that's not a realistic option in the short term.

That's where 1st world activists should focus their efforts. We should not be trying to aid 3rd world capitalists. You know the definition of foreign aid right? Foreign aid is when you take money from poor people in a rich country and give it to rich people in a poor country. This is the same thing. You think you're trying to help the 3rd world, but you won't be.

That's like saying that the industrial revolution hasn't increased western standard of living since so much of the profits have gone to capitalists.

Because we fought and struggled for a piece of the pie. If we hadn't, the standard of living in the 1st world would still be the same as in the 19th Century. Read your ****in' history!

If nothing else, an increase in GDP gives the government a bigger tax base to use to fund social programs.

Theoretically yes. Practially, unlikely, since the IMF will impose lower tax rates and capital flight and corruption will reduce the amount of money available for taxing. If the profits of sales to the 1st world are never repatriated in the first place . . . .

An economy based on low-tech subsistence farming can't afford **** all in the way of social programs.

Cuba seems to manage, and with a smaller GDP than most desitute countries.

Again you're making the strange arguement that it's bad for people to have more money since that makes it more likely that people will steal from them.

No, I'm saying, they'll never get that money!

[Sandman]

"How can we cope with this problem? Cotton prices are too low to keep our children in school, or to buy food and pay for health. Some farmers are already leaving. Another season like this will destroy our community."

Brahima Outtara, a small cotton farmer in Logokourani village, Leraba province, western Burkina Faso

"When the price of cotton falls, everybody suffers. The farmers get less, I get less - and my family gets less. That is how simple it is."

Assita Konate, Malian agricultural labourer, Logokourani village

Search for subsidies on Oxfam's website

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Bosh
Chegitz: some of your arguements are getting so surreal that you have me really confused.

LotM disagrees with me, but he understands my point. It's not that hard. Simply put, peasants right now own marginal lands which aren't profitable enough to be worth the effort of seizing right now, so they can grow enough food for themselves and their local markets markets. Once it becomes profitable to use that land for cash crops in the first world, they will lose their land, because those with the power will steal it from them.

You seem to be saving that in increase in farm good prices IN AND OF ITSELF is a bad things for farmers. Which doesn't make any sense.

The problem is, the situation doesn't exist IN AND OF ITSELF, but within an existing social context and history which must be looked at in oreder to understand what the real world results of ending subsidies will be.

LOTM - I understand the point, but I still think its unrealistic. I dont think the mechanisms for confiscating land are that complete, any where in the world. I think CG took an example where peasant tenure was particularly vulnerable, and is generalizing from that.

So would this event be a good thing or not for, say, a coffee farmer in Java?

Possibly, but not likely. The far more likely scenario is that it would be very good for the middle men who buy the coffee from the farmers and sell it to the 1st world. In the event that the farmers have their own marketting co-operative then it would be a good thing for the farmers in Java.

LOTM - that would depend on the structure of the market for middlemen. Im not sure the barriers of entry to becoming a coffee trader are that high, in which case theres a distinct to limit to how high intermediary profits can go.

Real free trade isn't necessarily an optimal arraignment, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now.

Free trade has always screwed the people on the bottom.

LOTM - no.

The opposite has happened here in Korea.

Because Korea was the opposite of a free trade regime, and instead was an extremely statist regime. It's hard to tell where the government begins and the chaibols end sometimes.


LOTM - Korea was statist, but it was an open economy, highly oriented toward trade. One would expect that a labor market controlled by chaibols would be WORSE for workers than a free labor market. If workers benefited from trade EVEN in Korea, they would do so all the more in a state with both an open economy and a free labor market.

The ones that've had poverty increasing have either had huge political problems/instability,

Well that's the real world. You have to factor that in to your dreamy little dream that imagines that free trade will somehow benefit 3rd world proeducers.

LOTM - but there are many 3rd world states that are relatively stable, but are still screwed, by ag subsidies amomg other reasons.

have had their industries killed off by subsidized first world import or have had a hard time getting their goods to the 1st world.

They had to lower their barriers to such commodities because they were [i]froced[/o] to do so by the IMF and World Bank. The solution isn't to make things worse, but to allow the 3rd world to rerasie their trade barriers.


LOTM - that only increases the costs of goods internally, it doesnt help them gain export markets. Face it CG, look at India when it was a closed economy, and look at India since it opened up.

The ones that have had success in making imports a significant part of their GDP (again, like Korea) have done relatively well.

And those countries had high tarrif barriers and massive state help. The opposite of what you propose.

LOTM - Some had more, some had less. All had largescale imports and exports. None tried to succeed by internal markets alone. The last country to succeed that way was the USSR. You have a country the size of a continent, AND youre willing to use totalitarian methods, you MIGHT be able to replicate that.

Those are all well and good, (Korea had a very nice land reform program that basically destroyed rural landlords as a class) but unless you have an economic base to support all that government programs can't be paid for.

That's a seperate problem, but opening your country to free trade won't solve it, as capital will not be stored in the local currency and banks, but will instead flee to secure currencies, thus ensuring that the 3rd world must take out more foreign loans and stay forever in debt. Honestly, did you ever study the third world?

LOTM - capital has often moved INTO 3rd world countries. Foreign loans and debts are results of govt policies, not the flight of private capital.

So you're saying that the success of Korea's export industries has nothing to do with the increase of South Korea's standard of living?

If Korean labor hadn't fought for its rights, it would look more like China, with massive growth and profitablity and a desititute working class. Obviously Korean capital couldn't have retreated before labor if they hadn't built up their economy, which they did by raising barriers to foreign goods and creating a secure economy first.


LOTM - even in China wages are increasing. Even Chinese workers are better off than workers in closed economies. And few countries will be able to match the repressiveness of China.

That's stupid. That's like saying that having the wage of website developers going up would be a bad thing for you. How could getting money for your crops possibly be a bad thing?

Apples an oranges. No one can steal my mind, thus I cannot be alienated from my source of wealth. Peasants can have their land stolen once it becomes profitable to do so. For example, the U.S., time after time, shoved the Indians on to what were perceived as marginal lands, lands they saw no use for. Once we saw we could exploit that land, we drove the Indians off it, over, and over and over. Once that marginal land becomes valuable, the peasants will have it stolen from them.

LOTM - another good example of excepetionally weak tenure.

That's like saying that the industrial revolution hasn't increased western standard of living since so much of the profits have gone to capitalists.

Because we fought and struggled for a piece of the pie. If we hadn't, the standard of living in the 1st world would still be the same as in the 19th Century. Read your ****in' history!


LOTM - but if the economies had been closed, there would have been little to fight for.

An economy based on low-tech subsistence farming can't afford **** all in the way of social programs.

Cuba seems to manage, and with a smaller GDP than most desitute countries.


LOTM - Cubas economy was based on sugar exports, and Soviet subsidies. Today its based on sugar exports and tourism. Its certainly NOT based on subsistence farming.