It's time to bring back usury laws.

[KrazyHorse]

Frankly, KH is a smart enough guy, I'm sure there's lots he could do to help people in the developing world. Instead, he sits in his office in Baltimore (or is it Boston?) and proposes international organ trade.

If I could convince governments around the world to allow the international trade in organs from willing donors I would almost certainly be responsible for saving thousands of lives in the developed world and tens of thousands in the developing world.

[KrazyHorse]

If you think you needed a loan at 80% for $500 in your situation, you are either a liar or very stupid.

Right, your suggestion is to beg for it from charity. ****ing ****.

[ShaneWalter]

Frankly, that is more than a little offensive.

Good.

My opposition to any form of international trade in organs has nothing to do with squeamishness.

Then explain it in terms which do not reduce to "4 legs good, 2 legs bad"

You talk about dribbling out development aid? Why don't we talk about the hundreds of billions of dollars of debt that has crippled many developing countries and left them unable to provide even basic government service. The debt that was often used to build palaces for dictators while OECD banks and international institutions turned a blind eye.

I have no idea why you think this is relevant to the discussion at hand. The question of which sovereign debts a country's people should be held responsible for is an extremely difficult one, and I'm certainly not going to give you a glib answer about it.

I'm merely pointing out that listening to advice from people in ivory towers in the western world has generally not worked out well for those people in developing countries.

Why don't we talk about trade liberalization that was encouraged by OECD countries. Trade liberalization according to the OECD nations of course means that developing countries open their borders, while OECD nations of course leave their borders closed to anything that developing countries are able to export.

First off, I'm in favour of unilateral elimination of all trade barriers not in place for geopolitical reasons.

Secondly, your characterization is nonsense. OECD countries allow importation of a great number of goods which they had previously been producing themselves.

Of course it was an oversimplification. I should have said "left their borders closed to many goods that developing countries are able to produce."

Thirdly, if you're going to play the international trade as competitive advantage game I'm simply going to start ignoring you. The gains from trade are two sided, in EACH DIRECTION.

Why don't we talk about the countless human rights abuses that governments in developed countries have been willing to condone.

Sorry to tell you this, but it's become increasingly obvious to me as time's gone on that even devastating international sanctions don't actually cause repressive governments to capitulate on human rights issues. If anything, the opposite. We do not have to condone the abuses in order to allow trade with these countries.

Trade is not the only way that repressive governments receive support from developed countries. Actually, I wouldn't really even call trade, by itself, support.

Time and time again, OECD countries have abused and raped developing countries, all the while saying "if only you guys would listen, things would get better." "If only you guys understood the miracles of the market."

at this tripe. "Abused and raped"?

Let me guess, you think that forcing international companies to pay their workers the minimum wage in Canada to people in Bolivia somehow helps Bolivians?

No I don't think that, you ****. I've seen people living on $500 a month living lives of comparable luxury to mine in Canada.

So what, now you want to liberalize markets to such an extent that those in developing countries can sell their kidneys? And you say you want to do this for the benefit of the people in developing countries? **** that. You want a cheap supply of fresh organs for you and your friends. This has nothing to do with benefiting developing countries.

Yes, because my friends and I snack on human kidneys.

I want to help BOTH SIDES of the trade. But I care more about the person in the developing country because his situation is, generally, more desperate than that of a person in the first world who has in all likelihood already lived longer than people in the developing world can hope to. Try to wrap your head around this: people DIE every day in the 3rd world for lack of a few hundred dollars for food or medicine. They live their lives in drudgery and poverty because their parents couldn't afford to teach them adequately. They work themselves to death to stave off starvation for a few more months. Now you're going to tell me that IN THAT SITUATION it's for THEIR good that you tell them they can't sell one of their kidneys to a willing buyer?

Please. Your objection serves nobody other than yourself and your false indignation.

[/quote]

I'm getting tired of you lecturing me on how people in the developing world live. I know how people in the developing world live. Again I ask you, KH, have you ever been outside of the developed world?

I also do not believe for one second that allowing people in developing countries to sell their kidneys would benefit them. My opinion doesn't matter though. What matters is the opinion of the people in the developing countries. It seems that most people in developing countries agree with me since, few (do any?) developing countries allow international trade in human organs.

[KrazyHorse]

If the debt that developing countries owed to developed countries was wiped out, it would do much much more than any international organ trade.

If that debt was wiped out then who the hell would lend to them next time?

If any country really wants to it can renege on its debt at any time. Go ask half of South America.

This isn't about the morality of paying back your debts, or getting people what they're owed, you twit. This is about breaking countries out of the cycle of poor decisions, insecurity, poor institutions, lack of capital etc. etc. etc. Mouthing nonsense like "if only they had no debt, everything would look so much brighter" is, quite frankly, lazy.

If you actually want to help people I suggest you start to use your brain instead of mouthing off like a sanctimonious ignoramus.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm merely pointing out that listening to advice from people in ivory towers in the western world has generally not worked out well for those people in developing countries.

Yeah, they do so much better when they listen to dirty hippies in coffeeshops.

By the way, for much of the developing world the last two decades have been periods of UNPARALLELED GROWTH. For other parts, they have not been. If you want examples of how economic liberalization helps people then you need look no further than India and China. To quote somebody I can't recall "China is the greatest antipoverty program ever invented". Take a look at how people lived there 30 years ago and compare to how things are today. Do they still suck? Duh. They just suck less hard than they did when 95% of people lived on subsistence agriculture. And despite India's impressive record as a pretty benign democracy for the last 60 years, the last 10 years of liberalization have seen their development EXPLODE. That's half of the developing world right there. Those are success stories, dude. 7-10% a year. People lifting themselves out of rural poverty, coming to the cities, getting into the industrial/service labour force.

[ShaneWalter]

If the debt that developing countries owed to developed countries was wiped out, it would do much much more than any international organ trade.

If that debt was wiped out then who the hell would lend to them next time?

If any country really wants to it can renege on its debt at any time. Go ask half of South America.

Seriously? Seriously?

Are you being serious right now? You can't possibly be this ****ing stupid.

You think when I said wipe out their debt, I meant just spread some magic pixie dust and make it disappear?

This isn't about the morality of paying back your debts, or getting people what they're owed, you twit. This is about breaking countries out of the cycle of poor decisions, insecurity, poor institutions, lack of capital etc. etc. etc. Mouthing nonsense like "if only they had no debt, everything would look so much brighter" is, quite frankly, lazy.

When many developing countries spend more on debt servicing than they do on health and education combined, there is a serious problem. It is not lazy to point that out.

If you actually want to help people I suggest you start to use your brain instead of mouthing off like a sanctimonious ignoramus.

Or I could just propose we develop international organ trade! Then I'd be SMRT! That's the ticket out of poverty!

[notyoueither]

If you think you needed a loan at 80% for $500 in your situation, you are either a liar or very stupid.

Right, your suggestion is to beg for it from charity. ****ing ****.

I've asked for and given charity.

There is nothing wrong with it.

But you are too good for it. I sensed that. You would rather have the market that seeks to exploit the slow and the desperate to save your pride. I understand.

I understand that you are rapidly approaching the state of waste of skin.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm getting tired of you lecturing me on how people in the developing world live. I know how people in the developing world live. Again I ask you, KH, have you ever been outside of the developed world?

I've got you nailed now, you buffoon. You made some sort of post-college pilgrimage through a number of ****hole countries and you think this entitles you to tell everybody else how people in those ****holes should live their lives.

You're nothing more than a pseudointellectual buffoon. You give lazy answers to hard questions and expect to be roundly appreciated for your goodthinking wisdom.

Come back when you have something more novel than indignation.

[ShaneWalter]

I'm merely pointing out that listening to advice from people in ivory towers in the western world has generally not worked out well for those people in developing countries.

Yeah, they do so much better when they listen to dirty hippies in coffeeshops.

By the way, for much of the developing world the last two decades have been periods of UNPARALLELED GROWTH. For other parts, they have not been. If you want examples of how economic liberalization helps people then you need look no further than India and China. To quote somebody I can't recall "China is the greatest antipoverty program ever invented". Take a look at how people lived there 30 years ago and compare to how things are today. Do they still suck? Duh. They just suck less hard than they did when 95% of people lived on subsistence agriculture. And despite India's impressive record as a pretty benign democracy for the last 60 years, the last 10 years of liberalization have seen their development EXPLODE. That's half of the developing world right there. Those are success stories, dude. 7-10% a year. People lifting themselves out of rural poverty, coming to the cities, getting into the industrial/service labour force.

Yes, those are great success stories. If you want to go back further in time, there is South Korea and Taiwan, among others.

Has China been successful? Yes. Have they always followed the advice of western economists and institutions? Nope. You say China is indicative of what happens when a state embraces trade liberalization. I say China is indicative of what happens when a state cautiously embraces trade liberalization.

You say international organ trade would benefit developing countries. I say there's about 100 things that could be done that would benefit developing countries more. Those other things should be done first. If they are done, I doubt international organ trade would provide much of an advantage anymore.

[Kuciwalker]

Or I could just propose we develop international organ trade! Then I'd be SMRT! That's the ticket out of poverty!

Why isn't it?

[Kuciwalker]

What's wrong with selling organs? I haven't seen anyone articulate this.

[notyoueither]

Aside from preying on desperate people to keep rich people alive?

Not much, if you want to live in a Rand novel.

[ShaneWalter]

I'm getting tired of you lecturing me on how people in the developing world live. I know how people in the developing world live. Again I ask you, KH, have you ever been outside of the developed world?

I've got you nailed now, you buffoon. You made some sort of post-college pilgrimage through a number of ****hole countries and you think this entitles you to tell everybody else how people in those ****holes should live their lives.

You're nothing more than a pseudointellectual buffoon. You give lazy answers to hard questions and expect to be roundly appreciated for your goodthinking wisdom.

Come back when you have something more novel than indignation.

Nice try, but you fail. Like I already said, my opinion doesn't matter. So no, I don't think I am entitled to 'tell everybody else how people in those ****holes should live their lives.'

You would have a point if I had brought up the fact I'd been in developing countries out of the blue. I didn't. I was only bringing it up in response to your statement that I 'want to ignore the horrors' people in developing countries are facing. Do you believe you should be able to insult me without me responding "Uhhh, no, you're wrong"? I'm sure you'd like that world KH.

[Kuciwalker]

Aside from preying on desperate people to keep rich people alive?

Explain how it is "preying".

Preying implies, to me, that you are taking from someone something more valuable (to them) than what you are giving them.

This has to be something inherent to organ trading, mind you, rather than to the desperate situation of the people involved. We seem to be fine with paying these desperate people money for their labor.

[KrazyHorse]

You think when I said wipe out their debt, I meant just spread some magic pixie dust and make it disappear?

So your suggestion is to pay off all the evil bankers who made those loans to the cruel dictators?



Keep your story straight, ****. Either your going to punish those nasty bankers or you're going to maintain the credibility of borrowing by the third world. You can't have it both ways.

When many developing countries spend more on debt servicing than they do on health and education combined, there is a serious problem. It is not lazy to point that out.

It's lazy to point to that as the reason that poor countries are poor. To paraphrase, rich countries are all alike. Poor countries are all poor in their own way. Everything has to go right in order for poor countries to break themselves out of their poverty trap. The developed world didn't make those countries poor, you simpering twit. They just haven't gotten rich yet. Your simplistic narrative of evil developed countries exploiting ("raping" ) the poor countries is absolutely retarded.