The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Found on another site;
[URL]http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251[/URL]
Makes for very interesting reading, though one should bear in mind that the US is by no means at all the only country that funds this sort of thing.
[URL]http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251[/URL]
Makes for very interesting reading, though one should bear in mind that the US is by no means at all the only country that funds this sort of thing.
Page:
The oil is one thing but this takes the biscuit! [URL]http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/iraq_seeds.htm[/URL]
As part of sweeping "economic restructuring" implemented by the Bush Administration in Iraq, Iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds. Instead, they will be forced to buy seeds from US corporations -- including seeds the Iraqis themselves developed over hundreds of years. That is because in recent years, transnational corporations have patented and now own many seed varieties originated or developed by indigenous peoples. In a short time, Iraq will be living under the new American credo: Pay Monsanto, or starve.
As part of sweeping "economic restructuring" implemented by the Bush Administration in Iraq, Iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds. Instead, they will be forced to buy seeds from US corporations -- including seeds the Iraqis themselves developed over hundreds of years. That is because in recent years, transnational corporations have patented and now own many seed varieties originated or developed by indigenous peoples. In a short time, Iraq will be living under the new American credo: Pay Monsanto, or starve.
Light wrote:
> I may have this wrong, but are you saying that, because the same
> misery might happen again in the future, there's no point in
> trying to alleviate it now?
A rather brutal way of putting it. :)
I don't think its a might happen, you see, at least in the current climate. In theory I have nothing against cancelling third world debt. But rather than it be done out of some act of generosity, I'd rather it be used as a tool to make sure that one side of least tries to make sure it doesn't happen again. Ok, alot of these countries are being crippled by debts that are 20-30 years old, and they've paid them back 10 times over already in some cases but its not stopped them accumulating fresh debt either.
> I may have this wrong, but are you saying that, because the same
> misery might happen again in the future, there's no point in
> trying to alleviate it now?
A rather brutal way of putting it. :)
I don't think its a might happen, you see, at least in the current climate. In theory I have nothing against cancelling third world debt. But rather than it be done out of some act of generosity, I'd rather it be used as a tool to make sure that one side of least tries to make sure it doesn't happen again. Ok, alot of these countries are being crippled by debts that are 20-30 years old, and they've paid them back 10 times over already in some cases but its not stopped them accumulating fresh debt either.
I may have this wrong, but are you saying that, because the same misery might happen again in the future, there's no point in trying to alleviate it now?
Light wrote:
> Well, assuming that most countries will then be able to spend the
> part of their GDP that is currently spent on debt payment on their
> own country...and assuming that the World Bank doesn't try to impose
> economics onto them that is the international equivalent of a bank
> giving a multi-million pound mortgage to a tramp...well, then they'll
> be fine.
>
> Do you know why the debt occurred in the first place? Only I'm
> curious as to why you think it'll happen again.
I think thats more of an essay question. :)
The short answer is, third world countries took out loans which due to economic conditions (interest rates, recession, their unstable currencies etc.) became unmanageable. The current climate is that they are paying off debts well in excess of what they borrowed in the first place, ie they have crippling debt.
As for why it'll happen again, well I'd have to say, why wont it? Cancelling the debt won't make of any the 40-50 countries topping the debt league suddenly economically prosperous enough that they no longer will start accumulating more debt. For countries that are racing to develop economically, why take one step at a time, when you can make a nice big leap with a nice fat loan? Especially if you're a government trying to stay in power knowing full well that if the loan turns bad, you'll be long gone by the time it becomes a problem.
Admittedly in general the world economy is more stable, but the risks of it happening again are still there. It seems to me that cancelling the debt is pointless unless there are significant changes on both sides as to how financial institutions are allowed to operate in respect to these loans and in respect of the countries themselves so they don't go down the debt route again. Perhaps I missed something, but I dont think theres been any such undertaking really.
I sometimes wonder if any of these third world countries know that having huge debt makes them more western than they realise. :)
> Well, assuming that most countries will then be able to spend the
> part of their GDP that is currently spent on debt payment on their
> own country...and assuming that the World Bank doesn't try to impose
> economics onto them that is the international equivalent of a bank
> giving a multi-million pound mortgage to a tramp...well, then they'll
> be fine.
>
> Do you know why the debt occurred in the first place? Only I'm
> curious as to why you think it'll happen again.
I think thats more of an essay question. :)
The short answer is, third world countries took out loans which due to economic conditions (interest rates, recession, their unstable currencies etc.) became unmanageable. The current climate is that they are paying off debts well in excess of what they borrowed in the first place, ie they have crippling debt.
As for why it'll happen again, well I'd have to say, why wont it? Cancelling the debt won't make of any the 40-50 countries topping the debt league suddenly economically prosperous enough that they no longer will start accumulating more debt. For countries that are racing to develop economically, why take one step at a time, when you can make a nice big leap with a nice fat loan? Especially if you're a government trying to stay in power knowing full well that if the loan turns bad, you'll be long gone by the time it becomes a problem.
Admittedly in general the world economy is more stable, but the risks of it happening again are still there. It seems to me that cancelling the debt is pointless unless there are significant changes on both sides as to how financial institutions are allowed to operate in respect to these loans and in respect of the countries themselves so they don't go down the debt route again. Perhaps I missed something, but I dont think theres been any such undertaking really.
I sometimes wonder if any of these third world countries know that having huge debt makes them more western than they realise. :)
Garin wrote:
> The thing with this "cancel the third world debt" campaign
> I don't really get is; Ok, the debt gets cancelled, but whats to stop
> it happening again?
Well, assuming that most countries will then be able to spend the part of their GDP that is currently spent on debt payment on their own country...and assuming that the World Bank doesn't try to impose economics onto them that is the international equivalent of a bank giving a multi-million pound mortgage to a tramp...well, then they'll be fine.
Do you know why the debt occurred in the first place? Only I'm curious as to why you think it'll happen again.
> The thing with this "cancel the third world debt" campaign
> I don't really get is; Ok, the debt gets cancelled, but whats to stop
> it happening again?
Well, assuming that most countries will then be able to spend the part of their GDP that is currently spent on debt payment on their own country...and assuming that the World Bank doesn't try to impose economics onto them that is the international equivalent of a bank giving a multi-million pound mortgage to a tramp...well, then they'll be fine.
Do you know why the debt occurred in the first place? Only I'm curious as to why you think it'll happen again.
Strafio wrote:
> I guess it makes you realise how important those "cancel world
> debt" campaigns really are.
The thing with this "cancel the third world debt" campaign I don't really get is; Ok, the debt gets cancelled, but whats to stop it happening again? Whether you believe the author of this book or not, there is the other side of the story in respect of what 3rd world countries do themselves. They're quite naturally anxious to develop as fast as possible, and whether you like the economics of it or not, what that book appears to talk about is the best way to go about it for them especially in the short term. Its only later it comes back to haunt them, but by that time its not the problem of whoever agreed to the loan in the first place.
So yeah, cancel third world debt, but I really think half of them would be back in the same position again 10 years later. :)
> I guess it makes you realise how important those "cancel world
> debt" campaigns really are.
The thing with this "cancel the third world debt" campaign I don't really get is; Ok, the debt gets cancelled, but whats to stop it happening again? Whether you believe the author of this book or not, there is the other side of the story in respect of what 3rd world countries do themselves. They're quite naturally anxious to develop as fast as possible, and whether you like the economics of it or not, what that book appears to talk about is the best way to go about it for them especially in the short term. Its only later it comes back to haunt them, but by that time its not the problem of whoever agreed to the loan in the first place.
So yeah, cancel third world debt, but I really think half of them would be back in the same position again 10 years later. :)
True enough - the British Empire was something of an early modern America, just with less pretence about what it was actually doing!
Heh. Funny how the Opium Wars are kinda...well, politely ignored in the History syllabus' of this country.
If Britain's Wars were a family, the Opium Wars would be the Rich old Uncle who's gone quite mad, uses the sink for a toilet, and eats cat food. No-one talks about him, but he gave us vast sums of cash so we won't say anything bad about him
If Britain's Wars were a family, the Opium Wars would be the Rich old Uncle who's gone quite mad, uses the sink for a toilet, and eats cat food. No-one talks about him, but he gave us vast sums of cash so we won't say anything bad about him
Britain and opium springs to mind.
Strafio wrote:
> I know America started it, but that doesn't excuse the rest of the
> develloped world for following suit!
Nah, they didn't start it at all. Economic terrorism has been around since the dawn of civilisation; probably the first example is the Roman Republic's aquisition of Egypt after first having put it into a position of economic co-dependance.
The americans are the big boys now, and so they're the ones who do this most at the moment.
> I know America started it, but that doesn't excuse the rest of the
> develloped world for following suit!
Nah, they didn't start it at all. Economic terrorism has been around since the dawn of civilisation; probably the first example is the Roman Republic's aquisition of Egypt after first having put it into a position of economic co-dependance.
The americans are the big boys now, and so they're the ones who do this most at the moment.
Page: