Direct Action. What'd you think?
 

I have been an activist for a while now and am growing tired of how the media manages to bend the points we are trying show and makes us look like the bad guys? Us, the people who leave whatever we're doing to go out and get hurassed by police and speak for people who don't have a voice (or can't get heard), we come out as the bad guys! Is this justice?!?

An example, I went to the OCAP protest in Toronto, Ontario on October 16th to give voice for all of those homeless people and let the Tories know that they are only making it worse for the people at the bottom of the corporate ladder and we're not gonna stand for it.

This is what the media heard:

"2000 protesters, mostly anarchists with concealed weapons..."
"Thugs came from all over to terrorize this peacefull city..."

I was among 1-2 thousand protesters peacefully marching down the streets chanting and playing drums and dancing. We had signs. A small handfull decided to vandalize and such.

What'd you think about all this? does it help? Do you believe what the corporate media throws at you?

I have one word for you...PROPOGANDA!

Re: Direct Action. What'd you think?
 

It only takes a handful of morons to ruin it for everyone, as evidenced by Seattle and Genoa. The problem in such a situation is that you have so many different groups protesting one thing or another...a lack of true cohesiveness.

Re: Re: Direct Action. What'd you think?
 

No point in blaming the morons, though -- if they aren't there of their own accord, the government will provide some, or simply provoke violence on their own.

Though it's interesting that the WTO was driven to Qatar (where protest is strictly forbidden) as a result...

I'm with sycamore on this one. You need to choose with whom you associate. If you have people that are going to vandalize in your group, then they will give your cause a bad name. The rules need to be "if you go against our strict protocol for this protest, you will not be allowed to participate any more". But I guess there will always be assholes to ruin it for everyone...

Remember Gandhi. Model protestor. :)

Two issues i guess. First of all if your protesting again'st corperations and corperate meetings iwht national officals such as the WTO of course the corperate media is going to put a bad light on it.

At the same timethat would be harder if it wasnet' for the bored/unemployed/stupid fuckwits who see scrawling anarchy symbols and "class war" on walls and breaking stuff as a political protest.

Jaguar
 

Jaguar:

"bored/unemployed/stupid "

I would just like to say that i know some smart, well educated, wealthy (you, for some reason, think this matters) people that decide to 'scrawl' on buildings. I also know some very poor people that do as well. maybe the reason the poor people are the ones you see doing this is becuase they are the ones being directly effected by the issues and therefor want a voice. Since the dam media won't listen, they must resort to other means to give a message.

Don't blame the protesters because these are the people that WILL change our economy for the better.

The reason Gandi was so succesful was because he had soo many people with him. In this day and age we don't have the numbers. Nobody cares becasue hey guess what? they are the ones having everything handed to them on a silver platter. Why in the right mind would someone complain about being given the advantage? They would just preffer to turn there back on the silenced parts of the world and instread complain about those dam protesters.

Unrelated Quote: "We kill eachother we call it murder, we kill animals we call it industry. Is this Justice?"

Re: Jaguar
 

And you know what they all have in common? They're all morons. You don't deface property that is not yours. That's just not cool.

Quote:

Don't blame the protesters because these are the people that WILL change our economy for the better.

Will Rogers said it best--"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Quite frankly, I don't believe there is anything wrong with our economy. Is it a system of haves and have-nots? Sure. I'm on the end of the have-nots. Is it the best of all other alternatives? Most likely. Socialism is nice, but we have too many people here in the US that equate that with a welfare state...or communism...or find it to be an invasion of their personal rights. I feel bad about 3rd world countries...as well we should. I'm going to stop it there b/c Jag will begin to rant about that...and we've already covered that topic. ;)

Quote:

The reason Gandi was so succesful was because he had soo many people with him. In this day and age we don't have the numbers. Nobody cares becasue hey guess what? they are the ones having everything handed to them on a silver platter. Why in the right mind would someone complain about being given the advantage? They would just preffer to turn there back on the silenced parts of the world and instread complain about those dam protesters.

Gandhi and MLK led nonviolent protests. If there were "unruly" folks during the days of their protests, they were either a) under the radar of the simpler-minded media or b) kept in line by their own. Not to mention, there was more of a common goal--a free India for Gandhi and equal rights for MLK. Where is the common thread among these WTO/IMF/World Bank/G8/target-group-of-the-week protesters? There are a few, but nothing that I would write home to my mom about.

Quote:

Unrelated Quote: "We kill eachother we call it murder, we kill animals we call it industry. Is this Justice?"

Nope...it's called "Survival of the Fittest." Who knows? Maybe one day, a more advanced species will want to eat us.

"I would just like to say that i know some ... people that decide to 'scrawl' on buildings. ... these are the people that WILL change our economy for the better."

If your voice mainly comes from defacing other people's property, I oppose your changing the economy for what YOU consider "the better". The idea that a loud unpleasant noise is worth listening to because it's -your- loud unpleasant noise, is absurd.

This is the reason there was a property qualification for voting in the US at the time of the Revolution. Jacksonian policies IIRC are the ones that gave us universal suffrage. I like the idea that you're a -stakeholder- before you get to vote. That way, you respect the stakes of others, and don't just vote for a living when you're not making a mess.

Re: Jaguar
 

Dude. I don't know what part of the world you're in, but everyone I know has to work their fucking asses off to get what they have. I just got an Xbox yesterday. New toy. Couple days of work to buy that and the shit I got with it. Couple days of getting up early, working a long day, going home and being tired. I'm not saying I don't have it good - at least I can afford to buy that shit, right? But it's not like it was handed to me.

I don't own a car. Why? Because my parents never got me one and I never had money to get one until recently. Yes, lots of kids get their cars from their parents, but I'm right here beside all the adults, taking out a loan and making fucking payments. I'm working 40-50 hours each week so I can have my money.

I wasn't given any advantage, and neither was anyone I know. As a matter of fact, many of us come from pretty disadvantaged places. My mother has multiple sclerosis and is hospitalized, so we never had that second income. Add to that the big medical bills. Add to that the fact that I was shot in the face when I was 14 and that cost a pretty fucking penny in doctors appointments and medical bills. Add to that the fact that I lived in bumfuck and couldn't get a job 'cause I didn't have a car. Life isn't easy. You WORK for it. I have little sympathy for those that sit and bitch and complain about how bad it is and how poor they are without getting off their fucking asses and GETTING A FUCKING JOB. I don't care if it's fucking 7-Eleven, SOMEONE is hiring and it's better than NO money.

"Nobody cares" because they don't have sympathy for lazy fucking slacker shits that vandalize property.

The reason Gandhi was successful is because he employed startling strategies of self-sacrifice that educated his opponents about the injustices perpetrated against him and his people. He understood how the media worked and took advantage of it. He used non-violence to effect conscience and change beliefs, an absolutely amazing thing. And he did have the problem of splinter groups with diverse agendas-- They became Pakistan.

jobs?!?!?!
 

Where are these "fucking" jobs?

If you live in a life that you can find a job "even if it's at 7-11" than you ARE living it easy when compared, not to the rest of US, but to the rest of the world.

When the International Monitary Fund and World Bank move in on contries to do "good" they infact allow room for HUUUGE buisnesses to go in and that country suddenly exports everything and imports nothing. Therefor, private farmers go out of buisness, people starve because there food is coming to us so we can pay just $2 for a fucking cheeseburger at our local Fast Food Joint!

I'm sorry, if you think a little paint on a wall isn't justified by these "hidden" worlds world's expoition then I can't understand.

We are not on the same page: We complain about a dam lineup at a donut store whereas these people would work 7 days a week, 12-16 hours a day for as little as 16 cents just so they can stay alive...barely.

Put things into perspective and stop being so dam greedy for just one second. Realize your position and where you stand on the scale of the world and not the isolated Capitalist society in which we live.

When A annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel. -H. L. Mencken

Simple substitution: A=tagger, B=property owner, X=someone's idea of the 'right' economy.

Another simple substitution: A=government, B=property owner, X= someone's idea of what is a 'nuisance'.

Is the argument clear yet? Your principles are just as unworthy as those you're fighting. You are not on a high horse. You are standing on a scrap of cardboard, pretending you are on a high horse. Few are fooled.

And oh, by the way, if you can't find a fucking job you can always find a job fucking.

Excuse me? Being so damn greedy?

Care to explain that? Point out where I was being greedy, you lazy slacking piece of shit. When you explain that and it makes sense, I'll explain how you're a lazy slacking piece of shit, you lazy slacking piece of shit.

In case you missed it, right off the bat, my point is this: You are in no position to judge me greedy. Besides the fact that you weaken your argument by not using facts (and instead, stupid baseless namecalling), you look like a fucking idiot to the intellectuals of this board because nowhere have I demonstrated greed. Try using your fucking brain to construct an argument instead of rehashing the insult you heard some other dude use last week. That shit won't cut it here - put up or shut up.

Maybe you missed Economics class, but you make money by SELLING things, not BUYING them. Exporting == selling. Importing == buying. If a company moves in and exports shit, they need workers. That would be, uh, jobs. You know. Those "fucking" jobs I was talking about earlier, that you questioned. If a big company moves into Nigeria and starts selling elephant pies, they need people to collect, inspect, package and ship these elephant pies. They need supervisors to supervise the workers. They need higher management to supervise the supervisors. They pay these people something we call "money" in exchange for "work." When you are "paid" on a regular basis for work that you complete, that is called HAVING A FUCKING JOB. Companies create jobs. Are you beginning to understand this?

Japan exports every fucking thing in the entire world. What wasn't made in Japan or by those who work for Japanese companies? Not very much. That's why Japan has the second largest economy in the world. Wow, what a ridiculous fucking concept. IF YOU SELL SHIT, YOU GET MONEY.

No one here ever said that it wasn't awful what's happening in some parts of the world. That's another reason why we have these things called "charities". People like me can give the money they want to worthy causes. That's better than pissing it all away in taxes so the government can pay to have a couple fucking buildings sandblasted because they got spraypainted. Can you say "detrimental to the cause and contrary to the preaching"? Uh, let's destroy some shit, 'cause that way the citizens pay more in taxes and can't give as much to charity, so these people in [insert suffering country here] are continuing to suffer. Every dollar spent cleaning that shit up is a dollar that didn't go to foreign aid. Think about that next time you defend ruining shit that isn't yours.

Which brings me to another point that people here, even the intellectuals, seem impossible to grasp: IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT YOU WOULD FEEL THE SAME IF IT HAPPENED TO YOU. What if your car got ruined because you were driving near a protest and they mobbed it? Regarding your animal rights post, how about this: What if you were strutting along one day wearing your fake-leather boots ('cause I assume such a righteous person as yourself would never ever have anything associated with animal suffering - note fucking sarcasm) and some PeTA wacko thinks "mother fucking leather boots!" and beats the shit out of you? "Well, it's okay, his intentions were good." The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just like the good intentions of a nice, vandalizing protest. Doesn't change the fact that someone else ruined something that wasn't theirs.

Wow. I only have one eye but I sure as shit saw me write this earlier:

Now, I know I used big words like "afford" and whatnot, but surely someone with the mental ability to construct such compelling arguments as yourself would understand what I meant by that. Such as, well, I have it pretty good and I'm thankful for that. So I'm going to deliberately not follow your suggestion to "realize your position and where you stand on the scale of the world", 'cause, well, I already fucking know.

Now. Do me a fucking favor. Stop trying to be "right" and actually read what I have to say. I'll even write an abridged version if you like - something that lacks the swearing and namecalling. Stop reading arguments to point out flaws in the other's. Read them and see what they're worth. Take into account their point of view. And then, when you're done that, take some time and forumlate a senseful response. Leave out the assuming nature - I promise you, people on this board will hit you for it every time. Work with what they have said, not with what you think they said. There can be a very big difference. Back up your argument with facts. Don't say "IMF ruins lives". Say "When IMF did ................., the economy of .............. suffered as a direct result" and provide evidence to back that. If you can't, well, at the very least, don't toss out broad assumptions as fact. How do you know what these places are like? Have you been there? Or are you reading spin?

Not to come down on you, but try harder next time. Back it up with facts. Make me eat my words. Seriously. And if you do, you'll get a big fat pat on the back and a "congrats". Because I *can* admit when I'm wrong, and I will. Just prove it.

[ Edited to fix a fucking typo! ]

dhamsaic- What is the capacity of your coffee maker? signed Concerned Citizen ;)

Mabye i should clean what i meant up.. I"ve been to a reasonable number of protests, some anti-WTO, mostly enviromental (mining in national parks). Getting large numbers of people to do somehitng liek that does have a good effect i belevie. BUt hte stupid fuckers who deface stuff and have as much knowledge about the issue is a dried avacardo do nothign to help. I"ve seen people put anarchy symbols on walls - waht the fuck is that menat to do? Yea spraypainting that on a wall is really gonna make the world a better place. UNless people understand what hte fuck is going on they often end up hurting thier own cause. Fucking morons who ripped the sign of the MCDOnals at therecent anti-jabaluka protest thought they were making some kind of statement...huh? All they did was create a nice focus of the media by destroying property of something totally unrelated.

*very restrained today* The only thing ill say is that first world lifestyles are supported by third world poverty - never forget that.



Killing people is a pretty big business too - arms trade is huge.

Heh. I've covered this like 30 times.

I don't drink coffee. It tastes like ass. I drink tea occasionally - I go through cycles.

Today I actually had relatively little caffeine. But some things fire me up.

How does this follow? I see two conditions:

1) One or more first world countries HAS contact with a given third world one;

2) NO first world country has contact with a given third world one.

Condition 1 is easy, look at China. Until about fifteen years ago would you seriously argue they belonged to the first world? Hell, even now the -average- Chinese doesn't have a wristwatch. So we go from next-to-no contact with the first world, to an orgy of trade. Are the Chinese now worse off? Au contraire. Life expectancy up, infant deaths down, industry drawing people from the countryside.

Condition 2 is easy too. Albania. Until King Zog (love that name) fell, Albanians had little food, next to no industry, and their recreation consisted mainly of killing other Albanians. King Zog fell, the walls came down, and life got better until the government was felled by a Ponzi scheme that got out of control.

Third world poverty is created mainly by -governments-. It's true that a first-world government is just as efficient as a third-world one at keeping the population poor, but it's mainly governments that do it. Look at Madagascar. The Malagasy government will -not- lend money to locals because they don't understand business, but they'll lend money to -foreigners- for economic development. Next, look at all the Central African countries whose armies mainly are thieves, and which won't develop even paved -roads-. (The infrastructure in much of Africa was installed by the first world, and when they left the infrastructure was left alone, to decay. See Laura Resnick, "A Blonde in Africa".)

Specific, verifiable counter-examples, Jag?

SIghs
Thankyou for proviing my point. Its cheaply made chinese products imported to america that allow for that high quality of life - if they were all made in the US they'd cost 10x as much and therefore not be commonly availaible. Its made possible by third world wages being a frraction of first world ones for similar work.

In a sense it does slowly spread some wealth, but only after alot of kicking and screaming every cent of the way.

That is the key point i was making.

I think it's a lot more complicated than that. Think about it another way: people who are middle class just aren't going to do those repetitive and boring jobs any longer. So manufacturers have to look elsewhere for cheap labor. But if they couldn't find that labor overseas, they'd likely just automate, and now nobody gets those few dollars.

It's like - McDonald's restaurants are staffed by high schoolers, for the most part; it's cheap labor and gives the young a nice introduction to the working world, learning how not to be late and such. But if those young'uns were not available, McDonald's could easily take those manual methods and automate them.

This has always been the case. When labor gets too expensive, it is not replaced by other labor. Cars are not welded by hand any longer. 20 years ago circuits were hand-soldered, now they are all done by machine.

As cheap labor gets harder to find, automation improves. And if cheap labor were really hard to find, automation would be an economic priority. IT workers currently make their buck by automating processes and data movement, but we could just as easily work at automating manufacturing.

Word to the "more complicated".

As far as us using Chinese stuff and it keeping them in poverty... I think the point was that the trade with China has helped them a lot. And it has. Yes, we get cheaper labor there. But just because it's cheaper labor doesn't mean that we're keeping the society down. Sticky, complicated issue. I'm not sure that anyone really has the answer. But there are bigger problems in China than how much someone's getting paid to make Hello Kitty dolls...

Most of the western world is +70% secondary and in some cases nearly 50% teridatory economices - thats services and manufacturing. Automation is not viable for allot of things, its simply far too expensive - whether thsoe goods were made by machine here or not they'd still cost one hell of alot more if they didn't use dirt/slavery cheap labour in third world countries. As much of Asia does develop its going ot create an interesting vacuum as these companies such as Nike, Boeing and manymany other smaller companies have to find new labour markets to exploit.

I never said/meant to say evilevil first world nations were purposely keeping counties in poverty, although there are cases...All I stated was that third world labour markets allow for a higher quality of life in the west - nothing else.

Jag, if you said "The first world has more stuff when it trades with the third" I would agree in the sense of three TVs instead of one, six pairs of sneakers instead of one, steel at half the price of Inland Steel's product, and so on.

However, I quoted you accurately the first time, and since the context was pretty hard to scramble in a one-liner, here it is again.

If every person in the third world -disappeared-, or come to that, if it all -sank under the ocean-, therefore, first world lifestyles would ... come on, class ... what?

I assert that very little would happen to first world lifestyles. Markets for commodities would be distorted. Some ores (e.g. tantalum) would become hard to get out of the ground for a while. Spices, coffee - the things sixteenth-century navigation set out to get - would be more or less gone. Clothing - aye, there's the rub. Clothing would be expensive. But as far as the first world's standards of hygiene, life expectancy, production, power consumption and money wasted on corporate amusement are concerned I bet little would change.

Perhaps it is (belatedly) time for us to Define Our Terms. I'll be happy to accept your definition, Jag, of the third world. If you'll define it I think what I say in the fifth graph is defensible, pretty much regardless of where you say the third world begins.

The phrase with which I took exception implies that the first world is somehow -dependent- on the third. I believe that the inverse is true, at least to the extent that a decrease in contact would lead to a decrease in quality of life.

Well, just so you know...

all of the clothing I wear (and I do mean all, except for my shoes, which are made in Britain) are made in the U.S.A. I think we could adjust to the third world catching up - some things would be more expensive, yeah. But a lot of us would just keep buying USA made shit. And I'm sure a lot of people would switch too. 'Cause now it would be cheaper (no import taxes, etc). Anyway, I don't think clothing would be all that affected in the long run...

*looks at his t-shirt* Wow...it's made in the States...god I love Adidas! :)

Truth be told, I don't give much thought to that sort of thing. I don't get mad when GM and Ford take jobs to Mexico. Hell, my last car (a 1988 Chevy Caprice) was made in Ste-Therese, Quebec. When I was young and ignorant, I probably would have cared more.

Granted, I don't want to see hard-working Americans lose their jobs. When I worked in Trenton, I used to pass by the old GM plant in Ewing Township a lot. But I get so fucking sick of people who bitch about Mexicans working in hidden sweatshops in the US, and about labor going outside the US. Businesses are in it to a) offer a product and b) make money. First, those Mexicans in the US are doing work that most Americans wouldn't even THINK of doing for $5.15 an hour (or less). Secondly, those jobs going to other countries saves us money. If we kept those jobs in the States, the costs would skyrocket. We'd be paying a lot more for our cars, our gasoline, our clothes, etc. And then people would bitch about the high cost of living.

I'm not saying I like it...but it's business, baby. Not to mention, I just want to grit my teeth on occasion, given that I live in a strong pro-Union city.

You don't seem to realsie jsut how much is made third world...If you went round your house and itiimsed every item and where it was made you'd get a pretty damn long list. Probably a serious proportion of clothes, appliances or part of them more often), shoes, building materials, parts of your car often, parts of *so many* things its not funny. If they all had to be manufactured in the first world the cost would be anything from 2x to 20x, the impact on price - huge resulting in many not being able to afford things they previously took for granted. Forget primary resources - i'm speaking purely in labour terms - and the fact is we exploit cheaper overseas labour to lower costs - therefore without that cheper labour first world costs in a very large spectrum of good world be markedly higher.

First -

You can't really assert that I have a lot of third-world made things. To be honest, I really probably don't - I have lots of computer shit, and, uh... American made clothes. Shoes/boots from England. That's really about it. I'm going to buy a Volvo car, which made all in Sweden.

Sure, some things, though, probably come from really really cheap labor. Is this an injustice? We can't really know. In Botswana, I'm sure the local bosses aren't paying the equivalent of USD $5.15/hour for minimum wage either... they're just not making enough money. It's all about looking at the context. Fact of the matter is, some places, the dollar goes a hell of a lot farther. So they may be making great money *for where they live* - we simply can't know.

Now. Suppose their labor price went up. Look at it this way.

Imagine Apple computers had their stuff manufactured in, uh, Malaysia or something. And instead of paying some guy $15/hour to assemble computers here, they're paying some dude in Malaysia $3/hour. Imagine it takes about, oh, we'll round up and say TWO WHOLE HOURS to put a machine together (which it doesn't, unless you're grossly slow or you're taking pictures). Therefore, their cost is $6 per computer for the actual assembly process. Now, if he gets a raise to, say, $10/hour 'cause he's doing good work (and that's probably good money over there - shit, it's not half bad for over here), it costs Apple $20/computer, or $14 more.

So, they raise the price of each box from $1,699 to $1,713.

BFD.

Fact of the matter is, I don't think the prices would increase *that much* - all the business has to do is increase the prices to suit the added labor cost. Since labor is such a small part of manufacturing like that, I really don't see it as driving costs up so high. Seriously.

Well, I understand that there are things in my house that are made in China (shower curtain), Hungary (light bulbs), Philippines (rubber slippers), and Brazil (clothing). Last night I had asparagus from Peru. I would like to stop having an argument based on perception and start having one based on a few facts. The argument that "there's stuff in your house that's made in the third world" is correct, but that -certainly- doesn't prove that anything insidious went on to beat the goods out of the hides of the workers or deprive them of an improved life. Further, the fact that e.g. rubber slippers -can- be made in the Philippines is not conclusive evidence that if the Philippines disappeared, I wouldn't have rubber slippers.

I didn't say that things wouldn't cost more. I -did- assert that that increase in cost won't materially affect lifestyle.

Would you consider defining your terms? The terms that need defining are:

"lifestyle" and how it is related to the volume of stuff you have, or whether a lifestyle has anything to do with statistical measures like life expectancy;

"third world" (probably easiest to define in terms of GNP per capita, but again you get to decide);

"poverty" (whether in equivalent dollars or in purchasing power).

I don't mean to be petty, but I -do- mean to cast a lot of doubt on your assertion, Jag, and I would prefer to do it deliberately and logically.

ohh i love setting definitions for debates.

Lifestyle:Without being too vauge the quality of life you cna sustain on your currant income - how often you go out to eat, how much you can afford to buy that kind of thing.

Third world: As officially defined by (shit forgoten name of organisation - ill edit this in later) THis once again is lsightly relative, most hthe work i'm talking about is in asia and south american countries.

Poverty: Relative living conditions compared to the first world.


I never stated it was depriving them of a better quality of life - quite the opposite, the oppotunities that forgin inventment bring to third wolrd counties eventiully flow back to an imporived quality of life for the local populace.
I never said if the places dissipeared so would hte good, but they'd have to be made in the first world at a higher cost.


First thigns first - made in america on the label can often men that it was merely packaged in america or one part of it comes from america - its a very often abused term. These goods aren't often obvious and most are parts of other products that may easily be lsited as made in america.

To give an idea of the scale of the sheer volume of goods that the first world imports i had a look at the offical China goverment foriegn trade pagestatisics .

US$22.1BILLION dollars woth of exports in June 2000 alone - pretty impressive volume. Allot of that comes from the over 1000 wholely forign owned enterpirses that have invested heavily in China over thelast few years. Why? To exploit cheap labour. To to play mathamatics with thsoe figures towork out some kind of estimated increased cost of those good if manufactured in the first would woudl of course be absolutely foolish but ot argue that these goods have little impact on our lives is clearly not the case. Remember this is for China alone, one of many.

China isn't exactly "one of many". It's more like "The Biggest." Just like Microsoft isn't "Just a Software Maker".

Those stats probably are true, which, I guess, just shows the MASSIVE amount of money that the US puts into China's economy.

Yea - i agree, if anything it reinforces my point - that investment money isn't there for the kind and open government you know.

You're right. It goes directly to workers and whatnot.

Fact of the matter is, even if China were a democracy, people would still be willing to work for cheap. Sure, not everyone - but there would always be someone that would be willing to do that job for a little bit cheaper.

Mark the low wages as a direct result of Communism. AKA, "Not the United States' fucking fault".

Bit of a circular definition problem, Jag -

This isn't the point I'm going after, what I'm going to do is attack the term 'supported', but I may as well do a clean job of demolition. If 'shit forgoten name of organisation' has a definition of poverty, would that be acceptable?

I'm working two jobs atm, i don't have lal the itme in the world to do research which is why i put that so i could come back later and put it in. The UNDP site does have a list but you will have to browse to each individual section.

Circular?
Point?
The high living conditions of one group are sustained by the low wages of another lower group - seems pretty logical to me.

Dhamsaic goddamnit i'm quite sure i'm more cynical abut this than you - i've visited a few of these facories, but eventully it does flow back. Its slow and not what many would define as 'fair' but it does, eventully.

Erm...Whatever the goverment poor people in poor nations are going to do work for less than wealthy people in wealthy nations (for the more fastidious amoungst ill define that as OECD nations for now) . I'd mark th low wages the result of poverty - not directly the Us's fucking fault (i don't remember blaming the US or for that matter anyone - you're getting more knee-jerk by the day)

Its a kind of global version of the class structure that was so prevalent in the 19th centuary, defined..stratas? of society. The top reliant on thos below to maintain thier opulant conditions. They did this because they had control of the wealth...hm....

I think you misinterpreted some of what I wrote, so let me clarify real quick.

People will always work less if they want the job. Example? If some company comes along and says "look, we got this work that needs to be done. Jaguar said he'd do it for $20/hour. Can you beat that?" - if I'm desperate for money, I'll say "Sure. How's $18/hour sound?" Now, personally, I wouldn't work for $18/hour, but you get the idea. People will outbid each other. Of course some Rwandan dude works for cheaper than I do. What I'm saying is, someone can always jump in and offer to do the job for less. If they need money, they'll do that.

As far as the US and assigning blame - that comes from your numbers of US imports from China. If you had used Australia, I would have said "Not Australia's fucking fault". But we were talking about a specific example - that being China and the United States. I was just submitting my contention that it's the Chinese government that keeps the people there poor, not the first world.

Chill out dude, I'm not ripping on you yet :)

Where did i say US imports? i only stated the absolute value of Chinese exports in US dollars...

Its mare than that though - $2 an hour in Vietnam is allot of money for your average peasent, its in first would it wouldn't buy you lunch. Its not a matter of out competing, its a completely different scale.

China keeping its people poor? Hmm...don't think so. THere is an emerging middle class in China thats growing by the day, it does take a long, long itme to raise over 1 billion people from poverty you know. That midlde class also applies to most of these countires - once again vietnam particualry comes to mind as iv'e seenit myself. Why? because of forgin investment generating jobs that eventully are handeled by Vietnamese not forign managers, its simply cheaper for the companies once they've trained them up - thats how it benifits the communities in the long run becasue then that new middle class have more disposeable income to support a new servies industry etcetcetc until you end up with a first-worldish economy. Ah i love macroeconomics.

At the same time the exploitation does still smell pretty iffy - i'm not going to start defending capatilism ;)

Don't defend Capitalism? My good sir, you've just correctly pointed out how it can build an entire country up out of nothing! In the long run, I don't think there is any question whatsoever that a free economy is incredibly beneficial for the people in it. That sort of idea could use some defending!

There is a ton of historical economic evidence that trade is always good for both partners. Look at NAFTA, for instance. On the US side it was followed by the longest growth period ever, including the lowest unemployment in thirty years; on Mexico's side, massive cities are emerging on the border, with things they've not had before, like electricity and running water.

Maybe one of our resident Canucks can tell us how the great white north has benefitted, or at least, what portion of benefit is left after paying the many different taxes on it.

And labor is just one more thing to trade.

The problems all come in the short run. Of course, in the long run, we're all dead, so our woes in the present are what interest us. A free economy will cough up injustices and weird temporary economic conditions that throw people for a loop. These conditions are like the weather: arbitrary, unpredictable, and so huge as to be uncontrollable. But the people demand that we attempt to control them, and so "economic stimulus packages" come about. The effect of which is roughly like farting in a tornado.

In the end, I suppose the right thing to say is "Capitalism sucks. It just sucks less than everything else that's come along so far."

Jag, it isn't permissible to frame the definition of one thing in terms of another that points back to the first, like this: A=B; B=A. That is a circular definition. It also is Not Done to illustrate your definition by re-stating your initial point.

That over with, I will be happy to do either of the following:

1)take the definition of the 47 poorest countries shown in http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/databan...s/received.htm, the definition of poverty as shown in http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/copen3.htm, and the mushy definition of 'lifestyle' as a typical list of expenditures by a family of four whose income is $50K US/yr and see whether these 47 countries have -any- impact on it, or

2)point you to the aforementioned http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/copen3.htm and ask why the OECD and the UN president both think -lowering- trade barriers with "developing" countries is a swell idea - the idea to make -more- trade happen, not less, in case that was not obvious. Given that the thesis of your argument is that my lifestyle is somehow owes a debt to the poor in the third world, these organizations seem to be calling for more of the same.

This little exercise has made me profoundly grateful that I stuck with engineering and didn't try any of the pseudosciences, like business administration or sociology.

So you’re basically saying that poverty is an abstract concept instead of relative. But then you go on to site a list that makes the idea of poverty relative - the 47 poorest? Argh make your mind up already - then again don't bother - i'm setting the definitions.



I already stated a source for countries, the UNDP - use it.
As for this definition it is not poverty it is *extreme poverty* not poverty. I made the statement as a result I get to choose the definitions - I’m not going to argue my point inside your structure that’s just plain silly so if you want to talk about poverty use the UNDP that i listed not whater source you choose then try to use that as a basis to attack my statement. As for lifestyle, once again this is very hard ot nail down, forget whatever vague structure and listing you were planning on disecting, its so narrow its irrelavent, try statistics, much more useful.

TO possible give a better picture of the scope of whats in volved you have to think not jsut of what is in your house but the impact on companies and therefore the impact on thier workins and workforce size. If nike had to move its operations of let say 100,000 workers based mostly in indonesia nad VIetnam (very rough estimate) to the US, from between currant hourly income of $.60 - $2 for 10 6 hours a day to the US, with a $5-8 a hour fee - how much would it eat into thier profits? Would they go for automation and therefore leave tens of thousands out of work eventully? Think bigger when it comes to impact.

Since hypertheticals are the order of the day try this - imagien if that happened to every company that curarntly uses labour in these counties - how large would the resulting impact be on our economies, severly reduced profits casuing shareprice slides triggers a possible recesion as thousands are laid off.

I tried to make sense of this but how this was relevant stumped me completely. Of course they want to lower trade barriers, as I’ve stated once or twice before it does benefit the countries involved on both sides - it’s mutually beneficial. Since it doesn't strike me as likely that the hypothetical f the entire third world disappearing overnight then I don't see why more trade shouldn't happen inside my statement.
I'm glad you liek black and white but reality like this is allll grey.

Let's not play games, Jag.

*sigh* POINT TO A LIST, not pages you claim are there, somewhere. You're the only one who hasn't got time? Try this little exercise. Go to the UNDP site. Click on 'Africa'. Now, point to the list you state is there. Is it the 'country office websites'? Get serious.

Jag, please provide, or point to, a (single) -list of countries that you say make up the third world-, not some vaporous kit of links you can't bother to show. If this is too much trouble, then you can -define in money terms-, if you wish, what the third world is (e.g. GDP/capita > $Z.) But don't expect me to do your work for you.

That is what aggregate trade figures are for, to wash out this impact.

Then you -do- see the relevance.

Wow. Heavy, like, insight! Are you serious? The comment I took issue with was sanctimonious. This one is too. I'm getting the feeling you've watched a lot of TV programs about what life is like.

If you went to the UNDP link there is a clear link to each continent on the sidebar. Since that is clearly too hard here is a direct ling ot each reigon.

Asia
Africa
Arab States
Europe
South America
There. Now - click on the down button on the list on countris, viola. No i don't ahve the itme to type them out - clicking on a link isn't that hard is it.

Either i'm asleep or i missed something, explain.

Mutually beneficial and mutually dependant. Moot point.

I haven'twatched tv in about 4 months. Bite me. Well if you're gonna bitch about psuedosciences then ill make sanctimonious comments.

Now i think we can agree that poverty is a relative measure at least. Slow work *sighs*

All things considered, I think barak was more entertaining than jaguar is. :-)
I suppose that's nostalgia speaking.

I'm still waiting for a response to my posts entitled "Hey Professor" so that he can justify the units of measure in his math. Why did I find a descrepancy and his book editor did not? If only he would respond....

I rather liked the guy - quite entertaining - until he 'cooked' his numbers - a mortal sin.

Talking of never getting answers maggieL. Or tw.
Anyone care to inform who's oversized shoes i'm aparantly filling?

Not to worry. As I pointed out, you're not actually filling them. :-)

barak was resident Cellar troll for a while, back in the Usenet days of the Cellar, when only *local* riff-raff could afford to log in.

"Hire a teenager, while he still knows everything."

Barak clearly let it be known he was black. He loved to bait the "suburban white boys" with a mixture of patronizing and condescending posts expressed in a "doctorial" or "Ivy League" manner. His purpose: I was never really sure. But he quickly tantalized and aggrevated some. It was rather amusing to watch some get so upset over such trivial concepts. There were times when I actually had to agree with Barak - albeit part of a post from time to time.

Recently Undertoad expressed a negative attitude towards the 'Barak experience'. That surprised me since during that time, Undertoad remained quite neutral and detached from the procedings - and they did procede.

However Barak did finally do the unforgiveable. He quoted some numeric conclusions from his book. He was held to define how he obtained those conclusions. The units of measure and the arithmetic, two separate errors as I recall, did not make sense. My "Hey Professor" post was a repeated attempt to have him explain those descrepancies. He never responded to multiple posts and eventually disappearred.

BTW, I don't consider you as a replacement for Barak. That is neither a complement nor an insult. Its just a plain fact that Barak was such an interesting character in that he could so 'bait and switch' others into frustration. Yes, I was amused. Others were not as entertained, as you may have noticed. To this day I don't know what his motives were. Maybe just to have fun? That is one possibility. You would have had to read those posts to appreciate what I mean.

At the time I felt like if something was absolutely reprehensible it was my duty to let it play itself out. I think I still feel that way...

Barak also advertised himself as a black separatist. His motivation was obvious to me: EGO. He loved to hear himself talk and read himself type.

Ego is at the base of every troll: if a thread isn't about them, they find a way to make it about them. The easiest way to do that is to act childish, call people out, play games, spout a lot of nonsense.

His final concept was that he was baiting the suburban white boys. But he never realized that the Cellar was just as much urban, with representation of all sorts of people. There was a dude of color who showed up at one of the earliest get-togethers, but nobody gave it a second thought; like any good e-community, we're all just words on a screen. Our color, gender, etc. are obscured, and there's a real beauty in that.

Barak's refusal to understand what he was really dealing with was just as telling as anything else he did. He came at the system from the only direction he knew: racist game playing. It was easy for him; he had developed his own little cottage industry around it, with a book, a Montel appearance, etc.

At one point I deleted his account when he assumed that he could bait the system itself as hard as he baited its users: he threatened legal action against it. Like Colonel Qaddafi, direct action in the form of a smackdown was what he understood best. Once he understood that there was a limit to his little game, his stuff improved.

You had the best way to deal with trolls: just press them with rational, adult challenges about what they're saying. At that point, the thread is no longer about them, but about their subject; and since their real goal is empty gamesmanship, the thread becomes unfulfilling and they slink away. Pathetic.

That was the part so entertaining. He would have accomplished nothing if so many local dweller had just let him twist and turn. Instead they had to get involved and 'bite the bait'.

That's the part that so makes him no longer entertaining. Legal action? That is news to me. He escalated the game way too far.

He got on Montel? Montel came along well after the Cellar incident. Well, it demonstrates the quality of Montel, Sally Jessy, and Ophra (who so grossly distorted facts about mad cow disease). Sueing a non-profit, open membership, social BBS just because you don't like the free speech responses? That goes well beyond unacceptable; no longer entertaining. The word 'Barak' has suddenly taken on a new meaning.

Since jet_silver seems to have given up/retreated i can now answer this without screwing myself =)


Yes and no, its a very, very slow process and still extremely exploitative. Capatilism is a terrible system until you find something better =) - a quote from one of my teachers, i guess we agree on that =)

And that is the fundamental flaw with a liberal democrasy with a capatilist economy, it thinks but nature so fscking short term. As a result we've completely screwed countless ecosystems, destroyed farmland, driven species to extinction and the lsit goes on. When its everyone for his own the idea of don't shit where you sleep seems to go out the window. Politicians have little or no motivaiton to have through long term solutions for problems because they won't be around to reap the political benifits.



Tarfis are more the thing that comes to mind, one that that does stop 3rd world contries developing is the fact they cannot compete with local products in places liek the EU nad the US becasue of tarifs and trade agreements. Always shist me to here pollies talking about the wonders of a free market economy then instatin another laod of tarifs to protect local industries and win 10 votes.

Barak
 

Does anyone know any more about him? What his book is called, maybe? Who saw him on Montel? Dude. I bet he is Montel. :)

No, seriously though - just kinda curious. You guys sound like you know what was going on, but don't really say much. What was his book about? What numbers did he cook?