The 5 Fantasies of Europe (1 Viewer)

[MiamiFlorida]

1. Foreign Aid helps the poor.

2. If the U.S. pressures Israel, there will be peace in the Middle East.

3. You cannot create a Democracy with the use of force.

4. The United Nations is the hope for a better future.

5. Capitalism is responsible for 3rd World poverty.

 

[nkgupta80]

Only the first two are true fantasies. The 4th is arguable.


3. That is pretty much true. A democracy cannot be forced on people who aren't ready for it, or don't want the system. Its arguable if we're actually forcing democracy on the Iraqi people, but only the final results will tell.
4. It would be if countries could sacrifice some of their own interests for the greater good. But that is not conceivable any time soon.
5. Capitalist corporations are one of the main causes of exploitation in 3rd world countries. Many oppressive regimes in countries are in place because of corporate pressure.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

Only the first two are true fantasies. The 4th is arguable.


3. That is pretty much true. A democracy cannot be forced on people who aren't ready for it, or don't want the system. Its arguable if we're actually forcing democracy on the Iraqi people, but only the final results will tell.
4. It would be if countries could sacrifice some of their own interests for the greater good. But that is not conceivable any time soon.
5. Capitalist corporations are one of the main causes of exploitation in 3rd world countries. Many oppressive regimes in countries are in place because of corporate pressure.

They are ALL fantasies.

-Foreign aid helps only the Elite of Third World Countries. Foreign aid simply transfers money from rich people in developed countries to rich people in underdeveloped countries. To help the poor you need freedom, commerce, education and a free market.

-Freedom will be achieved in the Middle East when the culture of violence is modified in the Arab side of the equation and Arabs give up their quest to destroy the State of Israel.

-You CAN force democracy on people. When the British left India, they left behind a democracy. The United States forced democracy on Germany, Japan, Italy, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, Santo Domingo and South Korea. Still working on Iraq.

-Capitalism has saved BILLIONS of lives. Every medical and technological advance since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is a direct result of Capitalism. Everything that modern man enjoys and makes his life better and longer.... was developed by capitalism.

Poor countries are not poor because other countries are rich. If we were to distribute all the wealth of the planet evenly, it would disappear overnight and we would all be poor.


Countries are poor because they rely exclusively on natural resources. You cannot enter the 21st Century with a bag of beans on one hand and a bunch of bananas on the other and expect to take your place among developed nations. Find me a poor country, and I'll show you a country that does not produce services. 70% of the US economy, for instance, is based on services.

Countries are poor because of trade barriers and monopolies.

Countries are poor because governments run institutions that should be run by private enterprise. Government only knows how to create bureaucracy and debt.

Countries are poor because they do not respect foreign investments and the sanctity of contracts....therefore, no one wants to invest in them.

Countries are poor because they blame the corruption of their politicians and the inefficiency of their governments on foreign scapegoats, multinationals, the World Bank, etc....

"Sacrificing", as you say, for the "greater good" is not going to help one iota. You do not give fish to a poor man.....you teach him how to fish....if he wants to be taught, that is.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

-Capitalism has saved BILLIONS of lives. Every medical and technological advance since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is a direct result of Capitalism.

And I really need to see your source for that statement, because I have always been under the impression that quite a few medical innovations have come out of the British National Health Service, which is absolutely NOT a capitalist system.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

And I really need to see your source for that statement, because I have always been under the impression that quite a few medical innovations have come out of the British National Health Service, which is absolutely NOT a capitalist system.

Is Britain a capitalist country? Who funds the British National Health Service?

Who invented the Internet you are using?

And the electricity that powers the Internet?

Who built your computer?

Are drug companies non-profit organizations?

How about companies that manufacture medical equipment?

Capitalism is driven by only one fundamental consideration: PROFIT

To get profits, you need to invent new products, produce goods more efficiently and distribute them to a wide market.

The wider the market, the more profits. Poverty is a natural enemy of capitalism. Poor people cannot purchase goods.

If you need sources there are plenty. I recommend "Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Is Britain a capitalist country?

Yes, it is.

Who funds the British National Health Service?

The British tax payer. Your point?

Many medical innovations have also come out of charitable organisations.

My only point is to say that your statement that EVERY medical advance has come out of capitalism is innacurate.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

Yes, it is.





The British tax payer. Your point?

Many medical innovations have also come out of charitable organisations.

My only point is to say that your statement that EVERY medical advance has come out of capitalism is innacurate.

Read my statement again: "Every medical and technological advance since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution is a direct result of Capitalism.

Does the British National Health Service use equipment, medicines, transportation and communication equipment developed by capitalism? It's very hard to build a microscope by yourself from scratch without the help of a company that makes them for....profit!

Isn't the British taxpayer an integral part of British capitalism?....and where do charitable organizations get their money from?

 

[nkgupta80]

Countries are poor because of trade barriers and monopolies.

Countries are poor because governments run institutions that should be run by private enterprise. Government only knows how to create bureaucracy and debt.

Countries are poor because they do not respect foreign investments and the sanctity of contracts....therefore, no one wants to invest in them.

Countries are poor because they blame the corruption of their politicians and the inefficiency of their governments on foreign scapegoats, multinationals, the World Bank, etc....

Countries are poor because capitalism drove imperialism which drove colonialism which caused the African, South American and Asian countries to be exploited. If you think most multi-national corporations really care about the welfare of a third-world countries over their own profits, you are mistaken. It just isn't the capitalist way. Why the hell would you pay for better working standards in an African country, if you could just pay a couple million to the African dictator, and get cheaper labor. Globalism has fueled progress, but has done a lot to rape these third-world countries.

"Sacrificing", as you say, for the "greater good" is not going to help one iota. You do not give fish to a poor man.....you teach him how to fish....if he wants to be taught, that is.

thats a very thoughtless statement that has no insight into what really happens. You think all those poor people in the third world countries don't know how to make their own food or how to work? Its not that simple. People need land, they need rights, and most importantly, they need to survive in the competition. After colonialism, much of these countries were devestated. But the remenants of the exploitation still exist. Globalist companies in Europe and US still use the people of these third world countires any way they want to maximize profits, even if it means they pay these people a buck a day. Capitalism has its pros and cons, and the results of the cons is waht you see in the poor countries today.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

Countries are poor because capitalism drove imperialism which drove colonialism which caused the African, South American and Asian countries to be exploited. If you think most multi-national corporations really care about the welfare of a third-world countries over their own profits, you are mistaken. It just isn't the capitalist way. Why the hell would you pay for better working standards in an African country, if you could just pay a couple million to the African dictator, and get cheaper labor. Globalism has fueled progress, but has done a lot to rape these third-world countries.



thats a very thoughtless statement that has no insight into what really happens. You think all those poor people in the third world countries don't know how to make their own food or how to work? Its not that simple. People need land, they need rights, and most importantly, they need to survive in the competition. After colonialism, much of these countries were devestated. But the remenants of the exploitation still exist. Globalist companies in Europe and US still use the people of these third world countires any way they want to maximize profits, even if it means they pay these people a buck a day. Capitalism has its pros and cons, and the results of the cons is waht you see in the poor countries today.

You haven't produced one argument to refute what I wrote. What's this "capitalism drove imperialism which drove colonialism which caused the African, South American and Asian countries to be exploited...." Please expand on that. Repeating slogans is simply not good enough. More substance, my friend.

The reason a farmer on the Altiplano of Bolivia cannot compete with an American farmer is because the latter produces 8 times more per acre. Plain and simple. You forget that when America and Europe were in the same developmental stages as those Third World countries you talk about, their populatios also earned "a buck a day". And who's responsible for thet "buck a day" situation?....their governments.

For-profit companies are never going to police themselves, so kill that thought. Get rid of your corrupt politicians and the practice of under-paying will end.

Sovereignty means that you are responsible for the garbage on your own country. Otherwise, call the Marines.

 

[Deegan]

I must agree, those are all fantasies, and Europe is falling behind everyday because of these widely held beliefs.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

I must agree, those are all fantasies, and Europe is falling behind everyday because of these widely held beliefs.

It doesn't help when they try to explain them away with:

"capitalism drove imperialism which drove colonialism which caused the African, South American and Asian countries to be exploited...."

 

[nkgupta80]

You haven't produced one argument to refute what I wrote. What's this "capitalism drove imperialism which drove colonialism which caused the African, South American and Asian countries to be exploited...." Please expand on that. Repeating slogans is simply not good enough. More substance, my friend.

I wish I could expand more on this, and I'll try but it is long and has a lot of history in it. I suggest reading a book on capitalism and its ties to imperialism. Capitalism allowed the formation of large companies, and allowed the beginnings of globalization. Along with the industrial revolution, Europe was able to take its exploration to a whole new level and start reaping the riches of the east. The slave trade for example was run by European companies, not a specific country. Another example would be the British Empire during the late 1800s. Industrial revolution had to be fueled by a global trade which was run by growing companies that exploited colonies. Do you think the colonial people always had a choice? some were being oppressed through sheer military power, while others (like india) through deception and bribes. This is all due to the capitalist system. Colonies were used for profit, while the well-being of the people depended on how much labor they could do.

The reason a farmer on the Altiplano of Bolivia cannot compete with an American farmer is because the latter produces 8 times more per acre. Plain and simple. You forget that when America and Europe were in the same developmental stages as those Third World countries you talk about, their populatios also earned "a buck a day". And who's responsible for thet "buck a day" situation?....their governments.

This is very true. Capitalism isn't the only cause of poverty in these countries. Technological gaps are a factor. Bridging those gaps requires better infrastructure which requires an able government with less corruption, which cannot happen when outside forces hinder it.

For-profit companies are never going to police themselves, so kill that thought. Get rid of your corrupt politicians and the practice of under-paying will end.

The companies that control these countries have immense power in their own governments. Our politicians have strong ties with businessmen (many having heavy investments in corporations themselves). Thus it is in their best interest to protect the se corporations. With government backing, corporations can force anything out of lesser countries. Many times, corrupt politicians are supported by the outside force. They are given money to suppress their citizens, as long as the corporations' interests are served.

Sovereignty means that you are responsible for the garbage on your own country. Otherwise, call the Marines.

Countries are at the whims of others depending on which is more powerful. Thus not all have full sovereignty.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

I wish I could expand more on this, and I'll try but it is long and has a lot of history in it. I suggest reading a book on capitalism and its ties to imperialism. Capitalism allowed the formation of large companies, and allowed the beginnings of globalization. Along with the industrial revolution, Europe was able to take its exploration to a whole new level and start reaping the riches of the east. The slave trade for example was run by European companies, not a specific country. Another example would be the British Empire during the late 1800s. Industrial revolution had to be fueled by a global trade which was run by growing companies that exploited colonies. Do you think the colonial people always had a choice? some were being oppressed through sheer military power, while others (like india) through deception and bribes. This is all due to the capitalist system. Colonies were used for profit, while the well-being of the people depended on how much labor they could do.



This is very true. Capitalism isn't the only cause of poverty in these countries. Technological gaps are a factor. Bridging those gaps requires better infrastructure which requires an able government with less corruption, which cannot happen when outside forces hinder it.



The companies that control these countries have immense power in their own governments. Our politicians have strong ties with businessmen (many having heavy investments in corporations themselves). Thus it is in their best interest to protect the se corporations. With government backing, corporations can force anything out of lesser countries. Many times, corrupt politicians are supported by the outside force. They are given money to suppress their citizens, as long as the corporations' interests are served.


Countries are at the whims of others depending on which is more powerful. Thus not all have full sovereignty.

C'mon!!!!!! Do you really belive that anyone besides Hugo Chávez in in charge in Venezuela? Do you think Lula dances to the tunes of the multinationals in Brazil???

Third World countries....especially in Latin America....have one common denominator: populations who will follow a "caudillo" to the end....right or wrong. They all have a gringo under the bed....in siege... waiting to pounce on the poor defenseless population at the slightest provocation. The story is old and stale. They have run out of fairy tales to justify their own corruption and inefficiency. Freud would have a field day with this collective hysteria.

 

[nkgupta80]

Third World countries....especially in Latin America....have one common denominator: populations who will follow a "caudillo" to the end....right or wrong. They all have a gringo under the bed....in siege... waiting to pounce on the poor defenseless population at the slightest provocation. The story is old and stale. They have run out of fairy tales to justify their own corruption and inefficiency. Freud would have a field day with this collective hysteria.

....of course Hugo Chavez is formally in charge of venezuela. But theres no doubt that hes fed tons of money from other countries, and investment in his country's oil gives him a lot of powerful foreign corporate support. Historically, corporations involved in the diamond industry in Africa would help fund dictators who in turn would help keep the people oppressed. With this kind of stable authoritarian regime, labor was extremely easy to get at a cheap price.

Third world countries aren't poor just because they can't pull themselves together. There are many factors including capitalism's spread through globalism.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

....of course Hugo Chavez is formally in charge of venezuela. But theres no doubt that hes fed tons of money from other countries, and investment in his country's oil gives him a lot of powerful foreign corporate support. Historically, corporations involved in the diamond industry in Africa would help fund dictators who in turn would help keep the people oppressed. With this kind of stable authoritarian regime, labor was extremely easy to get at a cheap price.

Third world countries aren't poor just because they can't pull themselves together. There are many factors including capitalism's spread through globalism.

No, my friend. Third World countries are poor because their own governments make them poor. Because there is no democracy that makes their governments accountable for their actions.

I have frieds in Latin America who can't understand why Bill Clinton was almost impeached for the Monica Lewinsky fiasco. They don't undestand. It wasn't about having oral sex with an aide....it was about lying to a court of law. Doesn't matter if you are the President. You break the law....you go down.

When you have that kind of integrity in Third World governments....you will begin to see the changes. In the meantime, don't blame us for,

 

[nkgupta80]

No, my friend. Third World countries are poor because their own governments make them poor. Because there is no democracy that makes their governments accountable for their actions.

That is the direct effect. I am not arguing with that. But at the greater geopolitical scale, globalism does cause much poverty in these nations. Historically you cannot deny that the capitalist colonial powers exploited today's third world countries. These governments can only survive with their military. The military is kept at bay through money. How do these poor governments get money, when most of their country is starving? 1) By being extremely hard on the people. 2) as a consequence of possible unrest caused by being hard on the people, they turn to foreign help. Most of this comes from support from corporations. How do they get money from corporations. They offer their resources both human and non-human to these foreign companies. People get exploited for their labor. Land gets exploited for the resources. Dictator gets tons of money which he uses to build his military and keep the angry people in line. There comes a point where these places become such an asset to these multi-national corporations that they take their own governments help to secure their interests in the area in case of civil unrest. This is where the vicious cycle occurs.

Yes they need a democracy, and a strong one. But right now, a dictators might coupled with foreign coercion keeps this from happening.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

That is the direct effect. I am not arguing with that. But at the greater geopolitical scale, globalism does cause much poverty in these nations. Historically you cannot deny that the capitalist colonial powers exploited today's third world countries. These governments can only survive with their military. The military is kept at bay through money. How do these poor governments get money, when most of their country is starving? 1) By being extremely hard on the people. 2) as a consequence of possible unrest caused by being hard on the people, they turn to foreign help. Most of this comes from support from corporations. How do they get money from corporations. They offer their resources both human and non-human to these foreign companies. People get exploited for their labor. Land gets exploited for the resources. Dictator gets tons of money which he uses to build his military and keep the angry people in line. There comes a point where these places become such an asset to these multi-national corporations that they take their own governments help to secure their interests in the area in case of civil unrest. This is where the vicious cycle occurs.

Yes they need a democracy, and a strong one. But right now, a dictators might coupled with foreign coercion keeps this from happening.

I'm sorry. I don't buy that. Look at the Bahamas wich is a small group of Islands that has nothing but sand and coconuts. They are one of the most developed countries on earth. The same could be said for places like Liechtestein and Monaco. The Bahamas were exploited by a colonial power.

Look at Chile. They only have a fraction of the natural resources of Brazil and since they took steps to dismantle their protectionist barriers, privatize previously government run industries and encourage foreign investment, they have become a developed country.....while their neighbor Brazil with the potential to be a world power, languishers in Third World condition.

And how about Venezuela....with all that oil and no foreign companies? Third World. Do you know why? Because their leaders suffer from the same disease as the rest of the Third World: Steal as much as you can and blame the gringo.

 

[Kelzie]

The reason a farmer on the Altiplano of Bolivia cannot compete with an American farmer is because the latter produces 8 times more per acre. Plain and simple. You forget that when America and Europe were in the same developmental stages as those Third World countries you talk about, their populatios also earned "a buck a day". And who's responsible for thet "buck a day" situation?....their governments.

Actually, the reason that a Bolivian farmer can't compete with an American, is that American agriculture is subsidized. The government pays the grower to grow as much as they can, buy what they can't sell because the market's saturated, and give the rest to third-world countries in the form of aid. How is a Bolivian farmer supposed to compete with nearly free food from the US? They can't, they lose the farm, and all of a sudden the country is dependent on the US for food because they don't have any more farmers.

 

[nkgupta80]

I'm sorry. I don't buy that. Look at the Bahamas wich is a small group of Islands that has nothing but sand and coconuts. They are one of the most developed countries on earth. The same could be said for places like Liechtestein and Monaco. The Bahamas were exploited by a colonial power.

Look at Chile. They only have a fraction of the natural resources of Brazil and since they took steps to dismantle their protectionist barriers, privatize previously government run industries and encourage foreign investment, they have become a developed country.....while their neighbor Brazil with the potential to be a world power, languishers in Third World condition.

And how about Venezuela....with all that oil and no foreign companies? Third World. Do you know why? Because their leaders suffer from the same disease as the rest of the Third World: Steal as much as you can and blame the gringo.

First of all most of the examples you gave such as Bahamas and Monaco are all examples of countries that live off tourism.

Secondly I never said that bad governments aren't the problem. But corporatism and global capitalism help keep these bad governments from being fixed.

Thirdly, there are always exceptions, Venezuela being one of them. But you still neglect to explain all the other countries I talk about. India, African countries, (make up most of the third world), Brazil, Indonesia, and you leave out tons of other South American countries. The fact that colonialism existed is enough to prove that capitalism had led to some horrible stuff. Capitalism or I should rather say corporatism has played a big part in the extreme poverty of third world countries.

Actually, the reason that a Bolivian farmer can't compete with an American, is that American agriculture is subsidized. The government pays the grower to grow as much as they can, buy what they can't sell because the market's saturated, and give the rest to third-world countries in the form of aid. How is a Bolivian farmer supposed to compete with nearly free food from the US? They can't, they lose the farm, and all of a sudden the country is dependent on the US for food because they don't have any more farmers.

true

 

[MiamiFlorida]

First of all most of the examples you gave such as Bahamas and Monaco are all examples of countries that live off tourism.

Secondly I never said that bad governments aren't the problem. But corporatism and global capitalism help keep these bad governments from being fixed.

Thirdly, there are always exceptions, Venezuela being one of them. But you still neglect to explain all the other countries I talk about. India, African countries, (make up most of the third world), Brazil, Indonesia, and you leave out tons of other South American countries. The fact that colonialism existed is enough to prove that capitalism had led to some horrible stuff. Capitalism or I should rather say corporatism has played a big part in the extreme poverty of third world countries.



true

My good friend, history is not a conspiracy of good against evil....of those who always win and those who always lose. There are many who provide easy and absolute explanations of the world we live in. They explain everything as a class struggle and the backwardness of certain countries on capitalism.

It's good that you mention Latin America. The "intellectual" left there (whom Mario Vargas Llosa has referred to as the Perfect Latin American Idiots) has concocted a brew of Third World Thesis', nationalism, caudillismo, and populism with a good sprinkling of ideas from Perón, Castro, Ché, Sandino, and more recently....Hugo Chávez...an ex-military officer who once tried to overthrow a democratic government by force....and was punished by the Venezuelan people by being elected president. I didn't see corporatism and global capitalism voting in that election.

I didn't see corporatism and global capitalism voting in Argentina, in Bolivia and in Brazil.....all countries who recently have taken huge steps backward.
Since you mention India, I suppose we're also to blame for the billions of rats that overrun the country and eat more than 50% of their crops.....all because their religion forbids their extermination.

(If you want to find a villain, I think religion is your culprit. We could talk some more about that. )

This brew is served in bubbling pots of rhetoric to the uneducated masses. Our idiots affirm (and I say ours because I was also born and raised in Latin America) that what happens to us is never our fault. There's always someone, some company, some country responsible for our fate. We like to be inept, and it gives us a morbid pleasure to think of ourselves as victims of exploitation.

Mister Jones, who owns a lightbulb factory in Michigan is a villain responsible for the per capita of Honduras, which is only 7 thousand per year. (Notice how efficient we are at coming up with those figures.). Yes, our perfect idiot's objective in life is to destroy developed societies, not to develop backwad societies.

If services, which make up three quarters of the economy of the USA, do not use natural resources from the Third World....how could our prosperity be the result of exploitation? Do you know that everytime I call American Express, I get a service representative in India? How is American Express exploting India by outsourcing jobs to that country?

You mentioned that the Bahamas is prosperous because they have tourism. Well, Cuba is a couple of hundred times larger than the Bahamas, with hundreds of some of the most beautiful and pristine beaches in the world. Why isn't Cuba prosperous then?. Why do 30 million people flock to Florida every year which has arguably a lot less to offer in natural beauty?

Sharing the riches of the First World would be futile. It would evaporate immediately because the mere transferrence of that prosperity doesn't resolve the problem: how to create prosperity all the time.

The answer, my friend is not for us to join the Third World...it's for them to join us.

 

[nkgupta80]

You're not getting it are you. I never tried to give an answer. I never said that we shouldn't be capitalist. I just pointed out that poverty in the Third World comes from many factors. The two biggest are the governments and corporatism. These two combined build a rut for these countries which makes it really really hard for them to get out.

 

[nkgupta80]

BTW you don't think that colonialism exploited? WHy do you think we wanted to free ourselves from the British? We felt we were being exploited. It was a direct cause of globalist capitalism.

Today this is much less so since there is no colonialism. However, Corporations do use their power in third-world governments to induce certian measures and changes. Again combine the two factors, and you get a vicious cycle the third-world countries have a hard time escaping.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

BTW you don't think that colonialism exploited? WHy do you think we wanted to free ourselves from the British? We felt we were being exploited. It was a direct cause of globalist capitalism.

Today this is much less so since there is no colonialism. However, Corporations do use their power in third-world governments to induce certian measures and changes. Again combine the two factors, and you get a vicious cycle the third-world countries have a hard time escaping.

What "certain" measures are you talking about?

Every country on earth was exploited, invaded, colonized or subyugated by someone else at one time or another. This has nothing to do with Third World poverty today.

It is in the best interests of every country that multinational companies make a profit on their soil. The more profits, the better. They bring money, technology and jobs. If their goods are sold internally, the local market grows. If their goods are exported, the host nation benefits by selling local products at the International level. When the operations are profitable, companies stay and expand their investments.

Find me a poor country and I will show you a country populated by local businessmen protected from competition by their government. Businesses who owe their fortune to captive markets, trade barriers, price controls, subsidies and bureaucratic nepotism. Sindicates are tied to state-run enterprises...generally monopolies...which are beehives of bureaucrats feeding from the benefactor State.

Utopia is a resistant bacteria.

How do we convince the Third World that the real wealth of a country.... the productive wealth of a country..... represented in machinery, equipment, factories and transport is created exclusively by private enterprise and not by the bureaucrat? How do we explain it to the populist politician, or the professor and his students impregnated by the marxist utopian bacteria?

For these members of the Third Word intelligentsia, the gringo fulfills a ceremonial role extracted from a Freudian plot: He's the father we have to kill to achieve happiness. He's the scapegoat to whom we assign all guilt. Because of him we are not rich, wise and prosperous. Because of him we can't take our place in the marvelous concert of nations.

It makes me want to puke when I hear someone say: "we don't hate Americans, only their government" Governments change and hate persists. The "Perfect Idiots" have hated us since Washington was president and they're still going strong.

 

[nkgupta80]

What "certain" measures are you talking about?

Every country on earth was exploited, invaded, colonized or subyugated by someone else at one time or another. This has nothing to do with Third World poverty today.

of course it does. When you cite history you neglect to realize that there has been an overall trend in history towards globalism. Yes there has always been subjugation, exploitation, and so on. But to put the blame on local authorities is not looking at the big picture. As we globalize, our world is more interconnected. That is why colonialism was unprecedented. Countries took over other countries not to expand borders, but to merely take away resources. Today, since we are even more globalized, colonialism is not possible (I can go into this point more if you want me to). Corporations do this exactly. The main benefits of multi-national corporations are witnessed in the countries that hold these companies. The actual third-world countries that do the work to obtain the resources get less benefit. I went through the reason for this in the other posts if you read it. But I'll reiterate corporatism combined with bad local governments keep these countries from progressing.

 

[Kelzie]

.

It is in the best interests of every country that multinational companies make a profit on their soil. The more profits, the better. They bring money, technology and jobs. If their goods are sold internally, the local market grows. If their goods are exported, the host nation benefits by selling local products at the International level. When the operations are profitable, companies stay and expand their investments.

Find me a poor country and I will show you a country populated by local businessmen protected from competition by their government. Businesses who owe their fortune to captive markets, trade barriers, price controls, subsidies and bureaucratic nepotism. Sindicates are tied to state-run enterprises...generally monopolies...which are beehives of bureaucrats feeding from the benefactor State.

Utopia is a resistant bacteria.

How do we convince the Third World that the real wealth of a country.... the productive wealth of a country..... represented in machinery, equipment, factories and transport is created exclusively by private enterprise and not by the bureaucrat? How do we explain it to the populist politician, or the professor and his students impregnated by the marxist utopian bacteria?

For these members of the Third Word intelligentsia, the gringo fulfills a ceremonial role extracted from a Freudian plot: He's the father we have to kill to achieve happiness. He's the scapegoat to whom we assign all guilt. Because of him we are not rich, wise and prosperous. Because of him we can't take our place in the marvelous concert of nations.

It makes me want to puke when I hear someone say: "we don't hate Americans, only their government" Governments change and hate persists. The "Perfect Idiots" have hated us since Washington was president and they're still going strong.

:rofl Do you seriously think that MNCs help the LDCs they go into? I posted this once to galenrox, but I'll post it again for you, since it's relevant:

Have you heard of Bhopal, India? You seem like a smart guy (you are pro-choice after all ), and yet you still seem to think that corporations play nice. In 1984, more than 27 tons of toxic gas leaked out of Union Carbide's pesticide plants. The numerous safety devices installed to detect such an occurance weren't working because Union Carbide was trying to cut costs on the plant. Over 22,000 people have died as a result. In the words of one of the survivors:

"It felt like somebody had filled our bodies up with red chillies, our eyes had tears coming out, noses were watering, we had froth in our mouths. The coughing was so bad that people were writhing in pain. Some people just got up and ran in whatever they were wearing or even if they were wearing nothing at all. Somebody was running this way and somebody was running that way, some people were just running in their underclothes. People were only concerned as to how they would save their lives so they just ran. Those who fell were not picked up by anybody, they just kept falling, and were trampled on by other people. People climbed and scrambled over each other to save their lives – even cows were running and trying to save their lives and crushing people as they ran." source

Horrific right? And Union Carbide's oh so humanitarian response? They promptly sold most of their stock in the plant to lessen their impact. They are still around today. You think farmers stopped buying from them because of what they did? They did of course, have to make a settlement. Each of the survivors got between $300-500. 50,000 Bhopalis can't work today because their nervous systems were destroyed by the gas.

This is just one example. There are thousands more where corporation have committed crime against humanity. You think everyone working is getting paid? Slave labor is rampant, children are sold into sweatshops to work off a debt that gets bigger every day. Corporations are not the suave, cool, elite places that show on wall street. They are souless, and rutheless, and do anything to help their bottom line.