NationStates Jolt Archive

I am re-submitting this proposal after it failed last time, and am asking for approvals via the forum because I don't want to annoy delegates by spamming their telegram inboxes. Anyway, thanks to all the delegates that supported it last time and thanks in advance to everyone who supports it this time. I believe this is a really important issue which needs to be addressed by the international community as soon as possible, and hope you all agree. Anyway, here's the proposal:

Disease in developing nations
Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong

This Resolution would direct some UN funds into a World Health Organisation Programme which would give health aid to developing nations. Currently, easily preventable diseases are killing millions of children and indeed adults, and HIV/AIDS has become endemic to many nations, especially in Africa. These problems could be remedied by a simple commitment from all UN nations to contribute to this programme. It would supply developing nations with free medicines and support from doctors (as is now done by "Médecins sans Frontières"), as well as free contraceptions to combat STDs (and out-of-control birth rates), clean water supplies, and hygiene and safe-sex education programmes. The prevention and curing of disease would alleviate many of the other problems plaguing the developing world (for instance, many people in developing countries are currently forced to have many children to support them since so many die), and would be a noble cause of which we could all be proud. If the burden was spread fairly, it should not even cost too much (think of the amounts governments spend on their military forces)

I am re-submitting this proposal after it failed last time, and am asking for approvals via the forum because I don't want to annoy delegates by spamming their telegram inboxes. Anyway, thanks to all the delegates that supported it last time and thanks in advance to everyone who supports it this time. I believe this is a really important issue which needs to be addressed by the international community as soon as possible, and hope you all agree. Anyway, here's the proposal:

Disease in developing nations
Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong

This Resolution would direct some UN funds into a World Health Organisation Programme which would give health aid to developing nations. Currently, easily preventable diseases are killing millions of children and indeed adults, and HIV/AIDS has become endemic to many nations, especially in Africa. These problems could be remedied by a simple commitment from all UN nations to contribute to this programme. It would supply developing nations with free medicines and support from doctors (as is now done by "Médecins sans Frontières"), as well as free contraceptions to combat STDs (and out-of-control birth rates), clean water supplies, and hygiene and safe-sex education programmes. The prevention and curing of disease would alleviate many of the other problems plaguing the developing world (for instance, many people in developing countries are currently forced to have many children to support them since so many die), and would be a noble cause of which we could all be proud. If the burden was spread fairly, it should not even cost too much (think of the amounts governments spend on their military forces)

This deserves support. The proposal should commit UN members to donating a set % of their GDP to the UN organisation to be set up to deliver this aid. Care should be given in the wording of the proposal to make it clear that contraceptives ("contraceptions"?) are an optional offering to avoid offending religious or moral sensibilities.

What about developed nations? We all have similar problems.

The proposal should commit UN members to donating a set % of their GDP to the UN organisation to be set up to deliver this aid. Care should be given in the wording of the proposal to make it clear that contraceptives ("contraceptions"?) are an optional offering to avoid offending religious or moral sensibilities.

If I have to re-submit it again, I will make some changes to details. For instance, vaccinations will be included, and something about the amount of money that must be paid.

I am not sure about a set rate for this programme, perhaps a minimum? Also, haven't we already passed a resolution saying that the UN can't directly tax citizens - isn't that what taking a portion of the GDP is? It would have to be a tax levied on the governments of member nations, and also we couldn't expect some of the poor countries to contribute, since the money would just be looping back. I might put in a clause saying that any of the countries benefitting from the programme do not have to contribute if they put the same amount into their National Health Service.

To your second point, if you state that it is optional, who is choosing? The government? The Church? Neither of these should have any say in whether people have access to contraception except to make the choice possible - dogma from the Catholic Church have helped the spread of AIDS in poor, Christian, African countries, where there is little education about STDs. The programme would include, as I stated in the proposal, educational efforts to encourage the use of contraceptives (preferably condoms as these prevent STDs) and to provide them in EVERY country served by the programme, and the PEOPLE would be given the choice to use them. Nowhere does the proposal say that it would be obligatory to use them.

What about developed nations? We all have similar problems.

Actually, we don't all have these problems, at least not to nearly the same extent. Developed countries have access to antibiotics and can afford them, so people don't usually die of diseases like pneumonia. On the other hand, people in poorer countries do because they do not have the medcines or the doctors to deal with them. Generally we have good standards of hygiene and water supplies, and we are educated and given access to contraception such that the spread of STDs is far less than in developing nations.

This is a very worthwhile resolution and should most definetly be supported by all delegates.

Disease is rife in the 3rd world, and the allocation of funds, as suggested in this proposal, would help to stop the grief, pain and suffering which so many diseases cause in devloping countries.

Thanks to everybody who has approved the proposal so far. It doesn't look like its going to go thru this time - I think it expires on friday. I will keep submitting it, and would appreciate it if when i do those who supported it this time and the time before do so again. This seems to be the only way to get enough support without spamming.

When I do re-submit, I'll add in something about offering vaccinations, and something saying that any of the countries benefitting from the programme do not have to contribute if they put the same amount into their National Health Service - poor countries in genral will also be expected to contribute less, perhaps nothing. Any ideas about how much should be paid by different countries? Perhaps a percentage of the GNP could be worked out from the the GNP per capita, then taken as a minimum contribtution - i.e. a low GNP per capita would mean a smaller proportion of the total GNP would have to be paid.

I am re-submitting this proposal after it failed last time, and am asking for approvals via the forum because I don't want to annoy delegates by spamming their telegram inboxes. Anyway, thanks to all the delegates that supported it last time and thanks in advance to everyone who supports it this time. I believe this is a really important issue which needs to be addressed by the international community as soon as possible, and hope you all agree. Anyway, here's the proposal:

Disease in developing nations
Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong

This Resolution would direct some UN funds into a World Health Organisation Programme which would give health aid to developing nations. Currently, easily preventable diseases are killing millions of children and indeed adults, and HIV/AIDS has become endemic to many nations, especially in Africa. These problems could be remedied by a simple commitment from all UN nations to contribute to this programme. It would supply developing nations with free medicines and support from doctors (as is now done by "Médecins sans Frontières"), as well as free contraceptions to combat STDs (and out-of-control birth rates), clean water supplies, and hygiene and safe-sex education programmes. The prevention and curing of disease would alleviate many of the other problems plaguing the developing world (for instance, many people in developing countries are currently forced to have many children to support them since so many die), and would be a noble cause of which we could all be proud. If the burden was spread fairly, it should not even cost too much (think of the amounts governments spend on their military forces)

Actually most of hte humanitarian "aid" that goes to developing nations ends up in Switzerland.

About 3 millioon kids die from diarreha every year. Each case of diarreha can be cured iwth 8 cents worth of sugar-water. So $240,000 is all that's needed to save 3 million kids from dying. Yet the deaths still happen.

Public aid goes almost exclsuively to dictators who use it to buy weapons.

The only solution is to cut foreign aid. Use free trade only. The dictators will have nothing to offer, they will be overthrown nonviolently, then we can concentrate on curing disease in thirdworld countries.

Actually, we don't all have these problems, at least not to nearly the same extent. Developed countries have access to antibiotics and can afford them, so people don't usually die of diseases like pneumonia. On the other hand, people in poorer countries do because they do not have the medcines or the doctors to deal with them. Generally we have good standards of hygiene and water supplies, and we are educated and given access to contraception such that the spread of STDs is far less than in developing nations.

Children are diseases?

Children are diseases?

No of course not - STD stands for Sexually Transmitted Disease, e.g. AIDS. Use of condoms is the most effective feasible way to stop these spreading (you are never going to stop people having sex, which would be the only other way since we have no cure for AIDS - limiting sex like this would be a serious breach of human rights anyway). And actually, a reduction in the birth rates of many of these countries would be a great help.


Actually most of hte humanitarian "aid" that goes to developing nations ends up in Switzerland.

About 3 millioon kids die from diarreha every year. Each case of diarreha can be cured iwth 8 cents worth of sugar-water. So $240,000 is all that's needed to save 3 million kids from dying. Yet the deaths still happen.

Public aid goes almost exclsuively to dictators who use it to buy weapons.

The only solution is to cut foreign aid. Use free trade only. The dictators will have nothing to offer, they will be overthrown nonviolently, then we can concentrate on curing disease in thirdworld countries.

That is inevitable if you give the money to the governments of the poor dictatorships. But under this programme, the WHO would buy the medcines and contraceptives, and hire the doctors (volunteers would also be welcome), and take them into the countries itself, bypassing the corrupt dictatorships and taking the aid straight to the people who need it. Corruption and waste would be vastly reduced. Another advantage is that a gesture of goodwill like this would reduce the massive resentment of the West that is found in many poor countries and is one of the main causes of terrorism.

Actually most of hte humanitarian "aid" that goes to developing nations ends up in Switzerland.

About 3 millioon kids die from diarreha every year. Each case of diarreha can be cured iwth 8 cents worth of sugar-water. So $240,000 is all that's needed to save 3 million kids from dying. Yet the deaths still happen.

Public aid goes almost exclsuively to dictators who use it to buy weapons.

The only solution is to cut foreign aid. Use free trade only. The dictators will have nothing to offer, they will be overthrown nonviolently, then we can concentrate on curing disease in thirdworld countries.

That is inevitable if you give the money to the governments of the poor dictatorships. But under this programme, the WHO would buy the medcines and contraceptives, and hire the doctors (volunteers would also be welcome), and take them into the countries itself, bypassing the corrupt dictatorships and taking the aid straight to the people who need it. Corruption and waste would be vastly reduced. Another advantage is that a gesture of goodwill like this would reduce the massive resentment of the West that is found in many poor countries and is one of the main causes of terrorism.

Until they shoot down your planes of course.

But under this programme, the WHO would buy the medcines and contraceptives, and hire the doctors (volunteers would also be welcome), and take them into the countries itself, bypassing the corrupt dictatorships and taking the aid straight to the people who need it. Corruption and waste would be vastly reduced. Another advantage is that a gesture of goodwill like this would reduce the massive resentment of the West that is found in many poor countries and is one of the main causes of terrorism.

This proposal is both ethically imperative and organizationally practical. Moreover, it is unquestionably within the UN's jurisdiction. Diseases do not recognize national borders; therefore charity is, in this instance, intelligent self-interest. The fool who ignores his neighbor's burning house may find his own catches as also. This is a widely abused proverb but urgently germane here.

The Commonwealth of CoOpera supports this resolution.

Benjamin Paine
Diplomat, CoOpera

I don't want to annoy delegates by spamming their telegram inboxes.

I won't mind as long as it is pro environment, pro democracy, or pro civil rights, and not like the "Abort Abortion" proposal which somebody put as pro civil rights.( :roll: )

Anyways I endorsed it.

It's evil.

There is no valid reason to rob Peter to pay Paul, ever.

Stopping people from dying is clearly a good thing but I must object to the description of this as "Human Rights". Rights are about what people can do and what others can't stop them from doing. The citizens of poor countries would benefit from this proposal not by having more rights but by having better health. Indead, this proposal doesn't bestow rights, it bestows obligations - on rich countries to provide for the health of poor ones.

Perhaps the category should be "health" or "welfare"

Children are diseases?

No of course not - STD stands for Sexually Transmitted Disease, e.g. AIDS. Use of condoms is the most effective feasible way to stop these spreading (you are never going to stop people having sex, which would be the only other way since we have no cure for AIDS - limiting sex like this would be a serious breach of human rights anyway). And actually, a reduction in the birth rates of many of these countries would be a great help.

I think children are spread through sex... You can limit sex... Castration is one alternative... It's literally like, "You!, out of the gene pool"

Until they shoot down your planes of course.

1 - just because a few die-hards want to attack the West does not mean we should make the entire populations of their nations suffer.
2 - one of the points I was trying to make was that the resentment of the West breeds anti-West terrorism, so gestures of goodwill to these people will help stop them becoming potential terrorists.


Indead, this proposal doesn't bestow rights.....

Perhaps the category should be "health" or "welfare"

It is true that the categories on offer are not perfectly suited to all the resolutions we see, and I for one would like to see a greater range of categories (e.g. health/welfare as you suggest, international aid, scientific endeavours). However, in the sense that this programme would grant people in poor countries the right to live relatively free of easily preventable diseases, it can be seen as a human rights proposal, in the same way the the IRCO resolution passed recently was human rights. The UN in the game is not really equipped for making changes which affect different countries in different. On the other hand, it is not that important - if this passes, you have the international aid principle, plus your country's human rights are improved, and I think that the majority of those who agree with the principle will also approve of human rights improvements.


There is no valid reason to rob Peter to pay Paul, ever.

A - if we all vote for it, it's not theft but charity, and I have to wonder what those who dislike the principle of co-operation and help throughout the international community are doing in the UN.

B - Even if this were forced, you have to take into account these facts:

- Peter is swimming in money which, for the most part, he has earned simply by being born into the right place (geographically and socially).

- Paul is an innocent child dying of a disease simply because of where he was born, and in fact the poverty he lives in is partially due to the policies of Peter's country.

- It would take such a small amount of Peter's money to cure this that Peter would hardly notice.

Until they shoot down your planes of course.

1 - just because a few die-hards want to attack the West does not mean we should make the entire populations of their nations suffer.
2 - one of the points I was trying to make was that the resentment of the West breeds anti-West terrorism, so gestures of goodwill to these people will help stop them becoming potential terrorists.

It's not all bad. Shooting down a plane gives us a reason to send in UN forces and kick evil dictator ass. Then the problem solves itself. We set up a puppet government AND we send in all the charity we want and help the people. We win no matter what happens!


There is no valid reason to rob Peter to pay Paul, ever.

A - if we all vote for it, it's not theft but charity, and I have to wonder what those who dislike the principle of co-operation and help throughout the international community are doing in the UN.

B - Even if this were forced, you have to take into account these facts:

- Peter is swimming in money which, for the most part, he has earned simply by being born into the right place (geographically and socially).

- Paul is an innocent child dying of a disease simply because of where he was born, and in fact the poverty he lives in is partially due to the policies of Peter's country.

- It would take such a small amount of Peter's money to cure this that Peter would hardly notice.

I agree. To cure diarreha when it strikes, we'd only need 1 cent from each American citizen. I don't think that counts as 'Robbing Peter'. You can probably find enough money to cure them by having an annual 'Look under your car seats for dropped change and give it to charity' day. Besides, it's not stealing if it's a tax deduction, is it?

What about ass cancer?

Hahahahaha

Thanks to everybody who has supported the approval on both attempts, but it expires today without nearly enough support. As I said, I will continue to submit it. I think next time the text will read:

Disease in developing nations
Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong

This Resolution would set up a World Health Organisation Programme which would give health aid to developing nations in need of it. Currently, easily preventable diseases are killing millions of children and indeed adults, and HIV/AIDS has become endemic to many nations, especially in Africa. These problems could be remedied by a simple commitment from all UN nations to contribute to this programme. It would send doctors - both volunteers and paid workers - into developing nations chosen by the WHO as being in need of this aid. The doctors would set up free clinics and also travel around to administer free medicines, vaccinations and treatments. The programme would also distribute free contraceptions to combat STDs (and, as a bonus, out-of-control birth rates) and set up clean water supplies and hygiene and safe-sex education programmes. The prevention and curing of disease would alleviate many of the other problems plaguing the developing world (for instance, many people in developing countries are currently forced to have many children to support them since so many die), and would be a noble cause of which we could all be proud. If the burden was spread fairly, it should not even cost too much (think of the amounts governments spend on their military forces!). The WHO would decide a reasonable amount to take from each member nation's government - more would be taken from countries with higher GNP - but these amounts would only be minimums, and charities could contribute too. Poor countries who are being given the aid would be exempt from the tax, as long as they put a reasonable amount of money into a National Health Service.

Any suggestions before I submit it? Please endorse it again, and spread the word!

There is no valid reason to rob Peter to pay Paul, ever.

A - if we all vote for it, it's not theft but charity,
What about those of us who vote against it (since we are moral and know right from wrong)? And for those who vote for it, why don't they just go ahead and DO IT instead of making a law requiring them to do it.
and I have to wonder what those who dislike the principle of co-operation and help
Our objection is not to cooperation and help, it is to slavery.

B - Even if this were forced, you have to take into account these facts:

- Peter is swimming in money which, for the most part, he has earned simply by being born into the right place (geographically and socially).

- Paul is an innocent child dying of a disease simply because of where he was born, and in fact the poverty he lives in is partially due to the policies of Peter's country.

- It would take such a small amount of Peter's money to cure this that Peter would hardly notice.

That doesn't matter. It's his. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand?

A - if we all vote for it, it's not theft but charity, and I have to wonder what those who dislike the principle of co-operation and help throughout the international community are doing in the UN.

It's only charity if it's voluntary. If a single individual objects and you force him to use his money then it becomes not theft, but robbery. Since theft implies the use of stealth, whereas robbery implies the use of force. Governments are more well-known for using the latter.

B - Even if this were forced, you have to take into account these facts:

- Peter is swimming in money which, for the most part, he has earned simply by being born into the right place (geographically and socially).

- Paul is an innocent child dying of a disease simply because of where he was born, and in fact the poverty he lives in is partially due to the policies of Peter's country.

- It would take such a small amount of Peter's money to cure this that Peter would hardly notice.

It's still Peter's money.

It's still Peter's money.
And where did Peter get "his" money?

*hint* *hint* *hint*

*cough* *cought*

It's still Peter's money.
And where did Peter get "his" money?

*hint* *hint* *hint*

*cough* *cought*

By working, trading, ettc.

It's still Peter's money.
And where did Peter get "his" money?

*hint* *hint* *hint*

*cough* *cought*

By working, trading, ettc.
(Oh sorry that was me.

I logged on as Taab to make a joke on the "How to Become Regional Delegate" thread that could only be done with a puppet, then decided that it might count as spam.)

You mean by inheritance, lying, backstabbing, monopolistic practices, and gross exploitation of third world nations, and by exporting jobs to destroy unions.

*hint=World%20Bank*
*hint=NAFTA*
*hint=IMF*

*cough=WTO*
*cough=FTAA*

You mean by inheritance,

Not a single American billionaire inherited his fortune.

lying, backstabbing,

Everbody does this, not just the rich.

monopolistic practices,

Such as making a better product at a lower price?

and gross exploitation of third world nations,

Like how Vietnam and China which have the most sweatshops also have the highest economic growth?

and by exporting jobs to destroy unions.

Wait... I thought you said you cared about third-world nations.

You mean by inheritance,

Not a single American billionaire inherited his fortune.

lying, backstabbing,

Everbody does this, not just the rich.

monopolistic practices,

Such as making a better product at a lower price?

and gross exploitation of third world nations,

Like how Vietnam and China which have the most sweatshops also have the highest economic growth?

and by exporting jobs to destroy unions.

Wait... I thought you said you cared about third-world nations.
1. Donald Trump? And what about all of the millionaires.

2. Not everybody. Most "radicals" such as myself would sooner comit suicide than lie or backstab.

3. You seem to misunderstand "monopoly" it means that corparations get to exploit their workers on one end, and scalp their customers on the other end. Case in point Nike, Reebok, Ralph Lauren. As for better quality. . . :roll:

4. Yeah, but the common people don't benifit from it. It is the national oligarchs and corparate multinationals who benifit.

5. Yes, I do. Globaliztion benifits nobady except large shaeholders opf multinationals and the elite capitalist oligarchs who pretend to be socialist while in fact selling their people out.

You mean by inheritance,

Not a single American billionaire inherited his fortune.

lying, backstabbing,

Everbody does this, not just the rich.

monopolistic practices,

Such as making a better product at a lower price?

and gross exploitation of third world nations,

Like how Vietnam and China which have the most sweatshops also have the highest economic growth?

and by exporting jobs to destroy unions.

Wait... I thought you said you cared about third-world nations.
1. Donald Trump? And what about all of the millionaires.

2. Not everybody. Most "radicals" such as myself would sooner comit suicide than lie or backstab.

3. You seem to misunderstand "monopoly" it means that corparations get to exploit their workers on one end, and scalp their customers on the other end. Case in point Nike, Reebok, Ralph Lauren. As for better quality. . . :roll:

4. Yeah, but the common people don't benifit from it. It is the national oligarchs and corparate multinationals who benifit.

5. Yes, I do. Globaliztion benifits nobady except large shaeholders opf multinationals and the elite capitalist oligarchs who pretend to be socialist while in fact selling their people out.

You mean by inheritance, lying, backstabbing, monopolistic practices, and gross exploitation of third world nations, and by exporting jobs to destroy unions.

*hint=World%20Bank*
*hint=NAFTA*
*hint=IMF*

*cough=WTO*
*cough=FTAA*

Thank you!!! Exactly.

Vast numbers of people in third world nations work far harder than we do, and yet have so much less - capitalism is often portrayed as a race where everyone starts in the same place, and then runs as far as they are capable of, but we have completely failed to align the start positions. And actually we are not paying paul with the money we "steal" from peter - we are using it to buy medcines and equipment, and employ doctors, so the economies of our nations will still benefit somewhat (if that is really so important to some people).


for those who vote for it, why don't they just go ahead and DO IT instead of making a law requiring them to do it.

We can't. Nationstates does not have a facility for this kind of action except through UN resolutions. And anyway, this kind of thing is something humanity as a whole has a duty to deal with.

And actually WE wouldn't even be robbing Peter at all! The member governments have already taken the money in taxes - we're just taking some of the taxes.

Perhaps we could insist that the money was taken from funds that would otherwise have been spent subsidising 1st world farmers - as it is, these farmers are able to dump their massive surpluses on third world markets at less-than-production-cost prices, thus putting local farmers out of business.


Not a single American billionaire inherited his fortune.

In comparison to most people in third world countries, almost everybody in America and Europe (including those who are unemployed and living off benefits) have a fortune. And even if they didn't inherit that fortune, they inherited the OPPORTUNITY to make that fortune, by being born in countries with good education systems to give them skills, good healthcare to keep them alive to the point where they can make and enjoy that fortune, and a welfare state (of greater or lesser effectiveness) to support them if something goes wrong.

I have submitted the proposal again with some changes, and ask that you please endorse it. Here it is:

Diseases in developing nations
Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong

This Resolution would set up a World Health Organisation Programme which would give health aid to developing nations in need of it. Currently, easily preventable diseases are killing millions of children and indeed adults, and HIV/AIDS has become endemic to many nations, especially in Africa. These problems could be remedied by a simple commitment from all UN nations to contribute to this programme. It would send doctors - both volunteers and paid workers - into developing nations chosen by the WHO as being in need of this aid. The doctors would set up free clinics and also travel around to administer free medicines, vaccinations and treatments. The programme would also distribute free contraceptions to combat STDs (and, as a bonus, out-of-control birth rates) and set up clean water supplies and hygiene and safe-sex education programmes. The prevention and curing of disease would alleviate many of the other problems plaguing the developing world (for instance, many people in developing countries are currently forced to have many children to support them since so many die), and would be a noble cause of which we could all be proud. If the burden was spread fairly, it should not even cost too much (think of the amounts governments spend on their military forces!). The WHO would decide a reasonable amount to take from each member nation's government - more would be taken from countries with higher GNP - but these amounts would only be minimums, and charities could contribute too. Poor countries who are being given the aid would be exempt from the tax, as long as they put a reasonable amount of money into a National Health Service.

3. You seem to misunderstand "monopoly" it means that corparations get to exploit their workers on one end, and scalp their customers on the other end. Case in point Nike, Reebok, Ralph Lauren. As for better quality. . . :roll: quote]

Work conditions have improved and wages have gone up in those sweatshops, too, since they were started. I predict that that trend will continue. And no, not only the government and corporate officials are benefiting on the economic growth in those countries. You should check those facts before you get so emotional about them.

These countries are developing just as all other nations did during their industrial revolutions. Let's use the United States for an example. It was more or less the same way here (except the businesses were almost strictly nationally based, but we're talking about economic growth and human health here) as it is in China and Vietnam, except we didn't have anything better to compaire it to back then. If you ask anyone on the streets of China or Vietnam if they like the jobs there, they'll probably say yes. Maybe not all of them mean it, but a lot do. Why? Because things are BETTER over there then they were before. It's only going to get even better. It's impossible for it not to.

[quote]Vast numbers of people in third world nations work far harder than we do, and yet have so much less

Well, yes, because their economies are still growing. Give it time. No pain, no gain. That's how the world works I'm sorry to say.



Lastly, it's only robbery if the majority doesn't approve of this resolution. Otherwise it is law and you must obey it or leave the UN.

Lastly, it's only robbery if the majority doesn't approve of this resolution. Otherwise it is law and you must obey it or leave the UN.

So...it's okay to rob a minority. Gotcha.

You mean by inheritance,

Not a single American billionaire inherited his fortune.

lying, backstabbing,

Everbody does this, not just the rich.

monopolistic practices,

Such as making a better product at a lower price?

and gross exploitation of third world nations,

Like how Vietnam and China which have the most sweatshops also have the highest economic growth?

and by exporting jobs to destroy unions.

Wait... I thought you said you cared about third-world nations.

1. source?
2. so just because everyone does it, it's okay?
4. and economic growth is the benchmark by which all other standards, including human rights, are measured?
5. exporting jobs to third world nations don't necessarily benefit the people of those nations.

1. source?

US News and World Report, same statistic in people magazine: The largest inheritance in the United States was to the Hilton twins for $400 million. This is far shy of $1 billion.

2. so just because everyone does it, it's okay?

No but then blame the poor and the rich, not just hte rich.

4. and economic growth is the benchmark by which all other standards, including human rights, are measured?

Well, when you consider that hte countries with the best economies also tend to have the best human rights...

5. exporting jobs to third world nations don't necessarily benefit the people of those nations.

Tell that to the starving child in Burundi who would gladly have a Vietnamese sweatshop job that he can live much better on.

Work conditions have improved and wages have gone up in those sweatshops, too, since they were started. I predict that that trend will continue. And no, not only the government and corporate officials are benefiting on the economic growth in those countries. You should check those facts before you get so emotional about them.

These countries are developing just as all other nations did during their industrial revolutions. Let's use the United States for an example. It was more or less the same way here (except the businesses were almost strictly nationally based, but we're talking about economic growth and human health here) as it is in China and Vietnam, except we didn't have anything better to compaire it to back then. If you ask anyone on the streets of China or Vietnam if they like the jobs there, they'll probably say yes. Maybe not all of them mean it, but a lot do. Why? Because things are BETTER over there then they were before. It's only going to get even better. It's impossible for it not to.


Um... not really. Sweatshop jobs have migrated since their inception. From the UK, Canada, Europe, and the US... to Taiwan and South Korea... to the Philippines, Central America, and Indonesia... to Viet Nam and China... to Sri Lanka and Africa. Companies are always in search of the way to make their products the cheapest. Sweatshop conditions haven't really "improved", merely relocated or glazed over with shining coating. If you ask anyone on the streets of China or Viet Nam if they like the jobs there, perhaps they will say yes. Depends on who is allowed to roam the streets. A LOT of the workers in sweatshops won't be wandering the streets because they have no time between the long work shifts (10-14 hours) and sleeping. And if they all liked their jobs so much, then why would they be contacting NGOs telling them of the atrocious conditions in which they work, at the risk of losing their job. I don't know how things are better in Southeast Asia and other third world nations. And things can get worse. Nothing is impossible.

Actually there are very few sweatshops in Africa because of the lack of free trade and political stability. Consequently, Africa is in much worse shape than Vietnam, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc, which have sweatshops and corporate investment.

Actually there are very few sweatshops in Africa because of the lack of free trade and political stability. Consequently, Africa is in much worse shape than Vietnam, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc, which have sweatshops and corporate investment.

Agreed, but they are growing in number in Africa.

Actually there are very few sweatshops in Africa because of the lack of free trade and political stability. Consequently, Africa is in much worse shape than Vietnam, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc, which have sweatshops and corporate investment.

Agreed, but they are growing in number in Africa.

And the countries where they are growing fastest in number... Zimbawbwe, South Africa, etc., are also improving their economies and human rights fastest...

Actually there are very few sweatshops in Africa because of the lack of free trade and political stability. Consequently, Africa is in much worse shape than Vietnam, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc, which have sweatshops and corporate investment.

Agreed, but they are growing in number in Africa.

And the countries where they are growing fastest in number... Zimbawbwe, South Africa, etc., are also improving their economies and human rights fastest...

Zimbabwe? As in.... Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe? (Do I have the right country? Or is that Zambia?)

Zimbabwe? As in.... Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe? (Do I have the right country? Or is that Zambia?)

I'm pretty sure Mugabe is out of office.

Africa isn't my area of specialization. But I will say this, in East Asia, sweatshops have made the quality of life go up tremendously.

Zimbabwe? As in.... Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe? (Do I have the right country? Or is that Zambia?)

I'm pretty sure Mugabe is out of office.

Africa isn't my area of specialization. But I will say this, in East Asia, sweatshops have made the quality of life go up tremendously.

He got booted? Ah, I was not aware.

I will disagree with you on the quality of life issue. My only real source is No Logo, by Naomi Klein, which some people discredit, but I accept. I can get some quotes for you, but I'd have to find the book (I just moved).

Other information, not to give more weight to either argument:

http://www.xist.org/global/linkg.php?xml=hdi2000&xsl=hdi2000

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/10/04/world.cities/

Zimbabwe? As in.... Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe? (Do I have the right country? Or is that Zambia?)

I'm pretty sure Mugabe is out of office.

Africa isn't my area of specialization. But I will say this, in East Asia, sweatshops have made the quality of life go up tremendously.

He got booted? Ah, I was not aware.

I will disagree with you on the quality of life issue. My only real source is No Logo, by Naomi Klein, which some people discredit, but I accept. I can get some quotes for you, but I'd have to find the book (I just moved).

Other information, not to give more weight to either argument:

http://www.xist.org/global/linkg.php?xml=hdi2000&xsl=hdi2000

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/10/04/world.cities/

Pretty much all sane people would rather be in Vietnam, where they have sweatshops, than Burundi, which had a comparable per capita economy to Vietnam in the mid-late 80s, but because they did not welcome investment and sweatshops (Pierre Buyoya ruled the country dictatorially), their per capita income now is less than half of Vietnam's, life expectancy is a good ten years lower (not counting the occasional ethnic cleansing), etc. Vietnam isn't miserable. Burundi is.

Well, when you consider that hte countries with the best economies also tend to have the best human rights...

Er...haven't the Chinese - the largest economy in the developing world been attacked repeatedly by Amnesty International for their gross human violations? I do know that in a recent report, they had by far the highest number of state-sanctioned murders (capital punishment if anyone prefers the euphemism) in the world - over 1000 in a year, well ahead of the second and third places - Saudi Arabia and the US respectively.


I'm pretty sure Mugabe is out of office.

Nope. Still there after another rigged election. Perhaps you're thinking of charles taylor, who stepped down as liberia's leader.


These countries are developing just as all other nations did during their industrial revolutions.....
Well, yes, because their economies are still growing. Give it time. No pain, no gain.

These nations don't have to go through the same processes of development that ours did. In fact if we keep going as we are, the majority of these nations will never catch up, because the system we are operating under is so grossly unjust. If we do things right, we can help those countries through development faster and less painfully than our countries managed. And we can't really claim that it wouldn't be fair because we as nations had to do it, since we as people never saw the industrial revolution or had to live through it.

Well, when you consider that hte countries with the best economies also tend to have the best human rights...

Er...haven't the Chinese - the largest economy in the developing world been attacked repeatedly by Amnesty International for their gross human violations? I do know that in a recent report, they had by far the highest number of state-sanctioned murders (capital punishment if anyone prefers the euphemism) in the world - over 1000 in a year, well ahead of the second and third places - Saudi Arabia and the US respectively.


I'm pretty sure Mugabe is out of office.

Nope. Still there after another rigged election. Perhaps you're thinking of charles taylor, who stepped down as liberia's leader.


These countries are developing just as all other nations did during their industrial revolutions.....
Well, yes, because their economies are still growing. Give it time. No pain, no gain.

These nations don't have to go through the same processes of development that ours did. In fact if we keep going as we are, the majority of these nations will never catch up, because the system we are operating under is so grossly unjust. If we do things right, we can help those countries through development faster and less painfully than our countries managed. And we can't really claim that it wouldn't be fair because we as nations had to do it, since we as people never saw the industrial revolution or had to live through it.

Well, when you consider that hte countries with the best economies also tend to have the best human rights...

Er...haven't the Chinese - the largest economy in the developing world been attacked repeatedly by Amnesty International for their gross human violations? I do know that in a recent report, they had by far the highest number of state-sanctioned murders (capital punishment if anyone prefers the euphemism) in the world - over 1000 in a year, well ahead of the second and third places - Saudi Arabia and the US respectively.

Actually the second for capital punishment is Iran, not Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is 5th. It's China, Iran, USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia.

I know China has a lot of human rights violations... but it doesn't even compare to ethnic cleansing in Burundi or Rwanda... and China is making steps towards democracy... baby steps, but steps nonetheless.

Ok the Chinese aren't doing ethnic cleansing but haven't they annexed and are now suppressing an entire nation (Tibet)? (sorry if that's wrong my knowledge there is a little shaky).

Oh and sorry to saudi arabia but the main point holds.

Ok the Chinese aren't doing ethnic cleansing but haven't they annexed and are now suppressing an entire nation (Tibet)? (sorry if that's wrong my knowledge there is a little shaky).

Oh and sorry to saudi arabia but the main point holds.

China never "annexed" Tibet. Tibet asked China for military protection against the Mughals and Indians back in the 1700s. Eventually a revolution broke out in Tibet, and at the request of the Tibetian government, the Chinese established permanent military bases in Tibet. They asked for it. Plus, Tibet actually helped Mao's Reds during the Civil War by giving them a refuge (nationalist military presence was virtually nonexistent in that area). Now China of course is very oppressive in Tibet, but Tibet has been a legitimate part of China for 250 years, and very few people that are actually in Tibet complain. This may be because all the anti-Chiense people left for India already. But I've been to Lhasa, it isn't exactly anti-China. China's lack of religious freedom will be gone once more free trade brings more Westerners and ideas to the country.

Ok I was wrong about the annexing - but the oppression is real, and the West is not willing to put pressure on the Chinese to stop. And of course people don't complain much - they're too scared

Ok I was wrong about the annexing - but the oppression is real, and the West is not willing to put pressure on the Chinese to stop. And of course people don't complain much - they're too scared

The West IS putting pressure on China to stop... through Free Trade... Countries that have bene exposed to true free trade for two or three decades are almost exclusively republican governments.

And as I said, China is making steps towards democracy. Baby steps, but steps nonetheless. Just a few weeks ago they lifted several speech regulations and allowed academics much more leeway in criticizing the government. It's only a matter of time now, with the Internet and all.

The West IS putting pressure on China to stop... through Free Trade...

That's not active pressure - it's just sitting and waiting, hoping that our ideals will gradually seep through to them.

And we don't even have true free trade - economics etc. in developed nations restrict development in poor countries in several ways:

1 - some producers poor countries simply can't afford to export to rich countries because of tariffs

2 - tarriffs are higher on processed products, so if an African company makes iron, it pays less to export it than if they set up industry and made a car.

3 - agricultural subsidies in the West allow farmers to produce huge surpluses, which they dump on developing markets at prices lower than actual production costs, thus putting producers in those countries out of business

4 - we often insist that poor nations pay us back our aid WITH INTEREST - this is money that we could perfectly well do without, but that they cannot afford to give to us.

5 - although intellectual property laws have been loosened slightly recently to allow poor countries to produce generic copies of patented medcines, the changes have not been drastic enough - they will only really benefit those developing nations rich enough to have their own pharmaceutical industries, and these are few and far between. People claim that such a loss of profit would take away the incentive to develop new medcines, but the pharmaceutical industry has all the incentive it needs in developed markets.

The system of international trade etc. is firmly biased towards developed nations. What we need is not merely to balance it, but to tip the scales IN FAVOUR of less developed nations.

1 - some producers poor countries simply can't afford to export to rich countries because of tariffs

Then rich countries shoudl slash tariffs. The WTO has been trying to pressure them to do so.

2 - tarriffs are higher on processed products, so if an African company makes iron, it pays less to export it than if they set up industry and made a car.

We should abolish all tariffs.

3 - agricultural subsidies in the West allow farmers to produce huge surpluses, which they dump on developing markets at prices lower than actual production costs, thus putting producers in those countries out of business

You obviously don't know anything about US farm subsidies. They're stupid. We basically pay farmers not to farm but destroy land by proving they would have farmed it anyways. Either way, subsidies should be abolished too.

4 - we often insist that poor nations pay us back our aid WITH INTEREST - this is money that we could perfectly well do without, but that they cannot afford to give to us.

Next time you borrow money from a bank tell them "I'm poorer than you so I shouldn't have to pay interest"

5 - although intellectual property laws have been loosened slightly recently to allow poor countries to produce generic copies of patented medcines, the changes have not been drastic enough - they will only really benefit those developing nations rich enough to have their own pharmaceutical industries, and these are few and far between. People claim that such a loss of profit would take away the incentive to develop new medcines, but the pharmaceutical industry has all the incentive it needs in developed markets.

Without those intellectual property laws, those drugs that the third world needs wouldn't exist in the first place. Patents help innovation by protecting the inventors.

The system of international trade etc. is firmly biased towards developed nations. What we need is not merely to balance it, but to tip the scales IN FAVOUR of less developed nations.

Hmm... China has triple the percentage GDP growth of the US. Even Vietnam is substantially outperforming the US in GDP growth.

And even if you were right... how do you plan to do this?

Ok I was wrong about the annexing - but the oppression is real, and the West is not willing to put pressure on the Chinese to stop. And of course people don't complain much - they're too scared

The West IS putting pressure on China to stop... through Free Trade... Countries that have bene exposed to true free trade for two or three decades are almost exclusively republican governments.

And as I said, China is making steps towards democracy. Baby steps, but steps nonetheless. Just a few weeks ago they lifted several speech regulations and allowed academics much more leeway in criticizing the government. It's only a matter of time now, with the Internet and all.

But didn't China just have another round of crackdowns on the Falun Gong?

And if Tibet has been a part of China for 250 years, why did the Dalai Lama and a lot of his followers leave only 50 years ago?

And if Tibet has been a part of China for 250 years, why did the Dalai Lama and a lot of his followers leave only 50 years ago?

Becuase the communists were the first group to persecute buddhists.

The Dalai Lama doesn't represent most of Tibet... in fact most Tibetians sided with Mao's avowedly anti-buddhist forces.

And as far as I know China's last crackdown on the Falun Gong was completely unjustified, though not as bad as previous ones, I'm not trying to defend it... but China IS becoming slowly more tolerant...

You are certainly very knowledgable, TGM :)

I know very little about economics, I confess. I just don't like how "the economy" is used to defend certain policies, etc., when to me it is such an abstract thing. I don't plain on remaining permanently ill-educated on the matter, though.

However, I think I shall continue to disagree with you, despite my respect for you :)

You are certainly very knowledgable, TGM :)

I know very little about economics, I confess. I just don't like how "the economy" is used to defend certain policies, etc., when to me it is such an abstract thing. I don't plain on remaining permanently ill-educated on the matter, though.

However, I think I shall continue to disagree with you, despite my respect for you :)

As a Chinese person who spends on average six weeks to two months in China (Shanghai and other places) every two or three years, I can safely say that most people are too apathetic to care about politics. Nikes and MTV are more popular. But this is the first step to freedom.

The Chinese government passed a decree in 1999 making it legal for non-communist-party members to become mayors and everything up to lieutenant governor. Ever since the 2001 APEC meeting, more regulations are being lifted on government control of the media.

Ok the Chinese aren't doing ethnic cleansing but haven't they annexed and are now suppressing an entire nation (Tibet)? (sorry if that's wrong my knowledge there is a little shaky).

Oh and sorry to saudi arabia but the main point holds.

China never "annexed" Tibet. Tibet asked China for military protection against the Mughals and Indians back in the 1700s. Eventually a revolution broke out in Tibet, and at the request of the Tibetian government, the Chinese established permanent military bases in Tibet. They asked for it. Plus, Tibet actually helped Mao's Reds during the Civil War by giving them a refuge (nationalist military presence was virtually nonexistent in that area). Now China of course is very oppressive in Tibet, but Tibet has been a legitimate part of China for 250 years, and very few people that are actually in Tibet complain. This may be because all the anti-Chiense people left for India already. But I've been to Lhasa, it isn't exactly anti-China. China's lack of religious freedom will be gone once more free trade brings more Westerners and ideas to the country.
Did Mao ever call for a vote by the Tibeteans? I don't recall hearing about it, but I could be wrong.

As for Tibet and China, Tibet was independent from the fall of the Qing until Mao reconquered it.

Hence no legally there should have been no nationalist presence.

Of course it makes sense that the Tibeteans aided the reds. Tibet was a tiny country (about half of the size of the modern autonomous region, not ton mention Tibeteans in Western Yunnan and some other provinces) and China although at war with Japan, would likely if they could expel the Japeanese and take Manchuria, then It would stand to reason that Tibet and Mongolia, with the majority of both ethnicities still in China would be next. So it is logical to keep your powerful enemy in tormoil for as long as possible.

And as for what you were saying about the ancient history, lets see if I get this right:

1. China never annexed Tibet? So Tibet is not officiallly part of China right? So why is it classified as an "autonomous region" in all of my atlases?

2. The Mughals weren't Indian? Oh well really irrelevant, back onto topic, so the people of Tibet decided that they didn't want to be a Chinese puppet, and the chineses puppet government called in China to help keep it that way, and that counts as calling in help?
And what about the Uighurs, the Inner Mongolians, the Hui, all of those little ethnic groups in Guandong and eastern Yunnan, the Mio-Ya and Manchus (who due to Han colonixation are now minorities in their own homelands)?

Funny how somebody who claims to be against nationalism has the Russian "elder brother" attitude of the USSR, only Han, instead of Russian.

Tibet is self-governing, that's why its an autonomous province.

And Tibet was never a Chinese puppet state... it called for help from the Qing Dynasty. The same way Judea asked for military help from Rome so Rome occupied the entire country.

This has nothing to do with nationalism at all... The independeant Tibet government asked for military assisstance from China becuase of the threat of Mughal invasion (recall that the Mughals are Islamic, and rather intolerant of the Buddhists). China didn't annex it.

Inner Mongolia was given to China by a Russian treaty.

The Miao-Yiao have occupy much of Eastern China and have been ethnically living together with the Han for millenia.

The reason China suffers from very little racism and ethnic strife is because the Han were so successful at merging with other Chinese ethnic groups, so even though the Han are 85% of China, there is very little ethnic strife, unlike in the early US.

The Han didn't colonize anybody... not nearly in the sense that Israel colonized Palestine... if the Han did, then how come none of these "colonized peoples" are revolting or anything like that? The Han have been remarkably tolerant of other cultures, which explains why there are so many different dialects of Chinese, etc.

If anything, you're the one advocating nationalism... splitting up a country into smaller groups based on ethnicity... if we applied this logic to the US, the Confederacy would have been justified in secceding from teh Union.

Tibet is self-governing, that's why its an autonomous province.
No, it is an "autonomous" province like inner Mongolia, Uighurstan, Nixia(sp?), and that one near Guandong(or is it Guandong).

And Tibet was never a Chinese puppet state... it called for help from the Qing Dynasty. The same way Judea asked for military help from Rome so Rome occupied the entire country.
Or rather its leaders did.

This has nothing to do with nationalism at all... The independeant Tibet government asked for military assisstance from China becuase of the threat of Mughal invasion (recall that the Mughals are Islamic, and rather intolerant of the Buddhists). China didn't annex it.Then how did it become an integral part if China?

Inner Mongolia was given to China by a Russian treaty.
And the British ceded Eastern North America to the "United States"
and France sold Lousiana to us.

Not were rightfully the conceder's to begin with.

The Miao-Yiao have occupy much of Eastern China and have been ethnically living together with the Han for millenia.
Yes, but originally that whole area was Miao-Yiao, Viet, Thai, etc.

And you still didn't answer about Manchuria.

The reason China suffers from very little racism and ethnic strife is because the Han were so successful at merging with other Chinese ethnic groups, so even though the Han are 85% of China, there is very little ethnic strife, unlike in the early US.
Recall that the Soviet Union had very little in the way of violent, organised revolt (except in the Ukraine) until its collapse when The Armenians tore ot Azerbaijan's throat over Nagorno Karabakh(sp?) , the Chechens demended that thr Russians withdraw after centuries of oppresion, the Abkhaz and Ossetians told the Georgians to go pound sand (the Abkhaz were ironically more successful despite being a minority in theirown nation), and the Tatars attempted to secede.

The Han didn't colonize anybody... not nearly in the sense that Israel colonized Palestine... if the Han did, then how come none of these "colonized peoples" are revolting or anything like that? The Han have been remarkably tolerant of other cultures, which explains why there are so many different dialects of Chinese, etc.

Right Like the russians didn't colonize Central Asia, Siberia, and the Caucasus, like my anscestors didn't colonize North America.

If anything, you're the one advocating nationalism... splitting up a country into smaller groups based on ethnicity... if we applied this logic to the US, the Confederacy would have been justified in secceding from teh Union.
There are two types are nationalism:
Great Power Imperialism, and belief in the right of all nations to the right of self determiniation and cultural preservation.

You are advocating the former (albeit only for China, and I advocate the latter).

As for the Confederacy, maybe. . .
If it had been the slaves running the government.

3 - agricultural subsidies in the West allow farmers to produce huge surpluses, which they dump on developing markets at prices lower than actual production costs, thus putting producers in those countries out of business

You obviously don't know anything about US farm subsidies. They're stupid. We basically pay farmers not to farm but destroy land by proving they would have farmed it anyways. Either way, subsidies should be abolished too.

I'm not sure you're right about US farm subsidies, but I'll accept your answer here. But I do know that what I said is correct concerning the EU Common Agricultural Policy, which gives the most successful European farmers subsidies, leading to the problem I described.



4 - we often insist that poor nations pay us back our aid WITH INTEREST - this is money that we could perfectly well do without, but that they cannot afford to give to us.

Next time you borrow money from a bank tell them "I'm poorer than you so I shouldn't have to pay interest"

The difference here is that the bank cannot really afford to do this, and even if paying interest would make me bankrupt and I ended up unemployed, it wouldn't actually kill me - here in Europe at least, the welfare state does support the unemployed and those with low incomes. And I could probably find another job and rebuild my life. As shown by several governments' decision to cut third world debt, we don't even need the loan back, let alone interest - for people in the poor countries, however, it is a matter of life and death. What we need is for all developed nations to permanently abolish or at least drastically reduce debts (that is, for nations who aren't spending it all on weapons).



5 - although intellectual property laws have been loosened slightly recently to allow poor countries to produce generic copies of patented medcines, the changes have not been drastic enough - they will only really benefit those developing nations rich enough to have their own pharmaceutical industries, and these are few and far between. People claim that such a loss of profit would take away the incentive to develop new medcines, but the pharmaceutical industry has all the incentive it needs in developed markets.

Without those intellectual property laws, those drugs that the third world needs wouldn't exist in the first place. Patents help innovation by protecting the inventors.

I just explained that all the incentive for innovation can be found in first world markets. By all means maintain those laws as applies to rich countries, just don't kill people over economics.


The system of international trade etc. is firmly biased towards developed nations. What we need is not merely to balance it, but to tip the scales IN FAVOUR of less developed nations.

Hmm... China has triple the percentage GDP growth of the US. Even Vietnam is substantially outperforming the US in GDP growth.

And even if you were right... how do you plan to do this?

The figures you quote are a start, but countries in Africa especially aren't growing like this. And where countries are growing, huge amounts of money ends up in the hands of the TNCs.

I'm no economist. I can't tell you how to do this. But it must be possible if we are willing to sacrifice some of the vast excess we enjoy. What I do know is that we need to change our mind-set. Currently, what we do is say "what's possible?" and make a conservative estimate, then do that. We ought to be saying "what do we BELIEVE we SHOULD do" and then doing our damndest to make it happen. If we put in effort and stop being so apathetic and selfish, it would be amazing what we could achieve in all areas, not just international development.

The way economics works originally came into being as another way to express our competitive instincts in a more modern world. As long as we allow "the economy" and the fiscal interests of the rich (by that I mean all of us in developed nations) to dictate how we do things, and to take precendence over the lives of innocent people, we are simply being slaves to our genes and instincts.

4 - we often insist that poor nations pay us back our aid WITH INTEREST - this is money that we could perfectly well do without, but that they cannot afford to give to us.

Next time you borrow money from a bank tell them "I'm poorer than you so I shouldn't have to pay interest"

The difference here is that the bank cannot really afford to do this, and even if paying interest would make me bankrupt and I ended up unemployed, it wouldn't actually kill me - here in Europe at least, the welfare state does support the unemployed and those with low incomes. And I could probably find another job and rebuild my life. As shown by several governments' decision to cut third world debt, we don't even need the loan back, let alone interest - for people in the poor countries, however, it is a matter of life and death. What we need is for all developed nations to permanently abolish or at least drastically reduce debts (that is, for nations who aren't spending it all on weapons).


Never mind the fact that it is the lender's money. The borrower doesn't have to accept the loan, but if he does he has to accept it on whatever terms the lender dictates--because the lender is always free to refuse the loan otherwise. If the borrower agrees to those terms, he is morally bound to abide by them.

Never mind the fact that it is the lender's money. The borrower doesn't have to accept the loan, but if he does he has to accept it on whatever terms the lender dictates--because the lender is always free to refuse the loan otherwise. If the borrower agrees to those terms, he is morally bound to abide by them.

We, the lenders, don't need the money. The borrowers do, and actually cannot afford to say no to the loans, however appalling the terms we set are. So I want our governments to show some compassion and voluntarily cut these debts, both the ones currently owed and to reduce the amounts we demand back on future loans.

Hmmm ... It seems that the Global Market is posting to the same threads as I am and bringing his pet issue with him. I have already raised a number of arguments against the validity and effectiveness of his "Free Market" faith but I have no desire to rehash or crosspost. Instead, let me say that more critiques can be found on these threads if you wish to investigate them:

“Free Trade”
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1545444&highlight=#1545444

"Beat Commies With Sticks (I've had it!)"
http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1609909&highlight=#1609909

Never mind the fact that it is the lender's money. The borrower doesn't have to accept the loan, but if he does he has to accept it on whatever terms the lender dictates--because the lender is always free to refuse the loan otherwise. If the borrower agrees to those terms, he is morally bound to abide by them.

We, the lenders, don't need the money. The borrowers do, and actually cannot afford to say no to the loans, however appalling the terms we set are. So I want our governments to show some compassion and voluntarily cut these debts, both the ones currently owed and to reduce the amounts we demand back on future loans.

If the lender wants to do it voluntarily, that's perfectly fine. But nonetheless, the borrower is morally obligated to abide by whatever conditions the lender sets for his loan.

You mean by inheritance,

Not a single American billionaire inherited his fortune.


Except Bill Gates, right? Oh you're going to say that his parents only gave him a few hundred million, and he turned it into BILLIONS! Still, not everybody gets a few hundred million and a college education to start off with. Some get born addicted to crack and never really get a chance to show their abilities.

Read this:
http://hometown.aol.com/joncryter/inheritance.html

The world is not as simple as you think it is.

You mean by inheritance,

Not a single American billionaire inherited his fortune.


Except Bill Gates, right? Oh you're going to say that his parents only gave him a few hundred million, and he turned it into BILLIONS! Still, not everybody gets a few hundred million and a college education to start off with. Some get born addicted to crack and never really get a chance to show their abilities.

Read this:
http://hometown.aol.com/joncryter/inheritance.html

The world is not as simple as you think it is.

Bill Gates grew up in a middle-class family not unlike my own. He went to public high school and recieved partial financial aid when attending Harvard.

EVen those at the very bottom of our society can succeed... Andrew Carnegie NEVER went to school, he worked in a sweatshop as a child, and he ended up filthy rich.

You aren't born addicted to crack, you have to actually use it to get addicted.

You mean by inheritance,

Not a single American billionaire inherited his fortune.


Except Bill Gates, right? Oh you're going to say that his parents only gave him a few hundred million, and he turned it into BILLIONS! Still, not everybody gets a few hundred million and a college education to start off with. Some get born addicted to crack and never really get a chance to show their abilities.

Read this:
http://hometown.aol.com/joncryter/inheritance.html

The world is not as simple as you think it is.

Bill Gates grew up in a middle-class family not unlike my own. He went to public high school and recieved partial financial aid when attending Harvard.

EVen those at the very bottom of our society can succeed... Andrew Carnegie NEVER went to school, he worked in a sweatshop as a child, and he ended up filthy rich.

You aren't born addicted to crack, you have to actually use it to get addicted.

Man, what's it like living in a fantasy world?

How to Become As Rich As Bill Gates: http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/

Crack Babies: http://www.focalpress.com/companions/0240804155/crack/crack1.htm

Hey we're getting a bit off-topic here. The idea was my proposal for medical aid to developed nations, remember? I'll be re-submitting that soon, and I'm going to telegram all the delegates who approved it the last coupla times at the same time - so I can't be bothered to submit it now. For another debate on inherited wealth/the fairness of taxation versus pure capitalism, look at:

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=73908