NationStates Jolt Archive

This is an article about the abuse of trade practices on developing nations. Some aspects I believe are true. What do you guys think?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7743C39C-98B6-4049-A721-49D2A6B778B4.htm

Well, this is the way imperialism/colonialism has worked for centuries. It is, sadly, standard practice. Take their resources and then flood their market with your products; it destroys their economy and keeps most of the natives poor and living in poverty, but vastly enriches your nation and/or business.

It's just a new kind of imperialism, Marrakech. Corporate Imperialism, if you will.

This is one of the reasons I dislike Capitalism.

Welcome to the Modern Imperialism, spearheaded by the US. Instead of taking official countrol of a country you simply keep their economy down and make them depending on you. I may sound communist, but capitalism is not friendly.

Of course, this article portrays EU as one. The members of the union differ on international policies. You cannot group them as one. In that case the US would no longer be the richest country in the world.

This is one of the reasons I like capitalism!

On a serious note, they're screwed either way if you ask me. Unless they can create their own free market to sustain themselves or get a working social welfare system (unlikely since 3rd world gov'ts usually end up being bankrupt and corrupt), they're fucked.

Welcome to the Modern Imperialism, spearheaded by the US. Instead of taking official countrol of a country you simply take control of all capital. I may sound communist, but capitalism is not friendly.

Life isn't friendly. Sorry to break it to ya...

Life isn't friendly. Sorry to break it to ya...

I never said it was. The big guy will always screw the little guys.

Life isn't friendly. Sorry to break it to ya...You're right. That's why we have laws - to protect us from one anothoer, to a degree. You know, that way you can't kill me unprovoked without fear of reprisal. Ideally, international law would restrict this kind of economic warfare. But nations with an interest in this kind of profiteering tend to pick and choose the laws they like and the ones they don't. Tough noogies.

I never said it was. The big guy will always screw the little guys.

And the bigger guy screws the big guy... *yawn*

You're right. That's why we have laws - to protect us from one anothoer, to a degree. You know, that way you can't kill me unprovoked without fear of reprisal. Ideally, international law would restrict this kind of economic warfare. But nations with an interest in this kind of profiteering tend to pick and choose the laws they like and the ones they don't. Tough noogies.

Yeah like people are going to follow international law. What are you going to do, try to set up a world police state to enforce it? Only when there's a direct genocidal threat to Western nations will the world give a shit about mass death. It's the simple truth.

And the bigger guy screws the big guy... *yawn*
And the United States screw the bigger guy

And the United States screw the bigger guy

:rolleyes: Yes, I feel myself personally kicking impoverished children in the nuts.

Yeah like people are going to follow international law. What are you going to do, try to set up a world police state to enforce it?Actually, the U.N. exists for this purpose. But guess who dominates the Security Council? Thaaaat's right. Anyway, why can't we expect the American legislature to regulate American businesses? But we already know the answer to that as well. So many questions, so many answers.

Only when there's a direct genocidal threat to Western nations will the world give a shit about mass death. It's the simple truth.I don't deny it.

Yeah like people are going to follow international law. What are you going to do, try to set up a world police state to enforce it? Only when there's a direct genocidal threat to Western nations will the world give a shit about mass death. It's the simple truth.
NG has a point. International law is essentially useless unless the two following conditions are met:
1.) There is sufficient force to to enforce said international law.
2.) Whatever body holds said force demonstrates a willingness to use it.

Only when there's a direct genocidal threat to Western nations will the world give a shit about mass death. Err, the West isn't the world you know.

Err, the West isn't the world you know.Blasphemy!

Well, it's the economic and military center of the world at the moment, though of course, a number of nations are playing catch-up. Nevertheless, since the West is in the best position to prevent genocide, murder, war, famine and disease, it is arguable that it's actions/decisions/policies are more important than, say, Vietnam's.

And I'm sure Al-Jazeera is a completely unbiased source. Yeah.

Two sides of the coin. Just as one side can be claimed to be biased, does not the other side hold the same taint? The best solution? Combine both sources. Whatever survives is usually the truth. Then again, maybe not.

But let's be realistic shall we? People are usually driven by the singular drive of 'me first', in which they strive to increase their quality of life (ergo: money), usually at the expense of others. While this may not be a true statement for everybody, one does not get to the top of the heap by being nice and considerate of others.

It's by being a ruthless person willing to crush the competition in their bid for supremacy.

We saw this happen in it's most primitive form, territorial/resource expansion. A practice that many nations have participated in at one point of time or another.

Now that it's harder to do that on a global scale, we see it happen in another way.

Economic expansion.

As for the comment of setting up a world police state, the only way it could ever function is if you set up a nationless organization with the military/economic capacity to enforce the laws. Laws without enforcement are usually ignored anyway. As for the nationless statement? Only a completely unaffiliated organization would be able to act in a fair and even-handed manner. That automatically throws out major contenders for the role such as the US. Why? Economic/Political self interests would most certainly affect their decisions.

However, a neutral organization simply cannot exist as it requires a constant level of funding to work. And where else would it come from except from other countries? Actually there might be a way if all countries would contribute an equal amount. But the major problem would be persuading the countries to fund such an organization, much less accept it's authority in International Trade matters unless it came under their auspices.

The end result?

Most likely a continuation of the current problems we see in the world.

Unless we have a global economic collapse of course. Then things become a bit sticky.

Hey, don't fret about it. The larger third world countries, which together account for two thirds of the worlds consumers don't actually need the business with the US and the EU as much as the West would like to think. We are quite happy to trade amongst ourselves, build our basic infrastructure, and work out our own rules for this trade. In the meantime the US and the EU can self destruct by setting trade barriers against each other, limiting competition from outside to protect their own vested and expensive interests.

Yes there has been a long period during which the third world was made to feel dependent upon the West, but times are changing. :D