NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Ever hear of Henry Ford? You know, of Ford Motor Company infamy? Same family.


Ford Foundation to Announce Africa Initiative (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/06/world/africa/06africa.html?th&emc=th)


By CELIA W. DUGGER
Published: June 6, 2006
The Ford Foundation will announce today the creation of a new philanthropic venture, led by Africans and based in Dakar, Senegal. The project, Trust Africa, aims to strengthen an expanding network of nonprofit groups across the continent that seek to hold governments accountable, whether elected or dictatorships.

Ford has committed $30 million to this new foundation. Half the money will finance a permanent endowment, and the other half will be used to provide grants to many groups over the next five years.

Trust Africa's executive director, Akwasi Aidoo, a Ghanaian who formerly headed Ford's offices in Senegal and Nigeria, said it would strive to build links among civil society groups that could tackle regional problems of violent conflict, economic development and social justice.

The new foundation will bolster such groups, often vocal critics of those in power, in a period when Africa has been becoming more democratic. At the same time, some elected leaders — Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, for example — have become intolerant of dissent.

"Left to themselves, many of these countries fall back into old habits," Mr. Aidoo said in an interview. He added later, "The best antidote is to amplify the voices of those for peaceful change."

Thomas O. Melia, deputy director of Freedom House, a research group that monitors political liberty, said efforts like those of Trust Africa represent the next frontier in deepening democracy in Africa and elsewhere.

"What has been missing, even in places establishing electoral democracy, is independent voices — think tanks, nongovernmental organizations, university centers — able to monitor government performance," he said. "It is the next step."

Mr. Aidoo said credible local groups capable of attracting international attention are needed to check repression, corruption and other ills.

Groups in one country also should be connected to like-minded outfits in other countries.

If dissenters are intimidated in one place, those in neighboring nations can speak up.

In addition to providing grants, Trust Africa plans to hold a series of workshops in Africa in the coming year to bring together scholars, business people, artists, government officials and rights advocates.

Over the past five years, as this new, Africa-focused foundation was developed, it financed a variety of groups to test its approach. It provided small grants to dozens of groups to strengthen them institutionally. It also gave $200,000 to Urgent Action Fund, Africa, which supported women agitating for peace talks in Liberia, as well as an investigation into accusations that women were being detained at a prison in Cameroon without justification.

Trust Africa hopes to build a base of support that goes well beyond the Ford Foundation. It plans to raise donations from the African diaspora. Millions of African migrants live and work in Europe, the United States and Canada, sending home billions of dollars annually in remittances, Ford says.

The United States has sizable communities of African-born immigrants in New York, Washington, Boston, Houston, Chicago and Los Angeles.

"Typically, they're helping their families and hometowns, but they're interested in what's happening in the rest of the continent," Mr. Aidoo said. "They want an effective vehicle that's African." Asked how the new foundation would avoid being seen as an arm of the Ford Foundation, with its deep American roots, Mr. Aidoo and Ford's president, Susan V. Berresford, said in the interview that Trust Africa would be an independent foundation governed solely by Africans.

Mr. Aidoo said the new foundation would establish "the connections among actors who can carry the work forward on their own feet."

Hm. Other than a tax writeoff, I wonder what Ford is getting out of this. Probably prime placement for a new African plant.

Hm. Other than a tax writeoff, I wonder what Ford is getting out of this. Probably prime placement for a new African plant.Good public relations..

Hm. Other than a tax writeoff, I wonder what Ford is getting out of this. Probably prime placement for a new African plant.
Probably just the tax write off. Arn't they being hit financially like all the other American autos?

If you think Ford are doing this for merely alturistic purposes, you must be naive. One wonders how many pieces of paper they're getting in return that have 'Factory Plans' and 'Permission to Use Native Workers' on them.

Are you trying to imply that Henry Ford would something like this? Are we talking about the same Henry Ford?

Hm. Other than a tax writeoff, I wonder what Ford is getting out of this. Probably prime placement for a new African plant.
Does it fucking matter?

Jesus Christ, I would've thought you'd be happy...

Are you trying to imply that Henry Ford would something like this? Are we talking about the same Henry Ford?
Of course we are, let me explain.


"Left to themselves, many of these countries fall back into old habits," Mr. Aidoo said in an interview. He added later, "The best antidote is to amplify the voices of those for peaceful change."
They are going into the production of bullhorns in Africa and the $30million is the initial cost of a factory and workers required to stand around in assembly lines and work 8+ hours a day to manufacture them.

Does it fucking matter?Yes.

Jesus Christ, I would've thought you'd be happy...I'm not unhappy yet, I don't know what Ford is getting out of it. If it's just a tax writeoff I'm fine with it, if it's something more detrimental to Africa and Africans then I'm not.

If you think Ford are doing this for merely alturistic purposes, you must be naive. One wonders how many pieces of paper they're getting in return that have 'Factory Plans' and 'Permission to Use Native Workers' on them.
Somewhere in there is likely a list of nations that have nationalized resources or restricted foriegn ownership of things. Don't get me wrong, as often as not the nations that have done this have also done horrible things, but I'd be willing to bet that the bottom line on this deal lands pretty close to that.

In reality corperations have a worse chance of overcoming cynicism regarding what they do than a protester does of overcoming Eutrusca's blind hatred...

Ford isn't getting anything out of it. It's an independant foundation, which has nothing to do with manufactoring of cars or anything else for that matter.
You might want to read up on the subject matter, before accusing them of being in it for profit or whatnot.

Yes.
Why? Seriously, think about it. Other than the fact that it may hurt your argument, if money reaches the people who need it, why does it matter why it reaches them?

I'm not unhappy yet, I don't know what Ford is getting out of it.
a) A stable business environment.
b) A stable and growing market for its products.
c) Good PR.
d) Tax Writeoffs.
e) Managers can feel good about themselves.
It's not exactly rocket science to figure it out.

Does it fucking matter?

Jesus Christ, I would've thought you'd be happy...
They were neglected children.

Actually, the Ford Foundation is entirely separate from Ford Motor Company and its subsidaries. It's a non-profit foundation and has often been pilloried by the American right wing for supporting "liberal causes." [ smile ]

Ford isn't getting anything out of it. It's an independant foundation, which has nothing to do with manufactoring of cars or anything else for that matter.
You might want to read up on the subject matter, before accusing them of being in it for profit or whatnot.
You can be in charge of the hose, but the guy in charge of the faucet has a pretty staggering power of veto...

Ford isn't getting anything out of it. It's an independant foundation, which has nothing to do with manufactoring of cars or anything else for that matter.
You might want to read up on the subject matter, before accusing them of being in it for profit or whatnot.
Eggg-xactly! :D

Actually, the Ford Foundation is entirely separate from Ford Motor Company and its subsidaries.
So, does the Ford Corporation donate to the foundation?

If not, I take my above reasons back and instead reduce it to "the rich people just want to feel good about themselves by giving something back, just like thousands of other rich people before them."

Why? Seriously, think about it. Other than the fact that it may hurt your argument, if money reaches the people who need it, why does it matter why it reaches them?For the same reason that the street urchin doesn't accept food from someone without first checking to make sure that that someone doesn't have a club in the other hand.

a) A stable business environment.
b) A stable and growing market for its products.
c) Good PR.
d) Tax Writeoffs.
e) Managers can feel good about themselves.
It's not exactly rocket science to figure it out.And if that's all Ford is getting out of it, then I suppose that would be tolerable.

So, does the Ford Corporation donate to the foundation?

If not, I take my above reasons back and instead reduce it to "the rich people just want to feel good about themselves by giving something back, just like thousands of other rich people before them."
http://www.fordfound.org/

You can be in charge of the hose, but the guy in charge of the faucet has a pretty staggering power of veto...They have their own hose and faucet. They have several billions of reserves. Interest and investments yield suffieicent spending money.
They don't have to pander to the Ford company, or any other company or interested parties.

They have their own hose and faucet. They have several billions of reserves. Interest and investments yield suffieicent spending money.
They don't have to pander to the Ford company, or any other company or interested parties.
You don't get your name over the door by having an insignifigant donation flow.

http://www.fordfound.org/
So it's basically one of those 'new' NGOs that I read about in The Economist, which are run like businesses and therefore a lot more streamlined and efficient, and which compete with each other in the market for donations.
To be honest, if I had the money to spare, they would be the only sort I'd consider. Give something to Oxfam or something like that, and none of that money will ever get anywhere.

Hm. Other than a tax writeoff, I wonder what Ford is getting out of this. Probably prime placement for a new African plant.

God forbid someone builds a factory in Africa!

Awful things like jobs might be created.

You don't get your name over the door by having an insignifigant donation flow.But you do get it on the door by having founded the foundation and donating half your company on your deathbed.
I don't think they have received any donations since. The same is true for the nobel-prize foundation. They were simply bequeethed rediculous amounts of wealth on the former owner's death.

The trustees for that matter are not 'rich people' out to get a good name. A lot fo them are university professors and such. (Just go to the site and look up the board of trustees).

God forbid someone builds a factory in Africa!

Awful things like jobs might be created.So? When multinationals build a factory in another country, the factory is usually tax-free and so the only money from the multinational that actually goes to the infrastructure of the country is the money that the workers are paid in wages. Giving someone a job isn't something that's done out of anything other than pure self-interest.
I do have to give this foundation credit, they're starting off by giving 30 million to the countries in question, but it remains to be seen if there will be more or not.

God forbid someone builds a factory in Africa!

Awful things like jobs might be created.
And have thier economy and/or infrastructure entirely at the whim of a foriegn power (and a corperation this time, no UN to plead a case with there...). That hasn't gone horribly bad for African nations in the past...can't imagine why people would be leary...

So it's basically one of those 'new' NGOs that I read about in The Economist, which are run like businesses and therefore a lot more streamlined and efficient, and which compete with each other in the market for donations.They don't have to compete for donations, since they live off investments
http://www.fordfound.org/about/financial.cfm

And have thier economy and/or infrastructure entirely at the whim of a foriegn power (and a corperation this time, no UN to plead a case with there...). That hasn't gone horribly bad for African nations in the past...can't imagine why people would be leary...Exactly. If it turns out to be another Cecil Rhodes situation, then I don't see a particular reason to be happy about this.

And have thier economy and/or infrastructure entirely at the whim of a foriegn power (and a corperation this time, no UN to plead a case with there...). That hasn't gone horribly bad for African nations in the past...can't imagine why people would be leary...
Oh, come on. Look at the evidence. Market Liberalisation (and FDI is an absolutely major part of that) increases economic growth, and therefore GDP per capita.

It's a lie to say that corporations have kept Africa down through exploitation - for most of the century, they weren't even allowed in thanks to incompetent governments and their populist/socialist policies.

Where do you think the money for proper roads, schools, hospitals and so on will come from? Someone needs to start the engine, and the only ones that can are rich foreigners. And the richest of all foreigners (and also the only ones who are consistently flexible enough to do so) are corporations.

They don't have to compete for donations, since they live off investments
http://www.fordfound.org/about/financial.cfm
Now that's just plain excellent. We need more of those.

Exactly. If it turns out to be another Cecil Rhodes situation, then I don't see a particular reason to be happy about this.

Are you implying that William Ford Jr. is a homosexual? :confused:

Exactly. If it turns out to be another Cecil Rhodes situation, then I don't see a particular reason to be happy about this.
Pretty much. Short story is don't write a check and expect an ovation. Don't tell me what you're paving the road with, let's see where it leads before we start throwing the rose pedals...

Oh, come on. Look at the evidence. Market Liberalisation (and FDI is an absolutely major part of that) increases economic growth, and therefore GDP per capita.

It's a lie to say that corporations have kept Africa down through exploitation - for most of the century, they weren't even allowed in thanks to incompetent governments and their populist/socialist policies.

Where do you think the money for proper roads, schools, hospitals and so on will come from? Someone needs to start the engine, and the only ones that can are rich foreigners. And the richest of all foreigners (and also the only ones who are consistently flexible enough to do so) are corporations.
Actually you'll find it had a lot more to do with the rise and collapse of imperialism in the regions.

Exactly. If it turns out to be another Cecil Rhodes situation, then I don't see a particular reason to be happy about this.
It should be noted that Rhodes' real exploits came as a politician, not as a businessman. In other words, it was not his making profit which was so bad, it was what he wanted to do with it, namely establish a giant British Empire all across Africa, with the white man on top.

Since corporations cancel out such personal ambitions and always come back to providing value to shareholders, that risk is minimised.

God forbid someone builds a factory in Africa!

Awful things like jobs might be created.
ROFLMAO!!! :D

Actually you'll find it had a lot more to do with the rise and collapse of imperialism in the regions.
Even that can only be said with qualifications. Many more nations and peoples fell victim to imperialism, yet they managed to become sustainable if not wealthy countries. South Korea, Hong Kong, much of South America and even a few select African countries come to mind.
You can't simply dismiss what happened since the end of imperialism there and say "Oh, they never had a chance." Their governments did, and they blew it, and that's the number one reason why so many people in Africa are suffering.

They have their own hose and faucet. They have several billions of reserves. Interest and investments yield suffieicent spending money.
They don't have to pander to the Ford company, or any other company or interested parties.
Perzactly. You're a pretty impressive dude, you know that? :D

It should be noted that Rhodes' real exploits came as a politician, not as a businessman. In other words, it was not his making profit which was so bad, it was what he wanted to do with it, namely establish a giant British Empire all across Africa, with the white man on top.

Since corporations cancel out such personal ambitions and always come back to providing value to shareholders, that risk is minimised.I don't agree. If the shareholders view that establishing a [host country] empire throughout Africa is going to be more profitable to them, then I see no reason why they wouldn't want to do so.

Perzactly. You're a pretty impressive dude, you know that? :DWell, not that impressive, I just took the time to read some of the things on their site. I hadn't even heard of the ford foundation before this thread :P

I don't agree. If the shareholders view that establishing a [host country] empire throughout Africa is going to be more profitable to them, then I see no reason why they wouldn't want to do so.
And if they felt it was profitable to move the planet into another galaxy, maybe they'd try that too.

Face it, not only can a corporation not realistically establish an empire, but the notion that such an effort could actually increase profits is purely theoretical.

You don't get your name over the door by having an insignifigant donation flow.
It's named after Henry 'cause he set it up 70 years ago with a ( for then ) huge initial donation. Now it's fueled primarily from the invenstment dividends from that initial funding.

Their current financial report: http://www.fordfound.org/publications/recent_articles/docs/ar2005/Financial_Review.pdf Really interesting charts on the second page.

Now that's just plain excellent. We need more of those.Well, there's an ample supply of old billionaires, looking at the forbes list. Of course, the question is who they leave that wealth to.
It'll take a bit longer to wait for Bill Gates and Oprah; but they also already have foundations giving out their money, so they don't really need to die first.

And if they felt it was profitable to move the planet into another galaxy, maybe they'd try that too.

Face it, not only can a corporation not realistically establish an empire, but the notion that such an effort could actually increase profits is purely theoretical.A corporation wouldn't establish a literal empire, but they would be happy to have their host country aid and abet them in establishing a financial empire with the goal of having wealth flow from poor countries to rich countries.

Well, not that impressive, I just took the time to read some of the things on their site. I hadn't even heard of the ford foundation before this thread :P
What would you like to bet that you're one of the few on here who actually even looked at their site, rather than simply reacting out of some idiotic ideology? ;)

Well, there's an ample supply of old billionaires, looking at the forbes list. Of course, the question is who they leave that wealth to.
It'll take a bit longer to wait for Bill Gates and Oprah; but they also already have foundations giving out their money, so they don't really need to die first.
Mrs. Gate's little boy, Billy, is one of the people I most admire. One statement he made in particular was very revealing: he said that almost all of his billions were going to go to charity and foundations for charity when he died, but that he would leave $50,000 each to his children and that if they couldn't make it with that ... shame on them! Gotta admire a man like that! :)

A corporation wouldn't establish a literal empire, but they would be happy to have their host country aid and abet them in establishing a financial empire with the goal of having wealth flow from poor countries to rich countries.
Correction: The goal of having profits flow into their accounts, to either be distributed to their shareholders or to be reinvested.

Not only does wealth not flow from one place to another (maybe it can be created in one place at a faster rate than at another), but what country that happens to be is of absolutely no matter to an internationally-operating business.

You silly Anti-American communist need to have your heads examined. Bottom line is $30 million to Africa. That is a good thing as much as you can not stand that it may come from a corporation.

I ordered this slightly differently, for ease in answering.

Correction: The goal of having profits flow into their accounts, to either be distributed to their shareholders or to be reinvested.
...but what country that happens to be is of absolutely no matter to an internationally-operating business.The country wealth is flowing to matters somewhat to an internationally-operating business. If the wealth is flowing to a country that has people likely to buy that business's products, then that business will benefit more from it than if the wealth is flowing to a place where the people aren't likely to buy the business's products.

Technically speaking, you are correct, it isn't the business's goal to have the wealth flow to the country as opposed to the business, but part of the wealth does go to the country via taxation on the business, though businesses would avoid paying these taxes if they could.

Not only does wealth not flow from one place to another (maybe it can be created in one place at a faster rate than at another), Of course wealth flows from one place to another, if I empty my back account in the U.S. and move it to the Cayman Islands, then wealth has flowed from the U.S. to the Cayman Islands. The same is true for when Western Corporations empty out the Third World's natural resources and then deposit them or the money gained from them into Western banks.

You silly Anti-American communist need to have your heads examined. Bottom line is $30 million to Africa. That is a good thing as much as you can not stand that it may come from a corporation.In and of itself, with no strings attached, it is a good thing, but one needs to know which strings are attached, if any, before declaring it to be a good thing.

Mrs. Gate's little boy, Billy, is one of the people I most admire. One statement he made in particular was very revealing: he said that almost all of his billions were going to go to charity and foundations for charity when he died, but that he would leave $50,000 each to his children and that if they couldn't make it with that ... shame on them! Gotta admire a man like that! :)And yet, I still can't help blame him for windows, and microsoft software in general..
Really annoying when people you want to hate do admirable things as well. It's a bit like being robbed by Robin Hood. You know (some of) the money is going to a better place, but you'd really rather it got there a different way.

And have thier economy and/or infrastructure entirely at the whim of a foriegn power (and a corperation this time, no UN to plead a case with there...). That hasn't gone horribly bad for African nations in the past...can't imagine why people would be leary...

The economy and/or infrastructure is already doo-doo.

This seems like a good mix of charity and capitalism, why don't you want Africans to have jobs and cars?

I can tell everyone with 100% confidence that any person that replied negatively to this does NOT live in Africa. Africa's fucked, people. How about we at least pay attention to it? No, let's just watch more news stories about Dutch obesity and cute kittens. WAKE UP!!

This seems like a good mix of charity and capitalism, why don't you want Africans to have jobs and cars?Well, aside from global warming and limited known oil reserves. There's not really a reason.
However, probably quite futilely, I'd like to point out the Ford foundation has nothing to do with making cars. Just like the Nobel prize foundation has nothing to do with making dynamite (which made Nobel his fortune).

Perhaps we need a seperate thread to discuss actual corporate charity.

I can tell everyone with 100% confidence that any person that replied negatively to this does NOT live in Africa. Africa's fucked, people. How about we at least pay attention to it? No, let's just watch more news stories about Dutch obesity and cute kittens. WAKE UP!!I don't see how you made the correlation that people who might not be 100% enthused about this believe that we shouldn't pay attention to Africa.

And yet, I still can't help blame him for windows, and microsoft software in general..
Really annoying when people you want to hate do admirable things as well. It's a bit like being robbed by Robin Hood. You know (some of) the money is going to a better place, but you'd really rather it got there a different way.
Billy Gates as Robin Hood? Hmmm. Never thought if it that way. :D

The country wealth is flowing to matters somewhat to an internationally-operating business. If the wealth is flowing to a country that has people likely to buy that business's products, then that business will benefit more from it than if the wealth is flowing to a place where the people aren't likely to buy the business's products.
This is all very abstract. A business wouldn't look at those things in anywhere near the same detail. The only thing it cares about is improving its bottom line.
It will choose a location for its FDI (which is actually an inflow of funds, designed to reduce the outflow the firm is experiencing somewhere else) based on the money it will make of it. That is an estimation process involving risk.
As for the factor of which countries are or will make for good markets - that depends on the type of business. A multidomestic MNC will obviously have to consider country-specifics a lot more than a global one. But that has often little effect on where production is located.

Technically speaking, you are correct, it isn't the business's goal to have the wealth flow to the country as opposed to the business, but part of the wealth does go to the country via taxation on the business, though businesses would avoid paying these taxes if they could.
Exactly. Single people can be patriotic, nationalistic or racist - corporations cannot.

Of course wealth flows from one place to another, if I empty my back account in the U.S. and move it to the Cayman Islands, then wealth has flowed from the U.S. to the Cayman Islands.
That is wealth that already exists as money. A bit of iron ore is not wealth yet.

The same is true for when Western Corporations empty out the Third World's natural resources and then deposit them or the money gained from them into Western banks.
So you have a bit of iron ore in the ground. There, it is worth virtually nothing. There is no one there with the expertise or the scale to make something of it.
So a corporation comes along, finds and identifies it. Then it hires local labour, sets up a local infrastructure, makes connections with local businesses to help build up the mines and perhaps processing plants. All these things are moves of money from the corporation in one country into a previously worthless piece of ground and its inhabitants in another.
And chances are that all that investment is worth more than that bit of iron ore in the ground ever was. The corporation now makes the profit by selling the product of its efforts and investment - namely steel produced by taking the ore, processing it and combining it with coal it got from somewhere else.

And in the end, everyone is better off - except maybe the environment (depends on the corporation), but that is a matter for the government to handle.

I can tell everyone with 100% confidence that any person that replied negatively to this does NOT live in Africa. Africa's fucked, people. How about we at least pay attention to it? No, let's just watch more news stories about Dutch obesity and cute kittens. WAKE UP!!
Africa is the world's basket-case. ANYTHING that helps, ANYONE who helps in any way, regardless of how small or of the motive, has my vote of confidence.

This is all very abstract. A business wouldn't look at those things in anywhere near the same detail. The only thing it cares about is improving its bottom line.
It will choose a location for its FDI (which is actually an inflow of funds, designed to reduce the outflow the firm is experiencing somewhere else) based on the money it will make of it. That is an estimation process involving risk.
As for the factor of which countries are or will make for good markets - that depends on the type of business. A multidomestic MNC will obviously have to consider country-specifics a lot more than a global one. But that has often little effect on where production is located.I don't see why a business wouldn't look at things in such detail; businesses are notorious for their micromanaging.

Exactly. Single people can be patriotic, nationalistic or racist - corporations cannot.I don't see this as necessarily being something better, and usually worse.

That is wealth that already exists as money. A bit of iron ore is not wealth yet.But an iron mine that is run by a country's government is producing wealth; if that mine is sold to an outside corporation, the country is worse off for it.

So you have a bit of iron ore in the ground. There, it is worth virtually nothing. There is no one there with the expertise or the scale to make something of it.
So a corporation comes along, finds and identifies it. Then it hires local labour, sets up a local infrastructure, makes connections with local businesses to help build up the mines and perhaps processing plants. All these things are moves of money from the corporation in one country into a previously worthless piece of ground and its inhabitants in another.
And chances are that all that investment is worth more than that bit of iron ore in the ground ever was. The corporation now makes the profit by selling the product of its efforts and investment - namely steel produced by taking the ore, processing it and combining it with coal it got from somewhere else.

And in the end, everyone is better off - except maybe the environment (depends on the corporation), but that is a matter for the government to handle.They'd be better off if the mines were built up by the governments or businesses of the country in question so that the wealth created from the mines remains mostly in the country instead of mostly being taken out of the country.

This is pretty funny. No matter what the motivation for the Ford foundation has for doing charity work in a part of the world that desperately needs it, it's wrong and evil. At least, that's the tone of the majority of posts prior to this one. I'm glad to see some moves toward capitalism in Africa. It's exactly what that continent needs to pull itself out of the poverty caused by a string of despotic rulers.

I don't see why a business wouldn't look at things in such detail; businesses are notorious for their micromanaging.
Because usually, the effects that their single plant/mine/whatever will have on the national economy is neligible. They'd rather look at growth forecasts if they were interested in establishing whether or not is a good place to invest then.

I don't see this as necessarily being something better, and usually worse.
It just means that a corporation is always reliable to do exactly one thing.

But an iron mine that is run by a country's government is producing wealth; if that mine is sold to an outside corporation, the country is worse off for it.
The problem is this:
a) Much of Africa doesn't have mines.
b) The mines that they do have don't work. Politicians don't privatise for the sake of privatisation (usually) - they privatise because the business they run is crap and they believe a proper management with the proper money behind it can do a better job than they can.

And that quite aside from the fact that you're just making an assertion and probably won't be able to back it up with reliable evidence.

They'd be better off if the mines were built up by the governments or businesses of the country in question so that the wealth created from the mines remains mostly in the country instead of mostly being taken out of the country.
After fifty years, this has not happened. It's true that New Trade Theory for example sees some value in the establishment of domestic infant industries - not as an immediately good thing, but a longer-term investment. Even Japan with its policies was actually worse off while foreign competition was kept out, even though they became so successful afterwards.

As the Ford Foundation has nothing whatsoever to do with Ford, the car company, I'd like to know why Eutrusca linked them in the OP. This might explain the reaction of so many posters.

Additionally I have heard of the Ford Foundation before. They give scholarships to retired lecturers who are already drawing large pensions from the Brazilian government as well as large salaries from private universities. When the lectureres in question are more concerned about which vintage their wine is rather than edyucating the poor, I feel that the control on the use of these funds is somewhat lacking. I just hope that they do a better job in directing their funds in Africa than they are doing here.

Because usually, the effects that their single plant/mine/whatever will have on the national economy is neligible. They'd rather look at growth forecasts if they were interested in establishing whether or not is a good place to invest then.In this instance, we are talking about the company's headquarters, the headquarters is where most of the taxes they get will probably be levied against them.

It just means that a corporation is always reliable to do exactly one thing.True, and sometimes that's okay, and sometimes it isn't.

The problem is this:
a) Much of Africa doesn't have mines.
b) The mines that they do have don't work. Politicians don't privatise for the sake of privatisation (usually) - they privatise because the business they run is crap and they believe a proper management with the proper money behind it can do a better job than they can.It's true that much of Africa doesn't have mines, but they do have a lot of resources.
Anyway, quite frequently the reason that politicians privatize is that the IMF or some similar group won't give them aid unless they don't. Is the Ford Foundation like the IMF in this respect? I don't know, but it is the reason I wondered what the Foundation was getting out of it.
I believe you're familiar with the IMF and their practices, but I could find a link to something if you really want me to.

After fifty years, this has not happened. It's true that New Trade Theory for example sees some value in the establishment of domestic infant industries - not as an immediately good thing, but a longer-term investment. Even Japan with its policies was actually worse off while foreign competition was kept out, even though they became so successful afterwards.The best way for making this happen, IMHO is interest-free loans given from Western governments to Third World entrepreneurs.

Does it fucking matter?

Jesus Christ, I would've thought you'd be happy...

No kidding. You just can't please some people.

Maybe next time it should be: "Ford Foundation to host baby seal roast. Fires to be fueled with piles of money."

To retain their status as a charitable foundation, they have to continue to give their money away. I guess I don't get what everyone is excited about...save that most of you appear to ignorant to know the difference between the Ford Foundation and the Ford Motor Company.

In this instance, we are talking about the company's headquarters, the headquarters is where most of the taxes they get will probably be levied against them.
That depends on the firm's structure. But let's rest that argument. Suffice to say that considerations of global wealth distribution are not on the manager's mind.

It's true that much of Africa doesn't have mines, but they do have a lot of resources.
Which are undeveloped. FDI is the most effective and efficient tool to develop these resources, which is why many African governments try to encourage it and seem to have success. Uganda comes to mind.

Anyway, quite frequently the reason that politicians privatize is that the IMF or some similar group won't give them aid unless they don't.
There are many things wrong with the IMF and the way it works. But the fundamental idea is the right one. These governments don't own these industries to make sure the people benefit from the resources - they want them for military or political reasons.
And let's face it: If they were working properly, the government wouldn't need money from the IMF.

The best way for making this happen, IMHO is interest-free loans given from Western governments to Third World entrepreneurs.
That's charity. Interest is necessary, not only to introduce everyone involved to reality, but also to offer a profit to those who give the money.
How about we settle with the Grameen Bank for example? That seems to have success.
Problem is that that is a program to help little people on a small scale. You can't give out loans for huge projects (ie big mines, infrastructure, whole supply chains) to people who have no experience or credentials - not when your alternative is a company that already successfully operates mines all over the planet. The risk would just be too great.
Only once little people have secured their existance through work and a bit of financial skill can they expect to take charge of bigger and better things. Right now, all you'd be doing is handing out free stuff, either to uneducated glorified war chiefs, or to educated but completely uninvolved idealistic do-gooders with no way of making things happen in the real world.

That depends on the firm's structure. But let's rest that argument. Suffice to say that considerations of global wealth distribution are not on the manager's mind.Fair enough.

Which are undeveloped. FDI is the most effective and efficient tool to develop these resources, which is why many African governments try to encourage it and seem to have success. Uganda comes to mind.I wonder how much Uganda is benefitting from it. If they worked out good deals with the corporations, then good for them, but I can't see this being taken as a given.

There are many things wrong with the IMF and the way it works. But the fundamental idea is the right one. These governments don't own these industries to make sure the people benefit from the resources - they want them for military or political reasons.True, but the corporations don't want these industries to make sure that people benefit from the resources, either; usually fewer people end up benefitting under a corporation's management than under the government's management.

And let's face it: If they were working properly, the government wouldn't need money from the IMF.Well, I can think of situations where they could be working properly and yet the government would still need money, but none of them apply, so I will agree with you on this.

That's charity. Yes, that's the point.

Interest is necessary, not only to introduce everyone involved to reality, but also to offer a profit to those who give the money.I don't like the idea of interest, if it can be done without it, it would be better than with it. The people giving the money don't need to make money from it; Western governments have plenty.

How about we settle with the Grameen Bank for example? That seems to have success.I'm not familiar with them, do they have a website?

Problem is that that is a program to help little people on a small scale. You can't give out loans for huge projects (ie big mines, infrastructure, whole supply chains) to people who have no experience or credentials - not when your alternative is a company that already successfully operates mines all over the planet. The risk would just be too great.
Only once little people have secured their existance through work and a bit of financial skill can they expect to take charge of bigger and better things. Right now, all you'd be doing is handing out free stuff, either to uneducated glorified war chiefs, or to educated but completely uninvolved idealistic do-gooders with no way of making things happen in the real world.Then perhaps the governments handing out the money can also take charge of building the stuff, if they feel it's too risky?

I'm not familiar with them, do they have a website?The first result on google seems to do it: http://www.grameen-info.org/

I wonder how much Uganda is benefitting from it. If they worked out good deals with the corporations, then good for them, but I can't see this being taken as a given.
Well, their GDP per capita's been growing, and inequality is not really an issue in many African countries, because the government owns about 99% of all wealth anyways, and distributes it to its leaders and their families.

True, but the corporations don't want these industries to make sure that people benefit from the resources, either; usually fewer people end up benefitting under a corporation's management than under the government's management.
If a corporation starts running that mine (and let's assume it's good at it and everything runs fairly smoothly, as it usually does according to history) then not only will it give people jobs, and all the things associated with them, but it will also develop infrastructure around the site and bring with it a whole bunch of small businesses that profit from the new industry - many of whom will be started by domestic entrepreneurs, if the money is available. Yes, a lot of the wealth created will go to the corporation, but one can't say that no one else would be profitting. Hell, FDI has even had the tendency to improve education in the area, as the corporation invests in schools and so on to get a more qualified workforce and it feels the government isn't doing enough.
Compare with a government. Not a government as it would be in an ideal world, but a normal African government as we know and love.
First they borrow or print a huge sum of money. Then they hire a few experts from overseas, who pocket a lot of money. Much of the rest goes to bribing all sorts of officials, and the leader's family. What is left over is then used to build a fancy facade which is unveiled in a great ceremony to demonstrate the leaders great ability to lead the awesome nation into the future. Inside the mine of course things don't work properly. Because the government is not answerable to anyone, and the vast majority of the African leading caste has not shown the slightest tendency towards altruism, and because profit is not the motive behind the whole thing, it never really mattered whether any ore was being produced. And the little ore that is produced then has to compete with all the other ore in the market and is worth little because the government has no ability to further process it.
Of course there will be some workers who get paid a wage (usually lower than that paid by the corporation, especially in "socialist" states in which the government can just command people to work in the mines) and that'll feed into the economy. But the mine itself usually doesn't make a profit (and if it does, it's still suboptimal), the surrounding infrastructure doesn't get developed because that would be a seperate project to again demand all sorts of bribes and favours and so on.
And then the government still has to pay back the money it originally borrowed.

I don't like the idea of interest, if it can be done without it, it would be better than with it. The people giving the money don't need to make money from it; Western governments have plenty.
Western governments don't have money, Western taxpayers do. And Western taxpayers like to know that their money goes to something worthwhile, and interest-free loans to unqualified people in crisis regions probably won't be something that wins you an election.

Interest is really just a measure of the risk the investor takes on. The less risky a project is, ie the better the product, idea and entrepreneur, the less interest will have to be paid on the loan. There is nothing morally, ethically or economically wrong with paying interest, it is merely due reward for giving one's money away to help someone else, risking that it might be lost.
Islam is against paying interest. They tried for a long time to figure out a way to deal with that problem, yet still have working banks and finance providers. They have now - and the result is almost the same as interest, just with another name. There is simply no way around it.

Then perhaps the governments handing out the money can also take charge of building the stuff, if they feel it's too risky?
Which brings us back to imperialism and foreign control of the economy...

Bill Gates has given BILLIONS of dollars to charities. Much of that money went to Africa. He must be up to something.

Maybe they found out they can spear lions with a Windows ME disc. (lord knows it was not good for anything else.) And then Bill will charge them 129 for the full version and 89 bucks for the upgrade.

Bill Gates has given BILLIONS of dollars to charities. Much of that money went to Africa. He must be up to something.

Maybe they found out they can spear lions with a Windows ME disc. (lord knows it was not good for anything else.) And then Bill will charge them 129 for the full version and 89 bucks for the upgrade.

Throw the spear and Bob pickes it up and askes you if you really want to throw it forward or put it in your pocket. Then when you say throw it he breaks it in two and violates you with it. You panic and call out 'help!' and 20 minutes later some guy named "Mark" with a very heavy Indian accent asks you 'ar youh shur et is installllled corrrrectly, my friend?" then he takes $50 from you.

Oh, come on. Look at the evidence. Market Liberalisation (and FDI is an absolutely major part of that) increases economic growth, and therefore GDP per capita.

It's a lie to say that corporations have kept Africa down through exploitation - for most of the century, they weren't even allowed in thanks to incompetent governments and their populist/socialist policies.

Where do you think the money for proper roads, schools, hospitals and so on will come from? Someone needs to start the engine, and the only ones that can are rich foreigners. And the richest of all foreigners (and also the only ones who are consistently flexible enough to do so) are corporations.


i'd have to agree with you wholeheartedly.

it will give them a start,at the least with infrastructure as you mentioned.

Hm. Other than a tax writeoff, I wonder what Ford is getting out of this. Probably prime placement for a new African plant.

Not only is he helping out people, he's giving them JOBS! That's EXACTLY what Africa needs. INDUSTRY, EMPLOYMENT, STABILITY! Get those and investments will bloom...

Does it fucking matter?

Jesus Christ, I would've thought you'd be happy...

You have a way with words NL. If only MORE people were building factories in Africa....


Well, their GDP per capita's been growing, and inequality is not really an issue in many African countries, because the government owns about 99% of all wealth anyways, and distributes it to its leaders and their families.


If a corporation starts running that mine (and let's assume it's good at it and everything runs fairly smoothly, as it usually does according to history) then not only will it give people jobs, and all the things associated with them, but it will also develop infrastructure around the site and bring with it a whole bunch of small businesses that profit from the new industry - many of whom will be started by domestic entrepreneurs, if the money is available. Yes, a lot of the wealth created will go to the corporation, but one can't say that no one else would be profitting. Hell, FDI has even had the tendency to improve education in the area, as the corporation invests in schools and so on to get a more qualified workforce and it feels the government isn't doing enough.
Compare with a government. Not a government as it would be in an ideal world, but a normal African government as we know and love.
First they borrow or print a huge sum of money. Then they hire a few experts from overseas, who pocket a lot of money. Much of the rest goes to bribing all sorts of officials, and the leader's family. What is left over is then used to build a fancy facade which is unveiled in a great ceremony to demonstrate the leaders great ability to lead the awesome nation into the future. Inside the mine of course things don't work properly. Because the government is not answerable to anyone, and the vast majority of the African leading caste has not shown the slightest tendency towards altruism, and because profit is not the motive behind the whole thing, it never really mattered whether any ore was being produced. And the little ore that is produced then has to compete with all the other ore in the market and is worth little because the government has no ability to further process it.
Of course there will be some workers who get paid a wage (usually lower than that paid by the corporation, especially in "socialist" states in which the government can just command people to work in the mines) and that'll feed into the economy. But the mine itself usually doesn't make a profit (and if it does, it's still suboptimal), the surrounding infrastructure doesn't get developed because that would be a seperate project to again demand all sorts of bribes and favours and so on.
And then the government still has to pay back the money it originally borrowed.


Western governments don't have money, Western taxpayers do. And Western taxpayers like to know that their money goes to something worthwhile, and interest-free loans to unqualified people in crisis regions probably won't be something that wins you an election.

Interest is really just a measure of the risk the investor takes on. The less risky a project is, ie the better the product, idea and entrepreneur, the less interest will have to be paid on the loan. There is nothing morally, ethically or economically wrong with paying interest, it is merely due reward for giving one's money away to help someone else, risking that it might be lost.
Islam is against paying interest. They tried for a long time to figure out a way to deal with that problem, yet still have working banks and finance providers. They have now - and the result is almost the same as interest, just with another name. There is simply no way around it.


Which brings us back to imperialism and foreign control of the economy...

[bowdown]

:p

Well, their GDP per capita's been growing, and inequality is not really an issue in many African countries, because the government owns about 99% of all wealth anyways, and distributes it to its leaders and their families.So then what we can expect to see is wealth being concentrated in a different set of hands...I suppose that's a good thing, if it undermines government power.

If a corporation starts running that mine (and let's assume it's good at it and everything runs fairly smoothly, as it usually does according to history) then not only will it give people jobs, and all the things associated with them, but it will also develop infrastructure around the site and bring with it a whole bunch of small businesses that profit from the new industry - many of whom will be started by domestic entrepreneurs, if the money is available. Yes, a lot of the wealth created will go to the corporation, but one can't say that no one else would be profitting. Hell, FDI has even had the tendency to improve education in the area, as the corporation invests in schools and so on to get a more qualified workforce and it feels the government isn't doing enough.And then when the business has gotten the country dependent upon it, it will begin to demand kickbacks from the government or it will leave.

Compare with a government. Not a government as it would be in an ideal world, but a normal African government as we know and love.
First they borrow or print a huge sum of money. Then they hire a few experts from overseas, who pocket a lot of money. Much of the rest goes to bribing all sorts of officials, and the leader's family. What is left over is then used to build a fancy facade which is unveiled in a great ceremony to demonstrate the leaders great ability to lead the awesome nation into the future. Inside the mine of course things don't work properly. Because the government is not answerable to anyone, and the vast majority of the African leading caste has not shown the slightest tendency towards altruism, and because profit is not the motive behind the whole thing, it never really mattered whether any ore was being produced. And the little ore that is produced then has to compete with all the other ore in the market and is worth little because the government has no ability to further process it.I suppose you do have a point, it is possible for a nationalized industry to be worse than a privatized one. With that said, however, I see no reason why the business would not then prop up the incompetant government if it feels that the government will be kicked out for a government that is less favorable to the business.

Of course there will be some workers who get paid a wage (usually lower than that paid by the corporation, especially in "socialist" states in which the government can just command people to work in the mines) and that'll feed into the economy. But the mine itself usually doesn't make a profit (and if it does, it's still suboptimal), the surrounding infrastructure doesn't get developed because that would be a seperate project to again demand all sorts of bribes and favours and so on.
And then the government still has to pay back the money it originally borrowed.Kudos to putting socialist in quotes, most people believe this is a result of actual socialism as opposed to pseudo-socialism.

Western governments don't have money, Western taxpayers do. And Western taxpayers like to know that their money goes to something worthwhile, and interest-free loans to unqualified people in crisis regions probably won't be something that wins you an election.Or in other words, the Western governments can't be counted on to do the right thing. It seems to me that after the Imperialists raped the continent for hundreds of years that it is only fair for the countries that benefitted to give (emphasis on give) something back.

Interest is really just a measure of the risk the investor takes on. Yes, but these loans aren't meant to be investments.

The less risky a project is, ie the better the product, idea and entrepreneur, the less interest will have to be paid on the loan. There is nothing morally, ethically or economically wrong with paying interest, it is merely due reward for giving one's money away to help someone else, risking that it might be lost.Of course there is something morally and ethically wrong with charging interest in the same way that there is something morally and ethically wrong with a college professor who tells a failing student to sleep with him and that student will get an "A"; the sleeping with the professor is simply a due reward for the professor taking the risk of giving an undeserving student an "A".

Islam is against paying interest. They tried for a long time to figure out a way to deal with that problem, yet still have working banks and finance providers. They have now - and the result is almost the same as interest, just with another name. There is simply no way around it.Well, there's no way of having a capitalist system without it, I'll give you that.

Which brings us back to imperialism and foreign control of the economy...It wouldn't be foreign control of the economy; the local officials would study on how to best implement the loans and where the loans would be best applied; the Western government's role would be merely to make sure that the loans go to where they're supposed to be going.

Not only is he helping out people, he's giving them JOBS! That's EXACTLY what Africa needs. INDUSTRY, EMPLOYMENT, STABILITY! Get those and investments will bloom...Africa, as well as the rest of the Third World needs more than foreign investments, they need local investment in which the majority of the money made in a country actually stays in the country to further help out the country as opposed to flowing out into the bank account of (a) private individual(s). Foreign investment is better than nothing, but that's not saying much.

And then when the business has gotten the country dependent upon it, it will begin to demand kickbacks from the government or it will leave.
Unlikely. However, business will move somewhere else if regulation is unfavourable. Can you blame them? If the US government started rounding up random Muslims and started putting them into secret camps, wouldn't you eventually consider leaving the place?

With that said, however, I see no reason why the business would not then prop up the incompetant government if it feels that the government will be kicked out for a government that is less favorable to the business.
That may be a point. An incompetent pro-business government could be considered better than a competent anti-business government, but that's a matter of the specific case.
Suffice to say that corporations have been known to try and shape the environment so that it becomes more favourable to them. But as I indicated before, it's not like they're not giving something back as well.

Or in other words, the Western governments can't be counted on to do the right thing.
I would've thought that was fairly obvious, after decades of protectionism and all that.

It seems to me that after the Imperialists raped the continent for hundreds of years that it is only fair for the countries that benefitted to give (emphasis on give) something back.
What would be fair is for the people who benefitted to give something back, perhaps. Problem is that those people are long since dead. Countries are not collective organisms, and past imperialism is probably a pretty spurious argument for a tax hike.

Yes, but these loans aren't meant to be investments.
So then it's charity. Which is nice to think about, but probably unlikely to happen on the sort of big scale you envision. Charity can help, and as we see with this OP, it often does. But charity cannot build an economy, nor should it.

Of course there is something morally and ethically wrong with charging interest in the same way that there is something morally and ethically wrong with a college professor who tells a failing student to sleep with him and that student will get an "A"; the sleeping with the professor is simply a due reward for the professor taking the risk of giving an undeserving student an "A".
The problem with that is that the professor
a) doesn't own the grade.
b) doesn't lose if the student fails.
An investor on the other hand owns the money he or she is risking, and if the investment fails, that money is lost. The difference between the fair trade that is an interest-paying loan and this blackmail should be fairly clear.

It wouldn't be foreign control of the economy; the local officials would study on how to best implement the loans and where the loans would be best applied; the Western government's role would be merely to make sure that the loans go to where they're supposed to be going.
If you're going to trust local officials and your own government, feel free. I just feel that people only act 100% reliably if they do it for their own good. The opportunity to make a profit is what keeps the elements in this cycle honest.

Unlikely. However, business will move somewhere else if regulation is unfavourable. Can you blame them? If the US government started rounding up random Muslims and started putting them into secret camps, wouldn't you eventually consider leaving the place?Yes, I would, though I would suppose that regulation being unfavorable is a matter of opinion.

That may be a point. An incompetent pro-business government could be considered better than a competent anti-business government, but that's a matter of the specific case.
Suffice to say that corporations have been known to try and shape the environment so that it becomes more favourable to them. But as I indicated before, it's not like they're not giving something back as well.They give as little back as is possible, and only because they can't help but to not give it back.

I would've thought that was fairly obvious, after decades of protectionism and all that.Well, no, I wasn't thinking protectionism was a bad thing, but mercantilism and imperialism would be.

What would be fair is for the people who benefitted to give something back, perhaps. Problem is that those people are long since dead. Countries are not collective organisms, and past imperialism is probably a pretty spurious argument for a tax hike.Everyone in a said country that was imperialistic benefitted from imperialism, be it directly or indirectly. The company that someone works for might only have existed as a result of imperalism, for example. You wouldn't have to go too far back on the chain to find some benefit to an individual.

So then it's charity. Which is nice to think about, but probably unlikely to happen on the sort of big scale you envision. Charity can help, and as we see with this OP, it often does. But charity cannot build an economy, nor should it.Well, I would say that it could only happen on the large scale I envision if it is done by governments as opposed to some smaller charitiable organization...and I would say that charity building an economy is better than the alternatives that they have.

The problem with that is that the professor
a) doesn't own the grade.
b) doesn't lose if the student fails.
An investor on the other hand owns the money he or she is risking, and if the investment fails, that money is lost. The difference between the fair trade that is an interest-paying loan and this blackmail should be fairly clear.Most professors have to have a certain number of passing students in order to keep their jobs, so it is possible that he could lose something if the student doesn't pass. Additionally, the professor does own the grade, since he owns his opinion, and the grade is simply his opinion of whether or not the student understands the course material.

I would say that the difference between blackmail and interest payments is simply that blackmail is openly and directly coercive, whereas interest payments are subtly and indirectly coercive.

If you're going to trust local officials and your own government, feel free. I just feel that people only act 100% reliably if they do it for their own good. The opportunity to make a profit is what keeps the elements in this cycle honest.I don't exactly trust my own government, but I would say that a government is more trustworthy than a corporation because a government is at least accountable for its actions every election cycle.

They give as little back as is possible, and only because they can't help but to not give it back.
Unless they're being altruistic of course :D .

Well, no, I wasn't thinking protectionism was a bad thing, but mercantilism and imperialism would be.
Protectionism and Mercantilism is the same thing. There has absolutely never been an argument for protectionism which was not based on nationalism of some sort, the idea that workers at home are worth more than workers abroad.

Everyone in a said country that was imperialistic benefitted from imperialism, be it directly or indirectly. The company that someone works for might only have existed as a result of imperalism, for example. You wouldn't have to go too far back on the chain to find some benefit to an individual.
Perhaps - but does that mean I am responsible? Should I be held accountable? Should I be punished?

I would say that the difference between blackmail and interest payments is simply that blackmail is openly and directly coercive, whereas interest payments are subtly and indirectly coercive.
In an interest-based loan, there is a clear trade: One side offers its own money to the other. And in return, one gets a bit of extra money back, to account both for the risk, and for the opportunity cost of not having had the money for that time. It's a voluntary trade, both sides having clear and justifiable goals.
In a blackmail, one side forces the other into something it does not want to do, by threatening to do something bad to them. It is not a voluntary trade, only one side has a goal.

I don't exactly trust my own government, but I would say that a government is more trustworthy than a corporation because a government is at least accountable for its actions every election cycle.
You mean like the US Government right now?

Unless they're being altruistic of course :D .Heh. I suppose one could argue that when a business gives to charity, they do it to be altruistic as opposed to getting themselves positive media coverage and the hope of more sales; I'm not in the board rooms, so I can't say why exactly they do so.

Protectionism and Mercantilism is the same thing. There has absolutely never been an argument for protectionism which was not based on nationalism of some sort, the idea that workers at home are worth more than workers abroad.Mercantilism does involve protectionist policies, but it is more extensive than simply protectionism. Protectionism is country A building factories in country A producing for country A to the exclusion of similar foreign products. Mercantilism is country A giving businesses money to build factories in country B producing for country A to the exclusion of similar foreign products. The reason that mercantilism is worse is that it lessens the likelihood of country B building its own factories producing for country B.

Perhaps - but does that mean I am responsible? Should I be held accountable? Should I be punished?Depends:
Are you in a country that was imperalistic? Do you reject the benefits of imperialism to your country?

In an interest-based loan, there is a clear trade: One side offers its own money to the other. And in return, one gets a bit of extra money back, to account both for the risk, and for the opportunity cost of not having had the money for that time. It's a voluntary trade, both sides having clear and justifiable goals.
In a blackmail, one side forces the other into something it does not want to do, by threatening to do something bad to them. It is not a voluntary trade, only one side has a goal.I don't believe that people really want to take out loans, it is simply the better of two bad options, in the same way that the blackmailer is paid because keeping the secret because it is the better of two bad options.

You mean like the US Government right now?Yes. As bad as the government is here, I trust them infinitely more than I trust Wal-Mart.

You say Capitalists, I say Americans in general.

Heh. I suppose one could argue that when a business gives to charity, they do it to be altruistic as opposed to getting themselves positive media coverage and the hope of more sales; I'm not in the board rooms, so I can't say why exactly they do so.



If it were for positive media coverage then you could say - without looking it up - what corporation gives most. Dimes against dollars says you cannot.

You say Capitalists, I say Americans in general.

Americans give more money to charity than any other nation's citizens in the world - and that does not include the charitable giving from the government funded by American citizens.

and that does not include the charitable giving from the government funded by American citizens.
That's a damn'd polite way of describing the coercion that the American public undergoes each April.

Mercantilism does involve protectionist policies, but it is more extensive than simply protectionism. Protectionism is country A building factories in country A producing for country A to the exclusion of similar foreign products. Mercantilism is country A giving businesses money to build factories in country B producing for country A to the exclusion of similar foreign products. The reason that mercantilism is worse is that it lessens the likelihood of country B building its own factories producing for country B.

Not exactly.

Protectionism is Country A putting up barriers to imports from all other countries and subsidizing its industries to unfairly take advantage of markets in other nations. The goal of protectionism is to both supress imports and expand exports to other nations through dumping of subsidized goods; it seeks to both close off the home market and take over other nations' markets.

Mercantilism is Country A taking over Country B, turning it in to Colony A, and harvesting raw materials from it and then turning those raw materials in to finished goods for resale to Colony A. The goal is to maximize the holdings of precious metals and to create a positive balance of trade between the home country, its colony, and its noncolony trading partners.

Both of these are highly nationalistic; the difference is that Protectionism uses subsidies and laws to restrict trade for the nation while Mercantilism involves the government legally restricting economic development in order to create an artificial market and to ensure the flow of cheap resources to the home nation. Effectively, the nation is a parisite feeding off of its colonies for raw materials and then reselling those finished goods for a profit while simultaneously preventing the colony from producing finished goods itself in order to sustain that dependence.

Depends:
Are you in a country that was imperalistic? Do you reject the benefits of imperialism to your country?
Well, I'm from Germany. Perhaps that's a special case, because anything that it might have gained through Imperialism has long since been destroyed.
But the fact of the matter is that you can't really endorse collective historical guilt here. No one who lives today's had anything to do with the crimes committed by Imperialists. And if you're going to start assigning guilt simply on the basis of profitting indirectly, then there might have been some fairly gruesome massacres the Romans committed over the years...

I don't believe that people really want to take out loans, it is simply the better of two bad options, in the same way that the blackmailer is paid because keeping the secret because it is the better of two bad options.
They probably would prefer to just have the money, yes. Not that that is particularly realistic, because even in a socialist utopia, something doesn't come from nothing.

Yes. As bad as the government is here, I trust them infinitely more than I trust Wal-Mart.
The thing is that Wal-Mart is predictable. You can tell exactly what they will do, which allows a smart government to "use" their needs and wants to further the interests of other parties as well.
A government is not predictable. Modern republics may have all sorts of mechanisms in place to allow people to change their governments, but we see everyday that those are in no way a guarantee. Do I truly know what the Australian, or the American governments want to achieve? No, and I'd bet that even they don't fully know.

If it were for positive media coverage then you could say - without looking it up - what corporation gives most. Dimes against dollars says you cannot.I would assume that Bill Gates does. If not him, then who?

Not exactly.

Protectionism is Country A putting up barriers to imports from all other countries and subsidizing its industries to unfairly take advantage of markets in other nations. The goal of protectionism is to both supress imports and expand exports to other nations through dumping of subsidized goods; it seeks to both close off the home market and take over other nations' markets.

Mercantilism is Country A taking over Country B, turning it in to Colony A, and harvesting raw materials from it and then turning those raw materials in to finished goods for resale to Colony A. The goal is to maximize the holdings of precious metals and to create a positive balance of trade between the home country, its colony, and its noncolony trading partners.

Both of these are highly nationalistic; the difference is that Protectionism uses subsidies and laws to restrict trade for the nation while Mercantilism involves the government legally restricting economic development in order to create an artificial market and to ensure the flow of cheap resources to the home nation. Effectively, the nation is a parisite feeding off of its colonies for raw materials and then reselling those finished goods for a profit while simultaneously preventing the colony from producing finished goods itself in order to sustain that dependence.Ah, thank you. So I was wrong about which each were, but I was right in saying that mercantilism was much more extensive than protectionism is.

Well, I'm from Germany. Perhaps that's a special case, because anything that it might have gained through Imperialism has long since been destroyed.Ah, perhaps so.

But the fact of the matter is that you can't really endorse collective historical guilt here. No one who lives today's had anything to do with the crimes committed by Imperialists. And if you're going to start assigning guilt simply on the basis of profitting indirectly, then there might have been some fairly gruesome massacres the Romans committed over the years...<shrug> I don't have a problem with the idea of assigning guilt all the way back to the evolution of mankind.

They probably would prefer to just have the money, yes. Not that that is particularly realistic, because even in a socialist utopia, something doesn't come from nothing.Certainly, but in a "socialist utopia", you aren't given loans, required to pay them back, and then penalized further if you don't do so quickly enough.

The thing is that Wal-Mart is predictable. You can tell exactly what they will do, which allows a smart government to "use" their needs and wants to further the interests of other parties as well.
A government is not predictable. Modern republics may have all sorts of mechanisms in place to allow people to change their governments, but we see everyday that those are in no way a guarantee. Do I truly know what the Australian, or the American governments want to achieve? No, and I'd bet that even they don't fully know.Eh. Personally, I would rather have an unpredictable government than a predictable corporation. With an unpredictable government, if you prepare for the worst you can be pleasantly surprised, but with Wal-Mart, you have to prepare for the worst because what Wal-Mart wants is the worst.