"The End of Poverty" [Archive]

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 07:50 PM

"The End of Poverty" by Jeffery Sachs. The guy that wrote this book is a complete left wing tree hugger idiot. I saw him the other night on the Colbert Report, where he made a total ass of himself, so I decided to research the book a little more. I've read a few exerpts from it. From reading that, I've come to the conclusion that this guy is a bonehead and a half. That is all.
That idiot built an empire for himself, is one of the most respected economists in the entire world, and graduated summa cum laude from Harvard. You have the audacity to call him an idiot? Please tell me what qualifies you to judge his economic policies.

03-08-2006, 07:53 PM

He's smart, and I read his credentials. But an idiot in the sense that none of what I read will happen. His theories and ideas are unrealistic. I'm not doubting his intellect at all, nor his credentials. I just don't agree with him what so ever.

In his book, the exerpts I read about wealth and poverty, etc, were very interesting and was very good reading. I just don't see how he can go so far out on a limb as to say poverty, coupled with our problems as the dominant country in the world, can end poverty within 20 years.

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 07:57 PM

He's smart, and I read his credentials. But an idiot in the sense that none of what I read will happen. His theories and ideas are unrealistic. I'm not doubting his intellect at all, nor his credentials. I just don't agree with him what so ever.
You didn't read the goddamn book, and his theories have already been successfully employed in parts of latin american and asia when he was chief advisor to both the IMF and World Bank. I'd love to hear your suggestions on the reduction of poverty in Africa.

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 07:59 PM

I just don't see how he can go so far out on a limb as to say poverty, coupled with our problems as the dominant country in the world, can end poverty within 20 years.
Poverty can end poverty? :confused: Since when does Sachs feel that the US or the "dominant country" combating poverty alone? Sounds like you didn't read any of his feelings towards NGO's, MNC's and IO's.

03-08-2006, 08:04 PM

Poverty can end poverty? :confused: Since when does Sachs feel that the US or the "dominant country" combating poverty alone? Sounds like you didn't read any of his feelings towards NGO's, MNC's and IO's.

Typo. I meant to say that I don't see how the US, with out problems, can end poverty within 20 years. I didn't read the book, you're right. And I won't either. Just because he's well respected throughout the world doesn't mean I have to agree with him. I know what he's done and what he is doing, but I don't agree with what he feels the US should do to help.

Poverty in Africa will never end. That's my thoughts.

Vertnut

03-08-2006, 08:05 PM

You didn't read the goddamn book, and his theories have already been successfully employed in parts of latin american and asia when he was chief advisor to both the IMF and World Bank. I'd love to hear your suggestions on the reduction of poverty in Africa.

Thank God, this isn't Latin America or Asia! The best way to erase poverty is to offer $5000 cash to any female or male drug addict, derelict, etc. for immediate sterilization. It's simple, and would have immediate effects. The problem with people in poverty, is they are so prolific. With the $5k in cash, the best case scenario, is that they would O.D. quickly. Worst case, they can't reproduce more kids for us to raise. Simple, but effective. And yes, this would work in Africa, also.

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 08:09 PM

Thank God, this isn't Latin America or Asia! The best way to erase poverty is to offer $5000 cash to any female or male drug addict, derelict, etc. for immediate sterilization. It's simple, and would have immediate effects. The problem with people in poverty, is they are so prolific. With the $5k in cash, the best case scenario, is that they would O.D. quickly. Worst case, they can't reproduce more kids for us to raise. Simple, but effective. And yes, this would work in Africa, also.
This is exactly why everytime I post in the political forum on a mustang board it's against my best judgement.

03-08-2006, 08:10 PM

03-08-2006, 08:11 PM

This is exactly why everytime I post in the political forum on a mustang board it's against my best judgement.

I disagree with that as well...with what he said, not what you said. Go post on Sean Hannity's website. They'd love you there.

Vertnut

03-08-2006, 08:12 PM

I love it! :D See, the left really doesn't want to end poverty....it would decimate their voting base. Poverty pimps...can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em! :D

Ted

03-08-2006, 08:12 PM

As a reduction to the poverty, We could just set up something like Bum Fights to the Death, with winner takes all. Pay-per-view that shit, it's pays for itself.

I need to patent this idea so no one gets paid for my thoughts.

bucky

03-08-2006, 08:12 PM

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 08:14 PM

I just think this guys priorities are way out of line. Right now the US has a whole lot more on its plate than helping Africa overcome their Malaria plague, etc. There are certain parts of life that people need to accept, and that there will always be poverty whether it's here in the US, in Africa, Eastern Europe, India, where ever. Poverty will not go away no matter how much money is given out, no matter how much aid is given, no matter how much effort is put towards it.
Its revolutionary thinkers like you that make the world a better place to live in. Without people like you, I'd probably be stricken with polio and protectionism. Explain to me how these "problems" the US has on its plate compare to the abject poverty of sub-saharian Africa. Are you completely devoid of compassion?

Vertnut

03-08-2006, 08:15 PM

I gave a perfect solution...what's the issue? No fights, no cruelty. Just cold hard cash! The problem will take care of itself.

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 08:16 PM

I disagree with that as well...with what he said, not what you said. Go post on Sean Hannity's website. They'd love you there.
Sounds like you're making assumptions, just like you did with Sachs book you didn't even read but still decided to criticize. :rolleyes:

03-08-2006, 08:18 PM

Haven't read the book and don't care too.I have no idea if he is a "left wing" tree hugger either and don't care.
I researched him on Wikipdia and his credentials are impressive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs

His credentials are VERY impressive. And what he has done for some countries is also VERY impressive. I just don't buy in to his rhetoric about ending poverty in 20 years...

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 08:19 PM

I gave a perfect solution...what's the issue? No fights, no cruelty. Just cold hard cash! The problem will take care of itself.
Please name one instance of foreign aid from the world bank or IMF that didn't come with SAP's and washington consensus program measures please....

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 08:19 PM

His credentials are VERY impressive. And what he has done for some countries is also VERY impressive. I just don't buy in to his rhetoric about ending poverty in 20 years...
How would you know, you haven't read it.

03-08-2006, 08:20 PM

Sounds like you're making assumptions, just like you did with Sachs book you didn't even read but still decided to criticize. :rolleyes:

Roger.

03-08-2006, 08:21 PM

How would you know, you haven't read it.

I've read enough and am reading more now so I can further solidify my opinions.

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 08:22 PM

I've read enough and am reading more now so I can further solidify my opinions.
You picked that book up fast. Let me guess, you don't actually have the book?

03-08-2006, 08:24 PM

You picked that book up fast. Let me guess, you don't actually have the book?

I wouldn't buy it. I'm reading more on him and his ideas. I've watched a couple of videos of him speaking in Ontario. He's a terrible public speaker.

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 08:27 PM

I wouldn't buy it. I'm reading more on him and his ideas. I've watched a couple of videos of him speaking in Ontario. He's a terrible public speaker.
I read Talismans review of the bible, and have decided its stupid. I read a review of it on a few websites and decided its not really practical. I'm not going to buy it or read it to understand it on my own though. God had good credentials, but I don't agree with the 15 selective lines I read myself.

03-08-2006, 08:34 PM

I read Talismans review of the bible, and have decided its stupid. I read a review of it on a few websites and decided its not really practical. I'm not going to buy it or read it to understand it on my own though. God had good credentials, but I don't agree with the 15 selective lines I read myself.

That was completely retarded and not even in the same ballpark.

Just because of his accomplishments and what not doesn't mean I have to agree with him, which is what makes it MY opinion.

Vertnut

03-08-2006, 08:35 PM

This thread just went down the shitter...

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 08:37 PM

That was completely retarded and not even in the same ballpark.

Just because of his accomplishments and what not doesn't mean I have to agree with him, which is what makes it MY opinion.
You haven't read the book, only selected lines and reviews. You don't think its practical, yet you haven't read it in its entirety and I don't believe you understand the economic framework that it would operate within. I hope you don't base all of YOUR opinons on things you have so little familiarity with.

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 08:37 PM

This thread just went down the shitter...
Did you catch the question I posed to you Vert?

03-08-2006, 08:39 PM

You haven't read the book, only selected lines and reviews. You don't think its practical, yet you haven't read it in its entirety and I don't believe you understand the economic framework that it would operate within. I hope you don't base all of YOUR opinons on things you have so little familiarity with.

I'm not necessarily just talking about his book. I'm talking about his ideology as a whole. A lot of what he wants to do in the future is not feasable.

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 08:41 PM

I'm not necessarily just talking about his book. I'm talking about his ideology as a whole. A lot of what he wants to do in the future is not feasable.
I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about his book " The End of Poverty".

03-08-2006, 08:43 PM

Him and his book. Some of his future plans are detailed in his book; are they not?

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 08:45 PM

Him and his book. Some of his future plans are detailed in his book; are they not?
Sorry, I figure the thread title and first line was the topic of conversation. I guess I should read the whole thing before I form an opinion, otherwise I might look ignorant.

03-08-2006, 08:52 PM

Sorry, I figure the thread title and first line was the topic of conversation. I guess I should read the whole thing before I form an opinion, otherwise I might look ignorant.

I can read between the lines as well. I've read enough on him, portions of his book that I've found online, which is well over 100 pages of the book, and have thus formed an opinion. You don't need to read something in full to form an opinion on it. Hell, since you referenced the Bible earlier, a good percentage of "Christians" can't say they've read the Bible in full...more or less just bits and pieces.

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 08:53 PM

I can read between the lines as well. I've read enough on him, portions of his book that I've found online, which is well over 100 pages of the book, and have thus formed an opinion. You don't need to read something in full to form an opinion on it. Hell, since you referenced the Bible earlier, a good percentage of "Christians" can't say they've read the Bible in full...more or less just bits and pieces.
I have no respect for those Christians, do you?

Vertnut

03-08-2006, 08:58 PM

Did you catch the question I posed to you Vert?

Yeah, I caught it. World bank? Foreign aid? It's not that complicated. You guys can go at each other, I just offered an iron-clad resolution to poverty...

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 09:01 PM

Yeah, I caught it. World bank? Foreign aid? It's not that complicated. You guys can go at each other, I just offered an iron-clad resolution to poverty...
Yes, if its not that complicated, please pull figures on what percentage of our GDP funds the world bank investments in Africa, and when any funds have been freely transfered without structural adjustment policies being forced in. I'm not going at anyones political ideals, I'm just pissed a literary work is being blindly criticized.

03-08-2006, 09:14 PM

I'm just pissed a literary work is being blindly criticized.

You don't say. ;)

It's not blindly being critisized...just near sightedly. I've been reading on him for a few days now and know enough about him. Sure, I could always learn more. But some shit that he says is so far fetched and so unrealistic that it really makes me wonder where, or better yet who, he gets his priorities from. Some of what he says is dead on, like when he says the government isn't doing squat about world poverty. I agree. We're too busy securing the citizens of this nation from terrorism. Call my way of thinking militaristic or what ever. Right now the U.S. government doesn't have time to worry about the sweat shops in China, the AIDS and Malaria in Africa, or anything else of that nature until our security is assured, or at least improved.

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 09:20 PM

You don't say. ;)

It's not blindly being critisized...just near sightedly. I've been reading on him for a few days now and know enough about him. Sure, I could always learn more. But some shit that he says is so far fetched and so unrealistic that it really makes me wonder where, or better yet who, he gets his priorities from. Some of what he says is dead on, like when he says the government isn't doing squat about world poverty. I agree. We're too busy securing the citizens of this nation from terrorism. Call my way of thinking militaristic or what ever. Right now the U.S. government doesn't have time to worry about the sweat shops in China, the AIDS and Malaria in Africa, or anything else of that nature until our security is assured, or at least improved.
That's all I'm after. Take any political and economic stance you wish, thats your prerogative. I'm glad we're fighting terrorism and glad you guys do what you do, but I don't think it means the US shouldn't work towards economic policies to alleviate poverty and increase total world output.

RyanB

03-08-2006, 09:29 PM

Please name one instance of foreign aid from the world bank or IMF that didn't come with SAP's and washington consensus program measures please....

The World bank and IMF are both multi lateral organizations and usually insist on limitations or cutbacks in state spending as conditions for loans or structural adjustment programs to assist countries in debt. They also usually recommend massive economic and social changes resulting in a total reorganization of societies.

This is what we are running into in the Middle East right now. There is a cultural difference in the "Western culture" and the rest of the world. Especially agricultural societies like Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa.

What works in a Harvard grads mind may not work in the real world.

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 09:34 PM

The World bank and IMF are both multi lateral organizations and usually insist on limitations or cutbacks in state spending as conditions for loans or structural adjustment programs to assist countries in debt. They also usually recommend massive economic and social changes resulting in a total reorganization of societies.

This is what we are running into in the Middle East right now. There is a cultural difference in the "Western culture" and the rest of the world. Especially agricultural societies like Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa.

What works in a Harvard grads mind may not work in the real world.
Thanks for affirming everything I've said, for some reason Vertnut thinks the IMF and World Bank hand out free money. :confused: There's no guarantee any economic practices will work, but his track record is impressive and he has much more direct experience with it that 99.9 percent of the world.

RyanB

03-08-2006, 09:39 PM

Thanks for affirming everything I've said, for some reason Vertnut thinks the IMF and World Bank hand out free money. :confused: There's no guarantee any economic practices will work, but his track record is impressive and he has much more direct experience with it that 99.9 percent of the world.

They did donkey off 22.6 Billion dollars to Russia in July 1998. On top of another 129 million form other countries.

Fordblue625

03-08-2006, 09:48 PM

They did donkey off 22.6 Billion dollars to Russia in July 1998. On top of another 129 million form other countries.
The IMF screwed the pooch on that one by not forcing them to adopt the policies and by letting their currency valuation situation become instable and take a total shit. Russia sucks. Ass.

03-08-2006, 10:01 PM

That's all I'm after. Take any political and economic stance you wish, thats your prerogative. I'm glad we're fighting terrorism and glad you guys do what you do, but I don't think it means the US shouldn't work towards economic policies to alleviate poverty and increase total world output.

I don't disagree with you. The US should help out and should work harder with their foreign economic policies and should help to alleviate poverty and increase total world output. But right now we're having to set our priorities straight. Right now GWOT is number 1 in most everyone's book.

HookEm

03-09-2006, 03:29 AM

What an asinine subject. There will always be poverty. There have to be have nots, for there to be have's. Why is this even being debated? There are places where there is no perceived poverty.....that is, of course, because EVERYONE is broke. It's called communism. Or maybe socialism.......with that group > individuality crap.

Please.

hotrod66stang

03-09-2006, 04:43 AM

Poverty will not go away no matter how much money is given out, no matter how much aid is given, no matter how much effort is put towards it.
If it weren't to go away, it would only be because of that way of thinking. Why try if you "know" it won't happen. People that are so dense and REFUSE to see a way out, won't ever get out. I honestly don't think poverty will ever be extinguished, but only because there are too many people out there with the same outlook as you, along with greed, and people with no compassion for their fellow man.

You say how great the man's credentials are, how he's so well respected throughout the world, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with him. Then you had an opinion formed before you were even informed, but YOU want credibility for your opinions? Not gonna happen. That'd be like me saying " I heard about some guy named Steve Jobs (Apple), he's well respected around the world, built an empire for himself doing something with computers, I don't really know... but I think he's an idiot. Get an informed opinion first. Just my .02c

AbecX

03-09-2006, 05:22 AM

<font size=25>THIS JUST IN, Fordblue625 IS A COMMUNIST.</font>

AbecX

03-09-2006, 05:24 AM

Denny

03-09-2006, 06:23 AM

btw, new orleans black people are a prime example on how giving out money does not fix anything. Laziness or mental problems are not resolved by monetary donations. Poverty will always be prevalent when people continue to do the bare minimum to get by.

AMEN!

Would you just give a bum, that was holding up a "Will work for food" sign, a small business loan? Hell no... and you can't tell me otherwise! It's not a matter of being dense or pessimistic, it's a matter of proper money management. People get so wrapped up in giving to the needy, they don't realize how much is actually going to just be wasted away and the people it was intended for won't be any better off. But, as long as it makes people feel better since they gave some money to the needy, it's OK :rolleyes:

HookEm

03-09-2006, 07:57 AM

Why would you need to see a communist way of life fail yet again, to know that it doesn't work? How many failures have there been? Or better yet....how many successes? Looks GREAT on paper, though........

If it weren't to go away, it would only be because of that way of thinking. Why try if you "know" it won't happen. People that are so dense and REFUSE to see a way out, won't ever get out. I honestly don't think poverty will ever be extinguished, but only because there are too many people out there with the same outlook as you, along with greed, and people with no compassion for their fellow man.

You say how great the man's credentials are, how he's so well respected throughout the world, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with him. Then you had an opinion formed before you were even informed, but YOU want credibility for your opinions? Not gonna happen. That'd be like me saying " I heard about some guy named Steve Jobs (Apple), he's well respected around the world, built an empire for himself doing something with computers, I don't really know... but I think he's an idiot. Get an informed opinion first. Just my .02c

BigJirish08

03-09-2006, 10:05 AM

Fordblue625

03-09-2006, 10:46 AM

Why would you need to see a communist way of life fail yet again, to know that it doesn't work? How many failures have there been? Or better yet....how many successes? Looks GREAT on paper, though........
I don't view the reduction of poverty as communist, I see it as necessary to increase WTO and competition. Whoever read communism into that, or those ignorant enough to label IMF and World bank contributions as "free money" is incorrect. You're right though, these organizations funding projects is stupid. They should have never rebuilt Europe after WWII, and we should discourage investment and world growth and just go protectionist.

SlowLX

03-09-2006, 10:48 AM

Im way to lazy to read all of this or this guys book, but you will NEVER get rid of poverty becuase you will NEVER achieve full employment in america.

Fordblue625

03-09-2006, 10:49 AM

Im way to lazy to read all of this or this guys book, but you will NEVER get rid of poverty becuase you will NEVER achieve full employment in america.
Since when does poverty elimination require full employment? We're not talking about America either, but thanks for playing.

SlowLX

03-09-2006, 10:53 AM

Since when does poverty elimination require full employment? We're not talking about America either, but thanks for playing.
As long as there is unemployed there will be poor people smart ass. And I'd tend to stick with America as an example since it is one of the worlds largest and most succedfull economies in the last hundred years. 2nd off I dont have to go further than the basic economic goals to prove that pverty can not be erased by handing out money. If you have equal income distribution there will be no incentive to work becuase no matter what you do you'll get the same amount of cash. There is such a thing as racial discrimination that leads to poverty but unless you start paying innercity kids the same or more than they make slinging dope they're not going to pay attention in school or get a real job as long as they can get by with what they've learned growing up.

Denny

03-09-2006, 10:54 AM

Since when does poverty elimination require full employment?

Unless you're one of those "The world owes me a living" mother fuckers, it's definately required.

Fordblue625

03-09-2006, 10:58 AM

As long as there is unemployed there will be poor people smart ass. And I'd tend to stick with America as an example since it is one of the worlds largest and most succedfull economies in the last hundred years. 2nd off I dont have to go further than the basic economic goals to prove that pverty can not be erased by handing out money. If you have equal income distribution there will be no incentive to work becuase no matter what you do you'll get the same amount of cash. There is such a thing as racial discrimination that leads to poverty but unless you start paying innercity kids the same or more than they make slinging dope they're not going to pay attention in school or get a real job as long as they can get by with what they've learned growing up.
Who said anything about equal income distribution being required for redistributive programs? Last time I checked the US had income redistribution and managed to retain incentives. :confused: Faced with the system of winners and losers globalization creates, how do you propose we increase developing countries ability to compete in the global marketplace and take full advantage of its natural and human capital without putting in place a successful economic infrastructure and funding its beginning, which is exactly what the IMF does?

Fordblue625

03-09-2006, 11:03 AM

Unless you're one of those "The world owes me a living" mother fuckers, it's definately required.
I'm not one, yet I think that there will always be a cycle of unemployed persons which global shifts in system mandate. Right now several white collar jobs are going offshore, and people who were once productive are now unemployed, and need opportunities for retraining etc before they can find a new line of work compatible with the shift. I don't think we'll ever escape having poor people, and I don't believe in equality of income. My only contention in this entire thread is that we should continue to promote growth in developing countries because it creates a beter economic system for the entire globe, at a relatively low expense. 22.6 billion dollars in a bailout like Russia that fails is a small expense compared to money world stands to gain in the successful reforms.

Chopper

03-09-2006, 11:06 AM

Denny

03-09-2006, 11:06 AM

Right now several white collar jobs are going offshore, and people who were once productive are now unemployed, and need opportunities for retraining etc before they can find a new line of work compatible with the shift.

My only contention in this entire thread is that we should continue to promote growth in developing countries because it creates a beter economic system for the entire globe, at a relatively low expense.

See the problem here?

SlowLX

03-09-2006, 11:10 AM

Who said anything about equal income distribution being required for redistributive programs? Last time I checked the US had income redistribution and managed to retain incentives. :confused: Faced with the system of winners and losers globalization creates, how do you propose we increase developing countries ability to compete in the global marketplace and take full advantage of its natural and human capital without putting in place a successful economic infrastructure and funding its beginning, which is exactly what the IMF does?
Eventually increasesing the spending on redistribution prgrams turns it into equal income distribution, charity from the american govt. is not the way to get people out of poverty, they need to get money from someone they would feel loyal and indebted to or earn it themselves. There will allways be poverty becuase you can not erase laziness or discrimination. First off you're right you must put a economically proven system in place for a country to fully to advance in the world. And a tiny nation such as Ecuador(sp) is not going to be able to compete with an industrialized nation such as America, Canada, UK, France, Germany, or Japan. However handing our money isn't going to help until a syustem of govt like that comes together on its own, otherwise the funds will be misused and then someone like you will be bitching about how American companies are dealing with the dictators and making a profit. It's called capitalism; if a small country wants to achieve that they need to create their own stable govt without aid from an outside military unless it is an extreme case. Then and only then would it make any sense to give the country money so they may specialize their economy in one specific resource so that they may compete. And if you want to jump on someone about how specializing in one resource can retard an economy if that resource ever fails. Oh well some countries arn't blessed with the prime real estate like America is, so they don't have the ability to produce many resources like us with out invading their fledgling weaker neighbor which is a whole different thread.

Fordblue625

03-09-2006, 11:12 AM

FordBlue, get ready for a lot of pushback from Americans. Because there are a lot of perks to being top dog, and we've been that for around 60yrs now. We're used to it. We like using our purchasing power as leverage. If everyone has the same economic status as we do, then we won't get that anymore.

I don't agree with the guy's message though. And as for ending poverty in Africa, it's pretty simple. Get them educated, get them jobs or hobbies to stop having so many children that they can't take care of, and stop the spread of AIDS. We just gave them $15billion, don't tell me that we still "owe" them more. Where is France, Germany, Russia, and most of all, the fucking oil barons in the Middle East that share their continent? They need to chip in too.
I don't think we owe anyone shit, and I've seen pushback from Americans already, unfortunately it hasn't been enough to counteract the strength of multi-national corporations and how consumer friendly outsourcing has been with regard to pricing. However, we're not talking about US investment here, we're talking about the world bank and the IMF. Here, some will believe that the US funds these organizations almost entirely and spends money like a drunk indian, but both are incorrect. IMO, if IGO's do nothing but spend money to give some semblance of a stable economy to developing countries, its a marginal amount compared to what we gain by promoting it. I agree with you 100% that the rest of the world needs to "do their part", but last time I checked the US wasn't close to leading the world in foreign aid adjusted for gdp.

SlowLX

03-09-2006, 11:13 AM

I'm not one, yet I think that there will always be a cycle of unemployed persons which global shifts in system mandate. Right now several white collar jobs are going offshore, and people who were once productive are now unemployed, and need opportunities for retraining etc before they can find a new line of work compatible with the shift. I don't think we'll ever escape having poor people, and I don't believe in equality of income. My only contention in this entire thread is that we should continue to promote growth in developing countries because it creates a beter economic system for the entire globe, at a relatively low expense. 22.6 billion dollars in a bailout like Russia that fails is a small expense compared to money world stands to gain in the successful reforms.
What about companies like Nokia and Samsung that are importing jobs into America?

Fordblue625

03-09-2006, 11:14 AM

See the problem here?
Its a question of efficiency, and a result of capitalism.

Fordblue625

03-09-2006, 11:15 AM

What about companies like Nokia and Samsung that are importing jobs into America?
Refer to my efficiency post. We'll gain some and we'll lose some, we have to continue to have a strong hold on markets we can compete in as the globe becomes more specialized and efficient.

Denny

03-09-2006, 11:15 AM

Its a question of efficiency, and a result of capitalism.

I'll just sit back and slap my forehead repeatedly... I think we'll see better results.

SlowLX

03-09-2006, 11:17 AM

I'll just sit back and slap my forehead repeatedly... I think we'll see better results.
Remember to wear the proper saftey equipment like danny.
Im done talking to people that don't want to hear or understand the other side of the fence.

Fordblue625

03-09-2006, 11:17 AM

I'll just sit back and slap my forehead repeatedly... I think we'll see better results.
You don't believe that America should be forced to specialize and become more efficient just as the rest of the world does?

SlowLX

03-09-2006, 11:20 AM

You don't believe that America should be forced to specialize and become more efficient just as the rest of the world does?
NO America has probably the best location on earth, why should we? We have the capitol and resources to lead the world in technology, industry, and parts of agriculture why should we retard out economy by sticking to one resource? When that resources bottoms out eventually it'll be very hard to adapt to a new economy. I'm done with this thread if you honestly believe an economy can survive off one specialized export.

Denny

03-09-2006, 11:21 AM

You don't believe that America should be forced to specialize and become more efficient just as the rest of the world does?

We're the ones making the rest of the world that way!!! I say the rest of them are doing just fine without us. They succeed because of us.

We're holding their hands and they're gonna take whatever they get whether they need it or not. Can you blame them?

Fordblue625

03-09-2006, 11:21 AM

Remember to wear the proper saftey equipment like danny.
Im done talking to people that don't want to hear or understand the other side of the fence.
I'm sorry for debating with people from " the other side of the fence". I'll stop having political and economic views that aren't to your liking. Last time I checked, no one had this shit figured out.

Fordblue625

03-09-2006, 11:23 AM

NO America has probably the best location on earth, why should we? We have the capitol and resources to lead the world in technology, industry, and parts of agriculture why should we retard out economy by sticking to one resource? When that resources bottoms out eventually it'll be very hard to adapt to a new economy. I'm done with this thread if you honestly believe an economy can survive off one specialized export.
Where in the fuck did you get ONE specialized export? I think because as you said, we have several things goign for us, I.E. things like our location and resources. No reason we should only lead the world in production of one sector.

Fordblue625

03-09-2006, 11:26 AM

We're the ones making the rest of the world that way!!! I say the rest of them are doing just fine without us. They succeed because of us.

We're holding their hands and they're gonna take whatever they get whether they need it or not. Can you blame them?
Exactly Denny, they succeed because of our investment. We invest in countries to create a larger market for our goods, and then they're forced to compete in the race to the bottom labor wise. There is a ton of wasted human capital in africa, and we should provide the initial investment and infrastructure to allow us to exploit that, should we not? They'll be better off, we'll be better off.

Fordblue625

03-09-2006, 11:32 AM

Bye guys, enjoy calling me a communist until we meet again.

AbecX

03-09-2006, 11:33 AM

<font size=25>THIS JUST IN, Fordblue625 IS A COMMUNIST.</font>
QFT

Denny

03-09-2006, 11:34 AM

Exactly Denny, they succeed because of our investment. We invest in countries to create a larger market for our goods, and then they're forced to compete in the race to the bottom labor wise. There is a ton of wasted human capital in africa, and we should provide the initial investment and infrastructure to allow us to exploit that, should we not? They'll be better off, we'll be better off.

Nope... It's not an investment because they'll benefit from it more in the longrun. They'll begin there own developments out there and it's Japan all over again. With more japanese-like countries out there, the US is worth crap!

SlowLX

03-09-2006, 11:36 AM

I'm sorry for debating with people from " the other side of the fence". I'll stop having political and economic views that aren't to your liking. Last time I checked, no one had this shit figured out.
or it meant if you weren't willing to listen and accept the others opinions rather than stating the same fact that Im a little whiteboy that thinks we should give the world all our money becuase we're rich over and over again.

AbecX

03-09-2006, 11:49 AM

History is a very powerful tool, you should use it some time, or do they not have history books in communist russia?

Shorty

03-09-2006, 12:16 PM

In communist Russia history books read you!

RyanB

03-09-2006, 01:37 PM

I don't view the reduction of poverty as communist, I see it as necessary to increase WTO and competition. Whoever read communism into that, or those ignorant enough to label IMF and World bank contributions as "free money" is incorrect. You're right though, these organizations funding projects is stupid. They should have never rebuilt Europe after WWII, and we should discourage investment and world growth and just go protectionist.

It wasnt necessarily the Marshall Plan that fucked over the world economy, it was the fact that it was used as the "business model" for all other countries. These so called 3rd world countries cannot, I repeat CANNOT develop while still being satellites to larger (read: Western) entities. Their dependency on foreign aid and guidance is limiting their ability to grow. The town that coffee in Guatemala is grown in has coffee beans for MORE expensive than Guatemala City, because the capital has more "wholesale buyers". IT's ridiculous and will not stop until the "greater good" of all of economy is looked at, not just short sighted pumping money into faulty/greedy foreign governments. People will die, and they need to until the society can sustain itself withouth foreign aid. Keeping the sick and weak alive in underdeveloped countries is killing the world economy. And the elections of "Western" gov't positions hinge on their support/compassion of these countries and their struggles.

History is a very powerful tool, you should use it some time, or do they not have history books in communist russia?

LOL, if only you knew his profession....

-"Commie" RyanB