Poverty

Fun with supply and demand.
User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3444
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Poverty

Postby Lausten » Tue Feb 21, 2017 6:34 pm

I don't think I've ever posted in "Economics" before, but this seems to fit here best. I watched a documentary that was actually pretty good, not a polemic like so many are. Poverty Inc. is about the business model of "aid". We started responding to global crisis sometime around WWII, but we have kept the emergency response model, and not looked at the underlying causes. Or those who have looked haven't figured out a better model.

I'll link the Q&A page, because you can get most of the meat of the movie from there, in text, podcasts and other bits and bytes. I'm sure if there is something wrong with this, you all will let me know.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7606
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Poverty

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Feb 21, 2017 7:04 pm

Charity Fraud has been popular "forever."

....................queue the Clintons.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6388
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Poverty

Postby TJrandom » Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:59 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Charity Fraud has been popular "forever."

....................queue the Clintons.


The Clinton foundation was not in this list of the US worst 50...

http://www.tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities/

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24795
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Poverty

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:23 am

Lausten wrote:I don't think I've ever posted in "Economics" before, but this seems to fit here best. I watched a documentary that was actually pretty good, not a polemic like so many are. Poverty Inc. is about the business model of "aid". We started responding to global crisis sometime around WWII, but we have kept the emergency response model, and not looked at the underlying causes. Or those who have looked haven't figured out a better model.

Yep. I looked at the links.

I firstly argue strongly, that there should be an international convention on the maximum commission a commercial fundraising firm can take, from donated funds, before the balance reaches the nominated beneficiaries. In Australia, a fixed amount of roughly $400 million, is donated yet, today, commercial fund raisers are taking up to 80% commission. I consider that deceptive conduct on the part of commercial fundraisers and the charities.

I secondly support and consider the gift of education, micro banks, sexual equality and reproduction education to be more important that food unless in a short term crisis.

However I have an unpopular opinion. I am against the middle class being allowed to leave troubled countries because I believe all revolutions are by the middle class. Reform sometimes means political reform and if the middle class has its assets held in the troubled country then the middle class is going to do something about it rather than relocate to an OECD country. It really should be the impoverished who are allowed asylum.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24795
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Poverty

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:23 am

double post

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3444
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Poverty

Postby Lausten » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:31 am

This is not about "charity fraud". If there was some correct way to do the charity, and then people were doing it fraudulently, that would be easy. And in some cases it is. But that is not the problem. The problem is, there are people with perfectly good intentions who have figured out how to use the existing laws to help people in need, but they haven't figured out how to support a country in growing its economy.

One African guy in the movie asks the question, "have you ever heard of a country that was lifted out of poverty by aid?" It doesn't happen. This does not mean however that we should stop giving because it doesn't work. It does save lives, and it allows a few people to live long enough to do the actual work they need to do.

Years ago, I quit my job and tried to find a way to apply my skills to non-profits. What I found were rich people from big organizations calling meetings with big checks in their hands, and telling us what to do. We told them what our neighborhoods actually needed was not what they were offering, and they laughed. We took their money anyway and tried to match their plan as best could, but a lot of resources get wasted trying to work with such organizations. If you see someone in need, the first thing you should do is ask them how you can help. That should be a simple rule, but it's rarely followed.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6388
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Poverty

Postby TJrandom » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:33 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: ... there should be an international convention on the maximum commission a commercial fundraising firm can take, from donated funds, before the balance reaches the nominated beneficiaries. ...


Or maybe a set % to beneficiaries below which tax exemption is not provided. Maybe 90%...

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7606
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Poverty

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:40 am

Lausten wrote:One African guy in the movie asks the question, "have you ever heard of a country that was lifted out of poverty by aid?" It doesn't happen.

Mexico.........the Pacific rim countries...all benefit from the charity of an unlevel trading arrangement. Made my skin crawl decades ago to hear USA trade policy towards Mexico as lifting their people out of poeverty (by putting our people into it!!!) to be fair, Pacific Rim did alot more to help themselves....but too much of the deals had a charitable tinge. Not so much anymore. Now.... we are just bone headed stupid.

TJ===ha, ha....I was gonna agree with Jim Steele because of your "unreasonable" support for the Clintons. Not being on the list?====>figures. Why do you think contributions to them have fallen off so steeply?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24795
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Poverty

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:49 am

Lausten wrote:The problem is, there are people with perfectly good intentions who have figured out how to use the existing laws to help people in need, but they haven't figured out how to support a country in growing its economy.
That's why I specifically mentioned micro banking, which does seem to work, in general in a measurable way.
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsod ... of-poverty

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6388
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Poverty

Postby TJrandom » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:49 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: ... TJ===ha, ha....I was gonna agree with Jim Steele because of your "unreasonable" support for the Clintons. Not being on the list?====>figures. Why do you think contributions to them have fallen off so steeply?


I also found a list of the `best 50` and the Clinton foundation didn`t make it there either. I don`t follow foundations and except from your question have not heard of a falloff occuring - but of course it makes sense that it would, now that they are less politically connected. That of course would not speak to any fault.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7606
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Poverty

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:58 am

TJrandom wrote: I don`t follow foundations and except from your question have not heard of a falloff occuring - but of course it makes sense that it would, now that they are less politically connected. That of course would not speak to any fault.

And the political connection with regard to fraud is meaningless to you because.................................................
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6388
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Poverty

Postby TJrandom » Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:01 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
TJrandom wrote: I don`t follow foundations and except from your question have not heard of a falloff occuring - but of course it makes sense that it would, now that they are less politically connected. That of course would not speak to any fault.

And the political connection with regard to fraud is meaningless to you because.................................................


I didn`t say that. Fraud is still fraud, whether occuring with a politically connected foundation or not.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7606
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Poverty

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:41 am

Ok..........I'll leave you alone except for one last shot: so why would you expect contributions to fall off once anyone is less politically connected?........... and yes, I'm thinking of the Bramble Island Rats: "What is the best view of the evidence? In the latter regarding co2 extinction events, the former in Pay to Play Political Fraud.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6388
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Poverty

Postby TJrandom » Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:19 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Ok..........I'll leave you alone except for one last shot: so why would you expect contributions to fall off once anyone is less politically connected?...........


Simply reduced suck up value to the now tarnished stars. Lots of foundations out there for contributions. As a corporate board member reviewing the list of charities for contributions, and contemplating which one will carry the most weight with shareholders when they read the company annual report, I might not now rate the Clinton Foundation as high as it previously was. I might choose to send my donation to Warren, for example.

As for Pay to Play Political Fraud, I am sure that it exists - but to support a claim against a specific foundation, you would need evidence. For the contributor - what value did they illegally obtain for their donation, or for the charity – how were funds illegally siphoned off, etc.?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7606
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Poverty

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:39 am

TJ: you make no connection between cause and effect. Weird.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6388
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Poverty

Postby TJrandom » Wed Feb 22, 2017 8:19 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:TJ: you make no connection between cause and effect. Weird.


I fear I don`t understand what you mean by that - please elaborate if I have this wrong. The cause of fraud is greed, daring, etc. The effect is a broken law, misuse of funds that could/should have benefitted society better, etc. No?

A charity taking in donations (such as the Clinton Foundation), which later fall off - is not proof, or even suspicion of fraud. If I donate - I donate to a cause with name recognition, maybe one that gives me a nominal something for my desk (plaque, pen, mug, etc.). If I get a government permit request approved behind closed doors, or a valuable gift in return (car, drugs, etc.), then maybe fraud is suspected - but to claim fraud, you would need the details.

We have a possible fraud case now in Japan. Our Prime Minister is a nationalist, and his wife is listed as the head of a new (and only one in Japan) Shinto (emperor worship) pre-school/elementary school, which is to be built next year. (The kiddies will march to ww2 military music OK, maybe not).

The school bought land for the school from the national government - for $1.34m when the land had been appraised for $9m. The national government then paid the school building association $1.14m to prepare the land for use (levelling, retaining wall?) - leaving the school to only pay $200k. The ministry of finance (seller) hid the transaction details until the press got involved. The prime minister says that he had nothing to do with the sale. Fraud? Yes, maybe, but IMO - suspicious. Claimable? Not yet. We need to identify the meetings, participants, dialog, etc. - before a claim can be made.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7606
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Poverty

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:49 pm

TJrandom wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:TJ: you make no connection between cause and effect. Weird.


I fear I don`t understand what you mean by that - please elaborate if I have this wrong. The cause of fraud is greed, daring, etc. The effect is a broken law, misuse of funds that could/should have benefitted society better, etc. No?
Yes........ or close enough for this discussion.



TJrandom wrote:A charity taking in donations (such as the Clinton Foundation), which later fall off - is not proof, or even suspicion of fraud.
No. You depart from your own common sense taking your credulity too far. Is the fall off in giving the Clintons money PROOF OF FRAUD?===no. Does it raise the suspicion of fraud?==Hell Yes.....that is indeed the whole point: politics proceeding by common sense, not criminal court procedure. "The law is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Do not give the Clintons such odious comfort.



TJrandom wrote: If I donate - I donate to a cause with name recognition, maybe one that gives me a nominal something for my desk (plaque, pen, mug, etc.). If I get a government permit request approved behind closed doors, or a valuable gift in return (car, drugs, etc.), then maybe fraud is suspected .
This may indeed demonstrate the very human error you are so OBVIOUSLY making: confusing yourself..... IE YOU.... and your $100 contribution with a $6Million contribution by the Leader of a Country with strategic business interests before your beneficiary. You can wrongly focus on some kind of imagined symmetry...or you can immediately recognize the "legalized fraud" that is present. FRAUD: includes the attempt to influence. Not just the criminal conviction for quid pro quo transactions.


TJrandom wrote: to claim fraud, you would need the details.
Again.... you confuse/conflate common sense with absolute proof. You have all the details you need.....from a common sense prospective. I'm not saying the today, right now, the Clintons should be put in jail for criminal activity. For THAT...you need details, a trial, conviction, appeal....money and influence spread around liberally at each juncture. No...I'm saying we should just all think of the Clintons as such. ie: withdraw our support.




TJrandom wrote:We have a possible fraud case now in Japan. Our Prime Minister is a nationalist, and his wife is listed as the head of a new (and only one in Japan) Shinto (emperor worship) pre-school/elementary school, which is to be built next year. (The kiddies will march to ww2 military music OK, maybe not).

The school bought land for the school from the national government - for $1.34m when the land had been appraised for $9m. The national government then paid the school building association $1.14m to prepare the land for use (levelling, retaining wall?) - leaving the school to only pay $200k. The ministry of finance (seller) hid the transaction details until the press got involved. The prime minister says that he had nothing to do with the sale. Fraud? Yes, maybe, but IMO - suspicious. Claimable? Not yet. We need to identify the meetings, participants, dialog, etc. - before a claim can be made.
In my view.... Hubby and Wifey are..... "one." The legal standard of proof for politicians is "lower than" (ie: not even the appearance of impropriety when spending public funds) for the general populous who pays their salaies and benefits on such favorable terms.

Hang the stupid greedy corrupt bastard.

Next case.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6388
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Poverty

Postby TJrandom » Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:37 pm

OK, but a claim of fraud is a libellous one, if it cannot be proven. I would use it sparingly.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7606
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Poverty

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Feb 22, 2017 9:27 pm

Not against public figures....not in the USA.... land of the brave.... home of the free....with a minority of common sense thinkers. And if it cannot be made against the Clintons, it cannot be made at all.

Hmmmm.... what laws do apply to this forum? Like any good ugly American.... I take my constitution everywhere. Ha, ha....I could well see the law of the poster's home domicle applying differently to all.

My apologies TJ..... I did not mean to pull you in. Lets change "Clinton" to Politicians known to lie for their own benefit who run public charities to which foreign businessmen and national leaders contribute millions of dollars to. That should give you cover.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6388
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Poverty

Postby TJrandom » Wed Feb 22, 2017 10:04 pm


User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3444
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Poverty

Postby Lausten » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:49 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Lausten wrote:One African guy in the movie asks the question, "have you ever heard of a country that was lifted out of poverty by aid?" It doesn't happen.

Mexico.........the Pacific rim countries...all benefit from the charity of an unlevel trading arrangement. Made my skin crawl decades ago to hear USA trade policy towards Mexico as lifting their people out of poeverty (by putting our people into it!!!) to be fair, Pacific Rim did alot more to help themselves....but too much of the deals had a charitable tinge. Not so much anymore. Now.... we are just bone headed stupid.

TJ===ha, ha....I was gonna agree with Jim Steele because of your "unreasonable" support for the Clintons. Not being on the list?====>figures. Why do you think contributions to them have fallen off so steeply?

I don't know what "support" you are talking about. Although not knowing what you are talking about is par for the course. I've used the bad policy of Clinton as an example often. I also note that he has apologized for it, while GWB has not.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

Sushisnake
New Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:55 am

Re: Poverty

Postby Sushisnake » Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:05 am

Lausten wrote:This is not about "charity fraud". If there was some correct way to do the charity, and then people were doing it fraudulently, that would be easy. And in some cases it is. But that is not the problem. The problem is, there are people with perfectly good intentions who have figured out how to use the existing laws to help people in need, but they haven't figured out how to support a country in growing its economy.

One African guy in the movie asks the question, "have you ever heard of a country that was lifted out of poverty by aid?" It doesn't happen. This does not mean however that we should stop giving because it doesn't work. It does save lives, and it allows a few people to live long enough to do the actual work they need to do.

Years ago, I quit my job and tried to find a way to apply my skills to non-profits. What I found were rich people from big organizations calling meetings with big checks in their hands, and telling us what to do. We told them what our neighborhoods actually needed was not what they were offering, and they laughed. We took their money anyway and tried to match their plan as best could, but a lot of resources get wasted trying to work with such organizations. If you see someone in need, the first thing you should do is ask them how you can help. That should be a simple rule, but it's rarely followed.


I'm not sure the aid agencies have the capacity to help a struggling country grow its economy. That takes assistance to industrialise and technologise to use your resources efficiently and efficaciously. That means lots of investment and if that investment is to be of use nation building, it can't come from multinational corporations. That's the sick, sad situation we have now. Multinationals move in to "invest". Their version of growing an economy is to douse it liberally with Round Up, then pick up a bloody big hammer and have a smash and grab free for all. It works out very well for them, too and they get lots of assistance.

At state level, organisations like the World Bank insist the struggling nation must privatise all its resources and assets- including anything they may have managed to nationalise/socialise in the past- and implement public austerity to pay off the debt they now have for the privilege of hosting a multinational smash and grab. The resources and assets get picked up for a song and you have that lovely pool of dirt poor desperate people who'll cop any filthy, dangerous factory, refinery or what have you of any kind that you can't build anywhere else on earth. All those lovely brown and black people and all their lovely resources- just there for the taking. And I haven't even mentioned the support of the industrial military complex or selective application of international law: Justice really is blind. Deaf and dumb, too.

Capitalism: doncha luv it?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6388
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Poverty

Postby TJrandom » Fri Mar 03, 2017 8:40 am

Sushisnake wrote:
Lausten wrote:This is not about "charity fraud". If there was some correct way to do the charity, and then people were doing it fraudulently, that would be easy. And in some cases it is. But that is not the problem. The problem is, there are people with perfectly good intentions who have figured out how to use the existing laws to help people in need, but they haven't figured out how to support a country in growing its economy.

One African guy in the movie asks the question, "have you ever heard of a country that was lifted out of poverty by aid?" It doesn't happen. This does not mean however that we should stop giving because it doesn't work. It does save lives, and it allows a few people to live long enough to do the actual work they need to do.

Years ago, I quit my job and tried to find a way to apply my skills to non-profits. What I found were rich people from big organizations calling meetings with big checks in their hands, and telling us what to do. We told them what our neighborhoods actually needed was not what they were offering, and they laughed. We took their money anyway and tried to match their plan as best could, but a lot of resources get wasted trying to work with such organizations. If you see someone in need, the first thing you should do is ask them how you can help. That should be a simple rule, but it's rarely followed.


I'm not sure the aid agencies have the capacity to help a struggling country grow its economy. That takes assistance to industrialise and technologise to use your resources efficiently and efficaciously. That means lots of investment and if that investment is to be of use nation building, it can't come from multinational corporations. That's the sick, sad situation we have now. Multinationals move in to "invest". Their version of growing an economy is to douse it liberally with Round Up, then pick up a bloody big hammer and have a smash and grab free for all. It works out very well for them, too and they get lots of assistance.

At state level, organisations like the World Bank insist the struggling nation must privatise all its resources and assets- including anything they may have managed to nationalise/socialise in the past- and implement public austerity to pay off the debt they now have for the privilege of hosting a multinational smash and grab. The resources and assets get picked up for a song and you have that lovely pool of dirt poor desperate people who'll cop any filthy, dangerous factory, refinery or what have you of any kind that you can't build anywhere else on earth. All those lovely brown and black people and all their lovely resources- just there for the taking. And I haven't even mentioned the support of the industrial military complex or selective application of international law: Justice really is blind. Deaf and dumb, too.

Capitalism: doncha luv it?


I googled ` multinational smash and grab` expecting to find a long list of the companies and the countries they raped – but lo and behold, the only such link was to the Communist Workers Party of Britain. Hardly a damning expose of Capitalism. But maybe you have better resources that document your contentions?

Sushisnake
New Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:55 am

Re: Poverty

Postby Sushisnake » Fri Mar 03, 2017 11:56 am

TJrandom wrote:
Sushisnake wrote:
Lausten wrote:This is not about "charity fraud". If there was some correct way to do the charity, and then people were doing it fraudulently, that would be easy. And in some cases it is. But that is not the problem. The problem is, there are people with perfectly good intentions who have figured out how to use the existing laws to help people in need, but they haven't figured out how to support a country in growing its economy.

One African guy in the movie asks the question, "have you ever heard of a country that was lifted out of poverty by aid?" It doesn't happen. This does not mean however that we should stop giving because it doesn't work. It does save lives, and it allows a few people to live long enough to do the actual work they need to do.

Years ago, I quit my job and tried to find a way to apply my skills to non-profits. What I found were rich people from big organizations calling meetings with big checks in their hands, and telling us what to do. We told them what our neighborhoods actually needed was not what they were offering, and they laughed. We took their money anyway and tried to match their plan as best could, but a lot of resources get wasted trying to work with such organizations. If you see someone in need, the first thing you should do is ask them how you can help. That should be a simple rule, but it's rarely followed.


I'm not sure the aid agencies have the capacity to help a struggling country grow its economy. That takes assistance to industrialise and technologise to use your resources efficiently and efficaciously. That means lots of investment and if that investment is to be of use nation building, it can't come from multinational corporations. That's the sick, sad situation we have now. Multinationals move in to "invest". Their version of growing an economy is to douse it liberally with Round Up, then pick up a bloody big hammer and have a smash and grab free for all. It works out very well for them, too and they get lots of assistance.

At state level, organisations like the World Bank insist the struggling nation must privatise all its resources and assets- including anything they may have managed to nationalise/socialise in the past- and implement public austerity to pay off the debt they now have for the privilege of hosting a multinational smash and grab. The resources and assets get picked up for a song and you have that lovely pool of dirt poor desperate people who'll cop any filthy, dangerous factory, refinery or what have you of any kind that you can't build anywhere else on earth. All those lovely brown and black people and all their lovely resources- just there for the taking. And I haven't even mentioned the support of the industrial military complex or selective application of international law: Justice really is blind. Deaf and dumb, too.

Capitalism: doncha luv it?


I googled ` multinational smash and grab` expecting to find a long list of the companies and the countries they raped – but lo and behold, the only such link was to the Communist Workers Party of Britain. Hardly a damning expose of Capitalism. But maybe you have better resources that document your contentions?


The Communist Workers Party of Britain? Truly? ROFL! And there was me thinking I'd actually had an original thought in my head and come up with smash and grab by myself. Damn! Don't you hate that? I've never been near the Communist Workers Party of Britain, but I have a passion for macroeconomics and political economics. From where I'm sitting, economics is politics. Anything else is largely distracting smoke and mirrors.

I'll get back to you with more specific citations over time in other threads no doubt, TJ. For now:

Mark Blyth- "Austerity- History of a Dangerous Idea" 2013 and "Great Transformations" 2002. Also his lectures and forums on YouTube- Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. Blyth speaks very well. Clear, concise, powerful.

I waded through Thomas Picketty's "Capital in the 21st Century", too. In fact, it was my first macroeconomics book in a very, very long time. I probably should re-read it because I'll absorb more of it now.

Professor Bill Mitchell. I lean towards Modern Monetary Theory, so I follow Bill Mitchell's blog.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&sour ... Lij2nzsEcg

Professor Richard Wolff- I haven't read his books yet, but I listen to his lectures on YouTube and read articles he writes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Wolff

Richard Deniss - "Econobabble: How to Decode Political Spin and Economic Nonsense" - I think it was published last year.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Denniss
He also writes for quite a few independent Australian current affairs publications - notably Schwartz Media's "The Monthly" and "The Quarterly", and also the online newspaper "New Matilda" all of which I subscribe to.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6388
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Poverty

Postby TJrandom » Fri Mar 03, 2017 7:29 pm

Thanks - I`ll start....

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8600
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Poverty

Postby Lance Kennedy » Mon Mar 06, 2017 10:06 pm

There are ways to increase the success rate of aid. For example, do not donate to the governments of third world nations, since it is likely to end up in the Swiss bank accounts of the president. Do not give to males.

There was an experiment a few years ago (sorry, I do not have the reference any more) where $100 was given, no strings attached, to each of a large number of women in a poor African country. Follow up showed that in most cases, a few years later, those families were much better off. Women are more likely to use money wisely, and invest to help their family. So a lot would buy a goat and sell milk, or chickens and sell eggs, or simple equipment for making clothes, or some similar investment.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3444
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Poverty

Postby Lausten » Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:50 am

Sushisnake wrote:
I'm not sure the aid agencies have the capacity to help a struggling country grow its economy.



It's not a matter of "capacity", it's matter of how we use the resources we have. You really just sort of restated the problem, but then you added that you don't think there is a solution. At least that's what I got from your post. I don't think we are that stupid.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7606
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Poverty

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:02 am

Lausten wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Lausten wrote:One African guy in the movie asks the question, "have you ever heard of a country that was lifted out of poverty by aid?" It doesn't happen.

Mexico.........the Pacific rim countries...all benefit from the charity of an unlevel trading arrangement. =====

Lausten wrote:I don't know what "support" you are talking about. Although not knowing what you are talking about is par for the course. I've used the bad policy of Clinton as an example often. I also note that he has apologized for it, while GWB has not.


It just amuses me how aggressive you are in refusing to simply read. I cut only a few words to make it abundantly clear what support was given. Unless you respond otherwise, I'll assume you still don't know.

///////////////////

There are many types of aid. Relief aid in form of food and water. Medical Aid. good will programs. All overshadowed in money spent by "Foreign Aid" that is mostly grants or loans so the Pentagon can hide their support of USA Arms manufacturers...all to the great injury (ie==>not aid!) of the recipients.

For Lausten: you see...sending lots of guns to a poor country is not really "aiding" them.... but its called aid. I totally understand your confusion on all such issues.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Sushisnake
New Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:55 am

Re: Poverty

Postby Sushisnake » Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:27 am

Lausten wrote:
Sushisnake wrote:
I'm not sure the aid agencies have the capacity to help a struggling country grow its economy.



It's not a matter of "capacity", it's matter of how we use the resources we have. You really just sort of restated the problem, but then you added that you don't think there is a solution. At least that's what I got from your post. I don't think we are that stupid.


Here is what I actually said:

" I'm not sure the aid agencies have the capacity to help a struggling country grow its economy. That takes assistance to industrialise and technologise to use your resources efficiently and efficaciously. That means lots of investment and if that investment is to be of use nation building, it can't come from multinational corporations. " I don’t believe most aid organisations- most of which are non-profit, NGOs- have the capacity to assist countries to industrialise and technologise on a meaningful scale. They don't have the resources. I thought I'd made that plain in my first post, but clearly I hadn't.

I also go on to mention the current role of the state and international organisations such as the IMF and the World Bank in obstructing nation building. I didn't go into the fact that states - particularly first world states- and international organisations like the IMF and World Bank do have the capacity to assist countries to industrialise and technologise but choose not to do so, though I believe I dropped pretty heavy hints.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

You've stated it's all about allocating resources and you're quite right, but you also seem to believe aid agencies can achieve this: how are they to do this given their own limited resources? If they were able to build nations don't you think they would have done so already?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3444
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Poverty

Postby Lausten » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:23 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Lausten wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Lausten wrote:One African guy in the movie asks the question, "have you ever heard of a country that was lifted out of poverty by aid?" It doesn't happen.

Mexico.........the Pacific rim countries...all benefit from the charity of an unlevel trading arrangement. =====

Lausten wrote:I don't know what "support" you are talking about. Although not knowing what you are talking about is par for the course. I've used the bad policy of Clinton as an example often. I also note that he has apologized for it, while GWB has not.


It just amuses me how aggressive you are in refusing to simply read. I cut only a few words to make it abundantly clear what support was given. Unless you respond otherwise, I'll assume you still don't know.

///////////////////

There are many types of aid. Relief aid in form of food and water. Medical Aid. good will programs. All overshadowed in money spent by "Foreign Aid" that is mostly grants or loans so the Pentagon can hide their support of USA Arms manufacturers...all to the great injury (ie==>not aid!) of the recipients.

For Lausten: you see...sending lots of guns to a poor country is not really "aiding" them.... but its called aid. I totally understand your confusion on all such issues.

You said "support for the Clintons" with no explanation. Muddying the thread as always.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3444
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Poverty

Postby Lausten » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:28 pm

Sushisnake wrote:
I hope this clears up any confusion.

You've stated it's all about allocating resources and you're quite right, but you also seem to believe aid agencies can achieve this: how are they to do this given their own limited resources? If they were able to build nations don't you think they would have done so already?

You cleared up nothing. Your assertion that they could if they wanted to is completely ridiculous. The idea of foreign aid was invented only recently, before that, there was only colonization and conquering. I don't see why it would be so surprising that we haven't gotten right yet. Much of the work aid agencies do today probably needs changing, to the extent we wouldn't call them "aid agencies". Aid is great for a tsunami or famine, but is not always the right tool for a nation trying to grow.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com


Return to “Economics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest