First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Why Developing Countries are Poor
55135 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Online
Posted 5/14/10
Imperialist War you do mean Japan starting this. We are Republic and tend to watch out for ourselves. That called survival, Maybe put down New and improved Japan history book, read some from Philippians, China, Korea. I like the Japanies people but from 1910 or so japan had already made planes for war. the US did use Naplam and all the NATO countiers where in this war. And no Biological weapons were used. We treat are prision better than are own troops.
Posted 5/16/10

jandarujora wrote:

The U.S. only helps countries develop who can give them something back in return, so that is why they help them. They never directly "help" countries like Haiti, Zimbabwe, or Liberia (where I was born and grew up) because they know they don't contribute anything so they're taken advantage of. Liberia for example has close to five billion in debt, which means every citizen has to work all day every day for almost a decade without eating or drinking or consuming anything before it's paid off to the creditors.

After the natural disaster in Haiti, Bush and Clinton plastered their faces all over the relief effort to give the illusion the U.S. is a friend. Everyone can somewhat predict what may happen next. The U.S. will loan Haiti just enough money to rebuild some of their country and then throw a big interest rate on it, an amount that the country will never get to pay back.

This is just one example of how U.S. imperialism is firmly in control by keeping other countries to a certain degree of development while turning them into client states that constantly owe large sums of money. Haiti got the even shorter end of the stick because the U.S. got help from other Western powers to keep Haiti the way it is. Every natural disaster to a poorer country makes for a very good business opportunity exploit. Just ask the guys who head the IMF, CFR, and World Bank. These guys wet their pants whenever an earthquake or hurricane hits an underdeveloped place.


I totally agree with you. Just to add on, you think that sending food and clothes to developing countries such as Africa is really going to do much? Yes, they probably appreciate those things. But how long is that going to last? What they need is to have help in being able to grow their own foods, etc. That's all UNICEF and whatever hell charity group does. Donate. This only helps these countries for a short period of time.
Posted 5/16/10

EverlastingDivinity wrote:


jandarujora wrote:

The U.S. only helps countries develop who can give them something back in return, so that is why they help them. They never directly "help" countries like Haiti, Zimbabwe, or Liberia (where I was born and grew up) because they know they don't contribute anything so they're taken advantage of. Liberia for example has close to five billion in debt, which means every citizen has to work all day every day for almost a decade without eating or drinking or consuming anything before it's paid off to the creditors.

After the natural disaster in Haiti, Bush and Clinton plastered their faces all over the relief effort to give the illusion the U.S. is a friend. Everyone can somewhat predict what may happen next. The U.S. will loan Haiti just enough money to rebuild some of their country and then throw a big interest rate on it, an amount that the country will never get to pay back.

This is just one example of how U.S. imperialism is firmly in control by keeping other countries to a certain degree of development while turning them into client states that constantly owe large sums of money. Haiti got the even shorter end of the stick because the U.S. got help from other Western powers to keep Haiti the way it is. Every natural disaster to a poorer country makes for a very good business opportunity exploit. Just ask the guys who head the IMF, CFR, and World Bank. These guys wet their pants whenever an earthquake or hurricane hits an underdeveloped place.


I totally agree with you. Just to add on, you think that sending food and clothes to developing countries such as Africa is really going to do much? Yes, they probably appreciate those things. But how long is that going to last? What they need is to have help in being able to grow their own foods, etc. That's all UNICEF and whatever hell charity group does. Donate. This only helps these countries for a short period of time.
What's patient capitalism as a new way on how to manage aids, a sociological approach to fight poverty, end modern day slavery, all the way to expose and combat corruption.

You're right, UNICEF and charitable donations aren't enough. However when that's all the majority know and rant about, their commonsense and lack of expertise just aren't helping.
Posted 5/28/10 , edited 5/28/10

EverlastingDivinity wrote:


jandarujora wrote:

The U.S. only helps countries develop who can give them something back in return, so that is why they help them. They never directly "help" countries like Haiti, Zimbabwe, or Liberia (where I was born and grew up) because they know they don't contribute anything so they're taken advantage of. Liberia for example has close to five billion in debt, which means every citizen has to work all day every day for almost a decade without eating or drinking or consuming anything before it's paid off to the creditors.

After the natural disaster in Haiti, Bush and Clinton plastered their faces all over the relief effort to give the illusion the U.S. is a friend. Everyone can somewhat predict what may happen next. The U.S. will loan Haiti just enough money to rebuild some of their country and then throw a big interest rate on it, an amount that the country will never get to pay back.

This is just one example of how U.S. imperialism is firmly in control by keeping other countries to a certain degree of development while turning them into client states that constantly owe large sums of money. Haiti got the even shorter end of the stick because the U.S. got help from other Western powers to keep Haiti the way it is. Every natural disaster to a poorer country makes for a very good business opportunity exploit. Just ask the guys who head the IMF, CFR, and World Bank. These guys wet their pants whenever an earthquake or hurricane hits an underdeveloped place.


I totally agree with you. Just to add on, you think that sending food and clothes to developing countries such as Africa is really going to do much? Yes, they probably appreciate those things. But how long is that going to last? What they need is to have help in being able to grow their own foods, etc. That's all UNICEF and whatever hell charity group does. Donate. This only helps these countries for a short period of time.


Yes definitely, it only stalls the problem, not solve it. I have a feeling they don't want the problem solved, kind of like how some drug companies in the medical industry don't want people cured, they only want to temporarily relieve them of whatever condition they have because it brings in continuous profit. That's another story but it is basically the same idea. This world is more about profit and property than it is about people, unfortunately.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 5/29/10
Right, since when was business a moral enterprise? When you're using your loan, you are using the money of someone else and you know right at the outset of the loan being granted that it does not come free. The US did not induce these catastrophies, merely offered help at a cost. The fact that said countries accepted the deal is proof that they would have been in a situation far worse without it. The US is, actually, helping, even if the fact of repayment detracts from the extend of the help. Surely, it is the US who should be entitled to determine how much help she wishes to offer. If the aid isn't unconditional, then it is simply not unconditional. I repeat myself, business is not a moral enterprise and the fact that the recipient of a loan may benefit from it is merely incidental to the deal. In the post WWII era almost all of Europe had substantial debts and there was some bitching for a while, but it subsided because an obligation wilfully taken binds very effectively and leaves no possibility of taking moral high ground in an international, non-personal setting.
Posted 5/29/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

Right, since when was business a moral enterprise? When you're using your loan, you are using the money of someone else and you know right at the outset of the loan being granted that it does not come free. The US did not induce these catastrophies, merely offered help at a cost. The fact that said countries accepted the deal is proof that they would have been in a situation far worse without it. The US is, actually, helping, even if the fact of repayment detracts from the extend of the help. Surely, it is the US who should be entitled to determine how much help she wishes to offer. If the aid isn't unconditional, then it is simply not unconditional. I repeat myself, business is not a moral enterprise and the fact that the recipient of a loan may benefit from it is merely incidental to the deal. In the post WWII era almost all of Europe had substantial debts and there was some bitching for a while, but it subsided because an obligation wilfully taken binds very effectively and leaves no possibility of taking moral high ground in an international, non-personal setting.


so business have the right to take advantage of people and exploit them for all their worth, sorry I disagree. With out the consumers the business will fail and I think business like wal-mart or oil comapnys should be held accountable/regualted so they will stop be so fucking greedy all the time. Money is the root of evil don't ya know.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 5/29/10

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:


DerfelCadarn wrote:

Right, since when was business a moral enterprise? When you're using your loan, you are using the money of someone else and you know right at the outset of the loan being granted that it does not come free. The US did not induce these catastrophies, merely offered help at a cost. The fact that said countries accepted the deal is proof that they would have been in a situation far worse without it. The US is, actually, helping, even if the fact of repayment detracts from the extend of the help. Surely, it is the US who should be entitled to determine how much help she wishes to offer. If the aid isn't unconditional, then it is simply not unconditional. I repeat myself, business is not a moral enterprise and the fact that the recipient of a loan may benefit from it is merely incidental to the deal. In the post WWII era almost all of Europe had substantial debts and there was some bitching for a while, but it subsided because an obligation wilfully taken binds very effectively and leaves no possibility of taking moral high ground in an international, non-personal setting.


so business have the right to take advantage of people and exploit them for all their worth, sorry I disagree. With out the consumers the business will fail and I think business like wal-mart or oil comapnys should be held accountable/regualted so they will stop be so fucking greedy all the time. Money is the root of evil don't ya know.


Take advantage? Would you rather the US didn't 'take advantage' of them? The money the US is using comes from where? Is it the money generated by the amorphous body known as the US or is it the money generated by its citizens? US economy's been hit hard in the past year and in any case it never had infinite resources. The sort of money required for initiating the rebuilding of a country is not the sort of amount you'd just toss about. Please consider the fact that lots of money is concerned and it will be removed from the pool available to the US temporarily, for quite a while actually. A greatly inconvenient fact at a greatly inconvenient time. Of course the US expects something in return. Just look at the model banks use. Interest rises with risk and uncertainty warrants security, it just so happens that the only security available is higher interest. The only state you can expect help from relying on a right you are entitled to is your own state. The US owes no state anything other than to respect their sovereignty and peace. The US is merely offering a facility to those who may require it. If this is to be frowned upon, then so should a contract of sale or lease whereby someone in need is given or provided something for consideration.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.