[Forgone Conclusion]

Free trade aims to remove all international trade barriers in the assumption that the global market will correct itself allowing poorer countries to develop. Fair trade hopes to help developing countries by artificially giving farmers extra money

Obviously the two are opposed, but both have the same overall goal.

Which is right?

[The Phlegmy One!111]

free trade in long run, fair trade for now.

[HolteEnder]

Neither. Let em all suffer.

This post has been edited by HolteEnder: 28 September 2006 - 05:35 PM

[where_i'm_calling_from]

impose trade sanctions on africa. that'll make them stop pissing about in a hurry.

[Dave. zzz....]

Obviously it's the humane and right thing to do to help Africa try and develop as fast as possible in terms of giving aid and establishing fairer trade impositions across borders.

But then, there's something in me which also thinks along a 'survival of the fittest' line. I know it's wrong, but so what if they have a famine, it's better for me personally not to bail them out. They'll never help me, after all. They'll probably have drought problems in 5 years time, q) will I have to send them money again then? a) not if they're already dead.

It's a tough solution, but one of the only working ones I can come up with to an otherwise unsolvable problem.

[Echoes]

fair trade on nations stuck in a poverty trap, free trade between the rest of us. We can't continue dishing our CAP-funded excess on already weak economies, it's just amplifying the problem.

Quote

impose trade sanctions on africa. that'll make them stop pissing about in a hurry.

what, like they did in Iraq? Oh wait, they didn't Saddam lived in large excess whilst the people suffering weren't the people pissing about in the first place. Same for the handful of corrupt junta/dictator-led african nations. Arms sanctions, now maybe that would work. When has the approach you suggest ever yielded the desired effect?

[Forgone Conclusion]

OK, that's a rediculous way of looking at things, especially considering it's quite a lot to do with us that they weill have that famine (us who created the third world debt, and us who have caused such a rate of global wraming).

Do we not have an obligation to do something, if not just to help a fellow human, but out of some sense of responsibility?

[where_i'm_calling_from]

The Narrator, on Sep 28 2006, 09:58 PM, said:

fair trade on nations stuck in a poverty trap, free trade between the rest of us. We can't continue dishing our CAP-funded excess on already weak economies, it's just amplifying the problem.

Quote

impose trade sanctions on africa. that'll make them stop pissing about in a hurry.

what, like they did in Iraq? Oh wait, they didn't Saddam lived in large excess whilst the people suffering weren't the people pissing about in the first place. Same for the handful of corrupt junta/dictator-led african nations. Arms sanctions, now maybe that would work. When has the approach you suggest ever yielded the desired effect?

your argument is ridiculous, not to mention fallacious. iraq and similar oil rich nations continue(d) to trade with nations who did not agree to sanctions, such as russia and china. this enabled the economy to continue as if nothing had changed.

africa doesn't have the same oil reserves, or similiar useful exports, as iraq etc, and so if the west not only stopped helping them, but actually persecuted them, its unlikely non-western nations would want to trade with africa in the same way, as there would be little benefit.

have you noticed how african dictatorships keep falling to military regiemes, even though many were funded by the west? its because although they may have nice palaces or whatever, their economy sucks and the people are still poor. without western aid, they wouldn't even have the money to embezzle and build palaces with.


sanctions would screw africa. although admittedly, we'll never know unless we try it.

[Dave. zzz....]

Forgone Conclusion, on Sep 28 2006, 10:01 PM, said:

OK, that's a rediculous way of looking at things, especially considering it's quite a lot to do with us that they weill have that famine (us who created the third world debt, and us who have caused such a rate of global wraming).

Do we not have an obligation to do something, if not just to help a fellow human, but out of some sense of responsibility?

Yeah I agree totally.

I dont stand for those beliefs, I just see a bit of sense in them, sadisticly.

[Forgone Conclusion]

Yes, putting trade sanctions would totaly screw up Africa, therefore defeating the object of what we are trying to do. Doing it would hit the poorest hardest, as the rich and powerful would take an even higher percentage for themselves to maintain their lifestyles. There would be even ore fighting, and even more suffering, so I think as a policy to help africa, placing sanctions on them ain't a good one

Having said that, giving rewards to countries who are acting in a positive manner, and even punishing those who are undemocratic or whatever, is something that is being done, and starting to work, so I suppose your suggestion of sanctions, while both ludicrous and extreme, does have some kind of truth in it

[Echoes]

Quote

Fair trade hopes to help developing countries by artificially giving farmers extra money

you make it sound like direct aid, which is definitely not what fair trade is about. In fact, the slogan of fair trade has often been 'trade not aid'. A decent summary of how it works: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade#Ke...rade_principles

Quote

this enabled the economy to continue as if nothing had changed.

BULLSHIT! have you just made that up on the spot or did you fail to check that claim when you first heard it?

http://en.wikipedia..../Iraq_sanctions
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/Mi...q/Sanctions.asp

as for your claim that russia and china kept trading - you can read the annual reports here, where they report infractions to the embargo:
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/IraqK...qReportsEng.htm

Quote

africa doesn't have the same oil reserves, or similiar useful exports, as iraq etc, and so if the west not only stopped helping them, but actually persecuted them, its unlikely non-western nations would want to trade with africa in the same way, as there would be little benefit.

well, ignoring the ridiculous assumptions this point makes, how does this prove your point that sanctions would improve the country?

Quote

have you noticed how african dictatorships keep falling to military regiemes, even though many were funded by the west

another non-sequitur: where do you see me advocate financial backing of governments to keep them in power? We've done our fair share of funding rebel movements, too - not that any of this supports your point that sanctions would be a good thing!

Quote

they wouldn't even have the money to embezzle and build palaces with.

we're not talking direct aid here - non sequitur.

And do you not feel that a country having a natural LEDC economic environment (i.e. not awash with cheap, subsidised imports - the end result of enforced free trade) would allow people to earn their own living, rather than rely on direct aid? And that furthermore, people making a living for themselves (rather than relying on aid) would be more willing to embrace and protect democracy?

i'll repeat the question you avoided: what examples do we have of trade/economic sanctions on a country being successful at improving quality of life in the country?

[where_i'm_calling_from]

The Narrator, on Sep 28 2006, 10:44 PM, said:

Quote

this enabled the economy to continue as if nothing had changed.

BULLSHIT! have you just made that up on the spot or did you fail to check that claim when you first heard it?

yeah i pretty much made it up. but it felt right in my gut. i don't like facts. i don't know, i feel

Quote

Quote

africa doesn't have the same oil reserves, or similiar useful exports, as iraq etc, and so if the west not only stopped helping them, but actually persecuted them, its unlikely non-western nations would want to trade with africa in the same way, as there would be little benefit.

well, ignoring the ridiculous assumptions this point makes, how does this prove your point that sanctions would improve the country?

i don't think i ever said anything about helping them...

[The Phlegmy One!111]

Ed you totally suck. From now on, I'll never take anything you say seriously.

[where_i'm_calling_from]

i'm sorry

















lol

[paddys wink]

whatever makes things cheaper,after all all these other poor countries wouldnt give a fuck if the boot was on the other foot

[Forgone Conclusion]

What makes you say that?

[Echoes]

at a pinch, I'd say inhumane narrowmindedness.

[paddys wink]

pinch what you like monkey lips its the truth