 |
| |
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
 |
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
The only reason some of the countries feed all their people is from aid though. Isn't that right?
|
why are you changing your position? your orginal argument said that the farmers of 3rd world farmers instead of developing infrastructure or exporting their produce, are feeding themselves. you said thats the reason for their poverty. i disagreed. it makes perfect economic sense for these countries not to invest in infrastructure, because theres no use to have any if everyones starving.
and no, the majority of these countries have subsistance farmers who get along on very little food, but still manage to feed themselves. there are only certain crisis areas where all the food given is through aid. africa isnt poor because the majority of its people are given food in the form of aid.
africa is poor first and foremost because of corruption, and civil wars. if you look at relatively stable countries over the last 30 years or so (namely the Maghreb, and north african countries) you can see that they are no that poorly off.
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com...ountry_desc.php
#103 Tunisia $6,900
#106 Libya $6,400
#112 Algeria $5,900
#137 Morocco $4,000
#139 Egypte $3,900
there countries are ranked higher than India (#152) and China (#122), and are solidly ranked in the middle 1/3 of the world.
the world average is $8,000, although as you know, there are many problems with these numbers, since its an average and not a median, and oil producing countries distort the wealth etc.
however they give a good general indication on where these countries are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
|
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:26
|
|
ok. heres your original statement. you said
quote:
A professor of mine said that the problem with places as desperate as Africa is that any money that they get is going to serve immediate needs at the cost of investment in infrastructure. For example if you give them corn seed to grow new crops they are going to use it to feed the people. |
the first sentence
quote:
A professor of mine said that the problem with places as desperate as Africa is that any money that they get is going to serve immediate needs at the cost of investment in infrastructure |
says that aid money is not going to invesment, its going to consumption. the second sentence
quote:
For example if you give them corn seed to grow new crops they are going to use it to feed the people |
is implying that consuming is bad, and that they should invest instead of using the new corn seeds to grow new crops.
now. i disagree with this. i said.
quote:
if the food goes to feeding the people of that country, then the farmers can use the profits from that to reinvest in themselves and increase production, and the govts can tax that to get more revenues. thats not why africa is poor. |
then you said in response
quote:
The only reason some of the countries feed all their people is from aid though. Isn't that right? |
which has nothing to do with my response. thats why i posted this
quote:
why are you changing your position? your orginal argument said that the farmers of 3rd world farmers instead of developing infrastructure or exporting their produce, are feeding themselves. you said thats the reason for their poverty. i disagreed. it makes perfect economic sense for these countries not to invest in infrastructure, because theres no use to have any if everyones starving.
|
to again reaffirm my position and to attempt you to either defend yours or to retract it. (your original position being that consumption is bad, and they should invest it all)
however, now after writing all this, i realize that you think that the only way africans feed themselves is through international aid, which is of course incorrect. however, even if it was correct, that doesnt mean that they shouldnt attempt to feed themselves, or to grow their own food, which yet again, refutes your professors statement that consumption of their own food is a bad thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
|
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
As far as the profit goes I think there is not enough to allow them to invest in infrastructure, but I'm not sure. |
depends on the industry, whether is govt owned or not, and what type of industry.
state owned oil companies will certainly have the capital for investment in infrastrucutre. but that wont make the people rich, or create economic growth across the entire population. the govt will get enough capital to invest in roads, and the like, but there arnt enough jobs for the people, so unemployment stays high, and education stays low
large cash crop farms are always a good bet, but the agricultural market is very unpredictable, plus the 1st world subsidies its agriculture like crazy, meaning lower, or no profits, and they get pushed out by the better productivity of the 1st world. however, these farms are good for large scale employment, and a good way to reduce unemployment in the countryside, and to increase wages. revenues can prolly fund govt sponsored infrastrucutre, such as roads and ports.
the development of agriculture can also lead to the development of companies who store, process, and ship, leading to more jobs, many of these which require higher skill levels, more education, and higher wages.
manufacturing/factories for cars, shoes, clothes, are a great way to give the urban unemployed both jobs and education. property values increase, leading to more wealth for the people, and the whole support industry can spring up (truckers, import/export, steel mills) the manufacturing area is less subsidized in the 1st world, so profits arnt exactly going down. plus, the cheaper the manufactured items are, the more that will be bought. unlike agriculture, a demand inelastic market where as prices decrease, so do profits, the cheaper manufacturing goods are, the more people will buy (computers, cars, steel.) profits do not get eaten away by a decrease in price.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
|
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Past 30 years includes '92 to present. The Civil War's still going on BTW. If you want to extend the period, before '62, there was an 8 year long, brutal war for independence with France. |
aight, so i was a little generalized. however, 30 years of uninterrupted growth will lead to development, which is why algeria is one of the top countries in africa in terms of per capita GDP. how many other african countries had that? not many.
also, since you seem to know of the FIS, you should also know that they were mostly ex-mujaheddins, and that saudis financed their political campaigns in 1991 which lead to the destabilisation.
now since you know all this, you have had to have known that the FIS destruction on algerias main exports, oil, were minimal. In 1995, GDP growth was 3.5%, in 1996 it was 5.0% and in 1997 it was 6.0%. inflation also went from above 30% in 1995 to around 23% in 1997. these are not signs of hard economic times. not only that, algeria produced some 800,000 barrels of oil a day in 1997
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
|
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
In the 80s the world bank got a bunch of nations like Kenya to borrow money to grow coffee. The price of coffee was high so it was an easy sell. The thing is, maybe you have already connected the dots, the price bottomed out. |
the EBRD and IMF have a loooong history of going into countries, liberalizing way too quickly, and ****ing everything up, and getting them even more screwed. they are not structuralists, and put way less emphasis on structural reform (property rights, govt enforcement of economic rights, corrupt free police/justice/government.)
the EBRD and IMF believe that an immediate opening of the market will benefit everyone, regardless of their present situation economically and politically.
projects like in Haiti (or was it jamaica?), where a loan was given on condition that the govt stop subsidizing dairy/goat/sheep farmers all at once. the govt did that, everyone went unemployed, and the whole country went down the shitter.
or in vietnam, where they gave them massive aid for coffee growing, including seeds, growing technqiues, etc, opened up their economy, and almost immediatly, the bottom fell out of the coffee market, and the project went bankrupt. you would think that they woulda given them aid for rice growing, shrimping, or other water intensive crops, areas where they have a known comparative advantage, and industries which are already pretty well developped, both economically and culturally.
and then they wonder why all their money disappears, and why all of their projects blow chunks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
|
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
The thing is that's how capitalism really works. You don't know what future prices will be. So you borrow money and make big investments, everyone else sees the shortage that you see and the bottom falls out. It does work sometimes, but often it doesn't. Small countries need economies of scale though to lower their average costs, so it's hard to diversify your products. |
small poor countries do not need to lower their average costs. their costs are minimal compared to the 1st world. in addition, their cost of living, which is always factored into the lowest price a producer is willing to sell at, is much lower than in the first world, so a lot of third world producers will always be able to undercut their 1st world counterparts.
quote:
So you borrow money and make big investments, everyone else sees the shortage that you see and the bottom falls out |
when talking about LDC, theres only one market like this, and thats in primary goods, markets that are demand inelastic. secondly, youre looking at in only in one direction. the reverse is that 1st world banks lend money to third world companies in the form of stocks/bonds/FI/FDI and other capital flows, which create's growth in both jobs and investment. finally, the idea of economics is not to diversify your products, but to one one which you can make better than anyone else.
so where are the problems? 1. structural problems in the 3rd world. 2. closed markets in the first world. the 1st problem is easily fixable by 3rd world govts. the second might take a little longer, and needs all of americas farmers to lose their electoral votes, and start being counted on a 1 to 1 basis instead of this disenfranchisement of the urban population, that so many of you guys support.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
However, the unions' power to call strikes in the event of the plans going ahead is limited, believes Dominique Barbet, chief economist at bank BNP Paribas.
"Only 8% of French workers are members of a trade union. Even if they look strong, they are not strong," he told BBC World TV. |
They were only 7% in 1995, when they last called a general strike. They won that time, too. The problem for employers is, even those who aren't in a union, tend to go on strike during the general strikes.
At the very least, this will usher back in the Socialists next election.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
the socialists are the second largest party in france, but they are way behind the top party (UMP.) the socialists and the commies dont even equal the UMP in either the senate or the national assembly. |
These days, the Socialists are the first party in France when it comes to votes. They scored a flabbergasting victory last year during the regional and European elections (more accurately, Chirac's party scored a flabbergasting defeat of historic dimensions).
The amount of MPs is very unrepresentative of the political composition of France, and is misleading when it comes to judging the future of our politics. Since our MPs are elected in districts, rather than on a proportional basis, the small or extremist parties are vastly underrepresented (IIRC, we don't have any Le Pen supporter in the Parliament, despite them scoring ca. 15% consistently). And when a party has 51% of the votes in plenty of districts, like Chirac's party did last time, it also gets plenty of seats. The minority party has already had the majority of seats (and thus control over the government) in the past.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
|
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
How does the French law apply to salaried folks?? Take a schoolteacher-- The schoolday could be 6 hours a day, say and the treacher is expected to be there certain times before and after the school bell. But she likely works at home |
Teachers are specific: they have few hours of work at school (about 16 to 20) and are paid a generous hourly wage for them. The hourly wage pays for the work at home, which is not precisely counted.
quote:
As for hourly folks, if people want a 35 hour week, I can respect that and see no problem except there should be some flexibility. |
It does. Although arrangements change from workplace to workplace, most arrangements mean people work like before (on a 39 hours workweek basis) but take a half-day or a whole day off from time to time. In the situations that I know, both the employee and the employer share the decision about when the day off is taken.
quote:
Take nurses-- you can't plan for when one gets sick and with a nursing shortage, you probably don't have a pool of people sitting around with the necessary skills and willing to come in. So a unit needs an additional nurse . .. realistically the only option is to call in a regular nurse for overtime. Mrs Flubber only works 22 hours a week and usually gets overtime ( double pay) if she works beyond that. |
We do have overtime laws as well. And our nurses get plenty of work to do  However, I haven't experienced overtime laws myself when I worked in France, so I can't tell you exactly how it works. Some companies have been known to prefer keeping the old 39 hours workweek, paying the extra 4 hours as overtime (I don't know if it is legal)
quote:
Any limit on hours worked needs to be reasonable and flexible. There are probably a number of fields where it is impossible to have a pool of waiting workers available if required, yet work needs to get done |
For many jobs where people are paid on a mission basis (most high-skilled jobs actually), the 35 hours are something quite strange, whose specifics I don't know. For per-hour paid jobs, the 35 hours-workweek was actually bundled with measures considerably increasing flexibility, such as the annualization of work (if you're into a seasonal market, you can have huge work to do during one season and very little during others), increased flexibility on the hours of the day that are worked, and increased flexibility for part-time jobs. Should we lose the 35 hours, we'd keep these measures that are often harsh for the workers that bear it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-02-2005 07:52
|