This may be true, but I kind of get the feeling when the phrase "the greed of the West" is used, it is code language for "the greed of the United States". Somehow, affluent societies in western Europe (France and Germany come to mind) are not included in the greed cabal. Yet when you take a trip to Europe, you see many signs of conspicuous consumption (they may not drive a lot of SUVs on their cobblestone streets, but just look at the avalanche of BMWs and Mercedes Benz cars).

Are we (unbelieveably Canada is considered an affluent country) for example, not to be proud of our economic accomplishments? Are we not allowed to toot our own horn as it were? And why is it our problem when less affluent countries feel inferior for no other reason than they are less affluent? That's tantamount to saying that if two friends are having lunch, and it's well known between them that one is wealthier than the other, that the wealthier one should allow the poorer one pay for the tab just to boost her ego and reassure her that the wealtheir one won't flaunt her riches in the other's face.

That being said, I think the West, at times, is somewhat mealy-mouthed and a tad hypocritical when it comes to helping the more impoverished parts of the world. Take farm subsidies (please ... take them away!). The United States has drastically increased farm subsidies, making it impossible for Third World farmers to fairly compete (some Third World, Developing World farm sectors do create surpluses that could be exported). France has been a country notoriously loathe to give up its generous subsidies to its farmers, yet at the same time it cries crocodile tears for impoverished farmers in the "francophonie" who can't make it.

Canada has been better than most countries when it comes to fair dealings in agricultural trade -- we subsidize very little.

While I can appreciate that not everywhere in the Third World has potential to sustain alot of economic growth, just about everywhere can support some. Like Canada you see people leave the prairies in droves in the 80s and 90s but there are still people living there and I think most are pretty happy about it.

As well the West has immigration. People from all over including the Third World Countries immigrate to countries like Canada not because they are greedy and want to exploit some other country and people but because the see opportunity in a developed country.

I see no reason not to help TWCs develope their resources in a sustainable way to provide opportunity for the poeple of that country to live within a comfortable standard of living, provide a stability within the country that helps to encourage peace and cooperation within it's boarders and it neighbouring countries. And provide wider opportunities for trade globally.

quote:

---

I see no reason not to help TWCs develope their resources in a sustainable way to provide opportunity for the poeple of that country to live within a comfortable standard of living, provide a stability within the country that helps to encourage peace and cooperation within it's boarders and it neighbouring countries. And provide wider opportunities for trade globally.

---

quote:

---

unbelieveably Canada is considered an affluent country

---

Then Argentina (which had religiously followed International Monetary Fund dictates) defaulted on
its debt. The government imposed a "corralito", on all bank savings. The result was that my friend
lost all his savings, which it became unlawful to withdraw from the bank.

Lost his house, too. He thinks the government and the IMF are jerks whose incompetence stole years from his life.

There is plenty of conspicuous consumption in Western Europe. Fewer SUVs above all because petroleum costs are far higher, but lots of fancy cars - and excellent public transport. Moreover the houses and streets look far better kept in general - returning here from a stay in Amsterdam and Paris, everything here looks poor and bedraggled in comparison. (No, I'm not saying we aren't a wealthy country...) Perhaps what you see is the difference in social vs personal spending.

quote:

---

Those under developed counties are just lazy.

---

Odd the only people saying lazy here are those who cry the loudest about how greedy the west is.
So let's just agree that no one in a third world country is any lazier than anyone in the West.

You can make the nicest smelling fart ever but it will do nothing to change the past. Yep Colonialism, bad leaders, there are more corupt things that have been done in the past and right now than can be listed here in a month of sundays.

So, what would you like to do, scream back and forth about just how guilty everyone here should feel and maybe see if one or two of us sound the guiltiest?

quote:

---

So, what would you like to do, scream back and forth about just how guilty everyone here should feel and maybe see if one or two of us sound the guiltiest?

---

It's not a question of guilt. It's a question of how much the North continues to suppress the South. I don't give a hoot if the North feels guilty or not... just that it changes its policy.

Here are some possibilities:

1) Stop dumping agricultural products on the South so that the South can redevelop a healthy agricultural sector. OK, I know that it is not technically dumping but the effect of agricultural subsidies is pretty well the same -- the products are exported at well below the production cost.

2) Stop imposing anti-development economic policies on the South through IMF requirements. Structural adjustment policies impede the ability of southern governments to implement pro-equity economic measures, and inequity is demonstrably bad for stable growth.

3) Forgive a significant amount of third world debt. Many of the debts are the result of corrupt loans taken out by now-deposed dictators, and many of those dictators were explicitly supported by the countries to whom the debts are owed. It is immoral that countries which are now moving towards democracy are still on the hook for debts incurred by these corrupt regimes, particularly as the money in many cases went straight into the pockets of the aforementioned regimes.

4) Stop promoting arms sales to the Third World, particularly to non-democratic countries. Someday these countries will be democracies, and they shouldn't be on the hook for foreign loans taken out to pay for unneeded weapons, either.

5) Stop imposing intellectual property rights rules on countries which are not in a position to pay. Industrialised countries developed their industries in the absence of stringent IPRs, and could not have done so otherwise. The health of the third world is *not* more important than the profits of a handful of pharmaceutical and agrochemical multinationals.

6) Raise overseas development assistance to the level agreed to at Rio. 0.7% is very little to pay for the potential good it could do.

quote:

---

Then Argentina (which had religiously followed International Monetary Fund dictates) defaulted on
its debt.

---

Most of that I agree should be done and my one voice one vote will be asking when the federal candidates start comeing out of hiding.

I do have a couple of questions though. How would you propose limiting the abuse of intelectual property if it was put onto waivers for some years in a specific TWC? Meaning what would you think could be done to prevent knock off type items from making their way back to the U.S. and Canada?

Also at what point should the binders be removed to allow for free trade across all boarders?

I am not sure what can be done about gun sales as that is more of an American thing than a Canadian thing. What laws do you feel could realistically be put into effect to prevent arms sales from causing the problems they do in your country?

Edited to cut the bit about crooked politicians as someone has asked already. heh heh get rid of those buggers and half the problems are solved I think.

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: Slick Willy ]

quote:

---

How would you propose limiting the abuse of intelectual property if it was put onto waivers for some years in a specific TWC? Meaning what would you think could be done to prevent knock off type items from making their way back to the U.S. and Canada?

---

In the case of pharmaceuticals, I don't think that there is much of a problem. Existing systems in OECD countries are probably adequate to prevent, say, HIV drugs sold cheaply in Africa to leak back into the North.

The case of patents on agricultural products is more interesting. I won't go into it in depth here, but the concept that a Peruvian farmer might have to pay a royalty to a North American multinational is absurd on the face of it (particularly when the patented variety was being grown in Perú prior to being patented). This sort of abuse of IPRs should simply be banned.

There needs to be a debate on whether reverse engineering is or is not an "abuse". If southern engineers succeed in reverse engineering a northern product and finding a way to manufacture it more cheaply, that is arguably an advance for humanity and should be encouraged rather than banned. Reverse engineering was, in fact, the basis for the development of North American industry, so it has a long and noble history.

There are some indications that current IPRs are actually counter-productive, even in the North -- inhibiting external licensing of new technology has a knock-on effect in that it discourages innovation in complementary products.

quote:

---

Also at what point should the binders be removed to allow for free trade across all boarders?

---

1) At the point where the trade is equitable. US and EU agricultural subsidies make free trade in agricultural products a loaded weapon in favour of the North.

2) At the point where southern industries are sufficiently mature to compete. Favouring local purchases is a reasonable policy for a southern government, perhaps for five to ten years in a particular industry.

As has been commented by a variety of observers, the current agenda promotes the free movement of goods but does not permit the free movement of ideas or people. Consequently, a multinational is free to move its factories from one country to the next, but the affected workers are not free to follow the jobs. This is just as much a distortion of the market as barriers to trade are.

Please do yourself a favour, give your head a shake and check out what povery really is. The fact that you have time to waste posting here and have enough money to afford to be connected in any way and can read is a sign of wealth, that's how simple it is.

In fact our street people have a better life than children in third world countries. They have choices, good or bad by our standards they are better than being sold into child prostitution so your family can eat. Take your blinders off and stop whining about how terrible it is that we the wealthy should help those less fortunate because we can.

Simple proposal: Organize all farm product sales so they all go through a domestic price control board. Anyone who wants to sell for export will not be permitted to go through the board simultaneously, and if subsidies exist, to be paid over through the domestic board, thus cutting any exporters out of the subsidy loop and preventing dumping of agricultural goods onto Third World countries.

[ September 18, 2002: Message edited by: DrConway ]

The first post intimated that it was the Western greed that fueled alienation of poor countries. I disagree.

quote:

---

I know European nations are ahead of us in recycling, and may tread somewhat more lightly on this planet,

---

quote:

---

Africa today - displaced populations, arbitrary borders, plundred resources, slaughtered wildlife, creeping desert - is one giant footprint left by Western Europe. The same can be said of the Americas. Modern North America is simply continuing that tradition and carrying it to an extreme that was undreamed of a couple of centuries ago.

---

For one thing, Argentine agricultural products have been kept out of the US since the 1940s, and kept out of Europe since the advent of the Common Market by "high tariff walls".

quote:

---

And yeah, I do have time to waste posting my humble opinions here - unemployment will do that to ya. Yeah, I have a computer, I won't apologize for having a tool which is integral to my finding a job. The fact it was a gift matters not. Yeah I have a decent home - it's clean, has running water and is relatively secure. I don't apologize for living as many Canadians do.

---

I'm gonna have to argue with you on this one, too, Shelby9.

I do often feel guilty. I feel disgusted that it's so difficult to find affordable new clothes that weren't made in a third world country. I'm often angered that the cheapest and most widely available coffee was bought from farmers at a eensy teensy fraction of what it costs on the shelf. I feel guilty every time I exploit someone else (even if I can't see them) just to save a couple of bucks for myself. It infuriates me that I can't escape being implicated, even though I try very hard.