Iraq: Helping the US

[steverino]

There's no doubt European companies were deeply involved in this, but it can't be used to explain the differences in positions between the US and Europe.

Um, yes it can.

That Galloway dude can kiss my red, white, and blue ass.

 

[dann]

Also, it should be quite clear that the little European support that ever existed in Europe came from elites, while the opposition was always extremely strong on the grass-roots level. The UK, Italy and Spain, just to name a few, had governments that supported the war despite a completely massive public opinion against it in their own countries. Our new Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, also supported the war. He's had his own oil interests in Sudan, though.. which may explain why our new government hasn't been taking the tough stances on that issue that they criticised our previous goverment for not taking.

The Danes don't appear to be staunch supporters of the war in Iraq, either: 60% of the voters want the Danish troops pulled out of Iraq.

 

[egslim]

Tell that to wallmart. But you dodged the central point: basket case countries don't HAVE their labor exploited by anyone, because their labor is worthless.

I showed you an article about labor from Bangladesh being exploited which proves otherwise. Cheap labor can be transported for work in nations with a decent infrastructure.
My guess (don't have evidence, but it would make good business-sense) is those people assume a debt to pay for their transportation. On arrival their workhours and salary minus basic accomodations and food (probably provided by the company to) are insufficient to pay their debt. So they're stuck - not much different from traditional slavery, except this is legal.

In other words, it is our trade barriers, NOT their home countries debts, which led to this particular unfortunate situation.

No, the point is that cheap labor from basket case countries can be transported to countries with decent infrastructure but slightly higher wages.

Yes, it does. China does not.

Agreed. Then this article proves uneducated labor from basket case countries is not worthless, as you stated.

Please provide some detailed information on this. I am skeptical, but open to being informed further.

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/wbimf/TopTenIMF.html
The IMF and World Bank frequently advise countries to attract foreign investors by weakening their labor laws -- eliminating collective bargaining laws and suppressing wages, for example.
[...]
In Haiti, the government was told to eliminate a statute in their labor code that mandated increases in the minimum wage when inflation exceeded 10 percent.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/IMF_WB/IMF_Formula_PrescripPover.html
In spring 2000, for example, Argentinian legislators passed the harsher of two labor law reforms after IMF officials spoke out strongly in support of it, even though tens of thousands of Argentinians carried out general strikes against the reform.

How?

You're demonstrably wrong when you say basket case countries like Bangladesh aren't exploited for cheap labor, because they're not even useful for that. Cheap labor from basket case countries can be transported to countries with a more useful infrastructure.

Nah. The poorest countries are probably those that have the least trade barriers. I don't know of one single developed country that did not use trade barriers during its industrialisation. Could you name one

And this is key: The poorest countries aren't allowed by their creditors to erect or maintain trade barriers - not even for consumergoods. In the Netherlands after WWII and South Korea after the Korean war it was not allowed to import luxury consumergoods and as few life essentials as possible. Instead all available foreign currency and gold was devoted to investements. At the same time much emphasis was placed on education.

In contrast, creditors force the poorest countries to throw their markets open to foreign consumer imports and slash funding for schools.

This is a pretty good article: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/IMF_WB/IMF_Formula_PrescripPover.html

Unless the IMF certified that an economy was being "restructured" and "maintained soundly," the world's public and private lenders would refuse to extend loans.
[...]
countries must remove restrictions on trade and investment, promote exports, devalue national currencies, raise interest rates, privatize state companies and services, balance national budgets by slashing public expenditures, and deregulate labor markets.
[...]
The IMF has ardently promoted changes in labor laws and wage policies; changes designed to make countries more competitive and attractive to foreign investment. However, according to the 1995 United Nations (UN) Trade and Development Report, employers are changing labor laws to make it easier to fire workers and undermine the ability of unions to defend themselves, rather than add to productive capacity and create work.
[...]
Under structural adjustment, many developing countries export similar, often identical, agricultural products and mineral resources to the industrialized nations. The result is a glut, the collapse of staple export prices and the further loss of livelihoods.
[...]
In Senegal, touted by the IMF as a success story because of increased growth rates, unemployment increased from 25 percent in 1991 to 44 percent in 1996.
[...]
Under the mandate of reducing the size of the state, the IMF has encouraged the privatization of schools. Such a measure was undertaken in Haiti, and an IMF report predicts that the extreme deterioration in school quality and attendance will hamper the country's human capacity for many years to come. For example, only 8 percent of teachers in private schools (now 89 percent of all schools) have professional qualifications, compared to 47 percent in public schools. Secondary school enrollment dropped from 28 to 15 percent between 1985 and 1997. Nevertheless, the report ends with recommendations for Haiti to pursue further privatization initiatives.

And finally:
Although the Fund and the Bank have promoted SAPs as a virtual religion for nearly 20 years, they cannot claim that they have achieved even their own narrow objectives. IMF internal studies reveal that many SAPs have failed to enhance economic growth, reduce fiscal and balance of payment deficits, lower inflation and reduce external debt. In fact, between 1980 and 1997, the debt of low-income countries grew by 544 percent and that of middle income countries by 481 percent. Poor countries have thus gone through all the pain of structural adjustment only to continue to engage in a net transfer of wealth to the industrialized world.

 

[pipelineaudio]

So they're stuck - not much different from traditional slavery, except this is legal.

Ouch again

You are one SICK individual

 

[Gurdur]

Goodness me! Another glorious example of Gurdie kicking the US in the balls and then retreating into his smug little rat hole. France, Russia, George (cough) Galloway, profited with the son of Kofi Annan from food-for-oil keeping Hussain fluid. And, as pipelineaudio points out, Hussein is out, as are, I might add, Uday and Qusay, the next in line, those sociopaths who would attend a friend's wedding, then during the dancing, kill the groom, rape the bride, and leave.

The death toll is terrible, yes, and terrible too is the reality that 60 Americans a day lose their lives to drunk-driving related accidents. Where is the outrage?

Lots of words and whining there from you, Steveboy, but no sense. Got any argument to actually make instead of your perpetual whininess?

Oh, BTW, while I suspect you're only a schoolboy, I really do hope I'm wrong and that you're a tax-payer. I really do think at some stage you should start putting your money where your mouth is too. Or you could of course volunteer for Iraq yourself, seeing as to how you're so chickenhawk-eager to dismiss the deaths of others.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nonsense. It's used to provide cheap raw materials.

Labor is not the primary cost in extracting raw materials, so cheap labor is of little importance to cheap raw materials. Furthermore, in basket case countries, their social problems can significantly increase the labor costs, because of additional costs that would not exist were the country functioning. Look at Nigeria, for example. Security for oil workers and pipelines is a major concern, and a major cost. The fact that they don't have to pay locals very much doesn't offset those costs, especially when stuff like the recent pipeline explosion (caused by people trying to steal from the pipeline by breaking it open) happens. Cheap labor from basketcase countries is not a bonus.

I strongly believe that with even more freedom, we'd have even more use of them though. But short-sighted interests want to keep these countries as cheap providers of raw materials (and fear their competition for more advanced products).

You keep saying this, with no evidence. Raw materials are ALWAYS going to be cheap. When Australia, a rich country, sells iron ore to China, a poor country, that iron ore is sold for cheap. The choice is not between getting raw materials from a given country for cheap or getting them at high cost, it's between getting them for cheap and not getting them at all.

Nah. The poorest countries are probably those that have the least trade barriers. I don't know of one single developed country that did not use trade barriers during its industrialisation. Could you name one?

As I said, that they did it does not mean it helped. Can you name a single poor country with low trade barriers? That would go a long way to demonstrating your point. I already provided you with a basketcase country with high tarriffs - why haven't Cameroon's lenders forced them lower, if they're as controlling as you say?

Nah. Import tariffs protect the industry. While that is no doubt bad "in the long run" (but as Keynes remarked, in the long run we're all dead), there's not much long run to consider if your industry doesn't even take off to begin with.

Export tariffs would just be silly. Of course, if everybody applied them, you would be correct. But that's not how it works. A country wisely applies import tariffs on the kinds of goods that it wants to produce itself, but cannot yet compete with on the global market. It's only good as a temporary measure though (temporary as in decades, but still).

That assumes you can even pick the right industry to foster. Look, trade ALWAYS balances. Imports must equal exports. Import tarriffs slow down trade, just as surely as export tarriffs do, even for the SAME country - there's no long-run issue, there's not "only if everyone does it". They are harmful to everyone except the particular small group you're trying to protect. But they do NOT protect the overall economy. South Korea didn't get wealthy by selling cars they couldn't export, they got wealthy by selling what they COULD export competitively. And they can only sell cars now because they're wealthy enough to afford the capital investment to make cars worth selling. But protecting the industry which was earning them no wealth, at the cost of everyone else (including the industries which DID make them wealthy) was not actually an ingredient in their success. Their success happened despite that, and they did it because whoever was in the auto industry managed to play the politics game successfully. The economics is clear: trade is the way to wealth, and anything that slows down trade (including "protective" tarriffs) slows down the creation of wealth.

 

[steverino]

Got any argument to actually make instead of your perpetual whininess?

I make an argument with a point of view. As it is opposes your point of view, you respond. If I had no argument then you would not respond.

I really do hope I'm wrong and that you're a tax-payer.

You are (ALWAYS) wrong. And, yes, I pay taxes. I admit, however, I pay less tax than my English counterparts. We can chat about it over tea...Mwah HA HA!

you're so chickenhawk-eager to dismiss the deaths of others.

I honor our brave soldiers profoundly, many of whom have given their lives in this war. Our soldiers make me very proud, and no one is dismissing the tragedy of war. My argument, which is a bit off topic, is that America loses 60 people a day to drunk driving accidents, and there is little outcry, other than from those whose lives have been shattered by such tragedy.

 

[Gurdur]

I make an argument with a point of view.

Actually, no. Not at all. You simply made a lot of unsubstantiated assertions mixed in with some very stupid personal abuse. That does not equal a rational argument.

As it is opposes your point of view, you respond. If I had no argument then you would not respond.

Bollocks, Logic 101. Try some commonsense instead of this self-justificatory crap.

You are (ALWAYS) wrong.

Yeah, whatever. Grow up.

And, yes, I pay taxes.

Good. You may be too chicken to volunteer yourself for Iraq, but at least you're paying for part of it.

I honor our brave soldiers profoundly

Then take your ass over to Iraq, instead of volunteering others, and then dismissing their deaths as of less significance than the national road-accident toll, which is what you did.

, many of whom have given their lives in this war.

And you dismissed it as of less significance than the road toll. Meh. Chickenhawk much, sonny?

My argument, which is a bit off topic, is that America loses 60 people a day to drunk driving accidents, and there is little outcry

Weasel-words, you're now simply trying to wimp out of the incredibly stupid assertions you made.

Sonny, let me drive a point home to you. You tried other weasel-words about USA aims in Iraq. To remind you, sonny, USA govt-declared aims in Iraq did not just include toppling Saddam, which, Logic101 again, is why American and other Coalition forces are still in Iraq, d'uh.

Now listen up, sonny: I have a friend who was rendered a paraplegic in Iraq, I have personal friends in the American, Australian and British armed forces, and all those countries are in Iraq, I believe wrongly, but at least the people show much more courage than you, Steverino, will ever show.

And all you can do is make stupid immature abuse about others' usernames and also make bigoted remarks about the English, who happen BTW to have a great many troops in Iraq presently too, instead of making any rational argument. Grow up one day, already, sonny.

 

[steverino]

Now listen up, sonny: I have a friend who was rendered a paraplegic in Iraq, I have personal friends in the American, Australian and British armed forces, and all those countries are in Iraq, I believe wrongly, but at least the people show much more courage than you, Steverino, will ever show.

Gurdur-I am sorry to hear about your friend, and for whatever buttons I have pushed to cause you such outrage. I have made it very clear on prior posts, and will do so here, again, that those who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes, both British and Americans, are far more courageous than I am. I am now 47. I considered joining the Israeli army in 1983 when I was there. My parents had already lost a son (not military-related.)When I told them my plan they cried, and sent me a plane ticket home from Tel Aviv at that time. I still do not quite get the logic that because I find justification in the Iraqi and Afghan war, I should be fighting it. I think certain American leaders have been wishing we'd lose this war since its beginning, and that they have been adding to the morale of our enemies, resulting in death and injury of our soldiers. And that is not heroism, either.

Regarding the drunk driving statistic, I helped a loved one get into a 12 step program as she and her friends would climb into their death-mobiles, waisted, and drive from bar to bar. I know at least one of her friends, and maybe more, have entered a 12 step as well because she has. I attended al-anon and have read a few books like George McGovern's about his daughter. Sad. As I had stated earlier, it is a bit off topic, but I have a personal wish that the loss of 25,000 Americans a year would get more attention. This is not whining. It is just what I believe.-Steve

 

[Gurdur]

Gurdur-I am sorry

Okeydokey.

Extend to me the charity of examining why I think the way I do, and I will do the same for you.

It may be, for example, that it may really piss you off that I have slammed the arrogance of certain Americans here and in govt (never mind that I will also slam Serbians, Austrians, Palestinians and Uzbeks etc. as well on other threads). However, try to see exactly what and why I am slamming, rather than trying to put me down for it; since *cough* you've obviously very much misunderstood just what you're dealing with when you talk to me, IOW, I am a very different person than what you thought I am, then it may well be rewarding to actually examine the point of what I am saying, rather than simply trying to squash me. And I will do the same for you.

 

[steverino]

Okeydokey.

Extend to me the charity of examining why I think the way I do, and I will do the same for you.

It may be, for example, that it may really piss you off that I have slammed the arrogance of certain Americans here and in govt (never mind that I will also slam Serbians, Austrians, Palestinians and Uzbeks etc. as well on other threads). However, try to see exactly what and why I am slamming, rather than trying to put me down for it; since *cough* you've obviously very much misunderstood just what you're dealing with when you talk to me, IOW, I am a very different person than what you thought I am, then it may well be rewarding to actually examine the point of what I am saying, rather than simply trying to squash me. And I will do the same for you.

Sounds reasonable. Thank you.

 

[Merko]

Um, yes it can.

How?

That Galloway dude can kiss my red, white, and blue ass.

Ok, so because you don't like him, he automatically has to be guilty of any and all charges made against him? This doesn't seem reasonable to me. You're perfectly entitled to dislike him for whatever reason you choose. But it just doesn't seem to me that he has been getting anything out of the "oil for food" corruption. Do you know of some evidence I don't?

 

[Merko]

Labor is not the primary cost in extracting raw materials, so cheap labor is of little importance to cheap raw materials.

I think you're a bit confused here. Take a look at the global trade. Consider what would happen if all the poor countries stopped producing raw materials. You don't think prices would rise greatly?

It has nothing to do with these countries being more efficient at this. They are definitely not efficient. But they are kept doing this by "experts" from the IMF/World Bank because it is in the interest of the more powerful nations to keep them doing this. To get out of poverty, they would have to produce something more than just raw materials.

You keep saying this, with no evidence. Raw materials are ALWAYS going to be cheap.

I agree with you on this. Well, relatively cheap. That's because they are relatively easy to produce, which makes for plenty of competition. I think you would also agree that more developed countries are more productive. That's all I'm saying too - except I believe the way to development would go through giving these countries more economic freedom to control their own trade, and build their own industry.

As I said, that they did it does not mean it helped. Can you name a single poor country with low trade barriers? That would go a long way to demonstrating your point.

Botswana, Madagascar and Namibia are three very poor countries with low or very low trade barriers.

I already agreed that high trade barriers by itself does not guarantee development in any way. Trade barriers are not good or bad per se, they have their good uses and their bad uses.

That assumes you can even pick the right industry to foster.

Of course. I'm not saying it is easy. But so far, every industrialised nation seems to have gone this way. Can you give a counterexample?

Look, trade ALWAYS balances. Imports must equal exports.

Tell that to the US government. Sure - in the long run. But that can be a very, very long time. Look at it as taking a loan for investment. Using your static approach to it, this seems senseless. After all, you end up paying more money than you get. But it makes sense because it's a dynamic story. It's the same with trade barriers. It only makes sense because it enables you to do something you would not be able to do otherwise. Yes, in the long run it also harms you - but the good effects may outweigh the bad.

South Korea didn't get wealthy by selling cars they couldn't export, they got wealthy by selling what they COULD export competitively. And they can only sell cars now because they're wealthy enough to afford the capital investment to make cars worth selling.

Yes, although it is not only about wealth, but also (a lot) about experience. Step one is to sell cars that cannot compete on the global market, but which are good enough for domestic use, provided they can be sold a little cheaper. Then gradually, they can get better, until you can compete with foreign brands. This does not only apply to a specific industry, but to the industry as a whole. You may start with fruit baskets, but you'll never get to the next stage if you allow any fledgling industry to be swept away by the global competition. It's a process.

I know that popular economic theory tells you otherwise. However, that theory is popular not because it works (it obviously does not), but because it is a theory that allows more powerful countries to keep poorer countries producing raw materials rather than becoming industrialised. Even IMFs own evaluations show that they are failing. But they don't question their theories, because they are a given. But again - give me an example of a country that has managed to build an industry without protecting it. If the theory holds, you should be able to find plenty of examples.

 

[Gurdur]

Sounds reasonable. Thank you.

I should add this. Sent by PM too, but reduplication never hurts.
Howdy.
It strikes me that I should make some sort of apology and explanation to you. I have been subjected to a great deal of personal abuse on boards, and I tend to react .... strongly. It's also a sensitive subject; I couldn't believe my eyes a few days ago when another poster wrote, "I don't expect non-Americans to understand". Sheeesh. I lost all my respect for that particular poster in one go, since it was equivalent to writing "I don't expect whites/blacks to understand", IOW arrogant nonsense.

Obviously both you and I are very upset about Iraq2, if for very different reasons and from different angles. I see your concerns now that you showed them; I don't agree with you, but I will open a new thread to say why.

More importantly, I will try not to be my brusque aggro self when dealing with you. You won my respect for making that apology; in my eyes, seriously, you proved your personal worth, even if you think I am barking mad and suspiciously lefty.
So: my own apologies for leaping in boots and all,
And a happy season and New Year to you,
Gurdur

 

[Ziggurat]

I think you're a bit confused here. Take a look at the global trade. Consider what would happen if all the poor countries stopped producing raw materials. You don't think prices would rise greatly?

Of course it would. Just as raw material costs would greatly increase if rich countries stopped producing them too - you seem to be ignoring the rather pertinent fact that rich countries also produce raw materials, and that raw materials produced by rich countries are also cheap.

It has nothing to do with these countries being more efficient at this. They are definitely not efficient. But they are kept doing this by "experts" from the IMF/World Bank because it is in the interest of the more powerful nations to keep them doing this. To get out of poverty, they would have to produce something more than just raw materials.

If it was profitable to put a factory to manufacture sneakers in Cameroon, someone would do it, and to hell with the IMF. Why don't they? Is it because of Cameroon's debt? Is it because of the IMF? No, it's because corruption and bad governance make investing in a factory in Cameroon far too risky. Remove those risks, and foreign investment would pour in. No protectionism would be needed either, because foreign investment could create first-rate capital to make profitable products and sell to foreign markets at a profit.

Botswana, Madagascar and Namibia are three very poor countries with low or very low trade barriers.

How low? What's their average tarriffs? Give me some figures.

Tell that to the US government. Sure - in the long run. But that can be a very, very long time.

No, it's true NOW. Our exports are indeed balancing our imports. What you fail to understand is that there's a foreign demand for American currency, which we are exporting. Foreign investors want to own dollars, and they will pay for them. There's no "long run" involved: the balance exists right now.

I know that popular economic theory tells you otherwise. However, that theory is popular not because it works (it obviously does not),

Yes it does. Your only conception of its failures is false, because you don't realize that currency is also a product, which is also in demand.

but because it is a theory that allows more powerful countries to keep poorer countries producing raw materials rather than becoming industrialised.

Again, you KEEP being wrong about this. It doesn't MATTER if those countries became industrialized: they would STILL sell raw materials for cheap, because raw materials are ALWAYS cheap. It is to our advantage for them to get richer, because then they'll be able to buy more stuff from us, and provide more valuable stuff to us in exchange. That's exactly what's happening with China: it's becoming wealthier, and that's making America, its number one trading partner, richer as well. Nobody with a clue wants any countries to remain poor. And they aren't remaining poor because of any conspiracy, or control, from outside. They remain poor because of bad governance and internal social problems.

Even IMFs own evaluations show that they are failing.

Because the IMF doesn't have the power to fix the real problems:
Spotting the Losers
The IMF can do nothing about these failures.

 

[The Don]

I dont agree

Just like last time, we won, then when it came to winning the peace, last time all the euroweenies told us to leave, which is exactly why we are there again, but I say hell, this time, lets just leave, and let the euroweenies clean it up

Certainly sounds like the rhetoric of success to me... "Waaaaa! We broke it, can you fix it ?"

The "Euroweenies" who limited the activities in Iraq1 presumably included that arch Euroweenie George H.W. Bush.

 

[Gurdur]

I dont agree
Just like last time, we won, then when it came to winning the peace, last time all the euroweenies told us to leave, which is exactly why we are there again,

You're fantasizing. "Euroweenies" told you to leave? That's why you're there again? What kind of drugs are you using?

but I say hell, this time, lets just leave, and let the euroweenies clean it up

Awwwwww, you poor, poor wee baby, you wanna just leave what you broke, and let the "Euroweenies" clean your bottom and your little mess for you.

Not going to happen. Suck it up.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Certainly sounds like the rhetoric of success to me... "Waaaaa! We broke it, can you fix it ?"

The "Euroweenies" who limited the activities in Iraq1 presumably included that arch Euroweenie George H.W. Bush.

arch my ass

 

[pipelineaudio]

You're fantasizing. "Euroweenies" told you to leave? That's why you're there again? What kind of drugs are you using?

Ahh, revisionist history

 

[The Don]

arch my ass

I'm really sorry, I have no idea what this means in reference to my comment.

Are you denying that the decision not to invade Iraq as part of Iraq1 was made in part by the President of the United States ?