Having seen some threads on here recently which have stooped to low levels can we try and not post in here if its a witth remark at somebody? And if were asked a question then answer it, not ignore it as it was too hard to deal with.


I have a strong opinion about the corporations destroying local economies for that extra pound. I am even more concerned about the American Governments long term assistance in this.

Jamaica has been badly hit by corporations imposing bully boy tactics on local workers forcing them to work in awful conditions and for a pittance. When they rightly went on strike the corporations shipped over Chinese workers instead!!!

The American governent helped destroy the local Jamaican dairy market by subsidising Powdered milk being shipped from America to Jamica so it was a fraction of the price of local fresh milk. Obviously the Jamaicans being povery striken went for the cheeper option and slowly but surely all the diary farms went out of business.. As soon as the last one shut down the American Government stopped the subsidy and the powderd milk became more expensive than the fresh local milk had been.

This is a perfect example of the rich fooking over the poor just because they can, all for an extra bit of profit.

This is just 2 examples on a small island, other countries have been hit much worse.

I want to know how can we live with this and what can be done to change it??

Originally posted by Preacher Man
...The American governent helped destroy the local Jamaican dairy market by subsidising Powdered milk being shipped from America to Jamica so it was a fraction of the price of local fresh milk. Obviously the Jamaicans being povery striken went for the cheeper option and slowly but surely all the diary farms went out of business.. As soon as the last one shut down the American Government stopped the subsidy and the powderd milk became more expensive than the fresh local milk had been...

Don't be so silly.

The free market may throw up the odd surprise or three, but that is just the way things are. Nobody planned the milk situation in the way you seem to describe.

It's a free market! Not a conspiracy. (for conspiracy: look under closed markets/Communist regime)

Tis simply a global market economy.... it keeps you in food and clothes and a roof over your head by employing you.... are you suggesting we provide goods under profit to a Country simply on the basis that it is too expensive for the general population? then maybe we shouldn't be shipping Rolls Royces to Jamaica.... their interior conditions are of their own social making.... not ours.... you would soon find yourself in similar conditions if you went down that road.

Originally posted by Deavon
Don't be so silly.

The free market may throw up the odd surprise or three, but that is just the way things are. Nobody planned the milk situation in the way you seem to describe.

It's a free market! Not a conspiracy. (for conspiracy: look under closed markets/Communist regime)

That may be just the way things are, but they didn't just get that way, did they.

What's communism got to do with it. Communism isn't the opposite of the free market. Haven't you heard - it's terrorists now.

But seriously, have you ever heard of market research,psychological profiles of target consumer groups, proffessional lobbyists?

These conglomerates employ armies of people to plot how best to introduce their products and destroy competitors - even if they happen to be shack dwelling hill farmers.

You make it sound like it's all just really fluffy and any human misery caused is pure coincidence.

Originally posted by Deavon
Don't be so silly.

The free market may throw up the odd surprise or three, but that is just the way things are. Nobody planned the milk situation in the way you seem to describe.

It's a free market! Not a conspiracy. (for conspiracy: look under closed markets/Communist regime)

I'd hardly call the market free. There's plenty of protectionism in clear evidence. Just look at bananas and the EU/US dispute.

Or steel tariff agreements.

Etc.

A truly free global market should be unencumbered by import/export taxes or legal prohibitions. But that is an extreme and unattainable objective.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jake01
[B]Tis simply a global market economy.... it keeps you in food and clothes and a roof over your head by employing you.... are you suggesting we provide goods under profit to a Country simply on the basis that it is too expensive for the general population? then maybe we shouldn't be shipping Rolls Royces to Jamaica....

Are you implying that because the global market economy provides some people with a good standard of living, that all the companies in it should be above scrutiny or criticism.

Their are people who believe it is possible to maintain a reasonable standard of living without having to stitch people up.

You seem a well informed fellow. Perhaps you can explain this to me
'' so conditions in their interior are of their own social making.... not ours.... you would n find yourself in similar conditions if you went down that road.''
What road is that?

Do you honestly know anything at all about Jamaica, it's history and politics, or do you just make vague generalisations to support what you've decided to believe already.

Preacherman, so what do you want? Government intervention right left and centre? Governments intervene in pretty much all markets to some extent and for one reason only - best interest for the consumers, you've got to look at it like that.

Many people are against Tescos because they damage smaller businesses, on the other hand they provide a much wider range of products at a very good price.....two sides to the coin

Originally posted by donkey
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jake01
[B]Tis simply a global market economy.... it keeps you in food and clothes and a roof over your head by employing you.... are you suggesting we provide goods under profit to a Country simply on the basis that it is too expensive for the general population? then maybe we shouldn't be shipping Rolls Royces to Jamaica....

Are you implying that because the global market economy provides some people with a good standard of living, that all the companies in it should be above scrutiny or criticism.

Their are people who believe it is possible to maintain a reasonable standard of living without having to stitch people up.

You seem a well informed fellow. Perhaps you can explain this to me
'' so conditions in their interior are of their own social making....
not ours.... you would n find yourself in similar conditions if you
went down that road.''
What road is that?

Do you honestly know anything at all about Jamaica, it's history and politics, or do you just make vague generalisations to support what you've decided to believe already.

Quite simply my friend.... the road of continual giving.... If you don't make a profit then you lose your business and employees lose their income.... for instance, no machine is 100% efficient, it requires a profit too feed it, without the profit it will break down.... In too many Afro-caribbean and Asian and African Countries all attempt at filling the begging bowl of reconstruction and advance is sidelined into the personal wealth of the rulers and arms traders.... sometimes the people have to help themselves.... just as in the same way we need to make a profit in order to survive. I don't know what you do but I assume you or your company make a profit.... would you/they say for instance " yeah mate I'll take a loss on that car as I know you can't afford it?".... and how many cars would you be able to sell?

Originally posted by rocketpig
Preacherman, so what do you want? Government intervention right left and centre? Governments intervene in pretty much all markets to some extent and for one reason only - best interest for the consumers, you've got to look at it like that.

Many people are against Tescos because they damage smaller businesses, on the other hand they provide a much wider range of products at a very good price.....two sides to the coin

Governments most certainly do not intervene for the best interests of the consumer. It is a lack of intervention which has allowed cheaper products into this country.

Tescos get a lot of their stuff from abroad, and they would get a lot more of it from the third world if european food was not kept at artificially low prices by subsidising it with our tax money.

This is what it's all about - quite the opposite of what you say.
Less intervention, not more.

Originally posted by donkey
Governments most certainly do not intervene for the best interests of the consumer. It is a lack of intervention which has allowed cheaper products into this country.

Tescos get a lot of their stuff from abroad, and they would get a lot more of it from the third world if european food was not kept at artificially low prices by subsidising it with our tax money.

This is what it's all about - quite the opposite of what you say.
Less intervention, not more.

I agree but without the proper free laws in place.... companies still have to make a profit.... this is where our wealth comes from and that is what would bring rogue Governments down as they would have to tax the population in the same way as the free world and in turn the population would demand a fairer Govt.

Originally posted by donkey
Governments most certainly do not intervene for the best interests of the consumer. It is a lack of intervention which has allowed cheaper products into this country.

Tescos get a lot of their stuff from abroad, and they would get a lot more of it from the third world if european food was not kept at artificially low prices by subsidising it with our tax money.

This is what it's all about - quite the opposite of what you say.
Less intervention, not more.

You're wrong, Governments main interest is in the best interests for consumers, that is the main interest for the government

Originally posted by rocketpig
You're wrong, Governments main interest is in the best interests for consumers, that is the main interest for the government

The main interest of a Govt. is firstly self preservation and secondly the interests of the Country it serves. We are all consumers. (Globally)

Originally posted by Jake01
Countries all attempt at filling the begging bowl of reconstruction and advance is sidelined into the personal wealth of the rulers and arms traders.... sometimes the people have to help themselves.... just as in the same way we need to make a profit in order to survive. I don't know what you do but I assume you or your company make a profit.... would you/they say for instance " yeah mate I'll take a loss on that car as I know you can't afford it?".... and how many cars would you be able to sell?

I know these countries are held back by corruption, but that isn't the cause of the unfair trading rules in place at the moment, and this is something we can do something about.

The only companies that continue to operate at a loss are the ones in the west which are subsidised with our tax money.
All that's being suggested, is getting rid of unfair trading practices, such as subsidies and the sort of abuses outlined by Preacherman.

We don't benefit from a US conglomerate using dirty tricks to impoverish the Jamaicans even further. It's got nothing to do with hand outs. They wouldn't need hand outs if they weren't being so blatantly ripped off.

Fair trade is all that's being asked.
Even Bush was shamed into agreeing with this at the last G8 summit, but he clearly doesn't intend to deliver.

Originally posted by donkey
I know these countries are held back by corruption, but all that's being suggested leveling the playing field.

The only companies that continue to operate at a loss are the ones in the west which are subsidised with our tax money.
All that's being suggested, is getting rid of unfair trading practices, such as subsidies and the sort of abuses outlined by Preacherman.

We don't benefit from a US conglomerate using dirty tricks to impoverish the Jamaicans even further. It's got nothing to do with hand outs. They wouldn't need hand outs if they weren't being so blatantly ripped off.

And a lot of the corrupt officials who run these places are on the payroll of the companies who are doing the ripping off.

Couldn't agree more.... the problem is dismantleling the current way we do business with these Countries and establishing true leaders who put the population first.... then they wouldn't need hand outs. I also agree that these companies employ high ranking officials to "make money".... sometimes through unsavoury means.... but the arms market should be one to tackle.

At the end of the day we cannot trade at a loss and it is up to the UN to talk some sense now.... a very weak body in my view.... we call ourselves a part of the United Nations? I ask just how many are included in this club?

Originally posted by Preacher Man
Having seen some threads on here recently which have stooped to low levels can we try and not post in here if its a witth remark at somebody? And if were asked a question then answer it, not ignore it as it was too hard to deal with.


I have a strong opinion about the corporations destroying local economies for that extra pound. I am even more concerned about the American Governments long term assistance in this.

Jamaica has been badly hit by corporations imposing bully boy tactics on local workers forcing them to work in awful conditions and for a pittance. When they rightly went on strike the corporations shipped over Chinese workers instead!!!

The American governent helped destroy the local Jamaican dairy market by subsidising Powdered milk being shipped from America to Jamica so it was a fraction of the price of local fresh milk. Obviously the Jamaicans being povery striken went for the cheeper option and slowly but surely all the diary farms went out of business.. As soon as the last one shut down the American Government stopped the subsidy and the powderd milk became more expensive than the fresh local milk had been.

This is a perfect example of the rich fooking over the poor just because they can, all for an extra bit of profit.

This is just 2 examples on a small island, other countries have been hit much worse.

I want to know how can we live with this and what can be done to change it??

If your intention is to stimulate a serious debate about 'globalisation', then at the very least you should attempt to define what it is and what its implications are. The examples you cite are not only ridiculously simplistic but also all too typical of the lamentable lack of knowledge of contemporary developments in the global economy.

Far from being the malign force you imagine, globalisation has actually been responsible for lifting more people out of poverty than at anytime previously in world history. It has also been the greatest generator of economic growth and wealth in human history. The countries around the world with the lowest GDP per capita (mainly in Africa) are those which are least integrated into the global economy and which are least affected by globalisation. What poor countries need (including the ones you cite) is more globalisation, not less, as the amazing rise of China and the Asian Tiger countries exemplify. As for the flaws in the present system, globalisation is also giving rise to new forms of global governance which. although by no means perfect (no system of governance ever is) is also allowing global issues to be adressed in ways inconceivable in previous eras.

Originally posted by Preacher Man
Having seen some threads on here recently which have stooped to low levels can we try and not post in here if its a witth remark at somebody? And if were asked a question then answer it, not ignore it as it was too hard to deal with.


I have a strong opinion about the corporations destroying local economies for that extra pound. I am even more concerned about the American Governments long term assistance in this.

Jamaica has been badly hit by corporations imposing bully boy tactics on local workers forcing them to work in awful conditions and for a pittance. When they rightly went on strike the corporations shipped over Chinese workers instead!!!

The American governent helped destroy the local Jamaican dairy market by subsidising Powdered milk being shipped from America to Jamica so it was a fraction of the price of local fresh milk. Obviously the Jamaicans being povery striken went for the cheeper option and slowly but surely all the diary farms went out of business.. As soon as the last one shut down the American Government stopped the subsidy and the powderd milk became more expensive than the fresh local milk had been.

This is a perfect example of the rich fooking over the poor just because they can, all for an extra bit of profit.

This is just 2 examples on a small island, other countries have been hit much worse.

I want to know how can we live with this and what can be done to change it??


You sound a reasonable person Preacher Man. Here you can view this documentary online free at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=192012118972057552&q=%22the+corporation%22 it would cost you £3.75 at Blockbusters.

Don't worry though Gloalization is on it's last legs! "Yawn" yes it will collapse once the $h*t hit$ the fan with Peak Oil.

As forthe free market, its as free as they want it to be.

Originally posted by LordChaverly


Far from being the malign force you imagine, globalisation has actually been responsible for lifting more people out of poverty than at anytime previously in world history. It has also been the greatest generator of economic growth and wealth in human history. The countries around the world with the lowest GDP per capita (mainly in Africa) are those which are least integrated into the global economy and which are least affected by globalisation. What poor countries need (including the ones you cite) is more globalisation, not less, as the amazing rise of China and the Asian Tiger countries exemplify. As for the flaws in the present system, globalisation is also giving rise to new forms of global governance which. although by no means perfect (no system of governance ever is) is also allowing global issues to be adressed in ways inconceivable in previous eras.

Globalization as also put more people in Poverty than anyother time in history. Its destroyed habbitats and eco-systems faster than anyothe time in history. Its using up finite Carbon fuels faster than anyther time in history. Another scary fact, a "Corporation" as the same rights as a "Person" in a court of law!!!

You mention China. Strange how we can allow our western buisnessess to up root to China, put our own economy at risk, all this and allow the sweat box, slave labour wages!!! Amazing what Globalisation Coroporations can get away with.

Money! Money!! Money!!!

Originally posted by wayne72


Money! Money!! Money!!!

So you are quoting Abba at me now!

The first statement you make is demonstrably false. I suggest to consult some recent literature about the rise in global GDP and indeed in global GDP per capita. The biggest rises are being seen in many countries formerly regarded as 'undeveloped'. As with all such trends, global growth has been uneven, but even in areas and industries adversely affected by technological change through industrial and job displacement, the tendency has been for things to get better through industrial and job replacement and through various 'trickle down' effects. The figures for individual countries are of course averages, and within countries there are considerable variations (for example, the average GDP growth for China is now running at about 9% but some regions of China probably have rates of growth in double figures). But even in China, the less developed areas are getting richer through various forms of economic spillover and are being progressively integrated into other zones, not least as a result of MNCs seeking new investment opportunities.

As for globalisation destroying eco systems and habitats, well of course it does have environmental and resource implications and consequences. However, its probable that prior to globalisation, the majority of workers did not live in healthy environments either. Again, if we use comparative life expectancy indices, the majority of the world's population is living longer now than ever before (chid mortality has also fallen). Moreover, globalisation has led to the emergence of forms of global governance which are enabling us, however imperfectly, to address the issues of global climate change and other environmental questions.

Your comment about corporations having the same rights as individuals is very strange. It is normal, indeed essential, for businesses to have legal personalities which, for example, allow them to sue and be sued. Without one they could hardly be held responsible or accountable for what they do.

As for the shift of investment and jobs to China (and elsewhere), this is not only inevitable, but is also (strange as it may seem to some), on the whole beneficial to us. To argue otherwise is to adopt a very static view of global economics. MNCs, whether resource seeking, market seeking or both, will always move around the world seeking new investment opportunities. This leads to greater global economic efficiency, lower prices, and the creation of new opportunities and jobs (thus not only do some of the profits accruing from FDI in China flow back into Western economies, we are also able to buy cheaper goods and also look for opportunities to sell things to the rapidly growing middle classes in these developing countries). It is a common, but neverthless mistaken, assumption that, because goods from China are sold cheaply here they must be produced in 'sweat shops'. I suggest you take a look at many of the factories producing these goods in abundance. Many of their factories are now more modern than ours, because they are relatively new and well equipped. The low prices of Chinese goods, although partly explained by the relatively low cost of labour, has much to do with the Chinese government's deliberate policy of keeping the exchange rate of its currency artificially low (thereby making the goods it sells abroad artificially cheap). Moreover, any comparative study of global labour costs must also take account of the relative cost of living. This is why the 'dollar a day' analogies of the anti-globalisation fanatics are so misleading - even ludicrous.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
So you are quoting Abba at me now!


I am insulted :o


I was quoting a line from "Dawn of the Dead", the great anti-capitalist movie. The one were Zombies take the place of brainwashed consumers, sleepwalking into a World depleted of Carbon Fuels. Yet these Consumer Zombies prefer to shop, rather than live. Soon our 4 porotagonists find they have been dragged in to this dream World before being awoken by the Hells Angels (who represent the visionaries). Yes I am one of these Visionaries attempting to awaken the ones who aren't sleeping too deep.

Sleep Easy :thumbsup: