Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    In which case, your response is simply irrelevent. Giving Africa free food doesn't make industries less competitive. On the other hand, massive political corruption and lack of enforceable property and contract law does.


    Stiglitz has been working professionally in politics for the last 16 years, and most of the books he has written since then have been left wing polemics. I think the comment is justified on that basis alone. As for the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, it was also awarded to Friedman, whom you said "pretty much caused the current recession through his ideological, evidence lacking, tripe". So much for that.
    That's not even what i said. Please feel free to read through my responses instead of skim reading and replying to something i've already covered.

    Ah you're right in that respect. But hey, right wing fundamentalism is being shelved by most countries that used to believe in it today, and keynesianism is back on the rise, so you still lose
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Rule Britannia)
    So it had nothing to do with aid, debt cancellation or western assistance?
    Thanks for that information. :rolleyes:
    Perhaps you would like to change your tune elsewhere in this thread to recognise these indisputable facts.

    There is little point in cancelling third world debt as they would rush to the bank to maximise their credit straight away. I'm not happy with cancelling foreign debt for them to run off and get new debt whilst there's still homeless people in the UK.

    The problem is the African political class. But these problems originate in African culture itself. If a British council leader said to an American investor "That's a nice idea about building a school. But I need a new porch, you going to make me one?" there would be an uproar. In Africa a Chief could say that in front of everyone and not an eyelid would batter. It's high time we stopped pretending all cultures are equal. A quick glance at the living standards of Africans demonstrates a comphrenshive cultural inferiority. Societies where men have 4 wives who go to courts and accuse each other of witchcraft are not to be celebrated.

    A tougher attitude towards Africa itself and a demand that it sorts out its own problems would do more for the living standards of tomorrows Africans then cancelling some paper money.
    You're right. It has nothing to do with aid. Stop giving aid to africa. Cancel their debts. Let them do their own thing. Don't force them to open their markets if you're unwilling to open your own. Do unto them as you'd have them to unto you.

    You're right, and how does backward culture advance? That's right, economic progress and increased education

    Paper money is still money Calling it "paper" doesn't make it any less valuable, inflation and devaluation does that. And why do these things occur? That's right, because governments don't have any money going around because they have to pay 20% interest on aid packages that were used to enrich previous western backed political leaders or to buy western produce that was usually unhelpful

    The cycle of debt and aid is self perpetuating. At the end of it they are going to end worse off and the west wouldn't had made a dime.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Oh how ironic, wanting money to pay for the NHS while millions die from aids and preventable diseases :rofl:
    I wrote it ironically on purpose. :awesome:
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by TheMeister)
    I wrote it ironically on purpose. :awesome:
    Oh LOL, okay :rofl:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    And you're quoting a neo liberal anti keynesian, the sort of market fundamentalist that has pretty much caused the current recession through his ideological, evidence lacking, tripe, along with his other colluding Friedmanist buddies? Good stuff :top:
    You really need to actually read about what you are arguing about rather than just randomly insulting it.
    1. Henry Hazlitt was not a "Neo Liberal."
    2. He was not a "Friedmanist" (Whatever this is, I assume it means Chicago School)
    3. Henry Hazlitt died in 1993.
    4. Neither did he advocate any of the policies which led up to this recession.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Bagration)
    You really need to actually read about what you are arguing about rather than just randomly insulting it.
    1. Henry Hazlitt was not a "Neo Liberal."
    2. He was not a "Friedmanist" (Whatever this is, I assume it means Chicago School)
    3. Henry Hazlitt died in 1993.
    4. Neither did he advocate any of the policies which led up to this recession.
    Yeah you're probably right, but it says he was anti Keynesian, and that's enough for me

    "Hazlitt was the founding vice-president of the Foundation for Economic Education and an early editor of The Freeman magazine.

    From 1997 to 2002 there was an organization called The Henry Hazlitt Foundation which actively promoted libertarian networking online, especially through its website Free-Market.Net. This organization was named in honor of Hazlitt because he was known for introducing a wide range of people to libertarian ideas through his writing and for helping free-market advocates connect with each other. For example, he secured a position at New York University for the economist Ludwig von Mises, and he introduced the novelist Ayn Rand to Mises, whom she admired. It is important to note that the foundation was started after Hazlitt's passing and had no official connection with his estate."

    So he was a free marketist? Lesser regulated markets = current financial crisis. Didn't we have an argument about this before? :p:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    So he was a free marketist? Lesser regulated markets = current financial crisis. Didn't we have an argument about this before? :p:
    Yes we did, where you effectively denied that the quantity of goods in a market affects how many people consume that good.

    If you are going to tar the whole of anything right of Keynesian as "market fundamentalists" and claim they believe exactly the same thing then there is a very real accusation of intellectual dishonesty to be made. It's quite simply untrue that the two dominant right wing economic schools of thought are at all similar.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    That's not even what i said. Please feel free to read through my responses instead of skim reading and replying to something i've already covered.
    I really have no idea what you're saying anymore, or even what most of your rebuttals have been directed at since you don't multiquote. Feel free to restate whatever it was you were trying to say, though.

    Ah you're right in that respect. But hey, right wing fundamentalism is being shelved by most countries that used to believe in it today, and keynesianism is back on the rise, so you still lose
    As far as I'm aware, there weren't any libertarian countries before the banking balls up either. In fact, the US government was extensively intervening in the market to promote sub-prime lending and credit bubbles on the advice of socialist economist-activists (regulated market fundamentalists?) like Krugman. It's hardly fair to judge a philosophy of liberty on the extent to which various self interested governments adopt it.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Yes we did, where you effectively denied that the quantity of goods in a market affects how many people consume that good.

    If you are going to tar the whole of anything right of Keynesian as "market fundamentalists" and claim they believe exactly the same thing then there is a very real accusation of intellectual dishonesty to be made. It's quite simply untrue that the two dominant right wing economic schools of thought are at all similar.
    Did i? Care to link me?

    Well, i said this before, i'm very young and have only done economics for one year, so you can hardly expect me to be well versed on the various schools Although whenever i DO read about the right wing schools, i find myself disagreeing with them, so it's not like it makes any difference to me :rofl:
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    I really have no idea what you're saying anymore, or even what most of your rebuttals have been directed at since you don't multiquote. Feel free to restate whatever it was you were trying to say, though.


    As far as I'm aware, there weren't any libertarian countries before the banking balls up either. In fact, the US government was extensively intervening in the market to promote sub-prime lending and credit bubbles on the advice of socialist economist-activists (regulated market fundamentalists?) like Krugman. It's hardly fair to judge a philosophy of liberty on the extent to which various self interested governments adopt it.
    Well, my points are often parapgraphed to coincide with your points, and there is a usually distinct difference in what i'm saying from point to point anyway.

    Well, not truly Libertarian ones, but the idea that the "market is right" was very dominant, atleast in the US and UK.

    Subprime lending was the fault of the government pushing banks to lend to poor minorities is what i'm sure you're alluding at. That's a big no. The crisis was caused by banks being unregulated and going insane on a lending spree in the belief that the bubble would never burst. Why were they allowed to do this? Because there was insufficient regulation.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boo.)
    let go of the third world debt? Wouldn't it help the poor countries to prosper (potentially)?
    Because then the dictators will just buy more AK-47s
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Question: Why do rich countries give money to poor countries?

    Answer: To literally buy their people and resources (as a result of them not being able to pay back ever unless by these means)

    No rich country just gives money away because, oh my, they're kind.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Did i? Care to link me?

    Well, i said this before, i'm very young and have only done economics for one year, so you can hardly expect me to be well versed on the various schools Although whenever i DO read about the right wing schools, i find myself disagreeing with them, so it's not like it makes any difference to me :rofl:
    I'm not going to link you to a thread we participated in yesterday the point is that the amount of credit in the economy is intrinsically linked to the amount of people taking on loans. Less credit = less loans.

    Sadly, this is what you get when you read polemicists from only one side. Reading economics from only one side is less destructive.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Bagration)
    I'm not going to link you to a thread we participated in yesterday the point is that the amount of credit in the economy is intrinsically linked to the amount of people taking on loans. Less credit = less loans.

    Sadly, this is what you get when you read polemicists from only one side. Reading economics from only one side is less destructive.
    I never denied that

    Yeah well, i've only done a year of economics and my views are likely to be more refined in the future Ask me in a year and i bet i'll "polemicize" you less and economize you more :awesome:
    Offline

    12
    I propose we:

    - Cancel third world debt
    - But cancel government (taxpayer) funded aid
    - Embrace free trade with all nations

    So yeah, I agree with you OP. The most beneficial of all the above would be the third one, though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Its about power, the money is insignificant. Say someone own you money, you can ask favors instead (remeber money cant buy everyting. Watch the godfather, he dont need money, he got little use for it.)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    We need to write off the current debt, but at the same time stop giving aid. Africa is full of natural resources and can easily feed itself. If a continent rich in platinum and oil cannot manage to exploit its own natural resources, then I give up. The problem, of course, is corrupt leaders. Corrupt leaders who are allowed to remain in power because they have armies of militia. Militia who are citizens of the country they exploit. As long as there are militia willing to kill their countrymen, there will be no progress. As long as there is aid and money coming in, there will be militia. Africa needs to be left well alone - they need their own revolution. It will happen, eventually. Society will progress and it does not need outside help to do so. It just needs time. Sadly, it also needs to get a whole lot worse before it gets better...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobertPires)
    Because you went to these countries, pillaged their natural resources and people before turning around and saying "Oh, this is how our economy works, from now on we expect you to compete in the same way despite the fact we've already taken most of the value your countries had for ourselves. What's that? Your natural resources have been depleted and you can't compete financially? Well I suppose we could lend you some money..."
    African countries only started gaining their independence around 60 years ago, are you honestly telling me that you didn't take more than what you've lent Africa during that time?
    Tbh it wasn't me who pillaged their natural resources thanks, and I havn't lent Africa anything so stop trying to make me feel guilty for having an opinion, forums are for discussing opinions and not for producing a critical analysis of others at the end of the day the world will never be a perfect paradise where everyone holds hands and sings around a bunch of trees, thats just the way life goes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    here is what I THINK will happen when u keep giving africa/ poor countries money

    1) US/Europe/Japan and china.. rich countries.. they give billions to africa
    2) Greed here is what we are looking for. Government officials in africa take all the money buy more guns for their military to abuse the locals
    3) we are talking about billions here.. government officials will also keep the money for themselves
    4) result= more people die in africa coz of the stronger military, rich countries lost a lot of money as if they threw it down the drain. thats it.

    the only way to fix this is to occupy the countries.. and change the corrupt governments into western governers because western people will have more experience and all of that... just like south africa, it got occupied and its one of the best countries in africa.

    ps: i know a lot of people will disagree with me because of the racism thing... which i think is gone now...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by englishstudent09)
    Tbh it wasn't me who pillaged their natural resources thanks, and I havn't lent Africa anything so stop trying to make me feel guilty for having an opinion, forums are for discussing opinions and not for producing a critical analysis of others at the end of the day the world will never be a perfect paradise where everyone holds hands and sings around a bunch of trees, thats just the way life goes.
    I wasn't saying you personally did, you was referring to a country. I'm not trying to make you feel guilty, you asked why you shouldn't get paid back and I told you. If you feel guilty that's not my fault, I just told you it how it is. You need to realise that actually a critical analysis of the situation is part of a discussion, or should I just say whatever pops into my head as you seem to?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.