Read the quote in my sig.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

It doesn't work because I spelt it wrong.

http://www.eco-imperialism.com/

It STILL isn't working.

Don't you have any other sources for this quote other than this phantom website?

[Brandon]

The link works for me, and the quote's right on the front page. It's really just a promo site for some dude's book with a few of the lamest political cartoons I've ever seen thrown in for good measure.

[Jeanette X]

So what does the website cite as the source of the quote?

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Patrick Moore

"The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity. The pain and suffering it is inflicting on families in developing countries must no longer be tolerated. Eco-Imperialism is the first book I’ve seen that tells the truth and lays it on the line. It’s a must-read for anyone who cares about people, progress and our planet."

It's actually Patrick Moore's appraisal of Paul Driessen's book.

[mburbank]

See, when I accused OAO of being bookjacket smart, I'd been half kidding. This must be the other half.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Oh yes it is. Tariffs, my boy, tariffs. We ban the Brazilian farmer from competing in our markets, which means that has a lower income.

Even if you are referring to the movement of corporations to Brazil, the farmer would probably make a higher wage working for the company. Empirical research + theoretical analysis indicates this.[/quote]

Whose research?

America is a heavy importing nation. We turn small countries, such as Jamaica, into heavy exporting countries. They export their crops, and then buy the very same ones from us at a higher price.

A higher wage means little if they can't afford products, and besides, it's not productive or stable to base their income on that of a fickle corporation that will simply leave their country in its race to the economic bottom. In many cases, the farmers don't even get a fair compensation for their land when an agribusiness eats it up. Many countries, look for example at soy bean production in South and Latin America, don't have well established property rights and documentation. Many farmers in 3rd world or economic "south" nations are simply industrious minded folks who avoid the inevitable red tape and inefficiency of their governments. Long story short-- No land, no property, means no chance for sustainable growth. The company town didn't work here in America, and it won't work in the third world, either.

Uganda and Tanzania are so economically superior than their protectionist peers, it's a joke.

1. Uganda, for instance, much like your "tigers", have demonstrated temperance and self-judgement when it comes to the guidance of the SAPs. Their success is attributable to smart, regulated growth, NOT wide open markets.

2. Your argument was that protectionism is what's keeping Africa poor. This is naive, simplistic, and wrong. Africa suffers from many ills, namely disease, famine, post-colonial meltdown, poor economic planning on the part (especially) of the IMF, and so on. There's no quick simple cure for Africa, despite whatever magic healing tonic you might be peddling off of lp.org.


Patrick Moore is a wanker who shares the same vision of "progress" as neo-liberals like Thomas Friedman. He's a staunch supporter of GMO foods, which is a big part of where his split with the "environmental movement" comes from. He's yet another utopian who thinks that GMO crops will end hunger and make everyone rich. Right.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Whose research?

IMF, World Bank, UN, various economists...

America is a heavy importing nation. We turn small countries, such as Jamaica, into heavy exporting countries. They export their crops, and then buy the very same ones from us at a higher price.

You have proven yourself to be a fool. They export excess produce. We cannot compete within their food markets because they sell their products at such cheaper levels. I don't know what you've been reading, but no respectable economist will tell you such a thing.

A higher wage means little if they can't afford products, and besides, it's not productive or stable to base their income on that of a fickle corporation that will simply leave their country in its race to the economic bottom.

There are so many errors here.

1) A higher real wage always means that they can afford more products. Did you miss the real part, or do you not know what a real wage is?

2) It's perfectly productive and stable. When corporations congregate in such countries, wealth increases - and, hence, education. And when education increases, higher level jobs can be taken. The only reason these companies leave is because they find that workers are demanding higher wages, which only occurs because of advancements in the national economy. You act as though there is only one international within a country at a time
and that this is an immediate and costless process.

In many cases, the farmers don't even get a fair compensation for their land when an agribusiness eats it up.

That would mean that their land was taken away from them. Sounds like a lack of property protection to me.

Many countries, look for example at soy bean production in South and Latin America, don't have well established property rights and documentation. Many farmers in 3rd world or economic "south" nations are simply industrious minded folks who avoid the inevitable red tape and inefficiency of their governments. Long story short-- No land, no property, means no chance for sustainable growth. The company town didn't work here in America, and it won't work in the third world, either.

Then they need to establish property, don't they? These countries are not the types to invite internationals anyway.

1. Uganda, for instance, much like your "tigers", have demonstrated temperance and self-judgement when it comes to the guidance of the SAPs. Their success is attributable to smart, regulated growth, NOT wide open markets.

You make me laugh. These countries are far from protectionist tariff-havens with ultra-regulated markets. It could be argued that they are even more economically liberal than we are.

2. Your argument was that protectionism is what's keeping Africa poor. This is naive, simplistic, and wrong. Africa suffers from many ills, namely disease, famine, post-colonial meltdown, poor economic planning on the part (especially) of the IMF, and so on. There's no quick simple cure for Africa, despite whatever magic healing tonic you might be peddling off of lp.org.

The truth is quite clear. The economic liberals in Africa have progressed despite their ills. The protectionists have suffered from stagflation. Draw your own conclusions.


Patrick Moore is a wanker who shares the same vision of "progress" as neo-liberals like Thomas Friedman. He's a staunch supporter of GMO foods, which is a big part of where his split with the "environmental movement" comes from. He's yet another utopian who thinks that GMO crops will end hunger and make everyone rich. Right.[/quote]

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

You have proven yourself to be a fool. They export excess produce. We cannot compete within their food markets because they sell their products at such cheaper levels. I don't know what you've been reading, but no respectable economist will tell you such a thing.

Try Joseph Stiglitz for one. He was chief economist for the World Bank, which you cited as a credible research institute. He is a Nobel prize winner in economics, and he also served on Clinton's economic advisory council. I realize he isn't a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, but he'll do.

I gave you a substantive example. Another thing you might want to check out is a documentary called "Life and Debt" on Jamaica. Real people, real numbers, and real footage of what SAPs (or whatever they're called now) and trade agreements have done to nations such as Jamaica. Who deems it "excess" produce you little fucking brat? Stop reading cooked fucking numbers from the IMF and the bullshit Cato Institute, and start looking at the faces of real human beings.

1) A higher real wage always means that they can afford more products. Did you miss the real part, or do you not know what a real wage is?

You said "higher" wage. A higher wage means relatively nothing if products are inaffordable.

2) It's perfectly productive and stable. When corporations congregate in such countries, wealth increases - and, hence, education.

Where is the wealth accumulating? Where are these people going to school? When are they going to school? I mean, Christ, Jamaica looks like heaven compared to other places. If a corporation comes in, and as you say, pays a HIGHER wage, it will run other businesses out, and discourage domestic industry. It will stifle people and growth, since domestic business clearly can't compete with corporations that are given "free trade zones" in agreement with the native governments. When the corporation grows weary, or sees a better buck to made, they will pull out, leaving that country and those dependent people high and dry.

The only reason these companies leave is because they find that workers are demanding higher wages, which only occurs because of advancements in the national economy. You act as though there is only one international within a country at a time
and that this is an immediate and costless process.

1. Many corporations often do corner markets, or regions of a market. They deal through greedy private contractors anyway, such as the Van Heusen dress shirt company in Guatemala. The workers were promised a holiday bonus roughly five years ago, and about a week before Christmas, the plant was closed. The reason they cited was a "discontinuation of the brand," even though I worked for them, saw the brand they produced, and realized that this was a crock of shit. So the workers had no jobs, and Van Heusen opened up another factory with a different contractor within the same region. It re-hired all of the same workers predominantly, excluding of course the rabblerousers who dared to ask for higher pay and shorter work weeks.

2. Corporations do NOT NOT NOT leave simply do to the betterment of everybody. This is a lie.

That would mean that their land was taken away from them. Sounds like a lack of property protection to me.

It's a lack of government infrastructure, which is the exact same reason corporations pick these countries in the first place. But you missed the point-- farmers get screwed on all ends. Yeah, that was the point.

Then they need to establish property, don't they? These countries are not the types to invite internationals anyway.

What the FUCK are you talking about??? These are EXACTLY the kind of countries agribusinesses go to. Why PAY a fucking peasant a fair amount for his land, when the government will just let you TAKE IT...!?

You make me laugh. These countries are far from protectionist tariff-havens with ultra-regulated markets. It could be argued that they are even more economically liberal than we are.

One brief example-- [OAO nerdy Cato geek voice] "statistical studies showed that Uganda should add school fees to all those who wanted to send their children to school, and that it would have no effect on enrollment"[/end nerdy OAO Cato geek voice]

Thankfully, Uganda ignored the economic management advice provided by the IMF, and simply did away with all fees. School enrollment soared, including girls. People, not corporations, made a decision for the betterment of one another. No, these countries are not extreme protectionists, but being blind free trade zealots isn't what helped them thrive, either.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Try Joseph Stiglitz for one. He was chief economist for the World Bank, which you cited as a credible research institute. He is a Nobel prize winner in economics, and he also served on Clinton's economic advisory council. I realize he isn't a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, but he'll do.

I gave you a substantive example. Another thing you might want to check out is a documentary called "Life and Debt" on Jamaica. Real people, real numbers, and real footage of what SAPs (or whatever they're called now) and trade agreements have done to nations such as Jamaica. Who deems it "excess" produce you little fucking brat? Stop reading cooked fucking numbers from the IMF and the bullshit Cato Institute, and start looking at the faces of real human beings.

Don't believe everything you read. Why would someone sell a product and purchase a duplicate at a higher price than the profit you made? It doesn't make a bit of sense. It would be cheaper to simply keep what you farmed without selling it in the first place. You would have to be an absolute, and complete, idiot in order to do something so crazy.

My bet is that you are reading the information incorrectly. It is true that food products grown domestically are more expensive than those grown in foreign third-world nations. But no foreign nation buys these more expensive products. If they do, they deserve to suffer for their absolute foolishness.

You said "higher" wage. A higher wage means relatively nothing if products are inaffordable.

It was assumed that you knew I was referring to real wages, which is adjusted for the inflation rate.

Where is the wealth accumulating? Where are these people going to school? When are they going to school? I mean, Christ, Jamaica looks like heaven compared to other places. If a corporation comes in, and as you say, pays a HIGHER wage, it will run other businesses out, and discourage domestic industry. It will stifle people and growth, since domestic business clearly can't compete with corporations that are given "free trade zones" in agreement with the native governments. When the corporation grows weary, or sees a better buck to made, they will pull out, leaving that country and those dependent people high and dry.

Do I need to spell everything out for you? Look at India. Look at Japan. These are perfect examples of what I'm talking about.

Whether an industry is "domestic" or not is irrelevant to the point. And while you may think that countries who allow foreign industries to settle in are nothing more than huge congregations of such corporations, there is no grand herd mentality.

Besides all of this, domestic industry would never be able to grow without economic liberalism in the first place - the required technology and capital would permeate the third world nation status.

1. Many corporations often do corner markets, or regions of a market. They deal through greedy private contractors anyway, such as the Van Heusen dress shirt company in Guatemala. The workers were promised a holiday bonus roughly five years ago, and about a week before Christmas, the plant was closed. The reason they cited was a "discontinuation of the brand," even though I worked for them, saw the brand they produced, and realized that this was a crock of shit. So the workers had no jobs, and Van Heusen opened up another factory with a different contractor within the same region. It re-hired all of the same workers predominantly, excluding of course the rabblerousers who dared to ask for higher pay and shorter work weeks.

What the hell is your point? You need to compare with the alternatives available within their own country.

2. Corporations do NOT NOT NOT leave simply do to the betterment of everybody. This is a lie.

They do it for profit. Again, I fail to see the point.

You need to understand that corporations react to situations rather then create them. A multinational will usually only leave when the education level is high and other companies are coming in/being created that require educated workers. It's not as if the corporation arbitrarily lifts wages and then suddenly decides to leave. The national economies can handle it.

It's a lack of government infrastructure, which is the exact same reason corporations pick these countries in the first place. But you missed the point-- farmers get screwed on all ends. Yeah, that was the point.

The reason corporation picks these nations is due to the cheap labor costs and more effective resources located in the area. Most developing nations who allow internationals to come in have already established necessary infrastructure for capitalism to work in the first place, such as property rights.

What the FUCK are you talking about??? These are EXACTLY the kind of countries agribusinesses go to. Why PAY a fucking peasant a fair amount for his land, when the government will just let you TAKE IT...!?

You must be smoking crack. Much, if not most, of South and Latin America is still heavily protectionist and reliant upon nationalized industries and wealthy native land owners. Chile is the only true nation down there that could have been considered economically liberal during Pinochet's reign, and because of that, their economy is the best down there.

One brief example-- [OAO nerdy Cato geek voice] "statistical studies showed that Uganda should add school fees to all those who wanted to send their children to school, and that it would have no effect on enrollment"[/end nerdy OAO Cato geek voice]

Thankfully, Uganda ignored the economic management advice provided by the IMF, and simply did away with all fees. School enrollment soared, including girls. People, not corporations, made a decision for the betterment of one another. No, these countries are not extreme protectionists, but being blind free trade zealots isn't what helped them thrive, either.

That has absolutely nothing to do with globalization. And where the heck did you find that, anyway?

[Jeanette X]

I still can't believe you decided that this was a better sig quote than my ivory tower one.

[The One and Only...]

It isn't. Maybe I'll change it back some time.