M
Matt25
Guest
Then you need to read them again only more closely this time.
- Status
T
tcay584
Guest
How closely can you read one liners? Are you typing in invisible font? :tsktsk:
M
Matt25
Guest
Incidentally heres a corrupt third world country in action misna.org/default.asp?IDLingua=1
By 2015, the national illiteracy rate of 60% should drop to 15% according to a national plan announced by the ministry of education in occasion of World Illiteracy day. At the time of independence from Portugal, illiteracy in the country exceeded 80%, said the ministry, and the efforts made up to the 1980’s (despite the civil war in full swing) allowed the illiteracy rate to drop by almost 20%. Angola, is the second strongest oil producer in Sub-Saharan Africa, and is putting a lot of effort to recover from a conflict which is estimated to have cost the lives of over 1 million people.
By 2015, the national illiteracy rate of 60% should drop to 15% according to a national plan announced by the ministry of education in occasion of World Illiteracy day. At the time of independence from Portugal, illiteracy in the country exceeded 80%, said the ministry, and the efforts made up to the 1980’s (despite the civil war in full swing) allowed the illiteracy rate to drop by almost 20%. Angola, is the second strongest oil producer in Sub-Saharan Africa, and is putting a lot of effort to recover from a conflict which is estimated to have cost the lives of over 1 million people.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Which just goes to show you, the way to help poor nations is to assist them in achieving a stable, democratic government and educating the people.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Actually it does. You asked. Vern answered. Next.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Are you sure you want us to read your posts more closely? How many readings do you think is enough to really ‘get’ what you are saying?
If the instruction is to ‘read more closely’ and that instruction is given in the absence of courteous explication – which one might expect in a discussion such as this – then perhaps one might want to entertain the possibility that the problem is in the clarity or murkiness of your writing – not in the acuity or insensitivity of our reading.
This is after all a discussion, not a “vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.”
And, by the way, I’m wondering if you could possibly refrain from instructing us on what we need to do? Thanks ever so much.
M
Matt25
Guest
vern humphrey said:
Yes, five years ago. The relevant current legislation is named what precisely? I only ask because I thought that the Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act (2001) made bribery of overseas public officials illegal. Obviously a good deal more still needs to be done. If the government spent less time invading other peoples countries and addressing International development issues no-one would be happier than I.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I have proved my point.
If you choose to claim the law has been changed, the burden of proof is now on you.
In any case, for a couple of generations, British businesses have been able to pay bribes overseas and the company could write those bribes off on their taxes.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
*Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
2001 Chapter 24
Part 12
BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION
108Bribery and corruption: foreign officers etc.
109Bribery and corruption committed outside the UK
110Presumption of corruption not to apply
This is fair comment.
Hark! What is that which I hear over yonder pond? Ah! An axe grindeth. By the way, you do realize I did your homework for you? Please feel free to look on it as a shining example.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Ani Ibi:
Thank you for the information it helped me also.
SHUCKS you should have made him do his own work.:yup: Oh well no good deed goes unpunished.Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
2001 Chapter 24
Part 12
BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION
108Bribery and corruption: foreign officers etc.
109Bribery and corruption committed outside the UK
110Presumption of corruption not to apply
**
This is fair comment.
Hark! What is that which I hear over yonder pond? Ah! An axe grindeth. By the way, you do realize I did your homework for you? Please feel free to look on it as a shining example.
Thank you for the information it helped me also.
S
shockerfan
Guest
Nice dodge. Obviously from other posts, people concur with my assessment of your writings. Perhaps you think your writings convey a message they do not convey. Perhaps you should reread your own writings.
I will say it again, you have given corrupt governements a free pass.
M
Matt25
Guest
Well, who corrupts them? I assume that you do know that the poor world subsidises the rich not the other way round. Corrupt rulers are propped up because they are happy to see their own countries robbed to benefit Western shareholders. Don’t believe me. What about this-
globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/Causes.asp#TheWorld%E2%80%99sPoorAreSubsidizingtheRich
The world’s poor are subsidizing the rich. The net gain to the over-capitalized countries (loss to the under-capitalized ones) of $418 billion between 1982 and 1990 is more than double what was spent to rebuild Europe after World War II. “Capital flight from Mexico between 1979 and 1983 alone [was] $90 billion — an amount greater than the entire Mexican debt at that time.”
… How this is accomplished is well-known to American bankers,
Their real role has been to take funds that Third World elites have appropriated from their countries and to loan them back, earning a nice spread each way.
… Loans from the U.S. government are almost invariably tied to the purchase from the creditor nations. Over 80 percent of America’s foreign aid returns directly through its exports. Commenting on such generosity, the prime minister of Malaysia pointed out that, “Although Japan furnishes loans, it takes back with its other hand, as if by magic, almost twice the amount it provides.” Central American authorities estimated that by 1986 the wealth drained from Latin America was “more than $70 billion in a single year in the form of money or merchandise for which [Latin America] didn’t receive anything in exchange.” The effect of this multifaceted assault on the wealth of the Third World is that real wages in Mexico declined by 60 percent in the decade of the 1980s, in Argentina by 50 percent, and in Peru by 70 percent.
M
Matt25
Guest
christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/506liberalisation/index.htm
**New research from Christian Aid shows that sub-Saharan Africa is a massive US$272 billion worse off because of ‘free’ trade policies forced on them as a condition of receiving aid and debt relief. **
The figure represents the income that poor countries in sub-Saharan Africa have lost over the past 20 years as a result of being forced to open their markets to imports.
In human terms it represents tens of thousands of destroyed lives and years of lost opportunity.
Two decades of liberalisation have cost sub-Saharan Africa roughly what it has received in aid over the same period. The amount lost would have been sufficient to wipe out all of sub-Saharan Africa’s debt and allow all of its children to be vaccinated and go to school.
Counting the cost
The research reveals that in 2000 alone the cost for Africa was US$28 billion – enough to halve poverty in the continent, according to UN estimates.
When the cost of these ‘free’ trade policies is calculated on a country-by-country basis, the lost opportunity is starkly revealed.
The cost for Mali – one of the poorest countries in the world – was US$191 million in 2000, more than what the country spent on healthcare that year.
The reforms that rich countries forced on Africa were supposed to boost economic growth. However, the reality is that imports increased massively while exports went up only slightly. The growth in exports only partially compensated African producers for the loss of local markets and they were left worse off.
**New research from Christian Aid shows that sub-Saharan Africa is a massive US$272 billion worse off because of ‘free’ trade policies forced on them as a condition of receiving aid and debt relief. **
The figure represents the income that poor countries in sub-Saharan Africa have lost over the past 20 years as a result of being forced to open their markets to imports.
In human terms it represents tens of thousands of destroyed lives and years of lost opportunity.
Two decades of liberalisation have cost sub-Saharan Africa roughly what it has received in aid over the same period. The amount lost would have been sufficient to wipe out all of sub-Saharan Africa’s debt and allow all of its children to be vaccinated and go to school.
Counting the cost
The research reveals that in 2000 alone the cost for Africa was US$28 billion – enough to halve poverty in the continent, according to UN estimates.
When the cost of these ‘free’ trade policies is calculated on a country-by-country basis, the lost opportunity is starkly revealed.
The cost for Mali – one of the poorest countries in the world – was US$191 million in 2000, more than what the country spent on healthcare that year.
The reforms that rich countries forced on Africa were supposed to boost economic growth. However, the reality is that imports increased massively while exports went up only slightly. The growth in exports only partially compensated African producers for the loss of local markets and they were left worse off.
M
Matt25
Guest
christian-aid.org.uk/indepth/503africacommission/index.htm
**The continent that has lost $1,440 billion to the rich world over the last three decades can’t afford the Africa Commission to fail it now. Christian Aid tells the commissioners what they have to do to help end Africa’s poverty.
** More aid – while essential in the short term – is not the solution to Africa’s poverty.
Between 1970 and 2000, for every dollar sub-Saharan Africa received from rich countries in aid and debt relief, it lost 14 in unfair trade, debt servicing and bad investment policies.1
**The continent that has lost $1,440 billion to the rich world over the last three decades can’t afford the Africa Commission to fail it now. Christian Aid tells the commissioners what they have to do to help end Africa’s poverty.
** More aid – while essential in the short term – is not the solution to Africa’s poverty.
Between 1970 and 2000, for every dollar sub-Saharan Africa received from rich countries in aid and debt relief, it lost 14 in unfair trade, debt servicing and bad investment policies.1
Code:
The solutions to Africa’s poverty lie almost as much in the rich world as they do in Africa. If the Commission is to make any real difference to the poor in Africa, it must address the underlying causes of Africa’s de facto financial subsidy of the rich world. And it must hold to account those who are to blame....- One-size-fits-all models of economic liberalisation harm the poor. The Commission must reinforce the right of African governments to raise tariffs on imports and to discriminate in favour of their farmers and industries.
-
Code:
More aid or debt relief to Africa will be undermined, and even counter-productive, if the economic policy strings attached to aid, loans and debt relief by the IMF, World Bank and other donors are not removed. - The G8 must set timetabled targets for universal access to HIV treatment, care, support and prevention.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Riiiight – all the brutal, corrupt dictators in the world were altar boys on the fast track for sainthood until we corrupted them.
We held guns to their head and FORCED them to syphon off the money loaned for development in their countries. We put thumbscrews on them and MADE them brutalize their own people.
Does ANYBODY understand economics? We don’t lend gold, we lend paper. That paper is redeemable in goods. So what we really lend is goods – and yes, we manufacture the goods.
And those who see plots everywhere . . .http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
vern humphrey:
So true. It takes a strong moral fiber to LEAD a country. To LEAD a country is to help build it. Corruption is a moral problem and will not change just because we want it to.
S
shockerfan
Guest
Wow. Three whole posts and you still give corrupt governments a free pass and dodge my question (and other people’s questions / comments) again.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Matt, I have the perception that you are not on this forum to share in discussion. I have the perception that you are here to lecture to us. When we ask you questions, you dodge us and archly challenge us on some peripheral and irrelevant point – like have we heard of Wales.
I have the perception that your posts try to make us wrong rather than further understanding of the Catholic faith – notwithstanding that you have quoted the Catholic catechism extensively without giving context or application.
Most of all I have the perception that your posts are “a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda” which, I believe, is a contravention of the rules.
T
thestickman
Guest
Ani Ibi:
AMEN!!!
- Status