Oceania LOL! Apparently, "Free" trade > culture

Using that same logic though, what is the value of giving money to Aboriginals?

 

I thought we'd done the whole "Aborigine is the noun" thang before.

Perhaps you could clarify your post though Gath, because I'm not sure what you're saying.

E_S

 

That was four months ago... I need a refresher course!

You talk about value add in subsidies, etc... where is the value add in handing out money to a culture (predominantly in the NT anyway) who sit on their arse under a tree and don't provide any value back to the community

 

"....do Econ students do better at Uni if they sell their heart and soul, as seems to be the case more and more often?"

A commodity must first be owned before ownership can be transferred

 

Define ownership.

 

Drought assistance is no different from welfare or the first home buyer's grant. It's not like farmers are the only ones getting support. And they are really struggling. Not because they're "bludgers", but because of the drought. You know, that annoying thing that means we can't turn our sprinklers on whenever we want. We are in a much better off position in the city, so a few tax dollars isn't going to hurt anyone. Its called humanity, giving a little.

Firstly, welfare and the home buyer's grant are also a complete waste of taxpayer money.

Secondly, it's not giving. Giving is not where I am threatened with jail if I don't hand over my loot. Giving is a voluntary act.

Thirdly, what kind of stupidity is it to pay farmers to produce during a drought?

Developing poor countries remain poor because they are exploited by the First World, in the exact way that you stated. How can you justify that?

If you mean 'exploitation' by buying their produce at the going market rate then, well, you have rocks in your head.

The reason that third world farmers are doing so badly is because of first world governments giving massive subsidies to their farmers.

 

Ender_Sai, if having 'heart and soul' means that you must be happy to be forced at gunpoint to hand over your money to businesses who aren't meeting their production costs, just so they can continue seeking profits, then pigs have grown wings and can fly about like porcupines.

 

Haha!

 

The First World governments colonised and ?developed? the Third World, transplanting capitalism into those countries, thereby destroying the once successful economic processes that were already in place (like subsistence agriculture or foraging). If their cash crops fail on the market, those countries suffer dearly. They already have debts in ?setting up? capitalism, so market changes affect them more. This is why third world farmers are doing so badly. The First World has a responsibility to the Third World, just as it does the farmers in it?s own countries.

If there was a natural disaster that destroyed your business, for example, you would have that subsidised by insurance. That is why we pay premiums. If there was a trend on these claims, premiums for EVERYONE would go up. It?s the same with the drought and the farmers. We all pay tax, and now that a natural disaster has affected farmers, tax money is helping them through it. Those who are not farmers are given government rebates on water wise equipment. So those who need it more, get more subsidises. Isn?t that fair?

if having 'heart and soul' means that you must be happy to be forced at gunpoint to hand over your money to businesses who aren't meeting their production costs, just so they can continue seeking profits, then pigs have grown wings and can fly about like porcupines.

Seeing the drought situation in that way, just goes to prove that you don?t have any ?heart and soul?.

Giving is not where I am threatened with jail if I don't hand over my loot. Giving is a voluntary act.

It is an involuntary because there are so many selfish people out there who don?t have enough humanity to give a little.

 

WHY does the first world have a responsibility to the third world?!?

All the social-engineers, do-gooders, left-wingers want to do is reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator.

 

You talk about value add in subsidies,

Ah. I get it.

I was talking about values as ethics/morals and compassion. Hard-core economists oft appear to forsake their humanity for their love of cold, hard, fiscal data.

Nyder

if having 'heart and soul' means that you must be happy to be forced at gunpoint to hand over your money to businesses who aren't meeting their production costs

Gatherer:

WHY does the first world have a responsibility to the third world?!?

Because it's not about remote numbers, or the like, we're talking about living, breathing human beings. Nyder, as cold as your sheltered little neoliberal position appears (wrapped, that is, in callous naivety), you cannot expect anyone in FF Oceania to ever take you seriously if you argue that farmers, of late, are responsible for their shortfalls? I mean, unless you're a Disciple of Milton Friedman, you know that the enviroment doesn't answer to the market!

Gath, for two reasons. Let me draw you analogy. Let's say you rape a poor man's daughter - you should pay for the costs incurred by the resultant child. The first world is the rapist, the third world the poor man, and the daughter the infrastructure.

One of the worst things any of us can do is sponsor a third world child. Oooh, Ender's heartless you say - albeit prematurely. The reason I say this is that nothing we do, in compassion or corporate greed, is making the third world better. Globalisation has improved their stake somewhat, but it's a good policy in bad people's hands (any improvement, even 0.1%, is better than nothing, see). What we should do is support iniatives that develop third world infrastructure to make them stable States and economies - I'm sure China could spare some of it's $57.8 billion ($US) in FDI, right?

As the saying goes, Gath, Give a man a fish, he eats today. Teach him to fish, and he eats for the rest of his life.

E_S

 

All the social-engineers, do-gooders, left-wingers want to do is reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator.

Ironically, you've done the same.



E_S

 

How so?

Sorry, I don't want everyone to live under a tree and put their hand out for welfare.

I don't see rationally how "I have done the same".

 

Ender_Sai,

Australians have tried to teach Aboriginees how to "Fish" for many, many years, ie: how to wash, use soap, keep clean, stop the spead of disease, get a job, stop sniffing petrol, stop abusing alcohol, but it does not work.

 

And before any, ANY of you social-engineers, do-gooders respond to the above post, have you ever, *ever*, ever, EVER lived in Alice Springs, Darwin, or any part of the Northern Territory for an extended period of time?! Hmm... I guess not. You arm-chair critics are always quick to judge without knowing reality.

Do-gooders, social-engineers; when presented with an apple, will always insist it is an orange.

 

Australians have tried to teach Aboriginees how to "Fish" for many, many years, ie: how to wash, use soap, keep clean, stop the spead of disease, get a job, stop sniffing petrol, stop abusing alcohol, but it does not work.

Australians have tried to teach The Gatherer how to "Fish" for many, many years, ie: how to consider other people's situations, how to have some sort of compassion, how to stop being completely self absorbed, how to have some sort of idea of what it's like to live in a society which holds so much resent towards you because of the few who ruin it for the masses....not to mention how to spell properly...but it does not work.


You're taking the perspective that our society is outrightly superior to that of the native people who were here first. Funny, I thought the land was in much better health before we arrived..

You can't blame them for not coping with things when they were introduced by this society without any thought of the future consequences.
Not to mention that you're making vast generalisations.
Want to see some Aboriginal people making the most of what they've been given? Midday on Saturday, ABC. Watch it and try to open your mind.
And stop judging one entire race by looking at some who go bad. Hell, if I was an outsider looking in and I judged every single Australian by the way you happen to act, I would hold the belief that Australians should be shot on sight.


Oh yeah, and we do have a responsibility to people in the third world.
Why?
We've got stuff, and they don't. It's basic concept of sharing. Most people learn this act of human compassion when they're children.
Did you ever let anybody play with your toys when you were little, Gath? Perhaps you skipped that part of maturation..

 

At least the "do-gooders" are actually trying to do something about the problems, instead of sitting around whinging about it..

 

Actually, my friend, they are NOT!

Sure they try and throw money at the problems, but that does not do anything. Does not break the cycle, and does not introduce indiviidualism, but rather promotes hand out culture.

In fact, the left-wing, social-engineers, do-gooders, DO NOT want to change anything, but to do so, would eliminate their 'industry'.

 

But non-whites are unclean and smell! How can we tolerate them if they do not assimilate to our culture and act like us?

Anyway, the benefits of white civilisation are obvious in the huge advantages the aboriginalisms have now in life. Less disease, more cars and sports, houses and clothes so they don't have to be so uncivil and uncouth (walking around naked...disgusting) and best of all the ability to MAKE something of YOURSELF.

They should be HAPPY we came. We built roads and things, which they never had. Oh ho ho they never even made it to the Steel Age! All they did all day was sit under trees and bang sticks together whilst chanting.

Now before all you left-handed bloody hearts whinge, I'll remind you that you all go to school or university and as such have been brainwashed by other durtee left-handers so your opinion doesn't count. Everyone knows that an education makes you a welfare cheating vegetarian.

Personally, and I'm not the only one who thinks it, it boils down to this; so listen up all you deluded HYPOCRITICAL lefties.

It wasn't the Stolen Generation; it was the saved generation.

 

In fact, the left-wing, social-engineers, do-gooders, DO NOT want to change anything, but to do so, would eliminate their 'industry'.

Left-wing politicians, perhaps.
Your average person with left-wing type humanist beliefs? I think not. I know nothing would make me happier than to have these problems relieved.

The government chucks a whole lot of money at problems, whether it's this particular one or any other, and it's obvious that money by itself does not fix things!

Then there are people who do it because they feel passionate about it, your so called "do-gooders". Don't get them and left wing pollies mixed up; they're completely different.

 

Australians have tried to teach Aboriginees how to "Fish" for many, many years, ie: how to wash, use soap, keep clean, stop the spead of disease, get a job, stop sniffing petrol, stop abusing alcohol, but it does not work.


Because there are no "Australians" who don't wash, don't avoid disease, don't get a job, sniff petrol, abuse alcohol, etc ...


If only they could more like us ...

 

...........you are being ironic, aren't you POT?

Just thought I'd check

 

Again, they think an Apple is an Orange...

 

Ok, lets not derail this tread, and lets get back to the topic of free trade / culture...

 

WHY does the first world have a responsibility to the third world?!?

Because the First World went in there and screwed up the economic system that was already in place, like I said in my last post. All this was pointed out before.

Sorry, I don't want everyone to live under a tree and put their hand out for welfare.

Neither do I. But farmers aren?t ?living under a tree?, they are in desperate need. Again, have a little compassion.

Australians have tried to teach Aboriginees how to "Fish" for many, many years, ie: how to wash, use soap, keep clean, stop the spead of disease, get a job, stop sniffing petrol, stop abusing alcohol, but it does not work.

Firstly, that is a disgusting, racist and unfair generalisation.

Secondly, we came in here and oppressed them, invaded their land, and destroyed all their culture, belief systems and the processes (like foraging and hunting) that they used to survive. They were living very successfully before Britain decided to add SOMEONE ELSE?S land to its little collection. For those Aboriginals who do abuse alcohol or sniff petrol, you need to look at it in two ways. Initially, it occurred because they didn?t have much of a reason to live. We screwed up their culture, we screwed up their belief systems. You take away someone?s culture, you destroy the world that they operate in. As you seem unable to see it through anyone else?s eyes, let me use this example. If someone took you into the bush and tried to ?teach? you how to survive with traditional Aboriginal values and processes, you wouldn?t live for very long. Not because those values are flawed (they worked for some ten thousand years), but because you grew up in a capitalist world, in a different culture. You destroy them. And now in today's society, those who abuse alcohol and sniff petrol: it could be due to oppression, or it might be the same reason why non-Aboriginal people abuse alcohol or sniff petrol! You can?t single out a minority.