🚀 go-pugleaf

In ed.general Jon is Away! <jon@restlesslemon.co.uk> wrote:
> M Holmes wrote:
>> In ed.general Jon is Away! <jon@restlesslemon.co.uk> wrote:

>> > I believe that the ability to support your people should take priority
>> > over the production of luxury goods for other nations. Especially when
>> > the "Free Market" rules ensure that you cannot raise enough money from
>> > those goods to support your people.
>>
>> So do you think *we* should go back to subsistence farming to support
>> *our* people? After all, we're producing luxury goods for trade on
>> international markets too.

> Now, re-read my post and show me where I said that all production
> should be subsistence.

You didn't, but it's a reasonable deduction that if subsistence farming
is better for Africans than producing luxury goods they can sell on
international markets then it's also better for us.

Or is there some key difference between us and Africans that says we
should get luxury goods and they shouldn't?

> By way of explanation (In case you genuinely didn't understand). When
> your capacity to produce goods is completely absorbed by your
> production of luxury goods for export, and the revenue from those goods
> is not enough to cover the costs of keeping your people alive

Huh? Surely the whole point of producin them is that they earn *mor* than
just producing food. Thus you can buy the food and have cash left over.

It works here. Why wouldn't it work in Africa?

> (By
> buying food from other nations), it's time to change priorities. When
> you are under pressure to maintain payments on loans an attempt to keep
> the economic head above water will result in continued production of
> the unprofitable luxury goods.

They're unprofitable luxury goods? Why are they producing luxury goods
that people don't want? (at the price it takes to produce a return on
investment) 

> We (The lenders)

Who's this "we" paleface? I'm not stupid enough to buy bonds from a
country in Africa.

> will not let them cease
> repayments, and thus we hold them in an equilibrium from which they are
> unable to escape.

If we're really so good at the Evil Capital Exploiters game, how come we
let so many asian countries escape our Cunning Trap?

> When couched in economic terms and ignorance of
> history, this is called capitalism.

"When couched in trendy leftist terms and ignorance of economics it's
called <cue f/x of giant sneering sound> 'capitalism'" is closer to your
intended meaning I suspect.

> When the weasel words are removed it's pure and simply slavery.

"Stupidity" is the word that springs to mind here.

>> Don't you think life should take priority in Britain too?

> But we aren't subject to the same Free Market rules as the developing
> world and can thus make more money from our exports while buying
> imports at (enforced) reduced prices from the developing world.

Ah, *we* can sell at a profit and they can't? That wouldn't have
anything to do with the tendency there to adopt marxist policies would
it? I only ask because funnily enough, the same thing happened to the
Soviet Union.

[...]

>> China is doing this. Who's supporting them?

> Not quite a fast track. 

I don't share your ignorance of economics, so trust me: 9% growth per
annum is very much the fast track. It's so fast that the government
there are actually *struggling* to slow growth down. Would that Africa
had their problems eh?

> They are currently jumping through all the same
> hoops as every other developed country. The idea of bringing someone
> properly up to speed is to show them the pitfalls without throwing them
> down them.

Could be that they don't need patronising gits like us to show them
anything at all. Could be that all they need is a fair crack at trade in
genuinely free markets and a goodly number of capitalist governments.

FoFP