LI Facutly of Economics and Commerce.

  • Thread starter Thread starter lolwatever
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 36
  • Views Views 5K
foreigners are now using the developing economies as a spring board for their personal success
Click to expand...

well put it this way, to produce a good or service in america costs so much more than to produce the same good or service in a 3rd world country. Atleast int he long run, adn especially as far as labour cost is concerned...

good example is adidas and nike.. if they operated their major companies in 1st world countires like Australia, U.S. etc.. they'd melt coz the csots are too high, so they establish their firms in 3rd world countries (and less developed counteris), because they can hire workers for peanuts, and costs of setting up firms are pretty low....

so they make the shoes there for like 10 dollars, and then they ship them off to 1st world countries where they sell them for 100 dollars, and they make 1000% profit.

so that's how entrepeanurs (business ppl) use 3rd world countries for their interest..
 
oh yeah duh I knew that lol just wasnt clicking when I was reading it in that huge post
 
hehe sorry it was too long.. i hav problems in using winzip algorithms to compress my posts. ok lol watever

tell me when ur ready for a new one lol.. came across this neat article relevent to my previous post... its called 'IMF's four steps to damnation' from Gregory Palast in 'The Observer', it's a tribute to the IMF... lol
 
Last edited:
oh btw the source for the Kofi quote was

"Kofi Annan, Development funds moving from poor countries to rich ones, Annan says, United Nations News Centre, October 30, 2003"

and for those who don't know, IMF stands for 'International Monetary Fund'... it's a neat agency setup to help 3rd world countries become donors to first world countries in need of money..


lol thx hafizmo 4 correcting the typo..
 
Last edited:
lol Hafizmo i was joking hehe
here's how it goes:

(the article was used by the IBO in their May 2003 examinations).

IMF's four steps to damnation​

Robert Stiglitz, ex-chief economist of the World Bank, believes there are four steps which characterise structural assistance programmes:

Step One is privatization. Stiglitz points out that rather than objecting, some politicians happily sold their electricity and water companies. “You could see their eyes widen” at the possibility of commissions for shaving a few billion off the sale price.

US-backed power élites stripped Russia’s industrial assets, with the effect that national output was cut nearly in half.

Step Two is capital market liberalisation. In theory this allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money often simply flows out.

And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation’s own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations substantially raise their interest
rates.

“The result was predictable,” said Stiglitz. Higher interest rates demolish property values, savage industrial production and drain national treasuries.

Step Three is market-based pricing –essentially raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads to Step-Three-anda-half: what Stiglitz calls “the IMF riot”.

The IMF riot is painfully predictable, as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998, Indonesia exploded into riots.

The IMF riots cause new flights of capital and government bankruptcies. This economic arson has its bright side for foreigners, who can then pick off remaining assets at rock bottom prices.

A pattern emerges. There are lots of losers but the clear winners seem to be the western banks and US Treasury.

Now we arrive at Step Four: free trade. Europeans and Americans today are kicking down barriers to sales in Asia, Latin America and Africa while barricading their own markets against the Third World’s agriculture.

Stiglitz has two concerns about IMF and World Bank strategy. Firstly, it undermines democracy as the plans are devised in secrecy. Secondly, it does not work: for example, under the guiding hand of structural “assistance”, Africa’s income dropped by 23 %.

[Source Adapted from Gregory Palast, Observer, 29 April 2001]​

It's wonderful innit
 
Last edited:
hmm three years later this still sounds familiar dont it......and as for "wonderful innit" depends which way you look at it cause the clear winnners are according to this
clear winners seem to be the western banks and US Treasury.
Click to expand...
 
lol but regardless of who thinks what of the US and the treasury department, no one can help but be in awe of of their ingneuity. It's amazing how they managed to do all that...
 
true say very very clever indeed...its like crazy how they think of such things.....
 
lolwatever said:
it's a neat agency setup to help 3rd world countries become donors to first world countries in need of money..
Click to expand...

:sl: huh am i missing something?? why do the 3rd world need to donate to the first world countries?!
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top