Saturday, July 02, 2005

Live8 Petition

The 8 most powerful leaders in the world

50,000 people are dying, needlessly, every day of extreme poverty.

At this year's G8 summit meeting, it is within your power to put an end to this tragedy. It is an extraordinary opportunity which it would be shameful to ignore. We urge you to take these 3 steps to make extreme poverty history...

  1. double the aid sent to the world's poorest countries,
  2. fully cancel their debts,
  3. change the trade laws so that they can build their own future.

I think that's stupid. The bleeding heart leftists should really give up. Oh and they can take their brainless celebs with them. Let us more practical leftists, centerists and rightists take care of the serious stuff, go play with your bong and theorize on how the Man keeps everyone down over a cup of coffee.

Here's why poverty cannot be eradicated with this petition:

Point 1: To double aid taxes must be increased in rich countries. So the poor folk in the G8 nations get screwed into paying more taxes to help other poor folk. So how is poverty alleviated again? If we don't raise money through taxation then we have to use government bonds. Which means the good old USA goes more into debt. Yes, I know the G8 nations aren't always the biggest donors (I'm looking at the Scandinavian countries).

Point 2: Fully cancelling their debt doesn't do much. Many poor countries also have corrupt and inefficient governments. They'll just get into more debt. When should we stop sending aid? So I get double the aid that I never have to pay back, why should I bother cleaning up my act? Take rich african nations who get rich on oil, their people are still poor. But their leaders are strangely enough filthy rich. Hmmmm...

Point 3: this one makes the most sense. Many rich countries have protectionist laws, but so do many poor countries. Let's remove all barriers to trade and let the chips fall where they may. You know that this means that some poor countries may actually be driven out of business by more efficient producers, right? I assume when you say change trade laws you do mean ending the barriers to trade and subsidies. Unless you mean we'll pay them to be inefficient porducers. Hey more aid!

So here's where I think whoever started this is a retard. The heart is there but the brain has been too damaged by all that pot smoking. Instead of doubling aid, how about restructuring aid so that it is unconditional? So instead of American aid only going to certain porjects or companies, how about letting the recieving nations make the decision. Also, send aid in the form that is needed. Instead of useless aid that has no real use in the recieving countries.

How about these poor countries shape up their act. Get rid of their corrupt bureaucracies and over powerful armies. How about that? How about removing their so-called "tribalism" and regional loyalties? How about getting of aid all together. It's like Clintonian welfare reforms, if you can't find a job after a certain time, you're cut off.

I agree reform the trade system. Scrap all subsidies and protectionist laws. Let inefficient producers die out (rich or poor nation doesn't matter). Let the consumers pay the full price instead of subsidised prices.

One more suggestion how about we stop paying all these rock stars and movie stars so much. How about instead of buting their albums we send money to aid programs? There are alot of NGOs who do good work, although I must warn you they also have their own agendas and like to exaggerate issues for their own benefit. Their not as altruistic as you might assume. Remember everyone has an agenda. Yeah... So how about not wasting all this money putting on rock concerts which drain resources (think electricity, noise pollution, money, security) and putting that money into these poor nations.

Oh yeah guess who's behind Live 8. Media companies. Ho ho... can you smell the advertising profits?

Poor African nations, getting screwed over by big business. Come two months and you'll be forgotten yet again until some aging pop star decides that he needs to assuage his liberal guilt and boost his presence in the world again. I mean seriously why don't they just give you half of the millions they make each year? Not all, just 1/2. That'd be more aid than what some nations give, and with no strings attached. Plus I mean rich nation governments still need to keep their country and economies going. Bono only need at most a million dollars to survive. I mean most of us live on less than US$40,000 a year. So how about that mr rock star. you make at least a million a year. So how about you donate $500,000 every year?Wow! How about that. Stupid selfish fuck.

Stupid bleeding heart leftists and their warped perception of the world. Impractical and absolutely stupid. GO smoke your weed man. And leave the real world to us.

2 Comments:

At 1:33 PM, Blogger Beach-yi said...

I think you can go fug yourself, go drink your latte or chai, go dance yourself silly in the NTUC club @ the defunct centro, your satire sucks.

You can point out all that is necessary, yet you do not realise the dauting task of doing it. Maybe giving more aid is harmful, yet maybe not.

Shades of grey, no whiter than white in the rest of the real world.

 
At 12:16 AM, Blogger Hades said...

Greetings,

Interesting points (linked to you from the Singapore Elections website). I however beg to differ on a couple of points though I generally agree with what you have to say that increasing the aid or cancelling debt is not the answer to the problem. I believe that instead of scrapping barriers to trade the real change can only come politically. Scrapping barriers of trade is a surefire way of bankrupting many nation states (look what happened to South America.. Chile and Ecuador got battered by American corporate pigs). China is prospering by being protectionist. The US prospered by being protectionist. Once it's made its bucks it's starting to preach free trade (except when it affects US industries in which case protectionism is perfectly justified).

Free markets MAY work, but real change only can occur when political systems reform. Once a country's political process is transparent and accessible, there is a good possibility that it will do well. Some amount of protectionism I think is inevitable and necessary for a country in order to balance out the kind of capital a large MNC can generate to wipe out fledgling local industries. Thanks to Walmart there may be no more retail entrepreneurs, thanks to GM there may be no local car manufacturers, thanks to Dell there may be no local computer manufacturers, unless there was some sort of a barrier to entry for a fledgling country with little or no industrial infrastructure. Someone like HP may want to build a factory to create jobs, but the country will forever be dependent on corporate bigwigs, giving them absolute power (along with politicians) and things will quickly return to status quo. There is no point having free market principles as far as the economy is concerned when the political system is inaccessible and non transparent. The money will continue to flow into the coffers of the politically well heeled and corporate bigwigs while the man in street continues selling his daughter to get lunch money. I thought I was the only guy in Singapore who thought that Live 8 was just a huge feel-good corporate gang bang. Glad to know others think it's full of shit as well.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home