I'm curious here what everyone's viewpoints are on going to a Green Economy, with Fair Trade for all? How best to get there; what's first on your list; what are the up-sides and down-sides; how to reach those who can be reached, and to build a coherent consensus for change.. How to undo the mistakes of the past, and make a better path in the future..

I'm not so big on the idea of "fair trade", but I do love microfinance. Check out the site http://www.kiva.org/

 

for an example of microfinance. Basically you make small loans to entrepreneurs in third world countries, and they use the money to build their business. This is the most effective form of philanthropy in my view because it focuses on creating a self-sustaining economy, rather than one that's dependent on continual western help.

 

Also, I love charities that aim to bring internet and computers to the poor. The more connected our world is, the better.

 

The biggest impediment to prosperity across the world, in my opinion, are recalcitrant governments. Africa is a particularly good example of what can happen when you've got corrupt people in charge. But the US government isn't responsible for these peoples' welfare... so in the meantime we have to consider the other options. Maybe dealing in arms (for self defense, of course) wouldn't be such a bad alternative to overt intervention (as we had with Iraq). Imagine if the victims of African militias suddenly had the capacity to put up a fight!

 

<-- Is further to the right than the National Review on some issues.

Briggins problems with microfinance:

 

A loan is a loan, and needs to be paid back at some point.

 

Its hard to track exactly where the money from a microcredit goes. For example if a female gets one how can you now for sure it will be used to improve her/her family life and not just be wasted by a husband. (Another major problem not related to microfinance, women are being required to do more and more work yet still have relatively no power)

 

And its still hard with microfinance because its being facilitated by "western ideals" that say you need to get involved in the market, etc.

 

So in a way it almost seems like a way of furthering neoliberal rule over countries.

True, there are accountability issues. But the alternative, just giving someone money, does nothing for long-term economic growth. Loans have to be paid back at some point, that's true. But this incentivizes the borrower to figure out a way to use the cash to turn a profit.

 

I've read stories about women in Africa who made their own shirts for a living, and sold them to people in their village. Then along comes the UN or some aid group and drops four huge crates of American-made shirts in the village, effectively making their work worthless.

 

There is no "neoliberal rule" over countries when there is no sense of "white man's burden" - when you give someone responsibility, they gain independence. That's more valuable than just handing them money.

 

EDIT - Not to beat a dead horse, but this really goes back to what I was saying in the Bush thread about government reallocating wealth. The fact is, moving huge sums of money around can actually cause that money to become worth less! I gave a few examples in the other thread.

A beautiful dream. Even if, hope beyond all hope, this perfect world were possible, any system no matter how finely tuned will eventually break down. Eventually there has to be a human with power somewhere in the system, which means human nature will always run it's course in the end. Still doesn't mean it isn't worth trying for and fighting for, though.

 

I agree with Saffire about microfinance, though. People always seem to do best when you get them involved and give them some responsibility for their fate rather than handouts. I wish I could find it again, I remember seeing something on tv about a foundation that creates useful inventions for the world's poor. For instance an irrigation system for farms that's actually just a special type of inexpensive foot pump. It was the first time it had ever occurred to me that maybe just having better tools would help, and that no one's though of making simple inexpensive things for the people who need them most.

Briggins problems with microfinance:

 

A loan is a loan, and needs to be paid back at some point.

 

Its hard to track exactly where the money from a microcredit goes. For example if a female gets one how can you now for sure it will be used to improve her/her family life and not just be wasted by a husband. (Another major problem not related to microfinance, women are being required to do more and more work yet still have relatively no power)

 

And its still hard with microfinance because its being facilitated by "western ideals" that say you need to get involved in the market, etc.

 

So in a way it almost seems like a way of furthering neoliberal rule over countries.

 

I agree that loans in general aren't something to be sought after if they can be avoided- it's so easy to mortgage your whole life away.

 

But the thing is, the people who use microcredit are the ones who have already been drawn into the market economy against their will and culture. And because they're coming into it with no real resources, defenses, or assets, they're being dropped in at the very bottom with no means of improving, in a system set up to only take from them and not give much of anything back.

 

What something like microcredit does is give them a starting point- a resource they can turn to so they at least have a fighting chance. It means that unlike a handout, the person must have initiative to go get it, and by committing to pay it back motivation to make good use of it.

 

That hypothetical woman you talked about didn't have any options before. Now she does. Even if it is far from perfect, at least it's a start. And statistics show that many women like her have completely transformed their lives for the better in a way that wasn't possible for them before.

I like the microcredit programs too! But is this really the answer, or a part that helps a segment of the pop.? There's pride in what each business owner is doing, and they need some market protections to keep going strong and growing, but to make more sophisticated things takes capital investments, and as was the case here, government has a role to play in priming the pump, and getting the ball rolling. More work on pressing for reform everywhere? Perhaps we need to lead by example on that as well - hard to tell another nation that they should be reforming their government, when ours has been made dysfunctional by corrupt officials.:thinking: (this may all change come November?!)

Markets are just fine to me, as long as there's an honest referee, so government reforms go hand-in-hand with that. Safety-nets are essential as well from what I've seen of documentaries covering Africa and parts of Asia. AIDS, Malaria, Yellow Fever, etc. - these are so disabling to families and communities, that for citizens there to lift themselves out of poverty, they really do need help first. But the balance of trade issues, debt issues, and our approach to resources needs some serious overhauling from my perspective. When copper comes from the Congo and elsewhere, and the nations are so far in debt that much of their profits services their debts, it's hard to climb out of that. Microfinance works well for business that can use local resources to provide a service or good within their personal capacity, but industry is one of the principal economic backbones and global employers.

So I wonder about our role - by supporting stability (ie - military juntas, etc) at the cost of demands by the people for change in some of these nations, we may be hindering their progress, and perhaps then a change in how we see foreign policy may open up the opportunity for people to reform their nations? Hand in hand in all this are issues we often forget are very important for economic improvement - women's rights can have a significant impact on progress and improvement in places where women's rights & related issues are being neglected. The essential need for stabilizing factors to free people enough so they can prosper - significantly reducing diseases, consistent and reliable supplies of nutritious food, adequate clean water, transportation, access to education , and a fair shake globally for their goods and services seems to all go hand in hand.. Capital prospers where there is a stable infrastructure, and public works are often best handled by a government with adequate oversight - Briggins has a strong point - there's a balance to be struck there from what I've seen. Jay, I understand what you're saying about the goods small business can provide - so the aid has to be done with their consideration in mind, so local farmers are not hurt economically, as well as clothing makers, etc. (besides, local foods taste better, and are more nutritious!:)) And I just like the idea of people having the freedom to go out and make it on their own as well - it's a bit of the pioneering spirit that's still stirred within us all..

:wacko: this is like... a library in here.

Okay, so here's what I would do if I were crowned King of Africa (or any other third world area) in order chronologically -

 

1. Set up a new banking system, with a new currency. One currency for the whole continent. Hell make it simple and peg it to the US dollar or the Euro.

 

2. We would need a way to make people want to own the new currency, rather than the old one. So we'd begin by petitioning western states for loans to build infrastructure - paved roads, water, electricity, etc. We would encourage long term investment by international business so our unskilled workers could begin the process of earning paychecks in the new currency.

 

Collateral for these loans could be uranium or rare earth metals mining rights. If we don't have those rare elements, we could just lie and claim we do. Tricking inspectors might not be that difficult. It's unethical, but we're desperate! ;)

 

3. Get Wal-Mart to open stores here. Workers need to be able to spend their money somewhere that has a wide selection of consumer goods.

 

4. Renounce my kingship and split states along cultural lines, then recommend they adopt the US constitution and British common law.

 

It would take a few decades, but I think you could see a leap forward to 1950's America quality of life in Africa by 2030 if there were a concerted effort like this.

A beautiful dream. Even if, hope beyond all hope, this perfect world were possible, any system no matter how finely tuned will eventually break down. Eventually there has to be a human with power somewhere in the system, which means human nature will always run it's course in the end. Still doesn't mean it isn't worth trying for and fighting for, though.

 

I agree with Saffire about microfinance, though. People always seem to do best when you get them involved and give them some responsibility for their fate rather than handouts. I wish I could find it again, I remember seeing something on tv about a foundation that creates useful inventions for the world's poor. For instance an irrigation system for farms that's actually just a special type of inexpensive foot pump. It was the first time it had ever occurred to me that maybe just having better tools would help, and that no one's though of making simple inexpensive things for the people who need them most.

Yes, there was something recently on TV showing how farmers in India(?) were buying these pumps made locally from recycled bicycle parts! Quite ingenious, although inventions should free people up from menial tasks whenever possible, to allow them to work on more meaningful work. Maybe windmills to pump water could be fashioned from the bicycle parts, with some type of simple tanks to store water.. But motivation is a key, and empowerment works wonders, whether it's here or there - we're all pretty much the same anyhow;). I just think having a basic safety net reduces the stress levels, and reduces the pressure to have huge families (ie - too many mouths to feed in some places) by guaranteeing safer retirements to those living in the poorer regions of the globe. - basic adequate food, health, water, sanitation, & rights seem to be a prerequisite; then the incentive system has a stable platform from which to operate on, and prosperity can be achieved. I have no doubt those citizens living in Bangladesh, for instance, can prosper, as long as they start with the knowledge that there will be some stability to their lives. Which brings up another challenge - what to do when your world is flooding from storms and rising sea levels??:\

Okay, so here's what I would do if I were crowned King of Africa (or any other third world area) in order chronologically - I can see it now - "Jay Saffire, King of All Africa, wearing the leopard skin robe during the crowning ceremony..";)

 

1. Set up a new banking system, with a new currency. One currency for the whole continent. Hell make it simple and peg it to the US dollar or the Euro.

That's interesting! Yuan aside then, so they'd have to make sure our economies don't falter as well from bad investment schemes and crooked wall-street banks;) I suppose this would simplify things a bit with the IMF, and negotiations would go better to improve the fairness of trade between north and south??

 

2. We would need a way to make people want to own the new currency, rather than the old one. So we'd begin by petitioning western states for loans to build infrastructure - paved roads, water, electricity, etc. We would encourage long term investment by international business so our unskilled workers could begin the process of earning paychecks in the new currency.

Stability is often what makes a currency desirable.. Hmm.. Trying to decide if this would cause more problems because the lion's share of the profits would leave the African continent.. Oh, in today's world, who knows if it really matters all that much - global corporations, as they are. Can I have the water works, if you get the electric company?:P now, if we could just get our hands on a stack of those chance cards..

 

Collateral for these loans could be uranium or rare earth metals mining rights. If we don't have those rare elements, we could just lie and claim we do. Tricking inspectors might not be that difficult. It's unethical, but we're desperate! ;)

:oUranium? Well, that would add a new twist to the axiom, "is that money burning a hole in your pocket?:laugh3:" (I just couldn't resist). Now, is this depleted or enriched Uranium? This would prevent anyone from amassing too much wealth in one place, lest they start and atomic pile!:P So much for nuclear non-proliferation!!:lol:

 

3. Get Wal-Mart to open stores here. Workers need to be able to spend their money somewhere that has a wide selection of consumer goods.

Paper or Plastic?:D Somehow, I figure this has already happened.. :dozey:

 

4. Renounce my kingship and split states along cultural lines, then recommend they adopt the US constitution and British common law.

Yea, a King that relinquishes power willingly! Sure, maybe - but what if you won't let go??:P We may have to send in the troupes, and deport you to Panama! The system of government business might work, if these are really the best models out there. What do the Swiss have? Loyal Jurga I'd opt for..

 

It would take a few decades, but I think you could see a leap forward to 1950's America quality of life in Africa by 2030 if there were a concerted effort like this.

I have this sudden vision of Africans wearing the suits and dresses available in the 1950's, listening to Chuck Berry's tunes in diners, and shopping for powder blue cars with chrome & fins..:laugh3: This assumes all goes well - which it might! So, formica counter-tops, fuzzy dice, and squarish sun glasses for all? Would there be drive-ins with malteds? Hmm.. I'm moving there - I miss a lot of that stuff!:)

in short....pie

 

 

everybody loves pie

 

 

pie solves everything

 

 

even math geeks love pi

 

 

pie pie pie

 

 

Viva pie.

^wow what a loser.:thinking:

Oh no, Ive turned into Rick!:stunned:

How so?

By talking to myselft through multiple posts

^You need a life:laugh3:

Ahh I have nostalgia for the 1950's too even though I wasn't even born until the 80's.

 

Cary Grant FTW!

Okay, so here's what I would do if I were crowned King of Africa (or any other third world area) in order chronologically -

 

1. Set up a new banking system, with a new currency. One currency for the whole continent. Hell make it simple and peg it to the US dollar or the Euro.

 

2. We would need a way to make people want to own the new currency, rather than the old one. So we'd begin by petitioning western states for loans to build infrastructure - paved roads, water, electricity, etc. We would encourage long term investment by international business so our unskilled workers could begin the process of earning paychecks in the new currency.

 

Collateral for these loans could be uranium or rare earth metals mining rights. If we don't have those rare elements, we could just lie and claim we do. Tricking inspectors might not be that difficult. It's unethical, but we're desperate! ;)

 

3. Get Wal-Mart to open stores here. Workers need to be able to spend their money somewhere that has a wide selection of consumer goods.

 

4. Renounce my kingship and split states along cultural lines, then recommend they adopt the US constitution and British common law.

 

It would take a few decades, but I think you could see a leap forward to 1950's America quality of life in Africa by 2030 if there were a concerted effort like this.

 

But is the Wal-Mart concept of mass consumption and cheap products really going to help anybody?

 

Wal Mart is actually one of the worst things out there, you have shelves lined with tonnes and tonnes of different products and then you have tonnes of workers being paid minimum wage. It sort of squeezes people out of the picture.

 

 

p.s. I'm not trying to be a cynical jerk or anything, just providing my opinions.

Wal-Mart is one of the greatest things to ever happen to poor people. First off, it provides millions of jobs to people who otherwise couldn't get work. Yeah, it's minimum wage, but it's better than nothing. (For the record, I'm against even minimum wage - it makes the low end of the job market smaller than it could be).

 

Wal-Mart's size allows it to force suppliers into giving it the lowest prices on products, which is another plus for the poor. And their profit margin is extremely thin - just 3.33% in the last quarter. For every dollar you put in Wal-Mart, you get back just $1.03! It's as close to a charity as you can find in the business world.

 

If you're looking to create a base for consumerism, you build Wal-Marts. Later on, when people start to make more money, you can bring in higher quality goods and open Targets or mom-and-pop shops, and god forbid... Starbucks (aka world's biggest ripoff caffeine fix).

 

One solution to the problem of money leaving to go to China would be to open a Wal Mart and just make it fully-owned by the African people. You could do like the Soviets did when they privatized their oil companies and give and equal number of shares to each citizen. That way, profits are shared, and if people want to sell their shares to other citizens, they're free to do so.

I hate wal-mart. It puts small business out of business. They're so trashy and cause higher crime rates in their area.

Marred Wall

 

Wal*Mart get's the heart of the matter, in my mind as well. It's what happens when the referee is blindfolded and tied to a chair, with cotton stuffed in his or her ears.

Basically, the Wallmarts of the world have provided jobs, but at the expense of better paying small business opportunities & jobs in those shops, and most downtowns.

The referee is our Government, and because of corruption and political kickbacks, the agencies responsible for oversight have been bound and gagged, and their heads replaced with corporate lackies.

Even manufacturers get burned by WallMart - they're forced to produce goods for Wallmart at prices they can't survive at, or pay living wages to their employees.

But the wallmart employees are trained to by courteous and helpful, which is a good thing. These same employees are then underpaid and Wallmart trains them to go to the Government to get assistance, further lowering Wallmart's costs in a most unfair way.

Now competition is a good thing, but the rules have to be fair, and there has to be an effective referee to ensure fair play is the motivator, not unfair and unjust business practices! Cosco seems to be better to their employees, as well as smaller mom-and-pop stores.

Which gets us back to the need for a fair government, with checks and balances, and especially in the financing of political races. We will never weed out all the corruption, but could stem as much as we can wrangle out the hands of these corporate crooks, leaving the playing field level for the more honest businesses to thrive in.

By the same token, our trade policies should contain checks against unfair business practices - Europe & the US should set the standard for fair trade, allowing for controls that relate to international labor standards, wage standards, worker safety standards, environmental standards, etc.

Yea, the crime rates rise with Wallmart around! From the documentaries I've seen, Wallmart had been using surveillance cameras in their parking lots to check for shoplifters, but had been ignoring all the serious crimes going on in the lot! Talk about hypocrisy! And when you underpay people who are then desperately poor, well, a few of them turn to crime for other means to support themselves - that's not right either - they should be fighting for better wages and conditions, but not all see it that way, and then more crimes are committed. I've seen break-ins where the only thing stolen was pocket change, and there's a lot of poverty in this area...

In my view the best check against big businesses (like Wal-Mart or whatever) is to have zero government interference. The big corporations LOVE government, because it allows them to make it difficult, if not impossible, for their small competitors to interfere with their userbase.

 

Capitalism is by it's nature a diversifying force. Look at the rise of Target, a more middle-class version of Wal-Mart. That company has survived and thrived by being a quality alternative to the crime-ridden, cruddy megastores that came before it! So competition IS still possible.

 

So we criticize Wal Mart for being a provider of cheap consumer goods, but look at another ubiquitous company (that I mentioned earlier): Starbucks. They have had massive success by doing just the opposite - selling an OVERPRICED consumer good, coffee.

 

My point here is that if government does anything related to business at all, it should be to encourage diversification and competition - not by punishing big companies (which are owned by ordinary Americans in their stock portfolios anyway) but by making the process of starting a new company easier and cheaper. I'm more than happy to try new stores, brands, whatever. And when I find a new brand of something I like, I immediately let my friends know, because I'm a geek.

Yes, that's the Libertarian approach - which could be seen through the eye piece, assuming that any agency created to regulate ultimately succumbs to the powerful interests it should be regulating, and then becomes a tool to prevent oversight/competition, etc., as well as an added cost. At the present, that may be the case!

However, I see things differently. A minor revolution in ethical reform with government, via the grass-roots support of reform efforts and their candidates will put the proper teeth back in the agencies, and beginng to correct much of the unfair practices of the past. That, and local government, with the support of the local citizens, have been successful in stopping the worst practices of WalMart, (the siting of stores just to monopolize the market.)

And yes, I agree - there are some very good, well-run and honest businesses, such as Target, Cosco, etc. - they deserve a fair Government that corrects unfair business practices, and thusly promotes these good actors in that business sector.

And that is equally true - Government should make it cheaper and easier for new competitors to start operations. But when certain large corporations are allowed to buy their Senators, it's payoffs/bribes to create legislation & prevent competition. So, I think it still boils down to public awareness, and to clean campaigns that are more responsive to the public as a whole.

I'm a Free-Market believer as well, that's for sure! But equally well, I believe that any game must have Fair Rules, and an honest, strong referee that works on the behalf of all of the participants. And a safety net, so if anyone falls from the trapeze, they can climb back up and try again, the next time with more knowledge and better timing.

Anyhow, but onward to a Green Economy! = . =

My philosophy is to minimize risk in materials we use. Say, for instance, instead of using plastics that are high-risk to make, and present an environmental hazard to workers, consumers, and ultimately the global environment, I tend to select bioplastics when possible, or use natural products to replace the functions of those plastics.

Better still would be to simply phase out the dangerous types for all but critical applications, and make biodegradable types by and large the norm. Knowing there's a floating mass of plastic bits out in the ocean the size of the continent of Africa has me pretty much freaked out - it was bad enough just realizing the risks in the making and using of these products, but to think of us doing that much damage to the oceans with just plastic is mind boggling..

And the same could be said for certain types of metals. Reducing demand for the risky ones by using substitute materials seems to offer a way out of many dilemmas..