Why does the Third World hate us?

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: BBond
I could emulate you...post nonsense from a dime store novel and pretend it's history.

But then, I understand why you do. You're enamored of a dime store president as well.

Keep defending the indefensible. Prostitute yourself for the lie. It's as close as you'll ever come to legitimacy.

Ah, I see. Posting more than one line of a sentence constructed by one's own hands is emulating me. Really, it's not as big a deal as you seem to think it is. Give it a try tomorrow and post something you've typed up yourself, even if it is just a rehash of another's thoughts. With the amount of energy you spend typing Bush this and Bush that, I'm sure you can travel your fingers away from Ctrl-C and Control-V for long enough to show us something "original".

Or how about this? Tell me where I've erred in what I've wrote regarding the Marshall Plan. Of course I mean I merely wrote it on this forum and not analyzed the figures from the days of the Plan - that was a little before my time. I point this out merely because you seem to have trouble with the idea that more than just the writers of history read the stuff and base their thoughts on it.

I will. A 5% bonus on top of GDP is signifiagnt for 2 reasons, 1) a signifigant amount of any economy is spent simply prividing for basic needs, such as food and water and clothes. 2) an equally signifigant amount will be spent on government ovhead and military. Just because the war ended doe ot mean the army disbanded, and it would have also consumed a signifigant portion of production.

For countries that have been obliterated by war, even a 5% bonus to GDP is signifigant since perhaps only 30% of GDP is being used to rebuild, if not less. I'm sure you would notice a substantial benefit if your personal income was raised from 30 thousand to 35 thouseand.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
I will. A 5% bonus on top of GDP is signifiagnt for 2 reasons, 1) a signifigant amount of any economy is spent simply prividing for basic needs, such as food and water and clothes. 2) an equally signifigant amount will be spent on government ovhead and military. Just because the war ended doe ot mean the army disbanded, and it would have also consumed a signifigant portion of production.

For countries that have been obliterated by war, even a 5% bonus to GDP is signifigant since perhaps only 30% of GDP is being used to rebuild, if not less. I'm sure you would notice a substantial benefit if your personal income was raised from 30 thousand to 35 thouseand.

$13 billion in 1945 dollars is definitely nothing to sneeze at, but if you're going to draw a comparison it'd be more like this. My personal income goes from $30k to $35k. How much is this going to help me rebuild my $600k house AND feed my family?

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: BBond
You are so full of yourself it's comical.

Average 20 something. Live a while longer and gain some perspective instead of repeating your history lessons and acting as though you originated the ideas.

As opposed to your posts of incredible insight and originality. One might wonder if you do more than read the headline of various news articles before cutting and pasting verbatim. Oh, that's right, other than "Bush lied" you do have one post consisting of original content. That would be this poll about where Bush will spend Thanksgiving, consisting of an incredibly incisive one line of content.

On the other hand, I've had a number of interesting discussions with other posts that went on for quite a few paragraphs. When in a discussion I post my sources as often as possible, but when talking history most logical people would assume it's probably a safe bet that I wasn't the one writing it and by default can only regurgitate as the situation befits.

But please, continue lodging personal attacks and telling others to ignore me for reasons as silly as my age. The very few people who still take you seriously must be taking notice, and it's wonderful for its entertainment value.

All the posts of BBond's that you linked were articles he copy/pasted AND linked to. He was in no way taking credit for the content of those posts. Now compare this to your post, which is blatantly text bookian, and clearly not originating from you. I know I should let BBond defend himself on this point, but because he hasn't, I feel compelled to refute this idiotic post.

 

[piasabird]

It is interesting that Al-Quida claims to be a religion based extremest group but tries to raise money producing and selling Narcotics.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: piasabird
It is interesting that Al-Quida claims to be a religion based extremest group but tries to raise money producing and selling Narcotics.

It is interesting that the Taliban, a religion based extremist group, ended opium production in Afghanistan and now, after the U.S. ended the Taliban's rule in Afghanistan, opium production there is at record levels.

There is plenty of blame to go around on all sides. The common denominator -- money.

Afghanistan, Opium and the Taliban

Afghanistan regains its title as world's biggest heroin dealer

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: piasabird
It is interesting that Al-Quida claims to be a religion based extremest group but tries to raise money producing and selling Narcotics.

Not really too "interesting". In Ancient Israel it would have been perfectly fine, as long as you didn't Sell it to fellow Israelites. IOW, it was fine to screw people over, as long as they were not Israelites.

 

[AcidicFury]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: AcidicFury
Ah, so I guess you believe then that the Marshall Plan was a load of crap, right?

I'm really liking this forum area. It gives me the opportunity to talk about such interesting facets of history.

Okay, the Marshall Plan. Sixteen countries took part: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Turkey, the UK, and West Germany. Well, Spain and West Germany were delayed entry because Spain was still under Franco and West Germany was not exactly a country. So why did the Marshall Plan work in late-1940s Europe, and why hasn't it worked since?

Two facets. First, the areas of Europe that received assistance were those that were heavy with educated populations, a long history of the rule of law and relative democracy, and the base roots of private enterprise were long since in place. The Plan never attempted anything too outrageous in political or social terms.

Second, there is no real evidence that the Marshall Plan actually contributed in significant terms to those countries' growth. WTF does a maximum donation of 5% of each country's GDP do for a completely obliterated Europe? No, the rebound that Western Europe experienced was more internally generated than anything else. Of course the political unity that stemmed from the Plan is something completely different. It lay the groundwork for the East-West tussle of the Cold War and the formation of NATO.

So: Not crap, but not the myth that it's made up to be. And definitely not applicable to today.

Actually, there is some major evidence. If you look at what the countries did with this 5% boost, you'll see that they rebuilt most of the industries that were able to export goods all over the world, and especially to Europe. Once those industries were in place, then economic gains were just a matter of time, and money started flowing into coffers again. How else could Europe afford all of its welfare programs? It couldn't have. You economic theory is flawed. Maybe you are a good student of history, but you certainly do not understand all the "facets" of the way politics and economics relate to each other.

Second, the Marshall Plan did not "lay the groundwork" for the Cold War. That groundwork had already been in place long before WWII. (Think Red Scare of the 1920s) The Soviet Union had shown that it would only protect its own interests as well. They had COMINTERN, an organization meant to spread communism across the world. We had the CIA, meant to set up US-friendly governments all over. We took two different sides. The Marshall Plan initially actually was to include Russia, but Stalin decided it would be worse for the Soviet Union to take even more aid after the Lend-Lease program. It was a question of pride. Then, once he saw how successful the Marshall Plan was, he instituted his own version.

The Marshall Plan can still be used in countries today. Many countries in South America have stable democracies. Why then are they not getting this same help the Europeans had? Simple, because they do not serve American interests.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
I will. A 5% bonus on top of GDP is signifiagnt for 2 reasons, 1) a signifigant amount of any economy is spent simply prividing for basic needs, such as food and water and clothes. 2) an equally signifigant amount will be spent on government ovhead and military. Just because the war ended doe ot mean the army disbanded, and it would have also consumed a signifigant portion of production.

For countries that have been obliterated by war, even a 5% bonus to GDP is signifigant since perhaps only 30% of GDP is being used to rebuild, if not less. I'm sure you would notice a substantial benefit if your personal income was raised from 30 thousand to 35 thouseand.

$13 billion in 1945 dollars is definitely nothing to sneeze at, but if you're going to draw a comparison it'd be more like this. My personal income goes from $30k to $35k. How much is this going to help me rebuild my $600k house AND feed my family?

:roll:

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: kogase
All the posts of BBond's that you linked were articles he copy/pasted AND linked to. He was in no way taking credit for the content of those posts. Now compare this to your post, which is blatantly text bookian, and clearly not originating from you. I know I should let BBond defend himself on this point, but because he hasn't, I feel compelled to refute this idiotic post.

Oh, I see. My failing is in having read actual bound textbooks and essays in the flesh. Instead I should hail to the almighty lord of knowledge - the Internet - and only read the news du jour like some. Information just isn't worthwhile if you can't link to it. Who's the idiot again? :roll:

Originally posted by: AcidicFury
Actually, there is some major evidence. If you look at what the countries did with this 5% boost, you'll see that they rebuilt most of the industries that were able to export goods all over the world, and especially to Europe. Once those industries were in place, then economic gains were just a matter of time, and money started flowing into coffers again. How else could Europe afford all of its welfare programs? It couldn't have. You economic theory is flawed. Maybe you are a good student of history, but you certainly do not understand all the "facets" of the way politics and economics relate to each other.

Second, the Marshall Plan did not "lay the groundwork" for the Cold War. That groundwork had already been in place long before WWII. (Think Red Scare of the 1920s) The Soviet Union had shown that it would only protect its own interests as well. They had COMINTERN, an organization meant to spread communism across the world. We had the CIA, meant to set up US-friendly governments all over. We took two different sides. The Marshall Plan initially actually was to include Russia, but Stalin decided it would be worse for the Soviet Union to take even more aid after the Lend-Lease program. It was a question of pride. Then, once he saw how successful the Marshall Plan was, he instituted his own version.

The Marshall Plan can still be used in countries today. Many countries in South America have stable democracies. Why then are they not getting this same help the Europeans had? Simple, because they do not serve American interests.

(Scroll down to) Competing Interpretations of the Effects of the Marshall Plan

A revision to this doctrine highlighted the small relative magnitude of the Marshall Plan. U.S. assistance hardly exceeded 2.5% of GNP of the recipient countries, and accounted for less than 20% of capital formation in that period. The allocation of aid often seemed to follow political, not economic needs: nearly half the resources never arrived in the disaster areas on the former European battlefields but served to buy political support in England and France, and to fend off communist threats in various countries.

Also, the overall political outcome hardly seemed to fit with U.S. plans. Post-war Europe emerged from the Marshall Plan as a largely protectionist bloc of countries under French leadership. Rather than integrating smoothly into the Bretton Woods system as envisaged by the U.S., Europe seemed to work towards its own economic and financial integration. Epitomized by the work of Milward (1984), this line of research sees France as the main winner over the U.S. in a contest over political dominance in post-war Europe. In this perspective, Marshall Aid appears as a frustrated, economically less-than-significant attempt to influence the course of events in Europe.

The Marshall Plan Myth:

As economist Tyler Cowen has noted, the countries that received the most Marshall Plan money (allies Britain, Sweden, and Greece) grew the slowest between 1947 and 1955, while those that received the least money (axis powers Germany, Austria, and Italy) grew the most. In terms of post-war prosperity, then, it eventually paid to be a political enemy of the U.S. instead of a "beneficiary" of international charity.

A year after the Marshall Plan began sucking private capital out of the economy, the U.S. fell into recession, precisely the opposite of what its proponents predicted. Meanwhile, the aid did not help Europe. What reconstructed Europe was the post-Marshall freeing up of controlled prices, keeping inflation in check, and curbing union power--that is, the free market. As even Hoffman admitted in his memoir, the aid did not in fact help the economies of Europe. The primary benefit was "psychological." Expensive therapy, indeed.

As the second essay states, the primary benefit was psychological. Europe, we are with you. America took those war-ravaged countries under its wing and helped entrench US interests in the region. It became easier to combine Europe's might with America's in NATO. Et cetera. So what part of "my" economic theory is flawed? ("My" in quotes because apparently by putting forth an opinion I'm claiming to have originally formulated it.)

I would write something about how aid hasn't worked since (if it even worked then) but I have to run and get lunch with some friends.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: yllus
$13 billion in 1945 dollars is definitely nothing to sneeze at, but if you're going to draw a comparison it'd be more like this. My personal income goes from $30k to $35k. How much is this going to help me rebuild my $600k house AND feed my family?

:roll:

Shall I take that as a sign that you have no response?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: yllus
The Marshall Plan Myth:

As economist Tyler Cowen has noted, the countries that received the most Marshall Plan money (allies Britain, Sweden, and Greece) grew the slowest between 1947 and 1955, while those that received the least money (axis powers Germany, Austria, and Italy) grew the most. In terms of post-war prosperity, then, it eventually paid to be a political enemy of the U.S. instead of a "beneficiary" of international charity.

Of course, the Axis powers had experienced the greatest economic and physical devestation, so they were growing from a far smaller base, allowing them to have much greater rates of growth for the same amount of growth. They also needed far more construction because of the physical devestation, and didn't have the crippling debts that Lend Lease had left the UK with. We need to see a much stronger argument than this to support the thesis that the Marshall Plan harmed countries.

 

[BBond]

Why does the Third World hate us?

Because they have good reason to. For example,

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions

We speak with John Perkins, a former respected member of the international banking community. In his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man he describes how as a highly paid professional, he helped the U.S. cheat poor countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars by lending them more money than they could possibly repay and then take over their economies.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: kogase
All the posts of BBond's that you linked were articles he copy/pasted AND linked to. He was in no way taking credit for the content of those posts. Now compare this to your post, which is blatantly text bookian, and clearly not originating from you. I know I should let BBond defend himself on this point, but because he hasn't, I feel compelled to refute this idiotic post.

Oh, I see. My failing is in having read actual bound textbooks and essays in the flesh. Instead I should hail to the almighty lord of knowledge - the Internet - and only read the news du jour like some. Information just isn't worthwhile if you can't link to it. Who's the idiot again? :roll:

Originally posted by: AcidicFury
Actually, there is some major evidence. If you look at what the countries did with this 5% boost, you'll see that they rebuilt most of the industries that were able to export goods all over the world, and especially to Europe. Once those industries were in place, then economic gains were just a matter of time, and money started flowing into coffers again. How else could Europe afford all of its welfare programs? It couldn't have. You economic theory is flawed. Maybe you are a good student of history, but you certainly do not understand all the "facets" of the way politics and economics relate to each other.

Second, the Marshall Plan did not "lay the groundwork" for the Cold War. That groundwork had already been in place long before WWII. (Think Red Scare of the 1920s) The Soviet Union had shown that it would only protect its own interests as well. They had COMINTERN, an organization meant to spread communism across the world. We had the CIA, meant to set up US-friendly governments all over. We took two different sides. The Marshall Plan initially actually was to include Russia, but Stalin decided it would be worse for the Soviet Union to take even more aid after the Lend-Lease program. It was a question of pride. Then, once he saw how successful the Marshall Plan was, he instituted his own version.

The Marshall Plan can still be used in countries today. Many countries in South America have stable democracies. Why then are they not getting this same help the Europeans had? Simple, because they do not serve American interests.

(Scroll down to) Competing Interpretations of the Effects of the Marshall Plan

A revision to this doctrine highlighted the small relative magnitude of the Marshall Plan. U.S. assistance hardly exceeded 2.5% of GNP of the recipient countries, and accounted for less than 20% of capital formation in that period. The allocation of aid often seemed to follow political, not economic needs: nearly half the resources never arrived in the disaster areas on the former European battlefields but served to buy political support in England and France, and to fend off communist threats in various countries.

Also, the overall political outcome hardly seemed to fit with U.S. plans. Post-war Europe emerged from the Marshall Plan as a largely protectionist bloc of countries under French leadership. Rather than integrating smoothly into the Bretton Woods system as envisaged by the U.S., Europe seemed to work towards its own economic and financial integration. Epitomized by the work of Milward (1984), this line of research sees France as the main winner over the U.S. in a contest over political dominance in post-war Europe. In this perspective, Marshall Aid appears as a frustrated, economically less-than-significant attempt to influence the course of events in Europe.

The Marshall Plan Myth:

As economist Tyler Cowen has noted, the countries that received the most Marshall Plan money (allies Britain, Sweden, and Greece) grew the slowest between 1947 and 1955, while those that received the least money (axis powers Germany, Austria, and Italy) grew the most. In terms of post-war prosperity, then, it eventually paid to be a political enemy of the U.S. instead of a "beneficiary" of international charity.

A year after the Marshall Plan began sucking private capital out of the economy, the U.S. fell into recession, precisely the opposite of what its proponents predicted. Meanwhile, the aid did not help Europe. What reconstructed Europe was the post-Marshall freeing up of controlled prices, keeping inflation in check, and curbing union power--that is, the free market. As even Hoffman admitted in his memoir, the aid did not in fact help the economies of Europe. The primary benefit was "psychological." Expensive therapy, indeed.

As the second essay states, the primary benefit was psychological. Europe, we are with you. America took those war-ravaged countries under its wing and helped entrench US interests in the region. It became easier to combine Europe's might with America's in NATO. Et cetera. So what part of "my" economic theory is flawed? ("My" in quotes because apparently by putting forth an opinion I'm claiming to have originally formulated it.)

I would write something about how aid hasn't worked since (if it even worked then) but I have to run and get lunch with some friends.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: yllus
$13 billion in 1945 dollars is definitely nothing to sneeze at, but if you're going to draw a comparison it'd be more like this. My personal income goes from $30k to $35k. How much is this going to help me rebuild my $600k house AND feed my family?

:roll:

Shall I take that as a sign that you have no response?

They're not going to have a 600k house. After a war, you're not going to get everything back. You build a 200k house and life goes on. And when money is tight, I'm sure than 5k is a huge amount to help them feed themselves.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: RealityTime

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Don't forget 2 poster childs of the USA "freedom and democracy" efforts:

ANASTACIO SOMOZA and sons,
FULGENCIO BATISTA

the contras? the shah? Allawi?

dont forget osama bin laden when afghanistan was fight the russians and of course saddam hussein when they were at war with iran. rofl. its hilarious, they back them and then abandom them, and then come back to get them at a later date.

Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken, because some oft he "answers" are so far off it is not even funny. You got Somoza correct, but look harder at Batista......

 

[GoPackGo]

they hate us because we dont give them enough money...

they want more more more

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
they hate us because we dont give them enough money...

they want more more more

They won't "hate" us for long or be able to keep getting more money from the U.S either as they climb up out of Third World status and the U.S. plunges into it.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
they hate us because we dont give them enough money...

they want more more more

They won't "hate" us for long or be able to keep getting more money from the U.S either as they climb up out of Third World status and the U.S. plunges into it.

so when are you moving over there?

 

[wchou]

Hate is a strong word, what have they done to us so far for you to think so? They are moaning so despies is more like it?