OT: P&S forum problems | Was: Free Trade - A sick joke?

[Alf Roberts]

Free Trade - A sick joke?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/wto/article/0,2763,1035805,00.html

Take note of its Author.

Still in love with ur great Capitalist system Thuring? I bet u are as well...

 

[Martz]

This was a big point by a lot of people at Glastonbury.

Make. Trade. Fair.

So.. we started doing out little bit by buying free trade tea and coffee. However, it is difficult from a consumers point of view to encourage people not to buy Nestlé Nescafe or PG Tips, but any other which carrys the make trade fair logo - but they are twice the price.

Now: my issue is, I don't want to pay for more expensive tea and coffee. But we do. It's not much, but as I have said before, the only thing you can do as a consumer against a corporation is to not buy their products, and use the competitor instead. Fine, but it seems that Fair Trade coffee is nearly twice the price, which probably means I am paying a relatively good rate for my coffee beanz, but also getting bent over by the corporations too.

I would much prefer to bypass the middle men who sell do the importing/exporting anyway. This is the UK economy, ripping off third world countries for their product, and selling it to the not-knowing-any-better UK citizen. And then they tax it, just to run some salt in the wounds.


1 Question: if the the struggling countries borrow from the US/UK, who does the US/UK borrow from? Itself? I know the US national debt is currently

- which (correct me if Im wrong) is 6 million billion dollars (using UK billions), or 6 trillion dollars (using US billions). I wouldn't like to pay that off (i'm soooo sure it less than my credit card tho...) even if it had > l% interest rate. Why can the US borrow this sorta money, how does it, and will it ever pay it back? And why can' a struggling country do this itself?

Another question: can debts to countries stricken with poverty and starvation be cleared and forgotten about, just like *that*

 

[Joko]

Cant u ppl just post the article without the snide little remarks at one another? Your like kids, discussing politics.

 

[Cutter]

What Alfie dear is doing is called "trolling". Besides hiding his real identify behind that sad name (I know who you really are btw), he provides a single link, with a snide remark, and no discussion or input of his own.

Until such time as he can point out what irks him about the article in that link, together with a few cogent and coherent thoughts of his own, backed up with at the very least some logical thinking, I will ignore him and his cheap shots as being beneath my notice.

 

[Alf Roberts]

Cant u ppl just post the article without the snide little remarks at one another?

Well i reckon if a league of snide comments was formed from this forum ur `sister' would be streets ahead. The Queen of Snide, if u like.

What Alfie dear is doing is called "trolling". Besides hiding his real identify behind that sad name

How amusing u talking about `identities'!

Btw its not `trolling' as u put it...i simply dont like arrogent ppl like u with ur `as long as im alright, sod every1 else' approach to life. I see u as an example of Capitalism in all its unpleasent glory. If u dont like that fact...well nothing really, thats life...infact u better get used to it cos with ur attitude ur gonna cross loads of ppl in ur life.
I havent abused u verbally and i dont read in the forum rules where it states that ppl here have to like 1 another. If any1 is doing any `trolling' around here, i'd say its more u than me.

...he provides a single link, with a snide remark, and no discussion or input of his own.

Funny how in the past, when i post a statement uve criticized me for not supplying links...and this time i do and u criticize me for not supplying personal input....u should contact Mr Blair...i hear hes on the look out for a new `Minister for Information'.
I agree with the article. Would u prefer that i type it all out again as my own comment? Of course not...

...I also note that u havent actually commented urself on the article in question. Ur silence screams at me

 

[-Starlight-]

i thought this forum was 4 serious discussion, not for flaming, or personal vendettas against other members

 

[Spirit]

Don't be so naïve envy

/me waits eagerly for thur's long-winded but veracious response

 

[Joko]

Cant u ppl just post the article without the snide little remarks at one another? Your like kids, discussing politics.

Where does it say im not referring to thur aswell? You're all as bad as each other.

 

[Cutter]

Funny how in the past, when i post a statement uve criticized me for not supplying links...and this time i do and u criticize me for not supplying personal input....u should contact Mr Blair...i hear hes on the look out for a new `Minister for Information'.
I agree with the article. Would u prefer that i type it all out again as my own comment? Of course not...

...I also note that u havent actually commented urself on the article in question. Ur silence screams at me

1. Ahh, still not thinking logically. You've provided a link to a general rant by the Guardian, which itself provides no links to any proof or backup for its points. Off the top of my head, and just for a kick off, the point it makes about wicked western capitalists screwing the third world out of cheap drugs via IP rights is at best, half true. Anyone who has read the papers or seen the news recently would have noticed that the wicked capitalists are now being forced to provide cheap generic anti-aids drugs to the third world.

http://www.aegis.com/news/bbc/2002/BB020112.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1207571.stm

But I like this one best - you obviously ignored this little gem in your desire to rant against capitalism:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,5500,478373,00.html

(its even from your fave commie rag too, making it all the sweeter)

In other words, South Africa has beaten those wicked capitalists at their own game in their own courts, and forced them to make cheap generic anti-aids drugs available.

:0wned: :lickme:

Now, typical example of only half dealing with the problem. Why should one set of people have to pay more than others for the same drugs? Or, even better, why should countries whose religious and political views ignore the AIDS problem be bailed out of the hole they've dug for themselves? Part of the reason AIDS is so rampant in Africa is because the prevailing religions, which still exert undue influence on those countries, ban contraceptives (like condoms) and education of the people about sexual risks - which would actually prevent the spread of aids, as opposed to simply squealing for cheap drugs to treat the problem.

I'm not blind to the humanitarian issues, but to blame the west for expensive anti-AIDS drugs is simply ignorance. Those drugs are expensive, period.

No, my real problem was you made a few half assed insinuations. No attempt to digest the article, argue a few points and provide proof. That's what I was meaning. If this wasn't clear to you, I w-i-l-l t-y-p-e s-l-o-w-l-y a-n-d c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y in future alfie poos.


2. Silence on the article. Well, quite frankly, half of it is simply untrue, having been overtaken by current events. The rest is just generalised ranting. What is there to comment on?

Have a nice day.

 

[Alf Roberts]

1. Ahh, still not thinking logically. You've provided a link to a general rant by the Guardian, which itself provides no links to any proof or backup for its points. Off the top of my head, and just for a kick off, the point it makes about wicked western capitalists screwing the third world out of cheap drugs via IP rights is at best, half true. Anyone who has read the papers or seen the news recently would have noticed that the wicked capitalists are now being forced to provide cheap generic anti-aids drugs to the third world.

`Rant'?

Its an article in a respectable British broadsheet...u simply cant help urself putting ur own style of arrogent spin on things can u...

Yeah, `forced' is the important word here and jeez, how hard Western companies have fought against change on any level and will no doubt continue to do so. Do u realise how long its taken to get to this point if indeed its a noteworthy point? Do u realise how many ppl have died due to global price fixing by Western pharmacutical companies...and im not talking about anti AIDS drugs here. Many drugs deliberately held at high prices whilst global bans impossed on poorer countries making generic copies. I can understand these such companies wanting to protect their products to a degree but many drugs have more than made up for development costs...its simply greed...Capitalist greed.

But I like this one best - you obviously ignored this little gem in your desire to rant against capitalism:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,5500,478373,00.html

(its even from your fave commie rag too, making it all the sweeter)

In other words, South Africa has beaten those wicked capitalists at their own game in their own courts, and forced them to make cheap generic anti-aids drugs available.

:0wned: :lickme:

Yet more kiddy sarcasm eh (Joko take note)...funny how u instantly dismiss a previous Guardian article purely due to it being in the Guardian yet bring up another 1 to bolster ur stance.

I feel ur missing something here. U seem to be basking in some kinda glory and i dont really understand why. So South Africa has forced a court case to collapse and has `won' a victory over Global monopolisation by a group of western drug companies. If it wasnt for Capitalist greed in the 1st place, this situation would never have arisen. Do u seriously think that these same drug companies and just going to lie down and take it? Do u realise how much grunt these companies have at Government level? South Africa will pay for crossing them, 1 way or another...

No, my real problem was you made a few half assed insinuations. No attempt to digest the article, argue a few points and provide proof. That's what I was meaning. If this wasn't clear to you, I w-i-l-l t-y-p-e s-l-o-w-l-y a-n-d c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y in future alfie poos.

Well i never, even more kiddy sarcasm...i wonder if u'd talk to me like that if u was actually in the same room as me.

Tell me how i didnt digest the article. I realise u think ur a bit special in the brain department but i didnt have u down as a mind reader...and wtf u talking about `argue a few points and provide proof'? ITS AN ARTICLE FROM A NEWSPAPER...for ppl to read/comment if/when they see fit. I dont have to provide `proof' of its validity at all.

2. Silence on the article. Well, quite frankly, half of it is simply untrue, having been overtaken by current events. The rest is just generalised ranting. What is there to comment on?

On the contrary, ive think uve commented plenty now

 

[grizz]

sorry this is a little off topic...

ive given up posting in this worthless forum long ago, but look back from time to time just to see how the young tory indoctrination programme is running, and see if theres anything amusing.

...commie rag...

id just like to say that describing the guardian as a commie rag is silly and childish. its reporting is on the whole impartial and factual. the website has won countless awards and always makes it clear who wrote which article, so you can be well aware of the political leanings of the author.

 

[-Starlight-]

ive given up posting in this worthless forum long ago, but look back from time to time just to see how the young tory indoctrination programme is running, and see if theres anything amusing.

true

 

[Gen76]

Posting a link to a page which represents your view i c no problem with.Just saves me from typing my brains out for nothing.

"What Alfie dear is doing is called "trolling". Besides hiding his real identify behind that sad name (I know who you really are btw), he provides a single link, with a snide remark, and no discussion or input of his own."

Until such time as he can point out what irks him about the article in that link, together with a few cogent and coherent thoughts of his own, backed up with at the very least some logical thinking, I will ignore him and his cheap shots as being beneath my notice."

Seems thur is slowly learning how formus discussions work keep at it i say, mebby ull shut up 1 day.



werd Alfie, nm thur hes full of shit.Something which is painfull obveous if u read his prev posts...oh thats right..our mod deleted em all...how convenient(hdd space issiue im sure).out of sight, out of mind eh thur...

 

[grizz]

Now: my issue is, I don't want to pay for more expensive tea and coffee. But we do. It's not much, but as I have said before, the only thing you can do as a consumer against a corporation is to not buy their products, and use the competitor instead. Fine, but it seems that Fair Trade coffee is nearly twice the price, which probably means I am paying a relatively good rate for my coffee beanz, but also getting bent over by the corporations too.

sorry martz i dont quite understand from reading this whether you are saying it is or isnt worth buying free trade coffee (probably my fault no offence intended). i buy fair trade coffee and other products when they are available (cant always find them). they do cost more, and that hurts a bit, but my understanding is that this is to allow the poor buggers who grew / harvested (or whatever you do with coffee) to eat properly and not be fucked over as 'slaves' by western companies / trade organisations.

i would say if you cant afford the extra, then thats fair enough theres fuck all you can do, but if you can then imho you should. i often wonder about raising the subject with the individual who buys the tea / coffee at work but frankly i know they'd look at me like id asked in portugese.

of course there are those present here who can ignore the thought of the lowest part of the *insert product grown/made in third world nation here* chain living on sweet FA, and of course dont want things to change because of the risk that one day that big slice of pie which they think is rightfully theirs might be a bit smaller when they get there.

apologies if that last paragraph was a wee bit cryptic.

 

[Cutter]

Its an article in a respectable British broadsheet...u simply cant help urself putting ur own style of arrogent spin on things can u...

Yeah, `forced' is the important word here and jeez, how hard Western companies have fought against change on any level and will no doubt continue to do so. Do u realise how long its taken to get to this point if indeed its a noteworthy point? Do u realise how many ppl have died due to global price fixing by Western pharmacutical companies...and im not talking about anti AIDS drugs here. Many drugs deliberately held at high prices whilst global bans impossed on poorer countries making generic copies. I can understand these such companies wanting to protect their products to a degree but many drugs have more than made up for development costs...its simply greed...Capitalist greed.


Yet more kiddy sarcasm eh (Joko take note)...funny how u instantly dismiss a previous Guardian article purely due to it being in the Guardian yet bring up another 1 to bolster ur stance.

I feel ur missing something here. U seem to be basking in some kinda glory and i dont really understand why. So South Africa has forced a court case to collapse and has `won' a victory over Global monopolisation by a group of western drug companies. If it wasnt for Capitalist greed in the 1st place, this situation would never have arisen. Do u seriously think that these same drug companies and just going to lie down and take it? Do u realise how much grunt these companies have at Government level? South Africa will pay for crossing them, 1 way or another...


Well i never, even more kiddy sarcasm...i wonder if u'd talk to me like that if u was actually in the same room as me.

Tell me how i didnt digest the article. I realise u think ur a bit special in the brain department but i didnt have u down as a mind reader...and wtf u talking about `argue a few points and provide proof'? ITS AN ARTICLE FROM A NEWSPAPER...for ppl to read/comment if/when they see fit. I dont have to provide `proof' of its validity at all.

Dealing with your paragraphs in order:

1. Broadsheet, yes. Respectable? Debateable. That article is pure opinion, nothing else. No facts whatsoever to back it up. Apologies if I don't automatically take it as gospel truth. Next.

2. Before dismissing my arguments out of hand, do something for me: Check the price of those self same drugs in the "western" world. Then, do some research into the massive costs involved in getting new drugs developed, the long drawn out regulatory process before they are approved for sale to the public, the fact that the majority of drugs never make it to market and never turn a profit for the company which developed it. If it wasn't for "capitalist greed" we wouldn't have drugs to treat just about every ailment known to man. That is a fact. I don't, and never have denied that there may be an element of profiteering involved. But to paint this as the sole status quo is both ignorant and misinformed. Do that research for me. Until you do, I'm going to ignore your misinformed comments.

3. I brought up that other article to point out what seemed to me to be highly amusing - i.e. one guardian article essentially contradicting another. So much for journalistic integrity. Or maybe you missed that subtle point...

4. Go back and read what I posted again because you've obviously failed to think about what I said.

5. See 4 and previous points.

6.Yep, I'd talk exactly the same to you to your face. I tend to treat ignorant people who insult me and get their facts wrong with haughty disdain.

7. Yep, you're still missing the point. Go back, sit down, have your weetabix and then wonder why people jump on you for posting a load of mouldy old mince.

 

[Gen76]

ur good at twisting things around thur, ull have a great career in corp. law.Im sure u could put those gifts to work at the WTO.

 

[Alf Roberts]

1. Broadsheet, yes. Respectable? Debateable. That article is pure opinion, nothing else. No facts whatsoever to back it up. Apologies if I don't automatically take it as gospel truth. Next.

Yes it is respectable. What ever ur political leanings u cant get away from the fact that it is a well respected newspaper. Ur blatent denial in accepting this fact illustrates ur scope for reasoned bedate.

If it wasn't for "capitalist greed" we wouldn't have drugs to treat just about every ailment known to man. That is a fact.

Can u post a link proving this `fact'?...seeing as u like to play the proof card when it fits See?? Ridiculous isnt it...

Btw Capitalist greed isnt the same as Capitalist endeavor.

...Until you do, I'm going to ignore your misinformed comments.

Thats the 2nd time u said ur going to ignore me...u just cant do it can u

3. I brought up that other article to point out what seemed to me to be highly amusing - i.e. one guardian article essentially contradicting another. So much for journalistic integrity. Or maybe you missed that subtle point...

I didnt miss the point but that fact wasnt important imo. I also think it goes to show the diversity of the reporting in the Guardian...kinda undermines ur earlier comments regarding this particular paper eh.

6.Yep, I'd talk exactly the same to you to your face. I tend to treat ignorant people who insult me and get their facts wrong with haughty disdain.

Believe me, u wouldnt get many of the words out. As ive said before, with ur attitude u wanna be careful cos 1 day some1s gonna give u a good hiding. U clearly have a working brain however callus some of ur views are but ur social skills leave a lot to be desired. How old are u if u dont mind me asking?

7. Yep, you're still missing the point. Go back, sit down, have your weetabix and then wonder why people jump on you for posting a load of mouldy old mince.

The kiddy sarcasm rears its ugly head again...`Ppl jump on you' lol u? A bitter, obnoxious, arrogent known liar...forgive me if i dont lose any sleep after ur ferocious attack.

U really are a most unpleasent individual...it must be very lonely in ur World.

 

[Cutter]

Yes it is respectable. What ever ur political leanings u cant get away from the fact that it is a well respected newspaper. Ur blatent denial in accepting this fact illustrates ur scope for reasoned bedate.

Can u post a link proving this `fact'?...seeing as u like to play the proof card when it fits See?? Ridiculous isnt it...

Believe me, u wouldnt get many of the words out. As ive said before, with ur attitude u wanna be careful cos 1 day some1s gonna give u a good hiding. U clearly have a working brain however callus some of ur views are but ur social skills leave a lot to be desired. How old are u if u dont mind me asking?

U really are a most unpleasent individual...it must be very lonely in ur World.

1. Wide circulation does not imply respectability. "Das Volk" was widely read. And a paper full of articles which contradict each other doesn't really convince me of the integrity of its journalism. To say nothing of its obvious political bias.

2. You provide proof first. I've done so for my stuff. From a quick scan of your posts, you've provided no proof for any of your comments. I wonder why that is?

3. Please, please come to Scotland if you're not already there. I will gladly meet up with you and insult you to your face. I'm old enough and big enough to know that you are all talk from behind a computer screen.

4. Ahh, more personal insults. It really is a shame you have to resort to those. But then, when you have no facts to back up your points, I suppose its all you can manage. :shrug:

As for twisting things Gen, its all true. Feel free to check it. Sorry if it doesn't fit with your own twisted worldview.

 

[Alf Roberts]

That-a-girl Thuring!! Keep stamping that little foot of urs.

`I will win, I WILL BE RESPECTED!! I WILL, I WILL, I WILLLLLLLLL!!!'

 

[Spirit]

Thur doesn't need to stamp a foot to be respected - it's just amusing when your underneath it