Geldof is a shill; UN is a mediocrity.

[Bernie Gunther]

Using public opinion to put pressure on the richer governments to reduce global poverty. Whats your take on it?

I would say that his role has been to convince public opinion that real action on global poverty has occurred, when in fact nothing of the sort happened.

 

[Pickman's model]

peppery, why should i answer your questions in future when you make no attempt to answer mine?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

But they have comparative advantages in agriculture and textiles that they can't exploit because of US/EU tarrifs? It would boost their economies being able to compete fairly with our producers wouldn't it?

It's not just about enabling fair international trade - though that is something the G8 oppose as well - there's the whole issue of letting countries protect themselves from predatory "investment", that's the "economic liberalisation" element.

Geldof increased the demand for governments to say the right things, whilst legitimising their "efforts" and helping to marginalise those who were campaigning or protesting for anything apart from what was government approved. I don't know whether it's fair to call him a shill, since that implies collusion, but either way he acted as one.

 

[peppery]

I would say that his role has been to convince public opinion that real action on global poverty has occurred, when in fact nothing of the sort happened.

Yes, I see what you mean, G8 took him for a patsy.

 

[peppery]

Geldof increased the demand for governments to say the right things, whilst legitimising their "efforts" and helping to marginalise those who were campaigning or protesting for anything apart from what was government approved. I don't know whether it's fair to call him a shill, since that implies collusion, but either way he acted as one.

Yes, Bernie's reply was useful in pointing that out. I think Geldof's heart is in the right place, but he's been played like a violin by the G8.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Fair does then, we agree; I think he was trying to do the right thing but he was being very naive about it.

 

[peppery]

LOL, that was unusually civilised wasn't it

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Hmm, yes. That's no fun.

*waits around for somebody to come and defend Geldof*

 

[pbman]

Hmm, yes. That's no fun.

*waits around for somebody to come and defend Geldof*

That train is going to be a long time coming.

 

[peppery]

That train is going to be a long time coming.

C'mon, his heart was in the right place. He's not an evil man, though having inflicted the Live8 concerts on us, I may revise that opinion.......

 

[pbman]

C'mon, his heart was in the right place. He's not an evil man, .....

Your right.

That is worthy or respect.

But what hippy cause was he blathering about anyways?

 

[Sorry.]

Fair does then, we agree; I think he was trying to do the right thing but he was being very naive about it.

I think you're overestimating the potential for being naive. He's been directly involved in anti-poverty campaigning for 20+ years now. He knows god knows how many people involved in the international development industry, in charity work etc etc. If he doesn't know now why the deal was bad and why it needs condemning, he's either intensely stupid, too fucking arrogant to listen to any of the people who actually know what they're talking about, or actively seated in the Blair/Brown camp. Tbh, I think it's the latter (it certainly is in Richard Curtis' case), because any idiot can grasp what happened at the G8, let alone someone with 20 yrs experience in mass anti-poverty campaigning.

 

[Sorry.]

But what hippy cause was he blathering about anyways?

More, better aid
Debt relief
Fair trade.

 

[pbman]

More, better aid
Debt relief
Fair trade.

Why would you want to let dodgy dictators off on paying their debt?

They would just borrow more money and spend it on themselves anyways?

 

[Sorry.]

Why would you want to let dodgy dictators off on paying their debt?

They would just borrow more money and spend it on themselves anyways?

why would you hold emergent democracies to the debts of their dictatorial predecessors?

 

[pbman]

why would you hold emergent democracies to the debts of their dictatorial predecessors?

Why wouldn't you?

If you don't hold nations to their debts, they can't borrow money in the future.

Would you lend the money they need, if they can just form a new gov't to weasel off on paying you?

Of course not.

If you don't have fair rules, money will never flow, into the areas that need it.

And i agree that they need money.

 

[Sorry.]

Why wouldn't you?

If you don't hold nations to their debts, they can't borrow money in the future.

Would you lend the money they need, if they can just form a new gov't to weasel off on paying you?

Of course not.

If you don't have fair rules, money will never flow, into the areas that need it.

And i agree that they need money.

So let me get this straight...

In your opinion if someone leant Saddam Hussein $500m, which he subsequently spent on rifles to arm his security services and keep the people down, then the present day government should foot any outstanding bills on that loan?

 

[pbman]

So let me get this straight...

In your opinion if someone leant Saddam Hussein $500m, which he subsequently spent on rifles to arm his security services and keep the people down, then the present day government should foot any outstanding bills on that loan?

No its still a legal debt.

But the present gov't doesn't need to borrow money to spend on guns from the soviet union, and france.

They have loads of oil and cash and credit from us.

Fance can send in their army if they want to collect the debt.

It would be a good chance for us to further humiliated the weasels.

 

[Sorry.]

No its still a legal debt.

But the present gov't doesn't need to borrow money to spend on guns from the soviet union, and france.

They have loads of oil and cash and credit from us.

Fance can send in their army if they want to collect the debt.

It would be a good chance for us to further humiliated the weasels.

But you understand the concept right? That lenders should be aware that dictators are a poor investment risk.

 

[pbman]

But you understand the concept right? That lenders should be aware that dictators are a poor investment risk.

Of course.

And so are new democracys.

Anyways, why don't all you european lefties, pool your own money and start a lending bank, to lend to who you feel is worthy of your hard earned money, and worth the risk.............

Thier are hundreds of millions of you, shurly you can scrape up a few billion?

Problem solved.

Anyways, i have no problem with lending or even giving money to poor nations to help them get on their feet.

But i do have a problem with tossing good money after bad.

We should give/lend the moeny to those who can use it properly to help the people..........

That is the goal after all.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think you're overestimating the potential for being naive. He's been directly involved in anti-poverty campaigning for 20+ years now. He knows god knows how many people involved in the international development industry, in charity work etc etc. If he doesn't know now why the deal was bad and why it needs condemning, he's either intensely stupid, too fucking arrogant to listen to any of the people who actually know what they're talking about, or actively seated in the Blair/Brown camp. Tbh, I think it's the latter (it certainly is in Richard Curtis' case), because any idiot can grasp what happened at the G8, let alone someone with 20 yrs experience in mass anti-poverty campaigning.

How many of the Curtis/Geldof/Bono crowd are egomaniac cokeheads do you think? It seems to me likely that egomaniac cokeheads would be particularly susceptible to unsubtle suggestions that their wisdom and insight had been recognised by big name politicians.

They've certainly been tremendously serviceable in convincing naive people that something worthwhile was achieved by their efforts at stroking the G8.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The were in common use, when the three card monty games and such were populare................

They would let the shill win, and take the money from the dumbass watching and thinking its easy.

Why don't they understand this stuff?

 

[pbman]

Why don't they understand this stuff?

Beats me, the term is still in common usage.

It's a great term as well, it has no "modern" eqivilant.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

C'mon, his heart was in the right place. He's not an evil man, though having inflicted the Live8 concerts on us, I may revise that opinion.......

A well meaning fool can cause a lot of trouble.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Why wouldn't you?

If you don't hold nations to their debts, they can't borrow money in the future.

Would you lend the money they need, if they can just form a new gov't to weasel off on paying you?

Of course not.

If you don't have fair rules, money will never flow, into the areas that need it.

And i agree that they need money.

As I understand the numbers, the african debt was something like 250 million, of which they paid 230 million over thirty years, but still owe 260 million.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Interesting that no one has commented on the third part of Lewis' criticism, that the UN is a male dominated organization with no structures to address women's concerns.

 

[pbman]

As I understand the numbers, the african debt was something like 250 million, of which they paid 230 million over thirty years, but still owe 260 million.

So about 1 doller from each lefty in europe would pay it off then.

People should just put their money were their mouth is.........

Thats chump change, i though we were talking about seriouse money.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I put million, but it should have been billion.

 

[pbman]

I put million, but it should have been billion.

Thats more like it.

Don't we need that money flowing in, to lend out to other poor nations?

I'm not big on the IMF or the world bank myself,it was started by commies, to further the goals of the party..........

Harry Dexter White, assistant secretary of the Treasury, U.S. director of the IMF, senior adviser to the American delegation at the founding conference of the UN, who facilitated employment for Soviet sources in his department.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_15/platt_15.html

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Thats more like it.

Don't we need that money flowing in, to lend out to other poor nations?

I'm not big on the IMF or the world bank myself,it was started by commies, to further the goals of the party..........



http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_15/platt_15.html

I think the effect on the developed nations of forgiving that debt would be minimal compared to the good it would do for africa; provided there was a way to prevent the leaders there from just stealing the future income.