09 May 14
The post that was quoted here has been removedWhether it concerns you or not, my point remains: the real problem is not corruption but theft by Western corporations - enabled by western governments.
And it is not a case of Western wealth being 'transferred' to African nations. It is not a gift. It is about African nations being paid a fair price for their resources and about Western companies paying the correct taxes to African governments. These are taxes which are a proportion of profits made on African resources.
Should a hungry peasant care much if a powerful government official is
receiving more or less as a bribe (or kickback) from a Western corporation?
That is irrelevant. I never said anything about larger kickbacks. I was talking about tax evasion and other tactics (war, political pressure etc) used by Western companies to steal Africa's resources.
The resolution is not larger bribes (I find it interesting that you even suggest that as a solution), but paying correct taxes. My country Zambia could double or triple its GDP if the correct taxes were paid by our copper mines. Instead, Switzerland and other Western nations are benefiting.
09 May 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/illegal-logging-and-fishing-prolongs-poverty-in-africa-kofi-annan
Whether it concerns you or not, my point remains: the real problem is not corruption but theft by Western corporations - enabled by western governments.
And it is not a case of Western wealth being 'transferred' to African nations. It is not a gift. It is about African nations being paid a fair price for their resources and about Western companies paying ...[text shortened]... an governments. These are taxes which are a proportion of profits made on African resources.....
The report from a panel of experts including Tidjane Thiam, the chief executive of the Prudential, Michel Camdessus, ex-managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and Sir Bob Geldof, says that despite strong growth since the turn of the millennium, progress in poverty reduction has been slow and that by 2030 Africa will account for 80% of the world's poor.
Annan says that Africa imports $34bn of food but could feed itself within five years if agricultural productivity improved. Almost $50bn a year needs to be found for roads, railways and other public investment projects.
"Investing in infrastructure will certainly be expensive", Annan says. "But at least some of the costs of filling Africa's massive infrastructure financing gap could be covered if the runaway plunder of Africa's natural resources is brought to a stop. Across the continent, this plunder is prolonging poverty amidst plenty. It has to stop, now.
"Last year's Africa Progress Report showed how illicit financial flows, often connected to tax evasion in the extractives industry, cost our continent more than it receives in either international aid or foreign investment. This year's report shows how Africa is also losing billions to illegal and shadowy practices in fishing and forestry."
Annan says that problems are being stored up for the future "While personal fortunes are consolidated by a corrupt few, the vast majority of Africa's present and future generations are being deprived of the benefits of common resources that might otherwise deliver incomes, livelihoods and better nutrition. If these problems are not addressed, we are sowing the seeds of a bitter harvest."
09 May 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLet's use a real world example. The 50" flat screen TV. The first ones sold in the range of $20k per set, were plasma screens, and use interlace technology. That represented a high profit margin, but not that much profit, because only very rich videophiles could afford one.
If you understand the difference between sales and profits, then what did you mean by: "[...] After development costs are amortized, prices generally drop to include as many consumers as possible in the lower echelons of wealth."
This is not, in general, true for a producer aiming to maximize profits. An example. Let's say I have a widget factory. It ...[text shortened]... g so?
By the way, I'm not "ideologically opposed to market forces." What does that even mean?
It didn't take long before prices fell on these devices, to $5k, to $1.5k when I bought mine, to around $600 today for a better quality 50" than were sold originally, the new one being LCD displays using less energy and with progressive scan technology. Are you saying that television makers gave up all that profit by reducing the price? Hell no. Instead the made the devices available to a great many more consumers, and improved them at the same time.
The same thing has happened with computers, tablets, and phones, and almost anything else that is left to a pretty much free market.
As for your being ideologically opposed to free markets, that is revealed over time in post after post denying the positive effects of free markets, and the contention that only government regulation and control makes markets and capitalism fair.
09 May 14
Originally posted by normbenignBut everyone is opposed to free markets!
Let's use a real world example. The 50" flat screen TV. The first ones sold in the range of $20k per set, were plasma screens, and use interlace technology. That represented a high profit margin, but not that much profit, because only very rich videophiles could afford one.
It didn't take long before prices fell on these devices, to $5k, to $1.5k w ...[text shortened]... nd the contention that only government regulation and control makes markets and capitalism fair.
Some people think markets should be regulated in the public interest.
Other people think they should be allowed to abuse their position in the market to secure unfair advantages.
Nobody outside an economics textbook thinks free markets can function in reality. Nobody even inside an economics textbook thinks they actually exist.
What people are open to discussing is competitive markets. That concept has a lot of useful applications but it is more a business and management thing, not so much an economics thing.
09 May 14
1 edit
Originally posted by finnegan"But everyone is opposed to free markets!"
But everyone is opposed to free markets!
Some people think markets should be regulated in the public interest.
Other people think they should be allowed to abuse their position in the market to secure unfair advantages.
Nobody outside an economics textbook thinks free markets can function in reality. Nobody even inside an economics textbook thin ...[text shortened]... ful applications but it is more a business and management thing, not so much an economics thing.
Aux contraire!
"Some people think markets should be regulated in the public interest.
Other people think they should be allowed to abuse their position in the market to secure unfair advantages."
And then others believe neither of the above, but that free markets are the better alternative to either of the above.
"Nobody outside an economics textbook thinks free markets can function in reality. Nobody even inside an economics textbook thinks they actually exist. "
When you say nobody......that automatically makes the rest of the statement false. No leftist believes in free markets, but relatively free markets continue to be better than more greatly regulated ones.
By the way, I noticed that you entirely ignored the example I gave of market forces regulating prices.
09 May 14
Originally posted by normbenignI have opened a new thread for my reply - "Economics is like a lobotomy". Boy oh boy is that so true!
"But everyone is opposed to free markets!"
Aux contraire!
"Some people think markets should be regulated in the public interest.
Other people think they should be allowed to abuse their position in the market to secure unfair advantages."
And then others believe neither of the above, but that free markets are the better alternative to either ...[text shortened]... way, I noticed that you entirely ignored the example I gave of market forces regulating prices.