this is well-known but yeah.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

this isn't as much. china's growth in Africa
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,500998,00.html

people move a LOT through the 'third world'
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/world/americas/27migration.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=68aa14aeQ2FQ24nQ7DoQ24gQ3ATE5Q3AQ3AiXQ24XQ5EQ5E 6Q24wXQ24X6Q24nQ3A5Q5DgQ24KbQ7D51TKEQ24X6b1Q255Ki1 Q3AQ3C-DibQ5D

in case NYTIMES is faggity, google "A Global Trek to Poor Nations, From Poorer Ones"

People are either too greedy, don't know about real poverty, or just don't give a fuck.

"I'm gonna share with you a vision that I had, cause I love you. And you feel it. You know all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defense each year, trillions of dollars, correct? Instead -- just play with this -- if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world -- and it would pay for it many times over, not one human being excluded -- we can explore space together, both inner and outer, forever in peace."

- Bill Hicks

<insert overpopulation monologue here>

When people die off, there will be alot more resources to go around.

OP the facts you display are true an very embarrassing for any human to look at. that being said, no one cares if a few hundred/thousand/million brown people die. it is just one of those cold facts of our reality. you want proof, look at rawanda, or sudan, or burma.

<insert overpopulation monologue here>

When people die off, there will be alot more resources to go around.

True, but I don't think this is the reason these people are dying off. A nice visual would be a shoeless child worker in a shoe factory in China.

I have a feeling they are dying off, b/c their corrupt governments or dictatorships are exploiting their own people in the interest of international corporations.

Many times our CIA has been used to ensure we have these U.S. policy of exploitation friendly leaders in power.

When they do not do what we say, we villianize them, institute trade sanctions, and attempt to reach that bottom dollar through the use of our military industrial complex.

For more info on these villians, see:

Saddam Hussein
Hugo Chavez
Fidel Castro

These are the well known "Fuck you U.S. I am not playing ball with your policy of exploitation and greed", but there exist plenty the world over, since the birth of this land of the free and home of the brave.

What the United states did to the Native Americans, we are doing to the third world.

Pull your head out of your ass. It isn't just the US and this isn't a new problem. Time to get off the 'lets hate america cuz we're too fucking stupid to pick up a history book' bandwagon.

Pull your head out of your ass. It isn't just the US and this isn't a new problem. Time to get off the 'lets hate america cuz we're too fucking stupid to pick up a history book' bandwagon.

I mostly hate America because we are too fucking stupid to pick up ANY book.

True, but I don't think this is the reason these people are dying off. A nice visual would be a shoeless child worker in a shoe factory in China.

I have a feeling they are dying off, b/c their corrupt governments or dictatorships are exploiting their own people in the interest of international corporations.


that's part of it too. If things weren't controlled in that way, there would be more focus on sustainability, etc. There's an internationl relations theory that also is related, depencia theory. Basically nations that have been exploited get physically addicted on it due to the fucking up by the colonizers INTENTIONALLY (little/no manufactering in Africa, only supply raw materials to Europe)

See the fact of "Planned obsolescence". Corporations do not have a vested interest in making things BETTER, then want them to BREAK over and over again (see most knive brands, they dull and resharpening has its limits. Cutco intentionally DOES NOT do that with their cutlery, etc.


Many times our CIA has been used to ensure we have these U.S. policy of exploitation friendly leaders in power.

When they do not do what we say, we villianize them, institute trade sanctions, and attempt to reach that bottom dollar through the use of our military industrial complex.

yeah. It's bullshit. A lot of International Relations theories and ideas are FUCKED UP. Realpolitik, Neo-Realism, all that. Though Liberalism can have its' disadvantages (e.g. get your allies to sanction someone you don't like).

Yes I know all of these ideas are useful in some places, examples and it's not a 'all or nothing' approach

For more info on these villians, see:

Saddam Hussein
Hugo Chavez
Fidel Castro


Chavez is the fucking shit. The CIA tried assassinating him how many times? And now he's forming a power bloc in South America to counter American Imperialism. Basically the 'Third World' unifying against the West.

Also interesting as Chavez wants Russia to grow, but that's logical as Russia provides a counterweight to the US.

These are the well known "Fuck you U.S. I am not playing ball with your policy of exploitation and greed", but there exist plenty the world over, since the birth of this land of the free and home of the brave.

What the United states did to the Native Americans, we are doing to the third world.

amen. Only they use economic exploitation, which is in place DUE to military imperialism

interestingly in say, Africa. China is gaining allies there. China'a influence in Africa is well. It's more two-sided than the West's past actions so China does good there. Some of their policies are more damaging. I frankly can understand Africa being friendly with China, the West fucked it up too badly
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,500998,00.html


also in related things. when you hear the opposition say "well people weren't forced to go into factories' hit 'em with THIS

Brief overview of Neoliberalism’s History: How did it develop?
Free Markets Were Not Natural. They Were Enforced

The modern system of free trade, free enterprise and market-based economies, actually emerged around 200 years ago, as one of the main engines of development for the Industrial Revolution.

In 1776, British economist Adam Smith published his book, The Wealth of Nations. Adam Smith, who some regard as the father of modern free market capitalism and this very influential book, suggested that for maximum efficiency, all forms of government interventions in economic issues should be removed and that there should be no restrictions or tariffs on manufacturing and commerce within a nation for it to develop.

For this to work, social traditions had to be transformed. Free markets were not inevitable, naturally occurring processes. They had to be forced upon people. John Gray, professor of European thought at the London School of Economics, a prominent conservative political thinker and an influence on Margaret Thatcher and the New Right in Britain in the 1980s, notes:

Mid-nineteenth century England was the subject of a far-reaching experiment in social engineering. Its objective was to free economic life from social and political control and it did so by constructing a new institution, the free market, and by breaking up the more socially rooted markets that had existed in England for centuries. The free market created a new type of economy in which prices of all goods, including labour, changed without regard to their effects on society. In the past economic life had been constrained by the need to maintain social cohesion. It was conducted in social markets — markets that were embedded in society and subject to many kinds of regulation and restraint. The goal of the experiment that was attempted in mid-Victorian England was to demolish these social markets, and replace them by deregulated markets that operated independently of social needs. The rupture in England’s economic life produced by the creation of the free market has been called the Great Transformation.

— John Gray, False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism, (The New Press, 1998), p.1

A detailed insight into this process of transformation is revealed by Michael Perelman, Professor of Economics at California State University. In his book The Invention of Capitalism (Duke University Press, 2000), he details how peasants did not willingly abandon their self-sufficient lifestyle to go work in factories.

* Instead they had to be forced with the active support of thinkers and economists of the time, including the famous originators of classical political economy, such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, James Steuart and others.
* Contradicting themselves, as if it were, they argued for government policies that deprived the peasants their way of life of self-provision, to coerce them into waged labor.
* Separating the rural peasantry from their land was successful because of “ideological vigor” from people like Adam Smith, and because of a “revision of history” that created an impression of a humanitarian heritage of political economy; an inevitability to be celebrated.
* This revision, he also noted has evidently “succeeded mightily.

glad my IR instructor gave us this link. im liking it
http://www.globalissues.org/article/39/a-primer-on-neoliberalism

OP the facts you display are true an very embarrassing for any human to look at. that being said, no one cares if a few hundred/thousand/million brown people die. it is just one of those cold facts of our reality. you want proof, look at rawanda, or sudan, or burma.

yeah.

<insert overpopulation monologue here>

When people die off, there will be alot more resources to go around.

lulz. yeah. as your sig says, who will die...

too bad people didn't put more focus into space exploration or colonization. Wasted so muh fossil fuels with little to back us up. Probably after the die-off the remaining humans can use resources from Africa and other places to go into space..

<insert overpopulation monologue here>

When people die off, there will be alot more resources to go around.

This.
If serious efforts had begun being made to keep the earths population to a few billion 100 years ago, the world would be a much better place.

While growing populations might have some short term benefit as far as economies of scale are concerned, in the long run larger and larger populations, even with more capital, will experience diminishing returns to limited natural resources.
Less labor intensive production makes it even worse too.

After all, at the time everyone thought the industrial revolution and incredible technological advancement that followed would result in vastly improved quality of life, massively increased leisure time... the works.
Now it seems people are working more then they did a few decades ago. Not even beginning to think about epidemic of mental illness in western countries.

True, but I don't think this is the reason these people are dying off. A nice visual would be a shoeless child worker in a shoe factory in China.

I have a feeling they are dying off, b/c their corrupt governments or dictatorships are exploiting their own people in the interest of international corporations.

Many times our CIA has been used to ensure we have these U.S. policy of exploitation friendly leaders in power.

When they do not do what we say, we villianize them, institute trade sanctions, and attempt to reach that bottom dollar through the use of our military industrial complex.

For more info on these villians, see:

Saddam Hussein
Hugo Chavez
Fidel Castro

These are the well known "Fuck you U.S. I am not playing ball with your policy of exploitation and greed", but there exist plenty the world over, since the birth of this land of the free and home of the brave.

What the United states did to the Native Americans, we are doing to the third world.

Well, true, we do play hardball, and it's wrong, but, we live in a capitalist society, and we can't sustain it without intervention to acquire resources.

But aren't these "Anti-Imperialists" shooting themselves in the foot. All of the countries run by these men are either are, were, or are becoming shit holes.

Some nations have taken a different approach, however. Take Colombia, for example. Many of the people there do not particularly care for the US, for a variety of reasons (We stole Panama from them), but the politicians and the voters are smart enough to know that if they suck the US's figurative balls, we'll shower them with aid in economic and social development.

Colombia was on the track to collapse in the 90's. A corrupt president in the early 90's, Samper, left the country in political disarray. At this point Colombia was not very involved in politics outside its own

Interestingly enough, in high school I became friends with the grandson of the man, whose family had moved out of the country.

Anyways, Samper was followed by a total fuck, Andrés Pastrana. For the first time in decades, Colombia began to suck foreign balls. Unfortunately, he wasn't much of a political whore, and the country experienced a very severe recession in the late 90's. Unemployment and inflation skyrocketed, and the Guerillas seemed to be on the verge of toppling the weak government.

Then, the current president, Álvaro Uribe, was elected, and he knew just how to work his tongue.

Through brilliant political maneuvering and catering to the right people, he has pulled what was once considered a failed state into one of the rising stars of Latin America. The government's work now experiences one of the fastest growing economies in the Western Hemisphere, stability, and an approval rating unmatched by few other nations in the world.

And you're telling me leaders like Chavez and Castro have a point not playing ball? They're idiots. If it seems to suit their people's needs, they need to keep their mouths shut, smile politely at the US, and attempt to build their nations with our utmost aid and support.

This.
If serious efforts had begun being made to keep the earths population to a few billion 100 years ago, the world would be a much better place.

While growing populations might have some short term benefit as far as economies of scale are concerned, in the long run larger and larger populations, even with more capital, will experience diminishing returns to limited natural resources.
Less labor intensive production makes it even worse too.

After all, at the time everyone thought the industrial revolution and incredible technological advancement that followed would result in vastly improved quality of life, massively increased leisure time... the works.
Now it seems people are working more then they did a few decades ago. Not even beginning to think about epidemic of mental illness in western countries.

In some ways quality of life has improved. Living has gotten a little easier with modern technology but things have gotten way too fast and way too competitive. Its becoming more common for people in the US to work more than 40 hours a week. Most of the people I know work at least 60 hours a week almost every week of the year. The only people I know that really don't work full time are old people and college students. Everywhere you turn you have other people gunning for you job, your property, or your money. This kind of pressure and everyone being packed into urban environments is turning people into nutcases. Crime and violence being glorified by the media, plus all the advertisements telling people what they need to buy and how they should look only adds to the problem when somebody actually loses their job, interest rates go up on their credit cards, inflation sets in, etc. If the gap between the rich and the poor wasn't so large people would be living better lives and working less. Most people don't start out with a clean slate. I sure as fuck didn't. I didn't enter this world with land and a house. I entered this world with the pressure of getting a job to buy a house and car. Once you get the house you still have to pay utilities, you still have to buy food, and you still have to pay taxes. This world is one big collection of farms. The majority of people are raised to be productive workers for the rich. They still make their food, build their cars, and run their factories. Money is just an illusion. Free market is more like free range. They figured out a serf will be vastly more productive if you tell him he is free to work where he wants and live where he wants. He will go out and pick the job he wants and work as hard as he can so he can go out and buy more shit. Kids are not taught in school to become self sufficient. They are taught to be smarter than the next kid, get a better job than the next kid, make more money than the next kid, save his money for retirement, and depend on their all powerful governments to take care of them when they are too old to fend for themselves. Its all fucked and it will remain fucked until everyone starts learning how to be self sufficient. This will probably never happen and by the time it does (if it does) then the rules will probably change.

And you're telling me leaders like Chavez and Castro have a point not playing ball? They're idiots. If it seems to suit their people's needs, they need to keep their mouths shut, smile politely at the US, and attempt to build their nations with our utmost aid and support.

The US keeps fucking their nations over so it's not a good idea to get dependent on your enslavers.

Heard of the Depencia theory?'
http://www.professor-frithjof-kuhnen.de/publications/causes-of-underdevelopment/2-3.htm

If it seems to suit their people's needs, they need to keep their mouths shut, smile politely at the US, and attempt to build their nations with our utmost aid and support.

That utmost aid and support, has more times than not, been code word for exploitation.

Must be the rich white man's fault that the niggers were too lazy to work. :rolleyes:

or it could be the fact that the rich white man forced all the blacks to work on his sugar cane fields for $1 a week. plus no education for him or his family. plus no health care. plus no other option but working for rich white man hacking at sugar cane with a machete.

yeah that sounds more like it.

or it could be the fact that the rich white man forced all the blacks to work on his sugar cane fields for $1 a week. plus no education for him or his family. plus no health care. plus no other option but working for rich white man hacking at sugar cane with a machete.

yeah that sounds more like it.

Yeah, because all white people have always had healthcare and education, even one or two hundred years ago, right?

or it could be the fact that the rich white man forced all the blacks to work on his sugar cane fields for $1 a week. plus no education for him or his family. plus no health care. plus no other option but working for rich white man hacking at sugar cane with a machete.

yeah that sounds more like it.

Because your typical black is 200 years old..?

They've had plenty of time to stop being lazy and stop being useless, they don't.

Time to stop making excuses.