Dear Edward, Hello and welcome.

I warmed to your article and found much to stimulate debate on this topic. But I was devastated quite frankly when you finished with this challenge;

<< Will you advance the cause of poverty alleviation through support for trade liberalization or are you a priority change denier? >>

Your “assumption close” asks us to accept your hypothesis that trade liberalization will advance the cause of poverty alleviation, and if we don’t we are tagged as ”priority change deniers”. This effectively closes debate to contributors with contrary opinion. Unless of course we accept that contrary opinion makes us “deniers”?

Many on OLO have had an absolute gutful of this “accept our proposition or you are deniers, flat Earthers, pedophile’s or mentally ill”. Perhaps one of the greatest “turn off’s” of debate in the third millennia, certainly on OLO.

For future reference, you will find many intelligent, well educated, articulate, balanced, non-aligned, open, honest, internationally aware and well researched individuals here on OLO. You should enjoy the discourse.

For my “two bob’s worth”, I agree that aid does nothing to advance the cause of improving global poverty, equality or social justice. It just pumps up the Swiss bank accounts of a range of miscellaneous totalitarian regimes and their rulers. Like Centrelink in Australia, it just maintains the status quo.

The major international bodies are vast and as such exercise vast power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. They are not the means or the methodology to solve such problems, they are part of the problem and not the solution.

A further contraceptive device on progress is the international activist movement. Their cringing adoption of the “compassion industry” has singularly impeded progress because not only don’t they understand the problems, they have a huge range of ideological, oversimplified and ineffective “solutions” that do no match the problems.

This brings us to your solution. Trade Liberalization? What on earth does this mean? The absence of protectionism solves nothing if Mr. 10% is getting all the financial action.

Cont’

Cont’d

It is absolutely futile and counter productive to generate trade and revenue flows with third world nations if the money is going into their dictators’ bank accounts.

Failed nations must be treated as such. Before a single cent of “other peoples money” by way of trade, investment, technology, aid, education or infrastructure is sent to them, we the donors/investors need to be sure that the increased national wealth is going directly to improving the lot of the nation and not their leaders.

The UN, World Bank, EU and all their associated tentacles (and testicles) must be blocked from their humanitarian based pocket lining and self interested power plays. Get them out of the trough.

Next, tell the recipient failed states that they cannot have any more public money, the wealthier populations are over ineffective donations. Investment will come only from industry, no politics.

NGO’s are however are welcome to send their donations from their public “collection tin rattling in shopping centers” activity however, they won’t because they get no political bang for buck, this will be all care and no responsibility and not managed by the administrators because it is not public money from taxpayers or industrial investment.

Before industry will invest they need to know that their investment is secure, profitable, enduring and protected from any sovereign risks, political stability and corruption.

To achieve this your nation is being placed under administration, all key non political appointments will be nominated by the investors and their receivers, your political system will be subject to whatever sovereign/democratic systems exist but will be answerable to the administrators.

There will be no debt for equity trading as with the non democratic world bodies like the UN, EU, World Bank or their agencies. Your nation will benefit from the global industrial industry as dictated by your external administrators who will be made up from ten of the worlds top receivership exponents on a democratic majority basis.

Sign here or face the prospect of your competitor nations growing faster than you and being left with having to align yourselves with the BRICS nations

Good post, Spindoc.

Sorry Edward, I'm afraid your piece just doesn't make it, even as a high school project.

Sure an A for emotive content, but bland unsupported statements like "much ‘hidden’ protectionism through regulations which have been found on many occasions to be scientifically invalid, such as for restrictions on Canadian salmon and New Zealand apples." just doesn't cut the mustard.

If you want to be taken seriously you will have to give some evidence to support your claim, & advise who made the findings.

There have been some very contentious reports produced by government funded organisations, to support policy, desired by government, but very much to the determent of the Oz environment & Oz producers.

More meat & less emotive fluff please.

Edward,

I think I'm a priority-change sceptic. Surely you're not a priority-change-scepticism denier ?

Joe

My memory of these things is a bid vague, but wasn't it Jesus who remarked that "The poor will be with us always".

'Twas ever thus.

David