Unemployment and Bush.

porcu · Post by **porcu** » Fri Aug 08, 2003 7:19 pm

unemployment will do nothing but increase until something is done about it and the society that causes it

Sol Invictus · Post by **Sol Invictus** » Fri Aug 08, 2003 7:38 pm

Education is where it's at. Until a proper education system is implemented, more and more people are going to find themselves without skills, and therefore without jobs.

Evil Natured Robot · Post by **Evil Natured Robot** » Fri Aug 08, 2003 9:01 pm

Last post on this subject for me.

Kashluk wrote:Ever wondered why people in Africa or Asia are starving? Yup, the soil isn't that full of nutrients. Before efficient food production can be established, the infrastructure must be built.

Wrong, first of all. Second of all, farming IS infrastructure. Subsistence farming always sucks, and the reason subsistence farmers are just getting by (if they're getting by) is that they can't afford land, hardware, fertilizer, etc. they need to expand. Subsidies hurt the few larger-scale farmers in the developing world who could sell on the international market if Western nations didn't have the ability to flood the market.

And how about if everyone in the world does get the same standard of living as the West? I couldn't imagine that, this planet couldn't possibly take such a preasure.

Entirely different but still interesting question... save it for another time.

Anyhow, here we go: agriculture, despite what you might believe, is one of the best and only possible forms of major income for a lot of developing nations, and it's cheaper to grow food there. Seriously, the soil in India, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. is quite fertile. They can grow stuff. Selling is the problem because artificial controls (subsidies) let Western agriculture grow more food, even though it's at a higher cost, and push the third world out of the market.

Now when it's pretty much a rotten desert

I can't begin to explain how wrong that is (except for the Sahara, which wasn't caused by colonialism but nature). Near cities the land might be barren (look at our own, ffs) but look at pictures of the African countryside. Or ask someone who's been there... coughcoughcough.

You can't first raise up these countries and THEN try and make them able to earn income through agriculture. Throwing money in a hole doesn't work. The key is to assist their development by getting rid of the obstacles we can, and a huge one is Western farm subsidies.

Maybe you should read about this before forming an opinion, Kashluk.

Killa-Killa · Post by **Killa-Killa** » Fri Aug 08, 2003 11:10 pm

As the official devil's advocate, I must relay this:
Screw africa. Wall em in, shoot anybody that leaves. Same with the Mid East. Screw 'em all!

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Fri Aug 08, 2003 11:22 pm

1) Being the devils advocate all the time isn't being the devils avacado, it's just being retarded.

2) Some people have been saying that in this thread.

3) stfu plz

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 4:24 pm

Evil Natured Robot wrote:Wrong, first of all. Second of all, farming IS infrastructure. Subsistence farming always sucks, and the reason subsistence farmers are just getting by (if they're getting by) is that they can't afford land, hardware, fertilizer, etc. they need to expand. Subsidies hurt the few larger-scale farmers in the developing world who could sell on the international market if Western nations didn't have the ability to flood the market.

It sounds all fancy and stuff, but you still haven't given any explination that if it was soooo ideal to farm in Africa, then why are they starving? As far as I know, farming = making food and if you have food = you're not hungry, right? Don't push more of that international market stuff, international market has nothing to do with domestic markets in this case.

Anyhow, here we go: agriculture, despite what you might believe, is one of the best and only possible forms of major income for a lot of developing nations, and it's cheaper to grow food there. Seriously, the soil in India, Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. is quite fertile. They can grow stuff. Selling is the problem because artificial controls (subsidies) let Western agriculture grow more food, even though it's at a higher cost, and push the third world out of the market.

Most of that is true, but I still think that we need subsidies UNTIL the third world is ready to produce food. Do you think that they could take care of our hunger when they can't handle their own? Preparations must be done before it's possible to drop down subsidies. AND - ever thought about self-sufficiency? If the whole Western civilization was depending on Africa and suddenly there's a major natural disaster, which - I don't know, maybe causes dryness, and entire crops were lost. Are you suggesting that we should then just simply starve?

Africa, India and many other places like that are both politically and religiously unstable, which means that not only loosing the crops is possible... Some government may decide that all white-faces deserve to die and refuses from selling their products. Again, it becomes a total chaos here in the West.

Self-sufficiency's the word. And it's much more ecological to produce things, that are (quite) cheap and needed every day, as close as possible.

Now when it's pretty much a rotten desert
I can't begin to explain how wrong that is (except for the Sahara, which wasn't caused by colonialism but nature). Near cities the land might be barren (look at our own, ffs) but look at pictures of the African countryside. Or ask someone who's been there... coughcoughcough.

Let's see... nearly 1/3 of Africa is covered by desert (Sahara) and it's growing every year. The reason why it's growing, is woodcutting. There are pretty much no other ways of heating and as the population keeps growing, so keeps the demand for firewood. Cut off the woods and the desert keeps expanding.

I know a few people who come from Africa actually, one of them being this lad Eric who was studying in a finnish university. And his opinion was pretty close to mine, except that he nearly demanded the West to support Africa's modernization, with all costs. Pretty understandable, he came from a poor family.

You can't first raise up these countries and THEN try and make them able to earn income through agriculture. Throwing money in a hole doesn't work. The key is to assist their development by getting rid of the obstacles we can, and a huge one is Western farm subsidies.

You said that, not me. In my opinion, if we wanted to get *anything* out of the third world countries, we'd need to give them a good start. It's not like you just go to the stockmarket and say "yee, I want to start up a new business: give me 200 employees and a big office building with all the needed equipment, I'm going to make history like MS". The first person who walks by would propably tell you this: "First of all - if you want to start a business, go get the appropriate licenses from the city hall. Second - you need a good load of money to order construction of office buildings and hiring professionals." Third - this place has nothing to do with starting your own firm, not before you're listed, so get out of here.

You can't bring up any kind of efficient farming without the proper equipment and know-how! Believe me, without fertilizers and tractors, you aren't going to feed nearly 6 billion people.

Maybe you should read about this before forming an opinion, Kashluk.

I ask you again - have you ever studied agriculture? Have you ever farmed for a living? Have you even *lived* close to countryside? Do you know how it *really* happens? Do you have any idea about such simple principles as crop rotation, for example?

I don't want to get aggressive about this, otherwise this topic will go straight away to the Wasteland, but calling me ignorant ( -> "maybe you should read about the subject, before..." ) on one of the few subjects that I actually know about doesn't seem relevant at all.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 4:43 pm

Kashluk, working on a farm doesn't make you an expert on market interactions between subsidied domestic farms and foreign farms. It does, however, apparently make you arrogant.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 4:49 pm

Knowing what it takes to feed people helps a lot in my opinion. If you think that has nothing to do with the subject, then have it your way. I can't point out your wrongness in every turn.

And which one would you trust more if you were buying a car? A truck driver or a pencil neck who just got transferred to marketing from book-keeping.

Honestly Doyle, you don't always need to be such an ass. Notice that everytime you're replying, you're picking on somebody?

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 5:06 pm

Kashluk wrote:Knowing what it takes to feed people helps a lot in my opinion. If you think that has nothing to do with the subject, then have it your way. I can't point out your wrongness in every turn.

Oh boy. You're what, 15? Yeah, you're a real expert on what it takes to feed people.

And which one would you trust more if you were buying a car? A truck driver or a pencil neck who just got transferred to marketing from book-keeping.

If I were asking about the condition of the auto market, I would ask the marketer/accountant. If I were asking about the condition of a car or the work necessary to go into one, I would ask the truck driver. See the difference?

Notice that everytime you're replying, you're picking on somebody?

Mostly just you.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 5:11 pm

Doyle wrote:
Kashluk wrote:Knowing what it takes to feed people helps a lot in my opinion. If you think that has nothing to do with the subject, then have it your way. I can't point out your wrongness in every turn.
Oh boy. You're what, 15? Yeah, you're a real expert on what it takes to feed people.

Well, wee, I might know more about it than some mathematics professor. Then again he might know alot more than me about calculating - it's that simple, really, Doyle. If you don't have anything resourceful to say and just want to hurl insults at me, please use the PM button below.

And which one would you trust more if you were buying a car? A truck driver or a pencil neck who just got transferred to marketing from book-keeping.
If I were asking about the condition of the auto market, I would ask the marketer/accountant. If I were asking about the condition of a car or the work necessary to go into one, I would ask the truck driver. See the difference?

But the situation was you buying a car. See the difference?

Notice that everytime you're replying, you're picking on somebody?
Mostly just you.

Again, if you enjoy it that much, the PM button exists.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 5:28 pm

But the situation was you buying a car. See the difference?

Yes, but the situation you were dicussing with ENR is the market. Get the difference?

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 5:37 pm

No, it was about the situation how farming could possibly be done efficiently in 3rd world countries in the first place. You can't have markets about *nothing*, you need things to exist first.

And now, if you don't have anything more to add to the subject (like ENR, he wrote that it would be his last post in this thread) take this to the PM if you have the need.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 5:38 pm

Right, Kashluk, when your argument doesn't make sense change the parameters of the debate so it fits.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 5:47 pm

ENR used the markets as "something to lean on", because he was all for dropping of subsidies. I disagreed because it didn't make any sense "on the ground"-level, in here, in US or in Africa.

I'm not changing "parameters of the debate", you're just unhappy because you can't get to mock me this time.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 5:49 pm

Actually, if you go back and read the first farm post he was talking about the affect subsidies have the market. So, he brought the whole topic up, but he's leaning on it before you even get involved? How does that work?

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 6:00 pm

You "lean on something", when you (brutally) use something as an excuse. He wanted to cut government expenses by dropping out the "useless" subsidies, which wasn't right in my opinion. It's that simple really, stop that.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 6:26 pm

Uh huh. This dialog has been pretty fun but I don't think it's going anywhere.