Going down like ninepins - who's next?

[flibulzbuth]

Um, since when is America feeding the world? You've got a massive trade deficit, - and it's been growing since the early 70s.

I'm generalizing. This also applies to Western Europe, Canada and Australia (and to a lower extent NZ, and Brasil). As for the expression "feeding the world", I agree that we cause starvation with this continuous dumping but it's a fact that most of the grain produced, stocked and eaten in the world come from us.
What i said was in no way an apology of the current food policies (or lack of them), i was just trying to explain that although we have higher yields/hectare, we have lower yields/dollar.

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: Personaly I could care less about Enron , Worldcom or any of the rest of them. They are just victims of their own stupidity. The fat and lazy make for easy pickings in the real world. If you look at companys who have their shit together like Ford, Chevy , Sony, and Wal-Mart you will see companys that have been around for YEARS. The reason why they last has nothing to do with world economy or executive bonuses , it has to do with smart business practices. Things like spending less than you earn and not putting all your eggs in one basket. All these companys going bankrupt is very similar to the dotcom fiasco. All thoes internet millionares went broke because even though they could make pretty web pages they were horrid at business. I wonder what they will do now? I wonder what the job market looks like for an over the hill overpaid ex CEO of a failed company?? Hopefully their familys are hideing all the guns and sleeping pills.Luckily for me my proffesion will always be in demand. I work as a chef and people will always need to eat. Maybe I should call up Enron and offer their CEO a job WASHING DISHES !!! MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I think it's a tad more complex than you're making out here. It's not simply a question of being 'horrid' at business. It's about a marketplace which massively inflated value in technology shares, because basically everyone was scooping off the gravy, until the bubble burst. There's a basic problem here that is about more than flawed business propositions. Why did the whole charade go on so long? This is more about how markets work, and what they are after, which is to make money. It's in no-one's interest to burst the bubble, certainly not the investors, because they'll be the ones left with junk debt and equity. In 1998, Cisco was valued by the stock market at $160 billion, more than 30 times its sales. During the 90s, it's share price rose at an annual rate of 2000 per cent. All bonkers. But some people will go for anything if they think there's a buck to be made. It's too much like russian roulette for my liking. Lack of transparancy and accountability means you have to take a lot on trust, and trust is something there's been rather too much of, it seems.

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by flibulzbuth: quote: Um, since when is America feeding the world? You've got a massive trade deficit, - and it's been growing since the early 70s.

I'm generalizing. This also applies to Western Europe, Canada and Australia (and to a lower extent NZ, and Brasil). As for the expression "feeding the world", I agree that we cause starvation with this continuous dumping but it's a fact that most of the grain produced, stocked and eaten in the world come from us.
What i said was in no way an apology of the current food policies (or lack of them), i was just trying to explain that although we have higher yields/hectare, we have lower yields/dollar.[/QUOTE]Gotcha!

[Yorick]

Now where did I put my "the end of the world is nigh" front and back poster thingey. I should start handing out leaflets of doom to get in on the act.

Nothing like an unsettled and fearful market to create a depression/recession. More fuel to the fire?



[ 06-29-2002, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[skywalker]

I'm expecting a stock market crash in America followed by the rest of the World Markets if this type of business is allowed to continue.

Of course the current government favors Big Business over the consumers. Just look at the state of worker rights, the environment and health care.

Mark

(Hi Cheetah!)

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

have the effect of creating an unequal playing field, especially for the developing countries, whose farming efforts are not generally subsidised. The price of commodities world wide comes down - the developing countries cant compete. What price free markets?

Who ever said that life was fair?? If they cant compete too bad. If they took the time to build up their own infrastructure and heavy industries like more technologicaly developed nations already have then maybe they would be able to compete better. Its backwards to try to hold a market in check because some of the players cant compete in it. Useing the world cup as an example , it would be like starting the better teams off with a handicap just because they have superior athletes and training. People and countries who can do it the best should be allowed to , the oneswho cant should find some other means to support themselves.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by skywalker: I'm expecting a stock market crash in America followed by the rest of the World Markets if this type of business is allowed to continue.

Skywalker, don't worry I never have any "Good luck", I guess I can put up my Hank Jr. "A Country Boy will survive" album

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by The Hunter of Jahanna: Who ever said that life was fair?? If they cant compete too bad. If they took the time to build up their own infrastructure and heavy industries like more technologicaly developed nations already have then maybe they would be able to compete better. Its backwards to try to hold a market in check because some of the players cant compete in it. Useing the world cup as an example , it would be like starting the better teams off with a handicap just because they have superior athletes and training. People and countries who can do it the best should be allowed to , the oneswho cant should find some other means to support themselves.

It's not so much a question of superior. More a question of ruthless. The West has traditionally been ruthless in getting what it wants, and that has included building up its wealth by taking what belonged to the resource rich but weapons and guile poor countries of say, the African continent. The West has taken Africa to bits. It began way back, and has continued ever since. Then we want them to compete with us on our terms. And are surprised when they have problems. Corrupt local administrations have vastly added to the problem. This is partly their own falibility, certainly, but the legacy left by colonialism contributed hugely, as you will know if you've studied the subject at all.

There is also the fact that America, and to some extent Europe, have and do manipulate world markets to their advantage. It's like rich kids who come from a wealthy background. They start off with certain advantages, which are then multiplied as they go through life. They are far more likely to do well than children from poorer backgrounds. When the odds are stacked against you, it's a lot harder to come up with the prize.

There is also the fact that what works in the West isn't necessarily the best thing for Africa et al. Some of the techniques, ways of working, concepts and ideologies do not transplant at all well, and can actually do damage. Not always the case, the tiger economies did very well for a time, but then, they were a very different proposition for all sorts of reasons.

I find it a bit worrying this 'if they can't compete, too bad'. The human population is a collective, you know. In the long run, I believe that making common cause is the way to a better life for all, not rampant individualism that counts no cost as far as the community is concerned. When you're surrounded by billions of starving people in countries world wide, who all want what you've got, then maybe what I'm saying might start to make a bit more sense. Policies which promote inequality are detrimental to all, in the longrun.

[Cloudbringer]

I think we'll see a scramble to find more improprieties before new rules come into play, but all in all, I suspect things will be pared down and operating again in time.

LOL@ Yorick's 'end of the world' comments..... you know, I had the same reaction when I saw this! But seriously, big business or government- there's always something to like/dislike or jump on and crow at or about.

I couldn't find my favorite rolls to make egg salad for the church picnic today ...you think armageddon is nigh?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: I think we'll see a scramble to find more improprieties before new rules come into play, but all in all, I suspect things will be pared down and operating again in time. LOL@ Yorick's 'end of the world' comments..... you know, I had the same reaction when I saw this! But seriously, big business or government- there's always something to like/dislike or jump on and crow at or about. I couldn't find my favorite rolls to make egg salad for the church picnic today ...you think armageddon is nigh?

Why Miss Cloudbringer Ma'am, Your letting your silver-lining show