Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / April 2004
Testkit Manufacturers SUED by HIV+ Kansas Woman
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Alex - 16 Apr 2004 16:41 GMT Test positive, don't get AIDS. Seems to be the story for more and more women.
Alex
----------------------------------
Dennis D. Webb, S.C.I.N. 09881 142 North Mosley, 2nd floor Wichita, KS 67202 (316) 264-3500
IN THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT OF SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS Civil Department
Kim Marie BANNON, ) Plaintiff ) vs. ) Case No. ) CALYPTE BIOMEDICAL ) CORPORATION; and ROCHE ) DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION, ) Defendants ) )
PETITION
(Pursuant to K.S.A. Chapter 60)
COMES NOW the plaintiff, Kim Bannon, by her counsel Dennis D. Webb, and for her cause of action, states:
1. Defendant Calypte Biomedical Corporation-Delaware (hereinafter "CBC") is a corporation duly registered to do business in the state of California, and may be served by its resident agent John J. Dipietro, 1440 Fourth Street, Berkley, CA 94710.
2. Defendant Roche Diagnostics Corporation (hereinafter "Roche") is a corporation registered to do business in Kansas and may be served with process at its resident agent, National Registered Agents of Kansas, Inc., 2101 SW 21st Street, Topeka, KS 66604.
3. Plaintiff Kim Bannon (hereinafter "Bannon") is a resident of Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas and all relevant acts occurred within said jurisdiction.
4. In April of 1992, during the course of routine medical diagnostic testing, Bannon was diagnosed by Dr. Donna Sweet of the Kansas University School of Medicine, Wichita, Kansas, as carrying the "Human Immunodeficiency Virus" referred to as HIV, and widely purported to be the cause of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome or AIDS.
5. The testing procedure used to make such a diagnosis included the "Recombigen EIA Screen-HIV-1 EIA" and the "Cambridge Biotech HIV-1 Western Blot Kit," both manufactured by defendant CBC, which included a protocol for administration of the test and criteria for assessing the results of said kits.
6. Dr. Sweet described the results of the CBC testing as "indisputable" and "classic," and told Bannon she would develop the full spectrum of AIDS within five to seven years and die soon thereafter.
7. In subsequent testing from 1996 to 2003 undertaken at the direction of Dr. Sweet, Bannon was administered an AMPLICOR HIV-1 Monitor Test Kit manufactured by defendant Roche, which included a protocol and criteria for assessing the results of said kits; all of said tests purportedly confirming the diagnosis of HIV infection.
8. Likewise, the Roche testing was described by Sweet as confirmation of the HIV diagnosis, and her prognosis of the full spectrum of AIDS and death within five to seven years.
9. In the context of the medical services and testing described, Plaintiff was a consumer within the meaning of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. 50-623 et seq. (hereinafter KCPA).
10. In the context of the medical services and testing described, Defendants CBC and Roche were suppliers of consumer goods or services within the meaning of the KCPA.
11. Plaintiff discovered on April 18, 2002 that the science, methodology, and assumptions relied upon by defendants CBC and Roche as the basis for their respective testing and basis for plaintiff's diagnosis was faulty, without sound medical and/or scientific confirmation, and an otherwise flawed procedure.
12. Now more than twelve years after the "diagnosis" provided by defendants testing procedures, plaintiff is healthy, asymptomatic, and wholly free of any sequela of HIV or AIDS.
13. CBC and Roche engaged in deceptive acts and practices within the meaning of KCPA, K.S.A. 50-626 as follows: a. [50-626(b)(1)(A)] making representations knowingly or with reason to know that the goods and/or services included approvals, characteristics, uses and benefits which they did not have; b. [50-626(b)(1)(B)] making representations knowingly or with reason to know that the supplier had certain approval or status which it did not have; c. [50-626(b)(1)(D)] making representations knowingly or with reason to know that the goods and/or services were of a standard which was materially different from the representation; d. [50-626(b)(1)(G)] making representations knowingly or with reason to know that the goods and/or services had uses, benefits or characteristics which had been substantiated when, in fact, they had no such benefits; e. [50-626(b)(2)] the willful use in oral or written representations of exaggeration, falsehoods, innuendo, or ambiguity as to a material fact; and f. [50-626(b)(3)] the willful failure to state a material fact or the willful concealment, suppression or omission of a material fact.
14. Defendants CBC and Roche engaged in unconscionable acts and practices within the meaning of the K.S.A. 50-627 as follows: a. [50-627(b)(1)] taking advantage of the consumer's inability to protect her interests resulting from an inability to understand the language of the relevant "agreement." b. [50-627(b)(6)] making misleading statements of opinion on which plaintiff relied to her detriment; and c. [50-627(b)(7)] excluded or attempted to exclude the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, to wit: that the product or service was an accurate measure for the diagnosis of HIV/AIDS.
15. As a consequence of the unlawful denials by CBC and Roche of the warranty claims, plaintiff has incurred losses, including but not limited to: loss of income.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:
a. civil penalties of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) for each violation of the KCPA against each of the defendants;
b. injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from further representations asserting the suitability of the subject test products/services; and
c. pecuniary damages suffered as a consequence of the misdiagnosis including loss of wage/earnings;
d. non-pecuniary damages including mental anguish, pain and suffering, shame and humiliation resulting from the defendants' unlawful acts;
d. attorney fees pursuant to the Kansas Consumer Protection Act; together with their costs, and such other and further relief as the Court shall deem just and equitable.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dennis D. Webb, #09881 VERIFICATION STATE OF KANSAS ) )ss: COUNTY OF SEDGWICK )
Moira de Swardt - 17 Apr 2004 10:09 GMT "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOF@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> Test positive, don't get AIDS. Seems to be the story > for more and more women. HIV is a virus. AIDS is a disease of poverty - directly caused by the HI Virus. The truth is that, with the drugs you so dispise, together with a sensible lifestyle and a little bit of luck, no-one should ever have to get AIDS any more.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Jordan - 18 Apr 2004 06:20 GMT > AIDS is a disease of poverty - ... Unfortunately it is nonsense like this that feeds the denialst cause. I wish otherwise seemly intelligent people would stop making such ridiculous statements.
Moira de Swardt - 18 Apr 2004 08:13 GMT "Jordan" <JJ@jordan.com> wrote in message
> > AIDS is a disease of poverty - ...
> Unfortunately it is nonsense like this that feeds the denialst cause. I > wish otherwise seemly intelligent people would stop making such > ridiculous statements. Sweetie, you cut the rest of my statement. I am most certainly NOT in sympathy with the denialists. The truth is that HIV is a chronic, treatable and manageable condition. In an ideal world there will be no need for anyone to get AIDS.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Gary Stein - 18 Apr 2004 18:26 GMT > "Jordan" <JJ@jordan.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and manageable condition. In an ideal world there will be no need for > anyone to get AIDS. Sorry Moira but I will have to disagree with you there, even in the West/US were access to treatment is widespread (though sadly not universal) there continues to be AIDS deaths both in the untreated and the treated populations. HIV is not yet a truly chronic, treatable and manageable condition.
While life spans have been enormously increased through treatment they are not full lifespans. Some studies say 20 years others say longer but that is far from being a chronic non-fatal illness. Sadly HIV is still a fatal disease in the majority of cases it is just taking much longer for those fatalities to occur.
Gary Stein
Jordan - 18 Apr 2004 19:07 GMT > "Jordan" <JJ@jordan.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Moira, the Faerie Godmother What's with the poverty angle? Are you really trying to sell the idea that if poverty suddenly vanishes so will AIDS or at least HIV infections?
PaulKing - 18 Apr 2004 22:29 GMT AIDS= A NEW NAME FOR POVERTY AND ASSOCIATED DISEASES
Every epidemic disease is now renamed 'AIDS' under the Bangui Definition.
Mortalities (non natural) in S.A. remain at the same 2.2% P.A. that they were BEFORE AIDS. Either every other disease in the region vanished overnight or 'AIDS' is simply the old diseases with a new name. You decide.
-------------
In Africa, the continent supposedly being decimated by HIV, HIV tests are rarely ever done, so there the idea that all patients with AIDS are infected with HIV is based entirely on supposition.
At a WHO conference in the Central African Republic in 1985, U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) introduced the "Bangui Definition" of AIDS in Africa.
The CDC officials later explained, "The definition was reached by consensus, based mostly on the delegates' experience in treating AIDS patients. It has proven a useful tool in determining the extent of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, especially in areas where no testing is available.
It's major components were prolonged fevers (for a month or more), weight loss of 10% or greater, and prolonged diarrhea..."(McCormick, 1996). Where AIDS is diagnosed clinically, large numbers of AIDS patients test negative for HIV. As no HIV testing is required in Africa we have no idea how many AIDS cases there are HIV positive (De ####, 1991; Gilks, 1991; Widy-Wirski, 1988).
_______
Other conditions common in underprivileged and impoverished communities that are known to cause false positive results are tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis and leprosy (Burke, 1993; Challakeree, 1993; Johnson, 1998; Kashala, 1994; MacKenzie,1992; Meyer, 1987). In fact, these are the primary health threats in Africa; several million cases of tuberculosis and malaria are reported in Africa each year - more than all the AIDS cases reported in Africa since 1982 (WHO, 1998)*.
Moira de Swardt - 19 Apr 2004 02:38 GMT "Jordan" <JJ@jordan.com> wrote in message
> > Sweetie, you cut the rest of my statement. I am most certainly NOT in > > sympathy with the denialists. The truth is that HIV is a chronic, treatable > > and manageable condition. In an ideal world there will be no need for > > anyone to get AIDS.
> What's with the poverty angle? Are you really trying to sell the idea > that if poverty suddenly vanishes so will AIDS or at least HIV infections? No. I stated that HIV is a manageable condition. It costs money to manage it. The majority of HIV infections are brought about by the socio-economic conditions in which people live. Changing those, and certainly creating greater power over their own destinies for the most hard hit of all, namely women, would certainly reduce the number of new infections.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Jordan - 19 Apr 2004 04:27 GMT > The majority of HIV infections are brought about by the socio-economic > conditions in which people live. You mean like shanty towns, poor sanitation and cholera go together?
I still do not understand where you are coming from on this. Are you trying to say that because of their poverty these people have less education and fewer choices over under which circumstances they indulge in sexual activity?
Moira de Swardt - 19 Apr 2004 06:19 GMT "Jordan" <JJ@jordan.com> wrote in message
> > The majority of HIV infections are brought about by the socio-economic > > conditions in which people live.
> You mean like shanty towns, poor sanitation and cholera go together? Yes and no. I was chatting to my doctor last night about the various vaccinations I will be needing to have this week. As you know I work in the field of HIV and AIDS. I travel all over Africa, and am planning to visit countries where a yellow fever vaccination is required. I am also planning to take part in HIV vaccine trials. So it was with this link in mind that I actually asked about the cholera vaccine. His response was that I should never drink tap water in countries where it might be suspect unless I boil it first. Therein lies the link between the two concepts. Rich and poor people can both get the same diseases if they do the same things. However, the temptation for me to use water that is not boiled is not high as I am not the one who has to fetch it, carry it, boil it, cool it and serve it. I just buy a bottle of water when I'm in Kenya or Uganda or Mocambique.
> I still do not understand where you are coming from on this. Are you > trying to say that because of their poverty these people have less > education and fewer choices over under which circumstances they indulge > in sexual activity? There are multiple factors involved in the transmission of HIV.
The problems include migrant labour where the husband is away, often without providing for his wife who then has to barter sex for necessities, he in the meantime is having sex with all and sundry in the city because he is "lonely" (I'm a tad cynical about this one, although I pretend to be terribly understanding when I talk to men). He then becomes HIV positive. He returns to his (in this case) faithful HIV negative wife who doesn't want to have unprotected sex with him because she knows he's had fifteen girlfriends in the city. He then beats her. She goes to the church where the male pastor looks shocked and insists that she may only deny her husband for prayer and then only for a time. Etc. etc. etc.
Then one looks at lobola - the wife has been paid for. If she doesn't play ball the husband is entitled to send her home. As her parents have already spent the lobola they don't want her back. Then there are the cultural practices that promote HIV transmission, only some of which are relevant to South Africa, but which include male adult circumcision schools, female circumcision, wife inheritance, polygamy, dry sex and probably several others that I can't think of right now.
Then one has the education messages which give the idea that *nice* people abstain from sex, less *nice* people are faithful and the least *nice* people use condoms. The implication is that really horrible people have HIV. As none of us have ever voluntarily (????) had sex with horrible people all our sexual partners are obviously HIV negative, as we are ourselves. I loathe the message that goes with ABC.
There are many more problems. Where there is poverty there is often a tendency to blot out misery with substance abuse, usually alcohol in South Africa, and that is a risk factor because of lowered responsibility. Where there is poverty there is a lowered education level.
Importantly, where there is poverty, the access to ARVs is severely limited, so the people who are having unprotected sex are having it at whatever viral load they happen to have. Where people are on ARVs the viral load is usually undetectable, which severely limits the possibility of infecting others.
Whole theses have been written on this, but I hope I have drawn an adequate reply to your query.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
GMCarter - 19 Apr 2004 12:00 GMT snip...
>> What's with the poverty angle? Are you really trying to sell the idea >> that if poverty suddenly vanishes so will AIDS or at least HIV infections? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >greater power over their own destinies for the most hard hit of all, namely >women, would certainly reduce the number of new infections. I agree. Poverty IS a major factor both in the spread and the rate of progression. Poverty also means lack of nutrition which accelerates disease progression, for example, and increases susceptibility to opportunistic infections.
Many women and men (and children) wind up in the sex trade due to severe economic conditions. This increases spread. Many others wind up using drugs or selling them.
Does this mean HIV does not affect the more affluent? Of course not. And eliminating poverty doesn't end the HIV/AIDS pandemic. But reducing povery addresses a fundamental strut in its spread and the concomitant suffering it creates.
George M. Carter
Mark Richardson - 19 Apr 2004 16:12 GMT > snip... > >> What's with the poverty angle? Are you really trying to sell the idea [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > reducing povery addresses a fundamental strut in its spread and the > concomitant suffering it creates. There can be no doubt as to the impact of poverty on the acceleration of AIDS in the community. However, there is no magic wand that can be waved to alleviate poverty where poverty is endemic. Socialist programmes which are based on taking from the rich and giving to the poor are illusory at best and the end result is greater poverty. There is no quick answer because it is going to take generations of gradual improvement in the overall standard of living and this can only be achieved by allowing market forces to work.
In the specific case of South Africa, the greatest drawbacks to increased economic growth, through both local and overseas investment, are the labour and AA legislation promulgated since the ANC came to power. Until these shackles are removed investment will be limited and generally will generally favour improved technology rather than human resources. But, even if Mbeki had a flash of compassion and de-proclaimed all this inhibiting legislation, the cure will still take 20 - 25 years before the first real effects are felt. Given the number of unemployed and "on the bread line" people, the numbers of poor are going to increase year on year.
Mark Richardson
GMCarter - 20 Apr 2004 09:31 GMT snip...
>There can be no doubt as to the impact of poverty on the acceleration of >AIDS in the community. However, there is no magic wand that can be waved to >alleviate poverty where poverty is endemic. Socialist programmes which are >based on taking from the rich and giving to the poor are illusory at best >and the end result is greater poverty. Not necessarily. And the perverted distortion of "capitalism" run amok is that wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, creating a greater divide between rich and poor--and hence more dire poverty.
I think such a knee-jerk simplification is unhelpful.
> There is no quick answer because it >is going to take generations of gradual improvement in the overall standard >of living and this can only be achieved by allowing market forces to work. LOL...I seriously doubt that. If it were as simple as this "magic wand" phrase of "Market forces" the world would be in a peachy state. It ain't. Market forces are influenced by the concentrated wealth of a few in industry and corporate leadership (overpaid). This has deleterious impacts on governmental policies leading to further corruption, environmental degradation, increased poverty, reduced access to health care, etc.
Just look at what happens in poor regions (e.g., Bolivia) when water access is privatized. It makes things MUCH worse.
This isn't to say market forces don't have their uses. I am not against capitalism per se. I think it has many merits, intrinsically.
The bigger problem is the outrageous selfishness and greed that afflicts humans, rendering most any system prone to corruption and deterioration.
>In the specific case of South Africa, the greatest drawbacks to increased >economic growth, through both local and overseas investment, are the labour [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >felt. Given the number of unemployed and "on the bread line" people, the >numbers of poor are going to increase year on year. I don't understand the labour and "AA legislation" well enough to comment on this analysis. But I agree that there are numerous issues that must be addressed concurrently. And no, poverty in toto will never be absolutely eliminated. But perhaps we can assure access to adequate food and healthcare and education for people? This helps to improve lives, create greater happiness in the world, and has the concomitant benefit of reducing birthrates--essential if our species is to survive. Meantime, we are overburdening the planet's capacity to provide adequate water, fuel and food, while despoiling its ability to do so and to regenerate.
George M. Carter
Mark Richardson - 20 Apr 2004 16:28 GMT > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:12:23 +0200, "Mark Richardson" > >In the specific case of South Africa, the greatest drawbacks to increased [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > provide adequate water, fuel and food, while despoiling its ability to > do so and to regenerate. Just how do you propose to ensure access to adequate food and healthcare and education unless you have the resources?
Those resources have to be created and they are not created by decrees that require "re-distribution" of what already exists. All that such methods ensure is that the basis for further growth is destroyed and that an economy with a high growth potential is crippled and eventually degenerates into total poverty and hopelessness. Zimbabwe is an excellent example. There is no quick answer where population has outstripped current economic growth. It will take time and the worst possible action is to prevent further growth by wasting capital, instead of recognising that only continued economic growth, at a level higher than population growth, will enable a future population to enjoy a better life.
What is overburdening the planet's capacity to provide adequate water etc. is procreation by human beings. Fortunately, the human species has developed amazing talents in the area of adapting environments and adapting to environments and is likely to continue to do so. The only quick solution to the problem you pose is to simply apply methods of population reduction where such a need exists and that is simply not acceptable in any sort of morality. We have to recognise that improving the standard of living of those who most need it is not going to happen overnight and the best answer is to stimulate the growth of economies in such places, rather than to just hand out food and medicine and have to hand out double the quantity in 15 years time.
Mark Richardson
GMCarter - 21 Apr 2004 10:06 GMT >>... Meantime, we are overburdening the planet's capacity to >> provide adequate water, fuel and food, while despoiling its ability to >> do so and to regenerate. > >Just how do you propose to ensure access to adequate food and healthcare and >education unless you have the resources? Excellent question.
>Those resources have to be created and they are not created by decrees that >require "re-distribution" of what already exists. All that such methods [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >at a level higher than population growth, will enable a future population to >enjoy a better life. Zimbabwe is indeed illustrative. They squandered their resources and sold off supplies because that creep Mugabe is a low-life psycho. (Sigh; I don't think he was always SO bad.)
But to the contrary, there have been some interesting studies done showing that countries that had a redistribution system for foodstuffs that faced a serious famine averted the same. Whereas countries which did NOT have such a distribution system and confronted milder conditions presaging famine suffered enormously.
>What is overburdening the planet's capacity to provide adequate water etc. >is procreation by human beings. I agree here. Heterosexuality on an overpopulated planet is a psychosocial disorder.
>Fortunately, the human species has developed >amazing talents in the area of adapting environments and adapting to >environments and is likely to continue to do so. The only quick solution to >the problem you pose is to simply apply methods of population reduction >where such a need exists and that is simply not acceptable in any sort of >morality. What? One of the most successful programs for population control in the world combined condom awareness and distribution, vasectomies for men, care for women's health, etc. Their population growth rate has leveled off. The country? Iran.
>We have to recognise that improving the standard of living of >those who most need it is not going to happen overnight and the best answer >is to stimulate the growth of economies in such places, rather than to just >hand out food and medicine and have to hand out double the quantity in 15 >years time. Oh, I agree there are no swift simple answers! And I agree that just handing out is not the whole of it either. But you have to look also at issues such as debt arising from Structural Adjustment Programs that, for example, shifted agricultural patterns from subsistence to "cash" crops (mostly coffee and cocoa that long since tanked). That debt should be eliminated--it is a lesion.
Corruption in governments is another critical issue. But the US too often rewards such countries, as long as they toe the line. High agricultural tariffs against foodstuffs on the part of the US further destabilizes global economies. As does HIV/AIDS.
So a simplistic handwaving notion that "market forces" will somehow save the day is as naive as just saying "feed 'em."
George M. Carter
Mark Richardson - 22 Apr 2004 05:53 GMT ,
> But to the contrary, there have been some interesting studies done > showing that countries that had a redistribution system for foodstuffs > that faced a serious famine averted the same. Whereas countries which > did NOT have such a distribution system and confronted milder > conditions presaging famine suffered enormously. That is certainly true.The problem is what happens during the next drought if local resources have not been developed to meet current demands, but also with a reserve capacity. That is always essential in drought endemic areas because droughts are not just temporary phenomena. In addition, and without being too cynical, every life that was saved, in the reproductive age groups, will contribute to more lives to be saved the next time.
> >What is overburdening the planet's capacity to provide adequate water etc. > >is procreation by human beings.
> >Fortunately, the human species has developed > >amazing talents in the area of adapting environments and adapting to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > men, care for women's health, etc. Their population growth rate has > leveled off. The country? Iran. Such means can work, but not everywhere and most especially where they would be most essential. In order for such methods to work an educational and distributive infrastructure needs to be in place from the start.
> >We have to recognise that improving the standard of living of > >those who most need it is not going to happen overnight and the best answer [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "cash" crops (mostly coffee and cocoa that long since tanked). That > debt should be eliminated--it is a lesion. Just trying to grow an economy, to meet the needs of an expanding population, by subsistence farming is impossible. In developed countries the majority of the population not only live in the urban areas, but contribute to the economy. In Africa, generally, the population is moving to the urban areas, but not contributing to genuine economic growth and the rural areas are not capable of supporting food needs. Subsistence agriculture does not do this and cash crops can be an important contributor, particularly where the crops are processed within the borders and finished products can be exported. There is no quick or certain answer and the first priority is local initiative and ability. Just sitting waiting for hand-outs only benefits a small heirarchy, the rest present the problem that we can see only too well. Cancelling loan debts might seem to be a possible kick-start, but I think that, once again, the only real beneficiaries, will be those at the top of the heap and the overseas banks where they will hide what they steal.
> Corruption in governments is another critical issue. But the US too > often rewards such countries, as long as they toe the line. High [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So a simplistic handwaving notion that "market forces" will somehow > save the day is as naive as just saying "feed 'em." There is no simple answer and naturally there have to be government initiatives, especially in developing essential infrastructure, but without the presence of market forces and a sufficient component of the population capable of working with them, the result will be continuing poverty.
Mark Richardson
GMCarter - 22 Apr 2004 11:27 GMT >, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >being too cynical, every life that was saved, in the reproductive age >groups, will contribute to more lives to be saved the next time. True. Actually, the drought situation is again another extremely serious issue that I believe is increasingly linked to environmental degradation caused by western consumption of pork and cattle as well as industrial waste and combustion engines. (Yes, pork/cattle: feces goes into rivers, into lakes, into oceans: e.g., the kill zone the size of Massachusetts off the Louisiana coast; as well the destruction of rain forests for cattle rearing and wood.)
Anyway--yeah, in South India it hasn't rained for 4 YEARS essentially. It's terrifying. Mostly, people have survived there without extensive famine--but I think they are hitting their limits.
So indeed, as we discuss, we can see that there needs to be a comprehensive, global approach to nurturing our world and its people, while endeavoring to reduce population growth.
>> >What is overburdening the planet's capacity to provide adequate water >etc. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >be most essential. In order for such methods to work an educational and >distributive infrastructure needs to be in place from the start. If it is not there, it can be created. Usually there is SOME degree of educational system in most places (though it is absent in war-torn Congo, for example). This, to my way of thinking, is an EXCELLENT use of tax funds. Not costly, poorly planned wars based on lies.
>> >We have to recognise that improving the standard of living of >> >those who most need it is not going to happen overnight and the best [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Just trying to grow an economy, to meet the needs of an expanding >population, by subsistence farming is impossible. Ah--"grow an economy" implies making the resources available to transnational corporate interests who are becoming increasingly interested in abusing labor to enhance profits. Including companies like Nike who now use intermediaries to do their sweatshop hiring work (where the term "hiring" implies some shitty wage is actually paid.)
> In developed countries the >majority of the population not only live in the urban areas, but contribute [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the crops are processed within the borders and finished products can be >exported. I believe this is untrue. Subsistence farming HAS worked for many peoples for millennia. Yes, it can fail and yes, cash crops may have SOME place--but tell me. Which ones?
Export again implies benefit to United Fruit Company types and corrupt local governments. That has been part of the destruction and increased poverty of local peoples. Now, if by exports you are framing it in the context of a FAIR trade type of an arrangement, I agree to a certain extent.
>There is no quick or certain answer and the first priority is >local initiative and ability. Just sitting waiting for hand-outs only [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the top of the heap and the overseas banks where they will hide what they >steal. I utterly agree that this is a risk. One that CAN be avoided to a great (if not complete) extent. I think, though, to point a finger at corrupt governments tends to deflect from the institutionalized corruption of usury--the outrageous lesioning of interest monies causing hemorrhages to many African economies.
>> Corruption in governments is another critical issue. But the US too >> often rewards such countries, as long as they toe the line. High [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >the presence of market forces and a sufficient component of the population >capable of working with them, the result will be continuing poverty. To a certain extent, I agree! And indeed, you raise another critically important area where monies saved from paying interest on principle long since paid is to assure that schools are built, sustained, supplied with books and other needs, transportation is available and teachers are secured.
And to that end, we need to assure access to ARV for the significant percentages who may be HIV+ among students, teachers and administrators. Assuring access to excellent nutrition and supplementation is also an excellent utilization of funds.
And guess what? That INVESTMENT is REALLY a tiny, tiny amount of overall GDP or overall monies. I KNOW what the budget is for hospitals and schools in places like Orissa in India. It needn't be much to touch tens of thousands of lives. (Including sex education and such issues!!)
It is an investment we must continue to make.
And when these bases of survival and caring are being addressed, yes we can certainly look at ways that can enhance exports and imports in this global arena. But we also must address the horrific corruption of bloated executive boards who are doing more to damage labor relations, destroy the environment and concentrate an outrageous amount of wealth into the hands of a very, very few. That is the utter death of capitalism.
George M. Carter
Mark Richardson - 22 Apr 2004 14:26 GMT > On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 06:53:15 +0200, "Mark Richardson"
> >That is certainly true.The problem is what happens during the next drought > >if local resources have not been developed to meet current demands, but also [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > size of Massachusetts off the Louisiana coast; as well the destruction > of rain forests for cattle rearing and wood.) I would not really consider the USA as a nation in need of food aid.
> Anyway--yeah, in South India it hasn't rained for 4 YEARS essentially. > It's terrifying. Mostly, people have survived there without extensive [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > comprehensive, global approach to nurturing our world and its people, > while endeavoring to reduce population growth. Drought and flood for that matter, are natural phenomena and have been so forever. Joseph's interpretation of Pharoah's dream had no relevance to the consumption of pork and beef in what is now the USA. The World experiences periodic climatic changes and whilst human activity can exacerbate the effects of these, human activity can also amelriorate these effects. What is needed, where it is needed, is initiative and enterprise. Population growth certainly does need to be slowed down but this will also present serious problems of massively aging populations with shrinking productive bases. There is no simple answer
> >Such means can work, but not everywhere and most especially where they would > >be most essential. In order for such methods to work an educational and > >distributive infrastructure needs to be in place from the start.
> If it is not there, it can be created. Usually there is SOME degree of > educational system in most places (though it is absent in war-torn > Congo, for example). This, to my way of thinking, is an EXCELLENT use > of tax funds. Not costly, poorly planned wars based on lies. There has to be a component of the "at risk" population, sufficiently numerous and competent to create the necessary infrastructures locally. It would be possible to impose these, but that would take us right back to the colonial system and that is not very popular, or acceptable, nowadays. Right now, in the areas of greatest need, that component of the populations is not there in sufficient number, or with sufficient will.
> >Just trying to grow an economy, to meet the needs of an expanding > >population, by subsistence farming is impossible. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > like Nike who now use intermediaries to do their sweatshop hiring work > (where the term "hiring" implies some shitty wage is actually paid.) Despite the liberal opposition to such transnational company activities, they do at least provide employment - at lower than the company's home based wages rates, but at wage rates that enable the sweatshop workers to actually live and eat. The standard of living of such people is not going to be enviable to Western eyes, but it is obviously attractive to those who are employed, because otherwise they would not take up the work at the rates offered. The other, longer term, benefit is that each such industry necessitates the creation of infrastructure which provides the stimulus for further development and progress. The conditions may not be attractive, especially in the short term, but they do provide a better alternative than just sitting and starving.
> > In developed countries the > >majority of the population not only live in the urban areas, but contribute [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > peoples for millennia. Yes, it can fail and yes, cash crops may have > SOME place--but tell me. Which ones? The first place that cash crops have is to provide employment for urban populations as they are processed for both local consumption and for export. Cotton is an excellent example and there are many such products. Subsistence farming works for those who subsist on it, but it does not work for a country with an increasing urban population. The growth of urban societies was dependant upon a whole range of circumstances, but one of the principle foundations was agriculture that moved from simple subsistence level to the production of surplusses. However, the move has to be beyond the stage of fresh produce markets in major centres. The best process is for a locally based population to develop means of continually increasing productivity, but this possibility is remote in areas which are now showing up as having the greatest need.
Zimbabwe is, once again, an excellent example of this situation. Just over one hundred years ago, the population was 300 000 and those people lived a simple, but reasonably viable life as pastoral/agriculturalists. However, the areas in which they could live were conditional upon having a year round water supply, no tsetse flies and soils which could be tilled with very primitive tools. The introduction of successful commercial farming did not take place overnight and it was only once the tobacco industry was established that this happened and from this base commercial farming grew very strongly and utilised areas of land which had never been able to be used previously. Production was achieved in massive excess of local needs and this is in a country where drought is endemic.The population rose to approximately 13million but it is now falling and no one can be surprised at that.
> Export again implies benefit to United Fruit Company types and corrupt > local governments. That has been part of the destruction and increased > poverty of local peoples. Now, if by exports you are framing it in the > context of a FAIR trade type of an arrangement, I agree to a certain > extent. Agriculture in Rhodesia was not along the United Fruit Company lines and it was highly successful and would have been growing in strength and productivity even now, if the brakes had not jammed and the vehicle crashed. It is up to the local peoples to demonstrate their capability and intiative and to work within existing international trade regulations. I know that the normal response is to query the subsidies that certain developed countries pay to their agricultural sectors. However, if I were an American, I would rather be certain that the primary products on which the nation depends, were produced locally and that reliance on somewhere like Zimbabwe to provide maize imports for example is not a factor. Each country has to look after it's own security and that incolves more than military hardware. The countries breaking in to World trade would have to be concentrate on products with which they can be competitive. If they cannot thenthey will have to look for other avenues for development and industrial sweatshops could be the basis on which to.build.
> >> So a simplistic handwaving notion that "market forces" will somehow > >> save the day is as naive as just saying "feed 'em." [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > It is an investment we must continue to make. Why must "we" make it? It is up to the people concerned to attract investment and to make continuing investment, local and international, a practical proposition by putting the correct policies in place. Just removing loan debt, incurred by corrupt leaderships, past and present, is not going to answer the problem. Solutions have to be locally formulated and implemented and this will naturally involve negotiations to attract investment and to facilitate exports, but the intiative has to be local.
> And when these bases of survival and caring are being addressed, yes > we can certainly look at ways that can enhance exports and imports in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > into the hands of a very, very few. That is the utter death of > capitalism. That is a fair description of what the ANC are trying to achieve here in SA. "Black empowerment" is certainly leading to bloated executive boards, but the labour relations legislation is just as harmful, if not more so, in stifling new investment and stagnating existing commerce and industry. These things should find their own level and where this is possible, organisations that go the route of bloated executive boards and excessive profit taking, will wind up on the scrap heap, but others, with more rational operations and managements will take their place - that is the way things work.
Mark Richardson
GMCarter - 23 Apr 2004 11:18 GMT >> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 06:53:15 +0200, "Mark Richardson" > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >I would not really consider the USA as a nation in need of food aid. Ah--I was talking first about environmental degradation that has global effects induced by US industry. Actually, there are serious distribution problems here too. While obesity is rampant, there are also many malnourished and even people going hungry in the United States.
>> Anyway--yeah, in South India it hasn't rained for 4 YEARS essentially. >> It's terrifying. Mostly, people have survived there without extensive [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >problems of massively aging populations with shrinking productive bases. >There is no simple answer Essentially agreed. Helping aging populations remain active and productive might be good. Frankly, mandatory retirement seems a bit ridiculous based on a number. Health, physical and mental, should be the criteria along with personal choice. But I think many people enjoyr remaining engaged in life. Of course, work takes all forms.
>> >Such means can work, but not everywhere and most especially where they >would [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >now, in the areas of greatest need, that component of the populations is not >there in sufficient number, or with sufficient will. What? I don't think so. I mean, I've been to rural India, for example (and would love to visit Africa soon). There are many very bright people there--met some great teachers in Orissa.
Now--you DO hit on something that is EXTREMELY important. That is, imposing from outside is indeed stupid. Providing aid--money, structures, equipment, salaries--is great. But only if it is done in a way that addresses the recipients desires, thoughts and community development. Just because people are poor doesn't mean they are either uneducated or even if they are not formally educated, that they are stupid.
But your point is well taken that the biggest failure of aid programs has been their external imposition. I reiterate the example of the World Bank SAPs as an example of how to do it wrong.
Or look at Iraq for another dismal example. A good description of the problems and the arrogance are here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/23/opinion/23KRUG.html
>> >Just trying to grow an economy, to meet the needs of an expanding >> >population, by subsistence farming is impossible. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >wages rates, but at wage rates that enable the sweatshop workers to actually >live and eat. Sometimes this is true. Not all corporations are bad -- but too many take advantage of labor situations and weak environmental laws. This must stop.
>The standard of living of such people is not going to be >enviable to Western eyes, but it is obviously attractive to those who are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >especially in the short term, but they do provide a better alternative than >just sitting and starving. In some cases, I think this is probably true--but I think this is a minority situation. Hmmm....Coca-Cola comes as an example. Overall, it appears that they do a pretty good job--and with heavy activist pressure, they agreed to cover the healthcare needs of drivers that distribute their product. This is good--helps treat HIV+ people, costs less in the long run. (Now, one can argue that their product is pretty much sugar water and not so healthy....)
They're overall probably less worse than others....however, it's also geographical. In India, they are being accused of stealing all the water that farmers need, especially in this time of drout.
snip
>> I believe this is untrue. Subsistence farming HAS worked for many >> peoples for millennia. Yes, it can fail and yes, cash crops may have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >populations as they are processed for both local consumption and for export. >Cotton is an excellent example and there are many such products. That's one possibly. How is the market for this? (Especially if they use neem trees as pesticides!) By contrast, cocoa and coffee have tanked.
>Subsistence >farming works for those who subsist on it, but it does not work for a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >but this possibility is remote in areas which are now showing up as having >the greatest need. Ah, part of the reason that urbanization has increased is a direct result of the screwed up SAP programs. See, e.g., Lurie, AIDS, 1995;9(6):18.
>Zimbabwe is, once again, an excellent example of this situation. Just over >one hundred years ago, the population was 300 000 and those people lived a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >approximately 13million but it is now falling and no one can be surprised at >that. Hmm....tobacco farming is pretty much like coca or poppy farming as far as I can tell. Lucrative indeed. And I'm not so sure I buy that Rhodesians would entirely agree? Who benefited most from this wealth?
Now, I don't argue that some degree of commercial farming. But there are other conditions that apply, e.g., where they can get a good price in the market--and the US tariffs have effectively blocked an excellent market in order to protect big Farma....er...Farming concerns.
In addition, this is not exactly relevant to the issue about distribution which you seem to be evading. Some degree of wealth distribution is a good thing, especially when it offsets potentially dramatic famines. This helps sustain the work force, aside from being humane common decency. It's also viable. \
>> Export again implies benefit to United Fruit Company types and corrupt >> local governments. That has been part of the destruction and increased [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >was highly successful and would have been growing in strength and >productivity even now, if the brakes had not jammed and the vehicle crashed. Please explain? You mean the shift to African control and the unfortunate rise of that jackass, Mugabe?
>It is up to the local peoples to demonstrate their capability and intiative >and to work within existing international trade regulations. I know that the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >have to look for other avenues for development and industrial sweatshops >could be the basis on which to.build. Wow. That's SOOOO cynical. They should get back to growing coca and poppies, too. Let them niggers work for their living and maybe they'll come up with somethin....that's what it sounds like you're saying. Especially when the sweat shops are run often by US, Australian or European concerns.
Now, who is being protected by tariffs in the US? It is no longer the one-family farmer--they've been driven off by huge corporate concerns.
>> >> So a simplistic handwaving notion that "market forces" will somehow >> >> save the day is as naive as just saying "feed 'em." [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >implemented and this will naturally involve negotiations to attract >investment and to facilitate exports, but the intiative has to be local. That's what I said! We agree. Too often, local initiative has not been encouraged in favor of an arrogance of telling people what to do.
>> And when these bases of survival and caring are being addressed, yes >> we can certainly look at ways that can enhance exports and imports in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >will wind up on the scrap heap, but others, with more rational operations >and managements will take their place - that is the way things work. You're venturing into areas where my ignorance is vast so I cannot comment. I shall leave that to others!
Thanks for the conversation, Mark. It's intriguing. And I think some good ideas have been raised.
George M. Carter
George M. Carter
Mark Richardson - 23 Apr 2004 17:17 GMT > >There has to be a component of the "at risk" population, sufficiently > >numerous and competent to create the necessary infrastructures locally. > >It would be possible to impose these, but that would take us right back to
> >the colonial system and that is not very popular, or acceptable, nowadays.
> >Right now, in the areas of greatest need, that component of the > > populations is not there in sufficient number, or with sufficient will.
> What? I don't think so. I mean, I've been to rural India, for example > (and would love to visit Africa soon). There are many very bright > people there--met some great teachers in Orissa. I am sure that India will move quite rapidly, in relative terms, in the right direction and no one can be in any doubt that India has a very large skills and competence reservoir to draw on. I have never thought of India in the terms of an "at risk" nation because, although there is plenty of poverty there is also plenty of potential and they will make use of it and mostly through their own resources and initiative.
> Now--you DO hit on something that is EXTREMELY important. That is, > imposing from outside is indeed stupid. Providing aid--money, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > uneducated or even if they are not formally educated, that they are > stupid. Unfortunately aid has been poured into Africa for the last fifty years and nothing has been achieved. Aid, per se, is not the answer. It comes back to giving a man starving man a fish, or teaching him to fish. The problem in Africa is that the means of providing education, of the sort needed, are too often seen by the local powers as a threat.
> >Despite the liberal opposition to such transnational company activities, > >they do at least provide employment - at lower than the company's home > >based wages rates, but at wage rates that enable the sweatshop > > workers to actually live and eat.
> Sometimes this is true. Not all corporations are bad -- but too many > take advantage of labor situations and weak environmental laws. This > must stop. I think that it should be encouraged. What is better, hard work for low pay, but with a job that supports the worker and his family, or just having everyone sit on the side of the road with their hands out begging, because the local labour laws militate against the creation of employment that could, in twenty years,be paying decent wages and over that time have allowed families to survive and eventually prosper?
A good example would be the Indian immigrants to South Africa. They had less going for them than the indigenous people and they started off "living on the smell of an oil rag", but they stuck to it and whilst not all of them have reached a final goal, compare their economic progress to that of the indigenous people. They accepted that the only answer was hard work and dedication to seeing that their children were able to take the next step. That is the attitude that is needed and it is generally lacking here.
> >The standard of living of such people is not going to be > >enviable to Western eyes, but it is obviously attractive to those who are [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > less in the long run. (Now, one can argue that their product is pretty > much sugar water and not so healthy....) This is still providing crutches when people should be encouraged to walk without them, even if the first steps are painful. However, It is necessary to provide examples of what can be achieved and encouraging local employees to take responsibilities at all levels and it is also a positive move, but it is not the whole answer on a national basis.
> >The first place that cash crops have is to provide employment for urban > >populations as they are processed for both local consumption and for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > use neem trees as pesticides!) By contrast, cocoa and coffee have > tanked. That is how the World works. What is needed is initiative and drive to find things which will work. Just giving every peasant a couple of acres will not give any impetus to economic progress and all it will do is keep people where they are now, or in an even worse situation. Consider how Europe developed from a basically subsistence level of agriculture to the being imitator of the industrial age. It is not something that is likely to be imposed, or given, by an outside agency, it has to come from local initiative and no one can pretend that this will be easy because the easier such development is the less it will be likely to succeed, because once the support is removed, the structure collapses.
> Ah, part of the reason that urbanization has increased is a direct > result of the screwed up SAP programs. See, e.g., Lurie, AIDS, > 1995;9(6):18. The reason for the increase in urbanisation cannot be attributed to any sing le cause, but one of the most pressing forces is a desire to experience something new. I once had to do a fairly comprehensive study of this situation and in almost every case a prime factor was this desire. Rural collapse - as was the case in NE Brazil, more than 50 years ago - remains a factor and it is exacerbated by the fact that the most likely emigrants from the rural areas are those with the most potential for making a go of things where they grew up,. but they can see something better on the horizon and that is what they go for.
> >used previously. Production was achieved in massive excess of local needs > >and this is in a country where drought is endemic.The population rose to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > far as I can tell. Lucrative indeed. And I'm not so sure I buy that > Rhodesians would entirely agree? Who benefited most from this wealth? Who benefited? The whole country benefited. It was on the back of the tobacco industry that the commercial farming sector grew and provided employment and national, even more than individual, wealth. It was not just the tobacco farmer who made a good living - if he did it right - it was all the ancillary industry and the growth of national income to be used to continually create and improve the overall infrastructure.
> Now, I don't argue that some degree of commercial farming. But there > are other conditions that apply, e.g., where they can get a good price > in the market--and the US tariffs have effectively blocked an > excellent market in order to protect big Farma....er...Farming > concerns. At the end of the day each country has to make it's own way and to do so it has to recognise what opportunities and pitfalls lie in that way. It is simply not a practical proposition to imagine that by throwing farmers and farming corporations in the USA into the street, you will make the lives of Zimbabweans and Zambians and Malawians etec etc,etc. any better.
> In addition, this is not exactly relevant to the issue about > distribution which you seem to be evading. Some degree of wealth > distribution is a good thing, especially when it offsets potentially > dramatic famines. This helps sustain the work force, aside from being > humane common decency. It's also viable. Distribution has to be a natural force, not something imposed by a socialist government. That sort of distribution just winds up like Zimbabwe today, because an initially "gentle" theft becomes robbery with violence and the whole thing collapses. When commercial and industrial enterprises succeed they create more success around them because of the need to service growing enterprises and the increased national income that derives and which can then be applied to building infrastructure for future development. This is something that has to happen through local initiative. Unless, of course, there would be a return to colonial settlement, but that will not happen and just trying to make things happen by being nice and giving out large aid grants and providing experts to start off enterprises is only a recipe for short term benefit and eventual collapse.
> >>Export again implies benefit to United Fruit Company types and corrupt > >> local governments. That has been part of the destruction and increased > >> poverty of local peoples. Now, if by exports you are framing it in the
> >Agriculture in Rhodesia was not along the United Fruit Company lines and > >it was highly successful and would have been growing in strength and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Please explain? You mean the shift to African control and the > unfortunate rise of that jackass, Mugabe? African control is a generous description. Wrecking would be better. It was a system which worked to the benefit of massively more than that of each individual farmer and that has now gone by the board. .
> >The > >countries breaking in to World trade would have to be concentrate on > >products with which they can be competitive. If they cannot then they will
> >have to look for other avenues for development and industrial sweatshops > >could be the basis on which to.build. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > saying. Especially when the sweat shops are run often by US, > Australian or European concerns. I am saying that, at the end of the day, it is the people themselves that have to make their own way. If it is tough sledding to start with, then that is what every successful nation has had to experience. If the sweat shops are run by Western owners then the chances of a better life for the labour force are better than if they were run by locals. However, that is not the whole picture. A child has to learn to walk before it can run and it is only by actual experience that the proper basis for development can be achieved.
> Now, who is being protected by tariffs in the US? It is no longer the > one-family farmer--they've been driven off by huge corporate concerns. That is the way things work. What is in the national interest is in the national interest and if the corporate concern produces more at better prices than that is what will happen and the previous farmer will find work in the urban area. If you consider what the rural population was in 1890 compared with 1990 and what the sum total of agricultural production was at those times I think that you will see that the people are still able to buy food and that the overall standard of living has improved.
> >> And guess what? That INVESTMENT is REALLY a tiny, tiny amount of > >> overall GDP or overall monies. I KNOW what the budget is for hospitals [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That's what I said! We agree. Too often, local initiative has not been > encouraged in favor of an arrogance of telling people what to do. Local initiative has generally and unfortunately been along the lines of "where should I, as President, hide away all the funds that I have been able to steal " something you could probably attribute to Mobutu Sese Seko. Local initiative is needed but and again unfortunately, that sort of initiative will often only arise through a ground level understanding that hard work and initiative can make life better, even if it might not seem so in the early stages. It also needs authorities who are prepared to allow basic developments to start without imposing legal hindrances and requiring bribes and nepotism as pre-conditions.
> >> And when these bases of survival and caring are being addressed, yes > >> we can certainly look at ways that can enhance exports and imports in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >That is a fair description of what the ANC are trying to achieve here in > >SA."Black empowerment" is certainly leading to bloated executive boards, but
> >the labour relations legislation is just as harmful, if not more so, in > >stifling new investment and stagnating existing commerce and industry. > >These things should find their own level and where this is possible, > >organisations that go the route of bloated executive boards and excessive profit
> >taking, will wind up on the scrap heap, but others, with more rational operations
> >and managements will take their place - that is the way things work.
> You're venturing into areas where my ignorance is vast so I cannot > comment. I shall leave that to others! > > Thanks for the conversation, Mark. It's intriguing. And I think some > good ideas have been raised. Thank you. It has been interesting, but it is a subject for which there is no easily available set of answers and most unfortunately, it often takes hardship and not for a short time, to create the necessary initiatives for progress. Life can be tough.
Mark Richardson
GMCarter - 24 Apr 2004 11:17 GMT OK--I'm snipping cause this post is getting so long....
>I am sure that India will move quite rapidly, in relative terms, in the >right direction and no one can be in any doubt that India has a very large >skills and competence reservoir to draw on. I have never thought of India in >the terms of an "at risk" nation because, although there is plenty of >poverty there is also plenty of potential and they will make use of it and >mostly through their own resources and initiative. I agree in many ways. However, there are three serious issues that India must face (at least). 1) The widening divide between rich and poor; 2) rampant corruption and 3) overpopulation. Not all of these issues can be left to the sanctity of "market forces."
snip...
>Unfortunately aid has been poured into Africa for the last fifty years and >nothing has been achieved. Aid, per se, is not the answer. It comes back to >giving a man starving man a fish, or teaching him to fish. The problem in >Africa is that the means of providing education, of the sort needed, are too >often seen by the local powers as a threat. I wouldn't say nothing has been achieved. Lots has changed in Africa! Some of it good, some of it horrendous (from civil wars--funded by Europeans and Americans to grab up resources to the destruction of the rain forests). Traditional ways of life have been disrupted. Not always bad--I have no twinge of sadness at ALL should practices like female genital mutilation vanish.
But yeah, other good things like the system of traditional healing were destroyed by colonialists. Essentially because shamans represented a power that was a threat to white/European supremacy. Aid flowed with one hand while resources were stolen by the armsful with the other.
Maybe rather than always thinking that Africans need to be taught to fish, white people should shut up and listen to how Africans have managed to fish and survive and what they do to earn a living. Maybe getting de Beers to pay excellent wages--along with all the other transnational corporate interests that take out the gold, diamonds, oil--and not just by propping up the sick, psycho regimes.
Sadly, there are these issues that must be addressed. Mugabe's methods, unfortunately, are just racing into the arms of another kind of bigotry. That doesn't work. And by contrast, Mbeki seems bent on being a neo-liberal suck up--he talks a good cant on poverty but has done nothing really about it. (Let alone his despicably moronic embrace of denialist views re HIV/AIDS.)
>> >Despite the liberal opposition to such transnational company activities, >> >they do at least provide employment - at lower than the company's home [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >could, in twenty years,be paying decent wages and over that time have >allowed families to survive and eventually prosper? You'll have to give an example of this. Frankly, I don't buy it--the notion of "hard work for low pay" with a promise of better wages 20 years down the road you have got to admit is pretty abysmal. Would you do that? Given the amount of resources that have been raped from the continent.
>A good example would be the Indian immigrants to South Africa. They had less >going for them than the indigenous people and they started off "living on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >dedication to seeing that their children were able to take the next step. >That is the attitude that is needed and it is generally lacking here. This is a nice expression of Calvinist work ethic. Intrinsically, I don't disagree with it but you can't make people adopt it.
However, one can foster it by providing living, decent wages. Maybe we agree more than we think--but it is not up to you or I to determine what that is.
snip...
>This is still providing crutches when people should be encouraged to walk >without them, even if the first steps are painful. However, It is necessary >to provide examples of what can be achieved and encouraging local employees >to take responsibilities at all levels and it is also a positive move, but >it is not the whole answer on a national basis. Ah, how is being a driver/distributor of Coca-Cola being "on crutches"? Most people in the world have jobs like this. Road work, construction, tailoring--there's all kinds of vocations. Too many though, wind up being work for transnational corporate interests that increasingly regard their workers with contempt and disdain the world over while CEOs rake in absurd salaries. (A US phenomenon, but the philosophy of which has poisoned organizations worldwide. Yes, this is a generalization, so take it with a grain of salt--but it is one that is verifiable.)
By contrast, it would be great to see more African institutions like universities, producing their own generic pharmaceutical drugs, utilizing the natural resources, conservation, etc. A lot of that does exist but there needs to be more of it.
>> >The first place that cash crops have is to provide employment for urban >> >populations as they are processed for both local consumption and for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >such development is the less it will be likely to succeed, because once the >support is removed, the structure collapses. That can be due to the nature of the way aid was provided. WAY too often, even well-intentioned, it is done by people and groups that don't really listen to what the people want. But as to the above, I actually don't have any argument. I agree totally that the drive must come from within.
I think a lot of that drive was severely damaged by colonialism and corruption.
>> Ah, part of the reason that urbanization has increased is a direct >> result of the screwed up SAP programs. See, e.g., Lurie, AIDS, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >le cause, but one of the most pressing forces is a desire to experience >something new. SAPs did not represent a single cause but rather a collection of causes (by definition: "structural adjustment'), including monetary devaluation, shifting agricultural priorities and so forth. Now they SAP money in the form of usurious interest payments.
>I once had to do a fairly comprehensive study of this >situation and in almost every case a prime factor was this desire. Rural [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >where they grew up,. but they can see something better on the horizon and >that is what they go for. "Better" is vague. Lurie notes that "better" for too many women who lost traditional work to men as a result of SAP changes was to move to the cities and work in the sex trade. Not that it was their first choice in many cases! I support the notion of a legalized sex trade--but it must come with the opportunities to DO the kind of work people would rather do. Not what they must resort to.
>> Hmm....tobacco farming is pretty much like coca or poppy farming as >> far as I can tell. Lucrative indeed. And I'm not so sure I buy that >> Rhodesians would entirely agree? Who benefited most from this wealth? > >Who benefited? The whole country benefited. Not the people who lived long enough to get lung cancer.
snip
>> In addition, this is not exactly relevant to the issue about >> distribution which you seem to be evading. Some degree of wealth [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Distribution has to be a natural force, not something imposed by a socialist >government. Oh horseshit. Governments are THERE to adjust wealth distribution. They make the laws that result in 60% of corporations, for example, not only NOT paying any taxes, but often getting a refund. They permit the use of offshore tax shelters. They create the opportunities for corporations, acting with all the rights of individuals but none of the responsibilities. And as a result, they do the converse of Marxism: they redistribute wealth by concentrating it more heavily into the hands of a few (fewer and fewer).
This creates incredibly destabilized situations where the split between rich and poor widens.
This is just as stupid as:
>That sort of distribution just winds up like Zimbabwe today, >because an initially "gentle" theft becomes robbery with violence and the >whole thing collapses. and yes, that's the other end of the spectrum.
What I believe in is a system that sustains the fundamental roots of human existence. Food, healthcare, education: take care of our most precious human resources whilst helping sustain the environment in which we all must live (or perish).
then ,yeah, sure, you want to be ambitious and make millions and go scrabble in the pig pen with others, enjoy! There's no problem--unless people get SO greedy that they start killing each other--and then taking it out on the poor.
As a species that is overburdening the planet with people, we need to grow up rapidly.
>When commercial and industrial enterprises succeed >they create more success around them because of the need to service growing >enterprises and the increased national income that derives and which can >then be applied to building infrastructure for future development. This is just capitalist cant. (Kant? oops...) Please. SOMETIMES it can work this way. But not always. Clearly, privatizing essentials like water has been a dismal failure with horrible consequences for the people most of the places it has been done.
>This is >something that has to happen through local initiative. Unless, of course, >there would be a return to colonial settlement, but that will not happen and >just trying to make things happen by being nice and giving out large aid >grants and providing experts to start off enterprises is only a recipe for >short term benefit and eventual collapse. You have an odd notion lodged in your brain about what I'm saying. Maybe once you've pulled that out and stop looking at aid as something derived from a Mother Teresa perspective you'll begin to relax and see what I'm saying.
>> Please explain? You mean the shift to African control and the >> unfortunate rise of that jackass, Mugabe? > >African control is a generous description. Wrecking would be better. It was >a system which worked to the benefit of massively more than that of each >individual farmer and that has now gone by the board. Oh, honey, nonsense. In some places, yes. But I just do NOT buy this premise at all. Some places got wrecked--like Zimbabwe. But also Congo is a mess because of continued foreign interference. Many countries have gone through horrific troubles, no question.
In some cases, it's probably because the method of transfer was poorly thought out. Probably not as badly thought out as say the US involvement in the quagmire of Iraq--but then the completely disingenuous claim that it was all about democracy is clearly shown to be an insincere bleat of hot air by the actions of the occupation forces. From the get-go when they failed to develop a coalition with the UN to when the invading forces protected the Ministry of Oil while letting the security situation collapse elsewhere to the present day horrors.
I think the industrialized nations owe a debt to all these countries that they f.cked up. And indeed, VERY small amounts of GDP could do an ENORMOUS amount of good. But YES--as we've been saying--those resources should be used to build up what local communities identify as being needed. With the aim of creating self-sustaining situations.
>> >The >> >countries breaking in to World trade would have to be concentrate on [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >are run by Western owners then the chances of a better life for the labour >force are better than if they were run by locals. Now HERE is where I find what you are saying to be at complete contradiction and intensely racist. My god, that's despicable.
snip....
>Thank you. It has been interesting, but it is a subject for which there is >no easily available set of answers and most unfortunately, it often takes >hardship and not for a short time, to create the necessary initiatives for >progress. Life can be tough. No kidding. But to simply wipe away the responsibility of corporations by saying "sweat shops are OK" is completely disingenuous nonsense. Transnational corporate interest should have internationally recognized responsibilities and duties to their employees. Because many are also their customers.
There is a terrible warp and distortion that has ballooned out in the current model of globalization. Much of it can be attributed to our flaws of human nature: greed. Islam has a saying that I paraphrase that one should take as much as one needs to walk through the day. (It is more beautiful and poetic than that.) This principle is a marvelous guide--but one squandered by the urge to power and greed.
The SYSTEM then, must be able to serve with checks and balances. From the power of the people of communities to the corporate boards to our international governments, there needs to be an increased recognition of the fundamental human rights and needs.
To just let it all settle into some dismal Ayn Rand scrabble of Darwinist economics is certainly doable, but it is dismal, miserable view of existence. One that I think is not entirely untrue but it is wholly inadequate.
Lift your heart. And use your head.
That is the beginning of true compassion--a trait we as humans can exemplify only in living it.
George M. Carter
Mark Richardson - 25 Apr 2004 10:28 GMT > OK--I'm snipping cause this post is getting so long.... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > poor; 2) rampant corruption and 3) overpopulation. Not all of these > issues can be left to the sanctity of "market forces." This situation is really no different to that which obtained in Europe and America during the 19th and into the 20th century. Government interference will be a distinct possibility, but the most important feature of this sort of growth will be the "bargaining" between labour and management. There is also another very important factor and that is the recognition by those who are making the money, that the only way more money can be made is by extending the market and that one way to do this is to continue to improve the standard of living of the workers - this also makes for a more dedicated work force. The liberal interpretation of history tends to highlight how vast the difference in income and lifestyle was between employers and labour during the late 18th to early 20th century and it was one of the appeals of socialism.
What is not highlighted is the very real improvement in the standard of living of the working class over that period and how much was done by wealthy individuals to stimulate this. It will always be an inescapable fact
that there will be those who are massively wealthy, amongst a sea of poverty, as industrial and commercial development takes place, but it is far better for the improvement of overall living standards if these people are entrepreneurs rather than politicians and those rewarded by politicians.
Human nature will not change and this is why I believe that India will succeed in moving forward economically, but it will take a very long time before poverty is not a commonplace there. Not because there is not the initiative and ability, but because the sea of poverty is so big.
> snip... > >Unfortunately aid has been poured into Africa for the last fifty years > >and nothing has been achieved. Aid, per se, is not the answer. It > > comes back to giving a starving man a fish, or teaching him to fish. > > The problem in Africa is that the means of providing education, of > > the sort needed, are too often seen by the local powers as a threat.
> I wouldn't say nothing has been achieved. Lots has changed in Africa! > Some of it good, some of it horrendous (from civil wars--funded by > Europeans and Americans to grab up resources to the destruction of the > rain forests). Traditional ways of life have been disrupted. Not > always bad--I have no twinge of sadness at ALL should practices like > female genital mutilation vanish. Which rain forests, in Africa, have been destroyed by Europeans and Americans?
My reference was to economic progress and that has not been significant in any way. The classic contrast is between the relative economic status of, what was, the Gold Coast and S.Korea in the early 1950s, when Ghana came into being with a substantial bank balance and the same comparison today.
> But yeah, other good things like the system of traditional healing > were destroyed by colonialists. Essentially because shamans > represented a power that was a threat to white/European supremacy. Aid > flowed with one hand while resources were stolen by the armsful with > the other. Resources were not stolen. They were not even recognised by the locals and in a very real sense, they did not exist until the colonists came on the scene.
"Shamans" were not destroyed. I remember one witchdoctor (MuRoyi, not Nganga) in BulalimaMangwe District who was believed to be responsible for over 60 deaths, but the police could get no hard evidence against him and he continued to attract a clientele from as far away as what was then Nyasaland and Tanganyika. Colonial powers disrupted traditional leadership hardly at all and many of the future political leaders were closely related to traditional authorities.
> Maybe rather than always thinking that Africans need to be taught to > fish, white people should shut up and listen to how Africans have > managed to fish and survive and what they do to earn a living. Maybe > getting de Beers to pay excellent wages--along with all the other > transnational corporate interests that take out the gold, diamonds, > oil--and not just by propping up the sick, psycho regimes. The problem is that the traditional methods of making a living do not support the populations which now exist and that standard of living has no great appeal when the people can see what the urban life can offer if the pieces fall into place. de Beers and others do pay decent wages in the context of where those wages are paid. That is why any job vacancy will probably generate hundreds of applicants. If Daimler-Chrysler in East London were to advertise for a number of vacancies it would probably need the police to control the mob who would pitch up.
> Sadly, there are these issues that must be addressed. Mugabe's > methods, unfortunately, are just racing into the arms of another kind > of bigotry. That doesn't work. And by contrast, Mbeki seems bent on > being a neo-liberal suck up--he talks a good cant on poverty but has > done nothing really about it. (Let alone his despicably moronic > embrace of denialist views re HIV/AIDS.) Mbeki will do nothing effective. There will be lots of publicity about supplying reticulated water and electricity to those who have never had the facility, but what is not mentioned is that a few months down the line the piping, wiring and solar panels have been stolen and nothing is working. There is a common belief that a system is installed and then the components are stolen and sold to the people installing another system some distance away - the same ones who installed the first system. The medical care situation is deteriorating by the day and there is also a cynical belief that this is simply a rather nasty means of population control. There is so much talk of the "roll-out" of ARVs, but you can't roll out anything if you do not have a trolley.
> >I think that it should be encouraged. What is better, hard work for low > >pay, but with a job that supports the worker and his family, or just > > having everyone sit on the side of the road with their hands out > > begging, because the local labour laws militate against the creation > > of employment that could, in twenty years,be paying decent wages > > and over that time have allowed families to survive and eventually prosper?
> You'll have to give an example of this. Frankly, I don't buy it--the > notion of "hard work for low pay" with a promise of better wages 20 > years down the road you have got to admit is pretty abysmal. Would you > do that? Given the amount of resources that have been raped from the > continent. I doubt that you will be able to experience what I see every day as I drive down Main Street, ten years ago there was no one sitting on the kerbs, with their index fingers in the air, trying to attract the attention of someone who might give them a day's work - at a low wage. About two or three months ago I counted more than 300 such in a relatively short distance - past two shopping centres and I know that some of these people are skilled and had jobs which have now been lost due to government interference in the rules governing employment - when factories close, people lose jobs. If you were in the vicinity you could ask any of these people what they would prefer, sitting their with almost no hope, or a job that would just support the basic needs of them and their family.
It may not be the most pleasant solution, but it is better than the alternative. See above re-Daimler-Chrysler, they pay very good wages, but even jobs advertised at the bottom of the scale will attract massive attention. The problem is that the current labour laws set levels too high for companies starting off. Particularly when a lengthy period and heavy capital cost of setting up and getting under-way is involved.
You keep saying that resources have been raped from the Continent. This is hardly fair,. because what your "rapists" did was to make use of resources of which the locals had no concept and in the process created infrastructures which the locals, with a little initiative, could have built on and extended, when they took control. Just what resources were raped?
> >A good example would be the Indian immigrants to South Africa. They had > >less going for them than the indigenous people and they started off > > "living on the smell of an oil rag", but they stuck to it and whilst not all of
> > them have reached a final goal, compare their economic progress to > > that of the indigenous people. They accepted that the only answer was > > hard work and dedication to seeing that their children were able to take > > the next step.That is the attitude that is needed and it is generally lacking here.
> This is a nice expression of Calvinist work ethic. Intrinsically, I > don't disagree with it but you can't make people adopt it. No one made them adopt it, they came fully equipped with it. That is why they made the trip in the first place ...
> >This is still providing crutches when people should be encouraged to walk > >without them, even if the first steps are painful. However, It is > >necessaryto provide examples of what can be achieved and encouraging > > local employees to take responsibilities at all levels and it is also a positive
> > move, but it is not the whole answer on a national basis. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a generalization, so take it with a grain of salt--but it is one that > is verifiable.) The salary of the CEO is not and should not be a factor, provided the organisation which he controls is a viable, progressive, growing entity. That is not always the case, but comparing top and bottom income levels in order to create jealousy and resentment builds nothing but hatred. There is no "higher power" to determine what such a person earns, market forces do that.
Buying a delivery truck and setting up a previous employee in his own business, assuring him of a living, without him having to face one iota of competition is a form of providing crutches. Problems could arise if this ex-employee and now owner of capital worth more than R1m, does not manage his specific affairs properly, but I have a strong suspicion that those affairs are quite closely monitored by his ex-employer and now customer.
> By contrast, it would be great to see more African institutions like > universities, producing their own generic pharmaceutical drugs, > utilizing the natural resources, conservation, etc. A lot of that does > exist but there needs to be more of it. There is a lot of work in this sector, but these things do take time and there has to be the viable organisation in place to not only stimulate and fund such research and eventual production and marketing of possible worthwhile products. I am sure that you will be aware of a move to require a pharmaceutical manufacturer to provide a massive royalty to the San people, because a product was developed from making a preparation from a root which the Bushmen used to combat hunger. That is probably what you might consider a "rape" of resources, but the facts are that no Bushman ever put this item on the market and nor could this have been done within that culture. It was other people who recognised a potential and made use of it and that affected the Bushmen, in no way whatsoever. Why should a royalty be paid when the potential recipient did nothing?
> >That is how the World works. What is needed is initiative and drive to > >find things which will work. Just giving every peasant a couple of acres > > will not give any impetus to economic progress and all it will do is > > keep people and all it will do is keep people where they are now, or in an even worse > >situation.
> That can be due to the nature of the way aid was provided. WAY too > often, even well-intentioned, it is done by people and groups that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I think a lot of that drive was severely damaged by colonialism and > corruption. How could that have been? The colonial powers were actually interested in creating markets (and stopping slavery) not in just "raping resources". The debates in the French Assembly regarding the construction of a railway from Algeria through to West Africa make that very clear. They wanted a market in the Western Soudan which they thought would be comparable to that of the British in India. Unfortunately, the railway, even after it was approved, did not make it. There was a very considerable political influence in Europe at the time, bent on trying to improve the lives of the colonised, rather than making them any worse. However, the overriding feature of the whole situation was that there was no local initiative and never had been - except for trading in slaves, palm oil and gold and the last two only grew substantially once the colonial powers came on the scene.
> >> Hmm....tobacco farming is pretty much like coca or poppy farming as > >> far as I can tell. Lucrative indeed. And I'm not so sure I buy that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not the people who lived long enough to get lung cancer. That was not an issue when tobacco production was established and when a wider employment base and infrastructure was established. Almost every tobacco farmer, expanded his activities to include stock raising and other crops and the necessary irrigation and other infrastructure was funded from the tobacco profits in the first place.
> >Distribution has to be a natural force, not something imposed by a > >socialist government. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Marxism: they redistribute wealth by concentrating it more heavily > into the hands of a few (fewer and fewer). In the case of genuine democracies, Governments are there to govern in the interests of the people they govern. Nothing is ever perfect and in democracies, Governments which make mistakes can be replaced. However, taxing excessively is a real means of inhibiting economic growth. Just because Mr X makes millions it does not mean that he should be taxed to the extent that he is left with a couple of thousand. If that were the case, where would further investment and growth come from? The socialist experiments have proved conclusively that too much interference does not work to the overall national benefit and that is what counts in the long run.
> This creates incredibly destabilized situations where the split > between rich and poor widens. It can widen. So what? The issue is how many more people are getting living wages, not what one or two men at the top are earning. Stifle initiative and the people who suffer most are the poor.
> What I believe in is a system that sustains the fundamental roots of > human existence. Food, healthcare, education: take care of our most > precious human resources whilst helping sustain the environment in > which we all must live (or perish). You cannot do this without having the resources available and those resources have to be created by continuing investment and growth and exploitation (in the correct meaning of the word) of available basic resources. If you are just interested in living a life based on the fundamentals of human existence then I am sure that there are lots of places you could go to but you will leave a lot behind you.
> then ,yeah, sure, you want to be ambitious and make millions and go > scrabble in the pig pen with others, enjoy! There's no problem--unless > people get SO greedy that they start killing each other--and then > taking it out on the poor. How does creating industrial and commercial enterprises, where nothing existed before, "take it out" on the poor? The poor are a factor in any society and those societies which have done most to alleviate poverty are those in which economic growth and development has been continuous. Poverty will never be totally eliminated in any society, but recent data published makes it very clear that the poor (as so classified) in the USA would probably be middle class, or better, in just about any African country. It has to be a question of comparative evaluation, there is no universal yardstick as much as certain people try to pretend that there is.
> >When commercial and industrial enterprises succeed > >they create more success around them because of the need to service > >growing enterprises and the increased national income that derives and > > which can then be applied to building infrastructure for future development.
> This is just capitalist cant. (Kant? oops...) Please. SOMETIMES it can > work this way. But not always. Clearly, privatizing essentials like > water has been a dismal failure with horrible consequences for the > people most of the places it has been done. I guess that you refer to California in this instance? There is no perfect answer to improving the lives of all communities and there are bound to be slip-ups, but which general standard of living would you prefer, California or Malawi? Sorry, I forgot, you just want to experience a fundamental type of existence Malawi or Mozambique would be pretty good places to move to.
> >This is something that has to happen through local initiative. Unless, > > of course, there would be a return to colonial settlement, but that will > > not happen and just trying to make things happen by being nice and > > giving out large aid grants and providing experts to start off > > enterprises is only a recipe for short term benefit and eventual collapse.
> You have an odd notion lodged in your brain about what I'm saying. > Maybe once you've pulled that out and stop looking at aid as something > derived from a Mother Teresa perspective you'll begin to relax and see > what I'm saying. Aid for the needy is fine as long as it is not seen as a solution to the problem of continuing need. However, continuing aid without local initiative is, basically, worthless in the long term.
> Oh, honey, nonsense. In some places, yes. But I just do NOT buy this > premise at all. Some places got wrecked--like Zimbabwe. But also Congo > is a mess because of continued foreign interference. Many countries > have gone through horrific troubles, no question. The "foreign" interference in the Congo is pretty local and the Congo is not a mess based on those grounds alone. It is a mess because it should never have been a unitary state and it lacks any sort of national cohesion and whilst there is massive potential based on available resources, a huge amount of building needs to be done there and this will not happen at any time in the near future.
> In some cases, it's probably because the method of transfer was poorly > thought out. Probably not as badly thought out as say the US [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > letting the security situation collapse elsewhere to the present day > horrors. Transfer from colonial rule was basically a liberal/socialist initiative, with a large part played by the Cold War. It took place far too soon because, whilst a lot of work had been done, both on the ground and in terms of human development, it was like expecting a toddler, not yet out of nappies, to take a varsity degree.
> I think the industrialized nations owe a debt to all these countries > that they f.cked up. And indeed, VERY small amounts of GDP could do an > ENORMOUS amount of good. But YES--as we've been saying--those > resources should be used to build up what local communities identify > as being needed. With the aim of creating self-sustaining situations. The industrialised nations owe them nothing. They put in development and it is "these countries " that rather owe the industrialised countries. If "these countries" wish to identify what is needed as investment, they can do it right now. They just have to make investment, not aid, possible and make sure that such investments have a basic security in terms of the repatriation of profits - as horrible as that might sound to you, because profits are the critical factor and without them nothing worthwhile will happen.
> >> Wow. That's SOOOO cynical. They should get back to growing coca and > >> poppies, too. Let them niggers work for their living and maybe [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >that is what every successful nation has had to experience. If the sweat > > shops are run by Western owners then the chances of a better life for the
> >labour force are better than if they were run by locals. > > Now HERE is where I find what you are saying to be at complete > contradiction and intensely racist. My god, that's despicable. Perhaps, to people who have been so conditioned that they believe all whites are evil. The facts are however the facts and western employers have basic moral standards, which many of the "locals" do not even recognise. They may pay low wages - especially in relation to management salaries - but what is better, starvation or food?
> >Thank you. It has been intere |
|