Pakistan

[scotsboy]

After predicating widespread vote-rigging and bias in support of Musharaf, Imran Khan must be left with egg on his face. I wonder if he regrets not standing. Obviously still early days and I am sure there will be a few more twists and turns in the struggle for power in the powder keg that is Pakistan.

[DeHaviLand]

I only hope we will now see the defusing of this particular ticking timebomb. Its a worry that a country that is currently so unstable, has nuclear armaments.

[percy toboggan]

Powder keg indeed, and sadly , proceedings there now have some small relevance to our own society. Twenty four dead over the election campaign and this is said to be 'unexceptional'. At least the Jihadi parties did least well, I understand. Life there is unfair...too big a wealth gap and yes, it's happening here as well. Until these divergences are addressed everywhere in the world we shall never be truly at peace. The wealthy must learn to settle for a bit less.

[j4bberw0ck]

Powder keg indeed <snip> The wealthy must learn to settle for a bit less.

Absolute bollocks, Percy. You're confusing several different things, not for the first time.

What's important isn't how wealthy the wealthy are; what's important is how relatively poor the poor are. And the evidence again and again is that the poorest of our global societies are all without exception wealthier than their parents and their grandparents generation. And that is good.

We are all massively wealthier than our ancestors. Economies grow and expand. Free market trade increases. And trade is the more effective use of resources - which is why it's better to buy Kenyan roses than English, for instance. And why we can have fruit and veg all year round regardless of what season it is here.

Globalisation, which (mercifully) is a force too strong to be combated by politicians, greens and other swivel-eyed loonies will ensure that the few very richest become richer - if they can figure a way of taking £1 off each of 6 billion people in a global economy, as opposed to 60 million in the UK, they're going to be MUCH richer - 100 times richer, if you need the leg up. And that's just fine, because it doesn't matter a damn.

It's not the rich who are the problem - it's the poor. And if they're getting steadily richer (as they are because the prices of what they need are reducing and their incomes are rising compared with years ago) then good is being served.

No one can legislate the poor out of existence. All that can be done is to allow them to become wealthier. You and I might not envy them their lifestyle, but it's immeasurably better than their preceding generations enjoyed, and it'll continue to get better. And if you doubt me, then you should read the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/) (I have - and I suspect I'm alone on the forum in having done so despite the eagerness of some correspondents to use the IPCC acronym) as a handy example of the range of economic scenarios. It's one of the things they got right.

[percy toboggan]

Absolute bollocks.....

We are all massively wealthier than our ancestors..... .


:roll: and you accuse me of talking 'absolute gonads' ??
I did not think we could use the b words on here.

Try telling a starving African child that he is ' massively wealthier than his ancestors' when large increases in population has reduced what meagre titbits there are to share. Or a sewer dweilling Colombia kid whose great great grandparents might have had a much more appetising lifestyle with no fear of being shot on a foray up yonder to the street.

When you use words like 'all' you need to be particularly careful, otherwise you end up lookin' like a mug.:rolleyes:

[j4bberw0ck]

Percy, If you understood the first thing about economics, you might get away with that. But then, you don't see the irony in saying that you don't trust Wikipedia, but think the Daily Mail is a good newspaper; so heaven knows what we're to make of your critical faculty. So how could we expect you to have a grasp of economics? Let me explain.

You say "the wealthy must settle for less". That implies you think that wealth is a zero-sum game - in other words, the only way I can possess £1 is by grabbing it from someone else.

Patently untrue. Wealth is the consumption of resources. That's why the thing that governments never understand is true - exports are a cost, not a benefit. Imports are a benefit, not a cost.

Trade is the effective use of resources. The more trade, the more effective the use of resources.

You argue that an African child isn't wealthier; that a Columbian sewer kid isn't wealthier. On a scale that registers with you and me, I'd agree with you. But on a scale that registers with them, they're alive, when 50 years ago they would have died soundless. No media that cared to bring the message. When you start from a low base, miniscule incremental improvements take time.

Neither wealth nor resources are static or fixed. Resources are fixed at any one point in time, but tomorrow, will be different. 30 years ago, the oil was going to run out in 30 years; reality is that resources have grown as it's become economic to exploit them. Trade and division of labour (specialisation, to you) allows more effective use of resources, or if you like, you can live the same and consume less.

So, Percy. Before you lecture me about using words like "all", make sure you know what you're talking about, otherwise you start to look like someone whose concept of reality is a bit, ah, limited. The argument about wealth isn't bounded by the experience of the poorest, any more than it is by the experience of the wealthiest. Tell me, oh wise one.... what's the fastest expanding industry in Africa?

[scotsboy]

Interesting j4bberw0ck, I suppose a lot of the post relies on your definition of wealth being the consumption of resources. I am no expert in the sphere of economics but I would have thought that wealth was the ability or potential to consume resources. Then although exports would initially be a cost, the return they provide would give you the potential to consume more resources.

I don’t get the bit about the Columbian and the African kids, I doubt they would know what would have been their situation 50 years ago so cannot see how you would consider that they are “wealthier”

We could argue that trade and division of labour allows more effective use of resources – it does not really matter as the exponential population growth means that more and more people will demand more and more resources.

Put me out of my misery with regard to the fastest growing industry in Africa – by the way is that Africa as a whole, sub-Saharan Africa or North-Africa? I’ll hazard a guess at telecommunications/mobile phones – it is everywhere else so why not Africa? I can just picture the starving giving the Red Cross a call for a bag of rice and some vegetable oil to go.

[j4bberw0ck]

I would have thought that wealth was the ability or potential to consume resources.

Well, i suppose that you could say, more strictly, that wealth is generated by the adding of value to resources which are thereby consumed. And since wealth is generated that way, the more value that can be added (ie the more efficiency with which the resource is consumed) the greater the incentive to consume efficiently.


I don’t get the bit about the Columbian and the African kids, I doubt they would know what would have been their situation 50 years ago so cannot see how you would consider that they are “wealthier”

I think Percy was grasping for an exception to disprove my argument. But it should be possible to estimate total wealth available to a population (by measure of GDP for instance), and off the top of my head I don't know of any countries which aren't better off now thatn 50 years ago by that measure. I grant you, Darfur might be a difficult case, but that's different. That's genocide.


We could argue that trade and division of labour allows more effective use of resources – it does not really matter as the exponential population growth means that more and more people will demand more and more resources.

Yes, they will, but the point still stands that resources aren't finite on anything other than a "right now" snapshot basis. Neither are they infinite; but look at the way in which efficiencies are constantly won from the processing of resources because of the incentive to do it - wealth! Two thousand years ago the only thing you could make with sand was glass - and crude glass at that. Look at what we can make out of sand today - the pcs we're using to view this are based on it. And think about how much value pcs have added to the world. Not bad for a spadeful of dirt, eh? More people means more opportunity to consume = more wealth. The swivel-eyed knuckledraggers who insist salvation lies only in losing 4 billion of the population are completely ignorant - they're playing a zero-sum game, like Percy.


Put me out of my misery with regard to the fastest growing industry in Africa – by the way is that Africa as a whole, sub-Saharan Africa or North-Africa?

Good question - sloppy me. But it works for either.


I’ll hazard a guess at telecommunications/mobile phones – it is everywhere else so why not Africa? I can just picture the starving giving the Red Cross a call for a bag of rice and some vegetable oil to go.

Go to the head of the class. 10/10. One of the very best, cheapest and fastest mobile networks is (would you believe) Somalia, where given a battery-powered pc and mobile phone you can connect to the Internet at speeds landline users in the UK can only dream of (unless you happen to have a T1 connexion or better lying around). It does seem incongruous, though, doesn't it?

Now, ask which was the only country whose Stock Markets weren't affected by the recent falls courtesy of the credit crunch fallout from the US? Right again - Africa. Partly because they have no exposure to the investment instruments that caused all the trouble, but mainly because the economies of the best countries are growing so rapidly. And they're growing so rapidly because suddenly, 21st century technology and use of resources is being visited on Stone Age economies, which are effortlessly becoming hundreds of times more efficient in key areas of activity. And the rest of those activities will catch up.

So what was that about no wealth? This is exactly why the Fair Trade / Live Aid people who just wanna do good are so completely, utterly and dangerously misled. By dumping money they disincentivise (?) the population from following the harder course of dragging up their own economies and wealth, which ultimately will have rewards orders of magniture greater than an extra 10 cents for a kilo of coffee beans.

Want to help bring wealth to Africa? Do not buy Fair Trade coffee, cloth, anything. Do not contribute to Live Aid. Tie up Bob Geldof and Bono (especially Bono, please!) and force them to do no more. Every penny going into it as aid holds Africa back a little. We just need to get the EU to stop acting as protectionist robber-baron and the Africans can sort themselves out.

Sorry, scotsboy. Here endeth the lesson :lol: .

[percy toboggan]

Interesting j4bberw0ck, I suppose a lot of the post relies on your definition of wealth being the consumption of resources. I am no expert in the sphere of economics

You're not alone on this thread scotsboy...although it seems one of us thinks he is. It may well be true....but you know the old adage about economists...well I'll not repeat it here because I'm in enough lumber with the gaffers.

[percy toboggan]

Jus nipped back on after me tea and washing up.....I do not quote the Daily Mail as chapter and verse, as someone did with Wikipedia on another thread I believe. In my opinion it is a good newspaper and although I find it somewhat depressing sometimes it is always well written , and is largely a newspaper of record.

Your instruction of fifth form economics rang a few bells but I'd largely stopped listening back then. Economics, ergo 'economic experts' ( especially patronising ones) tend to induce a glaze in the eyes of most. I confess at fifteen, I was no exception, it's a failing that's stayed with me.

To suggest 'Africa can sort itself out' is pure fantasy...apart from the sheer historical evidence to the contrary, that continent is far too diverse and geographically gigantic to be viewed as an 'it' ie. a single entity.And before you attempt to lecture anyone with economic theories and facts please pay attention to the smaller things, like linguistic detail.

As an aside on Africa...not even one substantial country down the bottom end will be able to 'sort out' a world cup competion if left to its own devices. It may well prove a fiasco. Mark my words.

The boom in mobile networks in Africa will help to explain the blossoming trade in handsets stolen from victims of crime on the streets of London and elsewhere...that'll be supply and demand I expect?

Right, enough said...I've not insulted you and I'm off to the pub while I can still afford a couple of pints with an old friend, funnily enough he's called Stan! - spooky... He's not an economic expert either.

p.s. what about Pakistan? It seems to have morphed into AFrica.

[j4bberw0ck]

Your instruction of fifth form economics rang a few bells but I'd largely stopped listening back then. Economics, ergo 'economic experts' ( especially patronising ones) tend to induce a glaze in the eyes of most. I confess at fifteen, I was no exception, it's a failing that's stayed with me.

That's alright, Percy. I forgive you; not all of us can hack it. As for failings, well, it's one of many, I'm sure. :lol:


To suggest 'Africa can sort itself out' is pure fantasy.....<snip>...."Africa" is a continent, as you seems to have spotted OK. Africa I said, Africa I meant. If medieval Europe (and I do mean Europe, Percy) could sort itself out from a bunch of warring tribes into a series of countries with trading relationships, I think your dismissal of Africa's ability to do the same in the 21st century is patronising and paternalistic in the extreme. And a good start would be for patronising Europeans to get lost and stop Fair Trade and cut back on aid programs.


The boom in mobile networks in Africa will help to explain the blossoming trade in handsets stolen from victims of crime on the streets of London and elsewhere...that'll be supply and demand I expect?Excellent. It'll be a star in the homework book for you!

Can you figure out what the next link of the chain is for an entrepreneur to add value to a resource that's of limited use as it is? :lol:

Enjoy your pint. I rather envy you that.

[percy toboggan]

Quote jabb4wock:

Can you figure out what the next link of the chain is for an entrepreneur to add value to a resource that's of limited use as it is? :lol:

In parts of Africa?...re-package it and make it look shiny...perhaps put an MUFC logo on it.

Enjoy your pint. I rather envy you that.

When I finally make it to Orkney, I'll buy you one.