Your Questions About Green Living

please summarize this article?

you dont have to read the whole thing, thank you!!

Democratic countries in the developing sector, such as Poland and South Africa, are losing out in the race for American export markets and American foreign investment. Dictatorships such as China or semidictatorships such as Indonesia are winning.

And the trend is growing. As more of the world’s countries adopt democracy, more American businesses appear to prefer dictatorships.

If trade and investment strengthen developing countries, then U.S. businesses may be weakening the very countries they say they most want to help.

These are the conclusions of a report recently released by the New Economy Information Service (NEIS), a think tank set up to gauge the effects of globalization.

“The democratic countries in the developing world are losing ground to more authoritarian countries when it comes to competing for U.S. trade and investment dollars,” NEIS said.

“This finding,” it said, “raises the question of whether foreign purchasing and investment decisions by U.S. corporations may be inadvertently undermining the chances for survival of fragile democracies.”

NEIS compiled the report using U.S. government and World Bank figures on trade and investment. It borrowed political ratings compiled by Freedom House, a human rights organization that ranks countries as “free,” “partly free” or “not free” based on the level of their political rights and civil liberties.

In 1989, when the Cold War ended, democratic countries accounted for more than half–53.4 percent–of all U.S. imports from Third World countries, not counting oil. Today, with more democracies to choose from, the democratic countries supply barely one-third–34.9 percent–of U.S. imports from the Third World, it said.

After the same decade, democracies got 28 percent of American manufacturing investment in developing countries, up from 26.2 percent when the Cold War ended. This slight improvement–1.8 percentage points– paled beside the 5.7 percentage-point growth in U.S. investment reported by dictatorships, especially China.

China, which ranked 18th among recipients of U.S. investment in 1989, is in fourth place now, ahead of long-established democratic partners such as Argentina and South Korea.

The NEIS report asked why dictatorships are outbidding democracy for the American market, but said it does not know. “We are left with as many questions as answers,” the report said.

“Something is going on, and it’s worth pursuing,” said NEIS Executive Director David Jessup. “We can’t say that U.S. businesses have an absolute preference for authoritarian countries. I doubt that the issue of democracy-or-no-democracy is on businessmen’s minds when they make an investment decision. But maybe it’s an unconscious preference.”

Wages tend to be lower in dictatorships than in democracies, giving businesses in dictatorships an advantage on selling exports abroad. The investment question is more complex than that, Jessup said, but the report suggested a combination of factors–lower wages, easier environmental laws, bans on labor unions–that give dictatorships an edge.

Such rulers tend to be strong leaders who can provide quick decisions, deliver results and stamp out opposition. These qualities can appeal to many business leaders, who themselves operate in a non-democratic structure.

When Indonesia overthrew its dictator, Suharto, and installed a less authoritarian leader, investors tended to sit on their hands. One currency expert, Ron Leven of J.P. Morgan, was quoted as saying that “democracy is a desirable form of government, but it’s not necessarily the most efficient form of government.”

There is an “amorality” here, said Thomas I. Palley, assistant director of public policy at the AFL-CIO and a member of the NEIS team. “Profits and morality don’t mix very well.”

Palley noted that dictators, not having to answer to voters or a legislature, can often deliver investment incentives–such as tax breaks, freedom from environmental laws and a docile work force–that are powerful lures for foreign corporations.

But the U.S. government is part of the reason democracies come up short in luring investors, Palley said. “It says that, if you deal with these guys (dictators), you make them more open. This provides the moral reasoning that businessmen want.”

The result is a boom in investment and trade with China in the interest of “engaging” the Communist regime there.

Charity choices vs. social pressures?

Just wondering what “the people” think about this. I’ve worked for a few companies in my career and everyone donated to charity. This is great and I think more big businesses should donate their millions of profit to the more needy, hell, I even donate what little money I have plus my time. Here’s my issue with their (big business) logic…

Every company donated to foundations that help the kids of Africa or some other third world country, buying food and cloths for the people of “X” who don’t have the benefits we have here (they walk to water, we truck our fat butts to the fridge for ours….. we have “FUBU” cloths that cost an arm and leg and they have hand woven sweaters which are logo free). I’ve talked to the people within these companies that deal with the donations (out of personal interest) and out of all these companies that donated to 3rd world country’s, not one donated to a foundation in its own country! (other than heart&stroke and other medical groups which do help world wide but their efforts there are greatly shadowed by the other donation)

At first glance it looks like these companies have the biggest hearts giving a few hundred grand (a SMALL percent of their annual profit) to these charities yet I walk by hungry, cold, homeless, uneducated (due to lack of money cause university defiantly is not cheap) people where ever I go in my own country!! Our funding to environmental initiatives are minimal and our own country is in a less than perfect state.

Are these companies donating to these charities because they truly feel that they are doing good or are they giving this money and making public who they donate too to get the support of their customers for future business? Again, helping anyone out is great, no matter how big or small the contribution, but shouldn’t we get our own sh*t together first. Take care of our own? If my family was hungry I would feed them first….. but in the public eyes, you are a “better” person if you donate to Indigenous groups than if you help the man sleeping on your corner.

Just a discussion topic….

Wha are you views on the UN? Where is the future of this complex organization?

The UN was paralyzed by the Cold War. The five veto wielding members, permanent members, which are superpowers have also served national interest during and after the Cold War. What are your thoughts on the world organization? Share what you think the pragmatic future is, the ideal future, and also-if you have one-you’re favorite Secretary-General. An example is below. Share anything.

I believe the UN will get weaker due to national interest. I believe that IMF and World Bank are cancers within the UN and will widen the North-South divide between developed and developing nations. The UN might sadly fall apart if drastic steps to reform aren’t taken.

These are my ideals. Like Albert Einstein Einstein said the General Assembly should be superior the other UN bodies. In my opinion the General Assembly shall assume the role of the Security Council. The Security Council will dissapear. 2/3 of the countries represented in the General Assmebly are developing nations. When the General Assembly is the executive body it will open door for development and improve global justice, which the lack of is the cause of terrorism, and therefore will be a security measure. The veto is not needed because Cold War is over. An issue of trust won’t get in the way of clean water in Israel and Palestine.

My fave Secretary-General is U Thant. Not afraid to be against apartheid in South Africa, Vietnam War, the US entanglement in the Mid-East, and was an advocate of the Non Aligned Movement in Bandung–before he became Secy-General. He opened the UN Development and Environmental Programmes. He ended Congolese Civil War. He also won the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding.
Those who dislike the UN, completely that is, please don’t answer. Not to be rude or exclusive but I’d just prefer people who prefer such an organization to nothing at all. It’s for a project.

Why do enviornmentalists and poverty advocates ignore the fundemental problem of overpopulation?

The media, social welfare types , humans in general but especially , enviornmentalists, seem to gloss over this issue and vehemently fight the effects of overpopulation like dwindiling wildlife areas and wildlife populations, increased pollution, globalwarming/cooling/climate change/whatever, deforestation and dwindling resources and completely overlook the fact that the human population is expanding, people are living much longer infant mortality rates are much lower even in regions that they are traditionally high.

The human population is getting exponentially larger , millions upon millions ahead of the death rate every year. Each one of these surplus people I guess you can call them for now, will consume a lifetime of resources, food, gas, electricity, plastics, paper, everything. And generate a lifetime of waste. Each person will demand a certain amount of space to live as well. You cant tell some poor guy in Africa hey don’t build your tiny family sustaining farm there, we need to preserve the environment. Or maybe you can but for how long?

Its very obvious to me that looking forward there will come a point where the struggle to prevent poverty and conserve the environment will become useless because the rate of conservation and poverty reduction will be surpassed by the growth of the human population. Any gains made will be cancelled out by new people generating more waste and demanding more resources and space. Trying to reduce the effects of overpopulation can only at the very most slow the inevitable fate of total environmental destruction and a Catastrophic loss of human life from famine, war, starvation disease.

Let me create a picture to illustrate my point

Imagine the world with twice as many people as there are today?( this is coming by the end of this century). I see a place where everything costs much more, more waste much less resources to go around starvation war animal extinction, habitat elimination.

Now imagine the world with only half as many people as there are now? Everything is cheaper resources are abundant poverty is miniscule because everyone has jobs and education is affordable, plenty of room to live for wildlife and humans, waste is manageable and can realistically be eliminated etc, etc…

I know some might say we can eventually populate other planets but to that I say who will go? Who will want to live on Mars in a bubble where there’s only 1/3 of earths gravity?? or on the moon? or on some giant space ship where you know you will die long before you reach a new world . The human race will of destroyed ourselves by the time we figure out some way to get to other stars quickly. That’s if a way even exists.

So I ask why is this fact ignored and instead everybody chases global warming or climate change or whatever it is now. And the other effects of overpopulation??
Optimus I agree with your fundemental argument but Humans will not stop reproducing “until” it is unsustainable by that point the enviornment will already have been destroyed.
Kelly, that does not answer anything! race, spices whatever, take your anger somewhere else please.

Anti Immigration in Britain, Racist?

I am am concerned about the overcrowding of England as it is way above the norm in Europe:
(check the stats)

England
People per sq Mile: 1022

Germany
Per sq Mile: 602

Spain
Per sq Mile: 235

France:
Per sq Mile: 305

I am concerned about the environmental aspect of allowing millions of more people to settle. Surely this will have an adverse effect on England’s wildlife as well as an increase in human waste and the nation’s carbon footprint.

There has been a dramatic increase in diseases due to immigration from countries experiencing endemics: (2007) The Hepatitis B Foundation estimates that the numbers infected by the disease in Britain have almost doubled in the past five years, to 326,000. More than half of these people are immigrants from Africa, Asia, Russia and the new EU nations

(2008) The majority of people actually diagnosed with HIV in the UK in 2008 (58 %) had been infected through heterosexual sex, Two thirds of those infected heterosexually were black African and the vast majority (87%) of these people had probably acquired HIV overseas.

Do these opinions make me a racist? As whenever immigration is discussed the issue of racism is automatically bound to all possible concerns no matter how unrelated to hatred of another’s race and/or customs.