From: evleth@wanadoo.fr
On 30/06/03 21:01, in article lO%La.66672$R73.9311@sccrnsc04, "Lexham"
wrote:
>
> And where will all the funds for this "vast expansion" of aid come from?
> From what I've observed of the French and their socialist system, they have
> absolutely no idea of the basic economic idea of scarcity; i.e., money
> doesn't grow on trees.
Question: "From what I've observed" means what? Are you living here or
somewhere else in Europe and have been doing so for an extended period of
time? Or do you gather you impressions from reading press.
Next, such large aid commitments is generally European, actually lead
by the Norway, Sweden and Denmark who contribute about 1% of the GNP
which many multiples of the US rate.
So your question has to be general not specifically anti-French in tone.
> Precisely what medical aid has the U.S. blocked?
The US refuses to permit generic production of low coast drugs to be
use for the poor countries. This is to protect the US pharmaceutical
interests and thus does not have a humanitarian intent, but a purely
protectionist intent.
The eventual idea is that the rich countries should be the ones who support
the profits of these companies not the poor ones. The US pharmaceutical
industry has around a 20% profit margin, a level usually justified
by citing their high research and development costs (ironically their
marketing costs exceed their reseach costs but this is never mentioned).
Whatever, these large profit margins should not be made of the backs
of the suffering poor. Got it?
>> The US should be supportive of the intent of the Kyoto agreement, take
>> a leadership position in attacking the problem of global warming.
>
> That would put us at an economic disadvantage, yet at the same time we're
> supposed to come up with billions more for foreign aid. Your requests are
> mutually exclusive.
The energy costs in the US, in terms of kilowatts/GNP, is the highest and
the most inefficient of nearly all the industrialized countries. Therefore
the wasteful practices in the US can be controlled and the nation brought
back to a behavior nearer that of the Puritan tradition, "waste not, want
not". So there is also a moral value of shaping up.
I taked it you don`t know the facts in this area or either the drug area?
>> The nation should use its power and intervene at the request of
>> international organizations.
>
> Intervene how, where, when? Which international organizations?
NATO and the UN have been used in the past. France asked the UN Security
Council for permission to enter into the Congo, recently, for instance,
Likewise, intervention is being requested in Liberia now. Specifically
the US is being requested.
> Don't expect us to change for your sake, either.
The US has changed over the years from "doing good" to not doing so well.
Aid levels have progressively dropped as the nation turned more and more
arrogant and nationally egocentric.
The transformation in Europe has been in an opposite direction largely
due to the building of a economically united Europe in which war is
no longer a policy. This building process is not yet finished but is
ongoing. What is clear is that Europe is an old Europe but a wiser
one having learned the lessons of history.
>> But most of all it should cast itself in the mold of peace not war.
>
> And what would that be?
Demilitarization for one thing. The world does not need military super
powers, it never did. We had two, now there is one, let there be zero.
With regard to economics the world also does not need a "control freak".
Controls are collective, as in any system of law and order.
Earl
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
