Buy Nothing Day

You mention Africa so I'll tell you the conversation I had recently with the governor general of the Central Bank of Eritrea. He was talking about the WTO, IMF and World Bank. He was saying that these groups force countries into adopting alien forms of governments and incompatible economic systems, forces them into more debt than they need or want and sucks money out of the areas by not encouraging indigenous industry and business.

Dada, would you honestly expect him to say anything else? That the governer general of the national bank of Eritrea would say something along those lines suprises me not one bit. The IMF and World Bank, particularly the IMF, force nations to make tough, long-term reforms in exchange for aid- the idea is to ensure capital system reform, instead of just giving poor nations handouts. Needless to say, these tough decisions are extremely unpopular. While several governments in Africa hardly have to worry about a legitimate plebiscite, they can't risk angering their populations in the short term with reforms that could very well render impotent several of the most powerful and corrupt officials, politicians, warlords and existing government ministers. Any outside action to weaken their positions will naturally be condemned from within. This isn't just true of Eritrea- Indonesia, Guyana, Nigeria and Namibia have all delivered exactly the same response- that the IMF simply "doesn't understand our way of doing things". What a crock, as you so eloquently put it- they're simply frightened to death of unpopular, but necessary reforms. As far as them being forced into this position, erm...are you sure you realize what you're saying? The WTO is a pretty elite club of free-trade nations, governments want to be in the WTO, they aren't press-ganged into it. I concede that the WTO has as its goal the removal of trade barriers, a dangerous move for a nation trying to develop its own indigenous industries, but who's forcing them to join? It would be in their best interests to develop their financial and capital systems to the stage at which they may apply for entry. The IMF and World bank provide the impetus for reform sorely needed by several of these nations to provide transparency for their financial systems, and to root out the corruption almost enshrined in their industrial economy. The IMF is interested in long-term and sensible monetary reform- and it doesn't force anyone to do anything- unless you want its aid. The World Bank provides hard loans for essential purchases only, nations need to encourage investment and formulate ownership of investment and trusts on their own.

I think it's an amazing idea to be honest, rather than abuse-ridden welfare aid, we have aid tied to sensible and long-term reforms- helping nations to help themselves through difficult but necessary long-term reforms. That they cause strife amongst a few fat, greedy, corrupt (and in many cases overfed) politicians is a source of joy to me, not worry. I return to my original statement- these strife-ridden nations have only themselves to blame for the lack of improvement in their predicament- if IMF-led reforms are causing strife, consent had to be given to them first- if a nation is suffering without aid, again, the choice was theirs. No matter which way you look at it, responsibility rests firmly with the shambolic organs of government that embezzle, cheat, steal, abuse, spike, and otherwise exploit their own financial systems for personal gain. It sickens and disgusts me that these same people (and their cronies) continue to espouse the evils of organizations whose involvement they gave acqueisance to, thinking it would be another fat gravy train.

Agree to the IMF's involvement or don't agree- but one thing is fairly certain- the long-term involvement of the IMF has almost always yielded results- the cases of Mexico, Brazil and Pakistan all show that long-term reform of financial systems can yield prosperity. Very few politicians are willing to consider long-term measures, they only care in truth, about the next election and the next campaign-fund donation. The financial security of their nation needs to be maintained in the short term, after that, the opposition can always be blamed. Long-term reform is the only way transparency and international credibility can be established in the financial institutions of these nations- to agree to a plan of reform and then criticize it for its failings? That's hypocrisy for you- read the menu, confirm the price, start the meal, and walk off without paying the check? Come on...

Occy

Originally posted by Von



Faster television, faster computers, faster food. MTV, Microsoft, McDonalds.

You're right obviously. These things all suck I'm *not* to going to upgrade my PC on Saturday to help the protest. My new XP Athlon arrives on Monday.

Also, I too disapprove of MTV, Micrsoft and McDonalds. I'm so leftwing now that I watch VH1 Classic Rock, use Linux and eat at Burger King!

ARGH I'M A ****ING COMMUNIST!

There's nothing really wrong with wanting more. What is the alternative - to go back to each person growing their own crops, etc., ? That was what so funny about the credit-card-debt thing of Fight Club (and the Genoa riots too, I am a big miffed that the recent Canada meeting didn't get covered as the riots are the most entertaining TV I've ever seen - thank you all you anti-capitalists, it's makes for great entertainment).

And blah blah blah.

Now now Von, there's no need to get unpleasant...why not simply accept that there's a different way of looking at things hmm?

You choose not to mention corruption in say, former soviet bloc countries

A very deliberate omission- the majority of these nations are working hard to tackle these problems from within- their electorates are far more committed, politically active, and there are organs for affecting change within these nations far more easily. Also, they have great incentives- the common market, and NATO. For a nation to be accepted for membership, it cannot, in all fairness, be riddled with corruption to the extent of which we are discussing. Regional development through the use of such incentives simply isn't taking place in Africa, no nation's really tried to step up to the plate and have a go.

As far as western support for dictatorship goes, that has absolutely nothing to do with our system of government, it was a function of the manner in which the Cold War was fought. We could all be living in libretarian anarchy, and such exploitation would still occur. The Soviet Union was hardly lacking in their support of communist dictators- this is to do with human nature, not our form of government, as bonkey points out. I agree it was despicable on the part of all involved, but I refuse to acknowledge that "corporate culture", "globalization" or our system of government (none of which coincides with OPS support by the Soviet Union) is to blame.

The seemingly unstoppable trend of globalization and cooperation between the US and Europe in the 19th century gave rise to an equally powerful backlash, brought about by the confluence of rising global income inequalities and political instability that played a role in sparking the first world war. Another wave of globalization occurred during the 1920s, only to be brought to an abrupt end by the Depression and more war.

I know illiteracy is rife in America (According to a recent US government report, The State of Literacy in America, over 90 million US adults, nearly one out of two, are functionally illiterate or near illiterate) but try to read before replying or else don’t bother.

Again, there's no need to heckle or hector- it adds zilch to your already shaky argument. You point out that your statement reflects that globalization/income inequality played a role in sparking the first world war. Perhaps you misunderstand me- I don't think it played any role whatsoever. Economies were practically nationalized, the concept of international trade was nowhere near as open as today. Furthermore, I doubt a single (credible) modern european historian would cite "globalization" or "income inequality" as a cause of the First World war. Such arguments were never even mentioned in western governments at the time, the war happened because of a complex intermeshing of political alliances that were compelled to act when regional imperialism in the Balkans became to hot to handle. Not because the rich were getting richer and the poor becoming more destitute. Get your facts straight.

Unless you’ve been living in a 1950’s sit com for the last few years you’d realise that more and more people are not bothering to vote anymore. Why’s that then? What percentage of the electorate voted in the US presidential election? 50%? Even allowing for the level of illiteracy, why’s that then? Where’s the cynicism, disenfranchisement and apathy comng from?

The apathy mainly stems from an amalgamation of views across parties in many nations, especially Britain and the United States. We saw this at the last presidential election- the reason so many stayed at home is that both candidates had little to offer policy-wise that was substantiall different from his opponent. I agree that this is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I disagree that taking to the streets helps anything. Party reform and internal discussion are the meaningful ways forward, not marching up and down Capitol hill with a banner in both hands.

As I said before- if you feel there's no alternative, get off your ar$e and go and create one. There's no law against starting a party with meaningful policies, nor one to prevent you from petitioning for change within a party. If you want policy change, then campaign for it through legitimate political process. Unless you're lazy/filled with apathy of course. In which case, feel free to continue demonstrating and proclaiming "there is no alternative"

I fail to see the point of quoting Wilde out of context. I assume you’re aware that he actually classed himself as an anarchist.

What's your point? He also classed himself as a Whig, a Tory and a liberal at various stages in his life...and his political viewpoint is irrelevant in the context of the quotation. The point he makes very astutely, is that it is very easy to occupy the moral high ground when you aren't in a position to take risks, make tough decisions, make mistakes, and being branded an idiot for making them. Whenever the left has had opportunities in power in the West, they've always squandered them because of a failure to make tough decisions that needed to be made to ensure stability. TINA is simply a form of apathy propagated by the left to make up for their own failings in power, pretty pathetic, really.

As for Einstein's essay, I agree in principle with some of what he says, especially the need to control how private capital affects mainstream political decisions. I reject his message however, that humanity is deteriorating because of the creation of economies of scale. EOS have brought unimaginable standards of prosperity to the western world, and the productivity of such economies would be impossible to sustain in the absence of small business, creative and entrepreneurial thinking, and a stable government system in which these may function. As such, that particular statement by Einstein turns out to be totally false. As for the notion that capital wealth is entirely concentrated in the hands of a few individuals...so what? There lies the function of government- the redistribution of wealth. Those with a greater proportion of wealth are taxed more, and the government redistributes wealth through society as it sees fit. Without the goals of prosperity and affluence, what would drive us to succeed in the modern world? Succor for our fellow man? Please...

Returning to the main topic, BND, I still fail to see how its ideas are either noble or deserving of merit. Evaluating need before greed, and whether or not my quality of life can be improved by a purchase, are considerations I employ every day. I suspect most consumers do the same- I doubt that they need a special day to remind them they should consider the neccessity of their purchases.

I also reject the idea that we consider the base necessity of purchases we make. If that were the case, a roof over our heads, sustenance and social interaction are all that we need. Let's put this in perspective- how many of you who've posted here actually need your computers? It might be central to your work, but is there really any need for it if you don't use it that much in your work? Following the reasoning through, there is no pressing need for us to buy computers, it can be argued that they waste scarce economic resources, hurt the third world and depress employment spending. But if that's your argument, why don't we all just go back to living in trees and flinging our $hit at each other? After all, we don't *need* electricity, running water, production facilities, or even paper to survive do we? The reason we have progressed is our species' inherent ambition and drive to improve the quality of life. Convenience, amenity and consumption all inherently improve the quality of life- all of a sudden this is bad? I wholeheartedly disagree. No one's forcing you to buy that Ikea lamp, the koi pond, or the *shudder* Brittney Spears CD. But that should be your decision, and if you decide to part with your hard-earned money to make that purchase, then it's your decision. I personally would buy none of these things, I see no need for them. As such, BND would have little if no effect on my consumer behavior. And I doubt that people who would make those inane purchases would think twice because it happens to be "Buy Nothing Day".

Which factors influence how and why things are produced or not?

We call it supply and demand- if there is a demand for a good in the economy, then someone will supply it. People want, people have the choice to get. Sounds good to me.

Occy