Tocky on 30/6/2006 at 04:39
Quote Posted by Gorgon
Really? Why?
He can correct me if I'm wrong but I think he is refering to the whole running around in loin cloths with no written language or technological advancement thing. Africa was basically the same as the US where tribes contented themselves with fighting each other and hunting for food. The exceptions were Egypt and the Incas and Mayans which were more sophisticated but nevertheless fell short when dealing with those who were forged by Rome or actually were Rome. The better system usually won out with the exception of Alexandria and a few others.
The western way (Eastern as well) is to not be content but to exploit everything to full usefullness, mostly to it's betterment. Left alone I can see native Americans and Africans still living as they did a thousand years ago. That isn't a value judgement. It might be nice to live by oral history around a campfire and hunt, I mean aside from the occasional tribal turfwar.
However you might feel about bad europe guy and his more dominant style of warfare it would have been warfare of one style or another anyway. Nobody simply traded, everybody fought. EVERYBODY. NATIVE AMERICANS AND AFRICANS INCLUDED. Still, one does wonder what might have become of Egypt and the Incas. How anyone can look at history and only see the evil of the winners amazes me though.
Myoldnamebroke on 30/6/2006 at 08:32
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
Q: Does Canada allow dual citizenship, or does a child born of American parents visiting Canada loose their Canadian citizenship if they become American citizens?
Actually, I don't even know if a child born of two American parents in another country is considered an American citizen. I sure hope they are, because that would a real headache if it wasn't so.
I've got a mate who was born in England and continues to live in England, but has US citizenship because of his mum. He can't 'lose' it against his will unless he fights as an officer in army that's fighting against the US, or something.
Convict on 30/6/2006 at 09:03
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
I didn't say that there are
no teenagers who would do certain jobs, just that it wouldn't be near enough to fill the need.
Sure it was anecdotal experience and perhaps should not have been included. However it seems to be that certain American industries are being propped up by cheap labour (which is comparible to being subsidized) and economic rationalism dictates that the free market should correct this by means of a) raising wages to levels compatible with labour being willing to offer "itself" and b) redistributing resources to more efficient industries.
Starrfall on 30/6/2006 at 17:31
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
And you know what else? Plenty of kids also realize that working outdoors with a chainsaw/lawnmower/weedwacker doing manual labor beats the shit out of tossing onion rings into a deep fryer.
Yeah, but the
smart ones get summer jobs in nice air conditioned retirement homes. ;)
I think plenty of people would be willing to work field jobs as long as the conditions weren't shitty, but I think aguy is right to say it still wouldn't be enough. I don't know much about the workings of agriculture, but I do know (or assume) that some things HAVE to be tended/picked by hand (strawberries, vineyards, etc) and out here I've seen fields of those fuckers bigger than most of the cities I've lived in. They're so massive and so relatively far removed from the bigger population centers that I can't imagine there's enough casual american workers to handle it all.
TheGreatGodPan on 30/6/2006 at 21:38
I probably should have distinguished between northern and sub-saharan Africa in my comments. The former is/was a bit like the Middle East and the latter makes the former look good. Why are things that way? "Guns, Germs and Steel" gives a partway, but insufficient explanation. I think it should also be noted that even without Europeans raping and pillaging on the continent, you'd still have Arabs doing it. If you read Thomas Sowell's "The Real History of Slavery" he explains how the bulk of the African slave trade was not to the West, and how it was largely eliminated by British imperialism at steep cost of lives and money.
Convict on 30/6/2006 at 23:03
America's agriculture industry is heavily subsidised and should be opened up to the free market. Heck, if you have to subsidise your farmers (mainly the big business ones) by (
http://www.ewg.org/farm/findings.php) $143 billion (US) over 10 years then surely you can pay a few extra dollars an hour to fill your positions with American labour. Or, you know, accept free market reforms like everyone else.
Renegen on 1/7/2006 at 00:08
I think the subsidising has to do with free market prices and crop fluctuations being too much of a risk to the farmer. The governments subsidising agriculture is not uncommon.
Convict on 1/7/2006 at 00:33
Not uncommon for America or the EU.
Yes the free market is a risk for American farmers precisely because many of them should not be in business.
Renegen on 1/7/2006 at 00:51
What the hell are you talking about? Growing wheat is a bit different from selling designer bags, it's needed to feed the population. With the global market the margins are tiny and the farmer, any farmer cannot pay his mortgage, equipment if one year he gets 10% less revenues because of events he couldn't control.
Also how would you react if the price of bread this year was twice the price of the previous year? It affects the whole economy.
Convict on 1/7/2006 at 01:30
America and the EU (Japan?) should perhaps be importing much more of their food from countries that can produce it more efficiently - e.g. Australia and developing countries. Indeed, many economists attribute problems of the 3rd and 2nd world to these very subsidies Americans and European (inefficient) farmers get.
