Western NGOs - The' New Imperialism'?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

It has been said that the people in the Western World should just keep out of developing nations, that
the era of ' the White Man's Burden' is over, and we can never correct the mistakes of the past ourselves.

So, what are we to do about the situation that we see on our TV screens, I ask?

I know there are some that say 'Just accept the fact that you are privileged - there is nothing you can do for the poor in developing countries'.

Oh , yeah? How about ...

Amnesty International. do you realise that Amnesty is over 50 yrs old, and has freed many people from detention around the world? It has supported the peaceful struggle for democratic representation and is currently still fighting the corner for Aung San Su Ky and for Democracy in Burma.

The Fair Fair Trade Foundation.
By setting up workers co operatives with people in the developing world, it enables people in those countries to grow food and earn more money than they would by working on a plantation run by Nestle or any other traditional corporation.

The Grameen Bank.
By supplying micro credit to people in the third world, mostly women , they enable people to start businesses and make income of their own .

Trade Justice.
The world's poor take their goods to market. but the tariffs, quotas, commodity prices and such are all set out by the World Trade Organisation, that meets in New York. The UK can afford to send many delegates to the USA to argue their case and speak up for them and their industries. Sadly, the people of Ghana cannot afford to send anyone. like many developing nations, their voice is never heard at the trade conferences were decisions involving them get made.

So, I think that we ought to be supporting these causes and organisations as individuals and as national communities.

the Mises Institute has said that the Fair trade movement is 'distorting the market', yet I don't hear Mises complain when the US government subsidises the American Cotton growing corporations and allows them to dump subsidised cotton on the world market that kills local competition in developing countries stone dead.

The Mises Institute doesn't mind an easy ride for the rich it seems , but wants to discourage us from helping the poor.

But anyway - how can anyone complain about the activities of these organisations in the developing world?
What do local people say about them? What alternatives are there that right wingers and other critics would put up ?

The free market, did someone say?
the free market gave us Nestle - which prompted the Nestle Boycott.
the Free Market led to the backlash that prompted the rise of Socialism in Britain .
lets remember that the people of the Soviet bloc who risked their lives to cross the Berlin Wall were not heading for a free market, but rather the regulated markets and mixed economies of democratic Western Europe.

in the last 50 years, the NGOs like Amnesty International and the Fair Trade Foundation have done a great deal to develop a higher standard of living in the poorer nations of the world. free trade , by contrast, has gone in and marketed tobacco in Africa in order to make easier profits - marketing and advertising regulations have lower standards than the UK and USA, and tobacco corporations are quick to take advantage and go for easy profits here. I feel it's the corporations that represent the new Imperialism , and not the NGOs like Amnesty International.

Comments

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

To the extent it can provide greater efficiency, hence provide lower cost to the consumer and higher return to the producer, there is nothing wrong with fair trade goods. It's just cutting out the "middle-man."

Government subsidies simply externalize some cost to the taxpayer. It should not be called fair trade because it is exactly the opposite. Tariffs against governments that do this can discourage the practice.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

It should not be called fair trade because it is exactly the opposite.

Government subsidies are not usually called Fair Trade. Traidcraft corporation gets no government money, but they do charge a premium for their goods direct to the consumer.

Just as I would expect to pay more for a hand made item instead of something that a machine churned out by the hundred per hour, I don't mind paying a premium for things like free range meat, or coffee grown on a workers co operative instead of a corporate plantation. I , as a consumer, want this stuff and will pay extra to have it.

Mises can insert their complaints into the orifice of their choice.
Sticking a tariff on US goods isn't something that smaller nations can do without economic and political reprisals. Consumer boycotts are not something that any Corporation can ignore so easily.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I would think that rather than heading for a free economy they were preferring democracy, where the Stasi and Soviet army weren't the determining factors in politics. But that may be just me. Economies mean less than the ability to get out of the bloodthirsty repression that the GDR, which preserved a lot of the Nazi repression-apparatus intact did.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Political freedom had a lot to do with it, yes - but my point is that Europe was not what the Mises institute would hold up as a ' free market. it was well regulated.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Neither is anything else short of the Old Stone Age. Your point?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Ok, lets leave the Berlin Wall out of it.

Amnesty International, Traidcraft, Grameen Bank - the one that won its originator a Nobel prize - are these examples of Western Imperialism , or do we applaud them for sorting out some of the mess the world is in and offer them our support?

[tridus.livejournal.com]

People need to put some thought into what they're actually doing when they try to "help".

There was an article not too long ago I read about someone harassing their friends for donations so they could go to Africa and build houses. People who refused were threatened with being "outed" on Facebook for not caring about poor people.

Now if you think about that for a moment, what does caring about poor people have to do with taking a rich privileged person, spending thousands of dollars on fuel and food to send them halfway around the planet so they can volunteer to do something that the local population is perfectly capable of doing on their own (and might be doing as paid work)?

So there's a perfect example of where they advice "keep out" is entirely correct. This person is doing far more harm then good with their do-gooder attitude.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

True.

however, I would not put Amnesty International in the same bracket, myself.

there are any number of bogus charities that pester people like me for donations, and are simply there so that the registered charity can pay people a cheque for the work done on its behalf.

This does not mean that Charities themselves are all wrong in principle.

I think AI has been going now for over 50 years , and has a decent track record . You ?

[tridus.livejournal.com]

AI seems to do pretty good work. I'm not saying that "keep out" is a universal truth, but it's good advice a fair bit of the time.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Voluntourism is a scourge. If you don't have skills that the locals don't have, why are you there? You can earn money in the first world and send it, that's worth much more than your labour. Having said that I absolutely understand the desire to combine travel with helping people, but you shouldn't be putting people out of a job (like construction). There is actually a large demand for people interested in working with animals and the disabled in the third world because the society cannot afford to look after them themselves. Volunteering at a dog shelter in Thailand can actually bring a benefit to the local society. I know one western NGO that is trying to get the wild dogs under control on an island in Thailand. The dogs aren't native, so they're upsetting the local ecosystem and they are dangerous for the locals to boot. Without these Westerners nothing would be being done about the problem, so you can say that there is a genuine need and benefit there.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I don't hear Mises complain when the US government subsidises the American Cotton growing corporations

Then you're not listening very closely.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

I don't really read them, except in response to what their supporters throw my way.
I will google and see what comes up.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Austrian economics eschews all government subsidies, equally. They distort the market and make it inefficient.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

I just went over there to see if I could find a gotcha paper (you often can at mises.org when a Libertarian says "no Libertarians support this!") but it is genuinely full of "ALL SUBSIDIES ARE BAD" papers, they seem pretty consistent there.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"
the Mises Institute has said that the Fair trade movement is 'distorting the market', yet I don't hear Mises complain when the US government subsidises the American Cotton growing corporations and allows them to dump subsidised cotton on the world market that kills local competition in developing countries stone dead."

Then you are not listening loud enough.

Mises actively argues against ALL government subsidies.

As far as "dumping" it on the market, here is where both Mises and I would disagree with you that there is a problem. If America can grow cotton cheaper than anyone else in the world then there is no reason we should not sell it for the lowest price we can and dominate the market.

In fact any attempts at tarrifs or trade quotas to protect local cotton growers by other countries would only be counterproductive and harm the very poor you wish to help.

However you are correct to oppose the government subsidies of Cotton, both here, and abroad.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

If America can grow cotton cheaper than anyone else in the world then there is no reason we should not sell it for the lowest price we can and dominate the market.

but the problem is that the USA can only put the cotton out at this price because the US tax payer is helping to foot the bill.
And yes, EU countries also pump in a lot of government subsity to keep farming corporations happy.

Both the EU and USA should be condemned for denying the poorer farmers in other nations the chance to get a fiar price for their goods.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Reducing tariffs is one of the neo-liberal experiments to come out of the 80s that seemingly works fantastically. However, I'm viewing it from a developed nation point of view, and one of the major points to having tariffs is to support the local industry to develop until it can become mature and globally competitive. If a country decides to get into a new cash crop or industry it takes time for the support industries to develop. Australia is a really good example of this. We used to make everything here, meaning there were millions of manufacturing jobs. We got rid of tariffs and the jobs went with them, but because we has a mature economy the service industry was able to absorb most of that. Although it's hard to know just exactly how much the mining boom distorts these kinds of things; it's been going since pretty much the end of the last recession that was essentially an end result of the neo-liberal reforms of the 80s ('93, yes we haven't had a recession in nearly 2 decades now). Not that that I think you can blame the recession on the neo-liberal policies, we completely transformed our economy, removing tariffs, floating the dollar, creating the reserve bank and significant changes to the union movement, it's only natural to expect that the politicians and bureaucrats would fuck a few things up (IMO it was the reserve bank not increasing interest rates soon enough to put the brakes on the economy, meaning we ended up with 20% interest rates to try and avoid an inflationary crisis).

So, in conclusion, global free trade is good for mature economies, and arguably the industrialising economies of Asia, but from what I can tell, it's not good for economies based largely on subsistence farming or a few cash crops; you need the tariffs until the factories are built at least.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

The major issue is when people are there to help, but wind up hindering. If you were a starving person and someone walked over your meagre veggie patch to give you a bowl of rice you wouldn't necessarily see it as a good thing.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"The Mises Institute doesn't mind an easy ride for the rich it seems , but wants to discourage us from helping the poor."

Um, no it doesn't. Pointing out what you believe to be an economic fallacy behind a given charity program is not saying you can't help the poor, it is saying that you believe this particular program to be counterproductive.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Having checked the Mises site, I am willing to retract my claim that they do not criticise US farm subsidies.

However, let me put this to you -if I am willing to pay a farmer extra for giving me free range eggs, so long as the eggs are actually free range, i think this is a fair deal. Agreed?

Maybe some people don't give a damn about the hens , but I do, and I will pay the premium for animal welfare..

Now, suppose I go one step further and say that I will buy coffee, so long as it comes from a workers co operative?
I mean , some people will pay the extra for a label that says 'Made in Britain' , or 'Made in the USA'. Is this any different from the Fair Trade Label that says it was made in a co-operative owned by the workers?

Is this really a 'distortion of the market?'

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"Having checked the Mises site, I am willing to retract my claim that they do not criticise US farm subsidies.

However, let me put this to you -if I am willing to pay a farmer extra for giving me free range eggs, so long as the eggs are actually free range, i think this is a fair deal. Agreed?

Maybe some people don't give a damn about the hens , but I do, and I will pay the premium for animal welfare..

Now, suppose I go one step further and say that I will buy coffee, so long as it comes from a workers co operative?
I mean , some people will pay the extra for a label that says 'Made in Britain' , or 'Made in the USA'. Is this any different from the Fair Trade Label that says it was made in a co-operative owned by the workers?

Is this really a 'distortion of the market?'"

This article sums it up nicely...


http://mises.org/daily/1548

"Before going further, I'd like to make it perfectly clear that it is entirely within coffee-bean buyers' rights to pay any price, including an inflated price, they can get growers to agree to. And I consider it entirely within the rights of coffee consumers to buy coffee represented to have been so purchased at any price the retailer is willing to part with it for. This is all voluntary. There are no governments involved and so, as far as I can see, no coercion.

So, why does it rankle me so? Am I so intensely uncharitable that the charity of others bothers me, even when it costs me nothing? How very refreshing it is, after all, not having the taxman threatening me with the armed might of the state if I should shirk in paying his levy!

Well, this charity that I'm not party to does irk me when I see supermarket chains raking off a dollar for every quarter or less that supposedly goes to the impoverished growers. But no lies have actually been told, and the fools who buy this coffee should be free to be parted from their money in whatever ways they choose, although I admit I'd prefer they chose me to waste their riches on, rather than someone (anyone) else.

But worse, this is yet another Newspeak-style hijacking of the word, "fair," coupled here with "trade" that bothers me. Á la Bastiat, it's what is not seen that troubles me worst. Picture the buyer for fair-trade coffee traveling the cool uplands of Colombia or Brazil, ready to pay more than the going price for coffee. How does he choose which grower deserves our largesse? Well, a carefully crafted set of hints at the ugly truth may be found at, the Web site of TransFair USA, the US affiliate of the global FLO (Fair Labeling Organization).

For a more complete rendition, consult the Christian Science Monitor's article describing a grower (actually, a cooperative) in Nicaragua that can't gain even consideration from FLO for fair-trade certification because … they're too small! Not too small to sell their product at the lower, global, unfair price of about 55 cents a pound. Just too small to get the chance to pay the $2,431 it costs to join the club, and the $.02 per pound volume charge. That's right — you have to pay to get paid more. Where's the fairness in this trade? The answer, of course, is that it isn't trade; at best, it's charity, and more-realistically, it's the bureaucratic apparatus behind a marketing gimmick that's much, much less than it appears to be.

Perhaps, you might surmise, the matter would be improved if everyone bought only fair-trade coffee. Then, the whole crop would shower our beneficence on the coffee growers of the world, and there'd be none of this tawdry pick-and-choose. But then, the dismal economist in me realizes, there'd be outsize profits to be had in growing coffee, and more people and more land would enter the lucrative coffee business, and sooner or later, there'd again be more coffee even than all the coffee buyers in the world wanted to buy at the inflated prices they're all paying.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

The question of scale is about the only real objection , and the FLO have scaled down the 'entry fee' to cater for smaller producers who cannot afford the rates that larger co operatives pay.

but the whole wording is loaded - the grower is actually a co operative? Why should this be a problem? I don't mind workers owning the land they use to grow crops, OK?

"The fools who buy this coffee" - again , its is not written to me, I feel, it is written to make Mises readers feel smug in rejecting my values. This would be called ' trolling ' if it appeared on LJ.

If a company started selling a few lines in a few countries, and was able to go from a small operation to becoming a mainstream supplier of several more lines of merchandise over a period odf time, Mises would no dobt call it a success story. Why he is so bitter and cynical about the whole FT movement propts me to ask why? is it the fact that i'm hurting his market share, i wonder? You tell me.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"but the whole wording is loaded - the grower is actually a co operative? Why should this be a problem?"

I'm pretty sure he was expressing surprise that the fact that this Co-op was not embraced by the Fair Trade Movement. I don't believe he personally has any issue with Co-ops.

""The fools who buy this coffee" - again , its is not written to me, I feel, it is written to make Mises readers feel smug in rejecting my values. This would be called ' trolling ' if it appeared on LJ."

I'm sure it is a bit of trolling, but he was not writing a news article, he was writing an opinion piece and the thought that went behind calling you a "fool" is that he is equating Fair Trade with Charity Theater, something that soothes your conscious but is really more of a marketing gimmick than anything else and doesn't really help the poor in any meaningful way

"If a company started selling a few lines in a few countries, and was able to go from a small operation to becoming a mainstream supplier of several more lines of merchandise over a period odf time, Mises would no dobt call it a success story. Why he is so bitter and cynical about the whole FT movement propts me to ask why? is it the fact that i'm hurting his market share, i wonder? You tell me."

He told you straight in that article, in fact he even asks a variation on that very question itself.

He opposes it because he sees it as form of newspeak. To the overwhelming majority of economists, not even just those from the Austrian School all trade is by definition fair, as long as no force or fraud is present. Basically his view, true or false, is that this is little more than a marketing gimmick designed to get you to pay a higher price, most of which ends up in the pockets of the Supermarket chain and the pockets of the fair trade organizations and not in the hands of the farmers by appealing to your guilt at being rich (or at living in a rich country) and your sense of "fairness".

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Basically his view, true or false, is that this is little more than a marketing gimmick designed to get you to pay a higher price, most of which ends up in the pockets of the Supermarket chain and the pockets of the fair trade organizations and not in the hands of the farmers by appealing to your guilt at being rich (or at living in a rich country) and your sense of "fairness".

The price in the supermarket question -
the fact is that there was a time in England when you cld only get Fair trade coffee in your local church or the Oxfam shop. And I did, of course. but then we had the idea that if we all wrote to the supermarkets and said " we shop here, we will shop elsewhere if we don't see Trade craft on the shelves", we suddenly found all the big retailers were selling Traidcraft. OK, they took a cut, but they could shift more boxes on a Monday morning than we could in a whole month in our local church. You now get Traidcraft in Starbucks! I don't think it started as a gimmick , and it does seem to have grass roots support in the 3rd world.

The real test is - do the co ops put up schools and clinics? has anyone ran a story to show that there is dissent at local level. Even the Grameen Bank has run into trouble over this, and now AI.

It seems that the good guys have to be good or get found out - and nobody has rumbled Traidcraft - as yet. the price of entry question has been addressed and registration fees for smaller growers has been reduced.

But, I guess we have to be vigilant.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"Amnesty International. do you realise that Amnesty is over 50 yrs old, and has freed many people from detention around the world? It has supported the peaceful struggle for democratic representation and is currently still fighting the corner for Aung San Su Ky and for Democracy in Burma. "


Amnesty International does absolutely nothing to help the poor but they do a lot of good work to advance the cause of freedom, however they also waste quite a bit of effort trying to equate terrorists and other criminals with political prisoners. I don't care how just your cause, when you blow up a school you deserve to be punished.

"The Fair Fair Trade Foundation.
By setting up workers co operatives with people in the developing world, it enables people in those countries to grow food and earn more money than they would by working on a plantation run by Nestle or any other traditional corporation."

I'm rather neutral to the whole Fair Trade thing because I think it's benefits are massively overblown. It simply will not scale and so while it helps a handful of individual farmers doesn't really do anything to alleviate poverty in those countries on a larger scale. That said some of the best single source chocolate comes from fair trade sources and I have no qualms whatsoever spending a few extra bucks to get them.


"The Grameen Bank.
By supplying micro credit to people in the third world, mostly women , they enable people to start businesses and make income of their own ."

I don't know anything about this particular agency but I love the idea of micro credit and see it as a perfect libertarian solution to helping the poor in 3rd world countries, however even here the benefit is largely overstated because the entire concept is based on the flawed idea that most poor people will make excellent entrepreneurs.

"Trade Justice.
The world's poor take their goods to market. but the tariffs, quotas, commodity prices and such are all set out by the World Trade Organisation, that meets in New York. The UK can afford to send many delegates to the USA to argue their case and speak up for them and their industries. Sadly, the people of Ghana cannot afford to send anyone. like many developing nations, their voice is never heard at the trade conferences were decisions involving them get made."

Is this an actual organization or just an ideal? If it is an organization what do they do, if it is an ideal then hey welcome to the free trade club. Not that managed trade crap they peddle at the WTO and call free trade but actual free trade with no barriers, quota's, or Tarrifs whatsoever. This is afterall the most libertarian of positions.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Amnesty International does absolutely nothing to help the poor but they do a lot of good work to advance the cause of freedom,,

By supporting people campaigning for union recognition and the democratic right to vote, they are in fact helping poor people who need these things.

If you can vote , you can help elect governments that will provide legislation protecting workers from exploitation.

The work of AI is linked exclusively to people involved in non violent protest.I don't know of any terrorist organisation that Amnesty has ever supported.

It simply will not scale and so while it helps a handful of individual farmers doesn't really do anything to alleviate poverty in those countries on a larger scale.
it helps some and needs to grow bigger.the fac that it is still trading means that it can incorporate more products into its range and employ even more workers. it is a way forward for workers to own and manage the means of production themselves.

however even here the benefit is largely overstated because the entire concept is based on the flawed idea that most poor people will make excellent entrepreneurs. In spite of the fact that this company's founder won a Nobel prize for his work, the Grameen bank has not spread beyond Bangladesh , the place it was founded. but the concept of microc redit has enabled its expansion.

It does not mean that every poor person needs entreprenuerial skills. So long as the work in a co operative, the people in charge run things and the workers just keep on working as usual.

Trade Justice is an ideal, but the organisations that support it include World Development Movement, War on Want, Fair Trade Council and many others. It is opposed to the way in which the WTO tends to operate. Trade Justice advocates a de coupling of farming subsidies - if EU governments want to keep people on the land, we say that instead of 'coupling' - paying a subsidy on a particular crop, it should be de coupled. The farmer gets an allowance for keeping his acres under cultivation. This allows the farmer to switch production in response to market prices and prevents the over production that coupling causes.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1167/amnesty-international-whitewashes-terrorism-suspends-whistleblower

http://www.investigativeproject.org/1890/amnesty-international-boss-endorses-jihad-in-self

And there are arguably others around the world going back all the way to the groups founding, but where the question of whether the individual in question really counts as a terrorist is a matter of intrepretation.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

The first one just says that AI express concern about his case; looking at the laundry list of other organisations who also do I don't really think this supports your claim.

The second and third suggests that AI is damaged because it is trying to stop the US from torturing people. I don't see how this falls out with the MO of AI, but it seems pretty legit to me. I get your point that if you blow up a school you should be punished, but should you also be tortured? I think it's a storm in a teacup trying to discredit AI (not sure why, but it's a lefty organisation so I guess that's enough). Do you really think people don't have the right to fight back when their country is invaded?

I support...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I purchase fair trade chocolate and coffee. It does not cost more than slave trade chocolate or sweatshop coffee but it tastes better.

Re: I support...

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

doesn't have that salty children's tears taste?

Re: I support...

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

If it doesn't I sure as hell won't be buying them. You NEED salt in your diet and the salt of children's tears is even better than sea salt.

Re: I support...

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

It costs more here, but I just see it as That's How Much It Costs. I have the same attitude towards a lot of products; for example the eggs I buy are twice the price of the cheapest, but I know the farm they come from uses practices I agree with. I don't see it that my eggs cost more, I just see it that That's How Much Eggs Cost.

Is it ignorance or disingenuity.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

...yet I don't hear Mises complain when the US government subsidises the American Cotton growing corporations and allows them to dump subsidised cotton on the world market that kills local competition in developing countries stone dead.

Well, you know, it would help if you actually did some reading on their site before condemning them. What the Austrian Economists advocate is no trade restrictions at all. Period. Free trade is just that: free. It does not need nine hundred page manuals full of legislation that enacts bureaucracies to "manage" the trade that is supposedly "free." Free trade is neither subsidized at taxpayer expense nor forbidden by government regulation. The only role for which government even minimally claim justification is the adjudication of contract disputes between trading parties.

If you're going to claim that the Austrian Economics School or the Ludwig von Mises Institute advocates anything other than this, please cite a reference where you got this idea, otherwise I am inclined to believe that you are spreading hearsay or else engaging in active smearing.

The Mises Institute doesn't mind an easy ride for the rich it seems , but wants to discourage us from helping the poor.

Just who is "us," Comrade, and exactly how do you mean to be "helping the poor"? You really lost the thread of your narrative at that point. To which of the organizations mentioned above that point a are you referring when you use the word "us" in the sentence quoted? What exactly was the objection offered in the name of LvMI and what were their own words and who wrote them? If you're going to make an accusation try citing some evidence so that people can check it out for themselves. If you're talking about "helping the poor" using taxes taken from others then no, "you" aren't helping the poor; you're stealing and diverting other people's wealth toward helping the poor. Charity and philanthropy only count when it comes out of your own pocket. You don't get credit for spending money that is not yours.

Re: Is it ignorance or disingenuity.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Just who is "us," Comrade, and exactly how do you mean to be "helping the poor"?

Ok. 'Us' = people like me who buy fair trade coffee. No institutions, organisations or corporate bodies of any knid involved, just customers as individuals, ok ?

"helping the poor"? Well, these people who make fair trade coffee for firms like cafe Direct of Traidcraft, they actually own the plantations and run them as workers co operatives.

Some people will only buy, and are willing to pay the extra to buy, things labelled ' made in the USA' or ' made in England'. They are inspired by patriotism , you understand. Me, I agree with Tom paine, who you may have heard of.
he said "The world is my country, and every man my brother". i agree with that to some extent. the man or woman who has to work to feed their family, wherever in the world they may live - these are ' my people'. So, yes, I help them out if I can.

now, about Mises. you are a little late here, but as I have already siad, if they don't approve of cotton subsidies for farmers in the USA or the EU, then neither do I.

It's just that the writer of one Von Mises peice adopted a smug and sneering tone in talking about people like me who buy Fair trade coffee.
If you're talking about "helping the poor" using taxes taken from others then no, "you" aren't helping the poor; you're stealing and diverting other people's wealth toward helping the poor.

This is it. I am not. I earn money on a regular job , like most people. Only, instead of buying coffee from murdering, money grabbing corporations like Nestle, i go buy my coffee from Cafe Direct or Traidcraft.

Socialism does not have to be a State handover, like they tried and failed in Russia. Socialism , as we do it in Britain , can also mean a workers owned business. In fact we invented the idea. Robert Owen , New Lanark, back in 1840, I think you'll find.

the quote from Von Mises , you will find upthread in a discussion I had with Rasilio, I think you will find.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I would say that in thier own ways both NGOs and Corporatism are the "New Imperialism" and that niether is the complete devil or angel that they are portrayed as.

While there are certainly many well intentioned indivduals there are also vested interests in prolonging the problem. Any one remember HTPCL's old "Economic Hitman" posts? They don't all work for the CIA or Nestle.

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

I'm sure that many of the members and supporters of NGOs are well intentioned, but let's not put them on too high a pedestal. Amnesty International, for example, has been criticized for alleged bias and ideological agendas, along with other issues. A balanced viewpoint cuts both ways. Free trade may have marketed tobacco in Africa, but it has also lifted millions out of poverty in all parts of the world, and continues to offer the promise of a better life for people in the developing world. It sure beats protectionism.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Reprinted for typos.

Uhu. Sad to say, you are quite right.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Stop reading the mises institute, that shit will rot your brain.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Ah, but people throw it at me and I have to read it to refute it , sadly. I reckon I can handle it in small doses :)

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

There's never any more substance to anything there beyond blind rants, most bloggers have better writing, argument and source analysis techniques. There seems to be an paranoia of referencing anything outside the mises institute as well, a clear indicator that it's an echo chamber. If someone presents you with a mises article, ask them for something that isn't the digital equivalent of handing in used toilet paper to your teacher.