Falling demand for cotton in Turkey - 14 oct 08

[tanatos5]

Oh yeah!! ALWAYS show the MOST UNDERDEVELOPED PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, and leave all the modern parts out!!

ITS LIKE SHOWING THE *SLUMS* IN Harlem/NY,, San Francisco/Philedelphia etc etc... , and than pretending as all of the US looks like that,,,as the standart of life and people hehe, niiiiiiice.

[bob36401]

There should be GREAT demands for cotton there.

What do you make all those robes, scarfs, head rags from?

I picked cotton for a penny and a half to two cents a pound when I was young. I was also cutting timber (with a crosscut saw), clearing land, and building fences for $1.50 a day, I bought my school clothes with this money. I had three jobs when I got married.

If you want more you work harder, and get better jobs as you go. The 1st thing is to get an education.

[Warnomore50]

That was incredibly insensitive not to mention slightly sad. I was a slave so you should be too. Not much of an argument.

[PauloGVieira]

The financial crisis is to blame? What about the unfair subsidies the EU and USA pay to their own cotton farmers that bring down the global price.

Talk about that Al Jazeera, this is just silly.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i agree, at its source, the problem is the neoliberal reforms in turkey, which makes it more open to EU/US economic oppression and prevents development; the crisis is just making it worse because of turkey's reliance on foreign capital.

[PauloGVieira]

Again the problem is not Turkey opening up its market but the hypocrisy of the EU/US using their surplus of money to undermine the free market.

[blackxavior]

Countries have the right and responsibility to protect there strategic resources.

[PauloGVieira]

I would hardly call the US cotton industry a "strategic resource".

I am talking about the free market and it is a standard that both the EU and US both promote. Dont you think its fair then that they should practice what they preach?

[blackxavior]

Do I think its fair, no. Do I think its life, yes. Do I think life is fair, no.

[PauloGVieira]

Yawn, If you cant elaborate on an argument go on a philosophical rant.

[blackxavior]

What is here to elaborate on? A hypocritical trade agenda is obviously unfair.

Strategic resource protection no matter the relevance of them will always trump whatever the agencies like the IMF and WTO promote on the wests behalf.

[PauloGVieira]

"Strategic resource protection" - Again how is the US cotton industry a "strategic resource"? It has nothing to do with "resource protection" but everything to do with short-sighted political gains. The benefits of free-trade in the long-run are well-known, unfortunately politicians only have short-terms in office that they cannot look beyond.

[blackxavior]

The theory of free trade benefits is well known. In practice "free trade" has been a capitalist ploy by the west to open 3rd world economies to drastically cheaper resources like rice. Country like Haiti who's own farmer could not compete were put in the poor house. Then when the international price of rice rose the Haitians started starving. US tariffs cotton so we do not end up dependent on another country or the world economy for our cotton.

[PauloGVieira]

Yawn! If you know anything about the economic theory you will realise that the focus is not on "free trade" but rather market access.

The international price of rice rose due to gluts in market access. There is a surplus of rice stocks in the world.

LOL! you think the world may be dependent on your cotton.

[blackxavior]

A rice stock surplus that would not affect Haiti if its greedy politicians had not taken the IMF's loans dependent on free trade. If Haiti had protected its farmers and "strategic resources" haitians would not be eating mud right now.

Are you stupid? I want to retain US cotton production capabilities by supplementing farmers. I know the opportunity cost's for cotton production in some 3rd world countries are more favorable that the US's.

[PauloGVieira]

Haiti should not be entering trade agreements upon which market access is not reciprocated. But you're an idiot, you use "free trade" as the latest buzz word and ignore the fact that it is all about "market access".

Finally, you acknowledge I am correct that equitable market access has the potential for great economic benefit to developing countries.

But you dare complain about the inequities of "free trade" when you support the US's unfair practices that condemn millions to poverty!

[blackxavior]

You are obviously a egostitical jerk incapable of focused conversation.

The benefits of equitable market access are well know don't pat yourself on the back to hard.

Unlike you i don't not sit in western luxury and condemn the west for all its evils while enjoying the benefits.

I am a realist. You want cheap material and high wages some one is going to get screwed. With your holier than thou attitude i assume you are a buddhist monk.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

markets cannot exist as "free markets"; "free markets" are what you see in most of the third world. development has never come from a "free market"; state capitalism has been the way france, germany, US, japan, have developed. if turkey wants to develop, opening their markets is a bad thing. the finanical crisis you see right now is resulting from the freeing of markets internally; it pushes massive costs onto large numbers while privatizing profit.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

to act as if a capitalist world could exist where concentrations of wealth do not force governments hand is to be living in a dream world and closing your eyes to evidence in reality.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

i do not even think this magical world of "free markets", that economists dream about, should be desired; even if everyone magically started off with the same amount of money.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

such a world would be wildly self destructive, as you would see the antagonisms, conflicts, and irrational society re-emerge. nothing but a perversion of any moral human nature; it would be promoting decline in any meaningful and sustainable sense.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

this "free market" society would produce the same tendencies and social incentives to loot and plunder society for narrow individual gain, which would solidify in human behavior and existence, making humans move closer to destruction; coming from an inability to deal with collective problems. there would not even be any state to allow democratic tendencies to temper this barbarity.

[PauloGVieira]

A free market is one without international borders, have you seen the increasing balance of payments figures for developed countries over the last 10 years from int'l trade? What about the China? Obviously international trade has taken billions out of stark poverty. Your argument defies logic, and for you to use Africa as a yardstick completely ignores basic government and infrastructural issues for that continent.

Free market does not mean less regulation.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

china employs state capitalism which subsidizes industry, controls currency, and regulates import/export, using various mixes of state protectionism to foster industry; it is not the type of "trade without borders" you see in the third world, where "free markets" are more prevalent (there is virtually no state interference in the markets and the countries are flooded with foreign investment and their economies, and hence people, become utterly dependent on foreigners, who only care about profit)

[jklasdfjdfksl]

these "free market" third world countries with no "international borders" to trade are dependent on foreign investors to even feed their people. when it is not profitable for the western investors that those people are fed, they starve. these people are not independent. trade without borders in a world where the EU and US, and most others, are playing the nation-state game makes the "free market" countries utterly dependent, suffering from stagnant poverty with no hope of development.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

if you define "free market" as something that is happening in china, the term loses all meaning because of the massive state intervention in the chinese economy that has fostered the type of economic protection from foreign trade that the US/EU countries used to develop. even if you accept state intervention as "free trade", the term takes on a different meaning for the third world, who are forced to give up governmental protectionism in the name of "free trade"

[jklasdfjdfksl]

again, "free trade" and "trade without borders" is something forced on the masses of the world (the third world) by wealthy countries seeking to spread the power of their capital. it is a game for elites of the world; others are trying to join the game, like india and china.

[PauloGVieira]

Forced on the masses of the "third world"! Do you try hard to be stupid or does it come naturally? Go educate yourself on the Cairns Group you fool, look at their membership base and their objectives.

Enough said.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

chile was one of the first, with pinochet the dictator being forced into power against the will of chileans. this was a playground for "free market" neoliberalism. most of latin america is the same; look at central america in the 80s. africa is similar. middle east was forced down the same path, with the exception of iran which won independence, after the end of arab nationalism. US is now moving for old soviet areas and middle east, rich in resources.

[PauloGVieira]

Yawn!

[PauloGVieira]

I certainly did not say China is the end game but rather pointed to the increasing flexibility of the Chinese markets to foreign investment and imports and this is in parallel to increasing economic fortunes.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

there was liberalization going on at some level, but your analysis is ignoring the fact that massive state intervention in the economy was right along side it. this was a gradual process controlled by the state (i.e. state capitalism) not a forced opening of the flood gates like you see in countries where neoliberalism is forced on them.

[PauloGVieira]

You are ignoring a correlation between increasing international trade and falling government intervention in the economy.

As I said China is not at the end game but the process it is going through and the results at hand are fairly clear.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

you are just rehashing your old points. again, it depends on what country you are talking about. state intervention in the economy still exists on massive levels in the countries who control most of the capital in international trade (ex. US, china, japan, etc.) i do not know of any sign that this is lessening, in fact the current crisis has resulted in massive state interventions throughout the first world;

[jklasdfjdfksl]

those without state intervention are poverty stricken third world countries buried in debt, whose economies become a profit investment for foreign capital, while there is no chance for development. india, china, brazil, argentina, etc. started to see some gains when they threw out the "free trade" imf/world bank, etc. formula and began to put up protectionist barriers. they are still nowhere near development

[PauloGVieira]

Again, Asia is the big fat exception to your argument. So how much money does the USA actually owe to countries like Singapore and China? I rest my case.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

asia is no exception to my argument; japan, china, and india only began to grow after using protectionist measures from the state; this is state capitalism, not "free market" neoliberal economics of the third world. china may hold some US debt, but is not out of the third world and has massive internal social problems which seem to be getting worse on many levels. china will not be challenging the US for some time; does not own nearly as much as the US and will be pushed around militarily

[PauloGVieira]

They began to grow after using "protectionist measures" but are now making more money in liberalising the market.

"Will be pushed around militarily" - HAHA you think that because you have big weapons its a veto for everything else. Quite frankly your economy is in the toilet and the majority of Americans have the mental capacity of a parrot.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

of course i do not support american nationalism or military imperialism; but i can easily see the US using its unparalleled military might to try and bail itself out of a crisis, or at least bring the whole world down with it as it loses control.

[runescapersmvowners]

dude turkey not in asia in istanbul if your cross the bridge your either in europe or asia theres two sides so its realy euras

[PauloGVieira]

Yes but you conveniently ignore trends within China that has seen it loosen regulations on imports and foreign capital investment and the appreciation of the Chinese currency.

A free market does certainly not mean no government regulation, but rather the laws of supply and demand are able to take effect and prevent the sale of items at the below cost. This is a crucial distinction you cannot grasp.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

the distinction you seem to be ignoring is that nations who let the laws of supply and demand take effect to a greater extent, and have less state protectionism, are in the third world. the third world is closer to what you yourself call a "free market". more "free market" principles means less economic success.

[PauloGVieira]

"The distinction"! What I have repeatedly said is countries like China is not at the end game when it comes to the free market, no country is, but the trends for those countries that pursue such policies are clear. Increasing international trade = increasing wealth. Brasil is another example.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

if a country has the right protectionist measure set up to limit and control their own international trade; then they can benefit from the trade. if they are forced to have the neo-liberal approach of "free trade" where there are great amounts of international trade than cannot be protected against or controlled by the state, then the wealth of foreign investors develops at their expense, they do not develop

[jklasdfjdfksl]

you cannot deny one of the most easily identifiable patterns of economic history; those who have been able to expel foreigners from their markets have been able to develop; they only want to open the world to "free trade" once they have a great advantage (for example, US forcing hatian buisness to compete in a "free market" by invasions; it amounts to US economic control over hati's markets) look at china before they could expel european trade, look at them after mao.

[PauloGVieira]

Again, the Cairns Group - look it up. The "free market" and "free trade" is all about equalising market access.

[PauloGVieira]

You think "free trade" is one that is free from regulations, however it is one where regulations exist as a standard to ensure equal access to markets for all countries. This is the very basis for the Cairns Group and the majority of its members are developing countries.

[jklasdfjdfksl]

then we are working on a similar notion of "free trade". equal access to markets in a nation-state world has created the growing poverty, sweatshop labor, unemployment, and suffering you see in much of the third world. countries without a developed economy cannot compete on the same level as the US/EU, etc. it turns their economies into resource and profit grab bags for the rich countries, who then control their markets and their "real economies" (what people need to survive).

[jklasdfjdfksl]

also, when the big powers get market access, they make the deals contingent on "restructuring" which limits greatly how much the local government can regulate the foreign companies (they cannot enact labor or environmental regulations on the foreign companies) so the foreign companies can maximize their profit. the US, france, germany, japan, china did not develop their economies by giving equal access to all investors; they closed their markets to protect against foreign investment and access.

[ratonnewmex]

thanx for the memories Bush and Biatches....

[mengwise36]

This goes more than Bush and Biatches.

[oceanbound222]

sad