asperity Posted May 9, 2018 Report Share Posted May 9, 2018 Admittedly from an American viewpoint but still valid for the UK: https://youtu.be/LPjzfGChGlE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 10, 2018 Report Share Posted May 10, 2018 Perhaps this lecture could be part of our school curriculum ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted May 10, 2018 Report Share Posted May 10, 2018 to which some clever person would possibly point out. "But two dollars a day in India is the equivalent of One hundred and thirty five rupees. factor in the cost of living difference between the two countries and is that two dollars a day poverty wages or a living wage?" i am always distrustful of analogies as they are geared to prove a particular point, a bit like surveys,questionnaires and polls,if they are worded correctly. "in a recent survey it was found that six out of seven dwarves were not happy" earning per day is fine but it is what that money's buying power is. in India a kg of white rice costs about 0.75 us dollars. in the usa the same kg of white rice costs 3.93 us dollars. so on rice terms india is better off as they would only have to work for half a day at two dollars a day to afford 1 kg of rice. in the us they would have to work for two days at two dollars a day to get the same amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted May 10, 2018 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2018 I take your point Sid, but really this is more about the impossibility of accomodating the sheer numbers of people wanting to migrate to what they perceive to be a better life in another country instead of trying to improve the country they are living in. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted May 10, 2018 Report Share Posted May 10, 2018 I have said this before Asp. There must be enough good will & technology in the world to make many ,if not all ,of these basket case countries prosperous & viable trading partners. On the other hand ,maybe it is a ploy of certain governments to keep other countries poor in order to exploit desperate migrants & employ them for a pittance. Perhaps the term "economic migration" is favoured more by big business than the migrants themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted May 10, 2018 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2018 You could well be right Davy. But when we have protectionist trading blocs like the EUSSR using tarriff barriers against 3rd world countries, they are going to find progress difficult. Hopefully when/if we break free from the EU the UK can have proper free trade with many of these countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted May 10, 2018 Report Share Posted May 10, 2018 I suspect that the effect of corrupt or failed government in such countries is far more significant than trading barriers. Under such circumstances aid money is also less effective than it should be. What should be done to encourage growth and trading in such countries rather than leaving them is isolated poverty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 10, 2018 Report Share Posted May 10, 2018 Think we need to analyse just why most of these third world countries are basket cases, and just what assistance is required to stimulate economic progress. The first being political instability caused by a lack of democratic culture, exacerbated by tribal or religious bigotry. So education would seem a priority, not just in the benefits of democratic and legal institutions, but in such areas as female equalities and family planning. When resources are scarce, it would seem absurd to produce ever more mouths to feed, on the basis that, without pensions and social care, children will look after their elderly relatives. So it would seem that our overseas aid should be targeted and conditional on the changes required to rectify such deficiencies. In some cases, like India, they have sufficient wealth to run a space programme and an extremely rich elite that pay little tax, so we can wonder why we provide aid at all. Such simple things as waste disposal and the provision of hygienic toilets, would go far to reduce mortality rates from disease, difficult though, when some of the most polluted rivers in India are considered sacred, which brings us back to education and the promotion of secular pragmatism. As Asp says, building super-national trading blocks like the EU, with tariffs on free trade, doesn't help the third world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted May 10, 2018 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2018 10 hours ago, Confused52 said: I suspect that the effect of corrupt or failed government in such countries is far more significant than trading barriers. Under such circumstances aid money is also less effective than it should be. What should be done to encourage growth and trading in such countries rather than leaving them is isolated poverty? I agree, and it's a sad fact that many of the countries in the third world, once they gained independence from the colonial powers, found themselves under the control of greedy despots and worse off as a result. I remember being in Basra in Iraq in the early 1970's and having the locals telling me they wished the British hadn't left. Be careful what you wish for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 13, 2018 Report Share Posted May 13, 2018 Seems the HR lawyers have won a case for EU migrants that were rounded up as "rough sleepers" and deported, and will now be paying them compensation - thus making a joke of any pretence to "safe guarding" our borders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted May 13, 2018 Report Share Posted May 13, 2018 Can't agree, the policy was illegal without a shadow of a doubt. It seems many of them were working but not being paid enough to get accommodation. They had an absolute right of entry if working all the way back to the start of the EEC let alone under the Union treaty. The Home Office staff just picked an easy target they though no one would object to, mean spirited an objectionable. The rule of law should not be usurped, but the law can change! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 13, 2018 Report Share Posted May 13, 2018 So, if the current law is ineffective in legalising the objective, then it's for the politicians to change the laws, or for the voters to change the politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted May 13, 2018 Report Share Posted May 13, 2018 The only way is to leave the European Union treaty, changing the politicians alone is insufficient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 13, 2018 Report Share Posted May 13, 2018 Thought that was Brexit ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confused52 Posted May 16, 2018 Report Share Posted May 16, 2018 Indeed, which is why you option for voters to change the politicians was not a valid option! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted May 16, 2018 Report Share Posted May 16, 2018 Still a valid option, if they take it, as the majority of politicians are trying to sabotage Brexit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.