Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (60088)	2/6/2005 2:51:45 PM
From: RealMuLan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Elections: some mid-size cities have started one-person,one-vote elections, most are not. You can read more here Message 21003142 As for the highest ranking official -- the President of China. Don't count on it! China has their own special system to select their own president. Up to now, the system works great! the winners have done a much better job in China than those who have been "democratically" elected in the West in their countries. On this issue, no one has to agree with me, but don't preach to me either. >>What do most Chinese people feel about elections and electing their leaders?<< They feel better than 45% of the US people feel about the US leaders! >>Do they know anything about elections? Or is that something they can not discuss?<< Don't take it personally, those two question are too ignorant that I do not want to say anything.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (60088)	2/6/2005 5:46:48 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

<>>Do they know anything about elections? Or is that something they can not discuss?<< Don't take it personally, those two question are too ignorant that I do not want to say anything.> Yes Mary, you ignoramus. Don't you know that Chinese don't need no stinkin' elections because they all think the same and that's the way Yiwu the Mad thinks? You stupid reality-based westerners can just stand and watch the amazing Chinese rule the world once again. And they don't need elections to do it. They do have elections for pig farming permit issuers, but nothing that would disturb the harmony, eqilibrium, flow of power and cash, in the HQ in the forbidden city. Google can tell you quite a bit more than can Yiwu the Mad: legalinfo.gov.cn Google is also more friendly. < >>What do most Chinese people feel about elections and electing their leaders?<< They feel better than 45% of the US people feel about the US leaders!> Yiwu knows that because she has conducted scientific research with linear regression analysis of her sample of one to extrapolate to the 1.3 billion Chinese clones who all think the same as she does. Chinese invented computing with the abacus way back in the 19th or early 20th century when IBM was just a gleam in Thomas Edison's flashlight. They can perform such political calculations in seconds. That's why they don't need to waste time with public opinion polls, referenda or boring old elections. Mqurice

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (60088)	2/7/2005 7:32:40 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 74559

<Perhaps only the Americans are honest enough to admit that these costly meetings are all hot air.> timesonline.co.uk Publicity stunts that exploit the world's poor By Simon Jenkins What is the point of another world summit on poverty? The new American Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, has been conducting a charm offensive in Europe. In the course of it, her government sabotaged Gordon Brown's tentative proposal, "a Marshall plan for Africa", deflecting his plan for Third World debt relief. Why a proper deal was not negotiated in advance, as summits used to be, is a mystery. Perhaps only the Americans are honest enough to admit that these costly meetings are all hot air. Consider recent history. In 2000 in New York 150 world leaders gathered in New York for a "Millennium Summit". Its aim at this climactic of history was finally to "confront world poverty". So crowded were the most expensive hotels in New York that they reportedly exhausted the city's supplies of lobster and champagne. Nothing happened. The following year the G7 leaders were frantic to say something relevant at the over-cosseted Genoa summit. Amid an array of destroyers, personal masseuses, private chefs and three tenors, Tony Blair, George Bush and others declared their unshakeable commitment to "alleviating world poverty". Nothing happened. It was Ms Rice who, at the time of Genoa, pledged the American government to attack world poverty with an "emphasis on economic growth, free trade and accountability systems of governance". Most important, she asserted, was "making market access possible" for the produce of poor countries. Her government then proceeded to reduce market access by increasing domestic food subsidies - while the European Union similarly declined to cut its farm spending. Nothing happened. Next came the UN's 2002 Johannesburg Summit. This took as its theme our old friend, "tackling world poverty", by means of sustainable development. Pre-summit sessions were held, papers written, hotels booked and delegates arrived. Nothing happened. Like an addict unable to kick the subject, this year's Davos economic conference decided to make its theme, yes, fighting world poverty. In the obscenely rich surroundings of a ski resort, the world's plutocrats vied with each other in their passionate commitment to world poverty. Davos's publicity stunt of inviting show-business celebrities backfired when the actress, Sharon Stone, became so fed up with the collective mendacity that she stood up and offered a speaker from Africa $10,000, if others in the rooms would follow suit. She shamed them into raising close to a million dollars on the spot. It might have covered part of the cost of the conference itself. As if oblivious to the cynicism of this farrago, the British government chose as the theme for this year's British-led G7 summits, yes, combating world poverty. In the glitzy surroundings of Lancaster House, Ms Stone was replaced by Nelson Mandela in a magnificent shirt. He called for world poverty to be combated. Gordon Brown, frantic for an international platform to pit against his rival, Tony Blair, came in on cue. The phrase Marshall Plan for Africa was resurrected from the old apartheid government's foreign minister, Pik Botha. Mr Brown suggested 100 per cent relief of Third World debt, costing billions of pounds of other people's money. He proposed an International Finance Facility whereby poor countries could borrow against the security of future aid or seek assistance from the revaluing of IMF gold. When the Americans poured cold water on both, Mr Brown came up with an air fuel tax to pay for the aid. The impression was of policy made on the hoof. The G7 ended with another declaration that world poverty must be tackled, but with no agreement on implementing even the debt relief proposals. Sure enough this will be discussed at the next world summit, at Gleneagles in July. The wait should be just long enough to forget that this was the point of the last summits. The only word that springs to mind is cynicism. Relieving the debts of Third World countries is urgent if their public sectors are to recover any buoyancy. Such relief will be expensive to rich countries, and requires careful thought. How are the debts to be written off without damaging creditworthiness? What discipline is needed to redirect debt repayments to domestic poverty? How can local governments retain their freedom of action if under strict debt relief rules? What is the point of relieving poor economies of rich ones will not buy their produce and dump surpluses on them instead? The summits never answer these crucial questions. The impression left after each one is of a feel-good publicity gimmick. I am sure there are summiteers who argue that great international agreements are always slow in coming. Debt relief is "on the agenda". Perhaps one day someone will tackle it, really. Or perhaps they will replace it with something else as impressively beyond reach, like climate change or energy depletion. For the moment we have only an answer to the question, why are people so sceptical about politics. The answer is that the more important politicians get, the more time they spend in expensive hotels, mouthing the vapidities of international relations. They let soldiers fight their wars and publicists handle their conferences. Nothing can be so cynical as publicity that exploits the misery of the world's poor - especially when the misery is so often the result of the aid and trade policies of the rich.