Brazillians. That's all I have to say.In [url=http://nesdev.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?p=60903#60903]this post[/url], peppers wrote:Poor nathanpc, catchin so much flack for his non-announcement announcement.
Brazilians
Moderator: Moderators
The United States is corrupt, Brazil more so. Otherwise, for example, it wouldn't have almost prohibitive tariffs on consumer electronics imports. So one thing Brazilians can't do is vote in a less corrupt government.
(I'd really like to know what MarioLeaf is, but if people want to talk about Brazilians, I can split this.)
(I'd really like to know what MarioLeaf is, but if people want to talk about Brazilians, I can split this.)
Pretty interesting corruption graphic there... To me it's no surprise that Brazil is corrupt as shit.
Back on topic: I'm getting pretty curious about MarioLeaf myself. Maybe that's Nathan's plan, to get everyone interested before actually announcing something. That could backfire though, if the actual project doesn't live up to the expectations...
Back on topic: I'm getting pretty curious about MarioLeaf myself. Maybe that's Nathan's plan, to get everyone interested before actually announcing something. That could backfire though, if the actual project doesn't live up to the expectations...
My country is #5 on the list and still have prohibitive tariffs too so I don't think this is related. (and I bet someone has been corrupted to cheat to get that high on the list :p )The United States is corrupt, Brazil more so. Otherwise, for example, it wouldn't have almost prohibitive tariffs on consumer electronics imports.
Useless, lumbering half-wits don't scare us.
I have no idea how the U.S. placed so high on that list. Noone who has listened to the debates in the U.S. congress can seriously believe that the average congress(wo)man acts in the best interest of the country or even his/her state/district. They rely on huge amounts of money from corporate donors - sometimes funneled through organizations like the Chamber of Commerce in order to hide the source, and spend much of their time in office raising funds for the next campaign. And once out of office they go straight to one of those companies and cash in by becoming a lobbyist or CEO or board member.The United States is corrupt, Brazil more so. Otherwise, for example, it wouldn't have almost prohibitive tariffs on consumer electronics imports. So one thing Brazilians can't do is vote in a less corrupt government.
And the courts at the state level are even worse, since they don't get as much attention.
If I was a voter in Brazil (or Chile, or Guatemala, or Nicaragua, ...) I'd probably be a bit paranoid about who I voted for, considering the history of dictatorships and far-right extremism - which, btw the U.S. was a big supporter of since they didn't want to see any nation or group of nations in the hemisphere gaining true independence from the U.S. and controlling their own resources and policies.
</crazy leftist rant>
- The American Pie. That's all I have to say... for now. ^_^;;koitsu wrote:Brazillians. That's all I have to say.In [url=http://nesdev.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?p=60903#60903]this post[/url], peppers wrote:Poor nathanpc, catchin so much flack for his non-announcement announcement.
I don't find it too surprising, considering that there are only a handful of very large corporations that control virtually all the mass media (other than the internet). Apparently, most people won't bother trying to figure out what's really going on, when they're constantly being updated over the radio, newspapers, and television with the latest sanitized propaganda.mic_ wrote:I have no idea how the U.S. placed so high on that list. Noone who has listened to the debates in the U.S. congress can seriously believe that the average congress(wo)man acts in the best interest of the country or even his/her state/district.The United States is corrupt, Brazil more so. Otherwise, for example, it wouldn't have almost prohibitive tariffs on consumer electronics imports. So one thing Brazilians can't do is vote in a less corrupt government.
I don't know how we got into politics, but here we go.tepples wrote:The United States is corrupt, Brazil more so. Otherwise, for example, it wouldn't have almost prohibitive tariffs on consumer electronics imports. So one thing Brazilians can't do is vote in a less corrupt government.
Raising import taxes is not related to corruption, actually it usually is the opposite.
You raise taxes to boost domestic production.
One of the most corrupt presidents in our (Argentina's) recent history, Menem opened the way to import and free trade. We're still suffering the consecuences.
Import taxes are an imposition on a private exchange between two consenting parties. That's corruption. Also, it reduces domestic production by reducing the efficiency of things, limiting access to outside resources, and reducing ability to specialize. If it really helped, breaking every family into its own isolated unit would really boost production, with each family producing its own food, clothing, computers, and music!
Blargg, I assume you're american, I don't blame you, it's logical that you think that way. But that are exactly the arguments of free trade. Not everyone thinks free trade and capitalism are the best options.
And there's no such thing as a private exchange between two consenting parties when talking about trade, the state can and does act upon trade of its citizens. Of course free market states that this shouldn't happen, but that's not the only correct and possible view of world politics and economics.
And I don't agree with your definition of corruption. For me, corruption is when someone that was given power by the people to make their lives better, instead of doing that, uses that power for another interests, usually his/her own or the interests of corporations. If imposing rules over trade is positive to a country's economy, it's far from corruption.
You may think that free trade is always better to any economy, but history proves that's not true always.
Even wealthy capitalist countries do protect their domestic economies with subsidies and taxes. And not always free trade and tax free imports assure better quality, they sometimes just provide cheaper costs at the expense of reducing the countries job offers. ( "Made in Taiwan" rings any bells? )
And there's no such thing as a private exchange between two consenting parties when talking about trade, the state can and does act upon trade of its citizens. Of course free market states that this shouldn't happen, but that's not the only correct and possible view of world politics and economics.
And I don't agree with your definition of corruption. For me, corruption is when someone that was given power by the people to make their lives better, instead of doing that, uses that power for another interests, usually his/her own or the interests of corporations. If imposing rules over trade is positive to a country's economy, it's far from corruption.
You may think that free trade is always better to any economy, but history proves that's not true always.
Even wealthy capitalist countries do protect their domestic economies with subsidies and taxes. And not always free trade and tax free imports assure better quality, they sometimes just provide cheaper costs at the expense of reducing the countries job offers. ( "Made in Taiwan" rings any bells? )
Last edited by Petruza on Thu May 06, 2010 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Free trade as a general concept isn't bad. Allowing goods to flow freely and be produced where it's most efficient sounds really nice, and in a utopian world it would work perfectly.
In reality it comes with some problems because it picks winners and losers in a very harsh, and sometimes unfair way. Another party can flood your market with cheap goods, thereby driving domestic producers out of business. This can be problematic since 1) those domestic producers will now have to find another livelihood, which takes time, 2) your domestic market now depends heavily on imports, and 3) it may not make sense from an environmental point of view.
You've also got a situation where companies can export the labor and import the produced goods back home cheaply, which puts a lot of pressure on the domestic work force and drives down wages.
In reality it comes with some problems because it picks winners and losers in a very harsh, and sometimes unfair way. Another party can flood your market with cheap goods, thereby driving domestic producers out of business. This can be problematic since 1) those domestic producers will now have to find another livelihood, which takes time, 2) your domestic market now depends heavily on imports, and 3) it may not make sense from an environmental point of view.
You've also got a situation where companies can export the labor and import the produced goods back home cheaply, which puts a lot of pressure on the domestic work force and drives down wages.