(02-08-2007) Noel Gallagher Attacks U2's Bono Humanitarian Efforts - AHN*
- Thread starter HelloAngel
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
FYI, I saw them 4 times last tour, (3 of them at Madison Sq Garden, same venue, to boot!) and I never got sick of hearing "the speech."
And I'm not one of those "Bono is a better musician so his opinions carry more weight" people. It's not necessarily what he says, it's HOW he says it. A little respect please, and I will respect you more! (and I still love Oasis, BTW.)
And I'm not one of those "Bono is a better musician so his opinions carry more weight" people. It's not necessarily what he says, it's HOW he says it. A little respect please, and I will respect you more! (and I still love Oasis, BTW.)
Harry Vest
Refugee
"stadium shaking epics"
Sorry - wrong band.
Sorry - wrong band.
Noel and the rest of Oasis are a bunch of brainless losers, they should keep getting high and looking at the Wonderwall maybe it will bring them some answers.
Bono and others have raised awareness about the issues, they are not asking people to invest their own personal savings to a plan for saving Africa, they are however asking people to give permission to their government to do more with the money they are paying in taxes to the government.
Before you would never see things about Africa on channels like CNN or CNBC it wasnt something that they would think about brodcasting. Bono and others have brought it to the TV sets of people, its still not a cool subject, its a serious subject and yes takes a brain to be intersted in so that counts out about half the worlds population.
Keep up the good work Bono, Angelina and others, if you are getting under peoples skin thats a sign of a job well done.
Bono and others have raised awareness about the issues, they are not asking people to invest their own personal savings to a plan for saving Africa, they are however asking people to give permission to their government to do more with the money they are paying in taxes to the government.
Before you would never see things about Africa on channels like CNN or CNBC it wasnt something that they would think about brodcasting. Bono and others have brought it to the TV sets of people, its still not a cool subject, its a serious subject and yes takes a brain to be intersted in so that counts out about half the worlds population.
Keep up the good work Bono, Angelina and others, if you are getting under peoples skin thats a sign of a job well done.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I think Noel is right to an extent except the fact that U2 have always "sang the news" and got great hits from them because of good melodies, whereas Thom Yorke is so openly leftist and a superficial 1984 megaphone for whatever any alarmist hack scientist says. I remember Yorke talking about this bogus recently proven wrong study that we would run out of fish in 48 years. He just spouts out everything without counter balance or looking at other views. What about the guitarist from Radiohead putting a .pdf on their website about solar power on the moon. Jeez! Who wants to sign up as a maintenance guy for that project?
People are worried justly that a lot of these socialist ideas will just hurt our standard of living and not amount to anything successful except for lots of bureaucrats and "fund hungry" selfish scientists collecting on an increase of influence in the government. I mean doing a study saying that the world is okay is not going to get you funding. The heatly debated (despite what Al Gore is saying) Global Warming THEORY is being drummed like the Borg "Resistance is futile." Some scientists are even going to the lengths of saying they would like people who deny man's creation of Global Warming to be put on Nuremberg style trials. Talk about extreme! Thom Yorke can put his point of view up on the net but expect some people to not buy into it.
I mean I wasn't surprised when U2 moved the company to Netherlands to save on tax, but to go to a concert and tell the audience "we don't want your money, we want your voice" I almost gagged. The government spends "our money" and nobody elses, and if rich capitalists with lots of "capital" are telling us we should have less to assuage their guilt for being rich, then that is a hard pill to swallow and makes me extremely mad. What a bunch of self righteous jerks!
It's about guilt and envy. Look at the lyrics for "Gone" and you can see how Bono feels guilty having all this money while being a "champagne socialist". It's hypocrisy and average people aren't so dumb that they can't see it. Bono said that Ireland is different than the U.S. because they want to get revenge on the guy living in the big house on the hill, well Bono YOU are the one on the hill. Why don't you give up your wealth first and pay MORE taxes and maybe people will follow you? Socialists believe in progressive taxation don't they? Or is Bono a flat tax guy now? It's like having a leader in battle that runs away and tells the front line to go ahead. Hypocrisy knows no bounds. The reason why U2's songs are popular has to do with music and melody. If you can any political point of view and add a nice melody and beautiful music it may sound great but bad ideas shouldn't be taken as truth because the music is nice.
I think people want another Achtung Baby because it was more about the music and the point of view was less heavyhanded. I mean "don't let the bastards get you down" could mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Plus Acrobat has an awesome guitar solo, and so does The Fly, and UTEOTW. During the Joshua Tree tour and Lovetown tour Bono even confessed that he didn't seem convincing in his politics. I don't know. I just have too much intellgence to think that boys with toys can really save the world.
Just my humble opinion.
People are worried justly that a lot of these socialist ideas will just hurt our standard of living and not amount to anything successful except for lots of bureaucrats and "fund hungry" selfish scientists collecting on an increase of influence in the government. I mean doing a study saying that the world is okay is not going to get you funding. The heatly debated (despite what Al Gore is saying) Global Warming THEORY is being drummed like the Borg "Resistance is futile." Some scientists are even going to the lengths of saying they would like people who deny man's creation of Global Warming to be put on Nuremberg style trials. Talk about extreme! Thom Yorke can put his point of view up on the net but expect some people to not buy into it.
I mean I wasn't surprised when U2 moved the company to Netherlands to save on tax, but to go to a concert and tell the audience "we don't want your money, we want your voice" I almost gagged. The government spends "our money" and nobody elses, and if rich capitalists with lots of "capital" are telling us we should have less to assuage their guilt for being rich, then that is a hard pill to swallow and makes me extremely mad. What a bunch of self righteous jerks!
It's about guilt and envy. Look at the lyrics for "Gone" and you can see how Bono feels guilty having all this money while being a "champagne socialist". It's hypocrisy and average people aren't so dumb that they can't see it. Bono said that Ireland is different than the U.S. because they want to get revenge on the guy living in the big house on the hill, well Bono YOU are the one on the hill. Why don't you give up your wealth first and pay MORE taxes and maybe people will follow you? Socialists believe in progressive taxation don't they? Or is Bono a flat tax guy now? It's like having a leader in battle that runs away and tells the front line to go ahead. Hypocrisy knows no bounds. The reason why U2's songs are popular has to do with music and melody. If you can any political point of view and add a nice melody and beautiful music it may sound great but bad ideas shouldn't be taken as truth because the music is nice.
I think people want another Achtung Baby because it was more about the music and the point of view was less heavyhanded. I mean "don't let the bastards get you down" could mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Plus Acrobat has an awesome guitar solo, and so does The Fly, and UTEOTW. During the Joshua Tree tour and Lovetown tour Bono even confessed that he didn't seem convincing in his politics. I don't know. I just have too much intellgence to think that boys with toys can really save the world.
Just my humble opinion.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
BTW Noel Gallagher has the same politics as Bono and is a fan of U2, but he knows that people come to see them only because of the music. If U2 never did any music but only political projects would we know who they were?
Vincent Vega
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
U2Kitten said:
I've written something about that.
Don't you believe what I write, don't you care or do you just think it's plain wrong?
No offense, only a question because I haven't written the text for nothing.
So I would like to know what you think about it
purploscar, Bono isn't a socialist.
Or, when did he claim to be one.
It was just one part of the U2 business that was moved, and people make it as if it was the whole business and Bono's personal wealth.
Like I said before, the proceeds of soe of the royalties go to charities a hundred per cent. A tax of 48% would mean, that they could only give half the money.
Bono and the other band members don't generate their wealth only by the royalties. It was a corporate decision, not an individual decision to save some taxes.
To think that this money would be used to help the ten per cent of the poor in Ireland is naive. Sorry, but it is.
If Bono himself wanted to save so much money he would move to Belgium and then travel around as lot as possible between his homes. Because in Belgium you save on your income tax if you are out of the country that often.
And no one has to give away all his money only because he tries to help the poor.
That's double standards.
There are so many rich who don't do nothing. You wouldn't blame them for that.
As soon as someone stands up, donates money and asks other people to join him, people come up and demand them to give all their money.
Please, open your eyes, and you will see that this is real hypocrisy.
With his full-time working on getting the people and the politicians to drop the debt for African countries and provide billions he has helped to give more money and aid to Africa than he could ever do.
And as I said before, money is just a nominal value, but people forget about how much time and energy he puts into the fight against poverty.
Why don't you consider that, but only look at how much money he has given publicly.
Celebrities who give money publicly get blamed for doing so, accused of just seeking good publicity.
People who give secretly get accused of not giving as much as they could.
That's great, isn't it?
Last edited:
Ok, so I'm getting a little off topic here, but I feel compelled to say - I don't think people should support debt relief and aid to Africa only because Bono is supporting it, and I really don't think people should bash those idea because they're ticked off at Bono. If you don't like him being wealthy or taking tax breaks then fine, I have no problem with that. The ideas he's talking about, though - they're important because they're important, not because of U2, and they're important no matter who is talking about them.
Also, I think it's worth saying that Bono's campaign to help Africa doesn't generally involve him wandering around and demanding that people pay more taxes (in fact, he's never asked for that, only that government budgets include some aid to Africa - this does not automatically mean taxes are raised. The government writes things into and changes the budget all the time and they absolutely don't raise taxes every time they do so). Also, if you look at his work so far, a lot of it involves debt relief for countries and starting business models centered towards getting money to Africa, i.e., Red and Edun, which have nothing to do with tax at all.
Also, I think it's worth saying that Bono's campaign to help Africa doesn't generally involve him wandering around and demanding that people pay more taxes (in fact, he's never asked for that, only that government budgets include some aid to Africa - this does not automatically mean taxes are raised. The government writes things into and changes the budget all the time and they absolutely don't raise taxes every time they do so). Also, if you look at his work so far, a lot of it involves debt relief for countries and starting business models centered towards getting money to Africa, i.e., Red and Edun, which have nothing to do with tax at all.
Last edited:
I think since none of the band members got into legal trouble in Ireland, they do pay their taxes there (the tax move upset isn't really about Bono's activism, it's about him paying Irish taxes.)
They probably pay and will pay more tax money in Ireland than all of the people crying "tax evasion" combined.
Donating money? Please, they're damned if they do it publicly (braggart) and if they don't (hypocrite). Not that would be an issue if they weren't rich themselves (you think if Bono was some regular activist leader on the barricades, protesting outside Davos or G7 meetings we would be talking about this?).
They probably pay and will pay more tax money in Ireland than all of the people crying "tax evasion" combined.
Donating money? Please, they're damned if they do it publicly (braggart) and if they don't (hypocrite). Not that would be an issue if they weren't rich themselves (you think if Bono was some regular activist leader on the barricades, protesting outside Davos or G7 meetings we would be talking about this?).
ROCKMEISTER
The Fly
PLEASE STANDBY FOR TRANSMISSION: The Gallagher's have just created a whole new crisis for the planet,"GLOBAL WHINNING!!!"
gvox
Ghost of Love
@ Rockmeister - 
How come people are fed up with what Bono is talking about? Why not get fed up that not much has been done about Africa's problem and AIDS? I'm sure Bono is also sick of himself doing all this talk. He did say so. But the problem is not Bono.. the problem is that nobody's giving a fucking real honest to goodness care as to what's happening in Africa. And the Gallaghers? Of course they're enjoying their millions and the adoration of fans. They don't fucking care about Africa because they just don't care. They just do music.. for what? Earn and enjoy their millions. Yeah. make music, fill those stadiums, earn accolades, try to be beat the world's greatest band and who the fuck cares about Africa in the end? It's all about fame and glory. Right Noel?
Liesje
Blue Crack Addict
U2Kitten said:
Really? I've seen his name on donor lists, unless there's another Paul and Alison Hewson from Killiney.....
There IS such a thing as human capital, you know. Money isn't always the end-all and be-all. I have rich relatives who'd rather give thousands of dollars than actually spend five minutes caring.
And, you did make something up, you said "Nobody wants to pay money for a concert and endure a lecture of ANY kind." The FACT is every single one of U2 shows sold out, as did the Elevation Tour. And FACT is Bono has been ranting during concerts for over a decade now, but somehow it's no longer genuine b/c he's ditched the ponytail and cowboy hat?
Are you so sure? How much was that apartment? I'll say 20 million, which I'm guessing is a conservative (high) estimate. 20 million dollars would not be enough to pay the interest on the debt that some African countries incur in a single month. Again, this issue is more about human capital that money. It's been that way since the 80s, when people only started to care because celebs like Bono forced the issue.
These issues are about economics and socio-political development, not two-dimensional sums of money. You can't buy human rights, and it's ignorant to think you can, as if money is the only thing that matters when people starve to death every few seconds.
Bono's owned properties since U2 began to make it big, and yet after years of being here, you've only JUST decided to use this against him in all of your posts. Why don't you just say how you really feel and quit using such serious issues as a front?
And as for the original post, I really don't care what Noel says. He's always said stuff like this, so it's absolutely no surprise. I like some Oasis stuff; Noel's big mouth won't affect that either way. Just like you and I, he's entitled to his opinion and can say whatever the hell he wants. If his gig is making a fool of himself, then whatever.
ShellBeThere
War Child
goodness, if it's tiresome to hear bono go on about africa, noel, imagine how tiresome it is to hear noel go on about noel.
and about how great oasis are, when I can't hum a single fucking tune they wrote and couldn't care less about their music.
maybe he should get around to writing a 'proper' rock song soon and quit slagging off...
ah, but he was probably just coming off a drunken brawl when he said all that, eh? excuse you, noel!
cheers all!
and about how great oasis are, when I can't hum a single fucking tune they wrote and couldn't care less about their music.
maybe he should get around to writing a 'proper' rock song soon and quit slagging off...
ah, but he was probably just coming off a drunken brawl when he said all that, eh? excuse you, noel!
cheers all!
ROCKMEISTER
The Fly
PLEASE STANDBY FOR TRANSMISSION: From the website DIGITAL SPY, UK they are reporting today Feb. 12 that U2 and many other band's will be doing concert's world wide on July 7,2007 for LIVE EARTH benefit.Does anyone know where U2 will be performing?My guess would be Dublin or Slane Castle.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I don't know what people don't get that Bono is a socialist. He called himself a "champagne socialist" in George magazine (Chris Martin copied that recently) and admitted in some other interview I don't remember, that he's likes living in the contradiction. "Champagne socialist" of course means a rich socialist. Being honest about it like on Acrobat and admitting he likes living "in the contradiction" doesn't make him escape the hypocrisy. Calling it a "corporate" decision still doesn't dodge the responsibility.
Yes adding more aid does increase taxes or put pressure to spend less on other programs in our own country. Nothing comes from nothing. Bono was advocating at one point that 1% of the GDP go into africa and be like the Marshall Plan in World War II.
Anybody thinking that most artists aren't socialists are truely naive. Look at the Rolling Stone poll on artists and who they were going to vote for and it's tilted towards the left. It's not a surprise to me. What surprises me is that people think otherwise. They are free to their opinions but celebrity should not be the reason someone spends money on a cause.
Also I would like to add. Who thinks spending more money at corrupt regimes will actually achieve anything other than make Bono feel good about himself? How many people actually study economics and politics to see WHY we are rich? That's what people should be studying. If Africans had democracy, private property rights, and saved money we wouldn't be talking about them at all. As long as they have brutal dictatorships or corrupt pseudo-democracies that rob the public and manipulate elections there will be hardship there. If Africans actually had what I mentioned but didn't save money and only consumed they still would be poor. Capitalism is not about spending all your money. That's consumerism. Capitalism is about saving some of your money and becoming independent so you don't need bleeding heart Bonos pleading your case. Africans want to feel good about themselves and actually feel like they can make it for themselves. Spending 1% of our GDP's for little result is more about guilt and ESPECIALLY deflecting envious eyes off them. Look how Bill Gates was so hated and because of his philanthropy he's a hero all of a sudden. Positive intentions are not good enough. I want to see Africa be a place where we can trade with them as free as possible and they have opportunities they can take advantage from to better themselves and have self-esteem. I would like to remind Bono of the bible and a passage I'm sure he's seen before:
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
Giving charity and ringing a bell for everyone to know is more about getting benefits and kudos than really being selfless.
It's so obvious to me.
U2 makes good music, but there are bigger minds out there when it comes to world politics and economics.
Another humble point of view
Yes adding more aid does increase taxes or put pressure to spend less on other programs in our own country. Nothing comes from nothing. Bono was advocating at one point that 1% of the GDP go into africa and be like the Marshall Plan in World War II.
Anybody thinking that most artists aren't socialists are truely naive. Look at the Rolling Stone poll on artists and who they were going to vote for and it's tilted towards the left. It's not a surprise to me. What surprises me is that people think otherwise. They are free to their opinions but celebrity should not be the reason someone spends money on a cause.
Also I would like to add. Who thinks spending more money at corrupt regimes will actually achieve anything other than make Bono feel good about himself? How many people actually study economics and politics to see WHY we are rich? That's what people should be studying. If Africans had democracy, private property rights, and saved money we wouldn't be talking about them at all. As long as they have brutal dictatorships or corrupt pseudo-democracies that rob the public and manipulate elections there will be hardship there. If Africans actually had what I mentioned but didn't save money and only consumed they still would be poor. Capitalism is not about spending all your money. That's consumerism. Capitalism is about saving some of your money and becoming independent so you don't need bleeding heart Bonos pleading your case. Africans want to feel good about themselves and actually feel like they can make it for themselves. Spending 1% of our GDP's for little result is more about guilt and ESPECIALLY deflecting envious eyes off them. Look how Bill Gates was so hated and because of his philanthropy he's a hero all of a sudden. Positive intentions are not good enough. I want to see Africa be a place where we can trade with them as free as possible and they have opportunities they can take advantage from to better themselves and have self-esteem. I would like to remind Bono of the bible and a passage I'm sure he's seen before:
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
Giving charity and ringing a bell for everyone to know is more about getting benefits and kudos than really being selfless.
It's so obvious to me.
U2 makes good music, but there are bigger minds out there when it comes to world politics and economics.
Another humble point of view
Ralphie
The Fly
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 149
I think you brought up an important topic here, Purpleoscar, although I am a little more optimistic about the role of aid. I agree that aid should not be 'charity', but a system that helps people toward economic independence. I saw Bono speak in DC last year and he spoke extensively on this topic - he is not a fan of 'throwing money' at people, rather, he advocates finding ways to help Africa join the global market. He also talks a great deal about corruption in Africa and how, while it is difficult, there are methods to combat this, such as granting debt forgiveness only to countries where a certain degree of ethical government has been established.
If you're interested in this topic and you haven't read it already, I really suggest Jeffrey Sach's book The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities For Our Time. It goes into many of the topics that you're interested in, such as the underlying reasons (historical and current) for Africa's economic situation, and outlines possible solutions. Bono studied under Jeffrey Sachs and many of his philosophies regarding Africa are based on Jeffrey's work and teaching.
Last edited:
1. Bill Gates is still widely hated
2. Bono is doing what he can for a cause that has been widely ignored for much of modern history
3. If the governments of the first world spent some of their riches building up the African nations while keeping tabs on where the money was going the world would be a much better place. Much of the debt that is owed by Africa is owed to first world countries, as of 2003 this figure was 307 billion dollars, 218 billion of that is in Sub Saharan Africa which is Bono and others main cause.
It is all good and well to say its all the African governments fault for these huge debts, but its just as much the governments that placed these debts upon them at fault. To be a capitalist society you actually need to have capitol to work with, of which they don't have. Africa is paying 28 billion dollars in debt payments alone right at this very moment, so even if they had the best intentions they would have a very hard time in building the free society talked about as they do not have the money to do so.
2. Bono is doing what he can for a cause that has been widely ignored for much of modern history
3. If the governments of the first world spent some of their riches building up the African nations while keeping tabs on where the money was going the world would be a much better place. Much of the debt that is owed by Africa is owed to first world countries, as of 2003 this figure was 307 billion dollars, 218 billion of that is in Sub Saharan Africa which is Bono and others main cause.
It is all good and well to say its all the African governments fault for these huge debts, but its just as much the governments that placed these debts upon them at fault. To be a capitalist society you actually need to have capitol to work with, of which they don't have. Africa is paying 28 billion dollars in debt payments alone right at this very moment, so even if they had the best intentions they would have a very hard time in building the free society talked about as they do not have the money to do so.
Liesje
Blue Crack Addict
Yahweh said:
Exactly. And having debt does not make one government "lesser" than the other. The US actually carries MORE debt than any nation.
As for corruption, Bono has addressed this issue many times so it's no reason to get all worked up. He's always said that DATA = democracy, accountability, and transparency and only those nations who are making an effort to do this will receive the benefits of DATA's lobbying. They only lobby to forgive debt and bring aid to those nations who have made a distinct effort to get rid of corruption. They're not stupid.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I understand what you guys are saying but I've read the economist article on one of Bono's trips to Africa, and an interview with the guy from DATA and was unimpressed. The argument that crippling debt can kill your economy goes right back to my argument on why is a country poor. The guy from DATA at the time said that if we write off the debt and they borrow too much again we should just keep writing if off until they get better. Ouch! Bad answer. I would like to see the debt written off (which would cost us because debt always goes to companies, governments and individuals), BUT Africa must have limits on what they can borrow in the future. If a country asks for more than they can actually pay or they just don't pay it like in the past in South America, then it becomes an international welfare state that countries count on and it perpetuates the lack of initiative to reform. The US has lots of debt but they actually pay their payments.
My questions to you guys are these. Will any countries in Africa accept limits on what they can borrow if the old debt is written off? Which countries are those that actually have ethical governments that are fiscally responsible? Which countries have cultural barriers that will prevent them from even changing? Will our unions be in favor of competition with any of these countries? Fair Trade proponents and other leftist sympathizers with Africa say that Africa shouldn't trade with us until they have our worker's standards. This is just another trade barrier. You can't create unaffordable standards without building wealth first. Standards of living need to be afforded. I don't think the west is really that interested especially when they are currently irritated that some call center jobs are now in India. They ignore the basic economic equation that if labour is cheaper somewhere else it creates new profits at home that create more jobs and capital. Hence the employment rate in the U.S. rarely goes into double digits. If improvements kill jobs they also create new ones.
You can look at Bono's wife and her clothing line and how it avoids making "children's clothes made by children." She ignores the fact that during the industrial revolution we had children work too. Once a standard of living is achieved we can then say: "Okay, children stay home. Okay, I can afford with my surplus to feed and keep some dogs. Okay, there is enough surplus of food created that a complex economy that includes Achtung Baby CD's, and new cars, and anything we want." Without a surplus of food, no complex economy can exist. I know it sounds cruel to talk about children working but if we impose our expensive standards on DESPERATE people it turns into more trade barriers that leave parents and children unemployed. I would rather have parents and children employed than nobody employed.
Africa is tough nut to crack and our generation with all it's best intentions will not eradicate poverty as easily as Bono markets it. Why don't people look at Taiwan and how dirt poor it was and how the environment was polluted? They now have enough surplus to trade with others and AFFORD a better environment and higher standards of living. What was it in their culture that allowed them such change? They were colonized by the European country. I think the Netherlands. They adopted Western ways very quickly. What about Japan? They were a fascist dictatorship at one point and changed so rapidly. I think Africans have to ask themselves what they want as well. When a culture gets together despite their shortcomings, enormous things can happen.
BTW guys. I like these kind of discussions, and I'm not that steamed up. I'm just very cynical about the facile methods politicians and celebrities use today and I can bet 30 years from now I'll see some stupid blonde show off how poor some African's house is to the cameras for World Vision embarrassing the person and crying on cue trying to make us feel guilty. I see how UNICEF and WorldVision miss spend money almost as badly as governments in Africa. I can't BELIEVE that Roger Moore actually gets paid money to be a spokesperson. I bet Angelina also gets something if James Bond does. Then again James Bond in his movies always enjoys spending taxpayer dollars. Ahhh. More "champagne socialists."
Anyways I better get back to work
Good talking ya.
My questions to you guys are these. Will any countries in Africa accept limits on what they can borrow if the old debt is written off? Which countries are those that actually have ethical governments that are fiscally responsible? Which countries have cultural barriers that will prevent them from even changing? Will our unions be in favor of competition with any of these countries? Fair Trade proponents and other leftist sympathizers with Africa say that Africa shouldn't trade with us until they have our worker's standards. This is just another trade barrier. You can't create unaffordable standards without building wealth first. Standards of living need to be afforded. I don't think the west is really that interested especially when they are currently irritated that some call center jobs are now in India. They ignore the basic economic equation that if labour is cheaper somewhere else it creates new profits at home that create more jobs and capital. Hence the employment rate in the U.S. rarely goes into double digits. If improvements kill jobs they also create new ones.
You can look at Bono's wife and her clothing line and how it avoids making "children's clothes made by children." She ignores the fact that during the industrial revolution we had children work too. Once a standard of living is achieved we can then say: "Okay, children stay home. Okay, I can afford with my surplus to feed and keep some dogs. Okay, there is enough surplus of food created that a complex economy that includes Achtung Baby CD's, and new cars, and anything we want." Without a surplus of food, no complex economy can exist. I know it sounds cruel to talk about children working but if we impose our expensive standards on DESPERATE people it turns into more trade barriers that leave parents and children unemployed. I would rather have parents and children employed than nobody employed.
Africa is tough nut to crack and our generation with all it's best intentions will not eradicate poverty as easily as Bono markets it. Why don't people look at Taiwan and how dirt poor it was and how the environment was polluted? They now have enough surplus to trade with others and AFFORD a better environment and higher standards of living. What was it in their culture that allowed them such change? They were colonized by the European country. I think the Netherlands. They adopted Western ways very quickly. What about Japan? They were a fascist dictatorship at one point and changed so rapidly. I think Africans have to ask themselves what they want as well. When a culture gets together despite their shortcomings, enormous things can happen.
BTW guys. I like these kind of discussions, and I'm not that steamed up. I'm just very cynical about the facile methods politicians and celebrities use today and I can bet 30 years from now I'll see some stupid blonde show off how poor some African's house is to the cameras for World Vision embarrassing the person and crying on cue trying to make us feel guilty. I see how UNICEF and WorldVision miss spend money almost as badly as governments in Africa. I can't BELIEVE that Roger Moore actually gets paid money to be a spokesperson. I bet Angelina also gets something if James Bond does. Then again James Bond in his movies always enjoys spending taxpayer dollars. Ahhh. More "champagne socialists."
Anyways I better get back to work
Good talking ya.
Ralphie
The Fly
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 149
Purpleoscar, your post was really very interesting and I think you made some good points. Despite the interesting debates you brought up, though, I didn't see anything to indicate that getting aid to Africa isn't a good idea (and maybe this wasn't your intent at all, I'm just assuming based on your earlier post that you're not a huge fan of Bono's work in Africa).
Let me just pick out one example - one project Bono has talked about is getting antiretroviral drugs to Africa, helping to educate Africans in order to prevent new cases of HIV, and getting treatments/preventative measures in place for other common deadly illnesses such as malaria. Yes, this would be considered aid to Africa, but in my opinion the kind of aid that is geared towards helping people move towards independence. You cannot move forward economically if huge numbers of your working-aged population are sick and dying, depleting the work force and placing a strain on those left to care for orphaned children or left without resources when a provider dies.
That's just one example. My general point is that to some degree, I think that once people have reached a certain level of desperate poverty they are so engaged in the day to day desperate struggle for survival that they don't have the resources to pull themselves up out of poverty. You can't work very efficiently on building the economy when you're starving to death. Of course it goes without saying that plans for aid should also be well thought out in terms of dealing with underlying obstacles to success, and tracked for efficacy.
As far as using Taiwan and Japan as examples of countries that pulled themselves out of poverty - there is a lot to be learned there but remember that those countries were positioned very differently in terms of geography. Both obviously have extensive coastline for ports. Taiwan is right along the Asia-Europe trade route. Japan was historically more insulated from attack as a small island which gave it an economic leg up, and does not have Africa's climate issues in terms of drought, breeding grounds for diseases, etc. That's not to say that Africa cannot overcome these disadvantages, only that there are other, non-cultural reasons that they have not been able to just 'pick themselves up by their bootstraps' economically.
In terms of debt forgiveness - I'm not familiar with that interview or DATA's comments about continually writing off new debts, so I'd have to see it. Do you know where I could find that?
On some points I understand where you're coming from, for example, the whole Fair Trade issue. Jeffrey Sachs actually does not denounce the idea of overseas garment factories, he sees them as an important if temporary step towards economic development. I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea myself but I understand that for many people that limited income represents a huge opportunity and chance for financial mobility, even though their working conditions may be horrible by our Western standards. While I'm not crazy about the idea of some of those factories, I also understand that it would actually be a horrible thing for many people if they closed down. That's not to say that they can't be improved upon with time, of course, but it's true that these issues are not black and white.
Nice chatting about this, you've given me something to take my mind off my cabin fever (we're snowed in here on the east coast).
Let me just pick out one example - one project Bono has talked about is getting antiretroviral drugs to Africa, helping to educate Africans in order to prevent new cases of HIV, and getting treatments/preventative measures in place for other common deadly illnesses such as malaria. Yes, this would be considered aid to Africa, but in my opinion the kind of aid that is geared towards helping people move towards independence. You cannot move forward economically if huge numbers of your working-aged population are sick and dying, depleting the work force and placing a strain on those left to care for orphaned children or left without resources when a provider dies.
That's just one example. My general point is that to some degree, I think that once people have reached a certain level of desperate poverty they are so engaged in the day to day desperate struggle for survival that they don't have the resources to pull themselves up out of poverty. You can't work very efficiently on building the economy when you're starving to death. Of course it goes without saying that plans for aid should also be well thought out in terms of dealing with underlying obstacles to success, and tracked for efficacy.
As far as using Taiwan and Japan as examples of countries that pulled themselves out of poverty - there is a lot to be learned there but remember that those countries were positioned very differently in terms of geography. Both obviously have extensive coastline for ports. Taiwan is right along the Asia-Europe trade route. Japan was historically more insulated from attack as a small island which gave it an economic leg up, and does not have Africa's climate issues in terms of drought, breeding grounds for diseases, etc. That's not to say that Africa cannot overcome these disadvantages, only that there are other, non-cultural reasons that they have not been able to just 'pick themselves up by their bootstraps' economically.
In terms of debt forgiveness - I'm not familiar with that interview or DATA's comments about continually writing off new debts, so I'd have to see it. Do you know where I could find that?
On some points I understand where you're coming from, for example, the whole Fair Trade issue. Jeffrey Sachs actually does not denounce the idea of overseas garment factories, he sees them as an important if temporary step towards economic development. I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea myself but I understand that for many people that limited income represents a huge opportunity and chance for financial mobility, even though their working conditions may be horrible by our Western standards. While I'm not crazy about the idea of some of those factories, I also understand that it would actually be a horrible thing for many people if they closed down. That's not to say that they can't be improved upon with time, of course, but it's true that these issues are not black and white.
Nice chatting about this, you've given me something to take my mind off my cabin fever (we're snowed in here on the east coast).
Liesje
Blue Crack Addict
purpleoscar, I think all of your points are valid and relevant and agree with most of your skepticism. The only thing I can say in response other than agreement is that even during our times of depression or industrial revolution, where kids skipped elementary school b/c they had to work full time, our infrastructure was way more developed than Africa's is now. The US has had road and rail systems for over 100 years. It's legit to compare our times of hardship before and during the industrial revolution to the current state of much of Africa, but even then our nation's infrastructure and capital were far more advanced than rural Africa's is now.
When I studied in rural East Africa it became very clear to be that the lack of distribution channels and infrastructure just may be the most underrated factor of what continues to hold Africa back. I met several people who've had HIV for decades and of course were still willing to work 80+ hours a week to support their families and local economies, but how does one get to work when the roads are so bad they are not even passable by bicycle and the closest town with jobs is 50 km away? Not only that, but the government had made free HIV drugs available to these people, but for a decade they could not take them and regain strength because there was no way of getting drugs to these people.
What would our industrial revolution have looked like if the majority of the population suffered from an autoimmune disease and lived out of walking distance to a city or town where all the industrial jobs are located?
When I studied in rural East Africa it became very clear to be that the lack of distribution channels and infrastructure just may be the most underrated factor of what continues to hold Africa back. I met several people who've had HIV for decades and of course were still willing to work 80+ hours a week to support their families and local economies, but how does one get to work when the roads are so bad they are not even passable by bicycle and the closest town with jobs is 50 km away? Not only that, but the government had made free HIV drugs available to these people, but for a decade they could not take them and regain strength because there was no way of getting drugs to these people.
What would our industrial revolution have looked like if the majority of the population suffered from an autoimmune disease and lived out of walking distance to a city or town where all the industrial jobs are located?
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Okay where do I start? I think I'll have to include other subjects to tie things together like Bono's support on Global Warming initiatives.
I'm sorry I don't remember where I saw that article about the DATA guy saying "keep writing it off." I think it was years ago when Bono started with the campaign with DATA and I think it was probably a conservative article from National Review where a lady was trying to argue with Bono at the time. It must have been a long time ago because I remember Bono not being criticised much at that point and only people like the lead singer of Blur were saying "I know Bono has a good heart, but just put your point of view in your lyrics." Otherwise the mainstream critics had Bono off the radar. I think they underestimated his popularity and ability to talk to politicians on either side of the political spectrum. But I remember it because it made me so I should save HTML's but I rarely get the opportunity to talk to more informed people on the internet that like subjects like these.
I can show some links about some of the things I'm talking about here.
For those interested in seeing a critique on Fair Trade, this article illustrates many points I have on economics.
http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=pressArticle&ID=179
For those interested in a critique on alarmist science I would suggest Bjorn Lomborg who wrote the Skeptical Environmentalist. He was attacked by the scientific community much like Galileo was by the church when he bit by bit pulled apart bad statistics in environmentalist claims and opened the door for the average person to be able to read on how scientific research gets funded in the first place, and how important alarmism is in getting that funding. The book may be dull in parts because statistics are only so interesting for many people. A good portion of the book is just bibliography. BTW the scientific group that attacked Bjorn actually apologized to him because they couldn't find any malfeasence in his book. They said his book was unscientific when The Skeptical Environmentalist is really about statistics. There are no scientific experiments in it. It's a critique on bad statistics, and more importantly he uses the statistical resources that many alarmists quote from and shows how many raw stats get "massaged" before they reach the airwaves.
http://www.lomborg.com/radiotv.htm
Some of the links are old because videos don't stay on websites for very long but I think many still work or have transcripts.
He's also a part of the Copenhagen consensus,
(http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=158)
which measures the actual costs of different objectives to make the world more habitable and healthy. I think people who agree with Bono should look into this. I would rather have money spent on some of their cheaper projects that actually save more lives than spend on Kyoto which really achieves little CO2 reductions, and costs enormously.
Probably the most eye opening speech I read was from none other than Michael Crichton, who I didn't know was interested in this subject.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html
I don't have too much problem with spent money on HIV drugs because of the crisis they are in, but again you have to say what do Africans think about HIV? Many people believe that having sex with a virgin will remove the disease. There are many other beliefs we find superstitious in our western cultures but the political correctness of not openly talking about sexual behaviour is driving me nuts. I'm not a religious person but I like a lot of what the Catholic church was doing in Uganda to get the people to understand the need for abstinance. Uganda started reducing their HIV infections from their high rate of infection from a change in sexual behaviour in the younger generation. I'm hoping it's continuing downward. I don't know what the current stats are, but it always comes down to people's choices. Many African countries are not really dealing with this problem at all. If there was a cure I could see, but life enhancing drugs are really a band-aid for living a clean life. The new generation should look to abstaining before marriage.
Oh here's a website talking about Uganda and their improvements:
http://www.sustainabletimes.ca/articles/aidsinafrica.htm
At least there is more communication in that country and trying to reduce the stigma of the disease which I would suspect must be truly frightful.
If you add global warming, AIDS funding, infrastructure, debt write offs you get a situation where the bill adds up against our standard of living. I have dreams to. I want to get married, get a mortgage and fund my children's schooling. Can I do all that and still save the world? In Canada where I'm from we have,(like in Europe), an aging population with few children. That spells more taxes for us. We have limited resources so lets aim at what we can realistically do.
I think I'm just results orientated and when you get that way you tend to want to look at small half measures that can improve things more and more so people can do things by themselves. I find these solutions work better and are more financially feasible, and worst of all they are the solutions that don't get on TV much.
After Ireland entered into the European Union and got some transfer payments (one of many reasons they are much more wealthy than today) and especially had lowered their tax rates, Irish started investing their new found wealth and business profits in land and housing and started increasing their capital. I thought long and hard about it and found that history constantly teaches us that we humans don't change much personality wise even if our scientific understanding improves.
I remember my history teacher talking blithely about the beginnings of markets and free movement of labour. During the beginning of the renaissance there was a black plague that killed so many people that peasants were in short supply. What happened next was that lords would often bid for the remaining peasants (slaves) and this allowed a premium that gave workers the ability to quit and go to other "employers" because of their demand. Eventually that led to the bourgeosie middle class types. Unfortunately my professor said that many middle class types who moved to the "new rich" tried to spend their new wealth like the rich, keeping up with the Joneses, and found they couldn't stay at their status for long. Also the poor tried to emulate them as well with more disasterous consequences. The lesson seems that putting away a portion of your earnings for the future and giving an inheritance to newer generations is how we got as wealthy as we are but if we lose that understanding we'll be the people who the Irish say "go from shirt collar to shirt collar in 3 generations."
I think there will be more equality in society if people invest more. No matter if you smell bad or look funny no banker will prevent you from making an investment. Anybody with an income can achieve it with self-discipline.
Wow, my posts are always longer than I want them to be, but there it is.
I'm sorry I don't remember where I saw that article about the DATA guy saying "keep writing it off." I think it was years ago when Bono started with the campaign with DATA and I think it was probably a conservative article from National Review where a lady was trying to argue with Bono at the time. It must have been a long time ago because I remember Bono not being criticised much at that point and only people like the lead singer of Blur were saying "I know Bono has a good heart, but just put your point of view in your lyrics." Otherwise the mainstream critics had Bono off the radar. I think they underestimated his popularity and ability to talk to politicians on either side of the political spectrum. But I remember it because it made me so
I should save HTML's but I rarely get the opportunity to talk to more informed people on the internet that like subjects like these. I can show some links about some of the things I'm talking about here.
For those interested in seeing a critique on Fair Trade, this article illustrates many points I have on economics.
http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=pressArticle&ID=179
For those interested in a critique on alarmist science I would suggest Bjorn Lomborg who wrote the Skeptical Environmentalist. He was attacked by the scientific community much like Galileo was by the church when he bit by bit pulled apart bad statistics in environmentalist claims and opened the door for the average person to be able to read on how scientific research gets funded in the first place, and how important alarmism is in getting that funding. The book may be dull in parts because statistics are only so interesting for many people. A good portion of the book is just bibliography. BTW the scientific group that attacked Bjorn actually apologized to him because they couldn't find any malfeasence in his book. They said his book was unscientific when The Skeptical Environmentalist is really about statistics. There are no scientific experiments in it. It's a critique on bad statistics, and more importantly he uses the statistical resources that many alarmists quote from and shows how many raw stats get "massaged" before they reach the airwaves.
http://www.lomborg.com/radiotv.htm
Some of the links are old because videos don't stay on websites for very long but I think many still work or have transcripts.
He's also a part of the Copenhagen consensus,
(http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=158)
which measures the actual costs of different objectives to make the world more habitable and healthy. I think people who agree with Bono should look into this. I would rather have money spent on some of their cheaper projects that actually save more lives than spend on Kyoto which really achieves little CO2 reductions, and costs enormously.
Probably the most eye opening speech I read was from none other than Michael Crichton, who I didn't know was interested in this subject.
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html
I don't have too much problem with spent money on HIV drugs because of the crisis they are in, but again you have to say what do Africans think about HIV? Many people believe that having sex with a virgin will remove the disease. There are many other beliefs we find superstitious in our western cultures but the political correctness of not openly talking about sexual behaviour is driving me nuts. I'm not a religious person but I like a lot of what the Catholic church was doing in Uganda to get the people to understand the need for abstinance. Uganda started reducing their HIV infections from their high rate of infection from a change in sexual behaviour in the younger generation. I'm hoping it's continuing downward. I don't know what the current stats are, but it always comes down to people's choices. Many African countries are not really dealing with this problem at all. If there was a cure I could see, but life enhancing drugs are really a band-aid for living a clean life. The new generation should look to abstaining before marriage.
Oh here's a website talking about Uganda and their improvements:
http://www.sustainabletimes.ca/articles/aidsinafrica.htm
At least there is more communication in that country and trying to reduce the stigma of the disease which I would suspect must be truly frightful.
If you add global warming, AIDS funding, infrastructure, debt write offs you get a situation where the bill adds up against our standard of living. I have dreams to. I want to get married, get a mortgage and fund my children's schooling. Can I do all that and still save the world? In Canada where I'm from we have,(like in Europe), an aging population with few children. That spells more taxes for us. We have limited resources so lets aim at what we can realistically do.
I think I'm just results orientated and when you get that way you tend to want to look at small half measures that can improve things more and more so people can do things by themselves. I find these solutions work better and are more financially feasible, and worst of all they are the solutions that don't get on TV much.
After Ireland entered into the European Union and got some transfer payments (one of many reasons they are much more wealthy than today) and especially had lowered their tax rates, Irish started investing their new found wealth and business profits in land and housing and started increasing their capital. I thought long and hard about it and found that history constantly teaches us that we humans don't change much personality wise even if our scientific understanding improves.
I remember my history teacher talking blithely about the beginnings of markets and free movement of labour. During the beginning of the renaissance there was a black plague that killed so many people that peasants were in short supply. What happened next was that lords would often bid for the remaining peasants (slaves) and this allowed a premium that gave workers the ability to quit and go to other "employers" because of their demand. Eventually that led to the bourgeosie middle class types. Unfortunately my professor said that many middle class types who moved to the "new rich" tried to spend their new wealth like the rich, keeping up with the Joneses, and found they couldn't stay at their status for long. Also the poor tried to emulate them as well with more disasterous consequences. The lesson seems that putting away a portion of your earnings for the future and giving an inheritance to newer generations is how we got as wealthy as we are but if we lose that understanding we'll be the people who the Irish say "go from shirt collar to shirt collar in 3 generations."
I think there will be more equality in society if people invest more. No matter if you smell bad or look funny no banker will prevent you from making an investment. Anybody with an income can achieve it with self-discipline.
Wow, my posts are always longer than I want them to be, but there it is.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs
Here's a rapid video on the copenhagen consensus. Notice his emphasis on HIV prevention than just treatment.
Here's a rapid video on the copenhagen consensus. Notice his emphasis on HIV prevention than just treatment.
Ralphie
The Fly
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 149
Purplesocar, this is a great topic and I'm going to reply, but I'm going to cut and paste your post and my response in Everything You Know is Wrong. I think our discussion is probably getting well out of the 'news' category, so I'll start a new thread there if that's ok with you.
purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Sounds okay to me. As long as I don't get a "flan in the face" per Thom Yorke
PurpleoscarThanks for all those links and all the info. Good job. There are other sides of all the issues that need to be seen before we just follow our favorite rock star blindly. You make excellent points and you make them very well. I hope everyone considers what you have to say.
bloodysunday972
War Child
The first thing you gotta realize with Noel is he is very blunt with his comments.....him and his brother have gone after everybody including each other.
As far as his comments I do see a point there.....As much as I respect Bono and what he does there are moments when you step up to the mic you let your music speak for you.
As far as his comments I do see a point there.....As much as I respect Bono and what he does there are moments when you step up to the mic you let your music speak for you.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070215/ap_on_re_eu/france_africa_summit
A lot of Africans don't like the term 'Africa' being associated only with AIDS and mud huts. There is a lot more to the continent than that, including many thriving cities.
Tim Reid, an actor from VA who gave a speech a couple years ago, said labeling 'Africa' as the starving, diseased villagers would be like showing a shack and poor kids in Appalachia and calling it 'America.' It doesn't help them rise above their problems when everyone gets such a bad image of them from those who are always bringing up the bad stuff.
A lot of Africans don't like the term 'Africa' being associated only with AIDS and mud huts. There is a lot more to the continent than that, including many thriving cities.
Tim Reid, an actor from VA who gave a speech a couple years ago, said labeling 'Africa' as the starving, diseased villagers would be like showing a shack and poor kids in Appalachia and calling it 'America.' It doesn't help them rise above their problems when everyone gets such a bad image of them from those who are always bringing up the bad stuff.
Similar threads
- Locked
