Said1
Gold Member
No.I'm not the one claiming that they don't administer penalties, so you'll have to answer that question.
Set up by the third world country right?What often happens is a free trade "zone" is set up inside a third world country to attract foreign cash.
That's the norm for bidding on tenders/contracts all over the world. Silly coyote.Because the multinationals are able to choose between many underdeveloped nations, a bidding war erupts between governments.
They agree to it right?The winning government often pays part of the initial cost of factory setup, loosens environment protections and rules regarding negligence and the treatment of workers, and agrees to not ask for payment of taxes for a period of time.
Do you know what an EPZ and a free trade zone actually are? It's ok if you don't, most of the articles you read probably don't go into technical detail since it points to the flaws in their reporting.If the host government does ask for taxes or tightens rules the corporation threatens to set up operations elsewhere, giving leverage at the bargaining table with more demands
The same applies to multinationals.Local businesses and manufacturers that are not within the zones face higher levels of regulation which causes them to be unable to compete with foreign firms that are established within the zones.
Here's a link...http://allafrica.com/stories/200412070074.html
Is there anything about he following text that sorta jump out at you?
The report shows that while EPZs are often set up in countries that have ratified the core labour standards of the International Labour Organization (ILO), in practice these standards are regularly flouted. The ILO is a Geneva-based UN agency that promotes social justice and labour rights. .
With the exception of the highlited text (and even that's vauge and lacking in detail) you're article doesn't varify any federal or regional laws that are being violated by multinationals, or if they are even invovled in every case. The example of Egypt is totally bunk, it's almost funny.
Then how would more aid money for development help, and why would you be in favor of it? Like I said, aid money is just more debt.You also said a country should buy building and equipment to prevent foreign ownership so I said "Capital accumulation is the key to growth, but if it comes with unaffordable debt, it can't stimulate growth." ie, I acknowledge that a country's ownership in buildings and equipment (capital) and the accumulation of buildings and equipment is key to economic growth, but if it comes with unaffordable debt these buildings and equipment can't stimulate growth because all earnings are sunk into debt reduction
Are you for real?Besides, foreign and international banks own the buildings and equipment until the debts are payed, so there is really no way for you to realistically say that foreign ownership is a dangerous practice that should be avoided. It simply can't be avoided.
I also didn't say it was dangerous, I said it should be avoided.
Are you aware of the stipulations attached to this help?The World Bank has recently started a program that is supposed to help with debt management of low income nations.
.....that can't be abided by. Can you show me one fairly recent case where a third world government has agreed to loosen any existing labor and environmental policies in order to do business with a multi-national corporation? Yes, I can show you a case where a third world government has agreed to loosen any existing environmental policies in order to do business with a multi-national corporation: Nigeria.
You gave Nigeria as an example of a bidding war/intimidation by the oil company first, then said it was an example of foreign ownership. Either way, the article gives no examples of what you are claiming the federal government is knowingly guilty of doing.
Are you a mongoloid?Ask me another one.
You made a claim:"Give me a break, bad leadership and corruption is what most under developed nations are suffering from, the multination is not responsible for what some third world socialist government does to it's people after they start operating in their country."
And?
The multinational corporation benefits from regulations and laws (or lack of) that third world governments implement and enforce (or fail to) that result in abuses of human rights by multinational corporations. Corruption.
Were you going somewhere with this? Anyway, the WTO prevents multinationals from discrimination based on any given nations enviornmental or labor practices. I believe this is going to be changing soon, then we'll see who does what.
You didnt ask me for proof of intimidation or bidding war when I gave you the Nigeria example.
Yes I did, I even underlined it diptard.
There are a few oil companies that are in the Niger Delta. If they shut production down, or even slow it down, for a short time, two things would happen. One, there would be a scarcity of oil that drives local prices high which would grind to a halt of the Nigerian economy (happened in the mid 90s). The scarcity would also lead to greater profits for the oil companies. Two, the government would lose $35 million in oil revenues a day until they started pumping again. Oil revenues account for 95% of export earnings for Nigeria. Who holds power over who?
If they have legitimate reasons for shutting production down, why shouldn't they? Disputes of that nature would have to be taken up with the WTO, that's what they're there for. Don't you wonder who's stealing the oil in Nigeria? I thought your spidy senses would be tingling over that one.
Is that a slur? Or are you just trying to differentiate between the federal government and some of the rural social organizational structures?
You didn't read the article did you lamo.
Well, for you to be able to claim that "The article points to the dangers of forien ownership", it must be true that the same dangers wouldn't exist without foreign ownership. Otherwise, you can't claim that this is what the article points to.
First of all, YOU said it was an example, I agreed - moron. Secondly, I've never said the dangers wouldn't exist. Man, are you some kind of burn victim (I mean stoner, not an actual burn victim).
But they don't say no, so what should be done now?
Nukem.
That.Doing what again?
Do the same rules apply to everyone? Should they?
Probably, and they should if they don't