 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
For christ's sake.
IN GENERAL Western investment and trade is improving living standards and wealth in poor countires.
THERE ARE MANY EXCEPTIONS which is not good.
How can I put it any simpler? We all agree!
Because some people are screwing the poor, does that mean we should stop dealing with poor countries altogether?
For christ's sake.
Shouldn't think so.
We all agree!
You keep saying this for some reason despite people disagreeing with you
Western investment* and trade is improving living standards and wealth in poor countires....
Because some people are screwing the poor, does that mean we should stop dealing with poor countries altogether?
The raison detre of the investment is to make money for themselves. Imagine how much better there lot would be if they got the trolley and not the biscuit- I cant make it any simpler either. This is not a few all invest to make money- improve their own , the wests ,lot.
*Investment is the commitment of money or capital to purchase financial instruments or other assets to gain profitable returns in the form of interest, income {dividend}, or appreciation of the value of the instrument.[1]
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Are you saying ALL western investment and trade results in people in developing countries being worse off?
Cos that's clearly not the case.
Btw investments usually work to the benefit of both sides. Buy shares in a company - the company gets capital, you get a stake. Put money in an ISA - you get interest, the bank gets capital etc etc. Build a factory somewhere - you get the goods produced, they get employment.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Have you tried reading my posts 😉
Are you saying ALL western investment and trade results in people in developing countries being worse off?
NO it results in us being disproportionally better off from this"investment" than them. biscuit from the full shopping trolley etc. In the past here mill owners fed and housed their workers as did masters with slaves. Were they better off working/enslaved or starving ? Not really sure the system was working fairly for both sides then or now. I am not suggesting it is like slavery [ before you get confused] but lets not pretend it is altruistic or for their benefit.