Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: egg/chicken chicken/egg chigg/eckin Message-ID: <1588@dciem.UUCP> Date: Sat, 22-Jun-85 13:37:25 EDT Article-I.D.: dciem.1588 Posted: Sat Jun 22 13:37:25 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Jun-85 16:08:42 EDT References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> <5710@utzoo.UUCP> <704@utcs.UUCP> <295@looking.UUCP> <708@utcs.UUCP> I have pointed out to one person by mail that whatever was done in >the past, we cannot currently blame the state of underdeveloped >countries on exploitation by Canada,(or possibly even the Western >nations in general), because we do so little trading with them that >it has very little effect on our economy. Our high standard of living >in fact depends upon trading partners well enough developed to >supply our needs. >... > So it can only be concluded that now it is in our best interests >to promote higher standards of living in the third world so that >we can broaden our markets and sources and thereby improve our own >conditions. . .before China buries us! > >Cheers, Fred Williams This is precisely the main thesis of the Brandt Commission report of 1982(1?). If the Western world does not ensure that the Third World improves drastically its standard of living, the Western economies will collapse. If they do develop their internal economies so that they can support a significant level of trade with us, not only they, but we will be much better off. (Politically, I guess that if Russia or China is perceived as being responsible for helping them and we for suppressing them, we might not receive as much benefit, but it would still be better than having them stay impoverished.) -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt