I do think that going to a third world nation and starting a pharmaceutical business manufacturing all the cures the nation needs will mean no money leaks out of their economy to wealthy first world nations and if you train the locals how to work on the pharmaceuticals and eventually let the brightest and most capable take over the business so that it becomes indigenous and securing orders from neighboring countries to aid the economy from exports and to provide neighboring nations with medicine, the benefits will be enormous.

That's a very ambitions schedule you have there. What timeline are you assigning for each of the stages from third world to successful exporters of a pharmaceutical product? Why did you choose pharmaceuticals?

 

Pharmaceuticals was just an example, I used it because it's technologically possible with the right investment, skills and natural resources and it's beneficial to a nation in helping combat malayria and HIV and improving quality of life for people. It would also be a source of income and would provide medicine to neighboring states.

I posted a video earlier showing indonesia has been producing HIV drugs for their people so it has happened.

But my question is what sort of industries would you invest in and how would you go about it so the pharmaceuticals is just an example, I was interested in seeing some of your roadmaps, how you would go about it as obviously pharmaceuticals will not work in many instances as a starting point and you'd need to build up to it through other industries first. I am interested to know how you would bring a third world nation into the first world and people have focussed too much on whether thats a god idea in teh first place when I was really interested in the practicalities of how exactly you would go about doing some from a business and engineering perspective

 

I still cannot get through to you.

You cannot jump into a business and engineering enterprise without considering the ethics. And to do so one must understand the role money plays in society and how money is created.

You keep mentioning investment. As I have pointed out, an investment ultimately means an expectation of return on investment.

When you invest in a country, you are ultimately expecting a growth in capital and this means one of two things:

1) a growth in local currency which allows you to partake in locally produced goods and services,

2) a growth in foreign capital, i.e. you export local goods and services in exchange for foreign money. The foreign money is used to purchase foreign goods and services. Hence I pose the question, when does investment become exploitation?

 

But my question is what sort of industries would you invest in and how would you go about it ...

Investing into something always means a Return on Investment, otherwise your just throwing money at it.

If you feel good about investing in something with the expectations being non-monetary, do you invest more funds when your don't see the return on investment that you expect?

Every investment deserves to be inspected by those providing the funds. Hypotheticals need to make certain assumptions. Cash to invest is one. With the advent of the internet, proper marketing can garner lots of funds for different adventures. Look at the overunity scams ... someone is funding them. It's not one person giving them a million dollars, but a million people giving one dollar, hypothetically speaking. With six billion people on this planet, 0.001 percent represents alot of cash in small increments of investment dollars.

This is the quandry of investors since the first investment. Man's Credulity is as infinite as there are scam artists seeking investment funds. Your free will allows you to invest in whatever you want with whatever metric you choose as the Return on your investment.

Will your ethics allow you to invest in unethical behavior?

 

Ok the thing is the ethical questions could drag on and perhaps we will never agree, and maybe we all have different political views.

Im more coming from a pragmatic angle, if I dont have millions of pounds to invest in brand new roads or power infrastructure etc but want to do something beneficial for a homeland, and all i have is a 60k job to play with, say 20k goes on living expenses and the other 40k was going to be invested, what is the best possible thing that could realistically be done with that money to promote development and growth. you would be doing it for the sake of helping the country so not looking to take money from the people and spend it elsewhere and drain the economy, but spend it in a way most beneficial to the nation, so more investment in more business and building up a strong business empire that eventually became powerful enough to invest in infrastructure etc and train engineers and so on.

Even Nigeria has a space program, countries want to develop and move forward so we shouldnt sit here saying they should stay underdeveloped whilst we stay developed as that sounds a bit neocolonialist to be honest, nations should decide if they want growth and development and there are plenty of nations out there that are looking for more development and growth.

investment becomes explotation when you benefit yourself at the exspense of the people and it is investment when it is mutually beneficial or if they get more out of it then you. so blood diamonds are exploitation, manufacturing in china is investment.

 

As I understand from the little reading I have done, Dawud, the Nigerian "Space Program" consists of that country having paid the Chinese to send a telecommunications satellite aloft in one of their rockets, with a lot of creative accounting being perpetrated by Nigerian government officials, as usual.

In my view, the most essential pre-requisite to development is electricity, and much of the Third World, including India, surprisingly, has real problems just delivering stable electrical power to their industries and teeming populations.

So in a word, the most critical upgrade a Third World country would need, in order to join the global ecomony, would be the provision of basic, no-frills infrastructure for solar power capture, perhaps in conjunction with that needed for small-scale hydro-electric power generation.

All other indexes of development are inherently dependent on the availability of electrical power,and so that must be the first step to national self-sustenance in the Third World.

 

Ok the thing is the ethical questions could drag on and perhaps we will never agree, and maybe we all have different political views.

This is more about economics than politics.

Im more coming from a pragmatic angle, if I dont have millions of pounds to invest in brand new roads or power infrastructure etc but want to do something beneficial for a homeland, and all i have is a 60k job to play with, say 20k goes on living expenses and the other 40k was going to be invested, what is the best possible thing that could realistically be done with that money to promote development and growth. you would be doing it for the sake of helping the country so not looking to take money from the people and spend it elsewhere and drain the economy, but spend it in a way most beneficial to the nation, so more investment in more business and building up a strong business empire that eventually became powerful enough to invest in infrastructure etc and train engineers and so on.

You do not understand global economics. If you have £40k to spend in a foreign country, the money eventually ends up being repatriated to its country of origin. That is, it is spent on purchasing goods from the U.K. One can argue that it would be used to purchase material or services that are unavailable locally. My point is you have to be cognizant of which country is receiving economic benefits.

You keep on making a value judgement that life in a "developed" country is superior to that in an "under developed" country. No one is talking about keeping technology away from "under developed" countries. Countries should be allowed to choose for themselves how they wish to move forward, not outsiders who have an illusionary view of what "development" means.

so we shouldnt sit here saying they should stay underdeveloped whilst we stay developed as that sounds a bit neocolonialist to be honest, nations should decide if they want growth and development and there are plenty of nations out there that are looking for more development and growth.

You do not understand what colonialism means.

 

That's a very ambitions schedule you have there. What timeline are you assigning for each of the stages from third world to successful exporters of a pharmaceutical product? Why did you choose pharmaceuticals?

We already get most of our pharm, precursors from 3rd world countries anyways. Why do you think Afganistan produces 80% of the opium base of the world, we occupy them but won't eradicate their millions of poppy fields? Why do we turn a blind eye to all the Afgan army and police being heroine addicts?They sell half to the US, half to the mob then we turn it into painkillers, they turn it into smack in italy.Is he wanting them to set up the superlabs their? If so thats been done too but they've found making H, bath salts, fake cannabis, and meth much more profitable.

Heres the way most pharmies are made
A base plant or organism is found to have some properties for medical use. Remember Albert Hoffman said every living creature is a chemical factory. We then buy the palmetto berries (For prostate meds) Marigolds out of Maryland(They produce a special marygold thats made into blood pressure meds) And were the first application for CA Marijuana mega license which costs $214,000 to apply for. You can look at the list of applicants for the new planned super farms in CA. It reads like a who's who list of pharmicuitical companies. Abbott, Coviden, Cardinal, pfizer, ect....

Well the pharmi companies then buy the base and use their chemistry to turn it into an actual medicine.

OR they make one thats totally synthetic. You can ask you pharmacist if you meds are organic based or synthetic. Typically synthetics are more dangerous.


Now If I were to help a developing country I'd invest money into biz's in that country from here and let them work it. Come to me with a proposal for a biz you wanna start in a 3rd world country and how much to do it. You would have to work with their gov to prevent rampant fraud. But say someone wants to start a laundry and needs $2000. I'd loan out the $2000 for a percentage of the biz. I think it would be an easy way for lower income Americans and 3rd world people to make money and own their own biz's. I think theres a site set up for this but I don't believe it can be accomplished without someone on the ground int he 3rd world weeding out the scammers.

 

Remember, the OP wanted money invested in a third world country and yet none returned to the first world country that made the investment, letting the third world nation keep all the investment capital.

The reality is everyone wants a ROI. Shareholders in a corporation would like an ROI or they will withdrawl their funds and reinvest in another corporation.

I am well aware of the Afgan poppy fields and where their product ends up.

 

Remember, the OP wanted money invested in a third world country and yet none returned to the first world country that made the investment, letting the third world nation keep all the investment capital.

The reality is everyone wants a ROI. Shareholders in a corporation would like an ROI or they will withdrawl their funds and reinvest in another corporation.

I am well aware of the Afgan poppy fields and where their product ends up.

Yah its been done before but rampant fraud develops. Thats why you'd have to have Gov. involved along with a non profit to screen and dish out the money. That way they wanna buy this give em the cash to buy it, let them bring in receipts or proof of the purchases then they can get access to operating expense.It would be hard but could be done. I was only using the poppy fields as an example because its so obvious and in current events. We do produce painkiller base here but only like 4% of what we need. My solution would be to just buy it all. We pay 3 x what the mob pays em. We need to be like debeers and buy all the opium base and reserve it. Then you would effectively choke off the entire smack supply and keep these farmers in biz, and we'd save a ton of money buying it in bulk. Thats my solution to the ME poppy problem. I remember in the 80's they were trying to eradicate them all over the countries.

 

But for the ops argument of pharmies in 3rd world we need the meds. Our baby boomers are now geriatric and need meds and were having severe shortages all over the country for everything from IV cancer drugs, painkillers, Tamiflu, AntiViral IV, flu vaccines, adderall, even my AntiInflamatory was out of stock last time I went to fill my scripts. So there is a need for more medications to be made and will continue to rise the next 20 years or so. So the markets fertile.

 

Blame it on the weather and natural disasters,refugee's from disasters and money

loans that was forgiven started the problems of today. We can talk about the

impossible, every one wants to stay in the U.S. .Only the jets setters from other

countries are pleased with the policies of the world. The way our schools are run

reflect the third world coming to America,looking at history ,when god had to leave

schools after our populations from disasters and wars changed America. The world

bank,what does that mean to the average person. People appointed to handle off

shore cash. War changed a lot of countries,where there war..there is money for guns

and relief. One person,one vote no food or cash. America is a developing in reverse,

we are trying to acommodate every one with a small voice, that voice is trying to

convince us that we are unfair as a historical peoples toward miniorities. the masses

will become miniorities or have become. Only history will record the out come.

 

You've gotta remember that America as we know it (Both North and South really) were built by immigrants.

If you don't like immigration, then perhaps hand the colonies back to the Red Indians, Amazonian tribes, etc, etc...

 

You've gotta remember that America as we know it (Both North and South really) were built by immigrants.

If you don't like immigration, then perhaps hand the colonies back to the Red Indians, Amazonian tribes, etc, etc...

No it wasn't. It was built with slavery. Both white and black. For a while to come to america you had to become a slave for 7 years. The indians left are mainly just partial indians, they still get incredible gov benefits though. You wanna goto harvard, check Native American in the race box and they'll mail you plane tickets. As for the amazonians in SA. The spanish didn't destroy the native population in SA like we did in NA. The spanish and others in SA interbred with the natives and the meshed societies. Where in the US in N. America, we basically wiped out the natives. Thats why people from spain are white, yet people from mexico and S. America are tan. From their native american side.

 

I'm not sure where you are from, but I have seen Native American's, lived around them. There was a government program for kids who parents could not support them, Jone's Academy, that was in my part of the country where I finished growing up.

The real fact is most Native American's live in abject poverty, they are discriminated against on such a regular basis most people don't think twice about it. It is institutionalized to a large degree. If a native American's business or a person is robbed or assaulted in Oklahoma they have their own tribal police, and if it was done by an outsider (race doesn't matter) it gets very sticky due to jurisdiction issues, the result is rapists and thiefs get by with it in many cases while the authorities squabble.

The tribes in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico have similar issues. The casino's you see help, but for the most part are minimum wage jobs benefiting a few.

For a Native American to be a full citizen they have to give up all tribal affiliations, which is not going to happen. They are still considered by the federal government as conquered nations.

Oklahoma is a bit unique, it teaches a lot of history. The Trail of Tears left 2/3rd of the 5 civilized tribes dead on the forced migration. If you care to look it up check out the definitions of Boomers vs. Sooners, where the native Americans who had adopted much of western civilizations found their homes (some of them mansions) stolen by invading whites. This in the 20th century.

It is hard to be born in OK without some indian blood in your ancestry, I have a bit of Cherokee myself (not enough to notice).

I disagree strongly that this country was build on slavery, that is revisionist history. The historical facts can be bad enough by themselves, they don't need embellishing. The USA was a dumping ground for malcontents, both religious and political, but never as a prison (as was OZ).

 

No it wasn't. It was built with slavery.

Who bought the slaves? The Native Indians?

I wonder what the Native Indians done to deserve such prejudice. Wasn't it the Wampanoags who taught the Pilgrims to farm in the bad soil?

What happened between that time and then claiming their land?

 

Things are changing, just slowly. Part of the problem is they historically have not been full citizens, but the courts are slowly turning that around. I won't get into the rest, as this becomes politics very quickly. Time to retire from the thread and hope I won't have to moderate anything after stirring.

 

Sparky,Do your old buddy a favor , calm down before you close the thread. When

you have years and years of history,you will be able to speak without short burst of

comments. We didn't learn our history with a post ,a lot of history we lived. Ask

more questions before you make statements,good buddy. Watch history detectives

on P.B.S. alot of blacks thru dna are finding out they are from a white background.

Let dna do its work,more people are being surprised ,dna don't lie.

 

Loosewire, I am calm.

Cool as a cucumber.

I was just asking a question, about history. That's something I like about the US, everyone seems to have a good knowledge of their history.

I don't have a such a good knowledge, so I was just asking. I'm sorry if I came across as a bit mad.

I'm sorry if I hit a raw nerve.

Folk responded and I respect them. I respect everyone here.

I don't want to make people mad.

Sparky

P.S. "alot of blacks thru dna are finding out they are from a white background." Some reasons for that would get the thread closed.

 

I said let dna do it work most people knows that Includes every one. They are

willing to learn what dna finds out,no matter where they come from ,I think all

want to have a open mind on dna. I take your advice and explain better I hope.