Hello, i'm new around here, so i'm not sure if this has been covered to any length... But I'm trying to understand why nobody has tried making pacts with developing nations. Trade engineering expertise in building Roads, Bridges, Schools, Hospitals, etc. for access to the country's natural resources. Now here's my take on it. - Gov should stay out of the resource collection (i.e. should be a private enterprise handling the costs and profits of resource production) - Gov should handle paying for the return to the country (the infrastructure building), but not the actual building itself (which should also be a private enterprise). - Gov should specially tax these projects in order that it pays for itself. (Such endevours, I suspect would easily survive and flourish with higher taxes than domestic enterprises) - Gov should provide protection for these projects with the Military (That bloated Military budget mostly goes to waste without an active use for them to be deployed -- and Wars are costly and the track record shows they don't yield returns). Now, this might sound imperialistic. Well, it is. It made the British and Spanish very very rich when they were doing it. However, the difference is, Those countries went in and suppressed the local populace. And my proposal is one of cooperation. The relationship would strengthen ties between the US and various regions, and still generate a profit. Whereas, our current approach of buying favor with aid packages, costs the US. I would think such a solution would be favorable by both parties, because It keeps the profits in private hands (Republicans) it generates more Taxes for the US gov to spend (Democrats), it grows the GDP (Both), It promotes friendly ties with other nations over the strategy of keeping them fearful of our hammer (Democrats), and Gives more reason to continue the big spending in the Military (Republicans). And this isn't to be confused with American companies that produce overseas already. They pay Taxes to local gov, and Tariffs when they come back to the US. (which I think is another dumb idea -- it promotes companies keeping their capital they make overseas, overseas... instead of bringing it back to into the country). Just wondering what others think about this: Government leasing resource ownership on foreign soil.
Global water and food resources threatened by population growth & climate change... Soaring Population, Climate Change Stress Resources January 18, 2013 - Population growth threatens to strain Earths water and food resources. By 2050, nine billion people will be living on the planet, up from six billion today.
We already have evidence that the focus on raw material trade with developing country, given resource depletion and local pollution, can actually lead to a net reduction in well-being for the developing country (see, for example, the World Bank's 'where is the wealth of nations?')
It's amusing how progressive rant about limited resources when it comes to environmental policy, or when they want to get something banned (like regular-flow toilets). But when it comes to immigration policy, they turn around and do a complete 180, trying to assure us all there is plenty of land and jobs for everyone, and that anyone who questions this is just paranoid. So which is it? Are there enough resources for everyone or not?
