Dan Ariely is amazing! Take a look at some of his talks...

http://danariely.com/speaking/

"'no company can oppress you'
lolz"

??? explain??? cant tell if sarcasm or what, a very broad remark
please tell

This company can oppress you.

|
V

http://www.cca.com/

When you say 'no company can oppress you' I think about coca cola sending death squads after union leaders.

PS I wonder why ethiopia grows coffee for (only) starbucks instead of food for itself

it makes more money from a cashcrop and so can import more food.... n'est pas?

Economies of scale bro

Well, by economies of scale I assume you mean increasing economies of scale. But anyways, what orathaic and lando say is true. There is a high demand for coffee in the global market. If Ethiopians make more money growing coffee, selling it, and importing food than they would from growing their own food and selling the excess, they will choose to grow coffee. Ultimately they'll choose what makes them the most money. Another example, I think in some famous tea growing region in China, a lot of farmers are switching over to (damn I forget if its sugar or cocoa beans, or what) because nestle opened a factory in the area and it became more profitable to grow that than tea.

"it makes more money from a cashcrop and so can import more food.... n'est pas?"

Thus driving domestic food producers out of business, yes.

Just mentioned this on this site but one of my favorite articles from graduate school discussed this very problem with Haiti after the initial stages of the revolution. Toussaint L'Ouveture takes a lot of crap for forcing former slaves back onto sugar and coffee plantations, when the slaves wanted to set up individual family subsistence farms. The article defended Toussaint on the basis that subsistence farmings wont buy guns or forge trade contracts or connect haiti to the global economy.

It was obviously discussing a mercantile world, but one that was facing similar questions.

Relying on agriculture for export while importing capital intensive goods leads to permanent debt & dependency, not to mention high levels of vulnerability to volatile international crop prices (coffee is particularly volatile). When coffee tanked in the late 80s, it led to the fall of the Mengitsu government. The developing states which are fairly stable now went through a process of developing their manufacturing base.

That is more possible today than 200 years ago I guess

Africa generally is experiencing something of a boom right now, it's very interesting. Maybe the 2010s will finally be the continent's decade.

Well, I'd narrow that to certain countries in Africa. Ghana, Tanzania, South Africa, Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria are all doing superbly well. Sub-Saharan Africa in General is doing pretty good. But places like the Congo are still messed up, and Malawi and Burundi aren't showing much improvement as far as I know.

'Ultimately they'll choose what makes them the most money.' it's true, they choose to grow quat, which is a popular local narcotic, specifically because it makes them more money. (with low international coffee prices...)

"it makes more money from a cashcrop and so can import more food.... n'est pas?"

'Thus driving domestic food producers out of business, yes.'

@Putin: yes, thus producing a system which relies on international trade, and this peaceful relationships with neighbouring countries, you might even suggest this leads to a reduction in overall violence and war (these things are on the decrease) - but also increasing reliance on a transport infrastructure which is dependant on oil, a limited resource which (production of which seems to have stagnated in the past 6 years) This present a system which risks collapse and has the potential to kill billions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG_R6U_Ffes&feature=player_embedded

I cant wait.

"if I had to choose between anarchy and totalitarianism, I would choose totalitarianism" So you would rather live in a place like mussolinis italy, nazi germany, or life under pol-pot/gaddafi/whoever instead of say, anarchist spain?

I think the important thing is, that choice is false, those are not the only options.

So EVEN if someone would rather totalitarianism, I think we can all agree that there are alternatives which we'd prefer.

@Sicarius, as bad as you think totalitarianism would be, there are others who fear anarchy more (though i've no idea why, as anarchy would inevitable turn into some kind of organised system of co-operation...) I think you're wasting your time argueing that Anarchy is the better option.

Why not put some effort into argueing that The current route being taken is wrong. And people would prefer to live in a free United States, that at least everyone can agree on..

"anarchy would inevitable turn into some kind of organised system of co-operation" Anarchy IS organized co-operation. Anyway I'm not arguing that, it just strikes me as crazy someone would choose that. But you're right, its pointless black and white framing, nothing is in truth black and white.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=37604

"Anarchy IS organized co-operation."

A nation sate is organized co-operation...

update: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16192472

A nation state is organized domination. I sure dont feel like part of a mutualistic relationship when they kidnap me and hold me hostage for sitting on the ground, or bust down my neighbors door and shoot his dog because they think my OTHER neighbor has some joints.

Do you know how to emerge as the worlds strongest military superpower?

You gotta keep everyone down.