Funny how the world works isn't it, contrary to popular (meaning ignorant) belief the world hasn't gotten richer but poorer. Well it all depends on how you look at it. The era of Globalization that we are in, was supposed too make all of god's children that much richer. But far from the truth, the 90's has proven to be a disasterous decade for those living outside the west.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/americas/9907/12/un.globalization/index.html

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Globalization, the economic interaction between countries, has generated unprecedented wealth for developed nations, but it has also driven a deeper wedge between rich and poor countries, according to a United Nations report released Monday.

The report, produced by an independent group of scholars and development experts for the United Nations Development Program, also ranked 174 countries according to their level of human development. According to the UNDP, people in about 85 countries are worse off in many respects than they were a decade ago.


Now what collapsed a decade ago??? hmmm.... could it have been socialism?

By the late 1990s, a fifth of the world's people living in the world's richest nations control 82 percent of world export markets, 68 percent of international direct investment and 75 percent of the telephone lines. Those in the bottom fifth had 1.5 percent or less in the last three categories.

Makes you proud to be a leaching western shitake dosen't it.

The world's 200 richest people more than doubled their net worth from 1994 to 1998 to more than $1 trillion.

BARF!

Yup 100 million ppl in the former Eastern Bloc gone into abject poverty, Africa.... well it's africa. There have been success stoires but for 85 to get poorer in the era of "irrational exuberance" is is disgusting and only goes to support the Marxist ideal that the rich prosper on the poor.

This thread is going to run and run.......




(Sorry about that, I had to make the obvious comment. Ill go polish my arguments)

Well let's see the worst nation on the list Sierra Leone:

1989:

Overview: The economic and social infrastructure is not well developed. Subsistence agriculture dominates the economy, generating about one-third of GDP and employing about two-thirds of the working population. Manufacturing accounts for less than 10% of GDP, consisting mainly of the processing of raw materials and of light manufacturing for the domestic market. Diamond mining provides an important source of hard currency. The economy suffers from high unemployment, rising inflation, large trade deficits, and a growing dependency on foreign assistance.

2003:

Economy - overview:
Sierra Leone is an extremely poor African nation with tremendous inequality in income distribution. It does have substantial mineral, agricultural, and fishery resources. However, the economic and social infrastructure is not well developed, and serious social disorders continue to hamper economic development, following a 10-year civil war. About two-thirds of the working-age population engages in subsistence agriculture. Manufacturing consists mainly of the processing of raw materials and of light manufacturing for the domestic market. There are plans to reopen bauxite and rutile mines shut down during the conflict. The major source of hard currency consists of the mining of diamonds. The fate of the economy depends upon the maintenance of domestic peace and the continued receipt of substantial aid from abroad.

But economy is only one part of the HDI, all those child soldiers and the RUF super murders. Sierra Leone has experianced it all.
:(

The UN report (I think this is the one) is available at this link (http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/cida_ind.nsf/852562900065549a85256250006cbb1a/d0c2749fa32147b585256d5d00545c96?OpenDocument).

Some headlines rolling on the ticker at UNDP Human Development Reports (http://hdr.undp.org/)

- World poverty has increased says UN report (Guardian)
- West spends 6 times more on farm subsidies than aid (Business Standard India)
- Boom bubble of the 1990s leaves 50 nations poorer (Guardian)
- UN warns on world poverty (Financial Times)
- Report warns on development crisis (Washington Times)

This is not what we generally consider "good news".

Notes in general:

- Leftists are not as strange as they seem. Please pay more attention to them in future WTO and WB/IMF (among others) conference protests. They really are trying to help, despite what you may think.

- I don't think anybody didn't see this coming. Please let us know if I'm wrong on that. I'm betting, however, that the key point to be argued over is what we personally think of the situation.

- The Human Development Index appears on page 237 of the report, which is page 245 in the full-size PDF. Presumably, though I have not downloaded the by-chapter version, the Index appears in the late listing called "Human Development Indicators".

I'm printing out the Human Development Index to look for trends. I've made some assertions about a couple of countries, and I wonder if there is supporting data to be had.

For example: In relation to Liberia there exists a certain assertion that Liberia enjoyed a special relationship with the United States for its natural resource reserves in general, especially during WWII, and that Liberia served as a staging point for American anti-Communist efforts in Africa. With the fall of Communism and the end of the Cold War, the United States gave less and less attention to Liberia, with the vacuum being filled by the chaos which now cries out to our President. (see Liberia - US Policy (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/liberia/essays/uspolicy/))

This may be reflected in the broad numbers. Of course, now you get to go on the journey with me. I'll let you all know what I find.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

I was slaving on google trying to find the report, thank you. But my question is really about the same ole argument: Is socialism or capitalism the way of the future? By the looks of it socialism proved to be better for the overall quality of life in many nations.

Russia has really gone down the tubes badly, with massive amounts of alcohol abuse and the generally dreeriness of the population has the life expectancy down 74 years in the USSR to 66 years today. Thus has capitalism really worked?

Again Sierra Leone is a good example of the glourious 90's gone bad:

Life expectancy: 1989: 41 years
2003: 34.5 years.

Is it just me or are things outside the west are getting worse? :confused:

Claiming that socialism is the answer to the world's poverty poblems is stupid.

First of all, socialism has, as I have proved earlier, murdered in excess of 100 million people. We do not want to try repeating that. (No sane person would).

Second, in theory, socialism is meant to combat income equality. Problem is, that nations, where such a goal has been a factor in political decisions...

1) Inc ome inequality is higher than in non-socialist countries (look up Gini coefficients and Lorentz curves to verify. Try Russia vs USA).

2) Countries where socialism have been attempted are behind on economic development, education and scientific research - and generally have low GNPs compared to industrialised non socialist-countries.

And to say that globalisation, which brings the human race together, instead of this bickering planet with 200+ nations, is stupid.

it is especially ironic that the socialists themselves reject globalisation, seeing how they are the ones always adovocating UNITY etc etc.

Excellent points, DJ Supreme, but did you notice how, as American wealth grew in the 1990s, the people suddenly became "socially aware"? We can debate the efficacy of this period to no end, but it is true that Americans in comfort tend to be a little more generous because they view compassion as a luxury and not a necessity.

The conditions surrounding any enterprise in history are not fixed. The trends repeat, and adapting them against the conditions lends much toward the success or failure of any idea, much less its resurrection.

As the global village draws closer, the people will become more Socialistic. We cannot get along without the basic paradigmatic values of human equality in Socialism. We cannot cooperate if we must fundamentally compete with one another. To exist according to a continuation of the delusion of a divided species will ensure humanity's timeless distraction with warfare and greed.

The point at which society can afford to be outright socialistic comes shortly before the point at which society must necessarily begin the transition toward a theoretically ideal Socialism that may well have not been hypothesized yet.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Something has gone amiss, and if you're examining the actual HDI, well ....

I think I'm suffering an SEP Field°, or else there's a subtle stone glitch at play in my brain, but neither sobriety nor smoking more is solving the issue for me.

For some reason, and I'm very embarassed to admit this, I cannot find Liberia in the Index.

I've been over it a bunch of times, but the cause is becoming so obsessive that I'm convinced I'm simply repeating the same error over and over again, despite the deliberate employment of several data-scanning methods (the latest of which is to check off each group of five).

But for some reason, when I get to Liberia, my eye skips past it. I literally cannot see it in the Index.

So, if you've downloaded the Index, Nico or anybody else ... I can't figure this out. Where the hell is Liberia?!

It's driving me batsh@t!

Notes:

° SEP Field - cf Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Trilogy. "Somebody Else's Problem" Field. It's a psychological state that renders objects invisible because they are, somehow, somebody else's problem. In the simplest, it's how you can go through a city without seeing the beggars. In the complex, it's why you can't find your keys.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

The Poverty manifesto
the UN report on
human development
(HDI)

The Last 10 years for the most part has been perceived as the biggest and best economic boom ever! Well as they say Perception is everything because anything could be further from the truth. The UN every year or so called the Human Development Index (HDI) which documents the average well-being in countries worldwide.

The report, produced by an independent group of scholars and development experts for the United Nations Development Program, also ranked 174 countries according to their level of human development. According to the UNDP, people in about 85 countries are worse off in many respects than they were a decade ago.

By the late 1990s, a fifth of the world's people living in the world's richest nations control 82 percent of world export markets, 68 percent of international direct investment and 75 percent of the telephone lines. Those in the bottom fifth had 1.5 percent or less in the last three categories.
The Document this year is particularly disturbing; the west experienced a huge jump in living standards. But it seems that the world outside the west has all but advanced. The UN has seen the world crumble it seems in the last 13 years. Oddly enough it has been around 13 years since socialism collapsed.
A good example of how the former Soviet states have faired and not all that well. In 1990 the USSR was the world second largest economy, but it was falling apart at the seems. But the socio-economic chaos that followed the collapse of the USSR was one of the greatest human disaster stories of our time. Now the CIS (commonwealth of independent states) that has replaced the USSR is a disaster. Life expectancy in Russia has dropped to dangerous levels for an industrial economy like hers:


Russia:
Life expectancy 1989: 74 years
Life expectancy 2002: 66 years.

This is from a country that has reverted to a capitalist system, which was supposed to be the model. Here is a comparison of the Birth and Death rates she has endured:

Russia:
1989: Birth rate: 18 births/1,000 population (1989)
Death rate: 11 deaths/1,000 population (1989)
2002:
Birth rate:
9.71 births/1,000 population (2002 est.)
Death rate:
13.91 deaths/1,000 population (2002 est.)


Another disturbing thing is the fact that many people in today’s “modern” era don’t have access to sanitation. In Bangladesh we have actually seen a decrease in the amount of people who has access to sanitation:

Bangladesh:

1990: 81% of the population had access to sanitation
2002: 71% of the population.

Many other states have also seen timid or moderate increases in sanitation:

Ethiopia:

1990: 24% of the population had access to sanitation
2002: 33% of the population has access to sanitation.

Now Ethiopia is a special case and point about where governments are spending there money. Ethiopia is rated as # 169 on the HDI out of a list of 175 nations. Now Ethiopia fought a war in the 1990’s which her newly independent neighbor Eritrea (#155). Ethiopia spends over 12% of her GDP on the military:

Ethiopia:
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$800 million (FY00)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
12.6% (FY00)

For a nation as poor as Ethiopia to spend that much on the military is rather disgusting. Eritrea also spends huge amounts of money on the military:
Eritrea:

Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$138.3 million (FY01)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
19.8% (FY01)
Both countries have tiny economies, and there people are starving in Ethiopia today 14 million people are threatened by starvation.
Another disturbing thing cited in the HDI is the amount of people who are living on less than $1 a day! Africa of course has it the worst:

Burkina Faso: 61.2%
Burundi: 58.4%
Ethiopia: 81.9%
Nigeria: 70.2%
Uganda: 82.2%

Nigeria alone has a population of 129,934,911 people and the amount of people living less than $1 a day is, around 91 million people. In a country whose oil reserves number in the 24 billion barrel range. Nigeria is number 152 on the HDI list.
The amount of people who are undernourished in some countries have also increased.(Percentage)

1990 2002

Botswana: 17 25
Burundi 49 69
DRC: 32 73



The world was supposed to be better after the fall of socialism but it seems that the opposite is true. The world has gained much wealth but in the hands of the few. Between 1994, and 1998 200 of the richest people accumulated $1 trillion of wealth meanwhile most of the world doesn’t have access to sanitation. When most people are living on less than $1 a day. With the cause of terrorism seemingly still a mystery to the US and to the vast majority of the west no wonder they hate us.


Graphs:


Former “Communist” nations, are we really better?



GDP (US$ millions)
1990 2003
Albania 3.8 14
Bulgaria 51.2 50.6
Czechoslovakia (now in two) 123.2 221.9

East Germany 159.5 N/A
Hungary 64.6 134.7
Poland 172.4 368.1
Romania 79.8 152.7
Yugoslavia 129.5 81.2




GDP per capita (US$)
1990 2003
Albania 1200 4500
Bulgaria 5710 6600
Czech Republic+ Slovakia 7878 13750

E.Germany 9679 N/A
Hungary 6108 13300
Poland 4565 9500
Romania 3445 6800
Yugoslavia 5464 6794

And i am handing this in tommorow? what do u think I should get? :cool:

First of all, socialism has, as I have proved earlier, murdered in excess of 100 million people. We do not want to try repeating that. (No sane person would).


Again I dis-proved that ridiculous number in another thread, the number is closer to what 40 million. And excuse me but who killed 3.7 million Vietnamese? A capitalist country, man the soviets only killed a million in Afghanistan. They had some catching up to do it seems. And DJ me and many others here don't fall for what the ignorant masses like you do, ohhhh but they killed b.s fankly you didn't even care, if I am not mistaken you told Sparks not to bring up the 1 million dead count in Iraq. :rolleyes: DJ your posts are almost as good as a ad hom arguement.

And DJ not everything in this world is damned economics! Life expectancy, birth rates, everything has gone to shit in the Fmr. USSR.

And to say that globalisation, which brings the human race together, instead of this bickering planet with 200+ nations, is stupid.


Talk about not deserving to be on sci! That was quint essentially the stupidest, most ignorant thing I have EVER heard. Globalization moron is the end of the nation state, god some people.

The bit that always gets me is that we had higher economic growth rates in the west in the 30 years or so after WW2. Then with monetarism, it all went to pot and growth rates slipped down. Interesting eh? given that we had a more socialistic outlook on things back then, especially in the UK, more public ownership, etc.

Then as for globalisation, it divides peopel at the same tiem as it brings them together economically. The globalisation everyone goes on about is a tremendous destroyer of communities and disruptor of peoples lives, whether they want them disrupted or not, because in part it is purely economically focused. Need I talk about the sweat shops, the resource extraction, the flight of companies across borders to low wage countries, the brining of every part of the world into competition with every other part, thus leading to further concentration, unstability, (wheres the stimulus to climb out of a GLOBAL recession going to come from?) and the general lack of any democratic input.

Also DJ explain to me (spare me the emotional rollercoaster of crap) why it seems 85 nations have gotten poorer and increased rates of mal-nourishment since socialism died?

Just look, percentage under the $1 a day line in the fmr. Eastern bloc:

1990: 0 no nation had that.

2002:(percentage)

Albania12.8
Armenia3.7
Azerbaijan<2
Belarus..
Bosnia and Herzegovina4.7
Bulgaria<2
Croatia<2
Czech Republic<2
Estonia<2
Georgia<2
Hungary1.5
Kazakhstan2.0
Kyrgyzstan<2
Latvia<2
Lithuania<2
Macedonia, TFYR22.0
Moldova, Rep. of<2
Poland2.1
Romania6.1
Russian Federation..
Serbia and Montenegro..
Slovakia<2
Slovenia<2
Tajikistan10.3
Turkmenistan12.1
Ukraine2.9
Uzbekistan19.1


Love to hear this, explain how socialism was worse then capitalism in this sense? And it seems nations that stayed longer with socialism hasn't experianced this, Serbia, Belarus.

Originally posted by tiassa
Excellent points, DJ Supreme, but did you notice how, as American wealth grew in the 1990s, the people suddenly became "socially aware"?

I'd say the boom in the 90's is thanks to Reagan's economic policies. During the reagan years, marginal taxes were cut in half and the US GNP tripled. Clinton was riding the Reaganomics wave.

>As the global village draws closer, the people will become more Socialistic.

Perhaps more socialally aware, as you say, but not necessarily more inclined to common ownership.

> We cannot get along without the basic paradigmatic values of human equality in Socialism.

It is a grave error to attribute a sense of equality to socialism. Try basic humanism instead.

>We cannot cooperate if we must fundamentally compete with one another.

We cannot evolve if we do not compete in some degree. The human race will stagnate if we refuse competition.

> To exist according to a continuation of the delusion of a divided species will ensure humanity's timeless distraction with warfare and greed.

Now, where did non-socialism equate a divided species?!

>The point at which society can afford to be outright socialistic comes shortly before the point at which society must necessarily begin the transition toward a theoretically ideal Socialism that may well have not been hypothesized yet.

Nonsense. Socialism has been tried - and have failed. Terribly. Learn from history or you will subject your fellow humans to the terrors of the past.

:(

"I'd say the boom in the 90's is thanks to Reagan's economic policies."

Id say it had not so much to do wiht regan, except that he had something to do with the slump in the 80's, which then had to grow into a boom. I am still wondering how much control gvts have over the economic cycle, and hte more i wonder, the less i think they do. THey can change bits and pieces here and there, but for the last 20 years or so, they have not had anywhere near as much control as they woudl like us to think.
And remember, the amount of debt in the USA keeps going up, goes up in concert with the increase in gdp etc. Why is that?

"Perhaps more socialally aware, as you say, but not necessarily more inclined to common ownership."

We shall have to see.

"It is a grave error to attribute a sense of equality to socialism. Try basic humanism instead."

Which then leads to a consideration that maybe some form of socialism, or mixed socialism/ caitalism is what helps get a reasonable amount of equality. Socialism is a means to an end, not the end itself.


"We cannot evolve if we do not compete in some degree. The human race will stagnate if we refuse competition."

And our arguments are about where to draw the line at different periods and in different circumstances.


"Learn from history or you will subject your fellow humans to the terrors of the past."

The message to you is the same.

Just to liven it up, i attach an url:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/edsalleq.htm
The point being the growth in inequality during the reagan era.

I'd say the boom in the 90's is thanks to Reagan's economic policies. During the reagan years, marginal taxes were cut in half and the US GNP tripled. Clinton was riding the Reaganomics wave.Nonetheless, people felt the luxury of responding to their consciences. Social awareness grew with the luxury of being able to afford to care.Perhaps more socialally aware, as you say, but not necessarily more inclined to common ownership. Common responsibility. Common ownership is a different question. It's a matter of forms. As large companies merge and conglomerate and dominate markets, I'm reminded that my father's school of staunch anti-Communism--based on the grounds that Communism suspended vital liberties of self-determination, e.g. education, finances, healthcare--eventually led to a sad mockery of Communism whereby the people put their trust not in a government allegedly bound by social contract, but in profiteers who saw them more as sources of income than beneficiaries to care for. Many companies will pay for their employees to go to school; many of those companies limit the available educational routes. It is general practice for companies to reserve worker's pay for retirement investment. It is general practice for companies to provide health insurance, though HMO's bring us many of the same complaints economic anti-Communists made about socialized healthcare.

But individual property ownership is going to be an interesting debate in the near future of humanity. I give credibility to the generalism, Property is robbery, but only because property causes people to worry about what they have, and not about how they feel.It is a grave error to attribute a sense of equality to socialism. Try basic humanism instead. Try "The Soul of Man Under Socialism", by Oscar Wilde (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/wilde_soul.html).he chief advantage that would result from the establishment of Socialism is, undoubtedly, the fact that Socialism would relieve us from that sordid necessity of living for others which, in the present condition of things, presses so hardly upon almost everybody. In fact, scarcely any one at all escapes . . . .

. . . . The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism - are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man's intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life - educated men who live in the East End - coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.

There is also this to be said. It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property. It is both immoral and unfair . . . .It's an interesting take, to say the least.We cannot evolve if we do not compete in some degree. The human race will stagnate if we refuse competition.Are the trials of nature not enough? Are the petty trials of mating and selection not enough? Need we also blow portions of the species off the face of the planet with striking regularity?Now, where did non-socialism equate a divided species?! I'm just curious if you've looked at a political map of the world lately. The species is exceptionally divided. It's not non-socialism in and of itself, or at least I wouldn't have framed it versus Socialism per se were it not for this aspect of the current debate, but perhaps you could help me out and discuss your impression of two words: cooperation and competition. My impression is that they are antonymous. A thesaurus will support that impression. A competitive system requires competition. Cooperation in a competitive system is limited; "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" goes the old adage, and you can see what that brought us: over three-thousand dead on September 11, 2001.Nonsense. Socialism has been tried - and have failed. Terribly. Learn from history or you will subject your fellow humans to the terrors of the past.The irony of your response is of a magnitude I have no choice but to appreciate.

What history tells us, as objectively as it is able, is that no enactment of Socialist ideas has yet achieved its goals. Of course, I'm an American, and most of my neighbors believe we live in a democracy. Even the most successful Socialist undertakings in the world have issues to resolve. And you know what? That puts them right up with "democracy".

Nonetheless, if you're going to stand on such an anemic number of words, I would ask that you at least give some consideration to the part you seem to have ignored:

- The conditions surrounding any enterprise in history are not fixed. The trends repeat, and adapting them against the conditions lends much toward the success or failure of any idea, much less its resurrection.

I mean, if you're going to be flippant, at least be original.

Yet ironically, you try to flip my own point back at me and miss horribly.

Stop fencing shadows, DJ Supreme. You raise interesting points but are apparently unable or unwilling to explore them.

Too bad you ignored the part about learning from history.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Love your answer DJ so thoughtful and full of depth!:rolleyes: So are you done your ignoramus rants against socialism. Socialism don't forget saved us from Nazi Germany, it raised living standards of the average Russian compared to the capitalist Czars and the serfs (according to your logic that was ok), also how many people died under the Czars Dj? Millions, I can tell you that. Russia's history has always been violent and bloody. Socialism industrialized a country to the #2 spot in less than 10 years, it increased the level of literacy in the USSR. China also was bloody under the capitalist nationalists and the imperial rule. Actually China had a population decrease in the warload years. So to say that socialism alone was evil is wrong. Socialism killed no one, it was it's perversions.

About Liberia.... it's not there, I looked as well. I guess it was soo bad that they didn;t want to embarress the population. So this year they skipped. LOL, but seriously it is very odd.

I am in the top 8% of the worlds richest people. Actually anyone with a bank account that has $25 or more in it is also in that top 8%. Dam I hope I can find the link that I got this info from:)

It may be that certain situations, such as Liberia, where war has ravaged the land for so long, where people have been subject to trends of decline, the situation has become so bad as to be immeasurable by this index.

Would that make Liberia worse off than Sierra Leone?

And when we consider that Liberia's decline comes partially because of American abandonment in the wake of the Cold War ....

Wow. The "death" of Communism (tell that to Nepalese Maoists), the triumph of "Capitalism" (tell that to the public schools), and the watering-down-to-taste of Socialistic principles in America (feed the world, but what about Appalachia?) happen to coincide with Liberia's decline.

Imagine that.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

On Knife Edge, Liberia Awaits Taylor's Move (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/11/international/africa/11LIBE.html?hp)(NY Times - registration required - link will eventually break)

I was putting together my latest post on Liberia that nobody reads when I came across a startling acknowledgment in the New York Times: "We are all looking to Monday with great expectations that we'll see a breakthrough," said Stanley Bedell, a resident on the rebel-held side of town. "We are more optimistic than pessimistic."

Liberians could hardly endure more pessimism. Monrovia's beaches have become burial grounds; people are foraging for snails to curb hunger; men and women are dying of gangrene and malaria; and mothers are watching their girls being raped. Dignity is the rarest commodity, rarer even than phones, electricity and running water. It is impossible to measure misery here: Liberia does not register on the United Nations Human Development Index, as if it had fallen off the map. It seems somebody noticed.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Liberias below sierra leon and guinea, and west of i Think Ivory Coast/Cote Divore thingie! i hope i remembered right! :) or maybe they colored it Pink(SEP)?

was putting together my latest post on Liberia that nobody reads

As Ms. Slocombe would say... "TRUE".

It is impossible to measure misery here: Liberia does not register on the United Nations Human Development Index, as if it had fallen off the map.

My title says it all. :eek: