"In fact socialist countries tend to be democratic." Yeah, of course. Like the Soviet Union, and it's satellites. The problem with socialism is that it doesn't take long for the citizenry to realise how oppressive it is as an economic system, at which time...
"or aimed at crippling SA's economy. cf: In vino's original comment:" A part of his comment I didn't respond to. You've been confused about what was actually said all along. That showed in your introducing a whole raft of irrelevant topics. "what was never...
No, I understand the nuances of political and economic systems quite well. Although drawing a link between socialism and authoritarianism does have some historical basis.
“…divestment dude accuses opponent of digression for talking about sanctions in an argument about sanctions.” The argument isn’t about sanctions, per se. It is about whether or not the sanctions against SA were ‘not that many economic’. You’ve tried ...
""not all that many" is a comparative, not an absolute." And you've been trying to shift the debate away from that comparative to the impacts of the sanctions, the motives behind the sanctions, in fact just about anything other what InVino actually wrote!
"But not all that many sanctions. " And then you go one to say 'all of the sanctions...'. Sniff.
Oh and http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp796.pdf "In response to the outrages of apartheid, many countries adopted trade and financial sanctions and a significant amount of foreign investment was withdrawn from South Africa." MANY countries. I posted ...
"Switzerland?! " Yeah, Switzerland. It was my link remember (although you may not seeing as you struggled to find it on one occasion). But did you notice all the other countries listed? You know, the ones that DID impose sanctions? "So all you've done is ...
To Incognito "Ireland and Denmark joined the EEC in 1973. Hong Kong was still British and the UK was, you guessed it, a member of the EEC since 1973 too." Yep, you're right about Ireland and Denmark. I had already excluded the UK. For now.
EC in 1986 (+ the UK): Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal. Others (so far) USA, Japan, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Republic of Ireland, Hong Kong. More to come.
How much of the global GDP was represented by the entire EC, the USA, Canada, Japan, Republic of Ireland, Denmark, Hong Kong? I'll bet it's nearer to 'many' than 'not that many'. And I've got more. "In addition, Norway has stated its future intention of ...
https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/6704.pdf "In 1984, just eight countries — Britain, West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the United States, Switzerland and Japan — took 71% of South Africa's non-gold exports...
Now, lets add more, shall we. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/6704.pdf "June 1986 Denmark announces a ban on all trade in goods and services except the export of medicines, from December 1986." "October 1986...
"Nope. Just that 3 markerts imposing "very limited" sanctions full of loopholes to "meager" effect is closer to "not all that many" than whatever wank you're trying to argue." 'Not all that many' makes no judgement on the outcome. But then you know that. ...
I've also been waiting for you to show any sense of awareness of sanctions imposed on SA by other countries than the 28ish in the EC, the USA and Japan. Clearly your knowledge is very limited. Here's another. Canada. From July 1985.
“3+ markets, lol” Are you suggesting that the 28 nations of the EU + the USA + Japan do not represent a ‘significant part of the global economy’? “But were "very limited"” Based on the proportion of SA’s economy these countries represented, it certainly ...
Clearly you don't understand what constitutes socialism.
"So your third attempt at a link broke down EEC imports by country. So what. They were EEC sanctions, not French or Dutch. One market, one set of sanctions implemented, no matter how many states." The EC is a group of nations. 28 as of last count. That ...
Precisely from the links I provided. When as many as 30+ countries engage in sanctions, that qualify as more than not many. When those sanctions cover the extent of the countries economy my links show, then that qualifies as more than not many.
"Shadrack, my comment was exactly as Incognito said..." Which comment? The one where you stupidly claimed that sanctions against SA were "not all that many economic"? Or the one where you stated that "I think he knows that the sanctions applied to South ...
More education for you McFlock: https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/6704.pdf "Excluding gold, South Africa's major export markets have been in Western Europe, the United States and Japan; these countries have ...
"EC was one market and trading partner..." And 28 countries. The comment I referenced referred to 'countries'. You just don't read well. And if you think that 30 countries, including two of the largest trade blocs on the planet, represent 'not that many', ...
“Neither your first link nor you irrelevant link nor even In vino's comment say "many countries" imposed sanctions.” “And "their most important trading partners" includes only three in the list…” You didn't read it, did you. “In 1986 – about 40 years after...
Yeh, nah. 'Many' countries imposing economic sanctions is not consistent with 'not that many' sanctions being economic. And then there's this: "South Africa’s most important trading partners (the USA, the EC, and Japan) imposed economic sanctions" Their ...
"In 1986 – about 40 years after the beginning of Apartheid – South Africa’s most important trading partners (the USA, the EC, and Japan) imposed economic sanctions." "The costs of trade sanctions were greater than those of financial sanctions. The various ...
There's something else humorous about your approach. In Vino's comment included this: "I think he knows that the sanctions applied to South Africa (mostly sporting and cultural, and not all that many economic) were not aimed at crippling South Africa's ...
Here's what you wrote: "So to counter In Vino's claim that there were "not all that many economic" sanctions, you decided to present data on the total extent of divestment, which does not indicate anything about the extent of sanctions." All you have to do...
“So to counter In Vino's claim that there were "not all that many economic" sanctions, you decided to present data on the total extent of divestment…" Now I'm going to call you on this and slam it home, because this is a perfect example of the frequency ...
"Not quite." Yep, you did. "You seem to be trying to suggest that the total extent of divestment indicates something about the total extent of sanctions (either number of sanctions or economic impact thereof). " Nope. Never claimed that. I claimed there is...
"The link between divestment and sanctions..." ...is obvious. And supported by the link you couldn't locate. Remember? "one might cause the other to a certain degree..." ...oh well done. Previously you ruled out divestment being related to sanctions. "......
"There weren't all that many, as In Vino clearly said." Ok, so you're in denial too. Got it. "But the extent of divestment was not the result of sanctions. " Oh so now it's the 'extent' of divestment. Slippery. Where did I refer to the 'extent'? But if you...
Recent Comments