Why does the western bourgeoisie pour money into the third world instead of their own countries?

Why does the western bourgeoisie pour money into the third world instead of their own countries?
​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (750x500, 667.8K)

Other urls found in this thread:

in.reuters.com/article/health-global-gates/africas-rapid-population-growth-puts-poverty-progress-at-risk-says-gates-idINKCN1LY0HF
youtube.com/watch?v=PBgbYQ5QAM0
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women
soundcloud.com/guns-and-butter-1/migration-as-asymmetric-warfare-j-michael-springmann-371
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

profits

Read "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism".
Short answer: Because by investing in less developed countries they can access an untapped (and much cheaper) labour pool, which means they can produce things cheaper, and hence earn more money. By the way, we have a thread for these kinds of questions.

Cheap labor and imperialism

Read Lenin

The third world is full of dirt cheap labor and unused natural resources.

Shouldn't they have made Africa into a China-esque industrial hellscape by now?

Some do it for cheap labor

In regards to Bill Gates he will keep all the money he needs to live the lifestyle he wants the rest he throws at the third world because he is a slave to liberal ideology

Imperialism works on two levels, one is extraction of resources, which is done in so called "3rd world nations" most of the time, and the other is actual manufacturing, which is done mostly in so called "2nd world nations".

"Foundations" in the west mostly tax dodges. This is especially true for those which are named after living rich people.

Profit margins in untapped markets and untapped resource pools are much higher.

Attached: D89128E5-BD05-4349-816B-29F957C8A365.mp4 (480x360, 140.52K)

the gates foundation invests in african countries based on expected returns. it's literally just investment management for the gates family.

Attached: Bill Gates Vaccines.jpg (720x371, 37.43K)

These should be the true heroes of Zig Forums

Whether Zig Forums likes it or not, their support for capitalism and hierarchy inevitably is in service of men like Bill Gates.

in.reuters.com/article/health-global-gates/africas-rapid-population-growth-puts-poverty-progress-at-risk-says-gates-idINKCN1LY0HF

Well, I don't think Gates is an unreasonable champion for Zig Forums types. Consider the following quote (source is above):


“Population growth in Africa is a challenge,” Gates told reporters in a telephone briefing about the report’s findings.

It found that poverty in Africa is increasingly concentrated in a few countries, which also have among the fastest-growing populations in the world. By 2050, it projected, more than 40 percent of world’s extremely poor people will live in just two countries: Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nigeria.

Asked about the best ways of tackling the growing population and poverty challenge, Gates said improving access to birth control was key, and this should be combined with investment in young people’s health and education.

[b]“The biggest things are the modern tools of contraception,” Gates said. “If you have those things available then people have more control over being able to space their children.”[/b]

Attached: romulus and remus.png (1189x777, 171.63K)

Reminder anti-natalism = reactionary ideology

I don't know about Nigeria, but Democratic Republic of the Congo was western puppet during cold war.

Attached: Pro western scum.png (173x306, 45.57K)

The sad thing is that Bill Gates is sane compared to the new breed of Capitalists.

Attached: AIProCon.jpg (886x480 97.41 KB, 82.19K)

Stuart Russell and Sam Altman are kinda right though.

Because we live in a world where those with the money make the rules and Bill Gates has all the fucking money.

idk man is it antinatalist to not want to have children because i'm both incompetent and don't want them to be born in this world?

No. It's perfectly reasonable. Anti-natalism is that thing that you erase people for your comfort.

I thought it was the ideology of how being born is the worst thing ever.

Yes, probably, not what Gates uphold tho.

The rate of profit is higher in lower developed, more labour intense economies. Read Lenin's Imperialism.

anti-natalism is where you think it’s a good idea to artificially reduce birthrates in order to decrease the human population.

Those things are mostly PR, if the west wanted to do justice to the global south, they wouldn't exploit them economically.

youtube.com/watch?v=PBgbYQ5QAM0

you are the blond shrill lady in this video

He's not wrong though? Social safety nets, birth control and general prosperity reduce the birthrate. Socialism is THE solution for overpopulation.


It's a facade for net exploitation. First world classcucks unironically believe the third world gets net benefits from us.

Yeah sorry for helping from my last euros.

Yanis, based as fuck here. Of course, everyone here should know this, but as shitty as China is and regardless of its apparent intention to becoming a new imperialist hegemon, liberal hand-wringing about Chinese illiberalism is fucking maddening. It's one of the up-and-coming distractions for our post-trump government I'm sure. Disregard any of our bullshit, we are virtuous and good in our imperialism. Fear China, the global sino-orwellian threat!

Implying he doesn't mean this

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women

What was the context for Bart’s bit here?

Cheap labor at first, but when the third world countries industrialize and their economies explode the profits that will be reaped from the capital invested will exceed anything the post-industrial first world can currently give them.

Why is this a bad thing?

That is exactly what Varoufakis is saying, just the other way around.

meant for

How is it reactionary?

because stupid violent people are easier to exploit
/thread

Natalism vs. anti-natalism is a false dichotomy for brainlets like you. People (in countries excluding the Third World) have children if it is economically feasible, and if they wish to do it. People in developing countries have many children because there is little access to education, but they still wanna fuck. I'm not big on Gates or anything, but the argument that "billionaires are getting in on Africa for population control xDDD" is moronic.

It’s not because they are dumb and don’t know about birth control. It’s because traditional lifestyles condition people to see having many children as a safety net

keep in mind that populations are not identical. Hormones, population density, survival strategy reinforced by selective pressure over time - all of these things matter, and there is a cycle of poverty and conflict caused by populations which breed more than is practical. This cycle is exacerbated/encouraged by western "aid".

That is also true, but not the sole factor in this. Keep in mind that having more children also means more mouths to feed, and in countries without much access to medicine you can expect a lot of them not to survive infancy.


What exactly is your point?

probably wants to sterilize half the third world so he can enjoy his decadent lifestyle for a decade more

yes this is part of why these populations historically had more kids, but western "aid" is food AND medicine, and these have caused a population explosion. The capitalists want overpopulation partially to make africa even more dysfunctional, but also to use africans as bioweapons - refugee flows as a "strategy of tension", see below:
soundcloud.com/guns-and-butter-1/migration-as-asymmetric-warfare-j-michael-springmann-371


lol fuck off with your liberal humanitarian frame, faggot

Attached: africa 4 billion.jpg (484x346, 25.47K)

Why would sterilize the Third World? They produce cheap shit. I'm sorry, I thought I was on leftypol, not antivax boomer mom forums.

I fully agree, user. I was only arguing against the antivax-tier rhetoric in this thread, that somehow the rich would shoot themselves in the foot by killing their cheap labor force.

it's not even about labor force any more. I mean, how many people do you need to work the mines? They're backing overpopulation (under the cover of humanitarianism) because they need to suppress rising dissent and the emerging post-left/right paradigm in the west.

Not that poster but one thing to keep in mind is that a large growing population means a lot of people to take care of. While it can be very good for capitalism but capitalists also worry that if there aren’t enough decent jobs to go around that the youth might revolutionize. They worry about population growth in the Third World because a large population MAM canon-fodder may make offset all that high-tech weaponry they invest in as “force-multipliers”

Although this is partially a self-inflicted wound on the part of the capitalists—it turns out that, for the moment at least, people do care about the skin-color and national origin of the people exploiting them. The majority of the big companies in the world are centered in the US/Europe and are white or European-Jewish owned. After that comes Asia with Japan as probably the foremost home of Asian multinationals and China and Korea second.

If you come from a country that was once colonized by a European power (or Japan) you’re likely to be far more critical of their businessmen than your own because of the role of history in shaping your consciousness. Foreign companies actually have to work harder to impress the local communities (donate more, advertise more, create more jobs etc.) than domestic companies do. It’s not uncommon for nationalist governments (in both left and right varieties) to punish multi-nationals more than they do their own businessmen and such governments often come to power when a youth bulge is combined with large-scale unemployment or low-quality unemployment.

While population growth is great for capitalism it isn’t always an unqualified good. In the same way, that immigration maybe great for capitalism and may even be a tool of imperialism but isn’t necessarily an unqualified good in itself from the perspective of the capitalist class.