Why do the capitalistic traders prefer the uncivilized countries to the civilized ones? ?->(Show Answer!)

1. Why do the capitalistic traders prefer the uncivilized countries to the civilized ones?

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->A person who has no understanding for arts / uncivilized person....

QA->A person who is uncivilized....

QA->I ————- prefer coffee.....

QA->I prefer coffee ____ tea....

QA->The town bombarded by Vasco da Gama during his second visit as the local ruler refused to expel muslim traders from there?....

MCQ->Why do the capitalistic traders prefer the uncivilized countries to the civilized ones?....

MCQ->Statements: I. Some barbers are fashion designers II. No fashion designers are businessmen III. Some businessmen are traders Conclusions: 1. No Fashion designers are traders 2. Some traders are not fashion designers 3. Some fashion designers are traders 4. Some barbers are not businessmen....

MCQ-> Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below: Each of the six persons, P, Q, R. S. T and U has travelled to different number of countries. R has travelled to more number of countries than only S and T. Q has travelled to more number of countries than U but less than P. T is not the person who has travelled to least number of countries. The one who has travelled to second highest number of countries has travelled to 8 countries. The one who has travelled to the least number of countries has travelled to only two countries.Who amongst the following has possibly travelled to 11 countries?
....

MCQ->Statements: The traders of State ‘K’ would observe a statewide bandh as the state has failed to meet their demand to resolve sales tax and other issues. Assumptions: I. The traders of State ‘K’ have earlier tried other usual procedures to get their problem solved. II. The State ‘K’ is not keen to solve the problem of traders.....

MCQ-> Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions. The outside world has pat answers concerning extremely impoverished countries, especially those in Africa. Everything comes back, again and again, to corruption and misrule. Western officials argue that Africa simply needs to behave itself better, to allow market forces to operate without interference by corrupt rulers. Ye the critics of African governance have it wrong. Politics simply can't explain Africa's prolonged economic crisis. The claim that Africa's corruption is the basic source of the problem does not withstand serious scrutiny. During the past decade I witnessed how relatively well-governed countries in Africa, such as Ghana, Malawi, Mali and Senegal, failed to prosper, whereas societies in Asia perceived to have extensive corruption, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan, enjoyed rapid economic growth. What is the explanation? Every situation of extreme poverty around the world contains some of its own unique causes, which need to be diagnosed as a doctor would a patient. For example, Africa is burdened with malaria like no other part of the world, simply because it is unlucky in providing the perfect conditions for that disease; high temperatures, plenty of breeding sites and particular species of malaria-transmitting mosquitoes that prefer to bite humans rather than cattle.Another myth is that the developed world already gives plenty of aid to the world's poor. Former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neil expressed a common frustration when he remarked about aid for Africa : "We've spent trillions of dollars on these problems and we have damn near nothing to show for it". O'Neil was no foe of foreign aid. Indeed, he wanted to fix the system so that more U.S. aid could be justified. But he was wrong to believe that vast flows of aid to Africa had been squandered. President Bush said in a press conference in April 2004 that as "the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom. We have an obligation to feed the hungry". Yet how does the U.S. fulfill its obligation? U.S. aid to farmers in poor countries to help them grow more food runs at around $200 million per year, far less than $1 per person per year for the hundreds of millions of people living in subsistence farm households.From the world as a whole, the amount of aid per African per year is really very small, just $30 per sub- Saharan African in 2002. Of that modest amount, almost $5 was actually for consultants from the donor countries, more than $3 was for emergency aid, about $4 went for servicing Africa's debts and $ 5 was for debt-relief operations. The rest, about $12, went to Africa. Since the "money down the drain" argument is heard most frequently in the U.S., it's worth looking at the same calculations for U.S. aid alone. In 2002, the U.S. gave $3 per sub-Saharan African. Taking out the parts for U.S. consultants and technical cooperation, food and other emergency aid, administrative costs and debt relief, the aid per African came to grand total of 6 cents.The U.S. has promised repeatedly over the decades, as a signatory to global agreements like the Monterrey Consensus of 2002, to give a much larger proportion of its annual output, specifically upto 0.7% of GNP, to official development assistance. The U.S. failure to follow through has no political fallout domestically, of course, because not one in a million U.S. citizens even knows of statements like the Monterrey Consensus. But no one should underestimate the salience that it has around the world. Spin as American might about their nation's generosity, the poor countries are fully aware of what the U.S. is not doing.The passage seems to emphasize that the outside world has
....