 |
| |
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:32
|
|
The problems wth globalization are not theoretical, but structural.
Right now, the rch states force open small market without opening their own. Now, they can do this because they can withold economic activity form those that don't play the game-the poor can not play that game back. This causes great inequality of possibility, besides the fact that since rich corporattions have a head start they will crush local corporations- this is not something the idustrialized world had to deal with to the same degree. US and European companies, the large and older ones grew up with restriction form overseas being limited- they had the breathing space to grow, solidify internal markets, grow big enough to have enough cash on hand to play the game, and then globalization comes up, and they are the ones with cash able to play the game..a lot of third world corporations did not get this breathing time, and will be swallowed up due to it.
Another issue I see is that while capital and resources are free to move, the movement of labor is restrcited more an more with each passing day- honestly, how could the balance be equal when the rich can send their capital to one state, but the poor can't s send their labor back?
Which ocmes to the issue of globalization and democracy-the rich can force poor states to ignore democratic whishes and force globalization on the poor, while being strong enough to ignore demands they force globalization on thier own populations (which woul be necessary to end subsidies, tariffs and perhaps open up immigration)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
1. Globalization, in its present state, is partial, and will remain partial until agricultural products are fairly included in the trade rules. Rich countries have to decide whether they want to export agricultural products or not. In the first case, all subsidies must be suppressed; in the second case, all exports must be forbidden. That is not free trading, but subsidies are not free trading either.
2. It is surprising that the richest country has serious problems with the globalization. It seems that the US had not anticipated that a real free trade would create some need for adjustments, and they regularly complain that the rest of the world makes dumping with the iron prices, that China do the same with clothes, that the yen or the yuan is undervalued, and that, as a result jobs are destroyed, and a huge trade deficit needs to be financed by foreign investments.
3. When a reform brings dissatisfaction to the poorest and the richest, it is an indication that it is urgent to stop making short-sighted decision and start a serious analysis of the problem.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
I don't know... perhaps not supporting a repressive Stalinist government? just a thought...
oh yeah, I agree with Howard Dean... call me whatever you want, but I don't think we should do business with oppressive regimes, dictatorships, or corrupt third world governments that abuse their own people. Wasn't that the reason we went after Saddam? or one of them?
If that means I got a pay a few more bucks for ****, fine... at least I'll sleep better knowing some tinpot ****ing dictator or some evil group of terror supporting mullahs aren't getting jackshit from me.
but hey, go back to watching your Fox News and shopping at WalMart... go support China as they execute a few more hundred or thousand pro-democracy and/or free-speech advocates...
maybe one day you will wake the **** up...  |
Howard Dean never said anything near what you did, Sava. He was NOT talking about spreading political and human rights. He was talking about spreading labor and environmental rights.
These are not necessarily the same things.
BTW, you never mentioned my trailer here in Santa Cruz, the one where I cannot open my door without bumbing into a gay or lesbian.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
 |
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The problems wth globalization are not theoretical, but structural.
Right now, the rch states force open small market without opening their own. Now, they can do this because they can withold economic activity form those that don't play the game-the poor can not play that game back. This causes great inequality of possibility, besides the fact that since rich corporattions have a head start they will crush local corporations- this is not something the idustrialized world had to deal with to the same degree. US and European companies, the large and older ones grew up with restriction form overseas being limited- they had the breathing space to grow, solidify internal markets, grow big enough to have enough cash on hand to play the game, and then globalization comes up, and they are the ones with cash able to play the game..a lot of third world corporations did not get this breathing time, and will be swallowed up due to it.
Another issue I see is that while capital and resources are free to move, the movement of labor is restrcited more an more with each passing day- honestly, how could the balance be equal when the rich can send their capital to one state, but the poor can't s send their labor back?
Which ocmes to the issue of globalization and democracy-the rich can force poor states to ignore democratic whishes and force globalization on the poor, while being strong enough to ignore demands they force globalization on thier own populations (which woul be necessary to end subsidies, tariffs and perhaps open up immigration) |
Nothing to add here. Except maybe why weren't you helping me on me own thread, you selfish leftist?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The problems wth globalization are not theoretical, but structural.
Right now, the rch states force open small market without opening their own. Now, they can do this because they can withold economic activity form those that don't play the game-the poor can not play that game back. This causes great inequality of possibility, besides the fact that since rich corporattions have a head start they will crush local corporations- this is not something the idustrialized world had to deal with to the same degree. US and European companies, the large and older ones grew up with restriction form overseas being limited- they had the breathing space to grow, solidify internal markets, grow big enough to have enough cash on hand to play the game, and then globalization comes up, and they are the ones with cash able to play the game..a lot of third world corporations did not get this breathing time, and will be swallowed up due to it.
Another issue I see is that while capital and resources are free to move, the movement of labor is restrcited more an more with each passing day- honestly, how could the balance be equal when the rich can send their capital to one state, but the poor can't s send their labor back?
Which ocmes to the issue of globalization and democracy-the rich can force poor states to ignore democratic whishes and force globalization on the poor, while being strong enough to ignore demands they force globalization on thier own populations (which woul be necessary to end subsidies, tariffs and perhaps open up immigration) |
GePap, I think you are confusing globalization of markets with globalization of manufacturing from the point of view of the likes of Howard Dean. Dean is not complaining that US companies are expanding markets at the expense of third world competitors - as that only adds to jobs in the United States. He is complaining about US jobs being moved offshore.
Dean indenties two of the reaons jobs are moving to away: labor and enviormental standards. The third reason is taxes, but Dean has not raised that issue yet. (But it is consitent with being a Democrat that they insist that the whole world tax corporations the way we do and to stop giving US corporations tax holidays.)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
Here is the NYTimes arguing against farm subsidies. I fully agree with this editorial.
"The family farm. Few institutions are more central — iconic, even — to America's self-image. The words themselves conjure up Norman Rockwell and a shared national heritage that extols self-reliance and the conquest of the frontier.
Politics tends to exploit easily romanticized icons, and the family farm has not been spared. It has been used by special interests to justify policies that cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars for subsidies that do little to aid real small farmers. It has been hijacked as an excuse to betray America's free-market values and hurt developing countries.
Poor cotton farmers in places as remote as Burkina Faso know much more about our agricultural policies than most Americans do, and they express confusion about the United States government's stated commitment to small farmers. In reality, the farms that benefit most are on an industrial scale. American small farmers are victims of federal agricultural policies, just like the African cotton growers, who cannot compete against the American product. American cotton — thanks to subsidies — often sells for less than it costs to grow.
The real small farmers' opportunities are limited by high land costs. The stream of subsidy dollars flowing from the federal Treasury — about $20 billion last year — has a way of turning arable acres into welfare tickets. That's why in 2001, despite low commodity prices and an ongoing exodus from rural America, farmland values in places like Iowa were hitting all-time highs. Subsidies inflate the price of land by an estimated 25 percent.
According to an Environmental Working Group analysis of federal data, the subsidies of the past eight years were equivalent to a fifth of the total value (land and buildings) of all the farms in the nation's 100 most-subsidized counties.
That flood of federal money can create a real estate bubble even in places where the death rate is exceeding the birth rate. One of the reasons American farmers feel that they are constantly struggling to break even is the amount they have to pay to buy or rent overpriced farm land in parts of the country where the prices of virtually everything else are among the cheapest in the nation. Roughly half of the nation's agricultural land is rented out, and subsidies disproportionately benefit landlords rather than the actual farmers. The fact that federal policy is making it harder for younger farmers to buy land is one reason that three Midwestern Republican senators, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar and Charles Grassley, broke ranks with the once-monolithic farm lobby to vote against the 2002 farm bill.
This year's recovery in commodity prices is a reminder of the fact that world markets still offer many sectors within American agriculture an opportunity to thrive without subsidies. For farmers and communities unable to succeed over time, the government can set up a far more modest rural aid program — one that encourages economic development in ailing towns and land conservation — without distorting global food trade. What Uncle Sam cannot do is reverse the technology-driven concentration in agriculture. The number of farms in the United States has declined from nearly six million a half-century ago to some two million today, and we now grow a lot more food on fewer acres.
Many of those large-scale farms are still family ventures, run by people with a commitment to solid rural values. They deserve respect — they just don't deserve $20 billion in subsidies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oncle Boris
|
|
Once in a brown moon
Aug 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why is that hilarious? What if the infrastructure of the country is subpar, what do you think further environmental and labor regulations at this time will do? It'll make the factories less profitable and then those companies will simply go to countries with better infrastructure and screw those third world countries. |
Yeah sure. When they get a rise of 50% of their production costs because of a 0,40 $ international minimal wage and some basic environment protection laws, they'll go back to the US where the production will then be 5 times more expensive.
quote:
Environmental and labor regulations increase as the populace increases in wealth because of their becoming more skilled workers. They need foreign companies to get that way, and those companies will only come if they find it is chearper to go there. Simply look at the history of every industrialized country. |
Yeah, sure, this is probably the reason Africa got so much richer in the 50s while France was suffering from its progressist social policies to become one of today's poorer countries.
quote:
So have a basic standard of environmental and labor laws and companies will simply leave the poorer countries and go to those with better infrastructure. |
As long as these remain BASIC and rise in a prudent, pragmatic way, this won't happen. It'll just ease the current suffering of the third world a little bit.
quote:
No, I don't know what they mean. I hear plenty of morons who say that there should be a global minimum wage of $5/hr and the same benefits American workers get. They don't realize that's going to destroy the economies of third world countries when the companies leave en masse (no reason for them to be there anymore)... but as long as it ain't white people suffering, it's ok, right? |
Thank you for being so noble and caring. Spending your 50$ an hour on goods produced at 0,25$/hour is just the proof of your most highly altruistic attitude.
I've just read an interesting article in the NY times talking about workers in China being paid below the minimal wage, which is 0,33$ an hour. The company only offers them 0,25$ and ask them to work 80 hours a week.
I see you coming: "it's already better than they would get with Chinese companies, so be altruistic and shut up!"
Yeah, maybe. But that is still a disgusting case of exploitation and abuse. Anyone forcing such conditions on his workers is a criminal that desserves jail.
Why do the workers accept this? Because it's work or starve.
Now, I guess asking the company to give them 0,40$ an hour would be a crime against freedom and force them to move in Angola where, thank God, the minimal wage is 0,08$ an hour.
You know, 15 cents in third world countries is a lot of money, because the food and basic commodities are so cheap. It can make the difference between parents sending children to work or to school.
But what it is to Toy's R US? O Jesus, the price of the little toy crap will rise from 10$ to 10,38$! Time for a Nuremberg trial for those who support such infamy!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-12-2003 17:09
and I'm sure he only wants better wages and better environmental policies, but wants to see dictatorships and oppressive regimes continue their violent and repressive policies. 
what are you talking about?
.
.
|
|