"Neo-liberalism", international development, etc.

[Hababi]

Since Danish mentioned it in another thread, and since there are a variety of opinions (not just me vs. everyone else), I figure why not have a thread about it:

What's your opinion on organizations like the IMF? Is Neo-liberalism the way to go? Etc.

[Iskandar]

No, it's a horrible ideology for the developing world.

[Danish]

Neoliberalism has become the hegemonic ideology in the Global North. The fact that the working-class is oppressed throughout the world is nothing new. But neoliberalism represents a unique strategy in imperialism.

In terms of domestic policy, neoliberalism has all but destroyed the gains made by working people during WWII and the Post-War Period. Union density in the US, for instance, is at an all-time low of 10%.

[Hababi]

No, it's a horrible ideology for the developing world.

Why?

Neoliberalism has become the hegemonic ideology in the Global North. The fact that the working-class is oppressed throughout the world is nothing new. But neoliberalism represents a unique strategy in imperialism.


How?

In terms of domestic policy, neoliberalism has all but destroyed the gains made by working people during WWII and the Post-War Period. Union density in the US, for instance, is at an all-time low of 10%.

And yet wages have continued to rise...

PS the union is destroying the public transportation system in Pittsburgh.

[Iskandar]

Why?Er, because it opens the door to exploitation.

Neo-liberalism treats the relation between the rich north and poor south as equal. It's not.

[guitrguy]

And yet wages have continued to rise...

PS the union is destroying the public transportation system in Pittsburgh.

And prices are inflating at a faster rate.

[Hababi]

Er, because it opens the door to exploitation.

You mean that door isn't already open?

Neo-liberalism treats the relation between the rich north and poor south as equal. It's not.

The ideal system would remove the subsidies that give countries like the US an unfair advantage.


[QUOTE=guitrguy;16280949]And prices are inflating at a faster rate.

Inflation, at some level, is unavoidable. The country as a whole is better off today, in the era of NAFTA, than it was 20 years ago. Sustained unemployment is down; standard of living us up.

[Iskandar]

You mean that door isn't already open?Neoliberalism blasts it wide open and removes the hinges.
The ideal system would remove the subsidies that give countries like the US an unfair advantage.Subsidies aren't necessary a bad thing. But they are in cases like that.

[guitrguy]

Inflation, at some level, is unavoidable. The country as a whole is better off today, in the era of NAFTA, than it was 20 years ago. Sustained unemployment is down; standard of living us up.
I know its unavoidable, but its seems that optimally you would want wages to increase faster than prices.

[Hababi]

Neoliberalism blasts it wide open and removes the hinges.

Being that exploitation would go against the ideal philosophy of neo-liberalism, basically it only opens it up for if people go against it.


Subsidies aren't necessary a bad thing. But they are in cases like that.

Subsidies distort the market and take the place of private investment. With the exception of medical advancement (and obviously public sector areas like roads, etc.), I don't see anywhere where they're good.

[Iskandar]

Being that exploitation would go against the ideal philosophy of neo-liberalism, basically it only opens it up for if people go against it.It's a sick joke if neo-liberals think there is no place for exploitation in their policies.

[BassRevelation1029]

No, it's a horrible ideology for the developing world.


Neoliberalism has become the hegemonic ideology in the Global North. The fact that the working-class is oppressed throughout the world is nothing new. But neoliberalism represents a unique strategy in imperialism.

In terms of domestic policy, neoliberalism has all but destroyed the gains made by working people during WWII and the Post-War Period. Union density in the US, for instance, is at an all-time low of 10%.

What can I say? I agree wholly with what's been said already.

Why? Because Neoliberalism, although claiming to be for the common good, only benefits one end of the stick.

[griftadan]

whats wrong with exploitation? people always bitch about this being a bad thing and i really can't think why it is

[Smokey D]

Neoliberalism is awesome and the people against it only want to continue privileging their own worker aristocracies at the expense of the poor in the developing world.

But for neoliberalism to be both effective and equitable, it must be implemented fairly, equally and with regard to local circumstance. There can't be any of this 'we expect you to remove barriers but we'll sell you our subsidised excess production from behind skyhigh tariffs' stuff. If Europe and America opened their markets properly to the third world, the earning power of the developing world would pretty much double.

Also, massive spending cuts in government programmes on which people have come to rely is not really going to help the economy and, in the short term, wil result in a massive increase in unemployment and negative economic figures. Any changes that are implemented should be put in place incrementally.

But I wholeheartedly disagree that neoliberalism impoverishes countries. Provided there is a stable environment, neoliberalism has done more for the economies of the developing world in the last 10 years than any other economic model attempted in the last century. Compare the level of development in Asia 30-40 years ago today. What is central though is there has to be enough stability that capital is not frightened away. Otherwise the country is exposed to the rigors of international competition without reaping any of the developmental benefits. This explains why Asia has preformed so well when compared to sub-Saharan Africa and central and northern South America.

[griftadan]

yeah, and the whole farm subsidies thing has come back around to bite everyone in the *** so thats a pretty good example

[Iskandar]

Neoliberalism is awesome and the people against it only want to continue privileging their own worker aristocracies at the expense of the poor in the developing world.I beg your pardon?

[Smokey D]

You want to deny the benefits of importing capital into impoverished regions despite its manifest and long documented benefits.

[Iskandar]

You want to deny the benefits of importing capital into impoverished regions despite its manifest and long d0cumented benefits.I'm so glad you're here to tell me my opinions for me.

[Smokey D]

Well, that's what neo-liberalism is so if you want to prevent neo-liberalism you want to prevent using foreign capital in poor areas.

[pooble]

im not sure what neoliberalism exactly entails, but i simply believe there should be a policy of free trade, no subsidies, corporate or otherwise, no "government sponsored growth projects" or any other such boondoggles.

[Smokey D]

I can see a place for government sponsored programmes if corporates aren't willing to step up. There's a lot of long term benefit that might go wanting if everybody's focused on short to mid term returns. Especially in things like pharmaceuticals etc.

[Hababi]

I can see a place for government sponsored programmes if corporates aren't willing to step up. There's a lot of long term benefit that might go wanting if everybody's focused on short to mid term returns. Especially in things like pharmaceuticals etc.

ITT Smokey finds himself agreeing with me:amaze:

[Smokey D]

Economically we aren't very different, I don't think.

[Hababi]

Economically we aren't very different, I don't think.

No, I don't think so either. If you became pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, you'd basically be me :p

[Iskandar]

Well, that's what neo-liberalism is so if you want to prevent neo-liberalism you want to prevent using foreign capital in poor areas.Does it occur to you that there may be negative consequences to this?

[Smokey D]

Sure there are but I don't see them as any more damaging than building up a local capital base. Especially when that takes such a long time that people starve in the process.

Unless you're talking about Marxist type exploitation, in which case I can't help you.

[Iskandar]

Sure there are but I don't see them as any more damaging than building up a local capital base. Especially when that takes such a long time that people starve in the process.

Unless you're talking about Marxist type exploitation, in which case I can't help you.No, just regular exploitation.

[pooble]

lol, so is this sarcasm? i cant tell anymore

[jaredong]

hmmm i always thought neo liberalism was bad

like how the wto/imf/world bank loans money to developing nations, and then forces them to liberalize their economies and cut back their social spending on civil services such as health care.

or how free trade agreements, with threat of pulling out corporate money, has allowed corporations to blackmail countries into having lower wages for workers, lower tax for corporations, bypass environmental laws and lower working conditions.

i agree in Asia, having an export driven economy is key to growth. but thats after their country's own industries have developed enough to compete globally.

though... i admit this is just from some readings, dont know in depth knowledge on it.

[Iskandar]

lol, so is this sarcasm? i cant tell anymoreHuh?

[1338 h4x0r]

I like neo-liberal ice cream

Especially with waffles

[Smokey D]

No, just regular exploitation.

Expand.


like how the wto/imf/world bank loans money to developing nations, and then forces them to liberalize their economies and cut back their social spending on civil services such as health care.

The WTO I'm not too fussed with. There is a substantial bloc of developing nations capable of taking on and beating the US and EU blocs. The World Bank and IMF, though, are a terrible way of implementing neoliberalism. As I say, implementation must be both effective and equitable. If it's only effective then you simply alienate the very people it's meant to help before it has a chance to start bringing positive gains. Also, both those institutions have demonstrated themselves to be borderline incompetent on more than one occasion.

or how free trade agreements, with threat of pulling out corporate money, has allowed corporations to blackmail countries into having lower wages for workers, lower tax for corporations, bypass environmental laws and lower working conditions.

Free trade has done more to benefit people than any other economic policy of the last 100 years, except maybe the Marshall Plan.

Although it is important that there are strong governments with enough legitimacy and self-assurance to reign in unruly corporates. In many cases though the threat to pull out investment, in the absence of an actual crisis, is an empty one.

i agree in Asia, having an export driven economy is key to growth. but thats after their country's own industries have developed enough to compete globally.


It's a mixture of both, really. Korea developed largely under its own steam. Most South East Asian nations, as well as China, developed with the FDI.


Haxor, stop spamming.

[Der Übermensch]

I'm not exactly in favor of all those damn organizations, but I hate people who protest them. They make me late for class cause I gotta detour :(

When they were doing a World Bank (or was it IMF...?) protest a few weeks back, my plan was to dress in my three piece, light up a cigar, and go with a sign, and ask the cops if I could stand on the other side facing them, and it would read "Would you actually trade your American Lifestyle to facilitate greater world equality? No? Then Shut Up!"

[1338 h4x0r]

My American lifestyle?!?!

[Der Übermensch]

huh?

[pooble]

Huh?

what is regular exploitation?

[Der Übermensch]

huh? As opposed to extraordinary exploitation? I don't see what that has to do with my statement...
And it was tongue in cheek anyways....

[Danish]

whats wrong with exploitation? people always bitch about this being a bad thing and i really can't think why it is

Because it results in serious social and psychological dysfunction, in sociological terms. It produces alienation and untold suffering. Seeing as how today is the International Day of Mourning for Workers Killed on the Job, it maims and kills. It prevents people from developing themselves in meaningful ways.

How many ways can I put it? Exploitation in all forms is unjust. :smoke:

[-1up!-]

But I wholeheartedly disagree that neoliberalism impoverishes countries. Provided there is a stable environment, neoliberalism has done more for the economies of the developing world in the last 10 years than any other economic model attempted in the last century. Compare the level of development in Asia 30-40 years ago today. What is central though is there has to be enough stability that capital is not frightened away. Otherwise the country is exposed to the rigors of international competition without reaping any of the developmental benefits. This explains why Asia has preformed so well when compared to sub-Saharan Africa and central and northern South America.

I think neoliberalism's policies have to be also criticised in the light of the development it actually entails. We'll agree that it is the system under which capital flows the most freely on the planet, and in which the southern impoverished countries can "be acknowledged", (let's put it that way...) in the mechanic of economic development. But this capital stays, nonetheless, for the most part in foreign hands.

Take one sample country, let's take Nigeria. Nigerian economy may benefit from the increased investment of foreign corporations on its territory: more employment, providing a stable ground for more investment from other corporations, development of the local industry, and all the usual benefits from economic development. On paper, poverty will decline, GDP per capita will rise, the labor force will rise - whatever makes ivory-tower economists think the situation is getting better. Maybe.

But on the field, what stands out is that local populations are essentially reduced to a working force - not a dynamic force of economic development. The fact that capital is pouring into the economy of a Nigeria doesn't mean that it's done for the best of Nigerians - since the largest part of capital stays in foreign hands, we might as well say that the economic development of Nigeria, while flourishing, is directed mostly by foreign interests, and is out of Nigerians' reach. Add a corrupt and inept government to the equation (one more concerned with IMF and WTO statements than its population's needs) and you get a nigerian population as a passive client of large-scale economic development on its own territory. Sure they get better wages. Sure they get to drink Coca-Cola, but what about local culture, what about orienting the economic development of Nigeria for the better sake of Nigerians, first and foremost?

A solid problem with neoliberalism is that it applies a large universal model of economic policies to make capital flow everywhere easier - and doesn't take into concern local and regional needs or culture specificity, at all. The ideological power of neoliberalism is quite formidable - it essentially made economic development a new worlwide dogma, one which only "dictators and terrorist countries" would reject. But when you think about it, it's essentially an economist's wet dream transformed into an economic policy - more development, more GDP per capita, employment, hey everything's cool. And equality of chances? Local initiative? Development of non-economic indicators (education, mortality rate, pollution) or actual participation of local populations into the development, instead of merely witnessing it and getting the crumbs of it? What about providing poor populations with the basic fundamental needs like food, water, shelter? What about the local environmental effects of development? Neoliberalism just secretely hopes the trickle-down effect will take care of it all, but a reality check says otherwise.

Neoliberalism depicts the world as a vast market comprised uniquely of free individuals; it's just not like that. In many ways, neoliberalism and communism can compare in the way both have erected huge theoretical models which work wonders on paper and plainly fail in reality. By itself, it is in no way able to ensure economic stability in developping countries. In that light, it must be severely criticised and reformulated to make itself acceptable.

[Der Übermensch]

How many ways can I put it? Exploitation in all forms is unjust. :smoke:

But is it unnatural?

[1338 h4x0r]

huh?

Well, don't paint with a broad brush, dude. Not every American has an American lifestyle.

[Mr. Ron]

I think we need to define what specifically IS the American lifestyle.

[siva_chair]

I think we need to define what specifically IS the American lifestyle.

I don't think it is any one thing. There are far too many "American lifestyles" to really discuss in any sort of depth.

[Der Übermensch]

Well, don't paint with a broad brush, dude. Not every American has an American lifestyle.

Even the poorest Americans live comfortably by international standards. The poverty line here is equal to being ****ing Royalty in some third world nations. I use American lifestyle in the broadest sense of the word. The fact that we, 5% of the world, use up over 30% of its resources. Yada Yada Yada.

And what really pisses me off is all the protesters are comfortable middle class hipsters. My sign would have been merely to piss them off, cause they are all bloody hypocrites.

[1338 h4x0r]

I think we need to define what specifically IS the American lifestyle.



Mouth-breathing
Eating Cheetoes
Reality television
SUVs
Massive tit pr0n


And what really pisses me off is all the protesters are comfortable middle class hipsters. My sign would have been merely to piss them off, cause they are all bloody hypocrites.

Look up the description of the 'Clerke of Oxenford' in the prologue to The Canterbury Tales and that's basically me except that I have a computer with a blazing 1.2 GHz processor.

Yes, this is still a relatively high standard of living, but the same can be said of Europeans, Japanese, etc., so why single out Americans?

[siva_chair]

Mouth-breathing
Eating Cheetoes
Reality television
SUVs
Massive tit pr0n



Wait I'm American and I hate reality television, don't eat very many Cheetoes, and don't have an SUV....

...but I like guns, freedom, and the last one so I guess your list is ok.....

[Der Übermensch]

Yes, this is still a relatively high standard of living, but the same can be said of Europeans, Japanese, etc., so why single out Americans?

Because it wouldn't have made sense if I put "Japanese lifestyle" on my sign since I'm in America...? I would think that is pretty obvious why...

[1338 h4x0r]

Not everyone who protests 'the American lifestyle' practices it. Maybe most of 'em do, but I know a fair deal of people who don't.

[Der Übermensch]

They practice it by living in America. Unles you are living in a unabomber shack in the woods hunting and growing food and making your own cloths and not using electricity and so on...

[siva_chair]

They practice it by living in America. Unles you are living in a unabomber shack in the woods hunting and growing food and making your own cloths and not using electricity and so on...

Hey what's wrong with that?!

[1338 h4x0r]

They practice it by living in America. Unles you are living in a unabomber shack in the woods hunting and growing food and making your own cloths and not using electricity and so on...

Everyone who uses electricity in any capacity is living an 'American lifestyle'?

I've changed a lot of my habits already and I'm going to change even more once I have my own place.

[griftadan]

Because it results in serious social and psychological dysfunction, in sociological terms. It produces alienation and untold suffering. Seeing as how today is the International Day of Mourning for Workers Killed on the Job, it maims and kills. It prevents people from developing themselves in meaningful ways.

actually they pretty much can't develop themselves in any significant way, thats why neo-liberalism generally helps people by bringing in new capital. untold suffering? usually importing jobs only gives people more options by increasing the domestic demand for labor, increasing wages. and of course people are maimed on the job, but do you really think this doesn't already happen in poor countries? in fact, i'd be willing to wager that the typical job provided by a foriegn business in these countries is safer than the typical job a person in a poor country would have if they didn't have access to a foriegn provided job, ie subsistence farming for instance. it's simply unrealistic to hold worker safety standards of developed countries to underdeveloped countries.

[griftadan]

They practice it by living in America. Unles you are living in a unabomber shack in the woods hunting and growing food and making your own cloths and not using electricity and so on...

actually protesting neo-liberalism makes perfect sense if you're an western trying to maintain a hegemony on high living standards, or american lifestyle as you put it. after all, why would we want to compete with anyone else in the world in the labor market?

[Smokey D]

I think neoliberalism's policies have to be also criticised in the light of the development it actually entails. We'll agree that it is the system under which capital flows the most freely on the planet, and in which the southern impoverished countries can "be acknowledged", (let's put it that way...) in the mechanic of economic development. But this capital stays, nonetheless, for the most part in foreign hands.


First of all, I'd like to say this is a very good post. I don't have the time to put respond with the the same depth and detail but bear with me.

While free capital flows does tend to mean capital remains in the hands of foreign entities, I don't see any thing prima facie wrong with this fact. If the goal of economic growth/development is to supply a given population with a higher standard of living then any method used to achieve that goal should be acceptable. If it takes domestically raised capital four times longer to reach the same standard of living as could be achieved with FDI, then why bother with the longer route? If the government didn't apply legislation to protect workers, FDI and domestic capital same negative effects on individual workers. It seems to me that many critics start off with the idea that foreign capital ownership is inherently a bad thing where in my mind it's only bad if a corporation literally buys a country up. And I don't think this is a necessary feature of neoliberalism or capitalism more generally. It's more a consequence of weak democratic government and would happen anywhere. We only need to examine history to see what happens when local capitalists get control of the government to see how they distort the political economy to suit their own interests.

But on the field, what stands out is that local populations are essentially reduced to a working force - not a dynamic force of economic development. The fact that capital is pouring into the economy of a Nigeria doesn't mean that it's done for the best of Nigerians - since the largest part of capital stays in foreign hands, we might as well say that the economic development of Nigeria, while flourishing, is directed mostly by foreign interests, and is out of Nigerians' reach. Add a corrupt and inept government to the equation (one more concerned with IMF and WTO statements than its population's needs) and you get a nigerian population as a passive client of large-scale economic development on its own territory. Sure they get better wages. Sure they get to drink Coca-Cola, but what about local culture, what about orienting the economic development of Nigeria for the better sake of Nigerians, first and foremost?

If Nigerians are enjoying the fruits of development, who are we to say that there isn't economic development for the sake of Nigerians? Also, I think we have to remember here that economies aren't ever about one party. For there to be justice in any market situation, both parties (consumer and producer, worker and boss, invester and investee) must have an equity.

Although you disparaged the trickle down effect, it is important to remember that every dollar invested represents more than a proportionate increase to GDP. ie if I invest $100 in China, the local population is likely to spend (ie gain) $200 in GDP. It can even contribute to domestic capital growth. I'm not sure on the exact extent of this effect but it is something that must be remembered.

A solid problem with neoliberalism is that it applies a large universal model of economic policies to make capital flow everywhere easier - and doesn't take into concern local and regional needs or culture specificity, at all. The ideological power of neoliberalism is quite formidable - it essentially made economic development a new worlwide dogma, one which only "dictators and terrorist countries" would reject. But when you think about it, it's essentially an economist's wet dream transformed into an economic policy - more development, more GDP per capita, employment, hey everything's cool. And equality of chances? Local initiative? Development of non-economic indicators (education, mortality rate, pollution) or actual participation of local populations into the development, instead of merely witnessing it and getting the crumbs of it? What about providing poor populations with the basic fundamental needs like food, water, shelter? What about the local environmental effects of development? Neoliberalism just secretely hopes the trickle-down effect will take care of it all, but a reality check says otherwise.

I don't know if I would call some of the benefits yielded by neoliberal development schemes mere crumbs? And I think it's quite insulting to countries which have used free trade to bolster economies to say they lose control of their culture merely because they particpate in international commerce. And further I would say it's not self-evident that all cultural practices should persist, especially if the opportunity cost is substantial hardship and poverty for the population.

But as I say neoliberalism, as well as any economic policy really, must be applied equitably as well as effectively. But it's a boogey man to say neo-liberalism and the big bad corporations are going to steal all people's water/food/shelter -- even though I recognise this has happened in some places where neolibealism has been implemented.

For effective and equitable development to occur you need both strong domestic government and free-ish capital flows. And it must be a truly equal market. It can't be an US and EU oligarchy.

[McP3000]

Mouth-breathing
Eating Cheetoes
Reality television
SUVs
Massive tit pr0n

i do 1, 2, 4
i prefer butts and don't watch TV

oh and smokey won my heart

[siva_chair]

First of all, I'd like to say this is a very good post. I don't have the time to put respond with the the same depth and detail but bear with me.

While free capital flows does tend to mean capital remains in the hands of foreign entities, I don't see any thing prima facie wrong with this fact. If the goal of economic growth/development is to supply a given population with a higher standard of living then any method used to achieve that goal should be acceptable. If it takes domestically raised capital four times longer to reach the same standard of living as could be achieved with FDI, then why bother with the longer route? If the government didn't apply legislation to protect workers, FDI and domestic capital same negative effects on individual workers. It seems to me that many critics start off with the idea that foreign capital ownership is inherently a bad thing where in my mind it's only bad if a corporation literally buys a country up. And I don't think this is a necessary feature of neoliberalism or capitalism more generally. It's more a consequence of weak democratic government and would happen anywhere. We only need to examine history to see what happens when local capitalists get control of the government to see how they distort the political economy to suit their own interests.



If Nigerians are enjoying the fruits of development, who are we to say that there isn't economic development for the sake of Nigerians? Also, I think we have to remember here that economies aren't ever about one party. For there to be justice in any market situation, both parties (consumer and producer, worker and boss, invester and investee) must have an equity.

Although you disparaged the trickle down effect, it is important to remember that every dollar invested represents more than a proportionate increase to GDP. ie if I invest $100 in China, the local population is likely to spend (ie gain) $200 in GDP. It can even contribute to domestic capital growth. I'm not sure on the exact extent of this effect but it is something that must be remembered.



I don't know if I would call some of the benefits yielded by neoliberal development schemes mere crumbs? And I think it's quite insulting to countries which have used free trade to bolster economies to say they lose control of their culture merely because they particpate in international commerce. And further I would say it's not self-evident that all cultural practices should persist, especially if the opportunity cost is substantial hardship and poverty for the population.

But as I say neoliberalism, as well as any economic policy really, must be applied equitably as well as effectively. But it's a boogey man to say neo-liberalism and the big bad corporations are going to steal all people's water/food/shelter -- even though I recognise this has happened in some places where neolibealism has been implemented.

For effective and equitable development to occur you need both strong domestic government and free-ish capital flows. And it must be a truly equal market. It can't be an US and EU oligarchy.


Nice posts.

To you and who you were responding to.

[Der Übermensch]

Hey what's wrong with that?!

Nothing. I'm saying thats what you need to know if you want the right to complain.

Everyone who uses electricity in any capacity is living an 'American lifestyle'?
It's simplifying things, but yes. Americans live excessively, and if the whole world lived like us, we'd run out of resources this generation probably...

actually protesting neo-liberalism makes perfect sense if you're an western trying to maintain a hegemony on high living standards, or american lifestyle as you put it. after all, why would we want to compete with anyone else in the world in the labor market?
I agree... kind of... except all the protesters are NOT looking to protect their lifestyle. They are protesting the poor treatment of the third world... Nike sweatshops in Taiwan and **** like that.


Seriously though, I don't know what everyone is going on about here...
All I wanted to to was be an asshole to them. :smoke:

[Iskandar]

actually protesting neo-liberalism makes perfect sense if you're an western trying to maintain a hegemony on high living standards, or american lifestyle as you put it. Right-wingers like to say this while conveniently ignoring that hegemony is exactly what these crazy hippies are protesting about.

[Smokey D]

While the hippies ignore that when countries are allowed to attach political considerations to economic ones it goes far further in propping up national hegemonies than if we let economics have a free reign. The best way to dissolve hegemony is to weaken the political forces that hold it in place.

[Iskandar]

While the hippies ignore that when countries are allowed to attach political considerations to economic ones it goes far further in propping up national hegemonies than if we let economics have a free reign. The best way to dissolve hegemony is to weaken the political forces that hold it in place.Is this that damned "free trade spreads democracy" argument?

[Smokey D]

No. It's the political power follows the money argument. If you weaken the ties between any given political and economic interests, you reduce the ability of that polity to use its economic power to produce hegemonic results.

[Iskandar]

No. It's the political power follows the money argument.And what implications does that have?

[Smokey D]

Edit

[Iskandar]

If you weaken the ties between any given political and economic interests, you reduce the ability of that polity to use its economic power to produce hegemonic results.You mean privatization?

[Smokey D]

I mean free trade.

[griftadan]

Right-wingers like to say this while conveniently ignoring that hegemony is exactly what these crazy hippies are protesting about.

what hegemony is neo-liberalism supporting? neo-liberalism has only seen a reduction in the power of traditional hegemonies (the west)

[Iskandar]

what hegemony is neo-liberalism supporting? neo-liberalism has only seen a reduction in the power of traditional hegemonies (the west)I fail to see how the West is made less powerful by an ideology that opens up an entire world for it to dominate.

[griftadan]

because they are quickly being rivaled by new powers created in large part by free trade?

[Iskandar]

because they are quickly being rivaled by new powers created in large part by free trade?So we have a few hegemonic powers instead of just one. Not much of an improvement.

[griftadan]

hegemonic by definition means there can't be multiple parties with more or less equal clout over global affairs

[Iskandar]

hegemonic by definition means there can't be multiple parties with more or less equal clout over global affairsThen what would you call that situation?

[griftadan]

multipolar? i don't know, but you can't really say that neo-liberalism supports any sort of hegemony at this point

[Iskandar]

Sure it does. The rich north over the poor south.

[griftadan]

no it's actually doing quite the opposite, unless you consider places like china, india, brazil, etc... the rich north. as of right now, the global south is growing at a much faster rate than the north, in large part because of free trade. as these places develop, they start to rival the traditional powers.

[siva_chair]

no it's actually doing quite the opposite, unless you consider places like china, india, brazil, etc... the rich north. as of right now, the global south is growing at a much faster rate than the north, in large part because of free trade. as these places develop, they start to rival the traditional powers.

This.

[monkeysonmars.]

For development the main thing that needs to happen is for people to stop thinking ideologically (I'm looking at free market economists here, but also at infant industry protectionists etc). We're roughly in the third stage of industrialisation now (England, then US and Germany, then Japan, SK, Taiwan etc) and each period has involved a unique process and each one has involved much more than just opening up markets. In this sense is neoliberalism bad for development? yes. From this it can be said institutions such as the IMF and World Bank that are involved in pushing free market policies are also bad for development (not that that's the only bad thing about them).

An example of this is in Smokey's earlier post whereby attempts are made to show Asia's ridiculous growth being thanks to neoliberalism and free market orientation which is just a lie. The World Bank released a report in 1993 about East Asian growth that came under much criticism for trying to overstate the free market aspects of Japan's growth and deride the government's work.

For future development, as 1up! i think said, we need to move away from dogmatism. Look at East Asian growth and the processes that can be transplanted but also look at the economic and political context of LDCs and say "no 'model' that has worked before in development will solve this issue"

[Iskandar]

It's true that Japanese development was largely thanks to prudent government oversight. This could be said of South Korea as well in my opinion, to say nothing of China, which still retains a good deal of state economic control.

[mph4ever]

china is just one great big american factory, i can't wait until the people go on strike

[Der Übermensch]

When they do that, they usually get shot... Thats the whole reason we use them as a big factory. Labor laws are abysmal.

[Smokey D]

The problem with neoliberalism is that it is such broad encompassing and ill defined term that attempting to use it to causally explain phenomena has little explanatory bite. It's pretty clear that free trade, export driven economics have been the main reason for Asian growth in the last 10-15 years. Equally it is clear that Asian governments have retained extensive control or at least oversight over large sectors of their economies, which is hardly neoliberal policy. The point being that you can be very neoliberal in some respects while being completely opposed to it in others.

But why anyone would think criticisms of a report released in 1993 -- at the very start of the neoliberal phase -- disproves the relationship I don't know.

[monkeysonmars.]

It doesn't disprove anything it is example of 'paradigm maintenance' on the part of the World Bank going back to Steve's original post on the role of institutions.

[Ando!]

PS the union is destroying the public transportation system in Pittsburgh.

no retards on city council are bigger culprits tbh

[Dave de Sylvia]

I agree... kind of... except all the protesters are NOT looking to protect their lifestyle. They are protesting the poor treatment of the third world... Nike sweatshops in Taiwan and **** like that.
Well Nike don't have sweatshops in Japan, I don't know why people seem to think otherwise. There are an awful lot of misconceptions about globalisation and this is probably one of the strangest ones.

[Der Übermensch]

Well Nike don't have sweatshops in Japan, I don't know why people seem to think otherwise. There are an awful lot of misconceptions about globalisation and this is probably one of the strangest ones.
Taiwan isn't part of Japan... I don't think thats a popular misconception though... :wave:

[Dave de Sylvia]

hahaha holy **** how did I type that

[Der Übermensch]

No clue :p

[Danish]

When they do that, they usually get shot... Thats the whole reason we use them as a big factory. Labor laws are abysmal.

There are over 10,000 strikes in China every year, we just don't hear about them because the gov't has such tight control over the media.

Organizing is what won workers' some rights anywhere those rights exist. The same thing will happen -- and is happening -- in China.

[siva_chair]

There are over 10,000 strikes in China every year, we just don't hear about them because the gov't has such tight control over the media.

Then how do you know about them?

[Danish]

Then how do you know about them?

Through activist networks, mainly. Much of the info on democratic movements in China makes its way out anecdotally. The labour press has been covering developments in China fairly heavily over the past couple of years.

[siva_chair]

Through activist networks, mainly. Much of the info on democratic movements in China makes its way out anecdotally. The labour press has been covering developments in China fairly heavily over the past couple of years.

Hmm anecdotal evidence. I see.

[Iskandar]

Who cares if the information is anecdotal? That doesn't change the fact that China's labour standards are abysmal, as in most of the developing world.

[Danish]

Yep. I mean, the information I've been getting isn't the most reliable, but it's pretty evident that there is some major social upheaval and struggle going on in China.

[Danish]

And yet wages have continued to rise...

PS the union is destroying the public transportation system in Pittsburgh.

Real wages have been stagnant since 1979 and we're seeing a major growth in inequality and corporate profits (both in real terms and as a % of GDP).

Why? Are the workers "greedy"? Are they "inconveniencing" the public? I've heard it before and it's bullshit. If it wasn't for the labour movement, the American and Canadian working class would still be living in tar-paper shacks and overcrowded tenements working 60-hour weeks for next to nothing in wages.

But in a lot of ways, the US is getting back to that. The working class has lost much of its organizational capacity and strength.

[Hababi]

Real wages have been stagnant since 1979 and we're seeing a major growth in inequality and corporate profits (both in real terms and as a % of GDP).

Erm I don't think the first part of that is backed by data. Looking at Virginia as a microcosm of the nation at large, here's the performance in the last few years:
http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/images/graphs/WageAndSalary-ByRegion-large.png

That's not stagnancy, that's growth. Steady, consistent growth.


Why? Are the workers "greedy"? Are they "inconveniencing" the public? I've heard it before and it's bullshit. If it wasn't for the labour movement, the American and Canadian working class would still be living in tar-paper shacks and overcrowded tenements working 60-hour weeks for next to nothing in wages.

come now.


But in a lot of ways, the US is getting back to that. The working class has lost much of its organizational capacity and strength.

:lol: Dude, have you ever even been to America? Take it from a Pittsburgher: your image of America falling backwards is totally off-base.

[griftadan]

Real wages have been stagnant since 1979 and we're seeing a major growth in inequality and corporate profits (both in real terms and as a % of GDP).

Why? Are the workers "greedy"? Are they "inconveniencing" the public? I've heard it before and it's bullshit. If it wasn't for the labour movement, the American and Canadian working class would still be living in tar-paper shacks and overcrowded tenements working 60-hour weeks for next to nothing in wages.

But in a lot of ways, the US is getting back to that. The working class has lost much of its organizational capacity and strength.

wage growth is probably more closely tied to advances in productivity than organized labor

and the whole wage stagnation thing is pretty horrible at describing the labor situation because it doesn't really account for individual industries and markets always invariably tries to explain it as corporations being to greedy, instead of taking into account the various micro and macro economic factors that effect wages

[Iskandar]

It's still clear that inequality is high and union membership is very low in America.

[griftadan]

maybe compared to some countries

[Dave de Sylvia]

It's still clear that inequality is high and union membership is very low in America.
It's not clear that there's a correlation.

[Iskandar]

It's not clear that there's a correlation.No, but both are a result of right-wing policies.
maybe compared to some countriesMaybe compared to like every Western country.

[Dave de Sylvia]

And neither are inherently bad.

[Iskandar]

Yes they are.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Why?

[Iskandar]

Because higher equality and union membership correlate to higher standards of living and prosperity while high inequality and low union membership correlate to being a shithole?

[Dave de Sylvia]

So people in Poland and the Czech Republic have higher standards of living than Americans? You're taking a ridiculously simplistic line here.

[Iskandar]

I'm talking general trends. Most countries with low standards of living tend to have very high inequality and virtually no unionized labour.

[Dave de Sylvia]

And millions of other variables that are far more significant. There's no general trend linking the decline of unionism in the advanced industrial countries with low union membership in poorer, less developed countries, and there's no intellectual merit in pretending otherwise.

[Iscariot]

Sustained unemployment is down; standard of living us up.

where in the us is unemployment down and standard of living up because i'd like to move to wherever this recession-free utopia is

[Iskandar]

And millions of other variables that are far more significant. There's no general trend linking the decline of unionism in the advanced industrial countries with low union membership in poorer, less developed countries, and there's no intellectual merit in pretending otherwise.I get it. You're one of them!

[Dave de Sylvia]

A powerhouse economy? Why yes!

[Iskandar]

Haha, Ireland.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I'll have you know Starbucks is even more overpriced than usual here :angry:

[Iskandar]

That's what you get for being neo-liberal scum.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Well I don't like coffee anyway 8)

[Iskandar]

I do, but I wouldn't get it from Starbucks because it's overpriced bilge frequented by overpaid CEOs.

[Mr. Ron]

Starbuck's is nasty. They intentionally burn their beans.

[Iskandar]

Just make your own coffee.

[Hababi]

where in the us is unemployment down and standard of living up because i'd like to move to wherever this recession-free utopia is

Sustained unemployment is down nationwide. If you want to find the areas that are booming, particularly, there are plenty of cities in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, etc.

[Iscariot]

these are all states that are riddled with illegal immigrant employment and as far as i'm concerned their employment statistics don't count because they aren't citizens

[Iskandar]

That's stupid because jobs are jobs and you need immigration to keep your economy strong.

[Ando!]

:lol: Dude, have you ever even been to America? Take it from a Pittsburgher: your image of America falling backwards is totally off-base.

wait are you serious

[griftadan]

That's stupid because jobs are jobs and you need immigration to keep your economy strong.

but it kind of ruins attempted comparisons with other countries that don't have massive amounts of laborers constantly coming in

[Iscariot]

That's stupid because jobs are jobs and you need immigration to keep your economy strong.

it's a false ideology that we need illegal immigrant labor to support our economy this is simply a byproduct of poor economics

what we need is to cleanse the workplace of illegal workers and give jobs back to american citizens

instead of leaving millions of citizens jobless because illegals will work for lower wages we should be hiring legal citizens on fair wages and surprise surprise our economy would boom like it has never boomed before

[Smokey D]

I don't see why Americans are owed anything more than immigrants. Having a job is not a right.

[Iscariot]

having a legal job in your country of legal residence is the right of legal citizens

[Smokey D]

No it's not. It's a purely discretionary choice by employers based on your skills and output relative to your cost and whether there are better candidates with a better output/cost.

[sweboy]

having a legal job in your country of legal residence is the right of legal citizens

A friend of mine dropped me a line, it said, "man, I gotta run to the USA. I got no money, got no job." She skipped out of Mexico to stay alive. You've got a problem with her living here, but what did you do to help her before she ****ing came? What did the country do? What did the people do? I stand not by my country, but by people of the whole ****ing world. No fences, no borders, free movement for all. **** the border. It's about ****ing time to treat people with respect. It's our culture and consumption that makes her life unbearable. **** this country; its angry eyes, its knee-jerk hordes. Legal or illegal, watch her ****ing go. She'll take what's hers. Watch her ****ing go. **** the border.

[siva_chair]

I don't see why Americans are owed anything more than immigrants. Having a job is not a right.

Collecting social services from taxes paid by legal citizens is, though. The topic of illegal immigration covers far more than just jobs. It also deals with the costs to the prison system, the medicare system, ect. Illegal immigration does unneccessarily strain our system.

A friend of mine dropped me a line, it said, "man, I gotta run to the USA. I got no money, got no job." She skipped out of Mexico to stay alive. You've got a problem with her living here, but what did you do to help her before she ****ing came? What did the country do? What did the people do? I stand not by my country, but by people of the whole ****ing world. No fences, no borders, free movement for all. **** the border. It's about ****ing time to treat people with respect. It's our culture and consumption that makes her life unbearable. **** this country; its angry eyes, its knee-jerk hordes. Legal or illegal, watch her ****ing go. She'll take what's hers. Watch her ****ing go. **** the border.

Sucks for your friend, but I don't see why it is my responsibility to take care of her before she came. It really sucks that the country she lives in blows and I sympathize, but that is not an excuse to come here and break our laws.

It is insulting to legal immigrants more than anything, tbh.

And it would be nice if borders and nations weren't neccessary, but they are. We don't live in a perfect world.

[Smokey D]

Collecting social services from taxes paid by legal citizens is, though. The topic of illegal immigration covers far more than just jobs. It also deals with the costs to the prison system, the medicare system, ect. Illegal immigration does unneccessarily strain our system.

Maybe although that is quite beyond Jared's point.

But also the exact relationship between illegal immigration and the system, as you so broadly put it, is far from clear. There's considerable evidence on either side but you can't ignore the fact that illegals contribute vast amounts to the treasury via various sales taxes that most of them never cash in on for fear of being exposed to the IRS and immigration services.

[siva_chair]

Maybe although that is quite beyond Jared's point.

But also the exact relationship between illegal immigration and the system, as you so broadly put it, is far from clear. There's considerable evidence on either side but you can't ignore the fact that illegals contribute vast amounts to the treasury via various sales taxes that most of them never cash in on for fear of being exposed to the IRS and immigration services.

But do you think the contributions outweigh the costs, which are very expensive?

[Smokey D]

Quite possibly although I don't pretend to have the figures.

[siva_chair]

Quite possibly although I don't pretend to have the figures.

I think most of them range from $20-30 billion a year. After their contributions are calculated it is somewhere around a $10 billion net loss to the Fed. That's just off the top of my head, though, so I don't know for sure.

[Smokey D]

Maybe but I would be hesitant to base my calculations based purely on discrete contributions and withdrawals from federal coffers. You'd have to factor in how much economic activity they stimulated as well and how much the government would have to pay, if anything, in costs associated with lower employment etc resulting from higher labour prices. There are a lot of hidden benefits that looking at costs and inflows to the Fed probably don't take into account.

[siva_chair]

Maybe but I would be hesitant to base my calculations based purely on discrete contributions and withdrawals from federal coffers. You'd have to factor in how much economic activity they stimulated as well and how much the government would have to pay, if anything, in costs associated with lower employment etc resulting from higher labour prices. There are a lot of hidden benefits that looking at costs and inflows to the Fed probably don't take into account.

Probably. Just as there are probably hidden costs as well.

[Aaron]

Since Danish mentioned it in another thread, and since there are a variety of opinions (not just me vs. everyone else), I figure why not have a thread about it:

What's your opinion on organizations like the IMF? Is Neo-liberalism the way to go? Etc.
Nope. Economies regulate naturally.

[ringworm]

The country as a whole is better off today, in the era of NAFTA, than it was 20 years ago
give me some positives about NAFTA

around here, NAFTA is a cuss word and probably why Clinton, or the name Clinton, is so despised

NAFTA is responsible for millions of lost, skilled jobs, that require massive undertakings to re-employ those cut loose due to the cheap labor NAFTA allowed corporations to exploit outside the US

[mph4ever]

there is no such thing as free trade with america - you either trade the way the americans say or you don't trade at all

and to the point of the fed being out of pocket, 10 billion is nothing, to allow the multi-cultural benefits that immigration brings to the states, compared with the trillions spent on foreign policy

[Danish]

wage growth is probably more closely tied to advances in productivity than organized labor

and the whole wage stagnation thing is pretty horrible at describing the labor situation because it doesn't really account for individual industries and markets always invariably tries to explain it as corporations being to greedy, instead of taking into account the various micro and macro economic factors that effect wages

US workers are top in productivity, but they get the lowest renumeration-to-productivity in the industrialized world.

Unionized jobs provide better wages, benefits, and health & safety than non-unionized jobs. The decline in the ability of workers to exercise their rights to organize and bargain collectively is directly related to the decline in living standards in the US.

[Aaron]

^ you're my new favourite poster.

[Smokey D]

I'm confused. You say you want and expect markets to clear naturally but you want unionisation?

[Dave de Sylvia]

I'd say unionism is part of the "natural" progression of capitalism.

[Smokey D]

Really? Like in materially dialectic sorta terms? Even if there is an driving internal logic to capitalism and it isn't subordinated to the logics of other interests, both of which are reasonably contestable claims, I don't really see how unionism is inherently part of capitalist economics. Mainly because in most countries unionisation is declining and has been since the 1970s.


NAFTA is responsible for millions of lost, skilled jobs, that require massive undertakings to re-employ those cut loose due to the cheap labor NAFTA allowed corporations to exploit outside the US

Likewise it's responsible for millions of jobs in Mexico and streamlining the US economy so you don't have to keep subsidising inefficient workers who subtract from the overall economic benefit available to you. Economics always has costs and benefits. The costs of globalisation are very obvious and usually quite loud (people protest losing their jobs) but the benefits are certainly there.

[Aaron]

It's a double-edged sword; unionism is great when legislation is failing to do it's job, but when it does it's doing it's job it slows down progress when it's not being applied effectively. I still feel it's part of the modern nature of capitalism though. Saying this, political parties never keep the correct policies in place permamently so it's needed there as a safety-net for workers. In short, this:

I'd say unionism is part of the "natural" progression of capitalism.

...recognising that economies naturally regulate out the bumps that occur in the short-term.

[Iskandar]

Unionism is a natural outgrowth of capitalism. An economy without unions would have a lopsided balance of power, to say the least.
Mainly because in most countries unionisation is declining and has been since the 1970s.People blame your beloved neo-liberalism for that.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Really? Like in materially dialectic sorta terms? Even if there is an driving internal logic to capitalism and it isn't subordinated to the logics of other interests, both of which are reasonably contestable claims, I don't really see how unionism is inherently part of capitalist economics. Mainly because in most countries unionisation is declining and has been since the 1970s.
haha I wouldn't consider myself a subscriber to material dialectics. I mean, pragmatically speaking, the tension between employers and labour, particularly in less developed economies, is bound to lead to some sort of organised labour.

[Smokey D]

I agree that unions are beneficial or at least they can be in the right circumstances but I hardly think it is a natural consequence of capitalism or if it is it is only a transitory one.


People blame your beloved neo-liberalism for that.

Well that and the decline of manufacturing as the main economic sector.


haha I wouldn't consider myself a subscriber to material dialectics. I mean, pragmatically speaking, the tension between employers and labour, particularly in less developed economies, is bound to lead to some sort of organised labour.

Largely dependent on how willing the government is to shoot people who organise alternative loci of power. Unions might form in places where democratic norms are respected but not in places where the government doesn't allow unions (obviously).

[Dave de Sylvia]

Well if you're suggesting that unionism is only useful (broadly speaking) at a transitory period in economic development, I'd agree, but I don't see how that precludes it from being a natural element of development.

[Aaron]

I agree. I don't trust politicians though and in modern society it's not too hard for a political party to affect things. Unions keep the bastards honest.

[Smokey D]

Well if you're suggesting that unionism is only useful (broadly speaking) at a transitory period in economic development, I'd agree, but I don't see how that precludes it from being a natural element of development.

It's only a natural consequence where the government doesn't disallow it or where there aren't other modes of substantially improving rights.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Apart from the anomalous example of China, I'm not sure there are any examples of that.

[Iskandar]

Well that and the decline of manufacturing as the main economic sector.People blame neo-liberalism for that too.

Well if you're suggesting that unionism is only useful (broadly speaking) at a transitory period in economic development, I'd agreeIt's most useful when an economy is developing and standards of living are low, but unions don't just suddenly become redundant once a nation reaches developed status or something.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Of course not, but they become more marginal.

[Smokey D]

Apart from the anomalous example of China, I'm not sure there are any examples of that.

Most of South America for most of the 80s and 90s. Lots of places in South East Asia (Indonesia, Phillipines etc under Suharto and Marcos and co). Various other communist remnants like Vietnam. etc.

People blame neo-liberalism for that too.

Blame being quite a stupid word then considering the innumerable benefits we have acquired since that decline. Also, I see no reason to perpetuate a white worker aristocracy at the expense of wage slavery in the developing world you heartless pinko.


It's most useful when an economy is developing and standards of living are low, but unions don't just suddenly become redundant once a nation reaches developed status or something.

No but they do atrophy.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Most of South America for most of the 80s and 90s. Lots of places in South East Asia (Indonesia, Phillipines etc under Suharto and Marcos and co). Various other communist remnants like Vietnam. etc.
Any examples that didn't coincide with stagnation? When capitalism is making serious advances, labour invariably organises to demand its share.

[Smokey D]

Um. Vietnam is growing at like 9% pa. During the reigns of Suharto and Marcos, Indonesia and Phillipines were doing something similar.

[Iskandar]

Blame being quite a stupid word then considering the innumerable benefits we have acquired since that decline. Also, I see no reason to perpetuate a white worker aristocracy at the expense of wage slavery in the developing world you heartless pinko.Er, the objections to neo-liberalism are based on moral arguments, like if it's right for Western firms to profit from cheap labour in the developing world, which is where the real wage slavery is.

[McP3000]

Er, the objections to neo-liberalism are based on moral arguments, like if it's right for Western firms to profit from cheap labour in the developing world, which is where the real wage slavery is.
cry me a river then

[Iskandar]

cry me a river thenI'm terribly sorry, but I have a conscience.

[McP3000]

im terribly sorry but youre staining my carpet

[Smokey D]

That's different to blaming neoliberalism the decline in western manufacturing. But also wage slavery is wage slavery and exists under both paradigms. Neoliberalism offers poor countries a way out, though -- or it would if the West played fair.

I find it really hard to accept the idea that people can't grasp why free trade does more to help poor countries than perpetuating trade barriers does.

[Iskandar]

That's different to blaming neoliberalism the decline in western manufacturing. But also wage slavery is wage slavery and exists under both paradigms. Neoliberalism offers poor countries a way out, though -- or it would if the West played fair.That's my objection, that they don't play fair.
I find it really hard to accept the idea that people can't grasp why free trade does more to help poor countries than perpetuating trade barriers does.I'm no fan of autarky.

[Smokey D]

That's my objection, that they don't play fair.

Well yeah that's god awful. I suppose you could say that's how neoliberalism works in practice but it's not free trade. And it's mainly political rather than economic.

[Iskandar]

Well yeah that's god awful. I suppose you could say that's how neoliberalism works in practice but it's not free trade. And it's mainly political rather than economic.I'm glad you can see the negatives that people are always complaining about, because a lot of right-wingers can't.

[Smokey D]

What sort of unfair play are we talking about? I'm referring to the fact that most western states maintain trade barriers with countries they can penetrate with their own products.

[Iskandar]

What sort of unfair play are we talking about? I'm referring to the fact that most western states maintain trade barriers with countries they can penetrate with their own products.There's that, and then taking advantage of poor labour and environmental standards. That and trading with repressive dictatorships kind of rankles, but you can't realistically do much about that.

[Smokey D]

Environment should be protected but one of the most important things in improving labour standards is improving workers' wealth and following from that their political power.

[Iskandar]

Environment should be protected but one of the most important things in improving labour standards is improving workers' wealth and following from that their political power.And that's why unions are important for the developing world, to bargain for better wages as well as working conditions; and why repressive governments like China seek to disallow them.

[Smokey D]

Yes.

Although Chinese workers are much richer now than they were in the past. Because the CCP claims to be the only union Chinese workers need, if it fails to front up it undermines its position.

But that isn't always the case in other places which disallow unions.

[Iskandar]

Unions not being independent is pretty much like the judiciary not being independent. But that's a no-brainer.

[Smokey D]

What? I'm not sure that says anything about the rise of China's material wealth and the expansion of its political freedoms despite no free unions.

[Iskandar]

What? I'm not sure that says anything about the rise of China's material wealth and the expansion of its political freedoms despite no free unions.There really hasn't been any improvement in the arena of political freedom in China, except for that the government doesn't force intellectuals to labor in the fields and then shoot them for being counter-revolutionary.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Um. Vietnam is growing at like 9% pa. During the reigns of Suharto and Marcos, Indonesia and Phillipines were doing something similar.
Well I'm not sure the rate is that high, but stagnation wasn't the word I was looking for. Vietnam is massively underdeveloped to the point where labour doesn't have much of a base upon which to bargain.

Er, the objections to neo-liberalism are based on moral arguments, like if it's right for Western firms to profit from cheap labour in the developing world, which is where the real wage slavery is.
I don't understand why the morality of business owners should be the issue here. It's a purely pragmatic question of whether people in developing economies are materially better off as increased access to work.

[Iskandar]

I don't understand why the morality of business owners should be the issue here. It's a purely pragmatic question of whether people in developing economies are materially better off as increased access to work.Even if they are better off, the moral questions don't just go away.

[Dave de Sylvia]

They should.

[Smokey D]

If we are forced to choose between two evils, we shouldn't feel bad for choosing the lesser. But this doesn't mean we can't work to ameliorate the problems caused by that choice.

[Dave de Sylvia]

More specifically, we shouldn't choose the greater evil in some misguided attempt to protest the lesser evil.

[Iskandar]

If we are forced to choose between two evils, we shouldn't feel bad for choosing the lesser. But this doesn't mean we can't work to ameliorate the problems caused by that choice.This is what the pro-globalization crowd generally doesn't get. The people of Vietnam may be better off sewing shoes for Nike than they are tilling rice paddies, but that doesn't mean Nike can do no wrong.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I don't think anybody really believes that though. At least Nike are subject to the public pressure in the West to keep their standards high, it's the local manufacturers who lack accountability.

[Smokey D]

No one is saying that.

No one who has thought about it at any rate. But Dave's point remains.

[Iskandar]

Then why don't people like you guys ever seem to object to the unfair and unethical practices of multinationals?

[Dave de Sylvia]

Object in what sense?

[Iskandar]

Object in what sense?I don't understand.

[Dave de Sylvia]

I mean how would we object- by boycotting or what? I think western multinationals should be pressurised to maintain minimum standards for their workers in developing nations, but I think it would be ridiculous to criticise them for taking advantage of lower wage rates in those countries.

[ringworm]

Likewise it's responsible for millions of jobs in Mexico i dont see how this helps america?
Economics always has costs and benefits. The costs of globalisation are very obvious and usually quite loud (people protest losing their jobs) but the benefits are certainly there.
i guess i just cant get past the costs, being the class that gets most affected by, costs, the benefits dont ever reach those putting the most in

[Reaganista]

it helps us because then we trade with mexico

[Smokey D]

For one, I disagree with the idea that you should only consider people who happen to share your arbitrarily defined borders by accident of birth or history.

Secondly, trading makes you richer.


i guess i just cant get past the costs, being the class that gets most affected by, costs, the benefits dont ever reach those putting the most in

The cost of subsidising inefficiency is probably more harmful to the economy than off shoring.

[ringworm]

For one, I disagree with the idea that you should only consider people who happen to share your arbitrarily defined borders by accident of birth or history.
wait, what…?
i dont see what is so horrible about that, it used to be a priority

Secondly, trading makes you richer.

lol, yeah, we seem to be in great shape :)

The cost of subsidising inefficiency is probably more harmful to the economy than off shoring.

again, i am confused, so the only option when facing inefficiency is layoffs and cheap, overseas labor?

[Dave de Sylvia]

America is in great shape. The gradual decline of the manufacturing sector doesn't negate that.

[Smokey D]

wait, what…?
i dont see what is so horrible about that, it used to be a priority

I dunno, pardon my socialism but I'm a fan of considering humanity as a whole. I see no reason to divide benefit according to arbitrary distinctions like nationality or state of birth.



lol, yeah, we seem to be in great shape :)

Two things are wrong with this statement.

Firstly, you are in great shape. You are the richest, most powerful country in the world with top tier pay scales.

Secondly, there's nothing to say you would be in better shape if you restricted trade. In fact, pretty much all evidence says the opposite.

again, i am confused, so the only option when facing inefficiency is layoffs and cheap, overseas labor?

Well instead you have suppressed labour markets, excessively high prices, a lack of specialisation etc.

[ringworm]

I dunno, pardon my socialism but I'm a fan of considering humanity as a whole
well, of course, but a nations people comes first, imo
Firstly, you are in great shape. You are the richest, most powerful country in the world with top tier pay scales.
i think our status, wealth or power is highly debatable, and drastically changing, also facing an unsettling shift very soon
Well instead you have suppressed labour markets, excessively high prices, a lack of specialisation etc.
because we are compulsively addicted to cheap, disposable and harmful products

i find it hard to believe we cannot control quality and costs in this modern day, what does it say about a country that has to outsource everything?

[Aaron]

Nationalism in this thread.

[BridgeToSolace]

Secondly, there's nothing to say you would be in better shape if you restricted trade. In fact, pretty much all evidence says the opposite.


Is this a consequence of our past, less restricted trade? If we had always had heavily restricted trade, would we be in fine shape?

Or rather a natural function of any nation with our level of development. No nation with comparable resources and technology could ever exist self-sufficiently.

I'm asking because I'm curious. I'm not trying to make a point or anything. I know nothing about economics.

[Smokey D]

well, of course, but a nations people comes first, imo

Why?

i think our status, wealth or power is highly debatable, and drastically changing, also facing an unsettling shift very soon

You're wrong on the first point, and your timeline is out on the second unless you consider 20-40 years very soon.

because we are compulsively addicted to cheap, disposable and harmful products

That doesn't really have much to do with my point. You don't need to be addicted to anything for subsidising inefficiency to have a negative, although sometimes difficult to perceive, effect.

Subsidies generate deadweight loss, which is a loss of potential benefit to the market.

i find it hard to believe we cannot control quality and costs in this modern day, what does it say about a country that has to outsource everything?

It says that your wage levels have are too high to be efficient. It has nothing to do with other countries being able to produce better quality goods.

Is this a consequence of our past, less restricted trade? If we had always had heavily restricted trade, would we be in fine shape?

Or rather a natural function of any nation with our level of development. No nation with comparable resources and technology could ever exist self-sufficiently.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. In the past, closing markets, subsidising producers and protecting industries tended to distort the market and generate unfavourable economic outcomes. These would from time to time translate into political outcomes ie war. But restricting trade almost invariably causes the consumer to pay more for an inferior product, in addition to other market distortions like deadweight loss etc.

The US could probably support itself independently, except maybe for oil. But it would be a much more expensive place to live.

[BridgeToSolace]

These would from time to time translate into political outcomes ie war.

Directly or indirectly 0.o

Examples plz

The US could probably support itself independently, except maybe for oil. But it would be a much more expensive place to live.

Your point was that restricting trade would consequently make America worse off.

I was wondering if that was that result of our past economic trading policies or rather a natural phenomenon of macro economics. Seems to be the later, from your answer.

Kind of a follow up (I'm not sure if this is off topic, I haven't been keeping with the thread), there are negative domestic consequences to free trade, no? The loss of domestic jobs, etc.
Or is the loss of domestic jobs a consequence of domestic over regulation in the first place, I'm not sure if you've been arguing for free-trade deregulation or overall market deregulation.

Either way, how do you account for these people? Do decreased prices from free trade even out the loss of jobs and such?

Or is there a need to essentially rid the country of the manufacturing class (who I assume would be most at risk). Create a global economy where countries represent the different classes of society. America and a few others (like Japan and Europe) represent the upper class intellectual employment, all the way down to Africa and poorer nations representing the poorer working class who make goods for the middle/upper class (America and such).

I'm just kind of rambling. It's 2 in the morning and I have an essay I'd really rather not write.

[Smokey D]

Directly or indirectly 0.o

Examples plz

Autarkic or protectionist policies probably contributed significantly to world war 2 both in that they encouraged the rise of the Nazi party in the first place and in that they eventually required Germany to go to war.

Also, trade networks increase the opportunity cost of war and therefore reduce the incentive. That's why the EU started. It was originally conceived as a joint Franco-German coal consortium to reduce the incentive between the two countries to go to war.



I was wondering if that was that result of our past economic trading policies or rather a natural phenomenon of macro economics. Seems to be the later, from your answer.

Yeah mostly, but it is conceivable, I suppose, that protectionism could facilitate growth of an industry that would otherwise be snuffed out by established competition so that it ultimately produced cheaper goods.

Kind of a follow up (I'm not sure if this is off topic, I haven't been keeping with the thread), there are negative domestic consequences to free trade, no? The loss of domestic jobs, etc.

Definitely.


Or is the loss of domestic jobs a consequence of domestic over regulation in the first place, I'm not sure if you've been arguing for free-trade deregulation or overall market deregulation.

That too.

I'm arguing mainly for free trade not deregulation though the same insights often apply in both areas.

The point is that everything in economics is a trade off and if the loss generated by supporting inefficiency is greater than the loss generated by free trade -- and the overwhelming majority of models suggest it is -- then we should always choose the one with the least loss or greatest benefit.


Either way, how do you account for these people? Do decreased prices from free trade even out the loss of jobs and such?

It is difficult to accommodate all interests in any economic model. I don't know if the benefits of free trade would compensate everyone who lost their job, but the theory is that the benefit to everyone (and this probably includes people in Mexico) outweighs the loss to the particular people who lose their jobs. Also, economic growth helps mitigate the effects of redundancy by creating new job opportunities, although of course this isn't always feasible.


Or is there a need to essentially rid the country of the manufacturing class (who I assume would be most at risk). Create a global economy where countries represent the different classes of society. America and a few others (like Japan and Europe) represent the upper class intellectual employment, all the way down to Africa and poorer nations representing the poorer working class who make goods for the middle/upper class (America and such).

There may be that effect in the medium term, but it is hoped that ultimately as countries approach the same level of development, wages will converge and no country will have a wage based competitive advantaged. But I don't think it will ever become more efficient to completely abolish heavy industry in the west or anything like that.

[monkeysonmars.]

Kind of a follow up (I'm not sure if this is off topic, I haven't been keeping with the thread), there are negative domestic consequences to free trade, no? The loss of domestic jobs, etc.
Or is the loss of domestic jobs a consequence of domestic over regulation in the first place, I'm not sure if you've been arguing for free-trade deregulation or overall market deregulation.

well first I'd like to change 'free trade' for 'the current trading system' (maybe i'm just being pedantic) anyway the current trading system benefits countries depending on their policies, and their wealth. TNCs went into south america in the 80's and were pretty damaging to the domestic market because you've got these rich companies coming in that can out perform domestic equivalents making very average products because they have no international competition (they choose not to export). Places like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan used TNCs to improve their domestic markets, they integrated TNCs with domestic firms forced them to co-operate, made sure the TNCs weren't more than 50% foreign owned etc so that their domestic market could learn how to make what were international quality goods because TNCs were also being forced to export.

I mean the role of TNCs is only one part of 'free trade' but I think it gives you an idea.

Or is there a need to essentially rid the country of the manufacturing class (who I assume would be most at risk). Create a global economy where countries represent the different classes of society. America and a few others (like Japan and Europe) represent the upper class intellectual employment, all the way down to Africa and poorer nations representing the poorer working class who make goods for the middle/upper class (America and such).
good point, off the top of my head I would say it's a natural process and probably quite efficient as well. there are huge barriers to entry of high value added goods (that is to say Africa cannot make ipods even if they wanted to) so you see a trend of America designing goods and East Asian countries making them. Then your poorer nations stick to labour intensive goods (rice, shoes etc) because they have a whole load of cheap labour.

That's not to say there is a need for it.

[Smokey D]

TNC = transnational corporation?

Also, we shouldn't confuse free trade with the current trading regime. The current regime is anything but free really and is really quite harmful to many people, especially in poor countries. I suspect much of the antipathy for free trade comes from the equivalence pressed by certain lobby groups and conservative thinkers between what we have today and real free trade. Free trade cannot really exist where powerful political interests take charge of the main players economic systems and impose controls that prevent poorer nations from freely competing.

Also, as monkeysonmars pointed out, you need governments willing and able to affect economic outcomes. If a company simply hijacks an economy, I doubt we'll see the same benefits from free trade that we would see if the government both encouraged investment but was willing to engage with corporations to protect rights. But historically countries which have engaged in free trade tend to be the most developedin their regions if not the world (ie, the British Dominions, Argentina, Chile, the US, Japan, western Europe etc)

[monkeysonmars.]

yup

[BridgeToSolace]

There may be that effect in the medium term, but it is hoped that ultimately as countries approach the same level of development, wages will converge and no country will have a wage based competitive advantaged. But I don't think it will ever become more efficient to completely abolish heavy industry in the west or anything like that.

Is that even possible? That assumes several things (which may be true; high school education is severally limited. Are college economics courses worth it? I might take some if I have room).

A, that there is some sort of plateau of development. A 3rd world country could never catch up unless they were developing rapidly in relation to ours, which suggests that the 1st world stagnates.

Or I guess maybe new development just happens slowly and the 3rd world countries can quickly ride on our coat tails and catch up.

B, that the low wages and substandard working conditions of outsourced labor facilitate positive, regional development. This is the bigger one, I think.

What we need is robot labor. C'mon technological singularity, c'mon!

[monkeysonmars.]

Our growth relative to East Asian is nothing, America is at about 1% or 2% growth per year i think and they've been hitting between 7% and 9% since the 1960's. I also think 'B' is the case, it's just a long-term situation. As long as states are prudent enough to keep the wealth their people create within their country and spread it between classes development of all sectors will occur.

[Smokey D]

A, that there is some sort of plateau of development. A 3rd world country could never catch up unless they were developing rapidly in relation to ours, which suggests that the 1st world stagnates.

First of all, countries with lower levels of development do tend to have faster growth rates because they don't need to go through all the intervening stages more developed economies have gone through. They just import the capital infrastructure and the technology wholesale.

Secondly, people invest in lower developed countries (provided a whole bunch of other stuff like political stability etc) because dollar for dollar it returns more. Eventually this will have the effect of making the less developed regions converge with the richer areas.

It's probably untrue that all countries will be able to catch up completely, but we can expect the differences between places to lessen.



Or I guess maybe new development just happens slowly and the 3rd world countries can quickly ride on our coat tails and catch up.


Yarh.

that the low wages and substandard working conditions of outsourced labor facilitate positive, regional development. This is the bigger one, I think.

I believe they do, although you need a government willing and able to respond to the desires of the working population for that to happen.

To put it another way, and this is what I said earlier to Alex, low wages and substandard working conditions caused by FDI are more likely to generate beneficial political economic outcomes than low wages and substandard working conditions without FDI. The fastest way to improve the lot of poor people, notwithstanding damage that might be done to social structures and culture which I don't pretend to be able to quantify, is to make them richer and in most cases the fastest way to do that is to increase free trade.

[ringworm]

America is in great shape. The gradual decline of the manufacturing sector doesn't negate that.
i mean more than just manufacturing

i cant see how anyone thinks we're in great shape, not just because of the recession or real estate or energy, i mean debt, spending, political system, rising costs of tuitions and almost every other product, while jobs and earnings decrease
Why?
i think a nations people are of the upmost importance to that nation
You're wrong on the first point, and your timeline is out on the second unless you consider 20-40 years very soon
eh, i dont have to see into the future to think we are in bad shape, i feel its been deplorable for years

as for the rest, while i see what you mean, but i think my ideology is just so far from yours, and my understanding of economics isnt high enough to continue

The US could probably support itself independently, except maybe for oil. But it would be a much more expensive place to live
see, from what i've read, there is so much oil located in the Pacific and Atlantic, we could supply ourselves, AND still have surplus. Not that I want to continue the destructive outcomes of crude oil, but why is our own oil never mentioned as a potential source? Many foreign countries are already out there drilling. It sure seems like a better solution than Ethanol.

[Smokey D]

i cant see how anyone thinks we're in great shape, not just because of the recession or real estate or energy, i mean debt, spending, political system, rising costs of tuitions and almost every other product, while jobs and earnings decrease

That notwithstanding America is in a lot better shape than most other places in the world. And really, it's incumbent on you to show how America would be in better shape without free trade.


i think a nations people are of the upmost importance to that nation

Why? What does a Alaskan have in common with someone from southern Florida?


see, from what i've read, there is so much oil located in the Pacific and Atlantic, we could supply ourselves, AND still have surplus. Not that I want to continue the destructive outcomes of crude oil, but why is our own oil never mentioned as a potential source? Many foreign countries are already out there drilling. It sure seems like a better solution than Ethanol.

Everything is a better solution than corn based ethanol. But I don't think there are proven reserves in the Atlantic and Pacific, or if there is it's economically unfeasible even at these high prices (which gives an indication of how unfeasible it is) to extract it.

[siva_chair]

I think biofuels made of hemp would be a great alternative. It probably isn't a be all and end all solution to our energy needs, but it's a start.

[Dave de Sylvia]

i mean more than just manufacturing

i cant see how anyone thinks we're in great shape, not just because of the recession or real estate or energy, i mean debt, spending, political system, rising costs of tuitions and almost every other product, while jobs and earnings decrease
Well don't confuse things that are affecting the US with things that are affecting the developed world in general. The US is going through a sore patch now, mainly as a result of ridiculous overspending on the part of government and naive overborrowing on the part of individuals, but you still have the largest economy on earth, cheaper commodities than practically anywhere else and one of the most dynamic workforces.

Mourning every job that is lost to the developing world is completely missing the point because these things happen in post-industrial societies. It's by no means inherently bad.

[ringworm]

And really, it's incumbent on you to show how America would be in better shape without free trade.
like i said, my knowledge is hardly sufficient to debate

on paper, it would be impossible to reject the positives of todays market, but a ride through small town America would quickly provide some negatives, but sadly, thats exactly what i mean, on paper, who really cares how it affects "those" people.

Why? What does a Alaskan have in common with someone from southern Florida?
i think its pointless to continue, really :)

But I don't think there are proven reserves in the Atlantic and Pacific, or if there is it's economically unfeasible even at these high prices (which gives an indication of how unfeasible it is) to extract it.
i dunno, all i've seen says the opposite, its mostly environmental agencies preventing exploration, even though other nations are sitting right across the imaginary border drilling this day
Mourning every job that is lost to the developing world is completely missing the point because these things happen in post-industrial societies. It's by no means inherently bad.
eh, i am not too keen on shrugging off entire cities in peril due to job losses, which is very prominent in my area. especially, when the solution always seems to be giving huge corporations, huge tax breaks to set up shop, hire half the promised employees, then leave to go elsewhere after the tax cuts run out.

[Dave de Sylvia]

How often does that happen though?

[Smokey D]

on paper, it would be impossible to reject the positives of todays market, but a ride through small town America would quickly provide some negatives, but sadly, thats exactly what i mean, on paper, who really cares how it affects "those" people.

If you'll pardon the grandiose hyperbole, the Great Depression is the sort of thing you get when you try to prevent small trade. But also, thanks for trying to paint me as a monster who doesn't care about poor people.

i think its pointless to continue, really

I don't see why we can't have a talk about it. I'm sure there are good reasons to protect your national interests. You must have some or you wouldn't think that way.

i dunno, all i've seen says the opposite, its mostly environmental agencies preventing exploration, even though other nations are sitting right across the imaginary border drilling this day

Where are we talking about exactly?


eh, i am not too keen on shrugging off entire cities in peril due to job losses, which is very prominent in my area. especially, when the solution always seems to be giving huge corporations, huge tax breaks to set up shop, hire half the promised employees, then leave to go elsewhere after the tax cuts run out.

Right so you see why governments shouldn't be investing in silly things like subsidies.

[ringworm]

How often does that happen though?
very, very, very often
But also, thanks for trying to paint me as a monster who doesn't care about poor people.
it wasnt my intention, i know you better than that
Where are we talking about exactly?
the east and west coasts of the US, and alaska
Right so you see why governments shouldn't be investing in silly things like subsidies.
if anything, i think i advocate the bare minimum of government involvement :)

[Dave de Sylvia]

very, very, very often
Well that's just corruption/incompetence then. A proper economic revitalisation plan would emphasise the accumulation of skills so the jobs couldn't simply be packaged off to the next cheapest part of the world.