|
Post by PeterB on May 3, 2007 2:54:15 GMT -4
Feelfree said of globalisation:
So the jobs aren’t disappearing – they’re going to places where the labour is cheaper. What’s the problem with that? Jobs have been going to the places with cheaper labour for centuries.
Let me give you an extreme example of what happens when a country chooses to limit imports – Japan places tight restrictions on how much rice it’ll import. Rice is a staple food in most parts of the world, but in Japan it’s a delicacy. Japanese farmers produce way less rice than the population could eat, but they don’t have a hope of competing with efficient foreign farmers, and wouldn’t be able to sell any of their product. As Japanese farmers are a valuable block of votes that no government wishes to alienate, the import restrictions stay in place. Oh, they don’t put it that way – instead, apparently Japanese people don’t like the taste of non-Japanese rice (even though they can’t tell the difference in double-blind tests), or there’s the danger of foreign diseases. But the result is that Japanese people pay far more for rice than just about everyone else in the world.
Of course, these sorts of problems happen elsewhere too. This takes a range of forms, such as subsidies to allow expensive local product to compete with cheaper imports, import restrictions, tariffs, and straight payments to farmers to produce food products regardless of international supply, causing things like butter mountains and milk lakes. The worst offenders in these activities are the USA and Europe, in both cases propping up uneconomic farmers for political reasons. The people who lose out are most usually farmers in Third World countries whose governments don’t have the money or diplomatic clout to compete, or farmers in First World countries like Australia whose governments provide no form of subsidy.
Put simply, Third World countries don’t have the money to develop their own economies. They have only two ways to get money. One is to export food. But they’re often stymied by First World governments subsidising their own farmers. The other is to encourage manufacturers to relocate to their countries where labour is cheap. But people like you, Feelfree, don’t like that because it costs jobs in the USA.
So which is it to be?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 3, 2007 3:54:55 GMT -4
Well, you know, they can always just give up and starve.
Heck, it doesn't even happen from one country to another. As I pointed out, we lost a lot of jobs to Texas not long ago, and Texas is, at least in theory, in the same country.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on May 3, 2007 8:07:50 GMT -4
. . . Texas is, at least in theory, in the same country.It's like a whole other country. ;D BTW, kudos to whoever developed that advertising campaign for not saying, "It's like a whole nother country."
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 3, 2007 9:12:02 GMT -4
It's like a whole other country. ;D We used to be. Back in the 70s when you could still find large supplies of new oil in Texas, there was a, mostly fun, movement for secession. This was apart from the various anti government wakkos that inhabit the state. Now with our economy more dependent on trade not oil exports those feelings are muted. PeterB, your post points out the downside of protectionism. Those that are not protected by it are harmed through higher costs and/or lower quality. It is a transfer of wealth from many to a few. Farm subsidies are one of those issues that no country seems to be able to free themselves of. There are just too many constituents who want it so it stays in place. Then we also have the mandated use of ethanol as a motor fuel. A rule that is also guided primarily by vote buying.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on May 3, 2007 10:14:38 GMT -4
There was a classic old Lone Star (beer) calendar sporting a cover showing the Earth with a Texas-shaped hole in it. Rising into space was Texas, with an armadillo smoking a cigarette and holding a lever marked "Secede".
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on May 3, 2007 21:02:55 GMT -4
Two words spring to mind, Union Carbide. You mentioned the world bank, this clip gives a good description of how it operates and who runs it. I'm not sure about the throne of skulls but I really want a futuristic jumpsuit. www.newscloud.com/read/83510/
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 3, 2007 22:04:15 GMT -4
Two words spring to mind, Union Carbide. Yes, the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal was horrific and unacceptable. UC deserves every piece of bad press it gets for what it was responsible for. But there are plenty of industries which can relocate to Third World countries which don't pose the same sorts of threats. For example, most of Australia's clothing and footwear industries have closed down and relocated. I don't think either of them pose the same sorts of threats to locals as chemical manufacturers. But I note you didn't address the issue of farming subsidies. Do you have an opinion on this? Sorry, when did I mention the World Bank? As it is, I don't have a high opinion of the World Bank. It's policies don't seem to do much to help Third World countries develop their economies.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 3, 2007 22:14:32 GMT -4
I think the World Bank is actually a great idea. I think it's run very badly, and I think it has lousy policies, but as an idea, it's wonderful. Improving life for poor people sounds like a good idea to me, no matter where those poor people are.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 4, 2007 3:51:07 GMT -4
Put simply, Third World countries don’t have the money to develop their own economies. They have only two ways to get money. One is to export food. But they’re often stymied by First World governments subsidising their own farmers. The other is to encourage manufacturers to relocate to their countries where labour is cheap. But people like you, Feelfree, don’t like that because it costs jobs in the USA.
So which is it to be?
There are other options beyond those two, peter. But a big factor is whether or not some of those alternatives can ever be implemented in light of major obstacles, such as external interference.
Btw, have you read or heard about the book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on May 4, 2007 4:56:31 GMT -4
No, you didn't. Sorry about that, I think I read Third World and thought of the world bank and the Daily show take on it. ;D I was in a hurry.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 7, 2007 3:09:30 GMT -4
There are other options beyond those two, peter. But a big factor is whether or not some of those alternatives can ever be implemented in light of major obstacles, such as external interference. Btw, have you read or heard about the book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man? You're right, Turbonium, that I've simplified things. But what sort of external interference are you talking about? An unwillingness of the USA or Europe to import things which might cost jobs (and thus votes) at home? No, I haven't read the book. Can you summarise in a couple of sentences?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on May 7, 2007 8:24:52 GMT -4
Btw, have you read or heard about the book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man? It is a rather implausible book but from what I gather makes good reading if you take it as a work of fiction. The author claims to have destabilized the economies of third world countries on behalf of the NSA. If he claimed to have worked for the CIA his tall tale would have been less unbelievable as it wouldn’t surprise me if they did such things. The NSA deals exclusively with the interception and analysis of communications. According to the Publisher’s blurb for his book “Shapeshifting” Shapeshifting can occur on three levels: cellular--transforming from human to plant or animal; personal--becoming a new self or leaving an addiction behind; and institutional--creating a new business or cultural identity.
Since 1968, master shamans in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the Americas have been training John Perkins to teach the industrial world about the powerful techniques involved in shapeshifting…
tinyurl.com/26tcfs OR www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0892816635/qid=1102587766/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-5258658-5499132 I wonder if he took too much ayuhasca, peyote and frog poison over the last few decades or so but he does have a fan well known to most members of this board (see link above). He has written quite a few books with similar themes. www.johnperkins.org/Books.htm
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 7, 2007 9:24:05 GMT -4
What people mostly don't remember or never knew about the Bhopal chemical plant is that an Indian company was majority owner and Union Carbide had a minority position. This was mandated by an Indian law that did not allow foreign companies to hold majority ownership. It is not really possible to say if the accident would have occurred if UC had been the full owner but as I recall from many years ago, the Indian company and the government had a lot to say about the placement of the plant so near the city. UC of course should have never gone along with an unsafe plan but the blame goes much further. Ultimately UC never recovered from Bhopal, their business declined and they were purchased by Dow.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 7, 2007 17:46:00 GMT -4
I seem to recall a disgruntled employee being implicated in the Bhopal disaster, but I don't remember where I heard it or what the details were, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 9, 2007 1:56:26 GMT -4
Wikipedia has a fairly detailed account of the event. I got a sense from reading the article that the disgruntled employee was invented by UC to deflect attention from shoddy work practices. However, I know that Wikipedia shouldn't be treated as a reliable source.
For the time being, however, I'm satisfied that UC should take the blame.
That doesn't alter the original argument I made that there are many industries which don't pose anywhere near the same threat to locals, which could quite profitably be relocated to Third World countries - profitably, that is, for the locals, for First World consumers, and for the companies concerned.
Out of interest, Turbonium, would you care to expand on your statement about "...major obstacles, such as external interference..." which might prevent or limit industrial expansion into Third World countries?
|
|