|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 13, 2007 1:07:31 GMT -4
Feelfree Read this story: www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1948861.htmIt appeared on the TV news last night. At one point they interviewed a Japanese dairy farmer who said that there was no way he could compete with Australian farmers - the implication was they're too efficient. Now what's the solution? At the moment, Japanese people pay huge prices for things like dairy products, beef and rice, compared to Australia. Wouldn't it be fair for Australian farmers, who don't get government subsidies, to be able to sell at a fair market price to the Japanese public? They could even charge well over what we pay here in Australia, and still the Japanese people would be making huge savings. The likely result is that a lot a Japanese farmers would be put out of work, but is that an unacceptable price to pay? Farmers will save Australia. Actually the free trade agreement with Japan and China is not even finalised. Effectively a study reveal that farms and mines will be the two only sectors profitable for Australia. However for manufactures and other industrials sector you risk to face a big trade deficit .
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 13, 2007 1:19:06 GMT -4
Very socialist ie(communist ) globalisation effect .No, because socialisim is where the workers unite and take control with everyone sharing equally in the profits of the company. What you are seeing is Capitalism, the owners of the company seeking to make the largest profit for themselves that they can by minimising their expenses. My point is that the forced Globalisation -reduce the standard of living to a lower level in the advanced nations, such as the united States, and to a higher standard of living in the so-called third world nations - That is this leveling of the standard of living that sounds very socialist. Edited for precision
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 13, 2007 1:46:19 GMT -4
You didn’t really address my main points 1) the study didn’t even claim to show a net job loss because it didn’t look at jobs added to the US economy as a result of free trade 2) it only a show a minuscule number of job transfers from the US to Asia and Latin America about 0.13% of the total labor force a year Why you still ignore the real effects ? From the study in the opening ... findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3739/is_200201/ai_n9072409"Contrary to once-high expectations that China's 1.2 billion population would provide an ever-expanding market for U.S. goods, by 2000 the value of goods imported to the U.S. from China exceeded the value of U.S. goods exported to China by a factor of more than 61-resulting in a bilateral trade deficit of $84 billion." 3) the methodology used was questionable Are you an economist? Do you accuse these professionals of lying? The report was prepared by project director Kate Bronfenbrenner, Connell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations, and co-authored by James Burke, Mount Holyoke College; Robert Hickey, Connell University; and Stephanie Luce, Tom Juravich, Elissa Braunstein, and Jerry Epstein, all of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. The U.S. Congress created the commission to investigate economic and security implications of the bilateral economic relationship between the US and China.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 13, 2007 20:03:20 GMT -4
My point is that the forced Globalisation -reduce the standard of living to a lower level in the advanced nations, such as the united States, and to a higher standard of living in the so-called third world nations - That is this leveling of the standard of living that sounds very socialist. Edited for precision But it's not Governments that are forcing it, it is consumerisim and the businesses that are catering to that demand. Governments aren't wanting a free market to reduce the 1st world standard of living, in fact exactly the opposite. With a free market companies can produce and sell their goods cheaper and so people can afford things that previously they couldn't. Yes a side effect is job loss, but this is a competition caused affect, the simple fact of the matter is that in China they can find workers who will accept in a month what first world workers want in a day. Simple math tells you that with your labour costs down you can make more profit even though you are selling cheaper and have to include transport, so this is what big manufactoring businesses want. The result is that first world countries are having to switch their job markets from manufactoring to other sectors, which can take time, but is also able to be very sucessful as well. Look at New Zealand for example. Until recent events that are causing some trouble (basically an open house market resulting in a very high dollar, as well as oil prices and an uncontrolled electricity sector) we have been ticking alone well and have had an open market for nearly 20 years now. There were some job loses initially, but now we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the OECD. On top of that people are spending money like water (something that terrorfies our Reserve Bank causing them to have increased our interest rates to the highest in the OCED, but that's another story.) In the end an open market leads to the situation where the job markets move, but not necessarily in a way that is negitive to both sides, or even to one side.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 14, 2007 0:12:31 GMT -4
My point is that the forced Globalisation -reduce the standard of living to a lower level in the advanced nations, such as the united States, and to a higher standard of living in the so-called third world nations - That is this leveling of the standard of living that sounds very socialist. Edited for precision But it's not Governments that are forcing it, it is consumerisim and the businesses that are catering to that demand. Governments aren't wanting a free market to reduce the 1st world standard of living, in fact exactly the opposite. Exactly the point ,that is the big corporations who decide that is not the Goverments anymore. With a free market companies can produce and sell their goods cheaper and so people can afford things that previously they couldn't. Yes ,some goods cost less. Yes a side effect is job loss, but this is a competition caused affect, hmm! not exactly a competion that is a shift of the industries owned by rich countries to poor countries... findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3739/is_200201/ai_n9072409"The media-tracking data also suggests the majority of the U.S.-based multinational corporations shifting production to China are not simply targeting a Chinese market. Companies such as La Crosse Footwear (winter boots), Lexmark (printers), Motorola (cell phones), Rubbermaid (cookware and storage products), Raleigh (bicycles), Cooper Tools (wrenches), Mattel Murray (Barbie doll playhouses), and Samsonite (luggage) may have moved their production to China, but they still intend to serve a U.S. and global market.the simple fact of the matter is that in China they can find workers who will accept in a month what first world workers want in a day. ....profiting cheap labors.These workers cannot even manifest for better wage. Simple math tells you that with your labour costs down you can make more profit even though you are selling cheaper and have to include transport, so this is what big manufactoring businesses want. Of course exploiting cheap labors is what big manufactoring businesses want. The result is that first world countries are having to switch their job markets from manufactoring to other sectors, which can take time, but is also able to be very sucessful as well. Look at New Zealand for example. Until recent events that are causing some trouble (basically an open house market resulting in a very high dollar, as well as oil prices and an uncontrolled electricity sector) we have been ticking alone well and have had an open market for nearly 20 years now. There were some job loses initially, but now we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the OECD. On top of that people are spending money like water (something that terrorfies our Reserve Bank causing them to have increased our interest rates to the highest in the OCED, but that's another story.) What is the principal economic motor in New Zeland? In the end an open market leads to the situation where the job markets move, but not necessarily in a way that is negitive to both sides, I need to clarified that point again ie sometime that is the poor countries like Thailand which have negative effects on their economy and population. Hmm! "Contrary to once-high expectations that China's 1.2 billion population would provide an ever-expanding market for U.S. goods, by 2000 the value of goods imported to the U.S. from China exceeded the value of U.S. goods exported to China by a factor of more than 61-resulting in a bilateral trade deficit of $84 billion."
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 14, 2007 0:32:44 GMT -4
Exactly the point ,that is the big corporations who decide that is not the Goverments anymore.
Well since Businesses are the ones that benefit from such deals why wouldn't they be lobbying goverments to make them? Surely it is the right of any person to lobby their government, even if you don't agree with them? The fact that is it businesses doing it mean that it is being driven by capitalism, not socialism.
hmm! not exactly a competion that is a shift of the industries owned by rich countries to poor countries...
We're talking competition between labour markets not between businesses.
....profiting cheap labors.These workers cannot even manifest for better wage.
However you have to remember that the expenses they face in third world countries are often a lot less as well. Against their relative economies a person earning $100 US a week in Thailand or China is a lot better off then a person earning $100 a day in the US. We demand higer wages because our expenses are also very high. As a result it is often a win-win when the workers get what is considered by them to be a high wage, and by the businesses who find that their labour costs drop dramatically.
Of course exploiting cheap labors is what big manufactoring businesses want.
see point above on "exploiting." Otherwise it make business sense to go where the labour market will give you the best deal.
What is the principal economic motor in New Zeland?
Agriculture. However we have had a lot of manufacturing in the past, most of which is gone now. We also have to compete in markets where our goods have large tarrifs on the (such as the US) or where they are subsidised by the Government (Europe.) How is that fair? If we can produce superior quality goods at a better price, why should we, and the consumer be being punished because other producers can't compete with us? Surely it's better to let us do what we do and supply the consumers are a good price and those that can't do something else where they are compeditive.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 14, 2007 0:59:56 GMT -4
Exactly the point ,that is the big corporations who decide that is not the Goverments anymore.Well since Businesses are the ones that benefit from such deals why wouldn't they be lobbying goverments to make them? Surely it is the right of any person to lobby their government, even if you don't agree with them? Even if at the origin the promise was more jobs for the country? Remember they have not presented the free trade agreements by saying we want to shift our production to other countries. "Contrary to once-high expectations that China's 1.2 billion population would provide an ever-expanding market for U.S. goods, by 2000 the value of goods imported to the U.S. from China exceeded the value of U.S. goods exported to China by a factor of more than 61-resulting in a bilateral trade deficit of $84 billion." The fact that is it businesses doing it mean that it is being driven by capitalism, not socialism. you miss the point .... My point is that the forced Globalisation via the differents free trade agreements -reduce the standard of living to a lower level in the advanced nations, such as the united States, and to a higher standard of living in the so-called third world nations - That is this leveling of the standard of living that sounds very socialist.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 14, 2007 1:06:33 GMT -4
What is the principal economic motor in New Zeland?Agriculture. However we have had a lot of manufacturing in the past, most of which is gone now. So you have lost mostly all manufacturing. What was the wage paid in manufacturing vs agriculture workers? We also have to compete in markets where our goods have large tarrifs on the (such as the US) or where they are subsidised by the Government (Europe.) How is that fair? If we can produce superior quality goods at a better price, why should we, and the consumer be being punished because other producers can't compete with us? Surely it's better to let us do what we do and supply the consumers are a good price and those that can't do something else where they are compeditive. No problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 14, 2007 2:24:59 GMT -4
Turbonium said: But if the company doesn't invest at all, then the country (and its citizens) get *no* money. I won't entirely disagree with you on this point - I think a lot of Africans point out that a lot of aid money is wasted, or goes into (African) bureaucrats' pockets. But I think there are plenty of people who see developing economies as potential markets - see how much the West exports to developing countries like India and China. Indeed, there were many Western companies who once envisioned (virtually) overnight windfall profits from goods and services exported into the vast, untapped markets of China. Similar to the West's pipe dreams about investing / exporting into the Russian marketplace, after communist USSR dissolved. In 2006, the US had a $233 billion trade deficit with China, and a $2 billion trade deficit with India. The EU had a €70 billion trade deficit with Russia last year. There are certainly exceptions. But by and large, these nations are not "consumer societies". And they won't be for decades to come, being very optimistic. But wages aren't the only issue that companies consider. After all, Chinese wages would be higher than in many countries in Africa. Yet companies continue to invest in manufacturing in China rather than Africa. I agree, wages alone don't dictate where foreign businesses invest, relocate manufacturing, etc. Africa lags far behind Asia in foreign investment, labor / industry. For a Western company, the cost of goods sold (COGS) determines profit margins. China has a far better "bang for the buck" than most, if not all, other foreign manufacturers. I said.... They are the last ones who would ever try to help them become self-sufficient and prosperous.Are you saying that companies aren't interested in opening up new markets? Not at all. Companies always want to open up new markets. But market share / competition are the primary factors which determine whether an established business thrives or dies. They have to be profitable in Western markets, first and foremost. Low labor costs are a key to being profitable, and competetive. That means finding the cheapest labor in China, etc. If those countries became self-sufficient and prosperous, their wages will soar. The multinationals hardly want that. But the point is that a lot of simple manufacturing jobs don't require much in the way of technology or education - how hard is it to make shirts? Education by itself produces educated unemployed people. Not everyone can be an entrepreneur. That's quite true. But communal and global prosperity doesn't develop off the backs of sweatshop laborers. In general, it benefits only the very few people at the expense of so many. You seem to be forgetting that a lot of First World development came on the back of European/North American/Japanese exploitation of local populations. Undeveloped nations don't have that option. They have to develop their wealth in a world in which their main resource is the fact that their labour is a lot cheaper than First World labour, and in which what they do produce is often a lot cheaper than equivalent products from the First World. But it doesn't benefit the poor laborers. The early American plantation owner became wealthy off the backs of slave labor. He was often rich enough to have provided a comfortable means of living for his "employees", at no cost to his own family's lifestyle. There is no need for such a huge disparity, then or now. I think you're ascribing to malice what would better be explained by incompetence. I'm sure manufacturers would greatly benefit from doubling the size of their market - if only people in places like Africa had the money to afford their products. Many multinationals certainly would like Africa to become FW consumers, but they won't shell out millions and billions for the long-term development that it would require. And that's only if cheap labor still exists for them in Asia or elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jun 14, 2007 3:23:49 GMT -4
At reply # 18, Feelfree said:
In reply #77, Feelfree quoted:
Which is it? At first you make it sound like the levelling of society is the goal of THEM. But the article you quote suggests the goal of the companies is profits. There's no mention of any desire to eliminate class differences as you describe. To use an analogy, you make it sound like the intention of Ford and General Motors is to kill people by encouraging them to drive.
Can you point to statistics such as a noticeable decline in median salaries to support your claim?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jun 14, 2007 3:34:44 GMT -4
Turbonium said:
Perhaps a better example would be factory owners in the northern USA or in Britain. The employees working at these factories were paid wages.
The traditional image is of "dark satanic mills", and there's no doubt that in "England's green and pleasant land", factories belching smoke must have had an apocalyptic look. Likewise, Dickens and others have created images of shocking wages and conditions for the people who worked in them.
But it's worth remembering that at this time, these workers were better off than agricultural labourers, and lived in better accommodation. The rows of terrace houses look dismal by comparison to what we'd accept today, but they were better than what was available to their cousins in the country.
In other words, the Industrial Revolution didn't just make the factory owners incredibly wealthy. The people who worked in the factories were also better off, though they didn't gain proportionately as much. And herein lies an interesting economic conundrum: which is better - for the workers' salaries to double while the bosses' salaries triple, or for everyone's salaries to increase by 50%?
The growth in the world economy in the last 20 or so years has allowed some people to earn almost absurd amounts of money, but the wages of ordinary people have also increased. The problem is that I think any method used to limit what bosses can earn will have a worse effect on ordinary workers.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 14, 2007 17:19:01 GMT -4
So you have lost mostly all manufacturing. What was the wage paid in manufacturing vs agriculture workers?
Actually it's pretty good. We're having trouble getting farm workers and farmers these days because it's hard and isolated work and a lot of people are heading into the cities hoping for cushy office jobs, but the money is very good and in fact dairy farmers are currently heading towards record payouts for milk.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 14, 2007 17:28:08 GMT -4
There are certainly exceptions. But by and large, these nations are not "consumer societies". And they won't be for decades to come, being very optimistic.
I think this really is the trouble. They have vast numbers of people, but those people aren't necessarily into buying the same things we in the west are. As they move forward this will probably change, and today we are seeing a lot of countries developing fast in their technologies, but the simple fact of the matter is that a guy sitting in a hut in rural China/India/Africa really has little use for an Oracle database, a BMW or a GPS unit.
However having said that, we have just lost two of our largest remaining manufacturors. One of their biggest reasons for going is that they are making large inroads into Asia and with the costs of transporting goods there raising all the time, it's now a lot cheaper to just move there and be thus closer to what is a larger consumer base for them. So that is another reason they might actually leave.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Jun 15, 2007 23:40:40 GMT -4
At reply # 18, Feelfree said: In reply #77, Feelfree quoted: Which is it? At first you make it sound like the levelling of society is the goal of THEM. But the article you quote suggests the goal of the companies is profits. There's no mention of any desire to eliminate class differences as you describe. THEM ie those who planified the future of worldwide economy. They are not limited to a group of industrials. That part is yet to come.( they plan to..) -This leveling of the standard of living will be accomplished through a global economic collapse which is in its beginning stages. The economic collapse will fulfill the goal of Marx and Engles' Communist Manifesto mandating the elimination of the middle class. The graduated income tax was the first implementation of this process and is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. NAFTA and GATT -(WTO)- are a part of this process encouraging industry to move into third-world nations in order to exploit cheap labor.-
|
|
|
Post by antoniocc on Jun 16, 2007 15:01:34 GMT -4
So you are saying that globalization is part of a communist conspiracy?
|
|