Re-Shaping the landscape in the wake of the Cold War - Page 3

Willem · February 9, 2003, 16:21

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK

Willem, people are conditioned to be selfish. True selfish people don't make good citizens, but we need to make people more socially conscious. Then they will work harder.

You're talking about an enforced moral code, that will never work. Either they care or they don't, you can't just force that on anyone. And people are selfish, that's just another aspect of the survival instinct. It's part of our biological makeup. Some are just more selfish than others, the same way that some are stronger or smarter than others.

Ramo · February 9, 2003, 16:21

Quote:

Who's talking about trade barriers, they just don't get any protection from world bodies if a deal goes sour, or a member country slaps a tariif on their exports.

A tariff is a trade barrier.

Quote:

And aid could simply take the form shipments of food and medical supplies, no cash.

Agreed.

Quote:

There's nothing wrong with them in principle, it's just they way they're being run. They just need reforms, along with the rest of it.

It'd be much easier to destroy them than properly reform them. 'Course neither is likely to happen anyways.

Quote:

though it would be foolish not to expect some regulation of IP laws. I admit the approach is rather draconian at the moment, but we also can't afford go to the other extreme either.

Why? Intellectual property simply cannot be justified in many countries. There aren't many things more morally outrageous than forcing third world farmers to pay Western businesses for using seeds that that they've been using for generations.

Willem · February 9, 2003, 16:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman

I don't buy your story of ever-increasing wages. Multi-nationals can just leave when wages get too high, or start employing children, or bribe their way to a monopoly.

Multi-nationals don't just consider wages when they enter a country. Here in Canada, there were a lot of people that predicted that all the manufacturing jobs would head south to Mexico or the States when NAFTA was signed. Some did, most didn't.

Quote:

As the labour gets more skilled, they can shop around? These people are doing what is generally known as unskilled work. It's just ridiculous to assume that 'shopping around for jobs' can exist in Third World working conditions. Give me a break.

Look at S. Korea. It was little more than a third world country after the war, but now they've become a fairly sophisticated ecomony with a highly skilled labour force. Did the multi-nationals pack up and head elsewhere when that happened? For the most part no.

Quote:

And you haven't commented on indigenous start-ups and nationalised industries. These are every bit as valid as multi-nationals, and are far more important towards improving economic performance.

What's your point exactly? Or are you suggesting that multi-nantionals will be the only ones setting up shop in those countries. If so, that's rather narrow-minded if I must say so.

Az · February 9, 2003, 16:36

You still haven't answered my question, Ramo.

( a bit more detail, please.

)

Willem · February 9, 2003, 16:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
A tariff is a trade barrier.

Well yes, I was thinking in terms of embargo. My bad! Still, all the tin pot dictator would have to do to avoid the possibility would be to begin a process of democratic reform within his/her country. (Are there any female despots?) That would be a very powerful incentive, especially compared to what's happening today.

Ramo · February 9, 2003, 16:42

The idea is that if a state is less subject to corporate influence, more decentralized, more democratic, its people more free, foreign policy would be tied to fighting for human rights instead of real politik (statism).

Ramo · February 9, 2003, 16:44

Quote:

Still, all the tin pot dictator would have to do to avoid the possibility would be to begin a process of democratic reform within his/her country. (Are there any female despots?) That would be a very powerful incentive, especially compared to what's happening today.

How would that be a powerful incentive?

Willem · February 9, 2003, 16:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Why? Intellectual property simply cannot be justified in many countries. There aren't many things more morally outrageous than forcing third world farmers to pay Western businesses for using seeds that that they've been using for generations.

There needs to be a certain amount of protection for things like computer programs etc., you can't just open the flood gates and let everyone do what they want. Like I said, the current climate is rather draconian, your example is just proof of that. Same with the refusal of the US to waive the patents for certain AIDS drugs. Certainly it will impact on the profit margins of the pharmacuetical companies involved, but the overall good should take precedence in such cases.

Az · February 9, 2003, 16:51

Quote:

The idea is that if a state is less subject to corporate influence, more decentralized, more democratic, its people more free, foreign policy would be tied to fighting for human rights instead of real politik (statism).

well, first, how will you get rid of corporate influence?

Willem · February 9, 2003, 16:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo

How would that be a powerful incentive?

If you can't figure that out on your own, there's no point in even trying to explain it to you.

Velociryx · February 9, 2003, 16:52

Sandman....apologies for the misquote.

Call the argument a strawman if you feel the need to, but it doesn't change the fact that the examples you gave are, in fact, surrounded by hostile powers that wish them ill. This speaks *directly* to the argument at hand whether you care to acknowledge it or not.

Does it mean that no democratic nation ever uses strongarm tactics? Of course not, and if you'll note in my posts, I never said that it did.

Re: Education - Is it a fair assumption that education is better than the alternative (ignorance)? Is it a fair assumption that a more informed populace is better able to make good decisions about such things as, whom to elect to govern them? An uneducated population is more easily swayed by propaganda, and this is especially bad in non-democratic societies, where the propaganda machine is likely controlled by a singular individual. Education prevents that, and lays the foundation for democracy to take root in. Education makes it possible for the people to see through propaganda. In these specific ways, education is a stabalizing influence.

It is certainly true that not every poor nation is a dictatorship. I only ask that you read what I post before you attempt to fashion arguments against it. Had you done so, you would have seen that I made no statements whatsoever about poor democratic nations (India, and others), but was speaking *directly* to newly democratized nations where their former dictatorial leaders were removed from power.

As to companies leaving if wages rise too high, the argument makes no sense. Once a company has invested tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars to build a factory in a given area, that is not a trivial investment, and not one to simply walk away from casually.

Also consider that in the nation in question, even as the wages rise, they'll STILL be lower than other areas, it's just that the marginal advantage is not as great as it used to be.

I specifically didn't mention indigenous businesses because that is a natural outgrowth of the process (while it is certainly true that indigenous business can survive, and even thrive in a dictatorial environment, unleashing the power of democracy will, no doubt magnify this effect, and it can be bolstered by any number of loan programs designed with those very businesses in mind--"Life in Africa" is one such program that I have participated in myself, whereby westerners can "underwrite" loans for entreprenureal Africans who want to better themselves. The loans are small, but enough to allow a bootstrap operation to spring up....if successful, the businessman pays off the loan and sees solid improvements. The two loans that I have underwritten were both repaid on time (actually, one was paid ahead of schedule), and they're both doing splendidly!)

Re: Third world labor markets. In case you hadn't heard, there are some extremely high tech toys being produced in third world countries. Everything from computer chips to air frames. True, they get more than their share of garment factories and tennis shoe outlets, but yes, there are a number of decidedly high tech firms opening up plants in surprising areas of the world.

And even for the places that employ strictly unskilled labor....if one employee has ten years experience on a given machine, has learned, over time how to repair it and optomize its performance, then yes....his "skill" (or lack thereof, from your perspective), is more valuable than a guy fresh off the street.

Given the probability of other such plants in the area, if he wants a raise, and company A is unwilling to deal, he can offer his services to company B, C, or D.

The problem you have, is that you are looking at the situation through the lens of how things currently are, and I am looking through the lens of how things might be if the above is carried out, and IN those cases, there would be no monopolistic shenanigans by multinational corporations, because the UN-temporary government would not allow it in the first place, and in the second, they'd not be leaving until the people's democratic government was strong enough to stand on their own (which would include resisting the bullying of large, multinational corporations). If needs be, the UN charter could be expanded to help these newly democratized nations deal on an equal footing WITH multinational corporations who seek to do business there, to make sure they don't get the shaft, and in fact, that's probably a fine addition. Thanks!

Re: UN resolutions - Most, if not all UN resolutions are pretty useless right now, since they lack any real means of enforcement.

Duncan - ahhh, I see what you're getting at. You're saying that the fat cat rich guys don't have to work, and you're exactly right. But then, since they're already AT the top of the pyramid, they don't have to worry 'bout social mobility either (unless they're just really stupid with their investments).

But for the rank and file....for guys like me....yep....I gotta go out there every day and put my nose to the grindstone, and in fact, I do more than that. I've written three books, and am workin' on a computer game....and it's working....

-=Vel=-

Willem · February 9, 2003, 16:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

well, first, how will you get rid of corporate influence?

Here in Canada we're about to try a system that ties the financing of political parties to the number of votes, and limiting the amount that can be donated by corporations and wealthy individuals. The figure floating around right now is $1.50 per vote, which will be paid for out of federal revenues. A number of European nations have been doing this for years. I don't know how well it works, but I think it will go a long way towards ridding our system of corporate influence.

Ramo · February 9, 2003, 17:06

Quote:

well, first, how will you get rid of corporate influence?

There aren't any corporations in a socialist society. At least no non-worker owned corporations anyhow.

Quote:

If you can't figure that out on your own, there's no point in even trying to explain it to you.

Why would dictator A care if he gets a few trade barriers slapped upon him? It certainly doesn't hurt him. If it hurts his people, he can just get his police to take care of the situation.

Quote:

There needs to be a certain amount of protection for things like computer programs etc., you can't just open the flood gates and let everyone do what they want.

Why? Third World states aren't huge developers of computer programs so what's the point of IP protection? Of course, places like India and China are changing somewhat in this respect, so certain IP laws may be justified in these situations.

Willem · February 9, 2003, 17:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
There aren't any corporations in a socialist society. At least no non-worker owned corporations anyhow.

Oh so China instituted broad range democratic reforms in the last twenty years, and I wasn't aware of it?

Willem · February 9, 2003, 17:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo

Why? Third World states aren't huge developers of computer programs so what's the point of IP protection? Of course, places like India and China are changing somewhat in this respect, so certain IP laws may be justified in these situations.

So you think that all those Third World countries will stay poor and impoverished forever? You've already mentioned India and China, do you seriously think they'll be the only countries to modernize their economy forever and forever?

PS In fact having some sort of copyright laws will provide incentive for foreign companies to establish themselves. If they can't guarentee their product, they'll go to a country that will.

Ramo · February 9, 2003, 17:35

Quote:

Oh so China instituted broad range democratic reforms in the last twenty years, and I wasn't aware of it?

I don't consider China socialist. My vision of socialism is the worker (not state or capitalist) ownership of the means of production.

Quote:

So you think that all those Third World countries will stay poor and impoverished forever? You've already mentioned India and China, do you seriously think they'll be the only countries to modernize their economy forever and forever?

When did I say that? IP is only useful when a state is developed enough. We're trying to push IP on states that aren't developed enough. I consider that protectionism.

chequita guevara · February 9, 2003, 17:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
che,

I take this you meant either the Congress or the Senate? Wouldn't this need a constitution amendment?

I was refering to state legislatures. Yes, changing the House or the Senate would require an amendment.

Lord Merciless · February 9, 2003, 17:48

Quote:

Originally posted by DuncanK
I don't think the US could ever lead the world into a future as Vel describes. No nation can. Its got to be an individual, a hero of mankind. It has to be a citizen of the world. I don't know who, but they will emerge.

After thousands of years and countless failures, you still believe in this Messiah thing?

I would never put my entire trust into a single person, except me of course.

Az · February 9, 2003, 17:52

Quote:

Here in Canada we're about to try a system that ties the financing of political parties to the number of votes, and limiting the amount that can be donated by corporations and wealthy individuals. The figure floating around right now is $1.50 per vote, which will be paid for out of federal revenues. A number of European nations have been doing this for years. I don't know how well it works, but I think it will go a long way towards ridding our system of corporate influence.

We have the same here. still, the economical elites do have the politicians. Not as much as in the US, but capital and political power still march hand by hand.

Quote:

There aren't any corporations in a socialist society. At least no non-worker owned corporations anyhow

hehe. that IS cute. how do you place a socialist society there in the first place?

Quote:

I don't consider China socialist. My vision of socialism is the worker (not state or capitalist) ownership of the means of production.

China isn't socialist. IIRC, Mao himself didn't read socialist books, at all. IIRC, his favourite book was some sort of Chinese version to "The Prince", talking about how to use the peasantry to harness power, how to keep the country obeying to you, and waste political opponents.

My knowledge is as dense as vapor on this one, though.

.

Ramo · February 9, 2003, 17:54

Quote:

hehe. that IS cute. how do you place a socialist society there in the first place?

Individual and collective action so workers can buy up the country's businesses.

chequita guevara · February 9, 2003, 17:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Oh so China instituted broad range democratic reforms in the last twenty years, and I wasn't aware of it?

China's not socialist anymore.

chequita guevara · February 9, 2003, 17:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
Individual and collective action so workers can buy up the country's businesses.

Prodhon tried that in France. It was outlawed after it became too successful.

Ramo · February 9, 2003, 17:57

That's where the libertarianism comes in.

Az · February 9, 2003, 18:11

Quote:

Prodhon tried that in France. It was outlawed after it became too successful.

really? never heard of that.

This gives lots of hope, you know.

Az · February 9, 2003, 18:14

( but then again, I remind myself of the sad experience people had here with industries that belong to the trade union. the unions stole their pensions.

)

Willem · February 9, 2003, 18:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo

I don't consider China socialist. My vision of socialism is the worker (not state or capitalist) ownership of the means of production.

They're a Marxist society, how else do you define socialism?

Willem · February 9, 2003, 18:45

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

China's not socialist anymore.

According to their constitution they still are.

Az · February 9, 2003, 18:57

yes, and North Korea, is a democratic people's republic.

KrazyHorse · February 9, 2003, 19:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Here in Canada we're about to try a system that ties the financing of political parties to the number of votes, and limiting the amount that can be donated by corporations and wealthy individuals. The figure floating around right now is $1.50 per vote, which will be paid for out of federal revenues. A number of European nations have been doing this for years. I don't know how well it works, but I think it will go a long way towards ridding our system of corporate influence.

KrazyHorse · February 9, 2003, 19:09

I said it before and I'll say it again: the day Chrétien announced his retirement, he became 10X the PM he was from 1993-2002.