Thread Tools
Old December 26, 2003, 21:54   #331
Q Classic
Emperor
 
Q Classic's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The cities of Orly and Nowai
Posts: 4,228
nothing. he's still wrong.
__________________
B♭3
Q Classic is offline  
Old December 26, 2003, 22:00   #332
Oncle Boris
Mac
Emperor
 
Oncle Boris's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Directly from the FART international airport
Posts: 3,045
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
Honestly, Oncle. Let me ask you a question: what could I or anyone say that would make you change your mind?
Hmmmm... got me on that one.

All right. You wouldn't have to write a dissertation yourself, but I love it when people find TRUE logical fallacies in my argument.

OK, not crappy fallacies like "you can't know what Bush wanted" or "you can't know what's in this CIA classified document". It really happens that I give up when someone just finds THE fact or THE syllogism.
But neither you or Imran have done that so far. It seems you took time in responding to unimportant facts and avoided most of my main arguments. I still don't know if it was out of bore, refusal to concede some points, or plain bad understanding of my texts.

*small example*: I took great care in describing starvation as an enslavement tool (gotta love the word), but Imran never really truly answered it. He just repeated: yeah, giving 2$ a day is to someone is better than letting him starve. As if "better" was morally better.
What he would have had to do:
1. demonstrate that the need for food does not alienate one's freedom or judgment
failing that, he would then need to:
2. admit that the supremacy of economic logic, by basing itself on the irrelevancy of minimal life conditions, cannot be supportive of democracy and/or equity (which are democratic values), and thus human rights as generally conceived.
In admitting number 2, he would then have to agree with me that America's foreign policy is not at all based on human rights, social justice, and freedom. Which is the whole point I've been defending and shepherding from the beginning, some 330 posts earlier.
(Remember, my point was not establishing the difference between starvation and half starvation, which in fact certainly doesn't need a thread to be understood).

But I've already taken too long. Good day to you.
__________________
"Now you're gonna ask me, is it an enforcer's job to drop the gloves against the other team's best player? Well sure no, but you've gotta know, these guys, they don't think like you and me." (Joël Bouchard, commenting on the Gaborik-Carcillo incident).
Oncle Boris is offline  
Old December 26, 2003, 22:05   #333
Oncle Boris
Mac
Emperor
 
Oncle Boris's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Directly from the FART international airport
Posts: 3,045
Quote:
Originally posted by Q Cubed
nothing. he's still wrong.
Hey Q-Cubed?

Seems like you liked my quote about democracy, since it's your sig.

Really, I'd like you to remember that the dictatorship side-debate was a JOKE, based on linguistics. We all know that demo-cracy means "power of the people". That was just a pretext for a laugh, not something I really believe.

Please, your sig will just give me a bad reputation in these forums. But then, if that's your goal, here's a new quote that you'll prefer:

The Holocaust is just a minor detail in History.


No context around it. Use it as you see fit.
__________________
"Now you're gonna ask me, is it an enforcer's job to drop the gloves against the other team's best player? Well sure no, but you've gotta know, these guys, they don't think like you and me." (Joël Bouchard, commenting on the Gaborik-Carcillo incident).
Oncle Boris is offline  
Old December 26, 2003, 22:15   #334
Oerdin
Deity
 
Oerdin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In a bamboo forest hiding from Dale.
Posts: 17,436
Fake Boris & Tripledoc: Now would be an excellent time to stop making yourselves look foolish. Stop digging deeper before you reach Fez's level.
__________________
Christianity is the belief in a cosmic Jewish zombie who can give us eternal life if we symbolically eat his flesh and blood and telepathically tell him that we accept him as our lord and master so he can remove an evil force present in all humanity because a woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from an apple tree.
Oerdin is offline  
Old December 26, 2003, 22:23   #335
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Hehe... Fez levels. Indeed, Oerdin. FakeBoris does not realize that there is no such thing as a choice without absense of coercion. So when he sees that people must get a job which pays little (think McDonald's) or else they will starve, he considers this a great injustice. Democracy itself is a coercive system and yet this coercion is against democracy. Very Fez like indeed.
__________________
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old December 26, 2003, 22:24   #336
Kingof the Apes
Civilization III Democracy Game
Prince
 
Kingof the Apes's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Call me KOTA
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Hey Q-Cubed?

Seems like you liked my quote about democracy, since it's your sig.

Really, I'd like you to remember that the dictatorship side-debate was a JOKE, based on linguistics. We all know that demo-cracy means "power of the people". That was just a pretext for a laugh, not something I really believe.

Please, your sig will just give me a bad reputation in these forums. But then, if that's your goal, here's a new quote that you'll prefer:

The Holocaust is just a minor detail in History.


No context around it. Use it as you see fit.
...Says the one who sports a sig attempting to make Henry Tuttle look bad? Although the truth of his argument was not only proved by the dictionary, but in your above post.(Democracy is power of the people.) I'm not saying that its wrong to have such a sig, but if you're going to dish it out, you'd better be able to take it.
Out of context quotes are funny, deal with it. Don't worry about your reputation, that is determined by how you post.
__________________
I'm going to rub some stakes on my face and pour beer on my chest while I listen Guns'nRoses welcome to the jungle and watch porno. Lesbian porno.
Supercitzen Pekka
Kingof the Apes is offline  
Old December 27, 2003, 02:19   #337
Oncle Boris
Mac
Emperor
 
Oncle Boris's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Directly from the FART international airport
Posts: 3,045
Quote:
Originally posted by Kingof the Apes

...Says the one who sports a sig attempting to make Henry Tuttle look bad? Although the truth of his argument was not only proved by the dictionary, but in your above post.(Democracy is power of the people.) I'm not saying that its wrong to have such a sig, but if you're going to dish it out, you'd better be able to take it.
Out of context quotes are funny, deal with it. Don't worry about your reputation, that is determined by how you post.
It's allright with me. Don't you see the humour with which I dealt the situation? Smileys and an Holocaust quote?
__________________
"Now you're gonna ask me, is it an enforcer's job to drop the gloves against the other team's best player? Well sure no, but you've gotta know, these guys, they don't think like you and me." (Joël Bouchard, commenting on the Gaborik-Carcillo incident).
Oncle Boris is offline  
Old December 27, 2003, 02:30   #338
Oncle Boris
Mac
Emperor
 
Oncle Boris's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Directly from the FART international airport
Posts: 3,045
Quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hehe... Fez levels. Indeed, Oerdin. FakeBoris does not realize that there is no such thing as a choice without absense of coercion. So when he sees that people must get a job which pays little (think McDonald's) or else they will starve, he considers this a great injustice. Democracy itself is a coercive system and yet this coercion is against democracy. Very Fez like indeed.
Apparently, Rousseau and Marx agree with me on that one. OK... let's say I agree with them...

Now, is Democracy coercitive? Sure. The difference is that it's based on the asumption that everyone is willing to accept some in exchange for peace.
This is obviously not compatible with the idea of a Corporation, whose sole goal is to make profit. The democratic system has to impose the compromises on them, because they won't on their own. (indiciduals are not perfect, but usually they are not nearly as bad as corps, just because you would have to be one dumbass to base your existence on a single, inaleniable objective like a company does) And, of course, because of a lack of political will from the Western world (that I've taken great care in explaining), no one is making the effort to enforce those compromises...
I'm not falling into the trap anymore. But I've come to the realization that your arguments are much more based on acceptance of the facts than real reasoning. You are exactly the kind of person who would be pissed and angry if you were born on the bad site of the Earth.

And you have not replied to the Quebec GDP argument. Since I was so obviously right on that particular one (I admit of not being on some other points) I take it that you give up on it?
__________________
"Now you're gonna ask me, is it an enforcer's job to drop the gloves against the other team's best player? Well sure no, but you've gotta know, these guys, they don't think like you and me." (Joël Bouchard, commenting on the Gaborik-Carcillo incident).
Oncle Boris is offline  
Old December 27, 2003, 10:19   #339
JohnT
lifer
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
JohnT's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,264

Quote:
Honestly, Oncle. Let me ask you a question: what could I or anyone say that would make you change your mind?
Quote:
Hmmmm... got me on that one....

I still don't know if it was out of bore, refusal to concede some points, or plain bad understanding of my texts.
Talk about misunderstanding! Oncle, the reason I'm not debating you is that it is a fruitless effort, akin to . Why should I waste my life trying to "prove" something that you are admittedly not going to accept? Why bother trying to mold your opinion when your opinion is set?

There is no changing your mind, ergo, there is no need for me to try to change it. QED.
JohnT is offline  
Old December 27, 2003, 10:52   #340
BeBro
Emperor
 
BeBro's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,278
Come on, we´re at Poly here. The forum would go downhill if everyone would share your view
__________________
Banana
BeBro is offline  
Old December 27, 2003, 14:50   #341
Oncle Boris
Mac
Emperor
 
Oncle Boris's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Directly from the FART international airport
Posts: 3,045
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnT



Talk about misunderstanding! Oncle, the reason I'm not debating you is that it is a fruitless effort, akin to . Why should I waste my life trying to "prove" something that you are admittedly not going to accept? Why bother trying to mold your opinion when your opinion is set?

There is no changing your mind, ergo, there is no need for me to try to change it. QED.
C'mon John. I am not a zealot. Many people have convinced me to change my views in the last few years about a lot of things (such as death penalty, health care privatization, and drug legalization). I might be so young in fact (as you like to claim!), that it may still be time!

Really, something bugs me. If you think you can't change my views... then you must be somewhat conceding me that they have some strong basis... not indestructible, but certainly not easily refuted neither.
You don't have to waste any more time if you don't like to. Enjoy yourself. The only thing I'd like you to keep in mind: yup, it is possible to convince me. And you can't convince me of the opposite!
__________________
"Now you're gonna ask me, is it an enforcer's job to drop the gloves against the other team's best player? Well sure no, but you've gotta know, these guys, they don't think like you and me." (Joël Bouchard, commenting on the Gaborik-Carcillo incident).
Oncle Boris is offline  
Old December 27, 2003, 15:24   #342
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
Quote:
Really, something bugs me. If you think you can't change my views... then you must be somewhat conceding me that they have some strong basis... not indestructible, but certainly not easily refuted neither.
or that you're a stubborn sob
__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline  
Old December 27, 2003, 18:21   #343
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Quote:
The difference is that it's based on the asumption that everyone is willing to accept some in exchange for peace.
Everyone is willing to accept some coercion in exchange for wealth.

Quote:
The democratic system has to impose the compromises on them, because they won't on their own.
So Ben & Jerry's never tried to give to charities? So Starbucks doesn't advertise that it engages in 'fair trade'? Was this forced on them by the government?

Quote:
But I've come to the realization that your arguments are much more based on acceptance of the facts than real reasoning.
Since my arguments are more reasoned than yours, what does that make you?

Quote:
nd you have not replied to the Quebec GDP argument. Since I was so obviously right on that particular one


No, you were NOT right! Immigrants are a drain as well as a benefit (are you saying they don't take advantage of your nationalized health care?). You keep dodging that obvious point. You have yet to show that the immigrants in the rest of Canada are more prosperous than Quebec's immigrants and that makes up for the amount of government services THEY require. I mean, really, you can't say immigration is the factor that explains Quebec's pitiful GDP growth without proof that it is so.
__________________
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old December 29, 2003, 01:12   #344
Oncle Boris
Mac
Emperor
 
Oncle Boris's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Directly from the FART international airport
Posts: 3,045
Quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Everyone is willing to accept some coercion in exchange for wealth.
Yes, ask the sweatshop kids and the Chinese workers who get paid 2$ a day for 10 hours work. They love this kind of coercion. So much, in fact, that the recent history of the world is not about the US supporting and sending weapons to regimes keen on brutalizing the working class to get them to work.
If you really, really don't want to believe me on that one, then know I'll be bringing another thread dedicated to this in a few weeks, when I have more time.
(For now, just consider the Pinochet coup, which was directly orchestrated by Kissinger, on behalf of American mining corporations operating in Chile. Hell, they even GAVE 1 million$ to fund the operation).
(I also suggest you read some history books about Vietnam. I'm not kidding: the US strategy was to destroy the country in order to terrorize other guerillas throughout the world. And it worked quite well).

Quote:
So Ben & Jerry's never tried to give to charities? So Starbucks doesn't advertise that it engages in 'fair trade'? Was this forced on them by the government?
No it was not, and it never was, and that's probably the reason
1. They are just starting doing it now and (EDIT: STARBUCKS. the charity arguments come later)
2. They are ADVERTISING it. Think a second. They are advertising "fair trade". Like "fair trade" was not an ABSOLUTE necessity. You know how low you've gone when you're doing this.
What you probably don't realize is that "fair trade" is a calculation. For companies like Starbucks, it is a market like any other, and they are entering it because they don't want to lose it. Not much for the product sales (as it is now, fair trade is anything but significant), but rather for the reputation loss they would incur. As you say yourself, their duty is towards the shareholders. Which means they wouldn't be doing it if they thought it was detrimental to their obligations.

(I'm not saying this is any wrong; I'm just saying that the duty towards society should come before the duty towards profit. Think of is as a "social contract" surpasses private contracts reasoning. And, of course, it can't work if we are not enforcing this properly, since a corporation is a private contract between shareholders... well, sorta.)

Also consider that Starbucks is at the end of the coffee trade anyway, so they don't have much to lose. I'm sure they're not as prone to advertise such things as minimum wage increases in the US... Similarly, ask the coffee importers what they think of fair trade.
I've seen companies spend more on advertising the donations than on the donations themselves, which is quite telling.

Now let's talk about charity. Notwithstanding that you are dodging my first argument, which was based on a right-wing research institute to demonstrate that private charity amounts only to an insignificant part of state-regulated wealth redistribution, we'll have to ask the real question.
The first evidence is that corporate charity only obeys PR needs. After all, it's the shareholder's money, and it's not the enterprise's to give away, right?
The second one is that corporations, if they were really defending social welfare through charity, would cease to complain each time their taxes rise (Bush's last tax cut was directed towards corporations and the rich), and would stop lobbying for reduction of work regulations, corporate taxes, and welfare giveaways. Because obviously this kind of "charity" is much more significant than the private one. Of course, this will never happen, because the private donations will always be sexier. I'm sure you wouldn't expect a company to advertise: "hey citizens, buy our cars because we pay our taxes!".
The third point is related: The rich and the enterprises do everything to avoid paying taxes, whether the means be legal, questionable, or illegal.
Tax evasion amounts to 10-20% of Western GDPs, while charity donations are only 0.5-3%. If the individuals behind the corporations and the corporations themselves supported in any way charity, they would just pay their taxes. But they are not doing it, and the government is not doing much to prevent them, mainly because they are intrinsicly tied to the financial elite. (Prime example: the new Canadian premier has a company registered in the Bahamas...)(Prime example 2: the Defense Minister was chief economist of the largest bank in Canada...)(Empirical evidence: I know some very rich persons who are evading tax like crazy, and have no qualms about it).

Quote:
Since my arguments are more reasoned than yours, what does that make you?
Sometimes I wonder whether you're a paralogism specialist or a brilliant humorist.


Quote:
No, you were NOT right! Immigrants are a drain as well as a benefit (are you saying they don't take advantage of your nationalized health care?). You keep dodging that obvious point. You have yet to show that the immigrants in the rest of Canada are more prosperous than Quebec's immigrants and that makes up for the amount of government services THEY require. I mean, really, you can't say immigration is the factor that explains Quebec's pitiful GDP growth without proof that it is so.
No. You DO NOT understand. Before I bring this case to Poly justice with a separate thread, I'm giving you your last chance. And I fail to see how I am dodging anything right now. Feel free to explain it further if my answers do not satisfy you

I don't have to show that the immigrants in the ROC (rest of Canada) are more prosperous than Quebec's ones. I only have to show that they are just as prosperous, because they are simply more numerous there than in Quebec.
Maybe these quotes from Satistics Canada will help you:


Quote:
Real GDP per capita is the most widely used indicator of national standards of living.
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rma/eppi-ib...s_e.asp?id=gdp

Quote:
When real GDP is growing near its long-term potential growth rate—a rate which, in turn, is determined by the underlying growth of the labour force and the capital stock, and the pace of technological change—then the economy is generally in good shape.
http://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/gdp2.html

So? The only way you can defend your point is by pretending that immigration is an hindrance to the growth of the GDP per capita. Still then, you would need to admit that GDP per capita is the true number you need to take into account when comparing different countries' growth.

But I've done some browsing, and my research showed that:
1. Immigration can only result in a GDP growth. No one can produce 0$ of wealth in a year. Even if it was just an increase of social welfare spendings, it still would result in a GDP growth.
2. Economists are divided about the GDP per capita thing. Some studies claim immigration is beneficial both to the raw and to the per capita GDP, while others (though a minority) claim it only helps the raw GDP but hinders genuine, per capita growth.
3. You also need to consider consumer prices. And while raw growth as percentage points do take this into account, the graph you provided only showed increases in DOLLARS, whose graphical superiority is also explained by higher expenses to buy the same goods.
Therefore, you can't deduce the true growth from the numbers provided. You would have to find a table that also gives inflation rates.

Conclusion: if the per capita GDP growth of Quebec is the same as Ontario, then they have been doing just fine.
__________________
"Now you're gonna ask me, is it an enforcer's job to drop the gloves against the other team's best player? Well sure no, but you've gotta know, these guys, they don't think like you and me." (Joël Bouchard, commenting on the Gaborik-Carcillo incident).
Oncle Boris is offline  
Old December 29, 2003, 20:54   #345
Q Classic
Emperor
 
Q Classic's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The cities of Orly and Nowai
Posts: 4,228
oncle boris: i know it was a joke. it's still a good quote to put there. as for the holocaust one, that one's just trying too hard.
at least you have someone else quoting you. some posters quote themselves, like *cough* riddler_new *cough*.

anyway:

Quote:
Yes, ask the sweatshop kids and the Chinese workers who get paid 2$ a day for 10 hours work. They love this kind of coercion. So much, in fact, that the recent history of the world is not about the US supporting and sending weapons to regimes keen on brutalizing the working class to get them to work.
look, nobody's saying that the kids in sweatshops is a good thing. i see it as a necessary evil: industrialization is a brutal process, and unless you plan on forking of millions if not billions of dollars to leapfrog these third-world economies into first-world/information economies, they're going to have to go through the tough and brutal process that is industrialization and modernization.
sure the us government has done some nasty things. but i challenge you to show me any government in a position similar to america's, with that sort of superpower status, that itself didn't do some nasty things to ensure its position in the world. it'd be nice if the world operated on principles beyond realism, but it doesn't. you're going to have powers espousing values other than what they practice: do as i say, not as i do. sure it'd be nice to have economies grow up without having to go through industrialization: but it costs money--money they don't have, money that others aren't quite willing to give, and time for those investments to start paying dividends.

the problem is when you try to force people to do things they don't want to do, you create resentment. you try and force some of those american megacorps, or even transnationals, to be kinder and gentler, if they think the cost is too much, they'll drop the market. sucks, but that's the way the world works.
__________________
B♭3
Q Classic is offline  
Old December 29, 2003, 21:14   #346
Oncle Boris
Mac
Emperor
 
Oncle Boris's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Directly from the FART international airport
Posts: 3,045
Quote:
Originally posted by Q Cubed
oncle boris: i know it was a joke. it's still a good quote to put there. as for the holocaust one, that one's just trying too hard.
at least you have someone else quoting you. some posters quote themselves, like *cough* riddler_new *cough*.

anyway:
look, nobody's saying that the kids in sweatshops is a good thing. i see it as a necessary evil: industrialization is a brutal process, and unless you plan on forking of millions if not billions of dollars to leapfrog these third-world economies into first-world/information economies, they're going to have to go through the tough and brutal process that is industrialization and modernization.
sure the us government has done some nasty things. but i challenge you to show me any government in a position similar to america's, with that sort of superpower status, that itself didn't do some nasty things to ensure its position in the world. it'd be nice if the world operated on principles beyond realism, but it doesn't. you're going to have powers espousing values other than what they practice: do as i say, not as i do. sure it'd be nice to have economies grow up without having to go through industrialization: but it costs money--money they don't have, money that others aren't quite willing to give, and time for those investments to start paying dividends.

the problem is when you try to force people to do things they don't want to do, you create resentment. you try and force some of those american megacorps, or even transnationals, to be kinder and gentler, if they think the cost is too much, they'll drop the market. sucks, but that's the way the world works.
What you are saying here certainly makes some sense. What I despise the most, however, is how the propaganda describes the brutal industrialization as an altruistic and necessary tool towards democracy, while it is obviously not. And yes, America is not any more evil than any empire has been throughout history- which is, to say the least, not much bright anyway.

The point I am defending is that as the West is rich right now, we can afford to save the third world a good part of the suffering our population went through until the 1950s. And, though our values are supposed to be justice and all, no one seems to be defending them outside of its borders.

And now to Corporations. They will continue to exist as long as there is a profit to be made. Using our political rights, we do have the power to enforce some form of wealth redistribution that can be a compromise between profitabilty and justice. Of course, imposing an international minimal wage of 5$ will just ruin all the poor countries. But given that millions still only earn less than 2$ a day, can we really say there is nothing to be done? Do you really think the big boys will stop moving unskilled jobs to China if they have to pay their workers 0,40$ an hour instead of 0,32$ ? In both cases, the savings are so huge that I doubt they will incur the costs of going back to America just to protest against the 8 cents rise.
There is some kind of pragmatic and realistic things we can do to ease the process, without ruining the corporations while helping a little bit the poor. And I don't think there is any such thing as retroactive suffering. My grandfather went to jail because he tried to unionize his shop, and I don't wish this to happen to anyone else in the world. Solidarity is certainly not about sharing the pain!

I tend to think that my point of view is moderate and that we can hardly be against such common sense. But hell, it seems like I must be wrong.

EDIT: sure, we can't leapfrog them towards first class economies. But a few cents mean much more to a Chinese peasant than an American CEO.
__________________
"Now you're gonna ask me, is it an enforcer's job to drop the gloves against the other team's best player? Well sure no, but you've gotta know, these guys, they don't think like you and me." (Joël Bouchard, commenting on the Gaborik-Carcillo incident).
Oncle Boris is offline  
Old December 29, 2003, 21:21   #347
Ned
King
 
Ned's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Aptos, CA
Posts: 2,596
We ALL know that the left does not care about the long hours or hard working conditions of people in the third world. What they care about is the United States sending jobs to the third world because that undercuts the left's ability to impose high wages on American society in exchange for less productivity.

Doubt this?

When is the last time the left complained about bad working conditions in the third world outside the context of American business? When have they called for a boycott of products produced in the third world by companies other than US companies?
__________________
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en
Ned is offline  
Old December 29, 2003, 21:27   #348
Ned
King
 
Ned's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Aptos, CA
Posts: 2,596
Proves my point:

Quote:
From Oncle Boris:
" Do you really think the big boys will stop moving unskilled jobs to China if they have to pay their workers 0,40$ an hour instead of 0,32$ ?"
__________________
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en
Ned is offline  
Old December 29, 2003, 21:28   #349
JohnT
lifer
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
JohnT's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,264
They don't, Ned. Apparently we Americans are the only ones capable of forming corporate entities or something...
JohnT is offline  
Old December 29, 2003, 21:43   #350
Oncle Boris
Mac
Emperor
 
Oncle Boris's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Directly from the FART international airport
Posts: 3,045
Quote:
Originally posted by Ned
We ALL know that the left does not care about the long hours or hard working conditions of people in the third world. What they care about is the United States sending jobs to the third world because that undercuts the left's ability to impose high wages on American society in exchange for less productivity.

Doubt this?

When is the last time the left complained about bad working conditions in the third world outside the context of American business? When have they called for a boycott of products produced in the third world by companies other than US companies?
True, the issue of moving jobs from the US to the rest of the world is very sensitive, and it is about in fact the only point on which you can truly accuse the left of bad intent.

However, even though I don't expect you to rememeber everything I say, I did write somewhere on this post that the American unions formed international syndicates to prevent the loss of their own jobs. In any case, the disrepancy between Western salaries vs the rest of the world is so huge that the incentive to move jobs away will stay for a long, very long time.

What I am denouncing is the huge power the new capitalist oligarchs are pitting against governments throughout the world- because they have absolutely no intent to bring reasonable working conditions to their third class employees. In just too much countries, the army and the police are mere tools to dissuade the workers from forming unions and protesting.

So? If we want a fair globalization, it's our job to watch the corporations. Don't forget, it took wars, massacres and revolutions to get us what we have right now. Why not act now, in a peaceful way, to spare the trouble to 5 billion humans?
__________________
"Now you're gonna ask me, is it an enforcer's job to drop the gloves against the other team's best player? Well sure no, but you've gotta know, these guys, they don't think like you and me." (Joël Bouchard, commenting on the Gaborik-Carcillo incident).
Oncle Boris is offline  
Old December 29, 2003, 21:53   #351
Ned
King
 
Ned's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Aptos, CA
Posts: 2,596
OB, I have NO idea why you are saying what you are saying about US companies (as opposed to companies from other countries). It is very the case that US companies always bring with them better working conditions than the worker could find working in other jobs in their country. What happens is that the people begin to demand the same conditions elsewhere after they get a taste. And, they usually get it -- as witnessed by the gradual upgrade in the conditions of Thailand, Singapore and China.
__________________
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en
Ned is offline  
Old December 29, 2003, 21:53   #352
Oncle Boris
Mac
Emperor
 
Oncle Boris's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Directly from the FART international airport
Posts: 3,045
Quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Proves my point:
Do you know of many corporations based in the third world that are selling in the US?

No, and you've got the reason: it's called economic colonization. So, the left is concentrating its protests against Western companies because we do have power over them, because they do have the means to pay their workers a bit more, and because THEY are the ones who are either buying goods produced under quasi-slavery, or outright producing them in sweatshops.

There is not much we can do directly for the little boy selling oranges in the village market. But there is something we can do about American grocers buying it from the distributor. And guess what? If the little boy's parents get more from the American groceries, then he'll be going to school instead of selling the surplus on the local market.

And what then? Enriching part of a population will help enrich the other part which is producing only for the local market. Don't try to tell me the right holds the altruistic position here.
And BTW, before the trade agreement between Mexico, Canada and the US, wages in local Mexican industries were better than those in the sweatshops.
__________________
"Now you're gonna ask me, is it an enforcer's job to drop the gloves against the other team's best player? Well sure no, but you've gotta know, these guys, they don't think like you and me." (Joël Bouchard, commenting on the Gaborik-Carcillo incident).
Oncle Boris is offline  
Old December 29, 2003, 22:00   #353
Oncle Boris
Mac
Emperor
 
Oncle Boris's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Directly from the FART international airport
Posts: 3,045
Quote:
Originally posted by Ned
OB, I have NO idea why you are saying what you are saying about US companies (as opposed to companies from other countries). It is very the case that US companies always bring with them better working conditions than the worker could find working in other jobs in their country. What happens is that the people begin to demand the same conditions elsewhere after they get a taste. And, they usually get it -- as witnessed by the gradual upgrade in the conditions of Thailand, Singapore and China.
This is false. Globalization is far from having an only successful record. Yes, it did work in some places. Not because the corporations were any help. Because the local governments did it in their own, prudent way. (Think of Korea). Deregulation policies have also had their share of bad effects. And what is the US (AND their allies, how many times do I have to repeat) doing? Imposing their own policies, which are usually way too prematurate to be of any help. They are defending their own interests, period. And these interests, given the money needed by the democratic election process, will always stay within the range of corporate donations.
__________________
"Now you're gonna ask me, is it an enforcer's job to drop the gloves against the other team's best player? Well sure no, but you've gotta know, these guys, they don't think like you and me." (Joël Bouchard, commenting on the Gaborik-Carcillo incident).
Oncle Boris is offline  
Old December 30, 2003, 00:11   #354
Q Classic
Emperor
 
Q Classic's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The cities of Orly and Nowai
Posts: 4,228
Quote:
Not because the corporations were any help. Because the local governments did it in their own, prudent way. (Think of Korea).
can you explain what you mean here?
__________________
B♭3
Q Classic is offline  
Old December 30, 2003, 00:27   #355
Oncle Boris
Mac
Emperor
 
Oncle Boris's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Directly from the FART international airport
Posts: 3,045
Quote:
Originally posted by Q Cubed
Quote:
Not because the corporations were any help. Because the local governments did it in their own, prudent way. (Think of Korea).
can you explain what you mean here?
What I mean is that I got the understanding from reading fellow Apolytoners' posts that Korea indeed used protectionism on its key industries and only opened its market when they had become competitive enough.

I'm adding a comment here: remark that most countries that have known the successes of free market have done it by developping their own expertise and exportations, rather than letting the foreign sweatshops savagely exploit their workforce. That may be the explanation behind the success of Japan, Singapore, Korea, and the failure of Mexico, Argentina and the likes.
Are there any such things as Hynix, Hyundai, Sony, Mitsubishi in Latin America?

Put it another way: countries with a large internal market should use more protectionism because they got the means to develop their own competence and export it later, while smaller countries should open their market now to benefit from the foreign industries (because their economy can only be based on exports anyway).

I may be wrong, but it seems defendable to me.
__________________
"Now you're gonna ask me, is it an enforcer's job to drop the gloves against the other team's best player? Well sure no, but you've gotta know, these guys, they don't think like you and me." (Joël Bouchard, commenting on the Gaborik-Carcillo incident).
Oncle Boris is offline  
Old December 30, 2003, 00:29   #356
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
defensible

(sorry to nitpick )
__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline  
Old December 30, 2003, 00:32   #357
JohnT
lifer
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
JohnT's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,264
I agree with OB on this one: protectionism and excessive tariffs are a valid policy to use with developing countries and was used quite extensively in the US in the 19th century to protect our developing market from being swamped by European manufactures. I also think the argument used by another poster in another thread in re: to the size of the internal market viz protectionism has validity: for really small countries (Nicaragua was one of the examples given), protectionism is harmful as they are incapable of sustaining highly specialized industries, whereas for larger countries (Brazil) it does make sense.
JohnT is offline  
Old December 30, 2003, 02:00   #358
Q Classic
Emperor
 
Q Classic's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The cities of Orly and Nowai
Posts: 4,228
Quote:
What I mean is that I got the understanding from reading fellow Apolytoners' posts that Korea indeed used protectionism on its key industries and only opened its market when they had become competitive enough.
korea did use protectionism. however, to say that the corporations were no help (which is why i asked for the explanation--it wasn't too clear by what you'd said earlier) is absolutely ludicrous. why? if you go to korea today, you'll see that it's dominated by megacorps. to you, samsung only makes electronics. to koreans, samsung makes electronics, cars, clothes, chemicals, insurance, stock market securities, and oodles of other things.
furthermore, korea's economic miracle developed because of a close cooperation between corporations and government; similar to japan's success through MITI. government and the corporate were in bed to an extent that would make even american republicans blanche.

Quote:
I'm adding a comment here: remark that most countries that have known the successes of free market have done it by developping their own expertise and exportations, rather than letting the foreign sweatshops savagely exploit their workforce. That may be the explanation behind the success of Japan, Singapore, Korea, and the failure of Mexico, Argentina and the likes.
actually, skorea savagely exploited their own workforce in sweatshops. until the early 90s, much of korea's economy was based on sweatshop labor: textiles, knockoff electronics, and the like. the reason why mexico and argentina failed while korea, japan, and singapore did not is because the government and corporate world did everything together. that and corruption rates were lower: rather than taking a 50% cut of all contracts, they settled for a 10% cut.
not to mention that unions were not smiled upon in korea, and still aren't to a certain extent.

Quote:
Are there any such things as Hynix, Hyundai, Sony, Mitsubishi in Latin America?
hynix is currently bankrupt, and being kept alive only by government bailouts after a failed buyout attempt by micron. now, i'm glad hynix is still korean, but still. hynix is an offshoot of hyundai: used to be known as hyundai semiconductor. hyundai, btw, is also a big oozing megacorp, with tentacles in everything from shipbuilding to construction. i take it you're referring only to hyundai motor, the car company; which actually own both the hyundai motors and kia motors divisions. that's doing fine, while the hyundai group which they split off from is still facing a bit of a cash squeeze.

Quote:
Put it another way: countries with a large internal market should use more protectionism because they got the means to develop their own competence and export it later, while smaller countries should open their market now to benefit from the foreign industries (because their economy can only be based on exports anyway).
hmm? not sure what this means.
until after the asian financial crisis of '97, korea was export-driven. meaning, they had a tiny internal market. people didn't buy much: they had a 33% savings rate in the banks, which then loaned it out to the corporations, which then used it to build build build and sell to the world, not domestically. now korea's got a burgeoning domestic consumer market (and a burgeoning personal bankruptcy rate), but that's after it dropped a lot of the protectionist tactics. furthermore, before the '97 financial crisis, many of the ventures in korea were joint ventures--which, btw, allowed american and other foreign companies to bypass the protectionist barriers (SK-Enron and Samsung Corning are two such examples).
so, if you're referring to a large potential internal market, it makes sense--but then, many of those less developed nations also have large potential internal markets: indonesia, thailand, argentina, mexico, nigeria...

so, what i'm trying to say is that your initial post seemed to say that the korean economic growth occured primarily through the government, while corporations were of little help; rather, korea's economy grew from a partnership. protectionism only works if the government is willing to look the other way while giving blank checks to the corporations and allow them to ruthlessly use the populace to develop and build up.
__________________
B♭3
Q Classic is offline  
Old December 30, 2003, 02:03   #359
Q Classic
Emperor
 
Q Classic's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: The cities of Orly and Nowai
Posts: 4,228
now that i think about it, samsung electronics, part of the samsung group, is really the brightest shining star. the samsung group's survival in the aftermath of the crisis is in a large part due to samsung electronics. that's also how it leapfrogged from being the fourth largest chaebol (megacorp) to the largest, as daewoo (not just cars!) collapsed, hyundai split into different branches, and lg just kinda stayed in a holding pattern.
__________________
B♭3
Q Classic is offline  
Old December 30, 2003, 02:29   #360
Ramo
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Ramo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:57
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Fear and Oil
Posts: 5,892
Quote:
I agree with OB on this one: protectionism and excessive tariffs are a valid policy to use with developing countries and was used quite extensively in the US in the 19th century to protect our developing market from being swamped by European manufactures. I also think the argument used by another poster in another thread in re: to the size of the internal market viz protectionism has validity: for really small countries (Nicaragua was one of the examples given), protectionism is harmful as they are incapable of sustaining highly specialized industries, whereas for larger countries (Brazil) it does make sense.
I'd say that protectionism in general is a bad thing for developing states, even for large developing states. What's particularly harmful is protectionism between developing states which takes away what ought to be their natural markets - neighboring states, given transporation costs, etc.; OTOH, protectionism against developed states is much less important an issue. The reason why the US grew so quickly in the 19th century is not due to protectionist policies, which ended up hurting the majority of the population for most of the century - farmers, but a high immigration rate rapidly developing markets and capital.

Though I will say that protectionism for developing states in the form of reasonable taxes on capital transfers is for the most part a good thing for developing states as they'd prevent large-scale speculative capital flows (think the Asian Crisis a few years ago) or the pressuring of governments to take away nuissances like unions.
__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Ramo is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:57.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team