| Author |
Topic:
Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
7/18/07 4:00pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
So I guess I'm saying capitalisation in industrial countries could be a microcosm to globalisation's macrocosm, and thus a glitch that will be naturally diluted and self-corrected rather than something the ham-fist of well intentioned interventionalists could quickfix.
I would agree with you on philosophical grounds, but didn't industrial England also have universal provision and the rise of other government(public) services that replaced many privately held ones?
Why would globalisation not bring about its own "New Deal" or Gladstone?
I'm not suggesting it would be better if that happened. In fact, intervention might make things worse and delay self-correction.
BTW, you could also mention that India and China have rapidly growing middle-classes too. 
-----signature-----
It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
7/18/07 4:10pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
Well it did, but like you said it's impossible to say if they made it better or worse. Certainly the growth of the middle class in China and India without those provisions makes it possible that such protections can exist without the state's hand; I don't know if that would retroactively apply to capitalisation.
But also that middle class in China and India is what's bringing the Gini coefficient closer to 0.5.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
7/18/07 4:20pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
If I'm not mistaken, India's middle-class is as large or larger than the entire population of the U.S. 
And that's to say nothing of what China could see in a middle class.
It's amazing.
-----signature-----
It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
7/18/07 4:24pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
Well, China's strength now is in having a consumer population thats roughly the size of the US' entire population with a manufacturing base of half-a-billion at the bare minimum. Convert some of that poor manufacturing base capacity to middle class services, and yeah, wow.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
7/18/07 4:41pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
- Date Edited:
7/18/07 4:45pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
ShaneP
|
And with increased consumer(buying) power will follow technological, environmental and health improvements. People will be able to take care of their families and their surroundings better. Technology will be utilised to operate cleaner and more efficient energy. Improved health will come about by being able to purchase medicines and invest in better quality of life.
The environment will improve with more efficient farming methods(which are pretty remarkable there already IMHO). Habitat for wildlife will actually grow, not decrease.
edit
Isn't it interesting that the most successful revolutions(or evolutions)come, not from the bottom up, but from the middle out? The landed class changes all.
-----signature-----
It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
7/19/07 11:15am
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
The way I see it, if it hadn't been for some pretty heavy handed government intervention and workers using their political power, the initial inequality of capitalist countries could have persisted. Worker protections and the like didn't just spring up out of nowhere once a middle class came into existence. It would be much easier if we had a world government, but we know we need to regulate the market in domestic society and I think we need to find ways we can realistically do this on an international level. England couldn't tolerate that level of inequality now, and the neo-Marxist in me says that if the workers had never developed a trade-union conciousness, it is reasonable to think they might have got sick of the system and reacted violently.
While yes Asia's growth has had a huge impact on the Gini coefficent, there is still the problem that Africa is still being left behind.
I don't really know what we can do to stabalize societies that globalization affects, but I don't think we can really sit back and say "well our capitalist ancestors figured it out, so they will too."
And ShaneP, I don't know about that last post. Although I don't agree with a lot of what he says, Garrett Hardin in "The Tradegy of the Commons" demonstrates pretty effectively that there is no technical solution to the problem of ever increasing populations on a finite resource or world. While technology might help us raise our effectiveness in using the earth, there will always be a finite carrying capacity. Now I don't think we need to coerce people into not having kids like he does, but we do need to realize that technology is not the ultimate solution.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
7/19/07 2:51pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
Neo-Marxist? 
I'd have thought you smarter than that. 
Leninism I coudl understand, at the least.
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
7/21/07 11:24am
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
ESP
Although I don't agree with a lot of what he says, Garrett Hardin in "The Tradegy of the Commons" demonstrates pretty effectively that there is no technical solution to the problem of ever increasing populations on a finite resource or world.
Then maybe he could explain how the most developed, technologically advanced, and free marketist economies of the world have lower infant mortality, higher average lifespans, yet lower birthrates and pop growth than developing countries.
-----signature-----
It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
7/21/07 2:16pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
While that is a valid critique of his argument, my point is that through technology alone we cannot solve the basic problem that we have a finite world. Technology itself is not the answer, and is not the reason why rich countries are producing less children or why poor ones are producing more.
I can't decide on an ideology, all of them make some sense at some level and none of them explain everything.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
ShaneP
Registered:
Mar '01
|
Date Posted:
7/24/07 4:41pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
- Date Edited:
7/24/07 4:46pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
ShaneP
|
Espaldapalabras posted:
While that is a valid critique of his argument, my point is that through technology alone we cannot solve the basic problem that we have a finite world. Technology itself is not the answer, and is not the reason why rich countries are producing less children or why poor ones are producing more.
Oh, I agree that technology by itself is not the answer. But, developed countries tend to have better educated and more informed citizenry, more environmentally sound regulatory schemes, and stronger democratic institutions that all help to alleviate population growth and environmental degradation problems better than any other.
Espaldapalabras posted:
I can't decide on an ideology
Me either. What's more important to me is:
What does it mean when it's put into practice? What is the result? What does it mean for the relationship between the individual and the community?
And if you can't fully embrace any idealogy then just don't. Make your own.
-----signature-----
It was as if a million middle-aged virgins just farted with rage and were suddenly silenced.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dizfactor
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
7/25/07 10:45pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
Espaldapalabras posted:
While that is a valid critique of his argument, my point is that through technology alone we cannot solve the basic problem that we have a finite world.
Sort of. Yes, resources are technically finite. However, the efficiency with which they are used is not fixed, and increases in efficiency can, have, and most likely will continue to dramatically change how much X we get out of resource Y, which essentially creates free resources where they didn't exist before.
Espaldapalabras posted:
Technology itself ... is not the reason why rich countries are producing less children or why poor ones are producing more.
Yes, it is. Low-tech societies have higher rates of infant mortality, shorter lifespans, more demand for unskilled labor, and crappier education systems, which make having a lot of children your best evolutionary strategy. High-tech societies have lower rates of infant mortality, longer lifespans, more demand for skilled labor, and better education systems, which make having a few children and investing a lot of resources into them your best evolutionary strategy.
-----signature-----
"Play is going to be for the 21st century what steam was to the 19th century."
Julian Dibbell
"You gotta love an elite killing force that you can fool by putting on a hat."
Gryph
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
7/26/07 12:45am
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
I don't think so. With the creation of the welfare state, I would think it is still the best "evolutionary" strategy to have even more kids than before because others will end up feeding them anyways. So I don't think it has anything to do with survival of your genes, but perhaps if you want your kids to take care of you it might be best to have fewer.
I also disagree that less developed nations are so because they have less technology. Perhaps in the past technology is what helped developed nations become so, but the way you phrased it suggests that the solution to all the world's problems is simply a matter of spreading technology. Africa has had the basic techology for an industrial revolution for at least a century, but it has lacked, among other things, is the human capital and civil institutions to effectively use it.
I suppose I view technology as being dependent upon the creation of civil society, rather than the cause of it. What caused the renaissance?
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dizfactor
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
7/26/07 9:20am
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
Espaldapalabras posted:
I don't think so. With the creation of the welfare state, I would think it is still the best "evolutionary" strategy to have even more kids than before because others will end up feeding them anyways. So I don't think it has anything to do with survival of your genes, but perhaps if you want your kids to take care of you it might be best to have fewer.
You don't understand evolution. It's not solely about raw numbers.
Espaldapalabras posted:
I suppose I view technology as being dependent upon the creation of civil society, rather than the cause of it. What caused the renaissance?
The development of double-entry bookkeeping. Basically.
-----signature-----
"Play is going to be for the 21st century what steam was to the 19th century."
Julian Dibbell
"You gotta love an elite killing force that you can fool by putting on a hat."
Gryph
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Rogue_Follower
Title: Manager: Literature
Registered:
Nov '03
|
Date Posted:
7/26/07 6:46pm
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
diz is right, I think. The more wealth a society has, the fewer children its people have per-family. There was a story about this on NPR the other day, where the commentators were discussing how this is happening "too early" in China, where the one-child-per-family policy has reduced the number of births, yet most Chinese families are not wealthy enough for the single children to properly support their elderly parents and grandparents alone. 
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Espaldapalabras
Registered:
Aug '05
|
Date Posted:
7/27/07 12:18am
Subject:
RE: Free Trade vs Protectionism
|
Of course it isn't just about raw numbers, but in a welfare state where your children will reproduce pretty much no matter what, regardless of their income level, the best decision that will spread your genes is having as many children as possible. Of course the numbers of children are going down in rich nations, I just don't think it can be tied to any evolutionary cause designed to keep your genes going. It has everything to do with what your kids can do for you, and not much to do with if you want to have a bunch of little yous running around in the future. The economic desire that leads both poor to have lots of kids and the rich to have fewer is what it is.
It is the natural tendency for animals to not pay attention to the carrying capacity of their environment, and I don't know of any species that reproduces in order to secure its own survival, and while yes many species have fewer children so they can better take care of them, usually they do so when they lack the resources or energy to have many, not when they have so much resources they decide they only need a few. I don't claim to be a biologist, and I admit most of my knowledge of animal behavior comes from PBS documentaries, but in general I think these things are true, and it makes sense that if you know all your offspring will survive, you would want to have as many as possible.
-----signature-----
A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Theodore Roosevelt
We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
