Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
You seem to claim we should look after others first - the most needy specifically. That's been tried, and it doesn't work. When you help the needy at the expense of the rest, everyone eventually becomes needy.


You've lost track of the point. It was about free trade not charity. Are you saying trading with poor people makes more people poor?

How are we doing now? Are trade restrictions on poor countries too little, too much or about right?

.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
You seem to claim we should look after others first - the most needy specifically. That's been tried, and it doesn't work. When you help the needy at the expense of the rest, everyone eventually becomes needy.


You've lost track of the point. It was about free trade not charity. Are you saying trading with poor people makes more people poor?


In many countries, that is exactly what has happened. Other events factor in too - population growth and decolonization for example. But there are many places in the world worse off today than they were in the 1960's - i.e. most of sub-Saharan Africa as an example.

Originally Posted By: kallog

How are we doing now? Are trade restrictions on poor countries too little, too much or about right?


We're doing the wrong things. Instead of helping build local businesses and economies, thus developing these nations, we're instead letting big multinationals who prey off of the low labour costs.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
We're doing the wrong things. Instead of helping build local businesses and economies, thus developing these nations, we're instead letting big multinationals who prey off of the low labour costs.


'prey'? An inappropriate word. Where I live we love it that big multinationals 'prey' off our low labour costs. We try to keep our currency low so we can be preyed on more. Oh and its making people steadily richer and richer! Sure there are local exporting companies too, which are a major part of it (and treat their workers even worse). But they can't do it all by themselves.

Wow, did you notice what I just said? Local companies treating their workers worse than big multinationals. I thought local business was a good thing?!! Why do poor people prefer to work for big multinationals? Oh yes, they can get paid more and treated better.

So you acknowledge that international trade hasn't _caused_ people to be worse off in poor countries. Sure that may have happened, but it was for other reasons.

That's quite an important step. It means blocking trade may not help people. Haha that sound almost funny - blocking trade is how countries try to punish each other. It's surely a bad thing in almost every case.

What's really bad is local political problems. But we probably shouldn't go there.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
We're doing the wrong things. Instead of helping build local businesses and economies, thus developing these nations, we're instead letting big multinationals who prey off of the low labour costs.


'prey'? An inappropriate word. Where I live we love it that big multinationals 'prey' off our low labour costs. We try to keep our currency low so we can be preyed on more. Oh and its making people steadily richer and richer! Sure there are local exporting companies too, which are a major part of it (and treat their workers even worse). But they can't do it all by themselves.


So you're basing your opinion on an n = 1? You may want to travel to a few other countries before deciding these companies are universally beneficial. My experience is the opposite - as is the opinion of the CETIM, UNDP and several other 3rd world development organizations.

Originally Posted By: kallog

So you acknowledge that international trade hasn't _caused_ people to be worse off in poor countries. Sure that may have happened, but it was for other reasons.


I never agreed to that. Both I, and several developmental organizations, make the claim that multinational corporations tend to impede the formation of local economies, pay poorly, and decrease the overall quality of life of local residents.

Total income is a meaningless measure of quality of life, which is probably why you concentrate on it. A more valid concern is the meeting of basic needs - something which has become worse over the past 50 years, and something which is partly due to MNC involvement in 3rd world economies.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I never agreed to that. Both I, and several developmental organizations, make the claim that multinational corporations tend to impede the formation of local economies, pay poorly, and decrease the overall quality of life of local residents.


Byran I'm not going get dragged into your insult tactics. Instead just tell me the reason for the above. Tell me once and for all in one message. Don't use examples, don't appeal to authorities, don't mention me, just explain the reason.

I've been trying to find this out the entire conversation but you have never been able to say. I notice the rate of insults and bragging from you is increasing. Those are usually correlated with confusion about the topic.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I never agreed to that. Both I, and several developmental organizations, make the claim that multinational corporations tend to impede the formation of local economies, pay poorly, and decrease the overall quality of life of local residents.


Byran I'm not going get dragged into your insult tactics. Instead just tell me the reason for the above. Tell me once and for all in one message. Don't use examples, don't appeal to authorities, don't mention me, just explain the reason.

Its what I described before. The ability to meet ones basic needs is not dependent strictly on income. Farmers, for example, can meet their needs on (in theory) no monetary income.

The trend in much of the 3rd world has been towards LMC-industrialization (i.e. large, foreign companies move in to utilize cheap labor). The end effect is that many loose their farms (due to forced relocations, buy outs, inability to compete with corporate farms, urbanization, etc) and are forced to move to the city for low-paying manufacturing jobs - jobs which frequently pay less than the cost of living. What this means is that as these countries move from an agrarian to industrialized economy, many people loose their ability to meet their needs.

This is hardly a new phenomena. The history of the west's industrialization followed a similar track - people forced to move to cities ended up working for wages which were insufficient to meet their basic needs. Its the whole entire basis of the union movement, labor laws, etc.

The exact same thing is happening today in the 3rd world, and given that some countries figured out how to largely avoid this issue (Brazil, as an example. Kenya is also doing a good job [relative to its neighbors]).

Its simple - development of local industries and companies allows for the formation of a self-sufficient middle class. This is why so much development effort is going into things like micro-loans and local infrastructure development.

Originally Posted By: kallog

I've been trying to find this out the entire conversation but you have never been able to say.

I've said it numerous times, largely in posts #35942, #36110, #36133, #36185 and again in this post.

Originally Posted By: kellog
don't appeal to authorities

So what you are saying is you don't want evidence? The "authorities" I quoted are the two largest NGO's overseeing 3rd world development. They know far more than you or I ever could about the issues these countries face.

They both oppose LMC involvement in 3rd world economies, and support actions to build and develop local industries. And I'm sure you're somehow going to construe this as an insult, but I'll take the words of the experts over a pseudonym on the internet any day.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

many loose their farms (due to forced relocations

OK, there's a potential reason. But who's forcing them? The foreign company? The government under pressure from the foreign company?

Quote:

, buy outs,

Personal choice. Maybe even for the better, if not, too bad.

Quote:

inability to compete with corporate farms,

No need to compete if you're self sufficient.

Quote:

urbanization

Again, who's forcing them to move?

It sounds to me like foreign companies building factories and offering to hire local workers is not the problem at all. What's really the problem is somebody - maybe those companies, maybe the government, maybe someone else - is taking people's land.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

many loose their farms (due to forced relocations

OK, there's a potential reason. But who's forcing them? The foreign company? The government under pressure from the foreign company?

a, b, sometimes both, sometimes neither.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:
buy outs,

Personal choice. Maybe even for the better, if not, too bad.

Buyouts are not always voluntary. For a while, in Uganda (while I was there) buyouts were often structured as "we (company X) have bought your debt from the bank. Pay it off today, or give us your land".

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:
inability to compete with corporate farms,

No need to compete if you're self sufficient.

Unless, of course, you want to purchase something made from another farm, or buy any sort of goods. Even in primitive agrarian societies trade existed - an inability to compete with corporate farms removes even that.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:
urbanization

Again, who's forcing them to move?

Depends on the strength of the government.

Originally Posted By: kallog
It sounds to me like foreign companies building factories and offering to hire local workers is not the problem at all. What's really the problem is somebody - maybe those companies, maybe the government, maybe someone else - is taking people's land.

You're good at looking at one small part of the problem, rather than the whole. We're not talking just about farmland, but rather the effects LMC's have on the industrialization of 3rd world nations. These nations will industrialize no matter who is involved - most of them actively try to promote industrialization. So no matter what, people will move from farms to cities - maybe because they are seeking work, or maybe because they were forced to, or maybe because their farms are rendered redundant/uncompetitive. But no matter what, this is the inevitable effect of industrialization.

So the issue isn't that they are moving - its what happens after.

LMC's often pay less than a subsistence wage in 3rd world countries. Its the very reason many operate there - weak and corruptible governments, few/no labor laws, all-but-free employees. LMC involvement has also associated with failures to develop local industries, for as local "mom & pop" type operations cannot compete with a LMC.

This is a old and well understood problem. I'd recommend reading up on the post-1960's industrialization of nations like Brazil, that managed to break the stranglehold LMC's had on their economy. It both clearly illustrates the damage these types of corporations can do, and ways this can be avoided. I had a good book on this (circa early 2000's) - I'll see if its still kicking around my library and post the title/author for you.

Bryan

Last edited by ImagingGeek; 09/21/10 05:36 PM.

UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
OK, so finally you got to the point. LMCs bribe powerful local people to do otherwise illegal or unethical things.

The fault is mostly with those corrupt local people. The message should be "down with the Nigerian generals", or "down with corruption", but not "down with free trade". Free trade in itself isn't a problem, which is what I expected all along, and now you've agreed to.

But those politicians and generals don't have a big name, they don't have a presence in the west, they're anonymous and faceless to outsiders, so it's easier to forget them and find an easier target.



Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
This is a old and well understood problem. I'd recommend reading up on the post-1960's


No. All your reading has left you lazily following the same rhetoric as all the drug-smoking spoiled rich-kids.

Last edited by kallog; 09/22/10 06:27 AM.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
OK, so finally you got to the point. LMCs bribe powerful local people to do otherwise illegal or unethical things.

Once again, you've concentrated on one of the many problems at hand. Bribery is but one issue, and hardly a universal one. Poor wages, an inability of local industries to compete with LMC's, little/no legislation protecting workers, weak or ineffective enforcement of the law, and many other things feed into this.

Saying "bribes are the only problem" is akin to blaming WWII on the Australians - sure, they were involved, but they're only one tiny part of the equation...

Originally Posted By: kallog

The fault is mostly with those corrupt local people.

Yeah, just like WWII was mostly the fault of the Jews frown

The "fault" lies in many places. Part if it lies here in the west - the demands for products at the lowest possible price drive some companies to prey on 3rd world nations to achieve that. Part of the fault lies in our western free trade agreements - as in the ones you so positively laud - because they both prevent us from using punitive tariffs to make that practice unprofitable, and are exclusionary to those who are non-signees.

Originally Posted By: kallog
The message should be "down with the Nigerian generals", or "down with corruption", but not "down with free trade". Free trade in itself isn't a problem, which is what I expected all along, and now you've agreed to.

Really, where did I agree to that? Oh wait, I didn't - you're simply twisting my words.

Free trade is not the answer to this issue. In the presence of free trade punitive tariffs against companies/countries that use/allow such practices cannot be implemented. In the presence of free trade, a developing country cannot protect its domestic economy from outside competition. In the presence of free trade, a country cannot take action to protect its currency, protect its workers, and protect its companies.

Free trade is great if you have a developed economy. But for a developing one, it is a recipe for disaster.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
This is a old and well understood problem. I'd recommend reading up on the post-1960's

No. All your reading has left you lazily following the same rhetoric as all the drug-smoking spoiled rich-kids.

Translation: kallog reject reality and substitute my own.

The book I am thinking of was written by Brazils minister of industry (or perhaps trade, its been a few years so I don't remember the specifics) during the 1960's. In it, he outlines the problems they faced (largely LMC's profiteering off of natural resources, at the expense of the local economy), and the actions they took to rectify that. Its an amazing read, and when you consider what has happened in Brazil over the past 60-ish years, is pretty much a how-to guide on how to industrialize an undeveloped nation.

But hey, I understand your point. Its much easier to be obstinate about an idea than it is to approach it with an open mind, and to learn from the very people who dealt successfully with the problem in the past.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Once again, you've concentrated on one of the many problems at hand. Bribery is but one issue,

I've asked you many times for you reasons and you've only slowly produced a couple of them. Now you're saying even those are only small parts of it. Why not simply explain your reasoning? Or maybe you're read too many books and gained a general impression without actually working it out yourself.

I'm really tired of people saying "low wages, poor working conditions". That's the standard rhetoric of anti-globalization people but it really isn't a problem without somebody enforcing it. If I knock on your door and say "Hey Bryan, I have a fantastic job opportunity for you. 15 hour shifts, $1/day, no medical insurance, hazardous work. Quit your job and come work for me." Will you? No. But if I come with an army and drag you there, then destroy your home, perhaps you will. That 2nd part is certainly bad, but nobody can quite explain how it's done, or by whom. You say corruption is a small part of how it happens. What's the big part?


Quote:
open mind, and to learn from the very people who dealt successfully with the problem in the past.

Sorry but Brazil is only a sample size of 1. It doesn't count by your standards. Reading a book which supports your preconceived opinion is also not open minded.

Why do you think China has such a huge internal population migration? Farmers who left the countryside to work in factories. They weren't pressured into it, in fact the government makes it difficult for them - they're often not entitled to the same rights and services as local people. Yet they do it, they're paid poorly, they work hard, but they're very upset if they lose their job and have to go home. This may be a sample of 1, but it's the biggest example in the world, it dwarfs any mines or factories in Africa.

I still think, and you still havn't shown otherwise, that farmers in poor countries often don't have a very good life. That they actually prefer factory work, because however bad that is, it's better than what they had before.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Once again, you've concentrated on one of the many problems at hand. Bribery is but one issue,

I've asked you many times for you reasons and you've only slowly produced a couple of them. Now you're saying even those are only small parts of it. Why not simply explain your reasoning? Or maybe you're read too many books and gained a general impression without actually working it out yourself.

No, you've asked a series of questions, to which I've tried to provide specific answers. Your continued insults vis-a-vis being educated about an issue is getting tiring - I'd remind you that I work in these countries. I see first hand what works, and what doesn't.

Nor would I consider myself anti-globalization - its fine, it even offers 3rd/developing world countries many opportunities - if implemented properly. I keep brining up the example of Brazil for a reason - while far from perfect, they have been able to develop their economy, become a regional power, and recently extended their reach well into international politics and the global economy. I.E. they are a poster child for industrialization and the benefits it can bring. The problem is, few are following their path - globalization remains largely what Brazil spent decades fighting against - LMC's from rich countries taking advantage of the poor living conditions and weak laws in these nations, while contributing little in terms of local economic development.

Originally Posted By: kallog

I'm really tired of people saying "low wages, poor working conditions". That's the standard rhetoric of anti-globalization people but it really isn't a problem without somebody enforcing it.

Not a problem? You may want to tell that to the ~100,000 people who die every day that their inability to buy adequate amounts of food isn't really a problem.

Its ironic that you claim I'm out of touch, while so clearly demonstrating you have no clue as to the magnitude or impact of the problem some of these countries face. What good is a job that pays $1/day, if that companies taken over all the local farms and thus you need to pay for imported food - at $2/day?

Originally Posted By: kallog

If I knock on your door and say "Hey Bryan, I have a fantastic job opportunity for you. 15 hour shifts, $1/day, no medical insurance, hazardous work. Quit your job and come work for me." Will you? No. But if I come with an army and drag you there, then destroy your home, perhaps you will. That 2nd part is certainly bad, but nobody can quite explain how it's done, or by whom. You say corruption is a small part of how it happens. What's the big part?

Your example is irrelevant - that is a pretty rare event. There is no big part; just thousands of small issues that add upto one huge problem. And its not the same country-to-country. In general terms, "sweatshop" labor practices, the loss of educated people to wealthier countries, failure to develop local industries, crime, corruption, poor governance, disease, low life expectancy, inability to compete with (often subsidized) foreign companies, lack of local capital/investors, inability to secure credit, outsourcing, child labor, dependence on aid, etc, all add up.

No, not all of them are globalization issues, but several of them are. And those countries which have successfully industrialized in the post-WWII era did so by directly targeting all of those factors.

Originally Posted By: kallog

Quote:
open mind, and to learn from the very people who dealt successfully with the problem in the past.

Sorry but Brazil is only a sample size of 1. It doesn't count by your standards. Reading a book which supports your preconceived opinion is also not open minded.

Actually, the book changed my mind, not the other way around. Its why I recommend it (although I seem to have lost it). Other examples include Korea, the Warsaw block nations, Mexico, China, India, Singapore (and several other SE Asian countries), and so on. Some of those have completed industrialization, others are still working at it, but they all have gone past what most of the 3rd world has achieved - largely by countering those factors I mention above.

Originally Posted By: kallog

Why do you think China has such a huge internal population migration? Farmers who left the countryside to work in factories. They weren't pressured into it, in fact the government makes it difficult for them - they're often not entitled to the same rights and services as local people. Yet they do it, they're paid poorly, they work hard, but they're very upset if they lose their job and have to go home. This may be a sample of 1, but it's the biggest example in the world, it dwarfs any mines or factories in Africa.

Could you have come up with a more irrelevent comparison?
1) China is not a 3rd world country
2) China successfully industrialized in the 1950's
3) China industrialized in the absence of globalization forces - until the 1980's they banned foreign companies from operating within their borders.
4) China hasn't been a primarily agrarianism society for the better part of the 1900's.
5) China industrialized as a communist nation, and thus had a highly regulated economy
6) China industrialized in the presence of a strong government which rigorously prosecuted corruption

So I'm not too sure how you compare that to on-going industrialization primarily agrigarian societies, with unregulated economies, weak governments, and in which LMC's and other "globalization" factors are involved.

Originally Posted By: kallog

I still think, and you still havn't shown otherwise, that farmers in poor countries often don't have a very good life. That they actually prefer factory work, because however bad that is, it's better than what they had before.

Firstly, I never made that claim. I simply pointed out the well accepted (by international developmental agencies, anyways) fact that people in countries currently making the transition from aggrigarian to industrialized societies have experienced a decrease in their quality of life, and that those decreases are attributable, in part, by the way globalization effects the industrialization process.

Secondly, when I provided examples of development organizations which studied (and thus identified) this fact, you whined about me providing outside sources. Now you're whining that I didn't provide it, even though I did.

A few more examples:
The impact of globalization on a country's quality of life: toward an integrated model. MJ Sirgy, DJ Lee, C Miller, JE Littlefield - Social Indicators Research, 2004

Sustainable wealth creation at the local level in an age of globalization. L Newby - Regional studies, 1998

Globalizations impact on onestate and local policy: The Rise of Regional Cluster-Based Economic Development Strategies. CL Felbinger, JE Rohey - Review of Policy Research, 2001

Does globalization affect human well-being? MC Tsai - Social Indicators Research, 2007

Throughout those you will read the exact same thing I have been saying here:
1) Industrialization can improve peoples quality of life, if it is done in a fashion which promotes the development of a local economy, and
2) The current "model" of globalization tends to harm, not help, the people of the nations currently undergoing industrialization.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Quote:

Globalization - the purchasing of goods from around the world, rather than closer to home - has reduced the standard of living in many 3rd world nations. Once independent agrarian people, capable of sustaining and feeding their families, are now among the poorest ad most destitute people on earth. And they are poor because of foreigners wanting to buy their goods - goods they manufacture at slave wages.


I think we've moved away from the statement that kicked this off, above. You're no longer trying to defend this, and are even going against it.

This is what I disagree with. You've mentioned some examples of why this is often wrong - Korea, China, India, Singapore, perhaps Brazil and Mexico, etc. These success stories clearly show that globalization can be a very good force. Sure there are cases where it's caused harm, but you can't blame free trade or globalization, you should blame unregulated economies and weak governments.

Again, offering somebody a choice is not wrong. Forcing them to take it can be wrong. Foreclosing on their loans can be wrong. Forcible evicting them from their land can be wrong. You need to separate these things.

I recently heard (perhaps unreliably) that in the past 30 years, China has lifted more people out of poverty than all western countries have since the industrial revolution. Nobody can doubt that the biggest factor causing such a spectacular improvement in people's quality of life is ta-da, globalization and buying foreign goods!

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:

Globalization - the purchasing of goods from around the world, rather than closer to home - has reduced the standard of living in many 3rd world nations. Once independent agrarian people, capable of sustaining and feeding their families, are now among the poorest ad most destitute people on earth. And they are poor because of foreigners wanting to buy their goods - goods they manufacture at slave wages.


I think we've moved away from the statement that kicked this off, above. You're no longer trying to defend this, and are even going against it.

Really? Where did I do that?

To the contrary, I provided citations which directly supported my original statement - that globalization as it exists today has greatly lowered the quality of life of people in 3rd world nations. That is exactly what I said above.

For the sake of brevity I cut the remainder of your statement, but I would remind you again about the pointlessness of using China as an example - they were industrialized long before globalization existed in the modern sense. Making the (true) statement that globalization has helped improve the quality of life of people in an industrialized nation is nothing but a red herring when talking about the effect of globalization on non-industrialized/currently industrializing nations.

Any ways, I provided the citations that support my position vis-a-vis globalization and its impact on 3rd world nations. You chose to ignore them, and "creatively interpreted" what I had clearly stated in my last post. Either read those citations, or take my comments at face value, but if you're going to continue to re-write my statements to make it seem as though I've said things I have not, then my involvement in this thread is over.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
If China was so industrialized, why do farmers still use oxen to plow their fields? Politically it's one country, but if you separate the rich areas from the poor, you find the poor are 3rd world.

Either way, you can't explain the mechanism by which globalization takes otherwise happy and well-off subsistence farmers, and converts them to unhappy factory workers barely able to survive.

Just saying that it happens is of no interest. Sure it happens sometimes. But how? You don't know. I want to know, you can't help, so goodbye.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: kallog
...offering somebody a choice is not wrong. Forcing them to take it can be wrong.

Hence, the problems with the World Bank and WMF...
...forcing economic and banking reforms....
frown

...
Perhaps this is unrelated, but....
http://www.kvnf.org/news.php
Thursday, Sep 23 2010 Headlines

....The head of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization has said that corporate influence is undermining sustainable development worldwide. Speaking at a farming summit in London, Dr. Samuel Jutzi said, "I have now been twenty years in a multilateral organization which tries to develop guidance and codes for good agricultural practice, but the real, true issues are not being addressed by the political process because of the influence of lobbyists, of the true powerful entities."
===

...and speaking of lobbyists....
Hey, did anyone see the House Oversight Hearings on the Salmonella problem. I couldn't believe that quote about "...not enough bodies in the street," as the reason Bush Admin. delayed the new (1999/2000) Clinton FDA rules for better monitoring of eggs... delayed for eight more years! But he was right... it was bad for egg sales to publicize the problem. It's nice, I guess, that Obama got those FDA rules started up again just 3 months after taking office. Too bad we didn't do this back when the economy was riding high and the egg industry could better afford to lose millions of dollars.


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: samwik
the problem. It's nice, I guess, that Obama got those FDA rules started up again just 3 months after taking office. Too bad we didn't do this back when the economy was riding high and the egg industry could better afford to lose millions of dollars.


Good on him. Recession or not, the egg farmers shouldn't have put salmonella in their eggs if they didn't want to lose millions of dollars!

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
If China was so industrialized, why do farmers still use oxen to plow their fields?

Because they are still in development. Even here, in the "highly developed" north america, total mechanization of agriculture took nearly a century from when the first mechanized instruments (steam-powered threshers) were introduced until nearly all famrming had converted to mechanized production (post-WWII). Given that China started industrializing in the 1950's, that would put an equivalent degree of mechanization (assuming the same course of mechanization) in about 30 years.


Originally Posted By: kallog
Politically it's one country, but if you separate the rich areas from the poor, you find the poor are 3rd world.

Kinda like detroit wink

Just because a country has destitute people, doesn't mean that the country itself is unindistrialized or 3rd world.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Either way, you can't explain the mechanism by which globalization takes otherwise happy and well-off subsistence farmers, and converts them to unhappy factory workers barely able to survive.

But I can and did - and provided outside sources which provide an in-depth analysis of those factors. You just didn't like the answers, so you ignored them. Long story short, concentrating on only the globalization factors:

1) Inability to develop local economies, due to their inability to compete with LMC's and imports,
2) "Predatory" LMC practices such as sweatshop-type labor practices, environmental damage, forced farm takeovers, etc
3) Removal of trade barriers which can otherwise be used to protect local companies & markets.


Originally Posted By: kallog
Just saying that it happens is of no interest. Sure it happens sometimes. But how? You don't know. I want to know, you can't help, so goodbye.

Why not read the citations I provided - they provide an in-depth analysis of the very factors by which globalization harms 3rd world nations.

Not that they don't say anything I haven't said here.

Bryan

PS: Since you're so sure that globalization helps the 3rd world, why don't you provide some outside evidence that is the case. So far, I've been the only one to provide such citations.


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

1) Inability to develop local economies, due to their inability to compete with LMC's and imports,
2) "Predatory" LMC practices such as sweatshop-type labor practices, environmental damage, forced farm takeovers, etc
3) Removal of trade barriers which can otherwise be used to protect local companies & markets.

1) Not developing a local economy isn't a reason to stop farming. Losing an existing economy might be. But that's different.
2) Forced labor and farm takeovers sound like fantastic answers, but you said they're only a small part of it, which I don't doubt.
3) Maybe this is the biggie. But it's not the LMC, it's other imports. Or are you talking about exports driving up local prices? Either way, your family can live on your own supplies of chickens, pigs, goats and grain and just not participate in the market.




Quote:

PS: Since you're so sure that globalization helps the 3rd world, why don't you provide some outside evidence that is the case.

I'm not so sure, but this is a puzzle I've never been able to solve. Plenty of people say "globalization bad" but nobody can explain why. I've tried Googling it on and off, but the field is so full of emotions that nobody bothers with the logic. You've at least made a good effort, but it still leaves some gaping holes.

All that has led me to the tentative conclusion that pre-globalization life was even worse for many of these people. I know it's not a very romantic view, but I certainly wouldn't want to be a subsistence farmer unable to buy anything except local goods and services. What if I get sick? What if I want to do something more interesting than laboring all my life? Sounds terrible.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
1) Not developing a local economy isn't a reason to stop farming. Losing an existing economy might be. But that's different.

I think you're missing a pretty important part of the picture - these countries are actively trying to industrialize. So its not a choice between stay on the farm verses leave, but rather of the quality of life of those people who leave, and what happens on the road to industrialization.

Generally speaking, globalization impairs both the beginnings of industrialization, as well as undermines quality of life.

Originally Posted By: kallog
3) Maybe this is the biggie. But it's not the LMC, it's other imports. Or are you talking about exports driving up local prices?

Other way around. Predatory practices (i.e. sweatshops) allow LMC's to produce goods below the cost of what a local (i.e. smaller and/or better paying) business can produce. This means local producers either cannot form, or are driven out of business. For much the same reason, imports can also impair local growth, as cheaper foreign imports prevent the development of local production. Its easy to deal with these issues if you restrict the accessibility of local markets to products produced by LMC's and foreign imports - i.e. act in an anti-globalization fashion.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Either way, your family can live on your own supplies of chickens, pigs, goats and grain and just not participate in the market.

So you're saying that people shouldn't strive for a better life?

Originally Posted By: kallog

Quote:

PS: Since you're so sure that globalization helps the 3rd world, why don't you provide some outside evidence that is the case.

I'm not so sure, but this is a puzzle I've never been able to solve. Plenty of people say "globalization bad" but nobody can explain why.

I provided several achedemic papers that analyze that very question, and come up with empirical answers to it. Maybe start with those, instead of google. As you say, google is full of anti-globalization, anti-big business, anti-everything claptrap. But go to the right source and you can find the odd gem on the ol intertubes...

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5