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
0 registered (), 258 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 5 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5
Topic Options
#36292 - 09/25/10 01:35 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Globalization [...] 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.


Notice you didn't say "Once destitute agrarian people slowly developing their economies, are still among the most unindustrialized and poorest people on earth."

If you had said that then we wouldn't have got into this argument. My whole disagreement is with the idea that quality of life had decreased because of globalization. Decreased from what it was before, not from what it might have been if nurtured with all the right kinds of aid.


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
picture - these countries are actively trying to industrialize. So its not a choice between stay

I'm missing it on purpose because it's not part of this discussion which is based on the first paragraph above. Such people don't particularly need to be industrialized, they were fine the way they were (so you imply). What aspect of globalization caused 'independent agrarian people' to become 'destitute'? Still no answer to that. Urbanization isn't an answer unless it comes with 'forced eviction', but that's a minor one.


The simple solution is if you're so poor and overworked, quit your job in the sweatshop and go support yourself on your family farm. That's the fundamental problem I can never solve. You can't solve it either.

I have a suspicion that 'support yourself on your family farm' is not an idyllic romp in the countryside, but more like 'be subject to risk of death whenever the crops don't grow, and be unable to buy anything from outside, also risking death by lack of medical services, etc. and being overworked while having to care for your elderly relatives and share the small amount of available food with your unsustainably growing family.'

Which means a sweatshop can be better for the individual. Why else would he choose to go there?



Quote:

I provided several achedemic papers that analyze that very

They didn't help you understand it, so I'm not going to spend my time probably getting just as nowhere.

Top
.
#36321 - 09/27/10 06:28 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
My whole disagreement is with the idea that quality of life had decreased because of globalization.

But it has - if you measure the pre-industrialization quality of life of countries beginning industrialization post ~1990, they are generally lower than what these countries had pre-industrialization.

If you look at countries that had begun industrialization before the 1990s, they generally saw a continued increase in their quality of life as they industrialized.

The difference between then and now is largely ascribed to the effects of globalization - other factors have remained largely the same.


Originally Posted By: kallog
Decreased from what it was before, not from what it might have been if nurtured with all the right kinds of aid.

Ironically, aid is one of the biggest problems in this situation. Food provided by aid agencies is free - hard for farmers and companies to compete with that. Clothes provided by aid agencies is free - hard for tailors, weavers and the like to compete with that. Housing provided by aid agencies is generally free - hard for carpenters, construction workers, sawmills, etc, to compete for that.

Aid is a very good thing in times of distress. But if carried on too long, or given away in an inappropriate environment, it can do far more harm than good.

Its the ol' "give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life" issue.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
picture - these countries are actively trying to industrialize. So its not a choice between stay

I'm missing it on purpose because it's not part of this discussion which is based on the first paragraph above. Such people don't particularly need to be industrialized, they were fine the way they were (so you imply).[/quote]
I don't think I ever implied that. Industrialization will occur no matter what we do - governments want the income it brings, people want the goods its brings, etc. So pretending it isn't going to happen (or doesn't "need" to happen) is just a way of avoiding reality.

Originally Posted By: kallog
What aspect of globalization caused 'independent agrarian people' to become 'destitute'? Still no answer to that. Urbanization isn't an answer unless it comes with 'forced eviction', but that's a minor one.

I gave several answers, all of which you ignored. I will direct you to my post #36288 for the list. I also provided several academic papers that analyzed these factors in depth.

Originally Posted By: kallog

The simple solution is if you're so poor and overworked, quit your job in the sweatshop and go support yourself on your family farm. That's the fundamental problem I can never solve. You can't solve it either.

It's easy to solve, and I have described the solution previously. Farms are not free - you need to buy land, tool, etc. So if you live in a city, are destitute, and have a job which provides less $$$ than it takes to meet your basic needs, you'll never be able to buy a farm.

Originally Posted By: kallog

I have a suspicion that 'support yourself on your family farm' is not an idyllic romp in the countryside

Nor did I ever say it was. The measure here is quality of life, which has fairly well accepted definitions in the aid and academic "worlds". While the risks of things like crop failure is an obvious "drag" on a quality of life index, the "urban option" is a continual inability to meet your basic needs. So the comparison is basically:

farm: risk of transitory failures, but usually able to meet basic needs

urban: lesser risk of transitory failing's, but at the cost of a continued inability to meet basic needs

Originally Posted By: kallog
Which means a sweatshop can be better for the individual. Why else would he choose to go there?

Sweatshops are only better if they provide a higher quality of life - which, as those papers I provided earlier show, is rarely the case.

You continue to confuse the difference between income and quality of life - the former is not a measure of the latter. The latter is what matters.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:
I provided several achedemic papers that analyze that very

They didn't help you understand it, so I'm not going to spend my time probably getting just as nowhere.

So basically you're saying that because you don't like my opinion, you are going to refuse to look at the factual base upon which that opinion is based.

Gotta love the ostrich approach - put your head in the sand and ignore the world around you!

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36324 - 09/28/10 01:07 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Ironically, aid is one of the biggest problems in this


I was simply confirming what you'd just said. If you read my carefully chosen words without the blinkers of arrogance and assumption of an argument then you'd have noticed that.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: kallog
What aspect of globalization caused 'independent agrarian people' to become 'destitute'? Still no answer to that. Urbanization isn't an answer unless it comes with 'forced eviction', but that's a minor one.

I gave several answers, all of which you ignored. I will direct you to my post #36288 for the list. I also provided several academic papers that analyzed these factors in depth.

There you said it was caused by cheap goods undercutting local producers. That's not a problem for independent agrarian people who can use their own produce to support themselves without money. Farms are free if you inherited them off your parents, and them from their parents.

They're not free if the population is growing so people need to buy new ones. But population growth will occur anyway.

You're confusing "the way things were before" with "the way things should be". That's not the point. I agree industrialization is very good for people over the long term.


Quote:

You continue to confuse the difference between income and quality of life - the former is not a measure of the

No I don't. Blinkers.



Quote:

So basically you're saying that because you don't like my opinion, you are going to refuse to look at the factual base upon which that opinion is based.

They probably support your new argument that industrialization is better than not. I want something that supports your original point that subsistence farming is better than what's happened, and that it's because of selling goods overseas. Not because of any factors that would have happened anyway, or decolonization, or using the money to buy weapons, or anything that's the fault of the local people.

I just want a plausable chain of reasoning from "international trade" to "self-sufficient farmers can no longer operate".

Not from "international trade" to "local economic growth is impeded".


Edited by kallog (09/28/10 01:12 AM)

Top
#36329 - 09/28/10 01:13 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted By: kallog
What aspect of globalization caused 'independent agrarian people' to become 'destitute'? Still no answer to that. Urbanization isn't an answer unless it comes with 'forced eviction', but that's a minor one.

I gave several answers, all of which you ignored. I will direct you to my post #36288 for the list. I also provided several academic papers that analyzed these factors in depth.

There you said it was caused by cheap goods undercutting local producers. That's not a problem for independent agrarian people who can use their own produce to support themselves without money. Farms are free if you inherited them off your parents, and them from their parents.

LOL, you've obviously never worked on a farm. A dose of reality:
1) It is extremely rare for a single farmer to be able to provide everything his/her family needs,
2) Even 10,000 years ago, it is well established that farmers traded for the goods they needed, ergo
3) Todays farmers, even in pre-industrialized nations will be dependent on trade with others to make ends meet (i.e. trading for food goods they cannot produce themselves, for clothing, farm instruments, breeding stock,etc)

How the issues with globalization I've brought up fit into that should be self-evident. If external producers are present, and producing for a lesser cost that the farmers, the farmers loose their ability to trade, and thus loose their ability to meet their basic needs.

Once again, all of those kinds of details were provided, in depth, in those papers I cited.

Originally Posted By: kellog

You're confusing "the way things were before" with "the way things should be". That's not the point. I agree industrialization is very good for people over the long term.

But that is exactly the point. Historically, industrialization was conducted in a fashion which befitted local industries, and local individuals. The net effect was that over time the quality of life of the majority of individuals went up.

In the modern era this is no longer the case - countries no longer industrialize, but instead are used by already-industrialized nations as a source of cheap labor, cheap materials, etc. As such this industrialization is done for the benefit of others, often at the expense of the indigenous population and their economic development.

The solution to the later problem is simple - remove/reduce the aspects of globalization that are responsible for this change. Make it unprofitable for LMC's to profit off of behaviors that damage local economies - i.e. through tariffs, allowing developing nations to control trade in their regions, etc.

Quote:
Quote:

So basically you're saying that because you don't like my opinion, you are going to refuse to look at the factual base upon which that opinion is based.

They probably support your new argument that industrialization is better than not.

Still looking for reasons to ignore the factual base to my opinions I see - cannot say I'm surprized by this...

And, as stated before, they directly support the statement that I've been making from day 1 - that globalization has impacted 3rd world nations in a negative fashion, that globalization is a major factor in their decreasing quality of life, and that globalization is largely responsible for their inability to form independent, and stable local economies.

Originally Posted By: kellog
I want something that supports your original point that subsistence farming is better than what's happened, and that it's because of selling goods overseas.

And since I never made this claim, why would I have to provide a citation supporting it?

To make it simple, my original claim was/is:
1)the quality of life of these nations is lower now than it was in their pre-industrialized (i.e. agrigarian) era,
2) a drop in the QOL during industrialization is a new phenomena, unique to a globalized economy, and
3) globalization "forces" are what has caused that loss in QOL

Once again, all of those claims are supported in those citations I provided, which you clearly haven't even bothered to read the abstracts of.

Quote:

I just want a plausable chain of reasoning from "international trade" to "self-sufficient farmers can no longer operate".

Once again, since I never made that specific claim, why would I have to support it? As I've been hammering on since the first time this point came up, the reason people leave farms is multifactorial, and is only partially due to globalization forces. It is what happens to them after they leave the farms where globalization causes the largest issues, and where it has reduced their quality of life.

But hey, continue to ignore my citations, twist my words, and fail to support your own claims. Its obvious that you cannot find one iota of evidence to support your own claims, ergo the only options left to you are to whine and lie about the things I've written.

Bryan


Edited by ImagingGeek (09/28/10 01:17 PM)
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36335 - 09/28/10 07:57 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Quote:

I just want a plausable chain of reasoning from "international trade" to "self-sufficient farmers can no longer operate".

Once again, since I never made that specific claim, why

Finally, you noticed. How many times have I said "self-sufficient" and "subsistence"? Now you see why I refuse to read your references? Because I really don't expect them to explain the answer to that. Now you surely agree they don't.

If you'd read some of my posts a long time ago you'd have been able to make that clarification back then instead of banging on about all this irrelivant rubbish.

Notice that I've been making an effort to understand what you say, but you haven't been doing the same. You're more interested in regurgitating facts to make yourself feel proud. I'm more interested in understanding. I've seen from other threads that you often act as a memorizer, not a thinker.

Top
#36345 - 09/29/10 03:53 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Quote:

I just want a plausable chain of reasoning from "international trade" to "self-sufficient farmers can no longer operate".

Once again, since I never made that specific claim, why

Finally, you noticed. How many times have I said "self-sufficient" and "subsistence"? Now you see why I refuse to read your references? Because I really don't expect them to explain the answer to that. Now you surely agree they don't.

I fail to see why it matters.

You disagree with my claim that globalization has had a negative effect on the quality of life of people in the 3rd world. Mu citations support that claim.

You continue to ignore those citation, and continue to refuse to provide evidence your claims are correct. Instead you pick apart paragraphs and use sophistry to avoid dealing with the root issue - that I can support my claims and you cannot.

Originally Posted By: kallog
If you'd read some of my posts a long time ago you'd have been able to make that clarification back then instead of banging on about all this irrelivant rubbish.

All that "irrelivant rubbish" was in reply to points you made. The fact you continuously ignore the context in which those statements were made doesn't change that fact one bit.

BTW, "irrelivant" is spelled "irrelevant".

Originally Posted By: kellog

Notice that I've been making an effort to understand what you say, but you haven't been doing the same. You're more interested in regurgitating facts to make yourself feel proud. I'm more interested in understanding.

How can you have understanding in the absence of fact?

More to the point, how do you come to an understanding by actively avoiding facts?

I reiterate again - I've provided outside evidence that my opinions are based on fact. You have not. Until you can either show my evidence to be wrong, or provide evidence in support of yours, I can only continue to assume that posts like these are simply red herrings to try and hide the fact that you have an unsupported position.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36357 - 09/30/10 03:26 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

You continue to ignore those citation, and continue to refuse to provide evidence your claims are correct.


You call it sophistry but it's all directly related to the one problem I want to solve, which is also what you're circling but never confronting. I'm not actually making claims. I came to this discussion with a question along the lines of:

"How does the presence of a foreign company cause a person to quit his other occupation and go to work for them?"

I suspected it was because it provided a better life or future than his other occupation would have, even in the absence of that company.

You seem to be saying it's because that factory also sells goods to the local market, which drives him out of business, and/or the other locals he depends on for business. That doesn't make sense to me at this stage. I'm not interested in any evidence until I can actually understand the mechanism by which it might work.

That last sentence might sound strange. I don't want any evidence! Imagine you were wondering why the sky was blue. You have plenty of evidence by looking upwards. But that's not interesting, you'd rather understand reasons why it might be blue. Later you can check those reasons with more evidence.

Don't correct spelling errors. You know very well that serves no purpose except to irritate people.

Top
#36364 - 09/30/10 03:46 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

You continue to ignore those citation, and continue to refuse to provide evidence your claims are correct.

You call it sophistry but it's all directly related to the one problem I want to solve, which is also what you're circling but never confronting.

LOL, if you look back at your last 4 posts, the list of "one problems" you have changes every time. Heck, in your last post you asked me to defend 3 or 4 claims I never made.

And, looking at your "question" below, I see things have haven't changed...

Originally Posted By: kallog
"How does the presence of a foreign company cause a person to quit his other occupation and go to work for them?"

Once again, I never made this claim, so why would I explain/defend it?

The reality is what I have been saying all along - the presence of LMCs in unindustrialized/newly industrializing countries harms the development of a local economy and reduces the over all quality of life.

Part of the problem is that LMC's undermine the ability of local industries to survive, thus damaging the local economy and leaving few employment options outside of the LMC's themselves.

Globalization makes this possible - the absence of trade barriers, absence of punitive tariffs, etc, creates the environment in which LMC's can act in this manner without consequence in their home countries, and in which local governments are unable to prevent it because they are bound by freetrade agreements, etc.

Once again, all covered in those papers you ignored.

Originally Posted By: kellog
I suspected it was because it provided a better life or future than his other occupation would have, even in the absence of that company.

What you (or I) suspect is meaningless, what can be proven is all that matters.

Those papers you insist on ignoring go into these kinds of issues in great depth - I'd recommend you read them. It is, after all, why I provided them.

Originally Posted By: kellog
You seem to be saying it's because that factory also sells goods to the local market, which drives him out of business, and/or the other locals he depends on for business.

That is one mechanism. Cheap foreign imports have a simular impact (undercutting of local producers), as does trade agreements that prevent the governments from imposing laws that protect domestic producers, etc.

Originally Posted By: kellog
That doesn't make sense to me at this stage. I'm not interested in any evidence until I can actually understand the mechanism by which it might work.

How can you understand mechanism without facts? That is ass backwards from the way science, and reason in general, function:

Step 1: observe reality,
Step 2: generate a hypothesis to explain reality,
Step 3: test hypothesis,
Step 4: modify hypothesis to fit new observations, then go backto step 1 and repeat...

You want to jump to step 2, whilst completely ignoring the very thing you need to even consider a mechanism - data.

Originally Posted By: kellog
That last sentence might sound strange. I don't want any evidence! Imagine you were wondering why the sky was blue. You have plenty of evidence by looking upwards. But that's not interesting, you'd rather understand reasons why it might be blue. Later you can check those reasons with more evidence.

And here is a prefect example of why your reasoning is faulty. There is no reason to determine the mechanism by which there is a blue sky until you've established the sky is, in fact, blue.

Otherwise you're just wasting time - if you found a mechanism to explain a blue sky, only to later observe it is green, you'd have wasted a lot of time chasing a false assumption.

I.E. one of my favorite sayings - start with a false assumption, come to a false conclusion.

Originally Posted By: kellog
Don't correct spelling errors. You know very well that serves no purpose except to irritate people.

My bad - I mixed you up with another posted. Sarcasm only works when the other person knows what you are talking about...

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36371 - 10/01/10 04:23 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
This is going nowhere. You can't answer my question yourself. You keep changing it to things like "reducing growth that might have happened" or "non-agrarian people".

"A farmer walks off his family farm and goes to work in a factory" What reasons did he have for doing that? He's not concerned with theory, he just has some pressure directly encouraging him to do it. Why? Is it really the fault of the foreign companies? Is it because he can no longer buy equipment to operate his farm? Or is it because it's a really bad life, LMC or no LMC.

All you had to say, right from the start was "I don't fully understand how it works, but here are some papers that describe it.". You excessive spew of off-track information adds nothing but just shows how arrogant you are and you inability to understand other people.


Edited by kallog (10/01/10 04:32 AM)

Top
#36376 - 10/01/10 01:46 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
This is going nowhere. You can't answer my question yourself.

You keep changing your question. And, as pointed out in my last post, this new one isn't even vaguely related to anything I've ever said. You're asking me to defend something I never stated.

Originally Posted By: kallog
"A farmer walks off his family farm and goes to work in a factory" What reasons did he have for doing that?

I've listed several - inability to compete, foreclosure, simple desire. Just because you ignore what I write, doesn't mean it wasn't written.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36393 - 10/03/10 02:32 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I've listed several - inability to compete, foreclosure, simple desire. Just because you ignore what I write, doesn't mean it wasn't written.


Forclosure is a minor one, so you say.

Inability to compete. OK, but only for a commercial farmer who cannot revert to subsistence living. And only if there are imported farmed goods which are even cheaper than the super-cheap local ones. Where could they be coming from? The 4th world?

Simple desire suggests he's improving his life, so it's a good thing. If it's a misjudgement then it's an information/education problem.


Ultimately I don't think the presence of a foreign factory in a 3rd world country causes a problem. Other things that commonly (but not necessarily) go along with it may be, such as foreclosures, cheap imports, reduced local economic growth, etc.

While you were on holiday recently, Bill S immediately worked out what I was trying to know, and offered some suggestions. But they only supported what I suspected anyway. Maybe I am right, maybe people should stop bagging sweat-shops since they're not doing any harm.



Edited by kallog (10/03/10 02:40 AM)

Top
#36434 - 10/06/10 01:02 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
Forclosure is a minor one, so you say.

Death by a thousand small wounds is still death.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Inability to compete. OK, but only for a commercial farmer who cannot revert to subsistence living.

Ignoring reality again, I see. "Substance" farmers have been involved in trade since humans developed agriculture. In reality, ALL farmers require some degree of trade - inability to compete means no trade, means your farm fails - commercial or substance.

Originally Posted By: kallog
And only if there are imported farmed goods which are even cheaper than the super-cheap local ones. Where could they be coming from? The 4th world?

Some from farms in industrialized nations, where the work is largely mechanized, and where production is highly subsidized. But it can also come from other 3rd/developing nations, where large mechanized farms already exist and there are low wage costs.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Simple desire suggests he's improving his life, so it's a good thing.

Or that he hates farming. Its not exactly an easy career path.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Ultimately I don't think the presence of a foreign factory in a 3rd world country causes a problem.

The preponderance of data demonstrates otherwise. ou insist on ignoring that data - doesn't mean it does not exist.

Since you're seem intent on ignoring the bulk of what I write, and the evidence I've presented, plus are completely unwilling/unable to support your own position with anything other than your gut feeling, I think this tread is done.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
Page 5 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

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

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