|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 12 2015 23:43 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 22:09 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 21:04 Faust852 wrote:
well at least we have cheap cool stuff and we don't live like Cold-War USSR. that has nothing to do with globalization but with capitalism + slavery. wherever there are slaves, there are cost reductions to be exploited. i don't get why (the)cheapest should be a target for anything anyway. give people more money, done. Well, I'm kinda glad I can eat banana in mid december, or drink coffee in the morning. I don't know how you'd do without coffee but I'd feel terrible  I'd also miss having stupid argument on the internet with random stranger. well, since you see your whole existence as a product of globalization, the best is to remain a random stranger to you. Yeah, globalization and capitalism have nothing to do with the steady reduction in world wide poverty. A steady reduction, despite the continous effort from governments all over the world to stop it.
that's not even a thing.
poverty was reduced before globalization and increased during it so at best, you could nitpick some timelines in which it happened like you said but that's it; the rest is propaganda.
|
On December 12 2015 23:52 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2015 23:43 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 22:09 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 21:04 Faust852 wrote:
well at least we have cheap cool stuff and we don't live like Cold-War USSR. that has nothing to do with globalization but with capitalism + slavery. wherever there are slaves, there are cost reductions to be exploited. i don't get why (the)cheapest should be a target for anything anyway. give people more money, done. Well, I'm kinda glad I can eat banana in mid december, or drink coffee in the morning. I don't know how you'd do without coffee but I'd feel terrible I'd also miss having stupid argument on the internet with random stranger. well, since you see your whole existence as a product of globalization, the best is to remain a random stranger to you. Yeah, globalization and capitalism have nothing to do with the steady reduction in world wide poverty. A steady reduction, despite the continous effort from governments all over the world to stop it. that's not even a thing. poverty was reduced before globalization and increased during it so at best, you could nitpick some timelines in which it happened like you said but that's it; the rest is propaganda.
Wrong. Read up on the various UN reports, independent NGO reports, and various for-profit think tank reports. Now whether poverty is being reduced because of globalization, or both are merely correlated and the relentless improvement in technology and industrialization, and supply chain optimization, is more of a root cause of both is something we can discuss, but people living in abject poverty as a percentage of the world population has steadily decreased throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, despite two world wars and the cold war happening. It is the single biggest shift in general quality of life in written history.
|
There are at least two demonstrations and one counterdemonstration, if I am not mistaken. The larger one was organized by people affiliated with Civic Platform (PO) and Nowoczesna, part of the parliamentary opposition. There was also supposed to be a smaller demonstration held by Razem (radical left, not in the parliament).
They are demonstrating against the recent Constitutional Tribunal debacle. In brief, this is what transpired. At the end of the previous term of the parliament, in June, the ruling coalition (PO+PSL) passed an act that allowed them to nominate in advance five new judges of the Tribunal as a replacement of those whose terms would expire in 2015. Three of them would expire during the previous term of the parliament whereas two of them - during the current term (at that time all 15 judges had been nominated by PO+PSL). At the very end of the previous term, the parliament passed a resolution (well, five separate resolutions, to be precise) that nominated those five new judges in advance.
The current ruling coalition (PiS + two smaller center-right parties, but let's stick to PiS for simplicity's sake) protested this decision and asked the Constitutional Tribunal to review the constitutionality of the act from June 2015 (edit: PiS actually protested already in June 2015; the Tribunal took its sweet time and assembled only in late November/early December, IIRC, hoping that by then the President, put under pressure, would have sworn the new judges in). The president (affiliated with PiS) refused to swear them in. At the same time, the coalition passed a resolution that rendered the resolution passed by PO+PSL invalid, claiming it was illegal to nominate them in advance. Hence, with five nominations pending, PiS passed resolutions nominating five new judges, whom the president swore in.
Meanwhile, the Constitutional Tribunal declared that the act passed in June was constitutional with regard to the three nominations which meant to replace judges whose terms expired during the previous term of the parliament, but was unconstitutional with regard to the remaining two nominations. The verdict cited a specific article of the Constitution as the reason. However, there are several problems with this verdict:
(1) According to the Constitution, the Constitutional Tribunal can only judge the constitutionality of passed acts of law, not their execution (including parliamentary resolutions). I am not sure whose responsibility is the latter. Perhaps the Supreme Court.
(2) Three of the judges of the Tribunal helped in creation of the June 2015 act that was later on deemed partially unconstitutional, including the very president of the Constitutional Tribunal.
(3) The president of the Constitutional Tribunal made an official decision that in such a complicated matter it is necessary for the Tribunal to convene as a full court (nine+ members). When PiS pointed out that three judges had worked on the act in question - and considering the fact that the terms of five judges expired by then - he changed his mind. As a result, only five (?) judges assembled, making the verdict null...
(4) The article of the Constitution the Tribunal cited seems like an arbitrary reason. It goes as follows "Trybunał Konstytucyjny składa się z 15 sędziów, wybieranych indywidualnie przez Sejm na 9 lat spośród osób wyróżniających się wiedzą prawniczą. Ponowny wybór do składu Trybunału jest niedopuszczalny.". It basically says that there can only be 15 judges of the Tribunal, nominated individually for nine years, who cannot be renominated. In other words, it says nothing about nominating them in advance nor that the term of the parliament makes any difference.
Hence the verdict of the Tribunal has no constitutional backing... It all depends on the interpretation of when one becomes member of the Tribunal. Is it after passing the resolution nominating them? Once the term specified in the resolution begins? Or perhaps after being sworn in (which is when they gain their practical competences, privileges, etc. as members of the Tribunal)? If it's the former, then the nominations were unconstitutional because there were still 15 members of the Tribunal at the time the resolutions were passed. If it's the latter, then the President's decision not to swear them in rendered PO-PSL nominations ineffectual.
Only if the second interpretation is correct, the nominations passed by PO+PSL were legal. But then we get to yet another problem:
(5) In Polish law there exists a rule of presumed constitutionality, i.e. an act passed by the parliament is deemed constitutional unless judged otherwise by the Tribunal. That means that resolutions of both PO+PSL and PiS were legal, but so was the resolution invalidating the PO+PSL nominations...
All in all, this whole situation is really messy and certainly not as black and white as foreign media make it out to be.
|
On December 11 2015 07:20 Nyxisto wrote:
I don't think it's about the economy at all, because although some countries especially in Southern Europe are struggling, large support for this new movements comes from countries that are doing good or are growing rapidly. Poland, Denmark the UK and other Eastern European countries, while Portugal and Spain are surprisingly immune to this, at least to the right-wing version.
I feel like it's essentially some mild of fascism. People are fed up with getting technical and rational answers to their problems and instead want some kind of national, primitive power back. It doesn't actually seem to matter what the outcome of this is and facts aren't important either. Donald Trump is pretty much the personification of this.
When people don't have problems they don't even go search for answers.
Think its all about the economy and money.
It has always been,Hitler came to power during the crisis in the 30,s for example.
The difference between poor and rich is growing everywhere in the western world and one of the consequences of this is that political parties with extreme vieuwpoints are gaining more support.
Overall countries are getting richer but there is a big part of the population that barely profits and the layer at the bottom is growing. They have food and shelter but they are lacking a spiritual and economical positive outlook for the future.
You could even argue if we are getting richer at all. Our retirement age is rising for example,wich would indicate that basicly we are getting more poor. We have to work more and longer to sustain our current lifestyle.
|
That last argument is bad. The retirement age rising could either mean what you are saying, or that we just get older on average. While in 1950, someone who was retiring at 65 might have another 5 years or so to live on average, nowadays it is more along the lines of 10-20+ years or so.
|
On December 13 2015 00:03 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2015 23:52 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 23:43 GoTuNk! wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 22:09 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 21:04 Faust852 wrote:
well at least we have cheap cool stuff and we don't live like Cold-War USSR. that has nothing to do with globalization but with capitalism + slavery. wherever there are slaves, there are cost reductions to be exploited. i don't get why (the)cheapest should be a target for anything anyway. give people more money, done. Well, I'm kinda glad I can eat banana in mid december, or drink coffee in the morning. I don't know how you'd do without coffee but I'd feel terrible I'd also miss having stupid argument on the internet with random stranger. well, since you see your whole existence as a product of globalization, the best is to remain a random stranger to you. Yeah, globalization and capitalism have nothing to do with the steady reduction in world wide poverty. A steady reduction, despite the continous effort from governments all over the world to stop it. that's not even a thing. poverty was reduced before globalization and increased during it so at best, you could nitpick some timelines in which it happened like you said but that's it; the rest is propaganda. Wrong. Read up on the various UN reports, independent NGO reports, and various for-profit think tank reports. Now whether poverty is being reduced because of globalization, or both are merely correlated and the relentless improvement in technology and industrialization, and supply chain optimization, is more of a root cause of both is something we can discuss, but people living in abject poverty as a percentage of the world population has steadily decreased throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, despite two world wars and the cold war happening. It is the single biggest shift in general quality of life in written history.
Yeah and read up some work from the United Nations Development Program, or the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and see how the forced liberalization of some African countries had desastrous effect on life expectancy and poverty... He is right in saying it is all propaganda, because you point out the few good number you have where the poverty was actually reduced, mainly for technological reasons that have nothing to do with globalization in itself (and that, by increasing productivity, reduce costs and permit poor people to have access to more goods, it is not specifically globalization). Meanwhile, the forced opening of borders, and the forced change of the production structure of some poor countries in Africa (under the guidance of the IMF, also called the washington consensus - which is a reorientation of the production structure towards what actually work in terms of exports), didn't give any actual good result until mid 2000 when the washington consensus was let down. The UNDP and the UNCTAD actually showed in many report that the core of the problem was the lack of development of the local government, an objective very far from the ideal of the globalization and the end of all frontiers.
Funnily enough, such poor countries in africa are more open to globalization than most developped countries, with a higher ratio export / imports as par of GDP that big and developped countries, like the US who has most notably a very low opening to others. Globalization is, by the numbers, a tool for developped countries to go and seek out quick and easy production faclities with lower labor price, and a way for such developped countries to abuse their own financial ressources and simply buy out - the like the US did - part of the worldwide stock of capital so that the world now work for the american citizen (and the french citizen, and the english citizen, etc.) at a price that the US citizen or the french citizen would not accept.
|
A lot of the reduction in poverty in the last years was in China. With an export led economy I don't see how you can make the argument that the reduction in poverty that globalisation has a small/no role. Though technology also obviously has a big role.
On December 13 2015 01:41 Simberto wrote:
That last argument is bad. The retirement age rising could either mean what you are saying, or that we just get older on average. While in 1950, someone who was retiring at 65 might have another 5 years or so to live on average, nowadays it is more along the lines of 10-20+ years or so.
A lot of people don't realise how expensive even 1 year of retirement really is. Especially with these low interest rates it's getting unbearably expensive.
|
On December 13 2015 01:56 RvB wrote:A lot of the reduction in poverty in the last years was in China. With an export led economy I don't see how you can make the argument that the reduction in poverty that globalisation has a small/no role. Though technology also obviously has a big role. Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 01:41 Simberto wrote:
That last argument is bad. The retirement age rising could either mean what you are saying, or that we just get older on average. While in 1950, someone who was retiring at 65 might have another 5 years or so to live on average, nowadays it is more along the lines of 10-20+ years or so. A lot of people don't realise how expensive even 1 year of retirement really is. Especially with these low interest rates it's getting unbearably expensive.
Because China is an exemple of a globalized country to you ? It is its state, the action of the state, and not the opening of borders, that is at the core of China's success. Even the corruption is a barrier in China. If you want to seek the archetype globalized country, again, look at africa : just a quick search and I see that China's imports as part of GDP is half that of the ivory coast or congo for exemple. Most notably, China's imports as % of GDP has been declining recently, as it entered into the fray of developped countries.
Just saying, there is a reason as to why Gaza is more globalized (in % of GDP) than Israel. Your beautiful and happy vision of the globalization is the vision of the dominant, happy few that profit (for a moment, only until another country find a flaw and eat you alive, which is what china is doing right now) from what the poor should actually call a dependancy on international trade. Look at data here.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2014 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc
|
On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2015 22:09 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 21:04 Faust852 wrote:
well at least we have cheap cool stuff and we don't live like Cold-War USSR. that has nothing to do with globalization but with capitalism + slavery. wherever there are slaves, there are cost reductions to be exploited. i don't get why (the)cheapest should be a target for anything anyway. give people more money, done. Well, I'm kinda glad I can eat banana in mid december, or drink coffee in the morning. I don't know how you'd do without coffee but I'd feel terrible I'd also miss having stupid argument on the internet with random stranger. well, since you see your whole existence as a product of globalization, the best is to remain a random stranger to you.
Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market.
Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland.
You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once.
You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december.
At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever.
The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea.
|
On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 22:09 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 21:04 Faust852 wrote:
well at least we have cheap cool stuff and we don't live like Cold-War USSR. that has nothing to do with globalization but with capitalism + slavery. wherever there are slaves, there are cost reductions to be exploited. i don't get why (the)cheapest should be a target for anything anyway. give people more money, done. Well, I'm kinda glad I can eat banana in mid december, or drink coffee in the morning. I don't know how you'd do without coffee but I'd feel terrible I'd also miss having stupid argument on the internet with random stranger. well, since you see your whole existence as a product of globalization, the best is to remain a random stranger to you. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market. Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever. The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea.
Cold war USSR had astonishing good growth result, and many famous economists believed back then that it would necessarily pass the US as the first GDP. The reason was that labor is pretty cheap in goulag (and numbers pretty good when manipulated). But just saying, it was not a complete economic fiasco, it assured full employment and a very good growth - the main problem was that it was plagued by crisis of offer (which are less frequent but more dangerous than the crisis of under employment of the production capabilities that we suffer in our capitalists societies).
|
Netherlands22105 Posts
On December 13 2015 01:31 Rassy wrote:
You could even argue if we are getting richer at all. Our retirement age is rising for example,wich would indicate that basicly we are getting more poor. We have to work more and longer to sustain our current lifestyle.
A big part is that we are seeing the post WW2 baby-boomer generation retire. A lot of people stop working and by extend stop contributing to pensions and instead start withdrawing. The younger generation is smaller in workforce (less children per family) and so cant cover the extra expense.
That and as said people live longer which means they are a drain on the system longer, this is especially prevalent in healthcare where we are surviving for so long that our bodies start failing piece by piece and instead of the first being fatal we now suffer multiple such effects.
|
On December 13 2015 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 22:09 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 21:04 Faust852 wrote:
well at least we have cheap cool stuff and we don't live like Cold-War USSR. that has nothing to do with globalization but with capitalism + slavery. wherever there are slaves, there are cost reductions to be exploited. i don't get why (the)cheapest should be a target for anything anyway. give people more money, done. Well, I'm kinda glad I can eat banana in mid december, or drink coffee in the morning. I don't know how you'd do without coffee but I'd feel terrible I'd also miss having stupid argument on the internet with random stranger. well, since you see your whole existence as a product of globalization, the best is to remain a random stranger to you. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market. Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever. The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Cold war USSR had astonishing good growth result, and many famous economists believed back then that it would necessarily pass the US as the first GDP. The reason was that labor is pretty cheap in goulag (and numbers pretty good when manipulated). But just saying, it was not a complete economic fiasco, it assured full employment and a very good growth - the main problem was that it was plagued by crisis of offer (which are less frequent but more dangerous than the crisis of under employment of the production capabilities that we suffer in our capitalists societies).
A page ago you criticsed people for looking at stupid GDP numbers and now you're defending a government that achieved growth by using people as firewood and having everybody who didn't live in Moscow starve
|
On December 13 2015 02:37 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 22:09 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 21:04 Faust852 wrote:
well at least we have cheap cool stuff and we don't live like Cold-War USSR. that has nothing to do with globalization but with capitalism + slavery. wherever there are slaves, there are cost reductions to be exploited. i don't get why (the)cheapest should be a target for anything anyway. give people more money, done. Well, I'm kinda glad I can eat banana in mid december, or drink coffee in the morning. I don't know how you'd do without coffee but I'd feel terrible I'd also miss having stupid argument on the internet with random stranger. well, since you see your whole existence as a product of globalization, the best is to remain a random stranger to you. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market. Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever. The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Cold war USSR had astonishing good growth result, and many famous economists believed back then that it would necessarily pass the US as the first GDP. The reason was that labor is pretty cheap in goulag (and numbers pretty good when manipulated). But just saying, it was not a complete economic fiasco, it assured full employment and a very good growth - the main problem was that it was plagued by crisis of offer (which are less frequent but more dangerous than the crisis of under employment of the production capabilities that we suffer in our capitalists societies). A page ago you criticsed people for looking at stupid GDP numbers and now you're defending a government that achieved growth by using people as firewood and having everybody who didn't live in Moscow starve
It's exactly what I said, the USSR was very much like the globalization, an economic "success" from a gdp perspective, that created a few crisis of under production (of offer = starving people to death) and that used modern slaves in goulag. I was not, at all, saying the USSR was great.
|
On December 13 2015 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 22:09 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 21:04 Faust852 wrote:
well at least we have cheap cool stuff and we don't live like Cold-War USSR. that has nothing to do with globalization but with capitalism + slavery. wherever there are slaves, there are cost reductions to be exploited. i don't get why (the)cheapest should be a target for anything anyway. give people more money, done. Well, I'm kinda glad I can eat banana in mid december, or drink coffee in the morning. I don't know how you'd do without coffee but I'd feel terrible I'd also miss having stupid argument on the internet with random stranger. well, since you see your whole existence as a product of globalization, the best is to remain a random stranger to you. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market. Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever. The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Cold war USSR had astonishing good growth result, and many famous economists believed back then that it would necessarily pass the US as the first GDP. The reason was that labor is pretty cheap in goulag (and numbers pretty good when manipulated). But just saying, it was not a complete economic fiasco, it assured full employment and a very good growth - the main problem was that it was plagued by crisis of offer (which are less frequent but more dangerous than the crisis of under employment of the production capabilities that we suffer in our capitalists societies).
Yeah, so not so good anymore.
What I said stand though, if we had stronger standard and control, big corp couldn't delocalize for slavery because it wouldn't be worth the cost. Other measure could prevent unethical corporation from selling in develloped country, basically ruinning them.
There are other trick that would prevent such an unfair world but people are generally too corrupt to do anything about that.
|
On December 13 2015 01:58 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 01:56 RvB wrote:A lot of the reduction in poverty in the last years was in China. With an export led economy I don't see how you can make the argument that the reduction in poverty that globalisation has a small/no role. Though technology also obviously has a big role. On December 13 2015 01:41 Simberto wrote:
That last argument is bad. The retirement age rising could either mean what you are saying, or that we just get older on average. While in 1950, someone who was retiring at 65 might have another 5 years or so to live on average, nowadays it is more along the lines of 10-20+ years or so. A lot of people don't realise how expensive even 1 year of retirement really is. Especially with these low interest rates it's getting unbearably expensive. Because China is an exemple of a globalized country to you ? It is its state, the action of the state, and not the opening of borders, that is at the core of China's success. Even the corruption is a barrier in China. If you want to seek the archetype globalized country, again, look at africa : just a quick search and I see that China's imports as part of GDP is half that of the ivory coast or congo for exemple. Most notably, China's imports as % of GDP has been declining recently, as it entered into the fray of developped countries. Just saying, there is a reason as to why Gaza is more globalized (in % of GDP) than Israel. Your beautiful and happy vision of the globalization is the vision of the dominant, happy few that profit (for a moment, only until another country find a flaw and eat you alive, which is what china is doing right now) from what the poor should actually call a dependancy on international trade. Look at data here. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2014 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc
China is an example of a globalized economy par excellence. That they hardly import has nothing to do with it at all (it's also not true, they import VAST quantities of commodities, mainly to fuel their cheap factories from which they subsequently export shit all over the world). China's resurgent economy may be planned and the internal market protected, but that doesn't mean they are not an exponent of the globalized economy: the very fact that half of the stuff in your house says "made in china" on it is a clear sign to the contrary.
Your idea that production is returning to Europe (which I don't see happening at all, except for highly specialized technological production) is also not a counterexample: if conditions are profitable for production in Europe, countries will take their production there. Just as they moved it to Asia in the first place. The very fact that they are capable of moving their production wherever they like is one of the best examples of globalization you could have given.
|
On December 13 2015 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 02:37 Nyxisto wrote:On December 13 2015 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 22:09 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 21:04 Faust852 wrote:
well at least we have cheap cool stuff and we don't live like Cold-War USSR. that has nothing to do with globalization but with capitalism + slavery. wherever there are slaves, there are cost reductions to be exploited. i don't get why (the)cheapest should be a target for anything anyway. give people more money, done. Well, I'm kinda glad I can eat banana in mid december, or drink coffee in the morning. I don't know how you'd do without coffee but I'd feel terrible I'd also miss having stupid argument on the internet with random stranger. well, since you see your whole existence as a product of globalization, the best is to remain a random stranger to you. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market. Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever. The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Cold war USSR had astonishing good growth result, and many famous economists believed back then that it would necessarily pass the US as the first GDP. The reason was that labor is pretty cheap in goulag (and numbers pretty good when manipulated). But just saying, it was not a complete economic fiasco, it assured full employment and a very good growth - the main problem was that it was plagued by crisis of offer (which are less frequent but more dangerous than the crisis of under employment of the production capabilities that we suffer in our capitalists societies). A page ago you criticsed people for looking at stupid GDP numbers and now you're defending a government that achieved growth by using people as firewood and having everybody who didn't live in Moscow starve It's exactly what I said, the USSR was very much like the globalization, an economic "success" from a gdp perspective, that created a few crisis of under production (of offer = starving people to death) and that used modern slaves in goulag. I was not, at all, saying the USSR was great.
But the USSR was also heavily nationalized and lacked in all the things those types of closed up economies always lack. Bad consumer products, falling farther and farther technological behind as time goes on, corruption getting bigger, little checks and balances and so on. It's maybe a valid strategy for a country that goes from having no economy to establishing one, but as soon as you're halfway okay it seems like almost any nation profits more from free trade than it does from protectionism. All those countries growing under these state dominated economies also have young populations and completely different demographic situations.
And in the context of Europe there is basically no country which would fall in the first category.
|
On December 13 2015 02:56 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 01:58 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 01:56 RvB wrote:A lot of the reduction in poverty in the last years was in China. With an export led economy I don't see how you can make the argument that the reduction in poverty that globalisation has a small/no role. Though technology also obviously has a big role. On December 13 2015 01:41 Simberto wrote:
That last argument is bad. The retirement age rising could either mean what you are saying, or that we just get older on average. While in 1950, someone who was retiring at 65 might have another 5 years or so to live on average, nowadays it is more along the lines of 10-20+ years or so. A lot of people don't realise how expensive even 1 year of retirement really is. Especially with these low interest rates it's getting unbearably expensive. Because China is an exemple of a globalized country to you ? It is its state, the action of the state, and not the opening of borders, that is at the core of China's success. Even the corruption is a barrier in China. If you want to seek the archetype globalized country, again, look at africa : just a quick search and I see that China's imports as part of GDP is half that of the ivory coast or congo for exemple. Most notably, China's imports as % of GDP has been declining recently, as it entered into the fray of developped countries. Just saying, there is a reason as to why Gaza is more globalized (in % of GDP) than Israel. Your beautiful and happy vision of the globalization is the vision of the dominant, happy few that profit (for a moment, only until another country find a flaw and eat you alive, which is what china is doing right now) from what the poor should actually call a dependancy on international trade. Look at data here. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2014 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc China is an example of a globalized economy par excellence. That they hardly import has nothing to do with it at all (it's also not true, they import VAST quantities of commodities, mainly to fuel their cheap factories from which they subsequently export shit all over the world). China's resurgent economy may be planned and the internal market protected, but that doesn't mean they are not an exponent of the globalized economy: the very fact that half of the stuff in your house says "made in china" on it is a clear sign to the contrary. Your idea that production is returning to Europe (which I don't see happening at all, except for highly specialized technological production) is also not a counterexample: if conditions are profitable for production in Europe, countries will take their production there. Just as they moved it to Asia in the first place. The very fact that they are capable of moving their production wherever they like is one of the best examples of globalization you could have given.
It is funny that you completly passed by most of my argument, most notably that trading in developped countries is usually less than in poor countries, an thus that an increase globalization is more ofté than not a state of dependancy. There is huge difference between importing what you need but can't produce yourself, and importing things that you can produce but do not due to various imbalance. If globalization is the openess to countries towards production made elsewhere, then we can measure it through the ratio of exports and imports as % of GDP, and according to this, the most globalized countries are poorer and the globalization is the result of a forced process more akin to modern colonialism than to the research of global economic efficiency.
As for relocalization, I don't have any english sources, but in french, if you can read, I suggest reading some of El Mouhoud Mouhoub's work, economist and specialist of the question.
On December 13 2015 04:08 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2015 02:39 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 02:37 Nyxisto wrote:On December 13 2015 02:28 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 22:09 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 21:04 Faust852 wrote:
well at least we have cheap cool stuff and we don't live like Cold-War USSR. that has nothing to do with globalization but with capitalism + slavery. wherever there are slaves, there are cost reductions to be exploited. i don't get why (the)cheapest should be a target for anything anyway. give people more money, done. Well, I'm kinda glad I can eat banana in mid december, or drink coffee in the morning. I don't know how you'd do without coffee but I'd feel terrible I'd also miss having stupid argument on the internet with random stranger. well, since you see your whole existence as a product of globalization, the best is to remain a random stranger to you. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market. Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever. The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea. Cold war USSR had astonishing good growth result, and many famous economists believed back then that it would necessarily pass the US as the first GDP. The reason was that labor is pretty cheap in goulag (and numbers pretty good when manipulated). But just saying, it was not a complete economic fiasco, it assured full employment and a very good growth - the main problem was that it was plagued by crisis of offer (which are less frequent but more dangerous than the crisis of under employment of the production capabilities that we suffer in our capitalists societies). A page ago you criticsed people for looking at stupid GDP numbers and now you're defending a government that achieved growth by using people as firewood and having everybody who didn't live in Moscow starve It's exactly what I said, the USSR was very much like the globalization, an economic "success" from a gdp perspective, that created a few crisis of under production (of offer = starving people to death) and that used modern slaves in goulag. I was not, at all, saying the USSR was great. But the USSR was also heavily nationalized and lacked in all the things those types of closed up economies always lack. Bad consumer products, falling farther and farther technological behind as time goes on, corruption getting bigger, little checks and balances and so on. It's maybe a valid strategy for a country that goes from having no economy to establishing one, but as soon as you're halfway okay it seems like almost any nation profits more from free trade than it does from protectionism. All those countries growing under these state dominated economies also have young populations and completely different demographic situations. And in the context of Europe there is basically no country which would fall in the first category.
If your point is that globalization is beneficial for developped countries from a pure economic perspective, I agree - but there are no rules that sayd that it will always be, nor that it beneficial for every citizens and every class in developped countries : slavery was very beneficial for white rich and even for some slaves to a certain extent... So yeah, it is a topic we can discuss democratically, it is à ambivalent process, and not the perfect process not up to any debate like some suggested jere.
|
On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:
i don't get why (the)cheapest should be a target for anything anyway. give people more money, done.
Look we solved economics! Oh wait. Not really. If you just double wages, you also double the cost of everything. I'm not poor because I make little money... it's because the money I make covers my costs with little room for surplus. You can't increase wages across the board without impacting prices. Unless the aim is simply to take money from some people and give it to others. But that's just progressive taxation and it's pretty much universally accepted as a framework principle.
|
On December 13 2015 02:21 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2015 22:41 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 22:09 Faust852 wrote:On December 12 2015 21:56 xM(Z wrote:On December 12 2015 21:04 Faust852 wrote:
well at least we have cheap cool stuff and we don't live like Cold-War USSR. that has nothing to do with globalization but with capitalism + slavery. wherever there are slaves, there are cost reductions to be exploited. i don't get why (the)cheapest should be a target for anything anyway. give people more money, done. Well, I'm kinda glad I can eat banana in mid december, or drink coffee in the morning. I don't know how you'd do without coffee but I'd feel terrible I'd also miss having stupid argument on the internet with random stranger. well, since you see your whole existence as a product of globalization, the best is to remain a random stranger to you. Well, tell me how much you don't rely on globalization and open market. Sure, you are actually writing stuff on a computer assembled in China, with a processor made in USA and a graphic card made in Taiwan. You are wearing clothes coming from Bengladesh and Thailand while eating pork from Netherlands with milk from Poland. You are writing stuff on the internet, which come from everywhere all at once. You are eating fruit coming from south america and spain, because gl getting banana or olive oil in Romania in mid december. At least 90% of the product you consume comes from another country, and that's good because you can't ask for a country to offer all the good possible while keeping them at reasonable cost. That's why globalization is the best thing ever. The only issue is the lack of rules, standard and rules which lead to corporation making billion by selling Polo at 50€ while it cost 30c to make in Bengladesh. That is the issue that need to be tackled on, not some retarded nationalism that would only lead to aweful living standard like cold war USSR or North Korea.
i have no idea what you have going there, but globalization did not invent the trading. ~7000 years ago, people from China were trading with people from SE-Europe. once you factor in that tidbit, your whole wall of text becomes - but globalization is better at exploiting slaves and drive costs down ...
ps: bananas should've gone extinct decades ago; they're not even fruits.
@Yoav - that's just progressive taxation and it's pretty much universally accepted as a framework principle, is a pretty bold statement; not only that is not accepted but it's also fought against.
|
I am pretty sure the main problem here is that no two of you mean the same thing when they say "globalization" Before you argue about whether globalization is inevitable, good, or anything else or not, you should consider actually defining that word in a way that all of you agree upon, otherwise this is utterly futile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
