|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
If an economy crashes after IMF intervention and/or the entire country begins rioting (presumably because they feel their rights are being violated, rather than buttressed, by a "free economy"), the IMF has very directly *beep* up - and that's pretty impressive considering the kinds of demands it generally makes.
|
The economy crashed because Argentina suddenly floated the peso after pegging it to the dollar for 10 years. Let me be clear, Argentina's real mistake was dictating the value of the peso artificially. Floating it was something they had to do eventually.
The protests that happened, the so-called Cacerolazo, were geared towards the Argentinian policies which restrained people from touching their bank accounts, because the hyperinflation got so bad that native Argentinians started to dump their own currency for dollars.
The real problem with the IMF is that it made recommendations after it approved the $40billion loan, rather than insistances on Argentinian economic policy. The Argentinian government and its deeply flawed economic policies are the ones who caused the riots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
Counter my argument.
Pretty please. |
No, thanks.
Discussions of this nature presuppose that both parties are open to persuasion on the issues at hand. You clearly are not. And you clearly know little about Latin-American affairs -- aside from having apparently memorized the U.S-centric, scapegoating, allegation-driven discourse, that is.
Best of luck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
The real problem with the IMF is that it made recommendations after it approved the $40billion loan, rather than insistences on Argentinian economic policy. The Argentinian government and its deeply flawed economic policies are the ones who caused the riots. |
There's certainly ample evidence of South American govt's not being able to manage economies in ways have little to do with the situations created post-colonialism. If any countries should be able to get their **** together, it would be Arg., Chile, and maybe Uruguay, b/c they were mostly settler colonies with little or no indigenous population to begin with.
Allende, for example, was a radical Marxist who gets way too much credit simply b/c he was screwed by the US and academics like his rhetoric. He actually deserved to get screwed, just not in the way the US and Coca-Cola went about it.
However, the IMF and the Core countries are responsible to a large extent themselves. The problem is most of peripheral countries have inherited crippling amounts of debt from military junta govt's that were prevalent in the 70's. These dictators pocketed a lot of the money and did nothing to develop their nations. The IMF and its proponents are often members of the very same US and European financial sectors that willingly lent out money to murderers and strongmen without a whiff of moral consideration.
Now, with democratically elected governments, these South American countries can't cope with the debt and are pretty much forced to accept the SAPs that the IMF proposes, policies which work great for developed economies like the US and Europe and give them huge advantages over developing economies that are often hamstrung by the mono-economies created by the same countries that now flood their markets with heavily subsidized goods, subsidized by policies that the IMF declares verboten to South America. It's a complete hustle, a return to the Robber Baron policies that screwed over the US in 19th Century. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:30 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Discussions of this nature presuppose that both parties are open to persuasion on the issues at hand. You clearly are not. And you clearly know little about Latin-American affairs -- aside from having apparently memorized the allegation-driven discourse, that is. |
And of course, the implication here is that Gopher is open to persuasion and you, [insert anyone who disagrees with him] is not. On the other hand, [Insert whoever holds the same position as Gopher] has a valid point.
Two questions for all who post on this forum:
1)Have you ever persuaded Gopher of anything?
2) Do you think that Gopher is open to persuasion?
I ask this not because I have some pretense to an "Olympian position" myself, but because I find it outrageous that the above poster will, at one turn, pander for "dispassionate discourse" and, at the next, spew forth his highly subjective conjecture about anyone who opposes him.
Let me make this painstakingly clear:
If you disagree with Gopher, it will NOT be because of whatever point you happen to be making. Rather, it will be because you harbor some subconscious (or conscious) prejudice that he, in drinking of Pieran spring, has managed to avoid.
You have all, in some way or another, been pre-programmed to think what you think while Mr Semper Fi has found the "true truth".
This "true truth" is more in line with the Armed Forces Community College than it is with higher education at large. Gopher doesn't like this. Finding things as such, he uses this forum as a blowhole for the angst that his current job creates in his life.
And he has proof in the books he's read. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nowhere Man:
So now you're engaging in pseudo psychoanalysis of posters with whom you are at variance? You're quite sure you know of Gopher's educational background and can hence divine his world outlook therefrom?
Anyone with an ounce of objectivity can plainly see that Gopher is well read and reflective. Acknowledging as much doesn't require you to be beholden to him or even to agree.
I realize, of course, that Leftists cringe whenever someone more conservative articulates a point-of-view. It happens to journalists William F. Buckley, George Will, and Charles Krauthammer all the time. Much easier to think of us as demented closet fascists, eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
However, the IMF and the Core countries are responsible to a large extent themselves. The problem is most of peripheral countries have inherited crippling amounts of debt from military junta govt's that were prevalent in the 70's. These dictators pocketed a lot of the money and did nothing to develop their nations. The IMF and its proponents are often members of the very same US and European financial sectors that willingly lent out money to murderers and strongmen without a whiff of moral consideration.
Now, with democratically elected governments, these South American countries can't cope with the debt and are pretty much forced to accept the SAPs that the IMF proposes, policies which work great for developed economies like the US and Europe and give them huge advantages over developing economies that are often hamstrung by the mono-economies created by the same countries that now flood their markets with heavily subsidized goods, subsidized by policies that the IMF declares verboten to South America. It's a complete hustle, a return to the Robber Baron policies that screwed over the US in 19th Century. |
Every economy has to work on the same playing field because of globalization. Most ESL Teachers who frequent the Current Events board are familiar with what happens to economies that embrace protectionist policies. They get trapped by them. Witness Korea's rice. Noh Moo Hyun understands that he needs to open his country to get access to the American market, which is why he pursued the KORUS FTA. But Noh could not convince the Korean public to lower the tariff on rice, which is at a duty of 1000%. Now what happens when rice is at 1000%? Well, first of all, protected rice farmers have no incentive to modernize. So productivity, the mother and great monitor of all economic progress, stalls. Eventually, it becomes impossible for Korea to open up its rice, because the damage to the edifice is so great. Foreigners remark that Korea needs to open up its rice market, but Koreans know well that to do so now would mean a whole lot of pain for a whole lot of people.
I think this is what you mean when you assert policies are forced upon developing economies by 'neo-liberal' institutions like IMF, World Bank, or any leading economic NGO or think-tank. But in the case of Korean rice, the protectionism is the failed policy, and the correction proposed by advocates of the full FTA, particularly US trade negotiators, would be painful. But there's no other way out of the hole, unless the Korean government were to gradually let down the tariffs while investing in modernization, i.e. subsidizing rice farmers.
Let me assure you that long-term subsidies, thinking of them as a welfare program that just never stops sending checks, do not work for any economy. Look at America's steel industry. It is the holy cow of rust-belt state politicians, but the subsidies and protections continue to make the entire edifice weaker. The idea that only weak states can get bitten by bad economic policies is a misconception.
There is no hustle. Whenever economies follow the advice, and follow them through for a few years, the global market notices. Again, see the link to the Argentinian Crisis I posted above. You'll notice that Argentina sweated the punishment out and paid off the loans to the IMF. Investment came rushing back, because of course, the crash had devalued the currency so much Argentinian stocks, holdings, lands, etc were all UNDERVALUED compared to their neighbors.
Look at Korea after 1997. The bad banks that had been at the helm of the poor accounting practices were bought up by foreigners (for cheap) and their practices corrected (and they sold them off for a profit). Korea took the IMF very seriously and within a few years their economy turned around.
Look at Colombia right now.
| Quote: |
Colombia's stock market has soared fourteenfold since October, 2001. Foreign direct investment and capital inflows have more than doubled, while real estate prices have tripled in many areas.
In the past 10 years, Colombia has slashed its inflation rate from 18% to 5%, and since Uribe was elected, unemployment has dipped from 16% to 13%. The nation has never defaulted on its debt or experienced hyperinflation. |
The fact is, when you play by the rules, consistently and over just the medium-term, the global market rewards you for it. And the Robber Baron analogy is frankly just wierd. I can buy stocks in Latin America, and I'm hardly Rockefeller. The flow of capital is a bit different now with the global economy fueled by the democratization of capital and financial services driven by PC and internet technology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
2) Do you think that Gopher is open to persuasion?
|
Oh I don't know...give him a few glasses of strong red wine...and who knows?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Dear, dear BB,
BIG mistake:
| Quote: |
| because he's so pretty |
Well, a mistake on the west side of the Atlantic. On our side, we think 'pretty' is for women OR guys who look like Yi Somebody-Ki (the nelly one in the King's Clown movie).
Take my advice: Go with 'cute'. It is ambisexual (I made that word up) and won't embarass your kid when he gets older.
Advice #2: Give him lots of guns, toy soldiers and things that blow up and otherwise make noise. Given your far, far left proclivities, the boy is going to need all the help he can get. |
Ah, Ya-ta - I am quite aware of the feminine connotations associated with 'pretty.' And that's why I try to make him as 'boy-looking' as possible, dressing him up in blue and even buying mini racing-car driver suits for him and what have you. Yet, despite my best efforts to make it obvious he is a boy, strangers will almost always congratulate me on my pretty little girl! You can not see from my avatar - which is now a couple of months out of date - his lovely little face. He doesn't have the cute chubby features of most his age. He has very fine (and well defined) features with bright expressive little eyes - and everyone assumes he is a girl! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| So now you're engaging in pseudo psychoanalysis of posters with whom you are at variance...? |
Not psychoanalysis, Mcgarrett. He attached himself to me and became my own personal muckraker long ago. Pay him no attn, then. I do not.
Cue for him to return with some snide remark that -- in his mind at least -- is really, really witty... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
in_seoul_2003
Joined: 24 Nov 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| So now you're engaging in pseudo psychoanalysis of posters with whom you are at variance...? |
Not psychoanalysis, Mcgarrett. He attached himself to me and became my own personal muckraker long ago. Pay him no attn, then. I do not.
Cue for him to return with some snide remark that -- in his mind at least -- is really, really witty... |
ATTACHED? Oh my, Nowhere Man, even in psychoanalysing Gopher he's managed to turn himself into the analyst and you the patient. It realy doesn't stop then, does it?
Isn't attached just another word for TRANSFERENCE between the analyst and the analysand?
So what would talking to Nowhere Man through mcgarret be? Ah yes, the desire for the other's desire....
Now, am I talking to Gopher or am I talking to Nowhere Man?
Hey, mcgarret, did you know that Freud was a right-winger? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Every economy has to work on the same playing field because of globalization. Most ESL Teachers who frequent the Current Events board are familiar with what happens to economies that embrace protectionist policies. They get trapped by them. Witness Korea's rice. Noh Moo Hyun understands that he needs to open his country to get access to the American market, which is why he pursued the KORUS FTA. But Noh could not convince the Korean public to lower the tariff on rice, which is at a duty of 1000%. Now what happens when rice is at 1000%? Well, first of all, protected rice farmers have no incentive to modernize. So productivity, the mother and great monitor of all economic progress, stalls. Eventually, it becomes impossible for Korea to open up its rice, because the damage to the edifice is so great. Foreigners remark that Korea needs to open up its rice market, but Koreans know well that to do so now would mean a whole lot of pain for a whole lot of people.
|
When I say protectionist policies, I certainly don't mean 100% tariffs on cereal crops in perpetuity. More like the lower, temporary rates the US had in 1800s. It is not a level playing field because every singe developed economy (besides the Asian ones) went through a "cheater" period where they had protected markets to develop industrial bases. There were little or no patent laws, and they had decidedly less competition.
The US, however, also subsidizes large portions of it ag production allowing them to flood the market with goods well under domestic prices in Latin America. It drives out domestic producers, and then jacks up the price again. The US plays by one set of rules and uses the IMF to insist that others go neo-liberal. Meanwhile, American corporations (Cargill, ADM, Monsanto) with undue influence profit hugely from the tariffs and subsidies from the US govt in a supposed "free market" environment. Just like American corporations with undue influence profited hugely from tariffs and govt spending in the 1870's.
| Quote: |
I think this is what you mean when you assert policies are forced upon developing economies by 'neo-liberal' institutions like IMF, World Bank, or any leading economic NGO or think-tank. But in the case of Korean rice, the protectionism is the failed policy, and the correction proposed by advocates of the full FTA, particularly US trade negotiators, would be painful. But there's no other way out of the hole, unless the Korean government were to gradually let down the tariffs while investing in modernization, i.e. subsidizing rice farmers.
|
Korea simply has too high of a tariff on the wrong kind of product. It's a developed state and has less need of a tariff anyway.
| Quote: |
Let me assure you that long-term subsidies, thinking of them as a welfare program that just never stops sending checks, do not work for any economy. Look at America's steel industry. It is the holy cow of rust-belt state politicians, but the subsidies and protections continue to make the entire edifice weaker. The idea that only weak states can get bitten by bad economic policies is a misconception.
|
Long term subsidies do not, by any means. But short term ones are necessary for a developing economy.
| Quote: |
There is no hustle. Whenever economies follow the advice, and follow them through for a few years, the global market notices. Again, see the link to the Argentinian Crisis I posted above. You'll notice that Argentina sweated the punishment out and paid off the loans to the IMF. Investment came rushing back, because of course, the crash had devalued the currency so much Argentinian stocks, holdings, lands, etc were all UNDERVALUED compared to their neighbors.
[
Look at Korea after 1997. The bad banks that had been at the helm of the poor accounting practices were bought up by foreigners (for cheap) and their practices corrected (and they sold them off for a profit). Korea took the IMF very seriously and within a few years their economy turned around.
Look at Colombia right now.
The fact is, when you play by the rules, consistently and over just the medium-term, the global market rewards you for it. And the Robber Baron analogy is frankly just wierd. I can buy stocks in Latin America, and I'm hardly Rockefeller. The flow of capital is a bit different now with the global economy fueled by the democratization of capital and financial services driven by PC and internet technology. |
Democratization of capital is a myth, as is the PC analogy. Roughly 60% of foreign investment outflow from the US goes to only six countries. That's not democratic. I think too many globalization proponents use the "small business owner" as their version of the bloody shirt.
Sure, you can invest in Latin America. That's great. However, financial speculators working on a much larger scale can crash economies at the first sign of instability, which is an integral side effect of developing economies. They're not rational actors, they're members of a herd. Entrepreneurship and republican values have been on the ropes in the US since the 1860s because of large scale coroporate style business interests, but they make for good copy when talking about raiding other countries' coffers.
Because of current patent laws, software is impossible to produce by competing developers. Without production of software, the only viable natural resource that hasn't been devalued, countries can't truly have a stake in the Fanciful Friedman Plot Device known as the Information Revolution. Keep in mind the US routinely ignored patent laws throughout the whole of the 19th century, much like China is doing now. They could afford to because of the size of their market. We are simply not allowing the same conditions that our own economies developed under to exist elsewhere because it would not be maximizing the profits of the Western financial sector. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| in_seoul_2003 wrote: |
| ATTACHED? Oh my... |
And here is yet another of those famous unprovoked posts. Note the caustic wit and exaggerated outrage via all caps that everyone here allegedly hates so much (for dramatic effect, of course).
I will go direct with you, In_Seoul_2003: what is your beef here? Do you have something to say about Chavez or any of this thread's tangents? Do you even have any views on this topic? Or are you just interested in grudges and personal attacks for their own sakes?
Apparently you are even more petty than I first suspected. Like Nowhere Man, your only purpose here is to attempt to discredit another poster personally. Good for you, "mate." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Now he's tinkering with the constitution to allow himself greater executive powers |
Hmm, remind you of anyone? |
Just in case Steve or one of his supporters counters, "Bush hasn't touched the constitution!" I will pre-empt them with this: no, he's just ignored it sometimes. |
So what? Does this make W. Bush analogous to Hugo Chavez? Does this justify what Hugo Chavez has done to the Venezuelan Constitution?
Someone asserts: Hugo Chavez is destroying the Venezuelan Constitution; suppressing free speech; keeping track of people who vote against him in his "mock" plebiscites -- and then denying them jobs and generally harassing them; and, underneath it all, moving to firm up a personalist, caudillo-style, antiAmerican-based dictatorship along the lines of Fidel Castro.
And Satori and you respond: What about W. Bush?
How does the W. Bush Administration and its problems undermine our criticism against Hugo Chavez? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| You guys invented the end justifying the means ... |
Care to be specific? How do you know the American right invented "the ends justifies the means?" When and where did this invention occur? And in what context? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Because of current patent laws, software is impossible to produce by competing developers. Without production of software, the only viable natural resource that hasn't been devalued, countries can't truly have a stake in the Fanciful Friedman Plot Device known as the Information Revolution. Keep in mind the US routinely ignored patent laws throughout the whole of the 19th century, much like China is doing now. |
so china's market has seen such growth because they have ignored patent laws? specifically software patent laws????? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
