|
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 |
enns
Joined: 02 May 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Argue the facts, not emotion
The bottom line is that since the 1960s, when globalization really began to gain traction, global poverty has rapidly decreased, infant mortality rates have drastically fallen, and life expectancy has increased.
Yes the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer too. For example, between 1965 and 1998 the average world citizen's income practically doubled from $2,497 to $4,839(with the POOREST fifth of the world's population rising from $551 to $1,137 and the richest fifth's rising from $8,315 to $14,623).
The UN's goal of lowering world poverty to below 15% by 2015 was achieved and passed nearly a decade ago. Absolute poverty has drastically fallen over the past several decades.
Life Expectancy has more than doubled worldwide over the past century. The slowest being Sub-Saharan Africa, who has still seen an increase, rising from 41 to 51 years since the 1960s.
Not to mention an increase in global democratization, literacy and women's rights.
No it's not perfect, but what more do you want really? Globalization is clearly working for the 1st and 3rd world.
The left should educate themselves on global capitalism, spreading falsehoods does not further the debate.
Numbers taken from the UN and cited in In Defense of Global Capitalism |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| It would be incredibly unrealistic to expect these countries to recreate the Industrial revolution, but they should be able to produce their own products for the own nations without falling prey to a comparative advantage skewed by subsidies in A's economies. |
Yeah, and that ideal was tried and failed. It was called various names, but you might better know it as Marxism, or Marxist-Leninism, or simply Communism.
These countries will not match the US economy in decades of years as long as the US economy continues to be healthy. But its enough that things are improving. There's too much power-parity consciousness and class resentment in your economics. At the most basic level, we're trying to make life more livable for people. Again, Communism wasn't able to do that, and neither will Communism-lite (ISI). |
Give me a crapping break. Bechtel buying up the water rights in Cochabamba and charging 25% of people incomes for water is not an improvement in people's lives. What other reaction can you expect beside class-consciousness? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enns wrote: |
Argue the facts, not emotion
The bottom line is that since the 1960s, when globalization really began to gain traction, global poverty has rapidly decreased, infant mortality rates have drastically fallen, and life expectancy has increased.
Yes the rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer too. For example, between 1965 and 1998 the average world citizen's income practically doubled from $2,497 to $4,839(with the POOREST fifth of the world's population rising from $551 to $1,137 and the richest fifth's rising from $8,315 to $14,623).
The UN's goal of lowering world poverty to below 15% by 2015 was achieved and passed nearly a decade ago. Absolute poverty has drastically fallen over the past several decades.
Life Expectancy has more than doubled worldwide over the past century. The slowest being Sub-Saharan Africa, who has still seen an increase, rising from 41 to 51 years since the 1960s.
Not to mention an increase in global democratization, literacy and women's rights.
No it's not perfect, but what more do you want really? Globalization is clearly working for the 1st and 3rd world.
The left should educate themselves on global capitalism, spreading falsehoods does not further the debate.
Numbers taken from the UN and cited in In Defense of Global Capitalism |
What falsehoods? What emotion? Same old song and dance. "You don't agree, therefore you're uninformed and irrational. Why? Because you don't agree." Nicely done, Friedman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| thepeel wrote: |
Maybe you are unfamiliar with sub-Saharan Africa and the wider experience of third world states with oodles of resources?
|
Quite familiar. It's a familiar and non-viable model. 1
| Quote: |
Anyways, you are in voodoo economics at this point. China will have home-grown Samsung's and Sony's. It is too early at this point. ISI is not a serious model for a wide variety of reasons. The West because more wealthy after the end of ISI and de-colonialism. More freer trade and so on was exceptionally good for us.
|
The West were the colonizers. We had diversified economies with captive markets for finished goods and dirt cheap raw materials. Of course wealth would take off. Official political colonies became more trouble than they were worth. Unofficial economic ones were the way to go. 2
| Quote: |
The poorest nations are the least globalized, especially in Africa. High as hell tariffs, terrible monetary policy and the like.
|
The only nation-state in Africa is Somalia. The rest are barely conceived states with no national identity, with economies hobbled and narrowed by 100-year old colonial dictates. You can't compare colonies to metropoles. 3
| Quote: |
Economists have moved on from this debate, by in large. Now, the focus is on institutions and governance. Development can take place in relatively protected economies (Korea), open ones (Hong Kong) socialistic ones (Sweden), capitalistic ones (Singapore) and so on. It is more important for the Credibility of Rules (the World Bank's measure for institutional health) is high. |
The only two nation-states outside of Europe and the settler colonies of Britain with viable global economies are South Korea and Japan, unique because of their Confucian social institutions, complete lack of ethnic diversity, and histories of economic and social isolation, de facto tarrifs. They alone formed nation-states like those seen in the West. Singapore and Hong Kong are city-states, not nation states. Institutions and economies must develop organically, not be forced down the throats of former colonies whose economies were winnowed to serve the interests of the same exact cadre of nations pushing for trade liberalization. 4 |
1) It isn't a model but an outcome.
2) After colonialism the West got stronger and the colonies weaker. This because of the institutions that were left behind in the former colonies and the institutions that had been built in the West. Africa is the most poorly governed area of earth. And this won't change. They are already doing all the things you say they should do, trying to create national titans and the like. They protect their markets and industries from capital/labour and goods from the outside at rates that are on balance the highest in the world. It doesn't work. Korea and Japan are the outliers in a history of failed ISI policy.
Besides, you can't have a whole world using ISI. Some states would have to consume at an unbalanced rate while not demanding reciprocity. This can be managed when it is Korea/Japan, but as we see with China, there is only so far that imbalances in trade/capital accounts can be taken politically or economically.
3) Somalia as the only nation-state? Are you making a blood-soil reference here?
4) I don't really think you get this. Singapore and Hong Kong had institutions shoved down their throats, and it worked. Ditto for democracy in India. Ideas can be born, they can be appropriated or they can be forced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enns
Joined: 02 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do you disagree with the facts presented?
Can we agree the globalization has drastically improved the lives of individuals around the globe? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enns wrote: |
Do you disagree with the facts presented?
Can we agree the globalization has drastically improved the lives of individuals around the globe? |
Facts are facts. Conclusions about causation are another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enns wrote: |
Do you disagree with the facts presented?
Can we agree the globalization has drastically improved the lives of individuals around the globe? |
Those nations that have been 1) willing and 2) able to participate in globalization have seen massive reductions in absolute poverty and increasing in most measures of living standards. Where states are unable or unwilling, the lot of the people is getting worse.
Norberg is a damn lucid writer and economist. Kudos on citing him.
Here is a documentary he made on globalization and Africa:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5633239795464137680&q=johan+norberg&total=33&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enns
Joined: 02 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks, peel, I'll check it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
4) I don't really think you get this. Singapore and Hong Kong had institutions shoved down their throats, and it worked. Ditto for democracy in India. Ideas can be born, they can be appropriated or they can be forced. |
There is a specific recipe for success under the globalization model, and most of the developing world does not have the ingredients. HK and Singapore are city-states, not nation-states. How many city-states are there? 4? 5?
Democracy is present in India, but it's not working. It's a specific recipe, and the rest of the world does not have the ingredients.
http://www.sikhgenocide.org/background.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That recipe isn't a return to mercantilism. It is good government. Markets allocating capital/resources and transparent/accountable politics. That is the recipe.
India is a nation of 1.1billion people that is wildly religious and amazingly ethnic/linguistically/religiously diverse. It is also poor as hell in most places. That they are able to have a functioning democracy (to the extent that it is) is really quite incredible and their growth is more sustainable and negotiated than China's.
Tell my why, very specifically, the lessons of Hong Kong and Singapore's development can't me extrapolated to the wider world. Merely pointing out size doesn't cut it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
That recipe isn't a return to mercantilism. It is good government. Markets allocating capital/resources and transparent/accountable politics. That is the recipe.
India is a nation of 1.1billion people that is wildly religious and amazingly ethnic/linguistically/religiously diverse. It is also poor as hell in most places. That they are able to have a functioning democracy (to the extent that it is) is really quite incredible and their growth is more sustainable and negotiated than China's.
Tell my why, very specifically, the lessons of Hong Kong and Singapore's development can't me extrapolated to the wider world. Merely pointing out size doesn't cut it. |
Because they are city-states, and the rest of the world is not. Tell me why the lessons of D-Day can't be extrapolated to the Tet offensive. Markets don't allocate transparent/accountable politics. Gilded Ages don't. Pools and trusts don't. Institutions do. Diet of Worms-es do. Treaties of Westphalia do. Zollvereins do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again, clearly tell my why Singapore/HK's lessons of effective government, open markets, trade, a focus on technical education and extremely open labour markets can't be extrapolated to larger nations. Size is not a legitimate answer.
I don't know anything about dday or tet.
Markets don't allocate politics at all. Do you know what a market is?
What has caused, to the extent we are in one, a "guilded age", in your estimation?
Three questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
Again, clearly tell my why Singapore/HK's lessons of effective government, open markets, trade, a focus on technical education and extremely open labour markets can't be extrapolated to larger nations. Size is not a legitimate answer.
I don't know anything about dday or tet.
Markets don't allocate politics at all. Do you know what a market is?
What has caused, to the extent we are in one, a "guilded age", in your estimation?
Three questions. |
1. The Core Nation-states had a national, organically evolved middle class before they developed in the Industrial Age. They were largely ethnically homogeneous, with the United States becoming a late exception in the 1840's with the arrival of the Irish. Without a national, united middle class, development is nearly impossible. A city-state can develop a citywide middle class through artificial means such as high tech training and open financial systems. These are fields that require expertise but don't generate a lot of jobs, which is Ok when you govern 8 million people in a tiny area with common concerns, infrastructure and ethnicity. Singapore, Dubai, and Hong Kong are sterling successes, but then again so is Shanghai. But Shanghai has to deal with Guangxi and Xinjiang and Tibet, whereas Singapore is an entity unto itself. States have elsewhere came into being before their nations have, as in Indonesia, India, and Pakistan. Bangladesh is actually a good candidate for the province-state development, but it is really resembles more of a slum state.
2. Exactly--markets don't allocate fair and effective politics. The conflicting social institutions, associations, political parties, churches, etc., do. And they come from a large, national middle class, which has not emerged outside of Korea and Japan in the last fifty years.
3. We are not in a Gilded Age now, so much as we were in the 1870's-1900's, when there was little to no government "interference" and the nation suffered three devastating bust cycles as a result of pools, trusts, and other hazards of free market predation. As Jay Gould said "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half." So excuse me if I think class conflicts are important, because I guarantee those that profit off of its existence do as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
The only nation-state in Africa is Somalia. The rest are barely conceived states with no national identity, with economies hobbled and narrowed by 100-year old colonial dictates. You can't compare colonies to metropoles.
|
i'm semi-drunk at the moment so I can't address the rest of the argument. I'll say this much though:
Somalia??? Dude, come on.. Somalia is one of the few failed nation-states in the world.
Did you perhaps mean Ethiopia? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| jkelly80 wrote: |
The only nation-state in Africa is Somalia. The rest are barely conceived states with no national identity, with economies hobbled and narrowed by 100-year old colonial dictates. You can't compare colonies to metropoles.
|
i'm semi-drunk at the moment so I can't address the rest of the argument. I'll say this much though:
Somalia??? Dude, come on.. Somalia is one of the few failed nation-states in the world.
Did you perhaps mean Ethiopia? |
I wasn't saying it was successful. The only thing I said was "the only nation-state in Africa." Pointing out a fact is not a value judgment. But it did have a national identity before it became a state. One condition of a successful economy. But obviously not enough. |
|
| 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
