Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - The Consequences of Globalization and Neoliberal Policies.

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The Consequences of Globalization and Neoliberal Policies.
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

chris_J2

Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:02 am Post subject:

jkelly80: You forgot Australia (population 21 million).

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:16 am Post subject:

jkelly80 wrote:

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?

Who is defending Becthel? You are setting up an even worse alternative. A myriad number of crimes happen in the US. Should we start a revolution to reform the general system of governance?

Its the government's responsibility to correct extreme situations like that. It is not commentary on the entire globalist system as a whole.

And its saying something, saying something dramatic, that your alternative would be even worse than the present reality. Its like arguing that since Microsoft and Walmart get away with specific transgressions, we should undertake sweeping state directed market reform like Hugo Chavez tells us.

And if you think comparing your economic system with Chavez's is extreme, I admit it is. But I'd also like to point out that blaming the entire global system on poor outcomes in particular markets is even more grossly unfair. The global system does not promise prosperity to all, it offers the opportunity of eventual prosperity to all. Individual nation-states, like Indonesia in 1997, have the chance to mess it up, and often do so. That's what you see in situations like Nicauragua where corporations get away with murder because of the lack of rule of law.

jkelly80

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:03 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Setting up? It already happened.
What government? There are no economic or monetary systems to speak of in these countries. They go pink and screw up their whole economy because they're barely formed. They lack infrastructure, and go Marxist which is understandable from a political standpoint but a disaster. The US had a 95% marginal tax rate from 1950-1980, and we averaged 4% growth in spite of it. Why? Because of our diversified economy, which coalesced with the help of tariffs, not solely because of them. Bolivia get guys like Goni (who spoke Spanish as his second language) to come and perform shock therapy to curb inflation without improving anyone's day-to-day lives outside of the elite. And the West bemoans the results when a Morales or Chavez gets elected--with majorities, not just pluralities. It's obvious these guys are charlatans, but what do you expect?

Quote:

And its saying something, saying something dramatic, that your alternative would be even worse than the present reality. Its like arguing that since Microsoft and Walmart get away with specific transgressions, we should undertake sweeping state directed market reform like Hugo Chavez tells us.

When did I ever suggest that I was a Marxist (Chavezist?)? Pointing out corporate corruption and malfeasance is Marxist? When did this happen? Questioning neo-liberalism shock therapies equals Marxist? The United States has a diversified economy. It can absorb corporate predation. The Gap does not. The only thing I suggest are tariffs, and I'm a communist? I'm not saying nationalize industry and agriculture and eliminate pricing. Slow your roll.

Quote:

And if you think comparing your economic system with Chavez's is extreme, I admit it is. But I'd also like to point out that blaming the entire global system on poor outcomes in particular markets is even more grossly unfair. The global system does not promise prosperity to all, it offers the opportunity of eventual prosperity to all. Individual nation-states, like Indonesia in 1997, have the chance to mess it up, and often do so. That's what you see in situations like Nicauragua where corporations get away with murder because of the lack of rule of law.

Indonesia is not a nation-state. It's a state with many nations, and has no national middle class.

There is no evidence that globalization is a universal system. It's worked in 6 small homogeneous nation- and city-states in and nowhere else. Nowhere else. Period. It can certainly facilitate GDP growth, but it can't build up an entire economy, and it leads oligarchies. I'm not suggesting alternatives, I'm only pointing out that previous techniques like "shock therapies" are unmitigated failures.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:49 am Post subject:

Quote:

Indonesia is not a nation-state. It's a state with many nations, and has no national middle class.

Irrelevent. Indonesia's failures around the turn of the century (and its doing better today) were due to its market policy and Mahatir's reckless words blaming the Jews for the market's withdrawal in the face of his own corruption. Indonesia's failures had to do with investment issues and international consumer confidence issues.

I don't see how tariffs can replace the rule of law in these countries. Protecting homegrown businesses which as a result won't have a peon's chance of competing in the international market doesn't change the root problem: corruption.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:01 am Post subject:

jkelly80 wrote:

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.

source? Are you sure you aren't confusing it with Ethiopia? Ethiopia has been a country for hundreds of years and only briefly was controlled by the Italians. It has its own version of christianity, own holy book, etc.

Given the fact that the northern portion of Somalia has broken away and is asking the international community for recognition, I am quite skeptical of your claim.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:05 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Quote:

Indonesia is not a nation-state. It's a state with many nations, and has no national middle class.

What does Malaysia's former President have to do with Indonesia? That being said, I'm glad you brought up Malaysia. There is another case of globalization working for a country. Sure, there was the 1997 financial crisis, but Malaysia has substantially developed over the years.

But yes, Indonesia's failures were due in large part to Suharto and his family, including his wife, Mrs. "Ten Percent."

As thepeel said, it is the institutions w/in a country that matter most.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:11 am Post subject:

jkelly80 wrote:

There is no evidence that globalization is a universal system. It's worked in 6 small homogeneous nation- and city-states in and nowhere else. Nowhere else. Period. It can certainly facilitate GDP growth, but it can't build up an entire economy, and it leads oligarchies. I'm not suggesting alternatives, I'm only pointing out that previous techniques like "shock therapies" are unmitigated failures.

It takes over a decade to see progress. That's the thing. I earlier noted New Zealand. Its economy was in the dumps in 1980. From that point until the early 90s, it underwent shock therapy. The citizens got fed up so much that they changed the electoral system in the mid-90s from Westminster to a PR system. Only soon after that did NZ start to see economic progress across the board.

Other examples are in Eastern Europe. It took them over 10 years to see substantial results. Can you not deny the success of the Baltic States? Oh yes, they're small. Excuse me. What about slovakia? Went from being one of the most backward countries in Europe to a manufacturing hub of the region. How about them all together? Still too small probably.
You're nitpicking, you do realize that right?

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:20 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Quote:

Indonesia is not a nation-state. It's a state with many nations, and has no national middle class.

I'm sorry, I meant Suharto. I get confused because both inveighed against int'l Jewry. The latter, Suharto, when investors lost confidence in Indonesia. Apparently, Suharto was corrupt, and the Jews were not at fault.

Quote:

In May 1999, a Time Asia estimated Suharto's family fortune at US$15 billion in cash, shares, corporate assets, real estate, jewelry and fine art. Of this, US$9 billion is reported to have been deposited in an Austrian bank. The family is said to control about 36,000 km� of real estate in Indonesia, including 100,000 m� of prime office space in Jakarta and nearly 40 percent of the land in East Timor. Over US$73 billion is said to have passed through the family's hands during Suharto's 32-year rule.

On May 29, 2000, Suharto was placed under house arrest when Indonesian authorities began to investigate the corruption during his regime. In July 2000, it was announced that he was to be accused of embezzling US$571 million of government donations to one of a number of foundations under his control and then using the money to finance family investments. But in September court-appointed doctors announced that he could not stand trial because of his declining health. State prosecutors tried again in 2002 but then doctors cited an unspecified brain disease.

According to Transparency International, Suharto embezzled more money than any other world leader in history with an estimated US $15�35 billion embezzlement during his 32 years rule.[62]

jkelly80

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:47 am Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

jkelly80 wrote:

It takes over a decade to see progress. That's the thing. I earlier noted New Zealand. Its economy was in the dumps in 1980. From that point
until the early 90s, it underwent shock therapy. The citizens got fed up so much that they changed the electoral system in the mid-90s from Westminster to a PR system. Only soon after that did NZ start to see economic progress across the board.

6ther examples are in Eastern Europe. It took them over 10 years to see substantial results. Can you not deny the success of the Baltic States? Oh yes, they're small. Excuse me. What about slovakia? Went from being one of the most backward countries in Europe to a manufacturing hub of the region. How about them all together? Still too small probably.
You're nitpicking, you do realize that right?

Latvia: 2.2 million people, 11k per capita, .37 gini coefficient
Lithuania: 3.5, 10k, .36
Estonia: 1.3, 15k .25
Slovakia: 5.3, 13k, .25

Malaysia 24.5, 10k, .49 gini

Combined, 12 million, equal to the state of Illnios, one million more than Seoul, combined. I have already said it does work for small states with homogeneous populations.

I made the point about institutions. They develop organically from a national middle class. Once you have a Chinese middle class of 800 million and an Indian one of 400 million, I'll concede it's a global model for success.

I wrote:

It's worked in 6 small homogeneous nation- and city-states in and nowhere else.

Maye more than six. But not much more. Malaysia would the only one to fall outside of those parameters, but most of its wealth is centered around Kuala Lampur and Penang.

NZ+Ireland+Malaysia+Baltics+Slovakia=39 million people, worldwide. Add HK and Singapore, 50 million. Geopolitical buffer states South Korea and Taiwan? I wouldn't count those, but if you want, fine. That's 120 million people.

I'm arguing about the 70% of the world that doesn't benefit. I established criteria and you accuse me of nitpicking when the only examples you provide consist of peripheral states that conform exactly to the same previous criteria? Nice trick.

jkelly80

Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:52 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Quote:

I will readily agree that corruption is a huge problem, and that blame falls squarely on the states themselves, but it's everywhere--outside of the small, mono-ethnic nation and city states. Its a pre-existing round hole that doesn't jive with globalization's square peg.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject:

So are you going to tell us that Brazil hasn't progressed? And you bring up Indonesia. Apparently it has less income disparity than Singapore and Malaysia. Hmmm.... The average income at the beginning of this decade, was $3,500. I'd wager that the average income in Indonesia was much smaller than that 20 years ago. Seems to me it must be doing something right. And that co-efficient isn't the most useful tool when comparing countries anyway. For example, Bangladesh and Canada have nearly identical gini coefficients. Gini coefficient list And can you provide an example of a country that implemented and kept liberalization policies for 10 years or more and was no better off afterwards?

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:11 pm Post subject:

jkelly80 wrote:

Kuros wrote:

Quote:

Alright, so we're making progress.

Now how do protective tariffs help anything? Is there even a problem that they address? Or will it just assure that Korea's Samsung is the beneficiary of corruption and profits rather than America's Lonestar Bank?

mindmetoo

Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject:

jkelly80 wrote:

I'm arguing about the 70% of the world that doesn't benefit. I established criteria and you accuse me of nitpicking when the only examples you provide consist of peripheral states that conform exactly to the same previous criteria? Nice trick.

Actually the figure is really called "the bottom billion". Not 70% of the world. And the other poster is right, it's corruption, a lack of resources, and lack of access to ports. That's largely Africa. Trade is the cure, sorry. End of story.

Check out the econtalk podcast on the bottom billion or their detailed show notes.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/01/collier_on_the.html

The problem with your anti globalization movement is it somehow believes Africans picking coffee by hand is a good thing. Domestic agriculture in no nation is a route to wealth if its performed by a large % of the population. Manufacturing and services are. Globalization brings that. Self sufficient societies are subsistence societies. North Korea follows such a policy. Check out what that got them.

chris_J2

Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Location: From Brisbane, Au.

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:36 pm Post subject: Globalisation

'bucheon bum' wrote

Quote:

I earlier noted New Zealand. It's economy was in the dumps in 1980. From that point until the early 90s, it underwent shock therapy.

Same thing happened in Australia, with the Hawke / Keating Government (1983 -> 1996), adopting the neoliberal policies of Thatcherism & Reaganism in the mid 80's. The Howard Government's continued economic success, (1996->2007), relied heavily on policies introduced by the previous Labor Administration, despite their reluctance to acknowledge & admit this.

I've also read that one conclusion on globalization, is, that there are sufficient global resources, but the inequitable distribution of those resources, is the primary cause of poverty in places such as Africa.

I'm also wondering if there is a direct or partial correlation, between lack of corruption & wealth.

Denmark: 9.4
Finland: 9.4
New Zealand: 9.4
Singapore: 9.3
Sweden: 9.3
Iceland: 9.2
Netherlands: 9.0
Switzerland: 9.0
Canada / Norway: 8.7

The other high achievers were Switzerland & Austria. France & Germany were grouped lower, with the USA.

#11 Australia 8.3
#20 USA
#41 Italy
#43 South Korea

http://www.gulfnews.com/world/General/10185179.html

Btw, Marcos also left an unsavoury legacy. Suharto was not the only one.

"The Philippine government today is still paying interests on more than US$28 billion public debts incurred during his administration." (Wikipedia). Previous posts have mentioned corruption, as a definite factor. Thoughts?

One other issue not yet discussed, is the proliferation of Free Trade Agreements, over the past 5 years. What impact are these having on globalization, if any? It would appear FTA's are accelerating the process?

A third issue is neo-colonialism, where the economies of former colonies in the third world, become locked into providing (mostly) agricultural exports, to their former colonial masters. And thus continuing the poverty cycle.

arjuna

Joined: 31 Mar 2007

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:13 am Post subject:

Zoned for Slavery: The Child Behind the Label This film introduced tens of thousands of people to the harsh realities of the global economic system when it was released in 1995. It has received massive distribution among universities, high schools, religious organizations and unions. The film continues to be relevant in 2007 and will continue inspiring action against corporate misconduct and sweatshop abuses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XtYhfcEZ9A Hidden Face of Globalization In the global economy, corporations demand enforceable laws - intellectual property and copyright laws - backed up by sanctions to protect their products. However, when we ask these same companies, "Can't we also protect the rights of the 16-year-old who made the product?," the companies respond: "No. That would be an impediment to free trade!" Young garment workers in Bangladesh share their experiences working for companies like Disney and Wal-Mart. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bhodyt4fmU&NR=1

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe