TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Choiceless Democracy
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Choiceless Democracy
Something was stripped bare in the days ahead of the war in Iraq. It was that rare moment in which an actual world majority could see that ultimate chimera - the system - working against them. On the one side, overwhelming public opposition to the war.
On the other: wildly disproportionate mass media support for a conflict (overwhelmingly so in the US and Canada); corporate cheerleading (or, at best, corporate silence); and, of course, the embarrassing spectacle of national governments horse-trading their morality in exchange for protection from the tantrums of the White House and Wall Street. Who could forget 1990, when struggling Yemen cast its UN vote against the first Gulf War and lost $70 million in US aid within a week?
All of it was just a reminder. This is the way politics is played every day, out of sight - terms like "economic war" and "capital strike" are only unfamiliar because they're better known as "diplomacy" and "investor nonconfidence." To see these assaults in action, look to Brazil, the newest whipping dog. At the end of last year, President Lula da Silva came to power promising to narrow the rich-poor gap (wider in Brazil than almost anywhere on Earth) and campaigning fiercely against the International Monetary Fund's globalization agenda. Now, only a few months later, da Silva is treading carefully to avoid an economic preemptive strike from the planet's most powerful banks and investors. His social programs are on hold, and an austerity budget is planned to keep Brazil in the imf good books.
It's hard to blame da Silva; if he wants to see the results of making war with local and global economic powers, he can look to his neighbors, Venezuela and Cuba. For even greater comfort, he might even look to Germany. In 1998, Gerhard Schr�der campaigned on popular promises to firm up social welfare. Chancellor Schr�der then abandoned that plan as nothing more than pretty rhetoric. International investors had mobilized for a pullout, spooked by the threat that Schr�der might govern not for them, but for the voting public.
The effect has been called "choiceless democracy." Cast whatever ballot you like; you have already lost the most fundamental options. Government is only one force, and not a strong one, alongside corporate power, corporate media, the investment elite and the influence of the world's most powerful nations and institutions - all of which cross-pollinate. It's not a conspiracy. It's just business as usual.
Where does that leave the so-called "global citizen"?
The short answer is: frustrated and angry. More and more of us are stretched thin, genuinely fearful that the next tremor in the market will put us out of a job or a home - it seems safer not to rock the boat. Political philosopher Slavo Zizek, who has lived under and studied both communist regimes and liberal democracy, sees too many similarities for comfort. "Choices made by people in democratic states are not necessarily less compulsory, and yet they experience these choices as though they are free," he says. "We have returned to the concept of history as fate."
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/4..._democracy.html
Re: Choiceless Democracy
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior Something was stripped bare in the days ahead of the war in Iraq. It was that rare moment in which an actual world majority could see that ultimate chimera - the system - working against them. On the one side, overwhelming public opposition to the war. |
| quote: |
On the other: wildly disproportionate mass media support for a conflict (overwhelmingly so in the US and Canada); corporate cheerleading (or, at best, corporate silence); |
| quote: |
and, of course, the embarrassing spectacle of national governments horse-trading their morality in exchange for protection from the tantrums of the White House and Wall Street. Who could forget 1990, when struggling Yemen cast its UN vote against the first Gulf War and lost $70 million in US aid within a week? |
| quote: |
All of it was just a reminder. This is the way politics is played every day, out of sight - terms like "economic war" and "capital strike" are only unfamiliar because they're better known as "diplomacy" and "investor nonconfidence." To see these assaults in action, look to Brazil, the newest whipping dog. At the end of last year, President Lula da Silva came to power promising to narrow the rich-poor gap (wider in Brazil than almost anywhere on Earth) and campaigning fiercely against the International Monetary Fund's globalization agenda. Now, only a few months later, da Silva is treading carefully to avoid an economic preemptive strike from the planet's most powerful banks and investors. His social programs are on hold, and an austerity budget is planned to keep Brazil in the imf good books. It's hard to blame da Silva; if he wants to see the results of making war with local and global economic powers, he can look to his neighbors, Venezuela and Cuba. For even greater comfort, he might even look to Germany. In 1998, Gerhard Schr�der campaigned on popular promises to firm up social welfare. Chancellor Schr�der then abandoned that plan as nothing more than pretty rhetoric. International investors had mobilized for a pullout, spooked by the threat that Schr�der might govern not for them, but for the voting public. The effect has been called "choiceless democracy." Cast whatever ballot you like; you have already lost the most fundamental options. Government is only one force, and not a strong one, alongside corporate power, corporate media, the investment elite and the influence of the world's most powerful nations and institutions - all of which cross-pollinate. It's not a conspiracy. It's just business as usual. Where does that leave the so-called "global citizen"? The short answer is: frustrated and angry. More and more of us are stretched thin, genuinely fearful that the next tremor in the market will put us out of a job or a home - it seems safer not to rock the boat. Political philosopher Slavo Zizek, who has lived under and studied both communist regimes and liberal democracy, sees too many similarities for comfort. "Choices made by people in democratic states are not necessarily less compulsory, and yet they experience these choices as though they are free," he says. "We have returned to the concept of history as fate." http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/4..._democracy.html |
| quote: |
| those countries who supported the war participated, those who didnt were not involved in the war. Occrider had proved the majority of americans supported the war, hence nothing was worked agianst the majority. the same holds true for the UK (i showed BBC polls proving a majority approval of the war, days before the war) |
| quote: |
| wouldnt it be financially wise to follow the needs of the majority? |
| quote: |
| because at the end of the day you have the freedom to support who ever you want. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior check these numbers: USA versus The World |
| quote: |
Needs of the majority? The media should just report what is going on--straight, objective, undeniable facts--and keep their own views to themselves. |
| quote: |
Yes, you may support whoever you want. However, at the end of the day the people with the most power (corporations, apathetic politicians, people with $$$$$$$$$) usually win out. |
I think the issue here is not so much about US policy as it is neo-liberal globalism, but the two issues certainly overlap.
When you say "interdependence" Izzy, you have to realise that the dependence - when dealing with nations of highly disparate economic wealths - is usually very much one way. Let's face it, the US can exist just fine without Brazil as a trading partner, yet Brazil - like most of the other Latin American countries - relies heavily on its trade with the US. Now in a truly laissez-faire global market, the rules of "comparative advantage" would kick in here and ensure a relatively balanced trade-agreement: for instance, the US is more capable than Brazil at producing finished products (especially technology based products, and products such as cars that require a prohibitively large amount of capital/machinery to produce) yet Brazil is probably more capable at producing primary produce. So the relationship in a truly free market would be thus: Brazil sells the US primary produce/natural resources cheaper than the US can produce it, the US sells Brazil back the finished products that Brazil would otherwise be unable to produce due to either lack of access to the required technology or the prohibitively high costs of attaining the capital necessary for production. So, in this sense, there is a symbiotic relationship of sorts in a truly free-market global economy: each nation, theoretically, can offer something to another nation that is either cheaper or of a higher quality (and they would then specialise in this production) in exchange for goods they would struggle to produce efficiently themselves. As I said, this is the nature of economic comparative advantage.
However, in the real, neo-liberalistic world, this relationship is not quite so balanced and any claim to "interdependency" in severely diminished. Firstly, there are protectinist policies implemented by first-world nations, economically secure enough to introduce tarrifs that protect industries far more inefficient than their equivelent industries overseas. To use an example, Australia and the US supposedly had a free-trade agreement, where Australia would export beef to the US (which is - supposedly anyway - produced at a far lower cost and of a higher quality than US beef) freely (i.e. without protectionist tarrifs imposed on the goods once they hit the US shores) in exchange for US goods to be exported to Australia without any tarrifs on those goods at this end. Recently, however (can't remember when, though, or if the decision has since been overturned or not) the US introduced a 20% tarrif on Australian beef imports in order to protect US farmers, unable to produce beef as efficiently as their Australian counterparts. By doing this, the US would have theoretically stimulated domestic economic growth (by pumping money into the agricultural sector of the economy) and cut back the trade deficit, by reducing imports (as Australian beef would be made artificially more expensive, causing American businesses to purchace US produced beef instead) while maintaining the same level of exports to Australia. Now you may say that the US had every right to do this (I may not even disagree) but the action results in two hard truths:
1) Free trade is not as free as we suppose and the neo-liberal globalism the US purport to champion is decidedly only implemented where it suits them.
2) The concept of "interdependency" is eroded when we condsider that stronger nations are able to make other, weaker nations dependent on their exports by beginning with a free-trade agreement, affording the weaker nations the opportunity to pursue "competitive advantange" by putting all their economic eggs in one basket (focusing on specific areas of production under the assumption that everything else can be attained by trading away these products) but then pulling the carpet from underneath their feet by introducing protectionist measures which ensure export levels remain constant (as the weaker nations are now dependant on the stronger nations for many goods) while imports are reduced.
So that's how protectionist measures erode "interdependency" but perhaps more damaging to this concept (and to global economic equality) are the policies implimented by organisations such as the World Trade Organisation (who set up global trade policies) and the World Bank (who fund the economic projects in under-developed nations). Essentially, in order to become a member of the WTO and to receive assistance from the WB, a nation must open up its economy to investors world-wide: that is, it must set up a stock-exchange, it must sell it's currency on the world-market and so on. In addition, high degrees of privitization - the selling off of state owned assets to investors, both domestic and foreign (such as "banks, insurance firms, telecommunications companies, tour operators, hotel chains and transport companies") - are entry level requirements. The theory behind it is that all countries are thus on a level playing field from the beginning, each required to trade freely with all other nations and each benefitting from this free access to comparitively cheaper goods and services as a result. The reality, however, is quite different.
Take for example the Asian market of the mid-late 90's. They opened their markets up to foreign investment (primarily private investment) and experienced a short-term benefit. To use Thailand as an example, they sold off state-owned property and company shares to foreign investors and used the money to fund their economic development, much of it going into the construction of hotels and other tourist resorts (tourism being one of their major industries). What they failed to realise, though, is that they were essentially using other people's money to fund these projects, thus the very foundation of their (quite rapid) economic growth was fragile from the very beginning. All of a sudden then, the economy began to stumble and at the very hint of things going awry, the investors started to pull their money out, and the whole situation snow-balled. The market stalled, investors pulled out, the market got worse as a result so even more investors pulled out and so on. Thailand was then the catylist for one of the most catastrophic regional economic collapses since the depression as nation by nation had all the money they'd used to fund their industrialisation pulled from under their feet. 10, 20, 50 years of economic growth evaporated in a few months. All of a sudden these nations were left in a situation where there was no money left in their economy, and they didn't even own many of the remaining foundations of this economy, sold off to foreign investors in the throws of a neo-liberalistic epiphany. And that's the fundamental problem with insisting that these policies are best for nations - their entire development is essentially based on the whim of wealthy investors, who will jump ship the second their investment is put at risk. You can't rely on businesses and corporations to stick around in a sinking economy when there are more lucrative opportunities elsewhere. So basically all the Asian nations who submitted to these global policies were left bankrupt and in a far worse shape than before these policies were implemented. But surely, you say, they could just resist these policies if they have such dire consequences?
It's not quite that easy. Consider, once again, Brazil. The president resists the "aid" of the organisations responsible for policing the implementation of these global policies, and Brazil gets shut out by the more powerful advocates of such policies. All of a sudden - as neo-liberalism spreads its tenticles more globally - poorer nations are being forced to trade on the terms dictated by more powerful nations, or being prevented from trading at all. The dependency is entirely one way - if Brazil doesn't want to play by the rules of "global trade" it gets shut out of the loop, with minimal loss to the more powerful nations, yet at a massive cost to itself (as it is not self-dependant - the US can import coffee from somewhere else, but where is Brazi going to get its automobiles from?). Let me use a rather crude example:
A farm produces primary produce and sells it to the city, so that it may acquire things only the city can produce (obviously the farm doesn't have the means to produce computers or TVs like the city does). Time goes by and the city eventually dictates that in order for this exchange of goods to continue, the farm must open itself up and allow citizens of the city to purchase certain items on the farm. The farm is, of course, powerless to resist because the city can always buy wheat from a more complicit farm in the area, but there's only one city the farm can sell its goods to. So the farm agrees to these conditions and sells off its tractor - and for a while everything's great! The farm uses the money it receives from the sale of the tractor to increase the sizes of its paddocks and to give the farmhouse a long overdue renovation all the while being able to use the same tractor to cultivate the crops. "Wow", thinks the farmer, "what's the catch?".
Out of nowhere though, a drought strikes the area, and the farmer fails to yield as many crops as he'd like. The owners of the tractor decide that using the tractor on that farm is no longer profitable, so they take it away and use it on another more fertile farm. Now the farmer's stuffed: he has no crops to yield and nothing to yield them with! He can't even buy back the tractor because he used all that money to expand his enterprise! So, with no other options left, he goes to some citizens from the city and gets a loan from them. With it he buys a new tractor and his farm is back up and running again. However, the drought continues and the farmer is hamstrung - he can't produce enough to pay back the people who lent him the money. So the interest debts mount up and up and up. So, with no other option left - and with the loan sharks beating down his door - he takes out a hefty loan from a bank just to make sure he can pay back the interest owing on the money he borrowed from the citizens. Even though the drought ends and he can start producing decent crops again, all the profits he makes are just directed straight back to the bank and to the citizens to repay his loans. As a result his farm cannot grow, though the city - and the competing farms - do. As a result his farm becomes stagnant and uncompetitive and everything begins to collapse back upon itself..... all this just because the city forced him to sell his tractor!
Anyway, I think I've made my point. And before anyone accuses me of being a capitalist hating communist, allow me to just say this: I agree with capitalism - I don't think its benefits can be denied. It's just this kind of capitalism (i.e. the neo-liberal kind) that I disagree with.
Hopefully rupert can add something to all this....
Wow, that was truly a comprehensive easy to understand picture of the US's economic warfare on the world.
You see, the US uses fear just like any other empire uses fear, only fear based on military power and violence is the last resort. The first and foremost fear is the fear of money. The US knows that on the world stage, money can buy everything. And the US controlls nearly 50% of it, or more. Anyone greedy enough to become a leader of a country has to be greedy enough to sell out his own country in the face of economic warfare. And if you're not scared by the US takng away your money, then the army comes in, and the money the US has is converted into precision guided explosions. And money the US has beleaguers media outlets into shutting up and not questionning its actions. It's like the whole world is under a spell. Like any situation of control, however, it's only an illusion. To uphold this illusion, you must knock out anyone who dares question your authority or compete with you before too many people start believing in them.
Hello, PNAC statement of principles, goodbye UN.
It feeds on the most basic human emotion: fear. People will join your side not because they like you, but because they are afraid of you. And the more people join your side, the more fearful you are so the more people join your side...
As disgusting as it may be, It's really ingenious. America was always the best at doing things in the most efficient way. It's what led to the victory in the cold war. You piss us off, you get bad press, you lose money = infallible chain reaction. Controlling the world through paper and electronic files and a little glass box. Who would have believed it? I guess the pen really is mightier than the sword.
nicely written
It was definatly interesting to read!
nice post renegade... i agree with you a lot
lots to say but i got to study for finals. 
I also agree with much of what you say renegade. Especially with respects to trade barriers. As I've stated before, I'm against all trade barriers in the sense that they only pass on the costs to the consumer and they encourage inefficient industry. Japan does a similar thing to the US with respects to the automobile industry. Did you ever wonder why the Japanese auto industry has so thoroughly permeated the US markets whereas the Japanese market for US cars is virtually non-existent? It's a comparartive level of technology so one would expect some Japanese to favor American cars. However, the import costs drive up the price of American vehicles such that it is essentially a closed market.
Out of curiosity Renegade, what alternative would you propose for the current global market? Would you advocate the abolishment of the IMF or World bank, or a tierred approach to developing countries? Additionally when we're talking about globalization it isn't just America ... it's G8.
great posts renegade and cougar 
It's also probably worth looking at the handful of countries that have managed to build succesful economies since the 1950's. Take for example South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. South Korea and Taiwan followed strongly protectionist industrial policies, very much in conflict with the ideology of the Washington Concensus. High protective tarriffs were raised around "infant industries," and once the industires were ready to compete internationally, only then were the tarrifs lowered. As already mentioned, a similar paradigm is followed by the US. South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore also managed to successfully impose laws that required investors to buy locally produced components when possible and consistently cut better deals for the transfer of technical skills to their own workers. Capital controls, which impede the amount of money going in and out a country were established and followed. In other words, these countries ensured a level playing field for themselves mainly by acting in opposion to many free trade policies.
| quote: |
| Out of curiosity Renegade, what alternative would you propose for the current global market? |
). Nonetheless, there are several areas of neo-liberal globalism that need to be addressed, and this is a start:| quote: |
| Would you advocate the abolishment of the IMF or World bank, or a tierred approach to developing countries? |
| quote: |
| Additionally when we're talking about globalization it isn't just America ... it's G8. |
i've always been a strong advocate of true free trade. however it does run a slippery slope with state soverignty. a nation should have the right to impose tarriffs as it sees fit. the only time i would see that as a fault is when one nation starts a tarriff after signing a free trade agreement (as the beef case renegade pointed out with australia and the US). i belive this is where the trade orginization should step in and punish those who unfairly break a treaty.
the WTO and World Bank are not puppets of the third world, they have a charter and they follow it. If you need proof they go after the first world all I can say to you is: "Mexican Tuna", Renegade if your an economist you should know what I mean
I really think the system today is heading in the right direction. So far globalisim has led to far more good then bad, and this is why I believe if it will go in this direction it will only compound this fact.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus the WTO and World Bank are not puppets of the third world, they have a charter and they follow it. If you need proof they go after the first world all I can say to you is: "Mexican Tuna", Renegade if your an economist you should know what I mean I really think the system today is heading in the right direction. So far globalisim has led to far more good then bad, and this is why I believe if it will go in this direction it will only compound this fact. |
I was thinking about global trade and a thought occurred to me ... isn't the whole concept of trade based upon achieving a better deal or a better bargain against the opposite party? If the deal is unfair to one particular party than that party has the option to not sign the deal correct? Essentially both parties have free reign to decide what is in their best interests and act accordingly. Now in the case of US and Europe they receive much criticism in that they seemingly take advantage of third world countries in their trade agreements. But if these countries are so taken advantaged of why engage in such trade agreements to begin with? Would they be better off WITHOUT the US and Europe entirely? Obviously not since they decided to sign such trade agreements. If they would have been in dire straits for NOT signing such agreements than that is their own faults and you can hardly blame the developed countries for presenting a way out. Should the developed countries take pity on the underdeveloped ones and take deals that are disadvantageous to them? That doesn't make much business sense and I can't imagine any industry that does that. As it is, the trade agreements are desinged to benefit both parties. Yes underdeveloped countries can become overly reliant on foreign capital but that is through their own choosing and in efforts to expand their economies ... nobody said that investments were a for sure thing. Essentially, I'm having a hard time understanding how free trade is ULTIMATELY bad since the absence of free trade implies a worse scenario.
Let's be clear on this: I do not oppose free-trade.
| quote: |
| If you need proof they go after the first world all I can say to you is: "Mexican Tuna", Renegade if your an economist you should know what I mean |
| quote: |
| Also agree ... you have to admit that the IMF and the world bank have done a lot of behind the scenes work that none of us ever see in the news. I would imagine that they have rescued a significant number of ailing economies and have lended huge amounts of financial and technical assistance to developing countries. |
| quote: |
| isn't the whole concept of trade based upon achieving a better deal or a better bargain against the opposite party? If the deal is unfair to one particular party than that party has the option to not sign the deal correct? Essentially both parties have free reign to decide what is in their best interests and act accordingly. Now in the case of US and Europe they receive much criticism in that they seemingly take advantage of third world countries in their trade agreements. But if these countries are so taken advantaged of why engage in such trade agreements to begin with? Would they be better off WITHOUT the US and Europe entirely? |
| quote: |
| Should the developed countries take pity on the underdeveloped ones and take deals that are disadvantageous to them? That doesn't make much business sense and I can't imagine any industry that does that. |
| quote: |
| Yes underdeveloped countries can become overly reliant on foreign capital but that is through their own choosing and in efforts to expand their economies ... nobody said that investments were a for sure thing. |
| quote: |
| Essentially, I'm having a hard time understanding how free trade is ULTIMATELY bad since the absence of free trade implies a worse scenario. |
dolphin tuna;
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e..._e/edis04_e.htm
another case where 3rd world vs USA and won;
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/edis07_e.htm
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Renegade Undoubtedly some good must have come from the work performed by these bodies, but I'm struggling to think of too many examples for the time-being. Whatever good that has been done, however, is certainly overshadowed by the situations in Latin America and Asia, where the policies implemeted by these bodies have at best contributed to and at worst caused recession and economic collapse. |
| quote: |
But, this issue still highlights one of the fundamental problems with this brand of foreign trade: the complete lack of democratization. The average citizen has no say in how the money generated from foreign investment is spent, as most of the benefits apply only to those in the upper echelons of society - the average citizen, for instance, doesn't see the benefits that arise from the privitization of the water system, only those who own or who have a stake in (through the compulsary establishment of a share-market) such a company do. Thus, GDP may grow as a result of such privitization - and the neo-liberals will point to this as a victory - but it benefits the rich and corporations rather than the poor, and as a result decisions such as a the building of hotels rather than hospitals (at the cost of long-term societal well-being) are likely to ensue. |
| quote: |
Actually, it'd be interesting to see how much of the money generated by globalism goes to private organistations (i.e. corporations, medium-large businesses) rather than the public sector (i.e. the government, society in general). If - as I imagine - the benefits are highly skewed in favour of the private sector, then these nations (as a government and as a people) can hardly be blamed for the poor financial decisions that led to the ruin of their countries. But then, that's what happens as economies open up more and more - the governments have less control over where the money goes, and in poorly developed nations, this - as we have seen - can be severely deterimental to the public good. |
| quote: |
Once again, free-trade isn't "ultimately bad", just some of the conditions of this particular brand of "free-trade" are bad. I hope I've made that clear. I also hope that this post in general is clear, because I'm still pretty fucked from the weekend. |
Renegade: Is this an example of what you were referring to when you spoke of 1st world nations entering into unfair trade agreements with lower-world nations?
| quote: |
Central European countries are licking their wounds after hearing that, though they may become members of the European Union in 2004, full benefits, notably farm subsidies, will not be forthcoming for another decade. Being relegated to such beginner's status has hit hard. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orb�n has been particularly outspoken on the subject, airing his grievances in no uncertain terms. Viktor Orb�n is now approaching the end of his four-year term as prime minister of a centre-rightwing government in Hungary. He says his country clearly does not see eye to eye with the European Commission on a number of points. "The first is: equal treatment for us and it is obvious there is no equal treatment. We have to combine the financial framework and the equal treatment principle. The second is that at the heart of Hungary's position is the principle of competition. If we want to have a free-trade system for agriculture - even if it is regulated, but inside the European Union - the subsidy system must be the same. It's obvious that what we would like to see is not just equal treatment but fair competition with the same basis." EU Proposals Unfair The Hungarians believe firmly that their farmers are already now fully able to compete in a European market offering equal opportunities to everybody. They feel the Commission's proposal to start the new members on a 25% entry level with the farms subsidies is totally unfair � it artificially puts the Hungarian farmers at a disadvantage in comparison with their colleagues in the present member states who enjoy full income subsidies. Hungary would rather see all direct subsidies scrapped for everybody as part of an all-embracing review of the European Common Agricultural Policy. From now on, the Central European candidate states, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the so-called Visegrad Four, intend to co-ordinate their reaction to the Brussels proposals. Second-Class Membership Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orb�n used a rare meeting with the international correspondents accredited in Budapest to explain that it is not the perspective of being treated as a second-class member state for a couple of years that Hungary finds distasteful in the Commission's proposal. A "beginners' status" until 2006 when a new budget has to be drawn up would be acceptable. "What is the worst news for the Hungarians is that even when the new seven year budget period starts we will not be treated as equal members of the European Union. This is what hurts the hearts of the Hungarians. Hungarians don't like to be treated as second-rate citizens. Second, the Hungarians don't like to feel that their lives and future is managed and decided not by their own efforts but by more an outside reality: being member of the European Union or not. So we have to argue in favour of the European Union but at the same time we have to strengthen national pride�about the ability that we have to define our future. And regardless of whether we are a member of the European Union or not, we HAVE a future which is economically promising." There�s Life Outside the EU On a previous occasion, Mr Orb�n had raised eyebrows of foreign observers when he said: Don't forget, there is life outside the European Union, too. This time, he chose to amplify that audacious statement and make clear to European Commissioners and European Union member states that any attempt at force or blackmail -- "Behave yourself or we won't let you join" won't work with him. "Being involved in the European Union is an extra. It's a better future of course. But it's not the only one. So this explains what I've sometimes said, especially when I have a chance to meet the people, that there is a life outside the European Union." http://www.rnw.nl/hotspots/html/hungary020201.html |
I'll do a more thorough response later on (I've got class in 5 minutes) but I thought this page was worth posting:
| quote: |
| The past 20 years have been an abject economic failure for most countries, with growth plummeting. The World Bank publishes data on the growth of income per person, as do other official sources. But few economists and almost no journalists have seen fit to make an issue out of what history will undoubtedly record as the most remarkable economic failure of the twentieth century aside from the Great Depression. Consider this: In Latin America and the Caribbean, where gross domestic product grew by 75 percent per person from 1960 to 1980, it grew by only 7 percent per person from 1980 to 2000. The collapse of the African economies is more well known, although still ignored: GDP in sub-Saharan Africa grew by about 34 percent per person from 1960 to 1980; in the past two decades, per capita income actually fell by about 15 percent. Even if we include the fast-growing economies of East Asia and South Asia, the past two decades fare miserably. For the entire set of low- and middle-income countries, per capita GDP growth was less than half of its average for the previous 20 years. Also, as might be expected in a time of bad economic performance, the past two decades have brought significantly reduced progress according to such major social indicators as life expectancy, infant and child mortality, literacy, and education--again, for the vast majority of low- and middle-income countries. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Renegade I'll do a more thorough response later on (I've got class in 5 minutes) but I thought this page was worth posting: http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/1/weisbrot-m.html |
Also the article talks about how growth has been reduced in third world countries, but then goes to state how 2nd world, and 1st world economies of Asia and Latin America have failed supposedly due primarly to globalization and its institutions.
How can you explain Africa then?
The simple fact is that direct foriegn aid from the USA and Russia to third world countries has seized since the end of the Cold War, this would have more of an effect on the economies then the IMF or World Bank. Regardless even during the Cold War most of the foriegn aid money was not reinvested in the nation either.. it was more of a buy out of the dictators.
Free trade there is no such thing. There never has been and never will be. The USA and UK didnt get to be really big economies by free trade, they used protectionism.
The ideology of the Washington Consensus and the Chicago School of free market liberalism is just as poisonous as Communism, except Communism has been discredited for the fraudulent pack of lies that it is.
What globalisation really means is free trade in capital not free trade in goods. If there were real free trade there would be free trade in the most important good of all "labour".
Free trade ie deregulated capital markets can be deadly poison for a developing economy which is why developing countries with power like China resist deregulating their capital markets.
What Globalisation means in effect is that corporations now have a bigger pool to splash in. In the search of maintaining profit margins the corporations can easily shift their production to wherever it is corparatively the cheapest.
The current system benefits the West for now. But it is only a matter of time before there are hundreds of millions of dirt cheap university trained professionals in the third world. The productivity advantage of the western labour force is gradually being eroded away.
The iron logic of the capitalist system which says "all things being equal the lowest price wins" means that the corporations MUST if they are to stay in business finds ways of cutting costs and the biggest cost is usually labour.
Globalisation doesnt mean bringing people in the third world up to first world standards. What it means is bringing the first world down to third world standards.
I once read an article in the Australian Financial Review about the jobless recovery awaiting the US economy and it mentioned this IT programmer who was laid off by his employer at the end of the tech boom and he couldnt find another job. Eventually he went back to his employer and asked for temporary work on reduced pay without benefits and his employer looked at him like he was mad telling him "for what I could pay you I could pay 10 mexicans"
That american IT programmer is the world economy in a nutshell. He will probably find another job, maybe in IT at much reduced rates or a low paying job in the service industry. Its people like the IT programmer who pay the taxes and buy the treasury bonds that fund the wests welfare and military. And it cant go on forever. Steins law "something that cant go on forever stops"
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert Free trade there is no such thing. There never has been and never will be. The USA and UK didnt get to be really big economies by free trade, they used protectionism. The ideology of the Washington Consensus and the Chicago School of free market liberalism is just as poisonous as Communism, except Communism has been discredited for the fraudulent pack of lies that it is. |
| quote: |
What globalisation really means is free trade in capital not free trade in goods. If there were real free trade there would be free trade in the most important good of all "labour". |
| quote: |
Free trade ie deregulated capital markets can be deadly poison for a developing economy which is why developing countries with power like China resist deregulating their capital markets. |
| quote: |
What Globalisation means in effect is that corporations now have a bigger pool to splash in. In the search of maintaining profit margins the corporations can easily shift their production to wherever it is corparatively the cheapest. The current system benefits the West for now. But it is only a matter of time before there are hundreds of millions of dirt cheap university trained professionals in the third world. The productivity advantage of the western labour force is gradually being eroded away. The iron logic of the capitalist system which says "all things being equal the lowest price wins" means that the corporations MUST if they are to stay in business finds ways of cutting costs and the biggest cost is usually labour. Globalisation doesnt mean bringing people in the third world up to first world standards. What it means is bringing the first world down to third world standards. I once read an article in the Australian Financial Review about the jobless recovery awaiting the US economy and it mentioned this IT programmer who was laid off by his employer at the end of the tech boom and he couldnt find another job. Eventually he went back to his employer and asked for temporary work on reduced pay without benefits and his employer looked at him like he was mad telling him "for what I could pay you I could pay 10 mexicans" That american IT programmer is the world economy in a nutshell. He will probably find another job, maybe in IT at much reduced rates or a low paying job in the service industry. Its people like the IT programmer who pay the taxes and buy the treasury bonds that fund the wests welfare and military. And it cant go on forever. Steins law "something that cant go on forever stops" |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.