|
Free-Market Globalism
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
Is it a system that benefits everyone, or do the rich get richer while the poor stay poor? What are the pros and cons of this international neoliberalism?
Discuss (without resorting to the phrases "money hungry pigs" and "unemployed students with lanky hair" please ;)). |
|
|
| TranceGiant |
| I guess I agree with whatever Josphe Stiglitz is sayin'. Looks like a competent bloke and everything I've read of him thus far sounded reasonable... |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
is it hard to believe that the rich won't get richer. Rich countries are pushing forward with the free market idea. Why would they do so if it wouldn't be the best for their intrest.
For example, there's talks for a free market in the Americas (ZLEA in french don't know the acronym in english). How can it be possible that a country like let say Costa Rica compete with the USA? or Canada with Belize? It sounds more like an open market for cheap labor for me. People in rich countries loosing jobs, poor countries looking more like slave markets while the factory owners get richer. it will all even out but by the bottom.
Free markets is a great idea but between somehow equal partners. Let say France and Germany for example.
On another note, why keep the talks secret about free markets if they're good for everyone ?? seems odd to me. And lets not start about privatizing health care, schools, and the rest of the social system (idea pushed foreward by the USA). |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
You mean Globalisation?
The term Free Market is a deceptive one - all it describes is an elitist trading club where rich nations can say 'you scratch my back I'll scratch yours' by way of removal of tariffs and quotas. Poorer nations are effectively excluded from this rich man's market because we can limit their imports and tax the hell out of them - we cannot do this to our rich friends. Who is going to get more of our custom? Why our rich friend's of course, and they will likewise return the favour. Nation's outside of this market don't stand a chance. |
|
|
| rupert |
| quote: | | What are the pros and cons of this international neoliberalism? |
There arent any pros to neoliberalism, unless your a rich white person.
Which, is exactly why neo-liberalism (a fraudulent economic theory) which doesnt even work, is so popular amongst the ruling elite.
What the free market proponents really mean is "Market discipline for the poor who provide labour and raw materials because that keeps the prices down and taxpayer funded subsidies and state intervention for the rich to protect their profit margins." |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | | How can it be possible that a country like let say Costa Rica compete with the USA? or Canada with Belize? It sounds more like an open market for cheap labor for me. |
But can globalism result in mutual advantage though? Perhaps the bigger western economies stand to make more money from the deal than the smaller 3rd world economies, but doesn't the foreign investment at least give these countries a chance to kickstart their economies?
| quote: | | Poorer nations are effectively excluded from this rich man's market because we can limit their imports and tax the hell out of them - we cannot do this to our rich friends. Who is going to get more of our custom? Why our rich friend's of course, and they will likewise return the favour. Nation's outside of this market don't stand a chance. |
Actually, I'm not too sure if these poor countries do get taxed and tariffed out of the picture. The whole idea of neo-liberal globalism is to open up these third world economies to foreign investment (thus theoretically benefitting both the investors and the countries) and greatly reducing (if not eliminating) the taxes on foreign investment and other such trading - and, so far as I know, this applies both ways. I don't think globalism applies only to the first-world "elite".
| quote: | | What the free market proponents really mean is "Market discipline for the poor who provide labour and raw materials because that keeps the prices down and taxpayer funded subsidies and state intervention for the rich to protect their profit margins." |
When you say "market discipline for the poor" are you referring to the way in which the WTO and the World Bank dictate specific conditions upon the nations they accept into their free trade agreement? For instance, applicant nations must open up their currency and stock market to facilitate foreign investors, privitise parts of their education/health systems and so on? If so, do you think it possible that these countries might actually benefit from adopting at least parts of the western economic mentality that has served it so well?
Also, what do you mean by "taxpayer funded subsidies and state intervention" to protect the profit margins of the rich? To what extent can domestic subsidies be applied to international transactions? How exactly can one the government of a country intervene on a transaction made between the private sectors of two seperate countries, and what benefit would it be to do so? |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Actually, I'm not too sure if these poor countries do get taxed and tariffed out of the picture. The whole idea of neo-liberal globalism is to open up these third world economies to foreign investment (thus theoretically benefitting both the investors and the countries) and greatly reducing (if not eliminating) the taxes on foreign investment and other such trading - and, so far as I know, this applies both ways. I don't think globalism applies only to the first-world "elite". |
Forgive me if my post was a little off-topic, I was talking specifically about free-markets. Truth is, free markets are great if you're in them, and terrible if you're not. If you look at the likes of NAFTA and the EU they have been dominated by rich nations for years. Only now are we finally considering major expansion, but if you read the conditions for entry, wealth has much to do with it. I found a link a while ago about NAFTA and US opinions on Mexico - it had nothing to do with mutual gain at all. I'll see if I can find it.
As for taxing countries out of the picture, I don't think it is merely a coincidence that we cannot legally tax French imports but can tax Eastern European imports with impunity. Nor is it any coincidence than France does the same in return. Nor is it any coincidence that the only countries we cannot tax are rich. The vast majority of British trade is with Western Europe.
I agree with you about opening up third world markets and I agree with globalism in general but IMO it isn't what is happening. Politicians hide behind terms like this, and terms like "free trade". If everyone is setting up little 'local clubs' with special mutual trading benefits, the global market idea is being neglected. So long as we persist with organisations such as the "European Union" and the "North American Free Trade Agreement" globalism isn't occuring. The UK does very little trade with the US yet politically these countries are married to each other. I think it would be wise to separate the 'agenda' and the 'hidden agenda' here. If these third-world economies are being opened up for first world investment, then why do we reserve the right to tax them out of the market and restrict their imports? We don't treat our local friends like this. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| im definitely a proponent of free market on a global level. any limitation (tarriffs, taxes, sanction) to this should be purely political in nature and not economical. i do belive the by opening up the world market will make the rich richer but contrary to some out there i think it will also make the poor richer, it will lead to higher level of living in all countries and a drastic rise in world GDP. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
"unemployed students with lanky hair" please ;)
|
ROFL HAHA, its alright, you dont have to be politicaly correct in this forum :tongue2 |
|
|
| rupert |
| quote: | | When you say "market discipline for the poor" are you referring to the way in which the WTO and the World Bank dictate specific conditions upon the nations they accept into their free trade agreement? For instance, applicant nations must open up their currency and stock market to facilitate foreign investors, privitise parts of their education/health systems and so on? If so, do you think it possible that these countries might actually benefit from adopting at least parts of the western economic mentality that has served it so well? |
There is no such thing as free trade. Period. It doesnt exist and it never will, if you had an upper hand in the market why would you want to operate on an even playing field. If you can rely on the government to generate profits you'd be a fool not to.
Take the United States for instance, the market is supported by massive government subsidies. Anything america is good at is because they are supported by their taxpayers. State intervention occurs at every level of a 'free market' economy.
What is america good at
Weapons
agriculture
IT
Pharmaceuticals
Entertainment (movies and TV)
The first four on the list, america has advantage because they are supported by the taxpayer, whether it be by direct subsidy, tax concessions, or tarrifs, whatever. The economic system is one massive wealth transfer from the taxpayer to the wealthy on a local level and a massive wealth transfer from the poor in the third world to the rich in the first world.
I'd like to see what would happen if the USA got to take a dose of the IMF prescription of balanced budgets, tax cuts, privatisations, opening up the economy to foreign competition, tight monetary supply. It would wreck the USA just like its wrecked countless third world countries.
The countries that succeed are those that ignore the policy prescriptions of Wall Street, the IMF or the fanatical proponents of the "free market"
Economic policies should be tailored to the needs of a region, a country or people. There is no one size fits all approach. Imposing austerity measures on countries for the sake of imposing them is evil. That simple.
For a small country opening up their markets, floating their currencies, removing state subsidies to the poor such as public health and education(the standard structural adjustment policy of the IMF) is the worst thing they can do.
The world isnt getting a better place, for the majority of the worlds population its getting worse.
Economic rationalism is just another failed ideology the same as communism. Both are based on the ideas of dead white guys who lived in a past era an era without multinationals, global capital, nuclear weapons. Both believe that by changing economic conditions you could change human nature. They are wrong. Human nature is the same under communism as it is under capitalism. |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
Rupert, I agree with you on "free markets", and I emphasise the quotation because it is only free to those that are members, who are, surprisingly, the rich. The term is a very deceptive one - it's kind of like saying you have are a democracy when only rich white males have the vote.
Subsidies exist in the EU too, the Common Agricultural Policy is one example of exceptional favouritism to domestic economies. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
Free market is good only for countries with large economies. A small economy can hardly influence a large one, while a large one can completely absorb the smaller one.
Like what happened here. All the companies here were national property before 1990, and now that we have entered free market, there are 2 or 3 large companies that are still in our hands, while all the others are owned by foreigners. Those surviving companies did infact overtake some foreing companies, but the overall benefits are highly questionable. Slovenia, on the other hand, had very strict laws regarding foreign acquisitions, most of it's industry stayed within it's borders, and is now a member of the EU. Here is one of the countless examles about beneficiality of foreign investments. We had our telecom company, Hrvatske Telekomunikacije. Then came in Deutsche Telecom, bought HT, Signed agreement with the government that it will not allow other telecom companies to appear before 2004 (that happened in 2000), and local call prices went up 600%! |
|
|
|
|
