|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What causes poverty?
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
I don't know about world poverty but Mrs Astro used to work for the anti-poverty unit of our local council and it seems that the main cause of poverty around here is poor health.
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
It seems difficult to please people: - Give them money - that is a handout - bad.
- Lend them money - make them repay some of it - bad.
- Teach them how to run their country - that is imposing our ideals on another society - bad.
This leaves: Let them die all on their own in their poverty, without our intervention. I would argue this is worse than any of the above.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Cancelling debt is not a handout; it is letting them keep their own money. It is not bad; it is recognising an impossible situation and taking an appropriate action.
Combine this with fair trade rules, and you have my recipe. Do you have an alternative to offer?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
I think it would be an interesting exercise if some bank that was owed a lot by a developing country decided to take that country under its control like if someone cannot pay a mortgage on a house they take over the house.
How many weeks would it be before the bank said to the leaders they had just desposed her you are take back the country you can obviously run it better than we can?
They do my friend. Haven't you ever heard of structural adjustment? The International Monetary Fund, which has taken over much of the bad debt from the banks has implemented strict rules which countries must comply with during renogotiation of their debts. Unfortunately structural adjustment is widely seen to have caused more problems than it solves.
Good debate guys
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Cancelling debt is not a handout; it is letting them keep their own money.
Perhaps I could agree that cancelling interest is not a handout, but not cancelling the debt itself. Repaying your debt is a step in developing self-worth and I would argue it also applies on a country-basis as well as individually.
My solution would include:
- Lending at zero or near-zero interest.
- Working with the government on establishing good governing practices and a sensible tax regime.
- Providing incentives to corporations (and wealthy individuals) to help with the above points.
I certainly do not endorse sitting on the sidelines. However, I feel being a coach is better than being a sponsor.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paulo
Apprentice
# 165
|
Posted
sharkshooter: thank-you for being honest in your opinions. Many people agree but don't admit it. However I completley disagree with you.
Firstly I was quoting about throwing money at the situation: improvments cost.
Second, how have I not picked one side? Tell me the two sides I approve of.
Do you know the history of debt? Do you know the facts? Live aid rasied $200 million, Africa pays that in a week.
Debt came about because banks had spare cash because of a steep increase in oil prices. They lent oney to bad projects. They lent money to corrupt governments. They had money they wanted to get rid of and didn't care.
Taken from an australian site:
"If anyone takes a loan shouldn't they repay it? Why should any debts be cancelled?
Many of these debts have already been paid many times over in local currencies. Between 1981 and 1997 the less developed countries paid over US$2.9 trillion in interest and principal payments. This is double what they received in new loans. For each $1 that industrialised countries provide in grants, developing countries pay back $13 in debt servicing. We don't expect people in Australia who go bankrupt to sacrifice the health and education of their children to keep paying their debts. And yet, we continue to allow millions of children in poor countries to die each year of preventable causes while their governments are forced to repay loans to rich creditors. Women are also forced to bear an unfair burden of the debt crisis, making up for the loss of government services in health and education through unpaid work.
Consider too, the dramatic changes since the original loans were made. Borrowers had no control over skyrocketing rates of interest and plummeting commodity prices. Responsibility for loans has rested with borrowers, allowing lenders to carelessly provide large loans to corrupt political leaders. In the case of the poorest countries, lenders have reaped all of the benefits, all the while adding to their markets. Ordinary people have mainly borne the cost of repaying loans, with no say in the borrowing or spending of the money."
If the west lent to corrupt governments whose fault is it? Who knew but didn't really mind?
And sharkshooter:
"Giving money is bad" No. Giving money is good, dropping unfair, repayed debt is even better.
"lend them money is bad". No. But why noot check out how good these projects are if you really want to pretend that they are for others good. Where does this 'little or no intrest' idea come from? These debts were up to 25% in some years. These are simple facts, go and look them up before you try justify starving millions.
"Teach them how to run their country is bad" What is bad is the collonial teaching of how not to run a country. We showed dictatorship and then were supprised that their illitarate population didn't florish into a wonderful democracy.
Please go and look up the facts for yourself rather than take my word for it. But with such an extreme view I would have thought you would know the situation. At least you care... unlike most: ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Paulo
--------------------
"The love of God is Folly"
Posts: 29 | From: South England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
From a biography I am reading at the moment. The poet, prophet and general wiseman GK Chesterton said that if a true humanitarian won two million pounds, he would give it to the deserving poor. In contrast, the true christian if he won the same would give it to the undeserving poor.
I hope I'm not doing him a disservice but I can't actually find the exact quote at the moment. How annoying, soz
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paulo:
[QB]sharkshooter: thank-you for being honest in your opinions. Many people agree but don't admit it. However I completley disagree with you.
Thank you.
So many things to say.
I do know the history. None of us had control over the interest rates, many of us were victims.
Why should anyone repay debt? Because they borrowed it.
Most people pay more in interest than they pay in principal and further, get very little, if any, in grants. I carried debt at 24% for a while - I do have some knowledge of trying to get out from under a heavy debt load. It does build self-esteem, and a strong resolve not to go there again.
Handouts are bad. I stand by that position, even if you will never agree.
You say lending money is not bad. Lending implies interest, and repayment of principal. However, you do not think they should have to pay interest or repay the principal. You are not talking about lending at all. You are talking about more handouts.
My view is no more extreme than yours - just on the other end of the spectrum from yours. I would suggest it is widely held:
Help them help themselves. If you do it for them (i.e. handouts, forgiving debt) rather than teaching them to do it for themselves, it is not helping them.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
In the individual it may build self esteem; in these countries it is building death.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
The problem with the debt repayment debate is that it assumes that the process of getting a loan for a country is similar to that for an individual, and there is similar accountability. In practice vast proportions of the loans went into the off shore bank accounts of the leaders, to no benefit of the citizens of the country, who in most cases didn't elect the governments - or at least not more than once (between 1960 and 1990 only 2 governments in Africa changed as a result of the ballot box....)
So in suggesting that the citizens repay the loans, it is similar to suggesting that the person who has been mugged pay the amount for which he has been mugged!
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
If a husband took on huge debts and then absconded, leaving the wife to pay the debt at 25% interest, that is not "teaching self-reliance" or whatever people say. It is not the original person who took out the debt who is now suffering. It is not the original government that took out the debt that is trying to service it. The citizens of the country didn't even choose to take it out!
The banks as someone said DO try to run the country - but making the country run in order to pay back the debt, in other words making the country run in order to benefit someone other than the citizens of the country. The banks have no responsibilities to the country and if the country becomes poorer, if fewer children get education and the population becomes sick, they don't care and they weren't voted in. All they want is their money.
They have no incentive to invest in the future of the country the way politicians do (mostly lower-level politicians who are hoping to get voted in again, but at least they have SOME continuing link to the future of the country).
Because of both of these reasons, the current levels of debt are unjust. They are not at all comparable to personal debt.
Sure there are other things wrong which may be due to internal reasons - but saying "well we shouldn't solve these until they put their house in order" is like saying, well in the class I teach there are 2 children whose father is a drunkard and who has left their mother with huge unpayable debts that she didn't take out. So I'm not going to give those children free school meals, or indeed teach them, until he comes off the booze and she pays off the debts. Too bad if the children die because she can't afford to take them to hospital. They should learn self-reliance.
Hard to learn when you are dead.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paulo
Apprentice
# 165
|
Posted
Sharkshooter: we meet again....
I do think loans are good in principle and I don't think people shouldn't pay back the debt if it's fair. Many of the loans are unpayble and have already been cancelled from future earning projections. Repayment of the principle is the requirment of the use of the term loan and so you must see I agree with that. It's just unfair loans I disagree with.
You said you carried your debts at 24% for a while. However, where you ever paying more on intrest payments than you were on food, education or healthcare (you see the anology even if it's very flawed). Also they were YOUR debts. You didn't inherit the debts of your father, nor could you pass on your debts. And as karl the liberal backslider has previously said as an individual you could go bankrupt and start again.
But what about my previous points, have you no argument with them? e.g. the self intrest of people making loans and thus approving of poor projects.
Advocates of a completely free market system: Do you think the WTO should be changed? e.g. to stop bullying of third world countries: Surley this follows free market principles of everybody looking after number 1 makes everybody better.
Paulo
--------------------
"The love of God is Folly"
Posts: 29 | From: South England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
quote:
They do my friend. Haven't you ever heard of structural adjustment? The International Monetary Fund, which has taken over much of the bad debt from the banks has implemented strict rules which countries must comply with during renogotiation of their debts. Unfortunately structural adjustment is widely seen to have caused more problems than it solves.
No they are still getting others to do the dirty work
I meant really taking over with say
Alan Greespan as president
Eddie George as Prime Minister
Captain Mainwaring as Defence Minister
Howard from the Halifax bank as Minister for Culture
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Astro,
I agree with you, our so-called economic experts would find it very difficult to run a third world country successfully. It would be a really good education for them to try.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paulo:
Advocates of a completely free market system: Do you think the WTO should be changed? e.g. to stop bullying of third world countries: Surley this follows free market principles of everybody looking after number 1 makes everybody better.
Yes. I am already on record here and elsewhere with my belief that the current system needs reform in the direction of free-er, but not completely unregulated, markets. Protectionism ultimately harms the "protected" economy, which is why I am opposed to long-term protectionistic policies for poor countries. US and EU tariffs represent special interest-driven pork barrel politics at their "finest".
Bonzo, while I'm not claiming that economists should take over, I'd bet on Greenspan over Mugabe, for instance.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Hmmmm.....
As many people have pointed out:
Lots of people are for free trade, unless it's in their own field. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
When people want to keep competitors out of their market, its amazing how often regulation is asked for.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Raising a dead thread:
Article in today's Independent
Just for interest's sake.
Thanks, Karl. Very illustrative of what several people on this thread have been saying.
I still think that in the long run development depends on spiritual values. I admit, however, that this is a little like saying that market forces correct themselves in the long run. In the long run we are all dead.
I do, however, think that this is the right approach for the Church to take. "Seek first the kingdom of God..." ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Not perhaps so much an issue of free trade as one of concentration of power. Big business sets pricss and small business, or workers, are forced to live with them. The greater the concentration of power in a few hands, the more everyone else gets to lose. As these guys have nothing thta the rest of the world wants to buy off them except coffee, when big business cuts the price of coffee, they can die.
It is the same economic problem that afflicts British farmers, who get paid less and less as their productivity rises, and the supermarkets rake in profits - except that the Brits just lose their farms and get kicked onto the dole, but the Ethiopians might starve
The original producers get squeezed out until they are in effect no more than agents or servants of large corporations. Despite the business as a whole being profitable, the profits of many participants falls and falls. Of course if it happened to everybody at once then no-one could afford to buy anything and there would be a real crash.
More or less what we used to call a "crisis of capitalism" (back before the Tories told us all that no-one believed in all that Socialist stuff any more )
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636
|
Posted
Debt forgiveness would be a one off solution, it cannot become a general principle. Debt could be forgiven where a country makes a decisive break with the past e.g. becomes a democracy. However a country will need further credit and borrowing thereafter to economically develop. If through mismanagement new debt was incurred, it would not be possible to go on forgiving debts. Then what?
Because continual access to credit is important, it is important that countries pay their debts if they can - and why most do continue to pay rather than go into default (there is after all no court or international police making them pay back their foreign debts, rather they see it as in their interest to do so)
As for trade, there are serious imbalances, but trade and prices are ultimately based on supply and demand, not some global western conspiracy. If the producers were allowed to co-operate with each other - through unions ,co-operatives and cartels (c.f. OPEC) they could get far better prices for their goods. They could also ensure that goods were manufactured in their own countries adding value. Unfortunately the colonial economic system skewed productivity in favour of raw material exports - relatively low value and subject to huge price fluctuations.
Don't forget though that fair trade will mean higher prices for goods in western shops. It will also mean that more western workers are made unemployed in the short term. We created a tariff wall not just to protect the western rich (indeed business men are all in favour of global fair trade) but to protect western workers. Our workers cannot compete with western multinationals in India or Africa while they pay dirt poor wages and can ignore health & safety rules, environmental regulation and workers rights. If there is to be fair trade then we must ensure that everyone is on a level playing field.Happily this is in the interest of poor countries too. Free trade can follow only if there is democratisation of poor countries and proper controls on the business that develops there. In any event those countries should be seeking to develop internal and regional markets rather than relying on selling their products to us.
Poor countries would develop more quickly if they had long term peace, and democratically elected and better leaders rather than the western puppets and the corrupt western educated elites that exist at present. Even if we caused the mess most of the solutions must come from the countries themselves.
--------------------
FAT PROPHET
Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
If anyone is interested in a more in-depth treatment of the collapse of coffe prices, there was an excellent one in the Dec. 19 issue of Fortune (link here).
Regular coffee is being blended with more Vietnamese or Brazilian robusta beans and fewer Central American or African arabica beans. This is the result of both technological advances and a world glut of robusta. The outcome is that coffee tastes worse, fewer people drink coffee now, the growers are hurting, and the overall coffee market is shrinking.
Fortune is critical of the "Big Four" coffee makers (including Nestle, who you love to hate) for taking advantage of the drop in bean prices to increase short-term profits instead of increasing quality. Had they held profits steady and improved the product, demand would be increasing today and long-term profits would be up. By making poor business decisions, they have hurt themselvesand the growers.
I believe that there will be a correction and it will be market-based. To attempt to prop up the current situation with humanitarian programs will only perpetuate the problem. There is no gentle way out at this point.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
I believe that there will be a correction and it will be market-based. To attempt to prop up the current situation with humanitarian programs will only perpetuate the problem. There is no gentle way out at this point.
And meanwhile, the producers suffer.
What you call "humanitarian programmes" are exactly what the big companies should have done in the first place - traded fairly and ensured that the producers are not ripped off. Instead they went for the quick buck and look who really lost out. So much for the wonderful free market. Sorry if this sounds like communism to you; it sounds like the only humane solution to me.
And we don't "love to hate" Nestlé. It totally saddens me that a company behaves the way they do. What I'd "love" is for reports from the third world to report that Nestlé has changed its ways. Presenting it as if we're into some kind of Jihad is insulting to our humanitarian motivation.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
And meanwhile, the producers suffer.
Yes they do, and nobody is saying that is a good thing. I am saying that it is an inevitable thing for a time.
quote:
What you call "humanitarian programmes" are exactly what the big companies should have done in the first place - traded fairly and ensured that the producers are not ripped off. Instead they went for the quick buck and look who really lost out. So much for the wonderful free market. Sorry if this sounds like communism to you; it sounds like the only humane solution to me.
What the Big Four should have done was to pursue a sound business strategy. That would have avoided both sides of the problem. You seem to have the misconception that the stockholders are getting rich on the backs of the farmers. In fact, they are facing a decline in sales of a core product. Sound long-term business models are generally good for everyone, including the farmers.
BTW, if you really understand the principles of a free market, you must recognize that fair trade is a "luxury" product which is only viable in a free market. If every nation in the world mandated Fair Trade coffee as the only option, quality would fall even further and even more people would quit drinking coffee. Reduced demand would force an increase of the "fair" price to compensate. The cycle would then repeat until everyone was drinking tea or Diet Coke.
On the other hand, when Fair Trade coffee is a consumer's choice, there is a profite motive both to provide it and to make the quality at least reasonable.
quote:
And meanwhile, the producers suffer. And we don't "love to hate" Nestlé. It totally saddens me that a company behaves the way they do. What I'd "love" is for reports from the third world to report that Nestlé has changed its ways. Presenting it as if we're into some kind of Jihad is insulting to our humanitarian motivation.
Taking yourself a bit seriously today, aren't you?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
As the Fortune article shows, the crisis in the coffee market - and indeed in other commodities as hinted in the Independent article - is a world wide problem of excessive supply compared with the demand that is there; as more land is bought into production and more efficent methods are employed, greater harvests result. Demand is static, so prices fall, which is nice for us (if we see the benefits in lower prices) but less than good news for the farmers.
The best solution is hinted at by the Fortune article quote:
Some have replaced their coffee plants with corn or pineapples.
Though the implication of the next sentence quote:
Others have simply abandoned their farms.
is less encouraging.
Certainly the claims of the socialists:
quote:
More or less what we used to call a "crisis of capitalism" (back before the Tories told us all that no-one believed in all that Socialist stuff any more)
need to be treated with total disdain - the achievement of China of raising millions from poverty as a result of the adoption of capitalism is never given the credit it deserves, and the belief that
quote:
Our workers cannot compete with western multinationals in India or Africa while they pay dirt poor wages and can ignore health & safety rules, environmental regulation and workers rights.
is merely a restatement less elegantly of the threat alleged by Ross Perot in opposing NAFTA - the giant sucking sound that would deprive American workers of jobs; instead the rate of unemployment there is lower than before NAFTA.
The reality is that there are winners and losers as a result of free trade - and the gains to the winners do far outweight the losses to the losers. There is a need for people who are the losers to be offered an alternative somehow - but the belief that the adjustment process can be indefinately postponed (See EU - CAP....) is a fantasy; the long term reality is that agricultural prices are going down - the only solution is to ease the transistion process.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
Uh, Karl, are you clutching your breast and looking sternly into the distance as you write these things? The tone is very much of the I care, you don't have my compassion quality. You may not actually think that, but you are saying it. You are not familiar with any of our checkbooks, thank you.
On the strictly logical side, you keep going in the same circle, assuming that debt forgiveness is good and then concluding same.
And with the usual amen chorus behind you, it's the evil evilness of all those businesses that's making it happen. Reminder: it is not debt that is starving Africa, it is bad government. The poverty of Africa is the condition of most people at most times and places in human history. They have not been ground down into some unusual low point in human history. They are the average. We have stumbled into the enormous worldly good fortune of a select few, through no individual merit.
fatprophet makes the intriguing point that debt reduction or forgiveness might be appropriate in the face of structural changes, as it allows the continuation of needed credit.
Giving money to the poor is a good thing. Lending them money at low interest is a good thing. Offering medical care, technical help, and agricultural assistance are good things. We should do them. We should do lots of it. But these countries need a system which works whether we are generous or not. Without such market structures, they have no future.
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
You can read what you like into my tone; it's not the point. I desperately want to see exactly the sound market structures you think these countries need. I do not think this can happen while the developed world continues to screw poor countries in the way it currently does. The "free" market created the "fast buck" policies of the coffee buyers in the first place; I have absolutely no confidence that it can rectify the situation. Free markets do not work properly when there is a massive power imbalance, as there currently is.
Clearly, we are going to have to agree to differ on this. I think I'd rather get on with it than arguing the toss.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
ES - I would prefer it if you didn't mix my words with other people's to create a straw man.
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Certainly the claims of the socialists:
quote:
More or less what we used to call a "crisis of capitalism" (back before the Tories told us all that no-one believed in all that Socialist stuff any more)
need to be treated with total disdain - the achievement of China of raising millions from poverty as a result of the adoption of capitalism is never given the credit it deserves, and the belief that
quote:
Our workers cannot compete with western multinationals in India or Africa while they pay dirt poor wages and can ignore health & safety rules, environmental regulation and workers rights.
is merely a restatement less elegantly of the threat alleged by Ross Perot in opposing NAFTA - the giant sucking sound that would deprive American workers of jobs; instead the rate of unemployment there is lower than before NAFTA.
I said the first thing & I'll explain what I meant by it if you want - you obviously don;lt understand what "crisis of capitilism" meant in the jargon.
I didn't say the second thing and wouldn't ever say it. I doubt if any of the people posting here are stronger supporters of free trade than I am.
Free trade and Socialism are both pre-requisites of a fair economic society. Capitilism is, in the end, inherently opposed to free trade - it is a stage it goes through, but in the end its build-in tendency to monolpoly, were it unchecked (which it never is) would destroy free trade in goods, as it does free movement of people.
The argument between capitilism and socialism is about ownership and democracy, not about trade.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Of course one cannot freely trade what one does not own. However, that debate (again) is probably best left to a thread of it's own.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Assistant Village Idiot
Shipmate
# 3266
|
Posted
I would say that free markets don't work when someone doesn't have access to enforcement of justice, which is similar, but not quite the same as imbalance of power.
I would agree about the coffee growers having lost enormously, whether through fault of the buyers, the system, or their own actions is of secondary importance. But trace back the next step: would it have been better to have never grown coffee? (Answer, no. They were even poorer before).
So if they grow coffee, in what way do they enter the market? Are there things we don't let them do because it's too risky?
--------------------
formerly Logician
Posts: 885 | From: New Hampshire, US | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
quote:
I would say that free markets don't work when someone doesn't have access to enforcement of justice, which is similar, but not quite the same as imbalance of power.
That all depends on what you mean by the enforcement of justice.
In a free market situation, if a buyer can exploit the weak situation of a seller in order to get a lower price, then the buyer will do that, unless he is prevented from so doing.
I could live in a country, with the fairest courts in the world, and still be exploited because my country as a whole is being exploited. My courts, and government are powerless to demand that I get paid a fair amount for what I produce, because the buyer will simply go to the country next door where no such laws exist.
So although there are corrupt governments in poorer countries, which hold those countries back, it's the powerlessness of poverty which is the major factor in keeping the poor poor.
At the lowest level, where there is an imbalance of power, free markets can cause poverty.
At the moment markets are not free, but the measures that have been put in place to protect against the ravages of the market are things like trade barriers which are designed to protect the rich at the expense of the poor. Why can't we have measures to protect the poor rather than the rich?
Incidentally, trade barriers are instituted to protect the richest of capitalists. If my objective is to sell my produce at the highest price I can, I will use every means to ensure that this happens. If I see a market advantage in banding together in a pressure group to get my government to institute a trade barrier, it is my capitalist duty to do just that.
In Britain, much farming land is owned by an extremely wealthy set of people who have had this land passed down from generation to generation. These people have large amounts of influence and power. They have an interest in getting high prices for the crops that are produced, because they take rent from the land. This is why the farming lobby is so powerful in government and why, during the foot and mouth crisis, farmers were given compensation where the tourist industry was not.
It's hardly surprising that the Common Agricultural Policy, which has been so damaging to the prospects of the third world, has been so difficult to reform. After all, you don't want to go upsetting Lord and Lady Muck, they are very rich and influential people!
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Bonzo, I'm completely with you in saying that tariffs and other sorts of trade barriers are A Very Bad Thing.
What do you mean by "capitalist duty"? I don't remember signing a pledge card or taking an oath or anything like that. ![[Wink]](wink.gif) Perhaps this is the root of many disagreements. Capitalism is not a way of life, a philosphy or a moral system. It is a way of getting things done, not the thing itself. It is a means not an end.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Scot,
We agree on some things at least.
No, thank God, you don't have to sign up to anything. Duty perhaps is the wrong word.
The capitalist system is an economic system based on private ownership of capital. While this system relies on free trade many 'capitalists' see government intervention as wrong, only when such intervention is designed to protect the poor. for example many resist the idea of a minimum wage. Extreme capitalists would also do away with benefit.
However, the very same people, are seen to protect their own capital, in a variety of ways. The richer they become, the more they spend on finding ways to increase and retain their privileged position. This will always include tampering with the free market if they see a benefit to be had.
I believe the current western system (what many people would call capitalism) to be unstable. It's a system where fairness takes second place to making money, and the rich get richer and the poor stay poor (or even get poorer). It's a system where the excessive consumption of the worlds resources by a few will eventually lead to the downfall of all. Taken to it's conclusion it will eventually become the enemy of democracy, because the rich who get ever richer will find ways of manipulating governments in order to maintain their position at the top of the pile.
Free trade is not the problem here. Human nature is. True capitalism, like true communism, is not in itself wrong, but when combined with human nature it can be just as corrupt.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Just a naive thought:
English law has provision for bankruptcy - for someone who is unable to pay their debts to give up and start again. Any such law requires a balancing of interests - make it too easy, and swindlers escape justice and are back in business tomorrow under a new brand name. Make it too difficult, and victims of misfortune find it impossible to escape the burden of debt.
We may not have the balance totally right in domestic business law. But similar provisions and a similar balance should perhaps be sought between countries ?
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
