|
I have often been rather skeptical of Twitter. The need to update people about how you're doing any remedial task seemed rather over the top for me.
However, I've found myself constantly amused by Day[9]'s "tweets" and I decided to join the world of Twitter myself. I'm also hoping it will keep me more updated about events occurring around the world.
You can follow me at: http://twitter.com/#!/RikuKat
Now, speaking of events around the world, there seems to be an increasing number of revolutions, riots and generally expressions of discontent. For as long as I can recall understanding politics, my dad has been claiming a revolution will soon come. It's fairly easy to scoff off the idea, it just doesn't seem applicable in today's modern society... right?
I fear that may not be the case. While watching the news last night, I was listening to reports about the riots in London. The reporter on the scene was going on about how random they seemed, as if people were using a cop shooting and killing someone as an excuse to loot and burn. When the other reporter questioned if the rioting might be fueled by the recent government actions, she was met with solid disagreement.
I wish people would open their eyes and see that these riots did not occur simply due to a man being shot and killed by a police officer. While the damage to London is sad and unnecessary, it was caused by people who feel betrayed by their government. This anger will not be quelled by increasing police presence, because it is caused by the growing gap between the rich and the poor and by cuts in public services. This is how revolutions start and anyone who thinks such a thing cannot occur in a first world country is sadly mistaken.
Now it seems the US government may be in a similar position. With the politicians playing political chicken with the economy and pointing fingers at each other, I fear the credit downgrade won't be the first we will receive. How long will the people sit silent while the people they voted into officer heed more to party and big business wishes?
I doubt a full blown revolution could occur, but I do think we will see protests begin to happen. In fact, I hope we see protests. I'm sick of sitting around, watching the values I believe I voted into office being tossed away for big business wishes and party disagreements. Protests will happen if this continues, even if I have to lead them myself. I hope the people protesting will be of all levels of income, from every neighborhood, perhaps they can stand together peacefully while making their opposition known.
I know after so many blogs, my first mention of politics might be startling, especially considering I am so passionate about it. I wish I had been older than 9 years old when the WTO Riots occurred in Seattle, because I would have stood there proudly. While I frown upon the rioting in London, I think protests like the WTO ones (strong, with well defined meaning and relatively non-violent) are necessary once again for the media and government to give proper consideration to how we the people feel. Then again, I'm just some whacky woman who plays too many video games and still sleeps with a stuffed animal... but I hope that I don't stand alone.
Notes for clarification: -I do not support the actions of the London rioters -I do not think the London rioters were trying to make a political statement (after the initial protest to the shooting) -I do believe the rioters were fueled by discontent with the economy and government (i.e. if they weren't discontent, there wouldn't have been riots, especially to such a degree) -I believe protests are necessary to get the current US government on track
|
Fight the power! But in all seriousness I think you're right. Government has stayed the same way for far too long and has become complacent. This, coupled with the ease of modern communication means that stuff will spread faster. Maybe it will be the 1970s all over again?
Personally, I'm quite disillusioned with our (USA) government. I don't even care which party Is "responsible" for the mess, I'm just disgusted that these politicians were willing to put their reelection and paychecks above the wellbeing of our nation. We had a knife to our throats and it was no time to stubbornly resist coming to an agreement.
|
The United States' two-party system is idiotic.
Until there's an alternative to the Demublicans and the Republocrats your country will continue to be dictated to by the special interests that control them.
|
On August 11 2011 01:27 bonifaceviii wrote: The United States' two-party system is idiotic.
Until there's an alternative to the Demublicans and the Republocrats your country will continue to be dictated to by the special interests that control them. But here's the thing, not only has the two-party system worked great for 200+ years, everything was actually worse when we had MORE than two parties (think pre civil war 1850s). I know youre Canadian so you don't know much about The stuff leading up to our civil war, but it was even more factional and bad.
|
The party system works when it's the people who have the greatest influence at getting people into office, not big business contributions. When you need millions of dollars to get all of the travel and advertisements necessary to get your name out there enough to become a senator (let a lone a president), it becomes the corporations and people with money that set who is in political power, not the voters.
:/
I mean, we can all sit back and hope the majority of the population will be aware enough to look at the big picture, but it is highly unlikely. That's why politicians who use big business support and fear tactics do so well. They get the money for advertising and campaigning and scare the people uneducated and unaware enough to know better into voting for them.
|
Your giving the rioters far too much credit. The fact is, the police in England currently don't have the power to do anything, and as they are trying not to use force at all (remember all the fuss about unnecessary force during the student protests?) they're basically in a situation, where they can't control the people who are openly admitting on record they are doing it because they can. and others are joining in because... hey if they can do all this, get away free and get some nice free stolen stuff... so can I. and until the government starts allowing the police to actually force it stop, it probably won't.
|
Exactly what kind of credit am I giving them? I did not give the London rioters credit for anything. In fact, I said I disagreed with their actions.
The only protesters I mentioned supporting were the WTO protesters and I can assure, I only support the peaceful ones, not the anarchists who took advantage of the situations.
|
The American CIvil War had nothing to do with radicasl, democrats or republicans, it would've still ocurred if only democrats and republicans existed since 1) democrats wanted slavery in the new states and republicans did not, and 2) the South claimed its independence even though Lincoln was a moderate politician and seeked a compromise, dealing the first preemptive blow in Fort Sumter if I recall correctly.
While I agree with Riku that the riots are the symptom of a broken social ladder, revolts seem unlikely.
First because the western world has gained way too much comfort to partake in any important movement: in short, rich people are lazy. This is particularly true in this community where a simple internet access is already a big guarantee of happiness. Second, this is aways exploited by the ruling powers to estinguish new fires, simply by accusing the protesting crowd of ruining the peaceful lives of other citizens, and by throwing other humble men, policemen, et them, letting hate and crowd movements degrade the original ideals.
The third world directly benefits from the sweat and tears of poor countries, importing valuable ressources at low prices and obtaining a cheap working force while keeping the voters happy. Revolution will not ocurr as it would imply that people in the west are no longer egocentrical and no longer want to be part of a happy bubble of peace and wealth.
Add to this that the situation is not that bad and is getting worse step by step, and you will see that most people probably don't realize the links between politics, the financial and the commercial world, and the way everything is headed.
After all, I'm sure a good bunch of the people in this forum would lay low if given a good computer, WoW and SC2.
|
On August 11 2011 01:40 Riku wrote: Exactly what kind of credit am I giving them? I did not give the London rioters credit for anything. In fact, I said I disagreed with their actions.
The only protesters I mentioned supporting were the WTO protesters and I can assure, I only support the peaceful ones, not the anarchists who took advantage of the situations.
I was reffering to this
On August 11 2011 01:40 Riku wrote:While the damage to London is sad and unnecessary, it was caused by people who feel betrayed by their government"
I didn't mean you were supporting them, I meant you were saying they had reason for their actions. By feeling betrayed by their own government is one thing... setting fire to your own community is going to prove this how... by hurting your own community and by extension yourself. "Cutting off ones nose to spite your face." It's stupid thuggery by people who are saying anything to the media for the attention. One person even told the bbc that kids shouldn't be out looting because it was wrong, but then stumbled over his words and couldn't justify then why it was right for him to. There is no noble cause. Those looking for one, will be left wanting.
|
I think it all depends on how things are handled.
For example, while this may be an unlikely progression, something like this could start a huge uproar:
1) A few groups protest 2) Others take advantage of these protests and they turn into violence and looting 3) The initial protesting groups continue protesting, even against rules/bans (much like in the WTO riots) 4) More people join the protests due to media attention 5) More people join the rioting due to opportunity 6) The government tries to control the situation 7) They cannot gain control peacefully, and some peaceful protesters are injured 8) More protests start due to the injuries and abuse of peaceful protesters 9) Government, in an attempt to regain control as peacefully as possible, limits communication 10) The internet zombies come of their dens due to restrictions or loss of communication 11) Zombie apocalypse (okay, okay, not really, but you get the point)
Certainly, I think protests are most likely, riots are somewhat likely and a revolution has a snowball's chance in hell, but that doesn't mean it is completely impossible.
|
On August 11 2011 01:30 redoxx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 01:27 bonifaceviii wrote: The United States' two-party system is idiotic.
Until there's an alternative to the Demublicans and the Republocrats your country will continue to be dictated to by the special interests that control them. But here's the thing, not only has the two-party system worked great for 200+ years, everything was actually worse when we had MORE than two parties (think pre civil war 1850s). I know youre Canadian so you don't know much about The stuff leading up to our civil war, but it was even more factional and bad.
That was still two parties with some sprinkling of other parties cropping up. It was Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists faded into Whigs and the Whigs into Republicans. Also, the Democratic Party became prominent in the 1830s and dominated the political scene from the 1830s toe the 1850s. The Republican Party then gained dominance during the 1860s until 1932.
The factional divides leading up to the Civil War was literally two sides as well. North/Free/Abolitionist and South/Slave/Anti Abolitionist. These are all different names for the same "faction". The problem leading up to the Civil War was that everything was SO deadlocked between these two factions that laws were made so that it would stay deadlocked(Kansas-Nebraska Act, Missouri Compromise, etc).
If you were going to make a case for things being worse with more than two parties it would be the cases where one party splintered (Democrats were like this for a long period of time, with Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats having much different priorities and therefore not unifying around a single leader, while a famous example for Republicans would be Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party, which divided the Republican party and lost them an election.)
So I wouldn't claim that the Two Party system worked great for 200+ years. We got along with it, but it has often stalled progress by causing deadlocks, sectional tensions and even drove the country apart. I'm not sure to what time you were referring to with multiple parties causing more problems, if you could name the time and the parties it would help a lot in understanding what you mean.
I have to agree with some of the warnings George Washington gave about political parties in his farewell address(in spoilers below). particularly "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism." Eerily familiar isn't it?
+ Show Spoiler + 20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. 21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. 22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. 23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. 24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. 25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
My opinion, get rid of political parties. Let people elect their representatives based solely on their merits and views and not based on what party they belong to. Not likely to happen but it would be nice.
|
Ironic this comes from someone not in England. This government came to power just over a year ago it isn't like a 12 year run without any oposition. These looters and rioters are just looters and rioters they have no political cause and are just doing it because they think they can get away with it.
The English police have not used force on rioters or protesters for over 120 years and that probably isnt going to change now.
My final point is that these people are not all poor or socialy deprived for a start the benefit system in the U.K. is probably the most rewarding in the world also many of these people have good jobs e.g. one graphics designer was looting and rioting. Plus most of this has been organised through BBM and if im not mistaken Blackberries are pretty expensive.
|
On August 11 2011 01:51 Gingerninja wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 01:40 Riku wrote: Exactly what kind of credit am I giving them? I did not give the London rioters credit for anything. In fact, I said I disagreed with their actions.
The only protesters I mentioned supporting were the WTO protesters and I can assure, I only support the peaceful ones, not the anarchists who took advantage of the situations. I was reffering to this Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 01:40 Riku wrote:While the damage to London is sad and unnecessary, it was caused by people who feel betrayed by their government" I didn't mean you were supporting them, I meant you were saying they had reason for their actions. By feeling betrayed by their own government is one thing... setting fire to your own community is going to prove this how... by hurting your own community and by extension yourself. "Cutting off ones nose to spite your face." It's stupid thuggery by people who are saying anything to the media for the attention. One person even told the bbc that kids shouldn't be out looting because it was wrong, but then stumbled over his words and couldn't justify then why it was right for him to. There is no noble cause. Those looking for one, will be left wanting.
Excuse me for quoting something I wrote in another medium, but I don't want to retype it:
"I did not say the riot was started with a greater purpose nor that any of the rioters necessarily had one, but that doesn't change the fact that it was almost undoubtedly fueled by poverty, discontentment and disagreement." I can almost without a doubt say that this would not have occurred without the recent political and economic issues.
I don't think they have "reason," but they have "fuel." I guess you could say that the fuel I am talking about is reason of sorts, but not in the way you interpreted it. In the statement you quoted, I was merely saying that many of the rioters are people who feel betrayed by their government. Afterall, if the government was taking good care of them, they'd be much less likely to run around torching police cars, no? To restate: While many people's main motivations in the London riots were greed and thrill, that does not mean they were not pushed to the point of actually burning and looting by the recent economic turmoil and the government's failure to handle it in a way that does not harm the lower class citizens. No matter how greedy they are, I don't think happy people riot. :/
|
True fact: I've caught 4/5ths of my girlfriends sleeping with a stuffed animal. It's not that weird. Or maybe I date weird people, I don't know.
I hope there are protests in the future. I hope more that they don't involve the words Tea, Party or the sentiment that we should be lynching people.
I actually wrote a 350ish word brief commentary on the current political and civil discord environments then erased (Well, copied it for later) it because I'm just too tired to say status quo nothing changes every day you'll realize it more.
So with that edited out I'm kinda left with nothing to say.
|
On August 11 2011 01:57 Zaros wrote: Ironic this comes from someone not in England. This government came to power just over a year ago it isn't like a 12 year run without any oposition. These looters and rioters are just looters and rioters they have no political cause and are just doing it because they think they can get away with it.
The English police have not used force on rioters or protesters for over 120 years and that probably isnt going to change now.
My final point is that these people are not all poor or socialy deprived for a start the benefit system in the U.K. is probably the most rewarding in the world also many of these people have good jobs e.g. one graphics designer was looting and rioting. Plus most of this has been organised through BBM and if im not mistaken Blackberries are pretty expensive.
Please read this article, written by someone who has lived in Tottenham for the past 13 years, then tell me if you still believe I'm speaking as a misinformed foreigner making unbased claims:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/aug/09/tottenham-young-people-riot-future
|
The looting doesn't surprise me: it's entertainment, something to keep young people busy. Riku are you fucking serious?
That article or your posts aren't anything new. All I see is taking blanket issues and saying a random ass riot in a random ass place and saying it was because of that. There has been discontent within the young community for like two generations now. That article was rubbish.
|
the Dagon Knight3990 Posts
I had a really weird dream last night in which I was watching the BBC News. They had a social scientist (anthropologist or sociologist) in to talk about the rioting/civil upheaval. I got that dream-feeling I knew him or had read his work, but I couldn't quite place him. Regardless, his advice will stick with me for the rest of my life.
The newscaster woman asked him what to do, he stared right into the camera, the shot closed in tight on his bearded, bespectacled face and he said,
Remember; a riot is just a party waiting for music.
|
On August 11 2011 02:03 Riku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 01:57 Zaros wrote: Ironic this comes from someone not in England. This government came to power just over a year ago it isn't like a 12 year run without any oposition. These looters and rioters are just looters and rioters they have no political cause and are just doing it because they think they can get away with it.
The English police have not used force on rioters or protesters for over 120 years and that probably isnt going to change now.
My final point is that these people are not all poor or socialy deprived for a start the benefit system in the U.K. is probably the most rewarding in the world also many of these people have good jobs e.g. one graphics designer was looting and rioting. Plus most of this has been organised through BBM and if im not mistaken Blackberries are pretty expensive. Please read this article, written by someone who has lived in Tottenham for the past 13 years, then tell me if you still believe I'm speaking as a misinformed foreigner making unbased claims: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/aug/09/tottenham-young-people-riot-future
the article is clearly written by someone who doesn't agree with the governments policy and thus is putting that bias into the article.
So far i believe there has only been one poltician to claim that it is because of the current government and that is the London mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone and you wont believe there is an election coming up soon.
|
Twitter and Facebook are the vanguard of the revolution.
|
Ugh. I'm thoroughly in contention with both the idea the riot represents something more (No matter how end around you say it) or that "Twitter and Facebook" are the vanguard of the revolution.
|
Some of the people arrested in London, were Doctors, teachers and even a few people signed up for military duty. They did it because they were bored, the riot brought some excitement to their lives, and because they thought they could get away with it because so many people were doing it they jumped onto the stupidity bandwagon. No doubts some people are doing it because they are disillusioned, but it should be noted, most of the people arrested live tax free on government benefits, and when it's all said and done they won't be the ones paying for their actions, everyone else will.
Britain's economy is sinking, this is another waste of money that will have to come from somewhere, and I bet they won't want it taken from their handouts. Tax's will probably be pushed up because of this and other situations. Nothing justifies torching innocent peoples livelihoods and looting stuff.
|
On August 11 2011 02:12 Probe1 wrote: Ugh. I'm thoroughly in contention with both the idea the riot represents something more (No matter how end around you say it) or that "Twitter and Facebook" are the vanguard of the revolution.
I didn't say the riot represented anything more, but I said it was a sign of discontent.
:/
Seriously, I believe the rioters were wrong, greedy and what they did bad, okay? I don't think they were protesting for the greater good, I don't think they had direct political motivation, and I was mostly using the riots as a transition into how I think MY government has been going down the shithole for quite a while and that the people need to have their voice heard. Hell, even getting the politicians to put aside their parties for two seconds to come to an agreement or compromise, even a temporary one, would be delightful.
|
The nash equilibrium resulting from America's constitution is a two-party system. When you have a winner take all electorate, the opposition almost always unites under some flag.
|
On August 11 2011 02:22 Riku wrote: Seriously, I believe the rioters were wrong, greedy and what they did bad, okay? I don't think they were protesting for the greater good, I don't think they had direct political motivation, and I was mostly using the riots as a transition into how I think MY government has been going down the shithole for quite a while and that the people need to have their voice heard. Hell, even getting the politicians to put aside their parties for two seconds to come to an agreement or compromise, even a temporary one, would be delightful.
It seemed watching news about the US's financial downgrading even at the 11th hour, both parties would rather sit and argue than compromise. They'd rather everyone lose out than their opponent have any say. So until that's resolved, I don't think any change can happen.
|
On August 11 2011 01:30 redoxx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 01:27 bonifaceviii wrote: The United States' two-party system is idiotic.
Until there's an alternative to the Demublicans and the Republocrats your country will continue to be dictated to by the special interests that control them. But here's the thing, not only has the two-party system worked great for 200+ years, everything was actually worse when we had MORE than two parties (think pre civil war 1850s). I know youre Canadian so you don't know much about The stuff leading up to our civil war, but it was even more factional and bad.
But the system's only worked because there have been new parties that have brought in new platforms and or reform to the existing party system. Think of how the Republicans started in the 1850s because the dissatisfaction with the current choices, or how the Socialist movement of the early 1900s forced the main parties to adopt positions like allowing unions or trust busting.
|
On August 11 2011 02:26 Gingerninja wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 02:22 Riku wrote: Seriously, I believe the rioters were wrong, greedy and what they did bad, okay? I don't think they were protesting for the greater good, I don't think they had direct political motivation, and I was mostly using the riots as a transition into how I think MY government has been going down the shithole for quite a while and that the people need to have their voice heard. Hell, even getting the politicians to put aside their parties for two seconds to come to an agreement or compromise, even a temporary one, would be delightful. It seemed watching news about the US's financial downgrading even at the 11th hour, both parties would rather sit and argue than compromise. They'd rather everyone lose out than their opponent have any say. So until that's resolved, I don't think any change can happen.
And this is why the people need to protest, because we the people know it is in our best interest to have a compromise.
If we do nothing, the game of political chicken will continue. We need to apply pressure.
|
I saw this on the news yesterday, but some guy basically said 'As long as you can buy $1 hamburgers at mcdonalds, as long as you can go to walmart and buy as many guns as you want, and as long as theres free porn on the internet, the american people are not going to riot'. Basically, I think he's right. Things would have to get pretty damn terrible for there to be any real uprising. I think most americans are simply too ingrained in the american way of life that they wouldn't support a revolution.
Poor people in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, even to a lesser extent England, eat rice and beans. Poor people in America eat doritos and are fat.
This is what needs to change for their to be any real revolution in america.
|
I do agree that we (as civilians) must step up and put more pressure on the government, but how that can be done effectively remains unclear. As some of the London protesters quoted, most of peaceful protests go largely unnoticed. On the other hand, violence rarely ever resolves anything - in most cases, violent protests succeed only in gaining the wrong kind of attention and destroying livelihoods of innocent people.
|
On August 11 2011 02:36 Hakker wrote: I saw this on the news yesterday, but some guy basically said 'As long as you can buy $1 hamburgers at mcdonalds, as long as you can go to walmart and buy as many guns as you want, and as long as theres free porn on the internet, the american people are not going to riot'. Basically, I think he's right. Things would have to get pretty damn terrible for there to be any real uprising. I think most americans are simply too ingrained in the american way of life that they wouldn't support a revolution.
Poor people in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, even to a lesser extent England, eat rice and beans. Poor people in America eat doritos and are fat.
This is what needs to change for their to be any real revolution in america.
Riots and protests are different.
I think/hope the MIDDLE CLASS of the US will PROTEST.
The middle class has the education, political awareness and spare "energy" to protest. Without living hand to mouth, they can find themselves concerned more with the big picture than the lower class.
Look a the WTO protests, over 50,000 people showed up, and I can assure you most of the were middle to upper middle class.
|
If we "apply pressure" what options do we have? Riot/Peaceful Protest/Civil Disobedience?
If we succeed what will happen? Will we replace the ineffective Representative? Will the new boss really be samedifferent from the old boss? For how long?
This whole discussion is so very, very tedious. I've spent about a third of my life protesting and trying to change the status quo. All I see in these threads are self assuring statements, empty paragraphs or one liners hidden in a page of fluff or monotonous remarks.
I'd love to hear an opinion, provided it was an actual one. Give me something real. Say what's wrong with the political system. Tell us how to fix it. Shit, just point the finger at one person that needs to gtfo.
Until then, that person will be me. I can't stand to hear another empty proclamation of We nEEd Change! Please use the strategy forums posting guidelines as a template. Provide replays (cite reputable news articles at least, but even those are slanted towards viewership and not absolute truth), try to analyze your own build and write coherently. That should be the bare minimum for political discussion :|
Or else it's not a discussion. It's just people writing feel good quips of The Who.
I'm going to go pass the fuck out for a few hours. I'll be immensely impressed if you have a articulated response to this. If anyone does. However I'm betting on that like I'm betting on FXO to sweep the GSTL.
|
On August 11 2011 02:43 Riku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 02:36 Hakker wrote: I saw this on the news yesterday, but some guy basically said 'As long as you can buy $1 hamburgers at mcdonalds, as long as you can go to walmart and buy as many guns as you want, and as long as theres free porn on the internet, the american people are not going to riot'. Basically, I think he's right. Things would have to get pretty damn terrible for there to be any real uprising. I think most americans are simply too ingrained in the american way of life that they wouldn't support a revolution.
Poor people in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, even to a lesser extent England, eat rice and beans. Poor people in America eat doritos and are fat.
This is what needs to change for their to be any real revolution in america. Riots and protests are different. I think/hope the MIDDLE CLASS of the US will PROTEST. The middle class has the education, political awareness and spare "energy" to protest. Without living hand to mouth, they can find themselves concerned more with the big picture than the lower class. Look a the WTO protests, over 50,000 people showed up, and I can assure you most of the were middle to upper middle class.
Political awareness? I think you're severely overestimating how much people actually are aware of what's going on with their government. Most people too busy dealing with their own issues or watching bad TV or something to actually pay attention, this is why we're stuck with such terrible elected officials in the first place.
|
I am bringing problems to light, not proposing a solution. I can give you temporary solutions to please all and I can give you solutions that adhear to my own values and beliefs, but those are mine, not people's.
I'm giving a call to action, not pretending I am somehow more knowledgeable about economic and political issues than the people who have made it their lives to study them, nor do I think I am a complete representation of the people.
If you want to discuss possible solutions, I think that would be great. In fact, I'm all for starting a thread where we can discuss what needs to be done and then make a plan of action.
Please don't criticize me for not having all of the answers. If you wish for me to make my full political opinions known, I can do that, but I know I tend to be rather extreme in comparison to the general population and I am more than happy to support a less extreme compromise. Thus far, I have refrained from expressing them so that conversation to create a plan of action can be had, not just turn it into a my opinions vs. yours thread.
|
Fuck politics. I hate how cutthroat it is, when the main objective is to create a better nation. Competition in that regard is a good thing, of course, but not when it gets to the current levels, and starts being a power-grab more than anything, just like a KOTH. I'm only 17, but even so, I dislike most, of not all politicians. I hated seeing their ads back when I watched TV. "You really want to vote for THIS person? here's a list of thing they've done that we think you'll dislike." Just make an ad about how awesome you are, rather than how bad your opponent is. It seems like all of these people are just plain mean, and I honestly wouldn't want to hang out with any of them, let alone give them a seat in the Oval Office. I hate this party system, too. It encourages voting for the party you align yourself with, rather than who you believe would do a better job as a President, imo.
|
On August 11 2011 02:51 Seiuchi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 02:43 Riku wrote:On August 11 2011 02:36 Hakker wrote: I saw this on the news yesterday, but some guy basically said 'As long as you can buy $1 hamburgers at mcdonalds, as long as you can go to walmart and buy as many guns as you want, and as long as theres free porn on the internet, the american people are not going to riot'. Basically, I think he's right. Things would have to get pretty damn terrible for there to be any real uprising. I think most americans are simply too ingrained in the american way of life that they wouldn't support a revolution.
Poor people in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, even to a lesser extent England, eat rice and beans. Poor people in America eat doritos and are fat.
This is what needs to change for their to be any real revolution in america. Riots and protests are different. I think/hope the MIDDLE CLASS of the US will PROTEST. The middle class has the education, political awareness and spare "energy" to protest. Without living hand to mouth, they can find themselves concerned more with the big picture than the lower class. Look a the WTO protests, over 50,000 people showed up, and I can assure you most of the were middle to upper middle class. Political awareness? I think you're severely overestimating how much people actually are aware of what's going on with their government. Most people too busy dealing with their own issues or watching bad TV or something to actually pay attention, this is why we're stuck with such terrible elected officials in the first place.
Then it is our job to make them politically aware. We are the generation of the internet. We have the powers of our communication networks and technologies behind us. I've stepped forward, will you join me?
|
A protest is a miless away from a riot.
Most people (except for maybe the ones on the losing end of a protest) don't mind if that happens because they're not violent. Innocent, hard working store owners don't lose out on their lively hood because some idiot with a molotov had a little fun. Protests garner attention without destroying things.
Rioting means taking out your anger on people who are almost always not at all affiliated with whatever issues take place.
|
On August 11 2011 02:54 Riku wrote: I am bringing problems to light,...
No you aren't. You're saying the same uninformed shit that 90 thousand other people are saying on this forum, on fox news, on every outlet there are three of you.
This has been a disappointing failure at actual discussion.
|
I do not think there is a general discontent present among the Western populace with regards to their government. I think people just want to break stuff and riot because they are assholes. What we are looking at is merely people taking advantage of chaos. Sweeping generalizations ahead.
You want a legitimate riot, look no further than Egypt, Iran, or Syria, where people are legitimately upset with their government and want a sweeping political change.
You want a bunch of bullshit riots with thinly veiled excuses to loot stores and break stuff? Look no further than every riot in the West. Most riots start out as protests where other people join in to take advantage of the chaos. It happens at every G8/G20 conference; it happened in Vancouver; it's happening in London. The store and vehicle owners who get fucked had nothing to do with why the people are supposedly upset, so why should they suffer for it? Well, because the rioters don't care if you're involved or not - they just want to break shit. This has nothing to do with political motivations.
This probably has a lot more to do with the rioters' own lives than anything. We live in a society where you can do anything you put your mind to. Nothing is out of reach of hard work. So when people see are unhappy with their lives and don't want to work to change it, the easiest option is to act up. You don't see educated professionals rioting very often in the West, do you?
If you have a problem, you protest, lobby, petition, whatever. Rioting is not a legitimate way to force political action; it's bullies beating up kids at school because their home life is shit.
|
This riot represents exactly nothing. It started as a slight protest, then it turned in to hundreds of antisocial aggressive kids realizing that they know have a chance to just break and steal stuff. Now there are lots of antisocial aggressive kids breaking and stealing stuff.
|
On August 11 2011 03:04 Probe1 wrote:No you aren't. You're saying the same uninformed shit that 90 thousand other people are saying on this forum, on fox news, on every outlet there are three of you. This has been a disappointing failure at actual discussion.
Problem: Government spending more than it earns. Solutions: 1) Earn more 2) Spend less 3) Combination of 1 and 2
There, that's the problem and solutions.
"But, Riku, you're being uninformed and not giving solutions"
I have a number of solutions. For example, I believe free, unregulated markets are harmful to the economy. Here, I wrote a paper about it:
+ Show Spoiler +The Free-Market Tyrant
The crushing weight of an unregulated economic rule can be just as restricting as the leash of a strong government. While basic logic supports Milton Friedman’s argument in Capitalism and Freedom that “every act of government intervention limits the area of individual freedom,” he fails to recognize that intervention can protect some freedoms and that the unregulated market create more tyrants than any political system (Friedman, 2007, p. 13). Without a government strong enough to force some regulations on the economy, corporate elites will gain power as rulers and manipulate the middle and lower classes with the economy. The correct balance to maximize freedoms while protecting the public is slightly different than Friedman’s proposed system, allowing the government more control. This analysis will cover the position of Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom and the errors in such thought, then introduce a system that is a healthy balance between totalitarianism and free market rule. A well-balanced system of government, one that has an open but regulated market and a government strong enough to properly enforce all of the necessary regulations as well as protect the people from economic abuse, is the best possible option. Friedman has a valid point when he argues that government rules and regulations restrict the public’s freedom, but that does not mean such restrictions are not generally beneficial, if not necessary. When a government has too much power, it can almost completely remove the public’s freedom. With the force of the military and other methods of controlling the public, the government can regulate almost every aspect of a person’s life. However, the basic duty of government is to protect its citizens, which is only possible to do by limiting their freedoms. These are easily justified limits on freedom, such as “one man’s freedom to murder his neighbor must be sacrificed to preserve the freedom of the other man to live” (Friedman, 2007, p. 26). Friedman agrees there must be some limits and laws, but is an advocate of the free market, which he claims will protect freedom in both economic and political settings. To an extent, rule by the market will give people economic freedoms that are not available in most societies, but there are also drawbacks of this form of rule. Nonetheless, it is impossible to deny that the government operates on restrictions and regulations. Friedman’s proposition that a free market could replace many sections of government and help create more freedoms still has a certain reliance on a government “to provide a means whereby we can modify the rules, to mediate difference among us on the meaning of the rules, and to enforce compliance with the rules on those few who would otherwise not play the game” (Friedman, 2007, p. 25). He believes the government simply needs to stand by the sidelines and mediate interactions among companies and the public when corruption could take place. Yet, Friedman is unwilling to allow the government to have many tools of power to administrate these groups. This reliance on government requires much more control by the government than Friedman seems willing to admit. Thus, an expansion of government powers over what Friedman proposes is necessary to assure moderate equality and freedom for all citizens. Large-scale problems would commonly arise if the government was relatively powerless. Unless the entire world was ruled by the market, without governments or with very limited governments, the states under market rule would face the threat of invasion or abuse from nations with strong governments and military. Since a standing army is, economically, a waste of resources when it is not being used entirely for national defense, it is very unlikely that a large, if any, military would exist in a state under economic rule. Though mercenaries could be hired when need arose, it is highly unlikely that they would be hired and respond quickly and efficiently enough to stop a planned invasion, not to mention the question of who would do the hiring. Even if these issues were worked out, nothing would prevent this force from taking over the country when they were not on a job, which they would be compelled to do since they would not have a source of income without war. Of course, additionally, these militant leaders would not be likely to uphold the ways of the previous government and society, and, thus, the system would completely fall apart. It only takes a single issue, such as military defense, to show the fragility of a nation bound more by economic freedom than by political solvency. Another issue that would have a large impact on a nation is Friedman’s dislike of the minimum wage and how it corresponds to the freedom of the poor; in a free economy, there will still be rich and poor, and, since the poor will have very little influence on the economy, they will have little influence on the state. This will create a powerless poor that will be open to abuse from the rich. Friedman denounces the minimum wage, which is one of the few regulations keeping the corporate elite from gaining a crushing economic hold on the middle and lower class (Friedman, 2007, p. 35). Without a minimum wage, which Friedman lists as one of the intrusive rules of the government that should be eliminated, once a person hits a rough spot in their finances, they can be forced down by companies searching for profits and stuck in a position where they are competing with other low-income people for extremely low paying jobs (Friedman, 2007, p. 35). Even if the United States kept the same economic and political policies but removed the minimum wage, the lower class would fall into turmoil quickly followed by the rest of the general economy. The minimum wage is a necessary requirement to keeping a closer gap between the different economic classes. Therefore, Friedman’s model without the minimum wage would not effectively protect the public from abuse as would a larger government model that had control over economic regulations such as the minimum wage. Not only would these companies abuse the poor under Friedman’s lack of restrictions, but they would abuse natural resources, too. Friedman does not support national forest among other methods of environmental protection, which are necessary to protect the public as well as the environment. Without such protections, companies would exploit natural resources to keep their profits high. The environment would fall to heavy deforesting and mining, because the short-term profits would be more appealing than long-term environmental protection. Sets of regulations are necessary to protect the environment from being polluted and destroyed by hungry companies. Environmental protection helps keep the air clean for people to breathe, water safe for drinking and renewable resources available for use. Even with a small government to regulate and make sure all of the companies obey the few rules and regulations, the large companies would be basically untouchable by the government. With the amount of influence they would have and the ability to manipulate the government, they could avoid any restrictions with bribery and corruption. Without the ability to influence the government on the same level as the large companies, the poor and even middle class would be oppressed and be forced to worry more about keeping up with their bills than attempting to engage in politics to help change their situation. Thus, the market rule can degrade into more of a totalitarian rule by the CEOs and other economic elites without even higher governmental restrictions than Friedman views as valid. It is necessary for the government and its members to have enough incentive and control that will be less prone to simply sell-out to the large companies. The government needs to have a strong hand in control of parts of the economy that is resistant to corruption to prevent abuse from crushing the lower classes. With each power that Friedman wishes to remove from the government, another problematic issue arises that leads to more threats to freedom than the freedom the power’s removal gives the governed. Yet, while an economy-run nation would allow company elites to rule over the majority of the population through economic manipulation, a very strict government would be similar in terms of oppression. Friedman notes “the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery,” which describes a majority of governments before the nineteenth century (Friedman, 2007, p. 24). Thus, an extremely strict government would definitely limit the freedom of its people beyond what is necessary to protect them properly. With a strong government rule restricting freedoms and a free-market rule not protecting freedoms well enough, the only possible answer to a society with as much freedom as possible is a healthy balance between the two. While Friedman notes many activities that “cannot… validly be justified” by his vague terms of the responsibilities of government, he does not clearly state the boundaries between necessary restrictions and unnecessary limits of freedom (Friedman, 2007, p. 35). Another regulation that benefits and protects the public and their freedoms, and that Friedman seems to leave out of his bounds of government, is health and work regulations. These regulations protect people from being harmed by poor work conditions, exposure to hazardous chemicals, and other issues that might arise when companies care more for profits than the well-being of their workers. It is a citizen’s right to breath air that will not cause their lungs and body damage as much even if another citizen wishes for the right to pollute by driving vehicles and burning coal in factories. However, as Friedman quotes Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “‘My freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin’” (Friedman, 2007, p. 27). Thus, to protect workers from harmful chemicals, the work places must be regulated. Friedman might argue that capitalism would eliminate companies who had poor working conditions, but it is likely people would be unwilling to leave a steady job to escape the work environment if they were even aware that they were being exposed to toxins or unsafe environment and equipment. Therefore, the government must regulate work and environment safety standards to protect its citizens. Even regulation and taxation of imports and exports when they are fit to protect and aid the economy are beneficial to a nation. While this goes strongly against the idea of free market, it would provide great protection of the economy and would be unlikely reduce trade greatly as the countries that participate in high amounts of trade with the country would likely rather lose a little profit than lose trade abilities with such a significant producer and consumer. China had previously done a very good job protecting its economy through these methods. These tariffs and the previous rules and regulations are just a few examples of how restrictions that Friedman dismisses as unnecessary actually provide economic stability, protect the public and allow for many more freedoms than could exist under an unregulated market rule. With a free-market rule creating problems and abuse on par with a crushingly strong government, the best option is rule by a government that can properly enforce all of the necessary regulations on the economy and the people, as well as protect the people from possible abuse by strong economic powers. Friedman’s idea of a lightly regulated economic rule seems promising, but, in the end, is flawed in its ability to protect the citizen’s rights from abuse by other powers. Trading one tyrant for another is not a solution, but simply a different problem. While a capitalist economy can be beneficial, it is absolutely necessary for restrictions to be placed upon it to prevent abuse of the public, the environment and other possible victims of the brutality of the corporate battles for profit.
Also, I believe unregulated globalization is bad for the economy. I wrote a paper about that, too:
+ Show Spoiler +Controlling Globalization Many people, even economists, believe that the world has become “flat” due to technology and globalization, allowing for innovation and education that would never have been imaginable previously, but also causing a decrease in economic diversity.1 Economic globalization is the integration of the various smaller economies of the world, such as those within a country, into a single world-wide economy. It has allowed for unprecedented economic growth and diversity, but has caused many conflicts over economic policies. There cannot be a large number of restrictions among economies when combining them or else neither side would profit. Thus, government and economy are related by the government’s influence upon economic regulations and its attempts to manage globalization. One economist simply explained this relation as “economics is concerned with expanding the pie while politics is about distributing it” (Alesine, 1994, p. 465). Many supporters of globalization believe in the need for free trade, the lack of restrictive regulations on the economy. A number of economists believe that increasing globalization through advancing free trade is beneficial to the economies and people around the world. However, a prominent Turkish economist and Harvard professor, Dani Rodrik, disagrees with this view. He instead argues that the same if not more government regulation is needed to help support globalization (Rodriguez 1999). With these conflicting views, there is a large amount of debate over which path is best for the world: free trade or limited globalization. In this paper, I will first cover and analyze the various opinions on free trade, covering why free trade is supported, the ways tariffs are harmful, and how equality can be easily lost with restrictions and regulations on trade. Then I will counter with arguments for protectionism, showing how tariffs promote equality in wages, the economic growth that globalization bring with protectionism, where free trade agreements fail under weak governments, and the safety nets needed to control globalization. I have come to a conclusion on the approach that needs to be taken to best benefit the people of the world. The approach that needs to be taken to protect the economy while supporting globalization is the implementation of both global and national institutions of regulation which do not greatly restrict globalization, but protect the balance of equality and create more economic stability. Free Trade A large number of people advocate free trade and claim an open market will improve national and global economies by encouraging balanced trade through a capitalist system. Supporters of free trade are opponents of the practice of protectionism, which advocates the restriction of the market through various barriers, such as subsidies, tariffs and quotas. One free trade supporter and published economist, Jan Tumlir, claims that “all protection is a redistribution of income and wealth within the protecting country” and that providing protection to an economy increases the cost of goods within the economy (Tumlir, 1985). The general view of free trade is that reducing competition within a country’s economy will also reduce efficiency within the protected industries and raise the prices in those industries. Tumlir argues in his book Protectionism: Trade Policy in Democratic Societies that the costs paid by industries and consumers to protect the economy’s long-run growth rate and provide stability are higher than it is worth and will plunge the country into a downward economic spiral (Tumlir, 1985). He admits protectionism “eventually raises the general level of money wages” but counters that “the sectors producing import substitutes and tradeable goods are able to pass the higher costs to consumers” (Tumlir, 1985, p. 6). These higher costs are greater than the increase in wages, so even the workers who benefit from increased wages suffer when it comes to purchasing the products that they produced. Herein lies the argument for avoiding protectionism and encouraging expansion of free trade. Not only is protectionism as a whole potentially harmful to economies, but tariffs can also deal a powerful blow on their own. In his book, The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protectionism, Russell Roberts explores the state of America and its economy in 2000 if tariffs had been imposed in 1960 to protect American jobs (Roberts, 2001). As the book is written in a story-like first person view, the narrator explains how the president’s bill to increase tariffs lead to a lack of trade: “His first bill ‘protected’ Americans from foreign televisions. His second bill eliminated all imports and will stay in force permanently. What you see around you in a self-sufficient America. But without imports, America has to devote a lot of resources to make things they hadn’t made before. Those items got so expensive, people could not afford the same cars as they did before.” (Roberts, 2001, p. 33)
The argument the narrator makes with the story is that tariffs choked the competition from foreign markets so much that they stopped trading with the United States completely, since other markets with lower or no tariffs were more profitable to sell to (Roberts, 2001). While this situation is a bit of an extreme, it does express a potential drawback of tariffs: restriction of globalization. If one country enforces tariffs higher than other countries’ tariffs, it will encourage their trading partners to look for other possible markets without the same taxations. This could be harmful to both the country imposing the tariff and those that are involved in trade with that country. The country itself will likely lose export markets due to rebuttal tariffs implemented in response to the original tariffs as well as the diversity of its own market place and the general benefits of globalization (Shutt 1985). Being self-sufficient, the country would be forced to produce goods that it imported from other countries previously. Rice, for example, that might have been previously imported from another country would now have to be grown within the state, taking up land and resources that were not previously used. In the case of small countries or ones with more limited resources, this would be a path to destruction, as they could not be self-sufficient and would be forced to remove the tariffs that were preventing trade to prevent a complete collapse of their own economy from impossible to meet consumer demands. Therefore, Roberts’ world of a self-sufficient United States, lacking market diversity and forced to use precious resources on goods that were previously inexpensive in the globalized market, could be a realistic danger of implementing tariffs. Tariffs and other tools of protectionism are also extremely difficult to implement equally and fairly. As recently as 2007 there have been complaints from the public about the few tariffs that affect the United States. Men’s and women’s clothing imports are taxed differently in the United States, men face higher import taxes on items such as woolen shirts, while women’s sport items are taxed higher, allowing for what some claim to be sexual discrimination to develop through by taxation encouraging women to wear different clothes than men.2 Even with the World Trade Organization, the North American Free Trade Agreement and other such agreements and entities giving the United States the façade of a free trade supporter, these tariffs display the situation in a different light. A recent article in the New York Times illuminated yet another discrepancy with the so-called free trade policies of the United States; a habit of picking and choosing the outcomes of globalization, protesting and disallowing the sales and purchases of companies from some countries.3 Another article notes that the previous trend of economic liberalization had stagnated and countries are starting to erect the barriers they previously tore down to expand globalization.4 Thus, many supporters of free trade and globalization are weary of how governments are currently handling the economy and support freeing it further from the grasp of politicians. The Other Side: Protection Free trade supporters are convinced that each move that reduces interaction with the global economy is a positive step, and many people balk at the mention of tariffs due to fear of Roberts’ scenario of economic and industrial stagnation created by import taxes. However, Branko Milanovic and Lyn Squire have done studies that encourage a different perspective. They studied “a large dataset of average tariff rates all covering the period between 1980 and 2000,” a period of great economic globalization (Milanovic and Squire, 2005, p. 2). They found that reducing tariffs creates inequality in wages in similar occupations and industries in countries below the world median income, while the opposite occurred in richer countries (Milanovic and Squire, 2005). This inequality arises in the form of unequal wage income and the distribution of such income. Another issue is the effects on a country which did not change any of its trade policies, at least with respect to tariffs and other forms of taxation. Milanovic and Squire’s model shows that even if a country does not change its trade policies, “global expansion of trade reduces the export volumes or prices” of the country (Milanovic, 2005, p. 4). Not only would the country’s exports suffer, but it would not reap the benefits of globalization and fall behind countries which it had previously ranked higher than economically. Thus, when a major country reduces tariffs, many of the other countries in the same economy are forced to take similar action, and if the economy is global, then all must react the same way to protect themselves. Tariffs are necessary to uphold global equality in the workplace, and the removal of even one tariff could affect the entire global economy. An investigation in 2001 by the World Bank entitled Globalization, Growth, and Poverty: Building an Inclusive World Economy showed China, India and Vietnam had great gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the mid to late twentieth century, much higher than the growth of the United State’s economy’s booming growth in the early twentieth century (Maddison 2001). Even more surprising is that “by standard measures, such as the height of import tariffs and prevalence of non-tariff barriers, India, China and Vietnam were among the most heavily protected countries in the early 1990s” (Rodrik, 2007, p. 5). In fact, their average tariffs were between 31.2 and 50.5 during that time and China and Vietnam were not even members of the World Trade Organization, so they were not compelled to follow regulations forced upon other countries, yet their growth rates were still between 3.3 and 7.1%, which is extremely impressive in terms of growth (World Bank 2005). On the other hand, Latin America suffered and produced a dismal economic performance when they attempted to liberalize their economy by removing all possible barriers. Rodrik expands upon this situation: Here the paradox is not just that Latin America did worse than Asia, it is also that Latin America did worse than its pre-1980s performance. Let’s recall that the pre-1980s were the era of import substitution, protectionism, and macroeconomic populism. That the region did better with these discredited policies than it has under open-market policies is a fact that is quite hard to digest within the conventional paradigm. (Rodrik, 2007, p. 6)
The free trade policies of Latin America in the 1990s have done little to nothing to advance their economies and much to harm and destabilize them. Latin America is a perfect example of how following the policies supported by free trade can be economically tragic. Thus, the support for tariffs and other economic barriers that some may see as constraints on globalization have actually been quite beneficial for a number of countries that have still reaped the benefits of globalization while protecting their own markets. Tariffs cannot just be thrown about by governments without proper research and analysis, however. In fact, there are many aspects of an economy that must be analyzed and delicately regulated to prevent globalization from dragging everyone down the same drain of economic failure. Dani Rodrik argues for a new orthodoxy that “emphasizes that reaping the benefits of trade and financial globalization requires better domestic institutions, essentially improved safety nets in rich countries, and improved governance in poor countries (Rodrik, 2007, p. 3). This has been supported by research done by Aaron Tornell, Frank Westermann and Lorenza Martinez in their study of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). They observed why Mexico failed to attain great gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the 1990s, and why its GDP and exports have stagnated since 2001 (Martinez et al. 2004). They claim in their paper that it was not the trade expansion that NAFTA encouraged that brought about the crisis in Mexico, but “the lack of further judicial and structural reform after 1995” (Martinez et al., 2004, p.2). Globalization can produce extraordinary growth of exports and foreign domestic investment, but only when there is proper governance. The argument that the safety nets and government regulations encouraged by Rodrik and the study of Mexico and NAFTA would reduce the benefits of globalization is based on the presumption that “insufficiently open markets continue to impose constraint on the world economy” (Rodrik, 2007, p. 3). Rodrik argues that this presumption is no longer valid, because lacking trade is no longer a constraint on the global economy and continues the argument that it is “lack of policy space-˗ and not lack of market access-˗ which is (or likely to become soon) the real binding constraint on a prosperous global economy” (Rodrik, 2007, p. 4). Globalization is highly unstable and, as explained previously, contributes to inequality without proper regulation. A range of institutional complements are required to support globalization’s benefits and prevent the inequality and instability shown in Milanovic and Squire’s study and by Latin America that arises from the blending of the world’s economies. An example of such institutions could be a work environment regulatory agency, which many countries have in place but tend to be poorly enforced (Krueger 1996). The conditions of factories in some of these countries, though, are not even close to what they claim as their national standards. This allows for abuse of the workers to benefit companies in these nations and, thus, reduces the quality of the workplace and the lowers the cost of production. One example of this issue is in China, where lacking restrictions on industries has left dozens of ponds in the Fujian Provence toxic and dangerous, causing great problems for the fishermen and thousands of people who consume the fish at risk for numerous health problems.5 If there were more strictly implemented laws both nationally and internationally, the factories in China would not be able to dump toxic waste into the environment without serious punishment. This would protect both the people of China and everyone around the world who now might consume these toxic fish thanks to globalization spreading the product across the globe. The safe production of products in a country is no longer just that country’s concern, because globalization spreads such products to other nations, so globalization itself encourages restriction on free trade to prevent such incidents. Having moderators to ensure equality, safety and protection for both workers and consumers would be beneficial to the entire world. In the End The arguments for restricted globalization and more free trade are both very compelling. After reviewing these different articles and studies, I agree that globalization is beneficial to all economies of the world. There are no problems with expanding consumer and producer bases, globalization can provide an economic boost for all parties involved. However, I have found that institutions and regulations are required to keep the global economy from becoming imbalanced. As intimidating as some people may find them, reasonable tariffs, ones that do not create unreasonable restrictions on foreign imports while helping to protect the economy from the full force of negative outside influences, are beneficial to the economies of their respective countries and provide stability and protection for them. Other institutions also seem quite necessary to protect workers and consumers as well as encourage fair play on the parts of the nations. Without such restrictions, it seems quite likely that smaller countries and the poor could be abused or crushed under the weight of the global economy. We need to step back from the free trade mindset and recognize restrictions are necessary to protect ourselves from the unstableness of globalization. As Dani Rodrik wrote, “the only way to save globalization is to not to push it too hard” (Rodrik, 2007, pp. 31).
Works Cited:
Alesina, Alberto, and Dani Rodrik. 1994. Distributive Politics and Economic Growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 109: 465-90.
Dahl, Robert. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Friedman, Milton. 2007. Capitalism and Freedom. New York, New York : Anthem Press. Krueger, Alan B. 1996. Observations on International Labor Standards and Trade. Working Paper W5632. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University.
Maddison, Angus. 2001. The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, OECD.
Martinez, Lorenza, Aaron Tornell, and Frank Westermann. 2004. NAFTA and Mexico’s Economic Performance. Working Paper 1155. Los Angeles, Cali.: University of California.
Milanovic, Branko, and Lyn Squire. 2005. Does Tariff Liberalization Increase Wage Inequality? Some Empirical Evidence. Working Paper W11046. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Rodriguez, Francisco, and Dani Rodrik. 1999. Trade Policy and Economic Growth: A Skeptic's Guide to the Cross-national Evidence. Maryland: Department of Economics, University of Maryland. Rodrik, Dani. 2007. How to Save Globalization from its Cheerleaders. The Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy 1 (2): 1-33.
Shutt, Harry. 1985. The Myth of Free Trade: Patterns of Protectionism Since 1945. London, England: Economist Books.
Tumlir, Jan. 1985. Protectionism: Trade Policy in Democratic Societies. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.
World Bank. 2005. “Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform,” Washington, DC: World Bank.
I have other beliefs, but let's get the basic outline of my solutions:
1) Tax large corporations, do not give them tax breaks. 2) Give small incentives for creating jobs in the US 3) Punish US companies who try to avoid taxes and get cheap labor by sending production overseas (by punish, I mean with taxes, disqualification from incentives, etc) 4) Tariffs - they are good in moderation, read my above paper 5) Cut down heavily on incentives and tax breaks going to people/companies that do not actually qualify and rewrite the laws so there are less loopholes for non-deserving people/companies to get such incentives 6) Abandon all "trickle-down" theory supported incentives. It does not work. 7) Get rid of as many contractors working for the government as possible and hire government employees to do their work instead, especially in the military. 8) Make selling and possession of marijuana punishable by hefty fines, but NOT jailtime.
Those are just a few. Admittedly, some are more long term than others. These are just my political ideas directly relating to the economy. I have many, many more when it comes to other things, such as healthcare and insurance.
|
On August 11 2011 03:36 Riku wrote: A lot of stuff. See the actual post.
While I'm not a fan of heavy corporate taxes I do love the idea of tariffs. For one thing it basically forces localized production and distribution. Sure it affects international diplomacy a little, but having disgruntled friends is a lot better than having bleeding ulcers back home.
|
On August 11 2011 04:24 TheGiz wrote:While I'm not a fan of heavy corporate taxes I do love the idea of tariffs. For one thing it basically forces localized production and distribution. Sure it affects international diplomacy a little, but having disgruntled friends is a lot better than having bleeding ulcers back home.
*nod, nod*
And I made the corporate tax comment because I'm pretty sure that corporations currently get taxed less than people do, which is absolutely absurd. However, I don't actually know that, so I can't really make a good statement on it.
|
On August 11 2011 03:36 Riku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 03:04 Probe1 wrote:On August 11 2011 02:54 Riku wrote: I am bringing problems to light,... No you aren't. You're saying the same uninformed shit that 90 thousand other people are saying on this forum, on fox news, on every outlet there are three of you. This has been a disappointing failure at actual discussion. Problem: Government spending more than it earns. Solutions: 1) Earn more 2) Spend less 3) Combination of 1 and 2 There, that's the problem and solutions. "But, Riku, you're being uninformed and not giving solutions" I have a number of solutions. For example, I believe free, unregulated markets are harmful to the economy. Here, I wrote a paper about it: + Show Spoiler +The Free-Market Tyrant
The crushing weight of an unregulated economic rule can be just as restricting as the leash of a strong government. While basic logic supports Milton Friedman’s argument in Capitalism and Freedom that “every act of government intervention limits the area of individual freedom,” he fails to recognize that intervention can protect some freedoms and that the unregulated market create more tyrants than any political system (Friedman, 2007, p. 13). Without a government strong enough to force some regulations on the economy, corporate elites will gain power as rulers and manipulate the middle and lower classes with the economy. The correct balance to maximize freedoms while protecting the public is slightly different than Friedman’s proposed system, allowing the government more control. This analysis will cover the position of Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom and the errors in such thought, then introduce a system that is a healthy balance between totalitarianism and free market rule. A well-balanced system of government, one that has an open but regulated market and a government strong enough to properly enforce all of the necessary regulations as well as protect the people from economic abuse, is the best possible option. Friedman has a valid point when he argues that government rules and regulations restrict the public’s freedom, but that does not mean such restrictions are not generally beneficial, if not necessary. When a government has too much power, it can almost completely remove the public’s freedom. With the force of the military and other methods of controlling the public, the government can regulate almost every aspect of a person’s life. However, the basic duty of government is to protect its citizens, which is only possible to do by limiting their freedoms. These are easily justified limits on freedom, such as “one man’s freedom to murder his neighbor must be sacrificed to preserve the freedom of the other man to live” (Friedman, 2007, p. 26). Friedman agrees there must be some limits and laws, but is an advocate of the free market, which he claims will protect freedom in both economic and political settings. To an extent, rule by the market will give people economic freedoms that are not available in most societies, but there are also drawbacks of this form of rule. Nonetheless, it is impossible to deny that the government operates on restrictions and regulations. Friedman’s proposition that a free market could replace many sections of government and help create more freedoms still has a certain reliance on a government “to provide a means whereby we can modify the rules, to mediate difference among us on the meaning of the rules, and to enforce compliance with the rules on those few who would otherwise not play the game” (Friedman, 2007, p. 25). He believes the government simply needs to stand by the sidelines and mediate interactions among companies and the public when corruption could take place. Yet, Friedman is unwilling to allow the government to have many tools of power to administrate these groups. This reliance on government requires much more control by the government than Friedman seems willing to admit. Thus, an expansion of government powers over what Friedman proposes is necessary to assure moderate equality and freedom for all citizens. Large-scale problems would commonly arise if the government was relatively powerless. Unless the entire world was ruled by the market, without governments or with very limited governments, the states under market rule would face the threat of invasion or abuse from nations with strong governments and military. Since a standing army is, economically, a waste of resources when it is not being used entirely for national defense, it is very unlikely that a large, if any, military would exist in a state under economic rule. Though mercenaries could be hired when need arose, it is highly unlikely that they would be hired and respond quickly and efficiently enough to stop a planned invasion, not to mention the question of who would do the hiring. Even if these issues were worked out, nothing would prevent this force from taking over the country when they were not on a job, which they would be compelled to do since they would not have a source of income without war. Of course, additionally, these militant leaders would not be likely to uphold the ways of the previous government and society, and, thus, the system would completely fall apart. It only takes a single issue, such as military defense, to show the fragility of a nation bound more by economic freedom than by political solvency. Another issue that would have a large impact on a nation is Friedman’s dislike of the minimum wage and how it corresponds to the freedom of the poor; in a free economy, there will still be rich and poor, and, since the poor will have very little influence on the economy, they will have little influence on the state. This will create a powerless poor that will be open to abuse from the rich. Friedman denounces the minimum wage, which is one of the few regulations keeping the corporate elite from gaining a crushing economic hold on the middle and lower class (Friedman, 2007, p. 35). Without a minimum wage, which Friedman lists as one of the intrusive rules of the government that should be eliminated, once a person hits a rough spot in their finances, they can be forced down by companies searching for profits and stuck in a position where they are competing with other low-income people for extremely low paying jobs (Friedman, 2007, p. 35). Even if the United States kept the same economic and political policies but removed the minimum wage, the lower class would fall into turmoil quickly followed by the rest of the general economy. The minimum wage is a necessary requirement to keeping a closer gap between the different economic classes. Therefore, Friedman’s model without the minimum wage would not effectively protect the public from abuse as would a larger government model that had control over economic regulations such as the minimum wage. Not only would these companies abuse the poor under Friedman’s lack of restrictions, but they would abuse natural resources, too. Friedman does not support national forest among other methods of environmental protection, which are necessary to protect the public as well as the environment. Without such protections, companies would exploit natural resources to keep their profits high. The environment would fall to heavy deforesting and mining, because the short-term profits would be more appealing than long-term environmental protection. Sets of regulations are necessary to protect the environment from being polluted and destroyed by hungry companies. Environmental protection helps keep the air clean for people to breathe, water safe for drinking and renewable resources available for use. Even with a small government to regulate and make sure all of the companies obey the few rules and regulations, the large companies would be basically untouchable by the government. With the amount of influence they would have and the ability to manipulate the government, they could avoid any restrictions with bribery and corruption. Without the ability to influence the government on the same level as the large companies, the poor and even middle class would be oppressed and be forced to worry more about keeping up with their bills than attempting to engage in politics to help change their situation. Thus, the market rule can degrade into more of a totalitarian rule by the CEOs and other economic elites without even higher governmental restrictions than Friedman views as valid. It is necessary for the government and its members to have enough incentive and control that will be less prone to simply sell-out to the large companies. The government needs to have a strong hand in control of parts of the economy that is resistant to corruption to prevent abuse from crushing the lower classes. With each power that Friedman wishes to remove from the government, another problematic issue arises that leads to more threats to freedom than the freedom the power’s removal gives the governed. Yet, while an economy-run nation would allow company elites to rule over the majority of the population through economic manipulation, a very strict government would be similar in terms of oppression. Friedman notes “the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery,” which describes a majority of governments before the nineteenth century (Friedman, 2007, p. 24). Thus, an extremely strict government would definitely limit the freedom of its people beyond what is necessary to protect them properly. With a strong government rule restricting freedoms and a free-market rule not protecting freedoms well enough, the only possible answer to a society with as much freedom as possible is a healthy balance between the two. While Friedman notes many activities that “cannot… validly be justified” by his vague terms of the responsibilities of government, he does not clearly state the boundaries between necessary restrictions and unnecessary limits of freedom (Friedman, 2007, p. 35). Another regulation that benefits and protects the public and their freedoms, and that Friedman seems to leave out of his bounds of government, is health and work regulations. These regulations protect people from being harmed by poor work conditions, exposure to hazardous chemicals, and other issues that might arise when companies care more for profits than the well-being of their workers. It is a citizen’s right to breath air that will not cause their lungs and body damage as much even if another citizen wishes for the right to pollute by driving vehicles and burning coal in factories. However, as Friedman quotes Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “‘My freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin’” (Friedman, 2007, p. 27). Thus, to protect workers from harmful chemicals, the work places must be regulated. Friedman might argue that capitalism would eliminate companies who had poor working conditions, but it is likely people would be unwilling to leave a steady job to escape the work environment if they were even aware that they were being exposed to toxins or unsafe environment and equipment. Therefore, the government must regulate work and environment safety standards to protect its citizens. Even regulation and taxation of imports and exports when they are fit to protect and aid the economy are beneficial to a nation. While this goes strongly against the idea of free market, it would provide great protection of the economy and would be unlikely reduce trade greatly as the countries that participate in high amounts of trade with the country would likely rather lose a little profit than lose trade abilities with such a significant producer and consumer. China had previously done a very good job protecting its economy through these methods. These tariffs and the previous rules and regulations are just a few examples of how restrictions that Friedman dismisses as unnecessary actually provide economic stability, protect the public and allow for many more freedoms than could exist under an unregulated market rule. With a free-market rule creating problems and abuse on par with a crushingly strong government, the best option is rule by a government that can properly enforce all of the necessary regulations on the economy and the people, as well as protect the people from possible abuse by strong economic powers. Friedman’s idea of a lightly regulated economic rule seems promising, but, in the end, is flawed in its ability to protect the citizen’s rights from abuse by other powers. Trading one tyrant for another is not a solution, but simply a different problem. While a capitalist economy can be beneficial, it is absolutely necessary for restrictions to be placed upon it to prevent abuse of the public, the environment and other possible victims of the brutality of the corporate battles for profit. Also, I believe unregulated globalization is bad for the economy. I wrote a paper about that, too: + Show Spoiler +Controlling Globalization Many people, even economists, believe that the world has become “flat” due to technology and globalization, allowing for innovation and education that would never have been imaginable previously, but also causing a decrease in economic diversity.1 Economic globalization is the integration of the various smaller economies of the world, such as those within a country, into a single world-wide economy. It has allowed for unprecedented economic growth and diversity, but has caused many conflicts over economic policies. There cannot be a large number of restrictions among economies when combining them or else neither side would profit. Thus, government and economy are related by the government’s influence upon economic regulations and its attempts to manage globalization. One economist simply explained this relation as “economics is concerned with expanding the pie while politics is about distributing it” (Alesine, 1994, p. 465). Many supporters of globalization believe in the need for free trade, the lack of restrictive regulations on the economy. A number of economists believe that increasing globalization through advancing free trade is beneficial to the economies and people around the world. However, a prominent Turkish economist and Harvard professor, Dani Rodrik, disagrees with this view. He instead argues that the same if not more government regulation is needed to help support globalization (Rodriguez 1999). With these conflicting views, there is a large amount of debate over which path is best for the world: free trade or limited globalization. In this paper, I will first cover and analyze the various opinions on free trade, covering why free trade is supported, the ways tariffs are harmful, and how equality can be easily lost with restrictions and regulations on trade. Then I will counter with arguments for protectionism, showing how tariffs promote equality in wages, the economic growth that globalization bring with protectionism, where free trade agreements fail under weak governments, and the safety nets needed to control globalization. I have come to a conclusion on the approach that needs to be taken to best benefit the people of the world. The approach that needs to be taken to protect the economy while supporting globalization is the implementation of both global and national institutions of regulation which do not greatly restrict globalization, but protect the balance of equality and create more economic stability. Free Trade A large number of people advocate free trade and claim an open market will improve national and global economies by encouraging balanced trade through a capitalist system. Supporters of free trade are opponents of the practice of protectionism, which advocates the restriction of the market through various barriers, such as subsidies, tariffs and quotas. One free trade supporter and published economist, Jan Tumlir, claims that “all protection is a redistribution of income and wealth within the protecting country” and that providing protection to an economy increases the cost of goods within the economy (Tumlir, 1985). The general view of free trade is that reducing competition within a country’s economy will also reduce efficiency within the protected industries and raise the prices in those industries. Tumlir argues in his book Protectionism: Trade Policy in Democratic Societies that the costs paid by industries and consumers to protect the economy’s long-run growth rate and provide stability are higher than it is worth and will plunge the country into a downward economic spiral (Tumlir, 1985). He admits protectionism “eventually raises the general level of money wages” but counters that “the sectors producing import substitutes and tradeable goods are able to pass the higher costs to consumers” (Tumlir, 1985, p. 6). These higher costs are greater than the increase in wages, so even the workers who benefit from increased wages suffer when it comes to purchasing the products that they produced. Herein lies the argument for avoiding protectionism and encouraging expansion of free trade. Not only is protectionism as a whole potentially harmful to economies, but tariffs can also deal a powerful blow on their own. In his book, The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protectionism, Russell Roberts explores the state of America and its economy in 2000 if tariffs had been imposed in 1960 to protect American jobs (Roberts, 2001). As the book is written in a story-like first person view, the narrator explains how the president’s bill to increase tariffs lead to a lack of trade: “His first bill ‘protected’ Americans from foreign televisions. His second bill eliminated all imports and will stay in force permanently. What you see around you in a self-sufficient America. But without imports, America has to devote a lot of resources to make things they hadn’t made before. Those items got so expensive, people could not afford the same cars as they did before.” (Roberts, 2001, p. 33)
The argument the narrator makes with the story is that tariffs choked the competition from foreign markets so much that they stopped trading with the United States completely, since other markets with lower or no tariffs were more profitable to sell to (Roberts, 2001). While this situation is a bit of an extreme, it does express a potential drawback of tariffs: restriction of globalization. If one country enforces tariffs higher than other countries’ tariffs, it will encourage their trading partners to look for other possible markets without the same taxations. This could be harmful to both the country imposing the tariff and those that are involved in trade with that country. The country itself will likely lose export markets due to rebuttal tariffs implemented in response to the original tariffs as well as the diversity of its own market place and the general benefits of globalization (Shutt 1985). Being self-sufficient, the country would be forced to produce goods that it imported from other countries previously. Rice, for example, that might have been previously imported from another country would now have to be grown within the state, taking up land and resources that were not previously used. In the case of small countries or ones with more limited resources, this would be a path to destruction, as they could not be self-sufficient and would be forced to remove the tariffs that were preventing trade to prevent a complete collapse of their own economy from impossible to meet consumer demands. Therefore, Roberts’ world of a self-sufficient United States, lacking market diversity and forced to use precious resources on goods that were previously inexpensive in the globalized market, could be a realistic danger of implementing tariffs. Tariffs and other tools of protectionism are also extremely difficult to implement equally and fairly. As recently as 2007 there have been complaints from the public about the few tariffs that affect the United States. Men’s and women’s clothing imports are taxed differently in the United States, men face higher import taxes on items such as woolen shirts, while women’s sport items are taxed higher, allowing for what some claim to be sexual discrimination to develop through by taxation encouraging women to wear different clothes than men.2 Even with the World Trade Organization, the North American Free Trade Agreement and other such agreements and entities giving the United States the façade of a free trade supporter, these tariffs display the situation in a different light. A recent article in the New York Times illuminated yet another discrepancy with the so-called free trade policies of the United States; a habit of picking and choosing the outcomes of globalization, protesting and disallowing the sales and purchases of companies from some countries.3 Another article notes that the previous trend of economic liberalization had stagnated and countries are starting to erect the barriers they previously tore down to expand globalization.4 Thus, many supporters of free trade and globalization are weary of how governments are currently handling the economy and support freeing it further from the grasp of politicians. The Other Side: Protection Free trade supporters are convinced that each move that reduces interaction with the global economy is a positive step, and many people balk at the mention of tariffs due to fear of Roberts’ scenario of economic and industrial stagnation created by import taxes. However, Branko Milanovic and Lyn Squire have done studies that encourage a different perspective. They studied “a large dataset of average tariff rates all covering the period between 1980 and 2000,” a period of great economic globalization (Milanovic and Squire, 2005, p. 2). They found that reducing tariffs creates inequality in wages in similar occupations and industries in countries below the world median income, while the opposite occurred in richer countries (Milanovic and Squire, 2005). This inequality arises in the form of unequal wage income and the distribution of such income. Another issue is the effects on a country which did not change any of its trade policies, at least with respect to tariffs and other forms of taxation. Milanovic and Squire’s model shows that even if a country does not change its trade policies, “global expansion of trade reduces the export volumes or prices” of the country (Milanovic, 2005, p. 4). Not only would the country’s exports suffer, but it would not reap the benefits of globalization and fall behind countries which it had previously ranked higher than economically. Thus, when a major country reduces tariffs, many of the other countries in the same economy are forced to take similar action, and if the economy is global, then all must react the same way to protect themselves. Tariffs are necessary to uphold global equality in the workplace, and the removal of even one tariff could affect the entire global economy. An investigation in 2001 by the World Bank entitled Globalization, Growth, and Poverty: Building an Inclusive World Economy showed China, India and Vietnam had great gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the mid to late twentieth century, much higher than the growth of the United State’s economy’s booming growth in the early twentieth century (Maddison 2001). Even more surprising is that “by standard measures, such as the height of import tariffs and prevalence of non-tariff barriers, India, China and Vietnam were among the most heavily protected countries in the early 1990s” (Rodrik, 2007, p. 5). In fact, their average tariffs were between 31.2 and 50.5 during that time and China and Vietnam were not even members of the World Trade Organization, so they were not compelled to follow regulations forced upon other countries, yet their growth rates were still between 3.3 and 7.1%, which is extremely impressive in terms of growth (World Bank 2005). On the other hand, Latin America suffered and produced a dismal economic performance when they attempted to liberalize their economy by removing all possible barriers. Rodrik expands upon this situation: Here the paradox is not just that Latin America did worse than Asia, it is also that Latin America did worse than its pre-1980s performance. Let’s recall that the pre-1980s were the era of import substitution, protectionism, and macroeconomic populism. That the region did better with these discredited policies than it has under open-market policies is a fact that is quite hard to digest within the conventional paradigm. (Rodrik, 2007, p. 6)
The free trade policies of Latin America in the 1990s have done little to nothing to advance their economies and much to harm and destabilize them. Latin America is a perfect example of how following the policies supported by free trade can be economically tragic. Thus, the support for tariffs and other economic barriers that some may see as constraints on globalization have actually been quite beneficial for a number of countries that have still reaped the benefits of globalization while protecting their own markets. Tariffs cannot just be thrown about by governments without proper research and analysis, however. In fact, there are many aspects of an economy that must be analyzed and delicately regulated to prevent globalization from dragging everyone down the same drain of economic failure. Dani Rodrik argues for a new orthodoxy that “emphasizes that reaping the benefits of trade and financial globalization requires better domestic institutions, essentially improved safety nets in rich countries, and improved governance in poor countries (Rodrik, 2007, p. 3). This has been supported by research done by Aaron Tornell, Frank Westermann and Lorenza Martinez in their study of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). They observed why Mexico failed to attain great gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the 1990s, and why its GDP and exports have stagnated since 2001 (Martinez et al. 2004). They claim in their paper that it was not the trade expansion that NAFTA encouraged that brought about the crisis in Mexico, but “the lack of further judicial and structural reform after 1995” (Martinez et al., 2004, p.2). Globalization can produce extraordinary growth of exports and foreign domestic investment, but only when there is proper governance. The argument that the safety nets and government regulations encouraged by Rodrik and the study of Mexico and NAFTA would reduce the benefits of globalization is based on the presumption that “insufficiently open markets continue to impose constraint on the world economy” (Rodrik, 2007, p. 3). Rodrik argues that this presumption is no longer valid, because lacking trade is no longer a constraint on the global economy and continues the argument that it is “lack of policy space-˗ and not lack of market access-˗ which is (or likely to become soon) the real binding constraint on a prosperous global economy” (Rodrik, 2007, p. 4). Globalization is highly unstable and, as explained previously, contributes to inequality without proper regulation. A range of institutional complements are required to support globalization’s benefits and prevent the inequality and instability shown in Milanovic and Squire’s study and by Latin America that arises from the blending of the world’s economies. An example of such institutions could be a work environment regulatory agency, which many countries have in place but tend to be poorly enforced (Krueger 1996). The conditions of factories in some of these countries, though, are not even close to what they claim as their national standards. This allows for abuse of the workers to benefit companies in these nations and, thus, reduces the quality of the workplace and the lowers the cost of production. One example of this issue is in China, where lacking restrictions on industries has left dozens of ponds in the Fujian Provence toxic and dangerous, causing great problems for the fishermen and thousands of people who consume the fish at risk for numerous health problems.5 If there were more strictly implemented laws both nationally and internationally, the factories in China would not be able to dump toxic waste into the environment without serious punishment. This would protect both the people of China and everyone around the world who now might consume these toxic fish thanks to globalization spreading the product across the globe. The safe production of products in a country is no longer just that country’s concern, because globalization spreads such products to other nations, so globalization itself encourages restriction on free trade to prevent such incidents. Having moderators to ensure equality, safety and protection for both workers and consumers would be beneficial to the entire world. In the End The arguments for restricted globalization and more free trade are both very compelling. After reviewing these different articles and studies, I agree that globalization is beneficial to all economies of the world. There are no problems with expanding consumer and producer bases, globalization can provide an economic boost for all parties involved. However, I have found that institutions and regulations are required to keep the global economy from becoming imbalanced. As intimidating as some people may find them, reasonable tariffs, ones that do not create unreasonable restrictions on foreign imports while helping to protect the economy from the full force of negative outside influences, are beneficial to the economies of their respective countries and provide stability and protection for them. Other institutions also seem quite necessary to protect workers and consumers as well as encourage fair play on the parts of the nations. Without such restrictions, it seems quite likely that smaller countries and the poor could be abused or crushed under the weight of the global economy. We need to step back from the free trade mindset and recognize restrictions are necessary to protect ourselves from the unstableness of globalization. As Dani Rodrik wrote, “the only way to save globalization is to not to push it too hard” (Rodrik, 2007, pp. 31).
Works Cited:
Alesina, Alberto, and Dani Rodrik. 1994. Distributive Politics and Economic Growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 109: 465-90.
Dahl, Robert. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Friedman, Milton. 2007. Capitalism and Freedom. New York, New York : Anthem Press. Krueger, Alan B. 1996. Observations on International Labor Standards and Trade. Working Paper W5632. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University.
Maddison, Angus. 2001. The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, OECD.
Martinez, Lorenza, Aaron Tornell, and Frank Westermann. 2004. NAFTA and Mexico’s Economic Performance. Working Paper 1155. Los Angeles, Cali.: University of California.
Milanovic, Branko, and Lyn Squire. 2005. Does Tariff Liberalization Increase Wage Inequality? Some Empirical Evidence. Working Paper W11046. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Rodriguez, Francisco, and Dani Rodrik. 1999. Trade Policy and Economic Growth: A Skeptic's Guide to the Cross-national Evidence. Maryland: Department of Economics, University of Maryland. Rodrik, Dani. 2007. How to Save Globalization from its Cheerleaders. The Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy 1 (2): 1-33.
Shutt, Harry. 1985. The Myth of Free Trade: Patterns of Protectionism Since 1945. London, England: Economist Books.
Tumlir, Jan. 1985. Protectionism: Trade Policy in Democratic Societies. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.
World Bank. 2005. “Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform,” Washington, DC: World Bank.
I have other beliefs, but let's get the basic outline of my solutions: 1) Tax large corporations, do not give them tax breaks. 2) Give small incentives for creating jobs in the US 3) Punish US companies who try to avoid taxes and get cheap labor by sending production overseas (by punish, I mean with taxes, disqualification from incentives, etc) 4) Tariffs - they are good in moderation, read my above paper 5) Cut down heavily on incentives and tax breaks going to people/companies that do not actually qualify and rewrite the laws so there are less loopholes for non-deserving people/companies to get such incentives 6) Abandon all "trickle-down" theory supported incentives. It does not work. 7) Get rid of as many contractors working for the government as possible and hire government employees to do their work instead, especially in the military. 8) Make selling and possession of marijuana punishable by hefty fines, but NOT jailtime. Those are just a few. Admittedly, some are more long term than others. These are just my political ideas directly relating to the economy. I have many, many more when it comes to other things, such as healthcare and insurance.
Well we are now getting into an economic debate on basically socialism vs capatalism which is almost as bad as religious debates >.< .
|
Wow it's so new that people riot that never happened before the world got so bad, like ... generations always loved each other and everything was easy and pie. Oh wait.
Riots are an important part of our history/society and will always be. Thats how people work. They just do something if it's too much to handle with sex or drugs, and then they f'*** things up in a really bad way.
Embrace it, things will change now. Use it as a chance to make things better, don't be too negative about it. You won't stop people from rioting, but you could try to give them fewer reasons to think about doing so.
|
On August 11 2011 04:34 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 03:36 Riku wrote:On August 11 2011 03:04 Probe1 wrote:On August 11 2011 02:54 Riku wrote: I am bringing problems to light,... No you aren't. You're saying the same uninformed shit that 90 thousand other people are saying on this forum, on fox news, on every outlet there are three of you. This has been a disappointing failure at actual discussion. Problem: Government spending more than it earns. Solutions: 1) Earn more 2) Spend less 3) Combination of 1 and 2 There, that's the problem and solutions. "But, Riku, you're being uninformed and not giving solutions" I have a number of solutions. For example, I believe free, unregulated markets are harmful to the economy. Here, I wrote a paper about it: + Show Spoiler +The Free-Market Tyrant
The crushing weight of an unregulated economic rule can be just as restricting as the leash of a strong government. While basic logic supports Milton Friedman’s argument in Capitalism and Freedom that “every act of government intervention limits the area of individual freedom,” he fails to recognize that intervention can protect some freedoms and that the unregulated market create more tyrants than any political system (Friedman, 2007, p. 13). Without a government strong enough to force some regulations on the economy, corporate elites will gain power as rulers and manipulate the middle and lower classes with the economy. The correct balance to maximize freedoms while protecting the public is slightly different than Friedman’s proposed system, allowing the government more control. This analysis will cover the position of Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom and the errors in such thought, then introduce a system that is a healthy balance between totalitarianism and free market rule. A well-balanced system of government, one that has an open but regulated market and a government strong enough to properly enforce all of the necessary regulations as well as protect the people from economic abuse, is the best possible option. Friedman has a valid point when he argues that government rules and regulations restrict the public’s freedom, but that does not mean such restrictions are not generally beneficial, if not necessary. When a government has too much power, it can almost completely remove the public’s freedom. With the force of the military and other methods of controlling the public, the government can regulate almost every aspect of a person’s life. However, the basic duty of government is to protect its citizens, which is only possible to do by limiting their freedoms. These are easily justified limits on freedom, such as “one man’s freedom to murder his neighbor must be sacrificed to preserve the freedom of the other man to live” (Friedman, 2007, p. 26). Friedman agrees there must be some limits and laws, but is an advocate of the free market, which he claims will protect freedom in both economic and political settings. To an extent, rule by the market will give people economic freedoms that are not available in most societies, but there are also drawbacks of this form of rule. Nonetheless, it is impossible to deny that the government operates on restrictions and regulations. Friedman’s proposition that a free market could replace many sections of government and help create more freedoms still has a certain reliance on a government “to provide a means whereby we can modify the rules, to mediate difference among us on the meaning of the rules, and to enforce compliance with the rules on those few who would otherwise not play the game” (Friedman, 2007, p. 25). He believes the government simply needs to stand by the sidelines and mediate interactions among companies and the public when corruption could take place. Yet, Friedman is unwilling to allow the government to have many tools of power to administrate these groups. This reliance on government requires much more control by the government than Friedman seems willing to admit. Thus, an expansion of government powers over what Friedman proposes is necessary to assure moderate equality and freedom for all citizens. Large-scale problems would commonly arise if the government was relatively powerless. Unless the entire world was ruled by the market, without governments or with very limited governments, the states under market rule would face the threat of invasion or abuse from nations with strong governments and military. Since a standing army is, economically, a waste of resources when it is not being used entirely for national defense, it is very unlikely that a large, if any, military would exist in a state under economic rule. Though mercenaries could be hired when need arose, it is highly unlikely that they would be hired and respond quickly and efficiently enough to stop a planned invasion, not to mention the question of who would do the hiring. Even if these issues were worked out, nothing would prevent this force from taking over the country when they were not on a job, which they would be compelled to do since they would not have a source of income without war. Of course, additionally, these militant leaders would not be likely to uphold the ways of the previous government and society, and, thus, the system would completely fall apart. It only takes a single issue, such as military defense, to show the fragility of a nation bound more by economic freedom than by political solvency. Another issue that would have a large impact on a nation is Friedman’s dislike of the minimum wage and how it corresponds to the freedom of the poor; in a free economy, there will still be rich and poor, and, since the poor will have very little influence on the economy, they will have little influence on the state. This will create a powerless poor that will be open to abuse from the rich. Friedman denounces the minimum wage, which is one of the few regulations keeping the corporate elite from gaining a crushing economic hold on the middle and lower class (Friedman, 2007, p. 35). Without a minimum wage, which Friedman lists as one of the intrusive rules of the government that should be eliminated, once a person hits a rough spot in their finances, they can be forced down by companies searching for profits and stuck in a position where they are competing with other low-income people for extremely low paying jobs (Friedman, 2007, p. 35). Even if the United States kept the same economic and political policies but removed the minimum wage, the lower class would fall into turmoil quickly followed by the rest of the general economy. The minimum wage is a necessary requirement to keeping a closer gap between the different economic classes. Therefore, Friedman’s model without the minimum wage would not effectively protect the public from abuse as would a larger government model that had control over economic regulations such as the minimum wage. Not only would these companies abuse the poor under Friedman’s lack of restrictions, but they would abuse natural resources, too. Friedman does not support national forest among other methods of environmental protection, which are necessary to protect the public as well as the environment. Without such protections, companies would exploit natural resources to keep their profits high. The environment would fall to heavy deforesting and mining, because the short-term profits would be more appealing than long-term environmental protection. Sets of regulations are necessary to protect the environment from being polluted and destroyed by hungry companies. Environmental protection helps keep the air clean for people to breathe, water safe for drinking and renewable resources available for use. Even with a small government to regulate and make sure all of the companies obey the few rules and regulations, the large companies would be basically untouchable by the government. With the amount of influence they would have and the ability to manipulate the government, they could avoid any restrictions with bribery and corruption. Without the ability to influence the government on the same level as the large companies, the poor and even middle class would be oppressed and be forced to worry more about keeping up with their bills than attempting to engage in politics to help change their situation. Thus, the market rule can degrade into more of a totalitarian rule by the CEOs and other economic elites without even higher governmental restrictions than Friedman views as valid. It is necessary for the government and its members to have enough incentive and control that will be less prone to simply sell-out to the large companies. The government needs to have a strong hand in control of parts of the economy that is resistant to corruption to prevent abuse from crushing the lower classes. With each power that Friedman wishes to remove from the government, another problematic issue arises that leads to more threats to freedom than the freedom the power’s removal gives the governed. Yet, while an economy-run nation would allow company elites to rule over the majority of the population through economic manipulation, a very strict government would be similar in terms of oppression. Friedman notes “the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery,” which describes a majority of governments before the nineteenth century (Friedman, 2007, p. 24). Thus, an extremely strict government would definitely limit the freedom of its people beyond what is necessary to protect them properly. With a strong government rule restricting freedoms and a free-market rule not protecting freedoms well enough, the only possible answer to a society with as much freedom as possible is a healthy balance between the two. While Friedman notes many activities that “cannot… validly be justified” by his vague terms of the responsibilities of government, he does not clearly state the boundaries between necessary restrictions and unnecessary limits of freedom (Friedman, 2007, p. 35). Another regulation that benefits and protects the public and their freedoms, and that Friedman seems to leave out of his bounds of government, is health and work regulations. These regulations protect people from being harmed by poor work conditions, exposure to hazardous chemicals, and other issues that might arise when companies care more for profits than the well-being of their workers. It is a citizen’s right to breath air that will not cause their lungs and body damage as much even if another citizen wishes for the right to pollute by driving vehicles and burning coal in factories. However, as Friedman quotes Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “‘My freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin’” (Friedman, 2007, p. 27). Thus, to protect workers from harmful chemicals, the work places must be regulated. Friedman might argue that capitalism would eliminate companies who had poor working conditions, but it is likely people would be unwilling to leave a steady job to escape the work environment if they were even aware that they were being exposed to toxins or unsafe environment and equipment. Therefore, the government must regulate work and environment safety standards to protect its citizens. Even regulation and taxation of imports and exports when they are fit to protect and aid the economy are beneficial to a nation. While this goes strongly against the idea of free market, it would provide great protection of the economy and would be unlikely reduce trade greatly as the countries that participate in high amounts of trade with the country would likely rather lose a little profit than lose trade abilities with such a significant producer and consumer. China had previously done a very good job protecting its economy through these methods. These tariffs and the previous rules and regulations are just a few examples of how restrictions that Friedman dismisses as unnecessary actually provide economic stability, protect the public and allow for many more freedoms than could exist under an unregulated market rule. With a free-market rule creating problems and abuse on par with a crushingly strong government, the best option is rule by a government that can properly enforce all of the necessary regulations on the economy and the people, as well as protect the people from possible abuse by strong economic powers. Friedman’s idea of a lightly regulated economic rule seems promising, but, in the end, is flawed in its ability to protect the citizen’s rights from abuse by other powers. Trading one tyrant for another is not a solution, but simply a different problem. While a capitalist economy can be beneficial, it is absolutely necessary for restrictions to be placed upon it to prevent abuse of the public, the environment and other possible victims of the brutality of the corporate battles for profit. Also, I believe unregulated globalization is bad for the economy. I wrote a paper about that, too: + Show Spoiler +Controlling Globalization Many people, even economists, believe that the world has become “flat” due to technology and globalization, allowing for innovation and education that would never have been imaginable previously, but also causing a decrease in economic diversity.1 Economic globalization is the integration of the various smaller economies of the world, such as those within a country, into a single world-wide economy. It has allowed for unprecedented economic growth and diversity, but has caused many conflicts over economic policies. There cannot be a large number of restrictions among economies when combining them or else neither side would profit. Thus, government and economy are related by the government’s influence upon economic regulations and its attempts to manage globalization. One economist simply explained this relation as “economics is concerned with expanding the pie while politics is about distributing it” (Alesine, 1994, p. 465). Many supporters of globalization believe in the need for free trade, the lack of restrictive regulations on the economy. A number of economists believe that increasing globalization through advancing free trade is beneficial to the economies and people around the world. However, a prominent Turkish economist and Harvard professor, Dani Rodrik, disagrees with this view. He instead argues that the same if not more government regulation is needed to help support globalization (Rodriguez 1999). With these conflicting views, there is a large amount of debate over which path is best for the world: free trade or limited globalization. In this paper, I will first cover and analyze the various opinions on free trade, covering why free trade is supported, the ways tariffs are harmful, and how equality can be easily lost with restrictions and regulations on trade. Then I will counter with arguments for protectionism, showing how tariffs promote equality in wages, the economic growth that globalization bring with protectionism, where free trade agreements fail under weak governments, and the safety nets needed to control globalization. I have come to a conclusion on the approach that needs to be taken to best benefit the people of the world. The approach that needs to be taken to protect the economy while supporting globalization is the implementation of both global and national institutions of regulation which do not greatly restrict globalization, but protect the balance of equality and create more economic stability. Free Trade A large number of people advocate free trade and claim an open market will improve national and global economies by encouraging balanced trade through a capitalist system. Supporters of free trade are opponents of the practice of protectionism, which advocates the restriction of the market through various barriers, such as subsidies, tariffs and quotas. One free trade supporter and published economist, Jan Tumlir, claims that “all protection is a redistribution of income and wealth within the protecting country” and that providing protection to an economy increases the cost of goods within the economy (Tumlir, 1985). The general view of free trade is that reducing competition within a country’s economy will also reduce efficiency within the protected industries and raise the prices in those industries. Tumlir argues in his book Protectionism: Trade Policy in Democratic Societies that the costs paid by industries and consumers to protect the economy’s long-run growth rate and provide stability are higher than it is worth and will plunge the country into a downward economic spiral (Tumlir, 1985). He admits protectionism “eventually raises the general level of money wages” but counters that “the sectors producing import substitutes and tradeable goods are able to pass the higher costs to consumers” (Tumlir, 1985, p. 6). These higher costs are greater than the increase in wages, so even the workers who benefit from increased wages suffer when it comes to purchasing the products that they produced. Herein lies the argument for avoiding protectionism and encouraging expansion of free trade. Not only is protectionism as a whole potentially harmful to economies, but tariffs can also deal a powerful blow on their own. In his book, The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protectionism, Russell Roberts explores the state of America and its economy in 2000 if tariffs had been imposed in 1960 to protect American jobs (Roberts, 2001). As the book is written in a story-like first person view, the narrator explains how the president’s bill to increase tariffs lead to a lack of trade: “His first bill ‘protected’ Americans from foreign televisions. His second bill eliminated all imports and will stay in force permanently. What you see around you in a self-sufficient America. But without imports, America has to devote a lot of resources to make things they hadn’t made before. Those items got so expensive, people could not afford the same cars as they did before.” (Roberts, 2001, p. 33)
The argument the narrator makes with the story is that tariffs choked the competition from foreign markets so much that they stopped trading with the United States completely, since other markets with lower or no tariffs were more profitable to sell to (Roberts, 2001). While this situation is a bit of an extreme, it does express a potential drawback of tariffs: restriction of globalization. If one country enforces tariffs higher than other countries’ tariffs, it will encourage their trading partners to look for other possible markets without the same taxations. This could be harmful to both the country imposing the tariff and those that are involved in trade with that country. The country itself will likely lose export markets due to rebuttal tariffs implemented in response to the original tariffs as well as the diversity of its own market place and the general benefits of globalization (Shutt 1985). Being self-sufficient, the country would be forced to produce goods that it imported from other countries previously. Rice, for example, that might have been previously imported from another country would now have to be grown within the state, taking up land and resources that were not previously used. In the case of small countries or ones with more limited resources, this would be a path to destruction, as they could not be self-sufficient and would be forced to remove the tariffs that were preventing trade to prevent a complete collapse of their own economy from impossible to meet consumer demands. Therefore, Roberts’ world of a self-sufficient United States, lacking market diversity and forced to use precious resources on goods that were previously inexpensive in the globalized market, could be a realistic danger of implementing tariffs. Tariffs and other tools of protectionism are also extremely difficult to implement equally and fairly. As recently as 2007 there have been complaints from the public about the few tariffs that affect the United States. Men’s and women’s clothing imports are taxed differently in the United States, men face higher import taxes on items such as woolen shirts, while women’s sport items are taxed higher, allowing for what some claim to be sexual discrimination to develop through by taxation encouraging women to wear different clothes than men.2 Even with the World Trade Organization, the North American Free Trade Agreement and other such agreements and entities giving the United States the façade of a free trade supporter, these tariffs display the situation in a different light. A recent article in the New York Times illuminated yet another discrepancy with the so-called free trade policies of the United States; a habit of picking and choosing the outcomes of globalization, protesting and disallowing the sales and purchases of companies from some countries.3 Another article notes that the previous trend of economic liberalization had stagnated and countries are starting to erect the barriers they previously tore down to expand globalization.4 Thus, many supporters of free trade and globalization are weary of how governments are currently handling the economy and support freeing it further from the grasp of politicians. The Other Side: Protection Free trade supporters are convinced that each move that reduces interaction with the global economy is a positive step, and many people balk at the mention of tariffs due to fear of Roberts’ scenario of economic and industrial stagnation created by import taxes. However, Branko Milanovic and Lyn Squire have done studies that encourage a different perspective. They studied “a large dataset of average tariff rates all covering the period between 1980 and 2000,” a period of great economic globalization (Milanovic and Squire, 2005, p. 2). They found that reducing tariffs creates inequality in wages in similar occupations and industries in countries below the world median income, while the opposite occurred in richer countries (Milanovic and Squire, 2005). This inequality arises in the form of unequal wage income and the distribution of such income. Another issue is the effects on a country which did not change any of its trade policies, at least with respect to tariffs and other forms of taxation. Milanovic and Squire’s model shows that even if a country does not change its trade policies, “global expansion of trade reduces the export volumes or prices” of the country (Milanovic, 2005, p. 4). Not only would the country’s exports suffer, but it would not reap the benefits of globalization and fall behind countries which it had previously ranked higher than economically. Thus, when a major country reduces tariffs, many of the other countries in the same economy are forced to take similar action, and if the economy is global, then all must react the same way to protect themselves. Tariffs are necessary to uphold global equality in the workplace, and the removal of even one tariff could affect the entire global economy. An investigation in 2001 by the World Bank entitled Globalization, Growth, and Poverty: Building an Inclusive World Economy showed China, India and Vietnam had great gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the mid to late twentieth century, much higher than the growth of the United State’s economy’s booming growth in the early twentieth century (Maddison 2001). Even more surprising is that “by standard measures, such as the height of import tariffs and prevalence of non-tariff barriers, India, China and Vietnam were among the most heavily protected countries in the early 1990s” (Rodrik, 2007, p. 5). In fact, their average tariffs were between 31.2 and 50.5 during that time and China and Vietnam were not even members of the World Trade Organization, so they were not compelled to follow regulations forced upon other countries, yet their growth rates were still between 3.3 and 7.1%, which is extremely impressive in terms of growth (World Bank 2005). On the other hand, Latin America suffered and produced a dismal economic performance when they attempted to liberalize their economy by removing all possible barriers. Rodrik expands upon this situation: Here the paradox is not just that Latin America did worse than Asia, it is also that Latin America did worse than its pre-1980s performance. Let’s recall that the pre-1980s were the era of import substitution, protectionism, and macroeconomic populism. That the region did better with these discredited policies than it has under open-market policies is a fact that is quite hard to digest within the conventional paradigm. (Rodrik, 2007, p. 6)
The free trade policies of Latin America in the 1990s have done little to nothing to advance their economies and much to harm and destabilize them. Latin America is a perfect example of how following the policies supported by free trade can be economically tragic. Thus, the support for tariffs and other economic barriers that some may see as constraints on globalization have actually been quite beneficial for a number of countries that have still reaped the benefits of globalization while protecting their own markets. Tariffs cannot just be thrown about by governments without proper research and analysis, however. In fact, there are many aspects of an economy that must be analyzed and delicately regulated to prevent globalization from dragging everyone down the same drain of economic failure. Dani Rodrik argues for a new orthodoxy that “emphasizes that reaping the benefits of trade and financial globalization requires better domestic institutions, essentially improved safety nets in rich countries, and improved governance in poor countries (Rodrik, 2007, p. 3). This has been supported by research done by Aaron Tornell, Frank Westermann and Lorenza Martinez in their study of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). They observed why Mexico failed to attain great gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the 1990s, and why its GDP and exports have stagnated since 2001 (Martinez et al. 2004). They claim in their paper that it was not the trade expansion that NAFTA encouraged that brought about the crisis in Mexico, but “the lack of further judicial and structural reform after 1995” (Martinez et al., 2004, p.2). Globalization can produce extraordinary growth of exports and foreign domestic investment, but only when there is proper governance. The argument that the safety nets and government regulations encouraged by Rodrik and the study of Mexico and NAFTA would reduce the benefits of globalization is based on the presumption that “insufficiently open markets continue to impose constraint on the world economy” (Rodrik, 2007, p. 3). Rodrik argues that this presumption is no longer valid, because lacking trade is no longer a constraint on the global economy and continues the argument that it is “lack of policy space-˗ and not lack of market access-˗ which is (or likely to become soon) the real binding constraint on a prosperous global economy” (Rodrik, 2007, p. 4). Globalization is highly unstable and, as explained previously, contributes to inequality without proper regulation. A range of institutional complements are required to support globalization’s benefits and prevent the inequality and instability shown in Milanovic and Squire’s study and by Latin America that arises from the blending of the world’s economies. An example of such institutions could be a work environment regulatory agency, which many countries have in place but tend to be poorly enforced (Krueger 1996). The conditions of factories in some of these countries, though, are not even close to what they claim as their national standards. This allows for abuse of the workers to benefit companies in these nations and, thus, reduces the quality of the workplace and the lowers the cost of production. One example of this issue is in China, where lacking restrictions on industries has left dozens of ponds in the Fujian Provence toxic and dangerous, causing great problems for the fishermen and thousands of people who consume the fish at risk for numerous health problems.5 If there were more strictly implemented laws both nationally and internationally, the factories in China would not be able to dump toxic waste into the environment without serious punishment. This would protect both the people of China and everyone around the world who now might consume these toxic fish thanks to globalization spreading the product across the globe. The safe production of products in a country is no longer just that country’s concern, because globalization spreads such products to other nations, so globalization itself encourages restriction on free trade to prevent such incidents. Having moderators to ensure equality, safety and protection for both workers and consumers would be beneficial to the entire world. In the End The arguments for restricted globalization and more free trade are both very compelling. After reviewing these different articles and studies, I agree that globalization is beneficial to all economies of the world. There are no problems with expanding consumer and producer bases, globalization can provide an economic boost for all parties involved. However, I have found that institutions and regulations are required to keep the global economy from becoming imbalanced. As intimidating as some people may find them, reasonable tariffs, ones that do not create unreasonable restrictions on foreign imports while helping to protect the economy from the full force of negative outside influences, are beneficial to the economies of their respective countries and provide stability and protection for them. Other institutions also seem quite necessary to protect workers and consumers as well as encourage fair play on the parts of the nations. Without such restrictions, it seems quite likely that smaller countries and the poor could be abused or crushed under the weight of the global economy. We need to step back from the free trade mindset and recognize restrictions are necessary to protect ourselves from the unstableness of globalization. As Dani Rodrik wrote, “the only way to save globalization is to not to push it too hard” (Rodrik, 2007, pp. 31).
Works Cited:
Alesina, Alberto, and Dani Rodrik. 1994. Distributive Politics and Economic Growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 109: 465-90.
Dahl, Robert. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Friedman, Milton. 2007. Capitalism and Freedom. New York, New York : Anthem Press. Krueger, Alan B. 1996. Observations on International Labor Standards and Trade. Working Paper W5632. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University.
Maddison, Angus. 2001. The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective, OECD.
Martinez, Lorenza, Aaron Tornell, and Frank Westermann. 2004. NAFTA and Mexico’s Economic Performance. Working Paper 1155. Los Angeles, Cali.: University of California.
Milanovic, Branko, and Lyn Squire. 2005. Does Tariff Liberalization Increase Wage Inequality? Some Empirical Evidence. Working Paper W11046. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Rodriguez, Francisco, and Dani Rodrik. 1999. Trade Policy and Economic Growth: A Skeptic's Guide to the Cross-national Evidence. Maryland: Department of Economics, University of Maryland. Rodrik, Dani. 2007. How to Save Globalization from its Cheerleaders. The Journal of International Trade and Diplomacy 1 (2): 1-33.
Shutt, Harry. 1985. The Myth of Free Trade: Patterns of Protectionism Since 1945. London, England: Economist Books.
Tumlir, Jan. 1985. Protectionism: Trade Policy in Democratic Societies. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.
World Bank. 2005. “Economic Growth in the 1990s: Learning from a Decade of Reform,” Washington, DC: World Bank.
I have other beliefs, but let's get the basic outline of my solutions: 1) Tax large corporations, do not give them tax breaks. 2) Give small incentives for creating jobs in the US 3) Punish US companies who try to avoid taxes and get cheap labor by sending production overseas (by punish, I mean with taxes, disqualification from incentives, etc) 4) Tariffs - they are good in moderation, read my above paper 5) Cut down heavily on incentives and tax breaks going to people/companies that do not actually qualify and rewrite the laws so there are less loopholes for non-deserving people/companies to get such incentives 6) Abandon all "trickle-down" theory supported incentives. It does not work. 7) Get rid of as many contractors working for the government as possible and hire government employees to do their work instead, especially in the military. 8) Make selling and possession of marijuana punishable by hefty fines, but NOT jailtime. Those are just a few. Admittedly, some are more long term than others. These are just my political ideas directly relating to the economy. I have many, many more when it comes to other things, such as healthcare and insurance. Well we are now getting into an economic debate on basically socialism vs capatalism which is almost as bad as religious debates >.< .
Which is exactly why I wanted to avoid it, but it at least got Probe to shut up.
|
The revolution will not be televised....but it will be all over every social network known to man.
|
Just a small experience I had, to those who believe people who riot is just "a bunch of assholes".
When I emigrated to France, me and my mum were poor and homeless. So we ended up in a ghetto place. Long story short, being a kid there made me experience one of the most terrible things that can happen to someone who is not just surviving: Nothingness! We were BORED as fuck 24/7, I kid you not, there was NOTHING to do. No money to ride the bus, no shops in the area, no parks nor playgrounds, no consoles. Just a bunch of kids, concrete and the TV. You know, boredom is not just a shortage in possible activities. In fact, you can still draw, run, write poems, yadda yadda, what every parents says to a kid who declares that he is "BOoOOooored". Boredom is a state of mind. To us, it was like feeling that life had nothing for us. Just sitting in a parking lot staring at the burning sun. Not a noise, not a thing, just those high identical buildings and the neverending sea of concrete.
To kill time, we would usually fight or beat other kids... and one day we were so bother we started a big fire in the parking lot, with paper and wood and other things we gathered around. I remember that it ended for me because I ran away, scared by the arrival of older kids who had just seen a king-fu movie and wanted to try some moves on us.
I guess this behaviour is not that far from rioting, so yes, to me it's a symptom.
|
On August 11 2011 04:55 TheAldo wrote: The revolution will not be televised....but it will be all over every social network known to man.
Yep, thank the FSM for the Internet!
:D
This all reminds me a lot of a book called "Big Brother." No, it's not "1984"
|
Unlikely for a revolution to occur in UK, USA, etc. There's a vocal and violent and disgruntled minority while the majority is just not happy but not unhappy enough to get off their backsides to actually revolt and/or are actually being productive. While some of the rioters and looters are due to boredom (London needs more PC bangs from my experience), I feel a lot is down to a false sense of entitlement that stems from an overly parental state buying votes with policies that future generations simply cannot repay (but have learnt to also enjoy, unfortunately), so when they grow up, having wasted all their childhood, find they have no income (the dole excepted, but that's not much), no education, no skills, and end up hating the establishment.
Oh, and also, England has a lot of macho Alpha male assholes who think they are the shit for sticking it to Big Brother. Must be something in the fish.
Anyhow, social networking tools are invaluable to the revolutions witnessed this year as they allowed the citizenry to communicate and coordinate and unite, and allowed one flashpoint of an event in Tunis to propagate into a full-blown revolution and inspire others across the region. Syrian Rebels Hwaiting!
BTW I'm a fan of free trade, it's ultimately the fairest and most efficient outcome for the world as a whole, but getting there is a painful and time-consuming process as industries die and move and people lose their jobs. Finally, agree on taxation, corporations (especially huge and hugely profitable ones) are not contributing enough (thanks to Reagonomics, but that's a discussion for anther day), and I also feel the rich should pay A LOT more taxes than they do now, frankly it won't dent their lifestyle, but investing that money in education or even simply giving it to the poor and help so much. I realise this may sound socialist and therefore never get through scrutiny by the American public, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Federal_income_tax_rates tax rates for the top tiers have (except for 1930) never been lower. ~90% tax rates for the super-rich and somehow the USA grew and grew? Hear that? That's the Laffer curve GG'ing.
|
On August 11 2011 07:25 Kukaracha wrote: Long story short, being a kid there made me experience one of the most terrible things that can happen to someone who is not just surviving: Nothingness! We were BORED as fuck 24/7, I kid you not, there was NOTHING to do. No money to ride the bus, no shops in the area, no parks nor playgrounds, no consoles. Just a bunch of kids, concrete and the TV...
To kill time, we would usually fight or beat other kids... and one day we were so bother we started a big fire in the parking lot, with paper and wood and other things we gathered around. I remember that it ended for me because I ran away, scared by the arrival of older kids who had just seen a king-fu movie and wanted to try some moves on us.
I guess this behaviour is not that far from rioting, so yes, to me it's a symptom.
This is also something I wanted to address and you've basically gone and said it yourself. Thank you.
Basically you're right on the money, people are BORED because they have nothing else in their lives. It sucks, but it doesn't mean one has the right to fuck everyone else's shit up. It's the equivalent of a bully with a shit home life - does his shit home life give him the right to beat up other kids at school? No. Sure, it's a symptom, but that doesn't justify the action.
I work in downtown St. Catherine's. The downtowns in Niagara are a classic case of mall death, meaning that they are very low-income areas. The people that live in the apartments there just fucking hang around; they don't do ANYTHING. I personally like to be either entertaining or improving myself at all times (TV, Starcraft, working out, reading), but I guess if you have none of those things you have a lot of time to kill. These people just walk about, or sit on the stoop outside their apartments, and that's pretty much it. I can see that if an opportunity opened up where they could steal and break shit, they'd take it, because what else to they have?
But, like I said, it doesn't make it right. We are human beings possessing reason and free will, which means that we can choose to take the proper course of action in any situation (especially when it is blatantly obvious like "to smash that window, or not to smash that window"). I guess I just can't comprehend evil.
|
Nice blog, really is shocking to see what's happening in the UK. I'm wary of trying to attribute it to one thing just yet, as I've seen a lot of "I'm going out to get a new TEVE!!1!!" types who are no doubt fanning the flames.
|
|
|
|