Skip to main content

BTW, Toussaint ...

If this is not to person, what do you do for a living. I don't care for the name of your employer, just the Industry, Field. Job Title, and, if necessary for clarity, an explanation of what you do. For example: I work in Government in the Civil Rights Field as a Civil Rights Compliance Officer. I investigate allegations of discrimination.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:

See "Free-trade Globalist" mesure everything in terms of dollars flowing to the top ... culture, quality of life and economic casualties be damned.

I thought that we, as a people-a society, had progressed beyond the "economic ends being justified by any exploitive means", blind greed mentality.


It really takes a true spin artist to take an unprecedented decrease in poverty and turn it into a bad thing. Unbelievable. It's sad that folks who sit here with all kinds of comforts are opposed to others striving for those same things. And suggesting that these folks would be better off with less choices... in a barter society? lol... now I remember why I got bored with this board a while back.

Every rich nation started off poor like the nations I mentioned. They all had to develop and go through what many nations are going through now. There aren't short cuts, so I don't know what any of you are suggesting in the alternative. (barter? - Kweli; hunter/gatherer? - Noah). Now, there probably are (very few) people who would like to live like that if they had a choice. Economic development gives them more choices. That is the real issue - choices, not necessarily money.

quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Never mind the fact that prior to the sweatshop, these 5, 6 and 7 year olds didn't need $10.00 a day

Prior to the sweatshop the girls were probably working for less, if that makes you feel better. Otherwise, they would not be working to begin with. The reason parents put their children to work in these countries is that they have to. Without these jobs, many of these children, especially the females, are forced into prostitution or other revolting circumstances. That's not theory - it is a fact.

I'll post an article for you about what former sweatshop critics have said after seeing the plain as day reality of the countries in which the sweatshops exist, and why sweatshops, while not being western standard workplaces, are better than the alternatives for people who work there and are providing new opportunities where none existed before. You'll try to manufacture some reason that they are better off having no choice but to live as barterers, but when people take these jobs in order to do better, they are telling you that they don't want to live like barterers. Who are you to tell them they shouldn't have the choice?

quote:
Originally posted by Yemaya:
The only people who are really making money on Free Trade are business people, like CEOs of the companies who willingly turn a blind eye to abuses.

Wasup, Yemaya. I knew people would ignore blatant facts. Millions of people in China and India have choices that their previous generations couldn't dream of. Labor conditions can be horrible in some places, just like they were in this country is it went through development - the same development that allows us to carry on this very debate. And just to make it clear, I don't support business that coerce individuals in any way shape or form. They should be dealt with. Coercion by definition is irreconcilible with free trade.

quote:
Originally posted by Noah the African:
The first thing that you need to note about Hong Kong is that it was a City-state, like Singapore. These small populations are easily turned around by direct foreign investment from large wealthy nations, pumping in billions of dollars annually.

... Just like Chinese and other foreign business pump in billions of dollars to the US annually. You forgot to note that in your trade deficit point, as does Paul Craig Roberts. And the freer the economy, combined with recognition of rule of law brings in such investments. The same goes for large nations as does for small ones.

quote:
Originally posted by Noah the African:
Second, the growth in China comes at the expense of growth the in USA, as much of their growth is tied to the USA.


You have still not proven that China's growth comes "at the expense" of the USA. Both economies are still growing simultaneously, although China is growing faster due to economic measures that are in many ways freer than those in the US. Another job in China does not mean one less job in the United States. Another 50 jobs in China doesn't mean one less in the US. Why? Because demand is not fixed. When people buy cheaper goods, they have more money left over to consume/invest more. That saved money does not disappear, it creates more jobs. That's why unemployment in the US has shrunk even in the midst of China's rapid development.

Paul Craig Roberts is a decent writer, and I agree with him on many things. But on trade, he is dead wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by Noah the African:
The only way American employment levels can be maintained is if people are buying the goods and services that we produce more than we buy the goods and services that others produce. All one has to do is check the nations balance of accounts ledger to notice that we as a nation buy much more from others than they buy from us, with the biggest gap being with CHINA.


The italicized portion of your quote simply is not true. Trade "deficits" do not bring on less employment. It isn't the case in America and it isn't the case elsewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by Isome:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
Is this a tag team effort? Constructive Feedback disappears and this guy shows up?


Tag team effort... concerted effort... indicative of the need for conservatives to be accepted... the desire to disrupt or dissuade

...it's something.


You know what, I've had a theory for a while, and the new popularity of this "Toussaint" figure, as well as that "Jaco" character is giving credance to my theory.

I think that a while back, Sargeant, Roy Bankins or Shebakoby went over to the Free Republic board and gave them the link to AfricanAmerica.org. Then they created a thread warning them about a "Black Leftist" forum and urged them to migrate over to this board and pose as "Black Conservatives" to shut down normal conversation and squirrel all topics and meaningful discourse.


I'm serious! I've never seen so many Black Neocons/Neoliberal Globalists/Libertarians in my LIFE! Why are there so many online when they only supposedly make up 5% of our Black population? sck Their timing is very telling too, when one major Black Neocon/Libertarian disappears (CON-Feed was the recent one to drop out of sight), another takes his/her turn.

I bet you, I BETCHA' it was FreeRepublic, Vanguard News or the Bradley Foundation that construced Mike-Bot to be a Neocon rhetoric program and then sent him over here to spam the board with Extreme Right threads and excessive repetitive posts.


OMG, my computer's being h4xx0r3d by the FBI right now! I know too much! hij LOL
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
...Their timing is very telling too, when one major Black Neocon/Libertarian disappears (CON-Feed was the recent one to drop out of sight), another takes his/her turn.

...spam the board with Extreme Right threads and excessive repetitive posts.


Interesting that! And, even more interesting is their ability to repeat blatant untruths and think there is no evidence to the contrary.
quote:
Originally posted by The_Congo:
Toussaint, you present yourself and your argument in a very cool manner in a hostile situation. Your composure is much better than mine. I respect you for that.


Thanks, The_Congo. I realize that I could give all the evidence in the world to some folks in here, and it won't matter a lick. So it aint even worth gettin riled up about.

Case and point - how they cry about poverty all the time, and when freer economies bring people out of poverty and give them options they couldn't dream of previously, they simply disregard it.

They aren't concerned with the people no longer being impoverished. They're concerned with hating free markets. They're concerned with businesspeople becoming richer (who cares if businesspeople become richer if the poor are being lifted out of poverty at the same time?)

All of a sudden their concern is something else other than people being lifted out of poverty. I'd find it to be laughable if it weren't so sad.

Folks need to put their hatred of free markets a side for a second an see an unprecedent reduction in poverty for what it is...
quote:
Originally posted by toussaint:
quote:
Originally posted by The_Congo:
Toussaint, you present yourself and your argument in a very cool manner in a hostile situation. Your composure is much better than mine. I respect you for that.


Thanks, The_Congo. I realize that I could give all the evidence in the world to some folks in here, and it won't matter a lick. So it aint even worth gettin riled up about.

Case and point - how they cry about poverty all the time, and when freer economies bring people out of poverty and give them options they couldn't dream of previously, they simply disregard it.


What do you mean by "freer" economies? Back that rhetoric up with substance.

By "Free" do you mean deregulated? (Trickle Down/Voodoo Economics)

quote:
They aren't concerned with the people no longer being impoverished. They're concerned with hating free markets. They're concerned with businesspeople becoming richer (who cares if businesspeople become richer if the poor are being lifted out of poverty at the same time?)


How many people in other countries have been miraculously "lifted out of poverty" by this allegedly "free" market?

According to THE FACTS, free market Western economies have huge GDPs and GNPs, but low average GNIs and HDIs. Market socialist economies have smaller GNPs but larger average GNIs and HDIs. Developing countries that are part of the "free market globalism" game have VERY LOW GNIs and extremely disturbing MDG crises, but big GNPs (read: very rich corrput leaders).
Toussaint, a few of your assumptions are flawed. For one, the assumption that free-market economies are free. This may be more or less true, but for us it's getting less and less true with each passing year. Government de-regulation, government interference, corporate collusion and monopolistic practices are limiting that free-market more and more over time. The result is less choice, not more.

Good cases in point are the lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws that are on the books and the FCC's history of deregulation of the media that has led to it's consolidation. You can find a history of this on PBS's web site here. Again, less choices.

And then there's the Microsoft fiasco and Sony/BMG's attempt to fix CD prices. Both received a literal slap on the wrist for what they did. I won't even touch the GM mess and what some of the best market analysts call a "management debacle".

Also, for any single corporation in any single year, income can be classified as a zero-sum game and here's why:

For any corporation, income is constant at the end of any given year, be it annual or fiscal. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock will rise. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It's that simple.

Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, "zero-sum."

To the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers, investors and executives win and get a bigger slice of the pie. One group wins, another loses.

Also, since we live in a society of auction markets, the more money other people have, in effect, the less you have.

Thus, "wealth" not being a zero-sum game comes into question. Without doubt, the people of India and China are better-off materially now then they were a decade ago. And thank goodness for that. But their increased wealth means that they can afford to pay more at the oil auctions and that will raise the cost of fuel for the rest of the world (not that I feel much pity for Americans driving fuel-guzzling Suburbans, SUVs, and living in 6000 sq. ft. houses).

But the point is that the cost of oil and fuel and heating costs goes up, and as usual, hurts those who can least afford it, the poor. They are the ones who are paying, especially if you believe the theory that a dollar to a poor person means more than a dollar to a rich one. The people of India and China "win", but those that cannot afford the price increases lose.

"A growing disparity in affluence can hurt the less well off, even if their incomes are also on the rise. In the San Francisco Bay area, where stock-driven wealth exploded in the 1990s, a middle-class family earns about 33% more than the national average"”but has to pay up to four times the national average to buy a home because of intensely competitive bidding from freshly minted millionaires.

Cornell University economist Robert Frank argues that Silicon Valley could, as it has in so many other ways, be foreshadowing a national trend. From bigger cars to higher tuition for the best schools, the richer rich will ratchet up prices for everyone else. "Extra spending at the top," he says, "raises the price of admission." (Wall Street Journal, Sept. 13, 1999)


Of course, you could argue that the last paragraph has proven to be untrue, since inflation has been more or less constant for the past decade. But that's only if you trust the government's newer methods of calculating inflation.
Last edited {1}

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×