eocnomic issues are political?

[Athena]

This is a question. When oil or other mining operations exploit a country for its resource, including cheap human labor, they only deal with the counties leaders and are careless about the people, and the results are very bad. The International banks are causing the same kind of problem, by loaning a country money and then forcing the country to use its farm land to pay off the loan, which recreates starvation for the people. Yet these industries, and the banking, are beyond our control. Although their actions can have severe ramifications, and tax payers are spending a lot on National Defense used for economic purpose around the world, we can not apply democracy to them, can we?

Can autocratic industry (capitalism) in the US, represent the values of democracy around the world?

Do economic matters belong in a forum about politics and government or should economic issues have their own forum?

[Milton Bradley]

Id say this was the correct forum, because all of these problems arise from the grand conspiracy to defraud the Third World through institutions like The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the UN.


Its all planned disenfranchisement, and it's the most cited reason our enemies admit to disliking us.

Quote by: Athena Can autocratic industry (capitalism) in the US, represent the values of democracy around the world?

Firstly, why should it? Is it our responsibility to represent everybody elses value systems? No.


The problems arise from supporting criminal institutions that were founded for no other reason than to divert attention away from the US, even though alll of the above mentioned institutions carry out the very vision they were created to accomplish, US policy.

[Athena]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Id say this was the correct forum, because all of these problems arise from the grand conspiracy to defraud the Third World through institutions like The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the UN. Its all planned disenfranchisement, and it's the most cited reason our enemies admit to disliking us. Firstly, why should it? Is it our responsibility to represent everybody elses value systems? No. The problems arise from supporting criminal institutions that were founded for no other reason than to divert attention away from the US, even though alll of the above mentioned institutions carry out the very vision they were created to accomplish, US policy.

I do not understand your reply, however, I really like phrase "planned disenfranchisement" That is exactly the concept I needed to understand what is wrong with this:

Alternative To IMF And World Bank Dominance The scheme is called debt slavery because new loans are needed to service old ones, indebtedness rises, and borrowing terms stipulate harsh one-way "structural adjustment" provisions that include: -- privatizations of state enterprises; -- government deregulation; -- deep cuts in social spending; -- wage freezes or cuts; -- unrestricted free market access for foreign corporations; -- corporate-friendly tax cuts; -- crackdowns on trade unionists; and -- savage repression for non-believers under a system incompatible with social democracy. Everywhere the scheme is the same: huge public wealth transfers to elitist private hands, exploding public debt, an ever-widening disparity between the super-rich and desperate poor, and an aggressive nationalism to justify huge spending on security for aggressive surveillance, mass incarceration plus repression and torture for social control.

The autocrats are reducing the rest of us to slaves with "planned disenfranchisement", and doing all that we can, to stop this happening is promoting democracy. This does not taking mean being responsible for everyone else's value system. It means protecting democracy and our own values. Autocracy is the enemy of democracy and we should not allow it to comsume us and the rest of the world.

[Milton Bradley]

The shortest way to where you want to go is by voting Ron Paul this election.


Not only is he the only person up there telling us the truth about these schemes, he's already commited to fighting the good fight.

[smallpox]

The IMF and other financial institutions are supposed to be Kenneysian. But when the receiving countries are asking for help from them, they have no means in getting any sort of state ran protective economy. Sure it'd be great, protectivism has rehabilitated the economies of Japan, France and Germany at ridiculously fast rates after WW2 and China is doing so now, but countires in South America or Sub sahara Africa simply can't afford any sort of other alternative to the Washington Consensus (opening the market to corporations, lowering taxes and barriers). Yet without these institutions, the receiving countries would have even less funds to spend in aleveating poverty.
Cash crops are bad, but an economy needs to diversify its resources and that has to start somewhere. If the governemnt puts everyone at work for food, then what if there's a drought? Plus, even without drougths, eventually someone will start cashcrops and grow to take even more land. At least these fields pay salaries to people.

[Athena]

Perhaps $6 a day for seasonal work is a good deal for some people who have nothing, but I don't think this is enough to keep children healthy and give them a better future.

[rmnunez]

Decisions to invest are made based on a variety of factors and their interplay. Sometimes its the value of the natural resource that matters most (gold, diamonds, oil...) but it may also have to do with the distance to market, the costs in extracting the goods, the technology required and availability of skilled workers to participate in the productive processes, are all part of the calculation.

Canada and Scandinavian countries have fine lumber, but very high labour costs, confiscatory fiscal practices, onerous environmental regulations and tremendous labour costs, which together reduce the amount of trees profitably harvested. Then there's Brazil and Subsaharan Africa which also have lots of lumber of even higher quality, but fewer environmental restrictions, more lenient tax policies and lower labour costs, so that even though they are farther from the markets and despite the relative difficulty in finding qualified workers, more trees are cut in these places.

Its a fact-sensitive issue that requires weighing all of these things. Multinational corporations making foreign investment choices are looking for ways to maximize their profits, they aren't investing to improve global outlooks or standards of living, they really are just looking for ways to maximize their shareholders' dividends.

Governments seeking to improve their citizens' outlook need to compete to offer the most favourable and attractive conditions for investors. They need to facilitate repatriation of profits, offer strong assurances capital investment will be protected, provide adequately trained workers in sufficient numbers and at lower wages -otherwise the multinational won't invest its capital there.

A 350-room hotel on the Mexican coast will set an investor back $30-50 million and take 30 years to amortize, with a crew of about 120 workers at a tenth of what such workers are paid in the US and without any strikes, given Mexico's relatively high taxation. If they had to pay the workers a bit more, it might be more attractive to invest in Costa Rica, which is farther from the market. I've seen how they calculate these things with hotels and its amazing how little a difference can move such a huge investment from one place to another.

Resorts sustain huge communities of golf-course gardeners, stable boys, windsurfing and scuba-diving school instructors, maids, waiters, bell boys, cab drivers, tour guides, life guards and all sorts of other folks catering to their visitors, whole towns depend on a single hotel. A single obnoxious union leader demanding just a minor concession could ruin the whole village's prospects.

[smallpox]

Quote by: Athena Perhaps $6 a day for seasonal work is a good deal for some people who have nothing, but I don't think this is enough to keep children healthy and give them a better future.

It grows. $6 a day is not accounting inflation or the lack thereof. $6 in China is like have $30 - 40 in the US.

[rmnunez]

Yes, the cost of living is much lower in developing and third world economies. In Mexico a bus ride is about 30 US cents, a litre of milk costs less than a dollar, 2.2 pounds of tortillas are about 75 US cents. A Mexican cab driver will earn about $25 a day, contruction workers are paid $15-20 per day.

[Whatssnew]

Our companies over sea's vastly improve the lives of those they effect, end of story. Not one person is forced to take the job, our companies don't compeat with anyone, and frankly you have no idea what you are talking about. I don't mean to sound rude, but it would apear you are compleatly oblivious to the opinions of those who work for our companies. Just put it this way, our companies are paying alot of money by local standards. It is great you worry for others but if someone came into our country, said you are not being paid enough so we are going to force your company to leave, would you be angry? Hell yes! It is tragic the way life is in manny of these countries, but we are helping. As to the effect on our country, I would say minor. The number one production in America is services. America provides more services to the world than any other country. Such as computer programs, techknology, techknological assistance, ex... Also economical issues are very political, and are one with the governmental issues.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: rmnunez Yes, the cost of living is much lower in developing and third world economies. In Mexico a bus ride is about 30 US cents, a litre of milk costs less than a dollar, 2.2 pounds of tortillas are about 75 US cents. A Mexican cab driver will earn about $25 a day, contruction workers are paid $15-20 per day.

Yes, this is what we should be striving for here in the US as well. Then we can fight for dwelling space at the local garbage dump like they do down in Mexico City.


Viva la corporate rule.

[rmnunez]

US multinationals abroad do pay more than local standards, working for a US company has prestige. The same can be said for all multinationals.

Usually these are the most important employers in a third world country's economy, they bring the latest technology and they set the standards in labour relations. Foreign multinationals bring with them all sorts of hard-won union rights to workers in impoverished places with negligible industrial experience.

Often its the multinationals who lead the way in their third world host's development of environmentalism, towards gender equality, against discriminatory practices, for accountability and against corruption.

Nonetheless, what the multinationals are paying their workers in the third world remains a fraction of what they'd have to pay citizens of their own, this is why from a first world perspective their investment overseas seems so exploitative.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: rmnunez US multinationals abroad do pay more than local standards, working for a US company has prestige. The same can be said for all multinationals. Usually these are the most important employers in a third world country's economy, they bring the latest technology and they set the standards in labour relations. Foreign multinationals bring with them all sorts of hard-won union rights to workers in impoverished places with negligible industrial experience. Often its the multinationals who lead the way in their third world host's development of environmentalism, towards gender equality, against discriminatory practices, for accountability and against corruption. Nonetheless, what the multinationals are paying their workers in the third world remains a fraction of what they'd have to pay citizens of their own, this is why from a first world perspective their investment overseas seems so exploitative.

Yeah, and that grim story comes from only looking at the positive aspects of these institutions. Just imagine if we could get you to recognoze the negative aspects.

[Athena]

Quote by: rmnunez Decisions to invest are made based on a variety of factors and their interplay. Sometimes its the value of the natural resource that matters most (gold, diamonds, oil...) but it may also have to do with the distance to market, the costs in extracting the goods, the technology required and availability of skilled workers to participate in the productive processes, are all part of the calculation. Canada and Scandinavian countries have fine lumber, but very high labour costs, confiscatory fiscal practices, onerous environmental regulations and tremendous labour costs, which together reduce the amount of trees profitably harvested. Then there's Brazil and Subsaharan Africa which also have lots of lumber of even higher quality, but fewer environmental restrictions, more lenient tax policies and lower labour costs, so that even though they are farther from the markets and despite the relative difficulty in finding qualified workers, more trees are cut in these places. Its a fact-sensitive issue that requires weighing all of these things. Multinational corporations making foreign investment choices are looking for ways to maximize their profits, they aren't investing to improve global outlooks or standards of living, they really are just looking for ways to maximize their shareholders' dividends. Governments seeking to improve their citizens' outlook need to compete to offer the most favourable and attractive conditions for investors. They need to facilitate repatriation of profits, offer strong assurances capital investment will be protected, provide adequately trained workers in sufficient numbers and at lower wages -otherwise the multinational won't invest its capital there. A 350-room hotel on the Mexican coast will set an investor back $30-50 million and take 30 years to amortize, with a crew of about 120 workers at a tenth of what such workers are paid in the US and without any strikes, given Mexico's relatively high taxation. If they had to pay the workers a bit more, it might be more attractive to invest in Costa Rica, which is farther from the market. I've seen how they calculate these things with hotels and its amazing how little a difference can move such a huge investment from one place to another. Resorts sustain huge communities of golf-course gardeners, stable boys, windsurfing and scuba-diving school instructors, maids, waiters, bell boys, cab drivers, tour guides, life guards and all sorts of other folks catering to their visitors, whole towns depend on a single hotel. A single obnoxious union leader demanding just a minor concession could ruin the whole village's prospects.

So that these people can not afford a decent standard of living, although they are working people, doesn't matter? Like it makes sense they can never hope to buy a home, and they can not afford medical care, and when their corn is sold for ethanol they go hungry, because this is necessary for someone to invest in their community and profit from their labor.. And this is a good economic system? Shall we add to this, not educating their children, nor any social services, other than ones essential to protecting the investment, such as fire stations, which the little people pay for in taxes, but do not enjoy, because their neighborhoods are not the ones that attract money and services. Oh, and I almost forgot, the tax money for national defense that the little guy must pay. these pathetic people are worth something aren't they? They do the work and pay the taxes and who benefits? How much? Someone who is only interested in making a profit.

Ah, like this is a major reason the US is hated, and we must pay for the defense of our economic interest, while we aren't living much better off if we are the working class that is exploited. We should pay how much in taxes to support this capitalism?

[Athena]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Yeah, and that grim story comes from only looking at the positive aspects of these institutions. Just imagine if we could get you to recognoze the negative aspects.

I am confussed by your reply. The only way to level the playing field is through government assistance programs and you are opposed to them aren't you? Ron Paul is even against education. He reminds me of a bible thumber, only his bible is the Constitution as though life today is not completely different from life in the coloies.

Mass production done with electricity and fossil fuels, dramatically changed our reality. Few of us own enough land to be self sufficient today, and the medical profession is vastly different from when a doctor could do little more than comfort their patients who had disease that were not understoood, and the average life expectancy was 45 years. Because the life expectancy was so short, and early death so common, diseases resulting from malnition would be less obvious. It was not known forms of mental retardation were the result of malnutrition. Death as a result of industrial accidents common. Our consciousness has changed a lot since the Constitution was written and I think it is romantic thinking to think we reduce our awareness to the Constitution and everything will come out alright. Or reduce our awareness to the Constitution and bible and everything will be alright.

[droque]

eocnomic issues are political?

In a real competitive free market economy, economic issues would be exclusively in an economic forum.

In a government managed economy, the government determines the state of the economy—economic issues are political!

+++++++++++++++++++++

Although their actions can have severe ramifications, and tax payers are spending a lot on National Defense used for economic purpose around the world, we can not apply democracy to them, can we?

Yes, but the public is being lied too and “Know Not What They (government) Do”!

The “Natural Rate of Unemployment” is a Royal Lie—it’s forced by raising interest rates!

+++++++++++++++++++

Can autocratic industry (capitalism) in the US, represent the values of democracy around the world?

Not as presently structured under a ‘Monopoly Capitalism”—need to be structured as a “DEMOCRATIC CAPITALISM”!

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do economic matters belong in a forum about politics and government or should economic issues have their own forum?

Economic issues should have their own forum; but economists have not been able to achieve effective demand and sustained growth to make it a self regulated market economy!

[grandpa]

Quote by: droque eocnomic issues are political? In a real competitive free market economy, economic issues would be exclusively in an economic forum.

But competition is political by its very nature. It inevitably leads to social justice issues, as we can see with the economy today.

Grandpa h.

[rmnunez]

The issue really is how 'decent' a standard of living is necessary in the third world. With their much lower cost of living, they really don't need as much to get by. If thirdworlders were paid wages 'decent' by US standards they'd be way overpaid in their country.

[grandpa]

Quote by: rmnunez The issue really is how 'decent' a standard of living is necessary in the third world. With their much lower cost of living, they really don't need as much to get by.

If the middle men - megacorporations and investors - were not allowed to dominate the economy, I think the standard of living would increase generally.

Grandpa h.