Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kangaeru
Yeah, it's cheaper. You know why? Because the Haitian rice farmers had to compete against the U.S. farmers who are subsidized by the U.S. Govt to the tune of 40% of their profits. Not really fair competiton when a giant country with the largest economy in the world, the most efficient science and technology in the world, make the little guy cut their subsidies when we use them ourselves.
|
I oppose all farm subsidies, including those in the United States. It is extremely unfortunate that the U.S. resorts to them because they result in the unfair destruction of efficient farms in poorer nations. There is some solace in the fact that U.S. subsidies are reactionary. To what, you ask? To the mother of all farm subsidy programs: the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy. The number one contributor to the starvation of farmers in the third world is France, not the United States. I say this not to rationalize the actions of the U.S., as I believe our farm subsidies are as deplorable as the next guy's. However, it helps to explain why U.S. subsidies exist: if we didn't have them, the EU would put our farmers out of business too.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kangaeru
But we control the WTO so if people don't like it they can bite us, right?
|
I don't know where you got the idea that the U.S. controls the WTO. Do you think we have more influence than the EU?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kangaeru
Yeah, I know about comparitive advantage. Too bad that's bullshit, because the IMF and WTO don't allow that to happen. The structural adjustment programs make these countries extremely exploitable by multinational corporations, and all domestic industries are wiped out until nearly everyone is working in sweat shops. When a country depends on imports for ALL it's staples, and foreign investment for ALL it's labor demand, they've got no independance, and therefore no bargaining power, and in capatialistic environments, that means you get abused.
|
Sure, the race to the bottom is a phenomenon that one sees in certain third world countries. I bet you've never heard of the race to the top, though. In an age where large corporations need to compete in multiple international markets in order to be successful, the corporations must design products that satisfy the most stringent regulations so that they can be sold in the greatest possible number of markets. This means, for example, that stringent automotive emissions standards in California can force Japanese car manufacturers to redesign the powertrains of cars they sell both in the States and in JDM. Since it is cheaper to design only the cleaner powertrain than to design a clean one for U.S. export and a dirty one for domestic use, you end up with cleaner cars in Tokyo because of regulations put in place in California. In the same way, getting rid of sweatshops would be as simple as banning sweatshop-made goods from the United States. Instantly, you would see factory workers in the third world receiving living wages.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kangaeru
YOU are the one who knows nothing about how real economics work.
|
Thank you for filling me in. I strive to eliminate gaps in my knowledge of important concepts.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kangaeru
In an ideal capitalistic environment, yes, the things you speak of would theoretically work. However the United States and other economic super powers are in a position to control the policies of the people they trade with through the WTO and IMF which are under their control. Therefore, there is a totally unfair advantage which is exploited due to a blatant conflict of interest.
|
I'm certainly not denying that there is abuse of free trade by the powerful nations. However, one should not be too hasty to discount the enthusiasm of the third world in signing agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kangaeru
Hey, you ever heard of Argentina? Menen implemented ALL of the IMF policies he could, all at the same time, and the economy of Argentina went into a nose dive which they're still recovering from. Explain that to me.
|
I'm not familiar with this specific example, but I'll say two things: First, I didn't overlook the "he could" clause you added in the second sentence. Were there recommeded reforms that "he couldn't" impliment? Second, nobody, least of all me, is claiming that the IMF is infallable!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kangaeru
You talk about comparitive advantage like it's people making apples instead of oranges because they can make 3 bushels of apples per hour but only 1.5 of oranges. That's not the case--this is neo-colonialism, where most third world nations only have one or two major outputs, which are raw materials. They focus all their energy on this and become completely dependant on it--if the price of their export drops then all of a sudden all of their imports are so much more expensive...it's completely unstable.
|
Your apples/oranges example indicates to me that you don't understand what comparative advantage is. It is often the case that one nation should make the good they produce less efficiently in the name of comparative advantage. The north-south disparity is shocking and extremely unjust. On this we can agree. But do you have any idea how we might fix it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kangaeru
I would really like to see what you have to say about those Michael Yates articles. You've been pretty quiet since I posted them.
|
I regret that I don't have time to read a 30-page anti-capitalist rant. I am aware of (and disturbed by) global inegalitarianism. However, I see no need to learn more about a problem that I already understand. I am looking for an article written be someone who appreciates the great benefits of capitalism and has suggestions for remedying the drawbacks.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kangaeru
Put up some rebuttal or shut up with your condescending pompous attitude.
|
If I'm not mistaken, you are a college student taking a course about the horrors of capitalism taught by an angry Marxist professor who has never worked outside the Academy (i.e., had a real job). You fail to offer real-world solutions, instead deriding the actions of the United States without endeavoring to understand its motives. And then you demand that I should stop being quiet and instead "shut up with [my] condescending pompous attitude." I find it unfortunate that my silence was interpreted as "condescending pompous attitude", as it was merely the result of my personal disinterest in carrying on a conversation with a reactionary college student who has no interest in understanding alternative viewpoints. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some exploiting to do.