Dreams And Reality

by - Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:57

You have written about employers as if they were all part of the same national system, subject to the same rules and subject to the same forces of competition as any indiginous enterprise. You have written like a PD who would rather forget how multi-national-corporations relocate move and alter the economic conditions of their "host" countries. Also you have made no mention of the black economy, those who work without being taxed.
You really don't live in the real real world at all, just a real dream world.
I'd be interested to read your thoughts later if you expanded them to take into consideration such concerns. ¿Can you do that?

by Des Derwin Tue Mar 30, 2004 12:58

Perhaps it doesn't matter who wrote this. The ideas stand or fall of themeselves. But why on earth would the author of this discussion on economcs wish to hide his or her identity?

Doesn't anybody want to say what they think anymore? Or have all the ad hominem attacks succeeded?

by Freddy Tue Mar 30, 2004 13:05

At a rough guess I would say that the bulk of that was lifted from some other site, and added to to make it local. Probably by one of our regular trolls such as "righteous pragmatist"
"-" is spot on. It is a slanted "analysis" which does not take into account real world conditions.

by seedot Tue Mar 30, 2004 13:42

What an analysis. To select a few high points:

'Private business employs more people than the private sector.'

'When the tax rate rises profits fall '

'When there are less goods on the market the price of goods rises because demand increases. '

'Higher taxes mean these now privately held companies are less profitable and to keep them going we need higher taxes.'

If you want to read some neo-liberal economics, try OpenRepublic.org. Still don't agree but at least there is an attempt to present a logical, coherent argument and you get the impression these people have actually seen an economics lecture hall (which I know they have - since some of them lectured me).

If you think economics is just shouting then try economic realist and be convinced that
'The obvious solution is low taxes, low government spending and low borrowing and privatisation of all serivices and state owned companies. '
But of course it is.

Des - maybe this is a piss take and that's why they don't give their name. It's so bad it almost could be. Definitely not a cut'n'paste unless it is from some scary corner of the internet.

by Deirdre Clancy Tue Mar 30, 2004 14:06

Yes, I couldn't agree more with the last poster. I read this piece because I feel it is sometimes helpful to understand what makes believers in neo-liberal economics tick, and because it is an area of political thinking about which my knowledge is limited. I also read it because I don't believe the state monopoly paradigm or the neo-liberal paradigm work, and am trying to think about alternatives at the moment rather than be drawn into the either/or thinking that continually exists around these issues. But I would expect a better analysis from a Leaving Cert economics student. This is so full of naive assumptions that I don't know where to start, one being that if only state-run companies would go away and stop causing high taxes, the private companies would pay their workers brilliantly. If you're going to write a neo-liberal treatise in praise of competition, you have to anticipate arguments against what you're saying and cover yourself on them.

The writer of this piece obviously has genuinely held beliefs, but if I want to understand liberal ecoonomics I will read a text book on the issue, or check out the Adam Smith Institute web site for references. This piece does not tell me anything I don't already know, and what I already know is quite limited.

by Browser Tue Mar 30, 2004 14:15

It must have been written by one of the PDs, inspired by their conference at the weekend. It certainly fits in with their approach to economics.

by Economic Realist Tue Mar 30, 2004 15:15

"You have written about employers as if they were all part of the same national system, subject to the same rules and subject to the same forces of competition as any indiginous enterprise. You have written like a PD who would rather forget how multi-national-corporations relocate move and alter the economic conditions of their "host" countries. Also you have made no mention of the black economy, those who work without being taxed."
The reason that employers are not part of the same national system subject to the same rules and subject to same forces of competition is because of different national systems, different rules and differing levels of competition. The beauty is that you do not have to be subject to the rules of one political entity when there is open borders and free trade.
Countries where there is a high amount of state ownership often have high tariffs and other forms of protectionism to maintain the false economy. Some international companies rightly forced to live by competitive practices in Western countries are often go to Third world countries and by bribing corrupt undemocratic governments for relative peanuts can obtain monopolies and exclude competitors in ways that they could never get away with Western countries where government would never be able to decide where and how any company can operate.
The reason multi-national governments should be allowed to move and relocate is because of freedom to do with your own property as you wish. If a company finds it is easier to employ cheaper labour in India than Ireland then common sense tells you that India would be more attractive. However companies will not move solely because of cheaper labour. If there was poorer infrastructure in India they cost of transporting their products after manufacture could negate the benefit of cheaper labour. Suppose a country was crime ridden or parts of the country suffered from civil war it would hardly be attractive purely because of its lower labour costs? If employers and factories were regularly attacked then it would not make sense to move there. Its not true that there is actually a rush to relocate in Third World countries by Inter national multinationals.
What are you talking about altering the economic conditions of “host” countries? Do you mean that is a bad thing?
Before cheap goods- electronics, clothing, toys and expensive things such as cars and ships were manufactured in the Far East countries such as Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia etc. what did the economy of those consist of in their unaltered state? Fishing? Rice farming? Do you think a man would rather raise his family by getting a good wage in a manufacturing plant ( not a good wage by Western standards though) or slaving on a rice paddy working a plow with a water buffalo?
True labour rights have to get better (and they surely will as the populations prosper) but would you have manufacturing jobs taken off these people who are glad to have them? Hardly.

The black economy that you mentioned is pure capitalism. There is no regulation ( if you count organised crime extortion and blackmailof course) . Which is good in my opinion. Its existence proves the natural capitalist nature of man. Where ever there is an opening to make a buck there will be a dozen people looking for it. Anyone who has been a tourist will have visited the sights and discovered every kind of snake oil merchant selling little souvenirs. You will see people in many towns and cities selling swag out of carboots. Everybody is bargaining and undercutting the competition.
Have a look at the internet. See the explosion of downloads of music and movies? The music industry is quaking in its boots. That’s capitalism. Do you want that regulated? Hardly.
And I’m not a PD supporter. They are merely cardboard politicians jumping on a new sexy ideological position parroting slogans for the gullible. A bit like socialists supporting the anti-globalisation buzz words.

by seedot Tue Mar 30, 2004 15:40

'The reason multi-national governments should be allowed to move and relocate'

Look, its v. hard to engage with text that has statements like the above in it - simply typing into a text editor, then taking the radical step of READING WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN before posting would make the whole world a less annoying place.

Even allowing for the easy points that can be scored by picking up your (assumed) typo's - your argument really is bullshit isn't it?

'Have a look at the internet. See the explosion of downloads of music and movies? The music industry is quaking in its boots. That’s capitalism. Do you want that regulated? Hardly.'

On this definition, everything is capitalism. 'Take a look at the sea. That's capitalism. Take a look at cheese. That's capitalism.'

As has been pointed out numerous times - the Internet was a publically funded project, which evolved through academic input etc. into a weird - non-owned space. Within parts of that space there is a 'gift economy' that challenges 'real world' concepts of property and results in many many more people downloading music for free than would walk into a shop and liberate a CD. This though, in your definition, is capitalism.

Cheese is capitalism.
Cheese is good.
Therefore Commies are bad.

by T Tue Mar 30, 2004 15:57

You don't take into account that every business ultimately wants to be a monopoly position. Nor do you take account of the way wealth accumulates, and once it does, smaller and smaller groups gain huge leverage over many others through ownership of property, the means of production, the media and so forth. They are also through the financial muscle and 'jobs' muscle (i.e owner of local factory) able to influence politicians way beyond the ability of an average individual to. In this way, over time they can get the State to pass rules and regulations which favour them, their status, and help consolidate whatever gains and advantages they have thus so made.

I suppose you will reply that: well we can put competition committees and other watch-dogs in place. The reality is that they are rarely given the power and teeth to carry out their job or else they are reduced at a later stage. And they are generally reduced to making a few public show cases, but which in fact rarely change anything fundamental.

While I accept the dynamics of the money economy in terms of state firms, with guaranteed jobs allowed people who those safe positions to indulge all the wants, I for one reject the whole basis of the economy where profit is the driving force and motive, or as you implicity imply it should be, since you show it will fail for state firms.

The profit system is the problem and the reason why many can't see or refuse to see it is because we are like fishing swimming in water, -we don't realize we are in water.

If we want to live in a sustainable world, then how can any electricity, gas, oil or other resource based company possibly make a profit while at the same time, year on year encouraging people to use less electricity/gas/oil. Can you imagine oil execs being pleased with a 10% yearly fall in product sold? Same for waste handlers. If waste reduction, reuse and recycling took over, their industry could be threatened. That kind of explains why we never got an excessive package waste levy.

It is common sense that we should continually make our machines that burn eneryg more efficient and also make the overall society system more efficient in terms of public transport, better insulate homes etc. This is impossible under the current system. No doubt you will invoke the magic free market.

And the same goes for health. The whole system should be based on healty life styles & diet and preventative treatments and advice. Instead from our GPs all the way up to hospitals, the whole system is geared towards (via the profit motive) handing out stuff (i.e. tablets) so that product can be shipped and sold.

I could go on in a similar vein probably about every aspect of our economy and society.

And not only that. What's this work ethic thing? Why do we have to work away our whole lives, with a few years at the end to ourselves which even now is threatend to be taken away because the free-market needs to raise retirement age to 75.

I want a society that uses the massive scientific knowledge and gains in productivity to have as few people as possible working (but shared out widely, so collectively we all work less), so that the rest of us can get on with advancing ourselves, humanity and humankind and get more fully involved in culture, arts, science and so on on a daily basis.

So yes, I reject totally the profit-money based economy and favour a more equitable system which to work would mean the removal of hierarchical power.

No doubt I will be accused of being unrealistic, but at least I have some vision rather than facing a bleak future forever caught on the treadmill of work, work, work.

by until it sleeps Thu Apr 01, 2004 00:37

The best preforming 3rd World countries economically are those who have embraced trade liberalisation and attempted to deregulate the public sector (China India). The countries most often quoted as suffering from globalisation are those who hang on to massive state sectors and import tarrifs (sub saharan Africa, Latin America)

The best favour we can do the 3rd world is to force the west to get rid of their tariffs and subsidies, not propogate some unworkable ideal of Communism or even more laughably Anarchism. Name one country where these idea have not proven an total disaster.

by Milton Friedman Thu Apr 01, 2004 21:59

Obviously you know little about the social conditions of the majority of the population of India still sunk in semi-feudal poverty.

And China is slowly dismantling all the progress made under the dreaded Commies that they have been able to buildi on. Conditions in the countryside continue to deteriorate.

Let me help you--some real capitalist successes: Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan,
Singapore

Two city states, a province of China and half of Korea. The latter two's progress mainly established due the a special trade relation with the US gone into because the US had the Commies in China breathing down it's neck.

by Zbarcalow Fri Apr 02, 2004 01:38

Interesting you should raise the cases of korea and the 'Asian Tigers'. They are examples of successes that completely IGNORED neoliberal economics. China too -massive controls on capital, state intervention, sudsidies, tarriffs etc. Meanwhile Latin America followed the IMF "Globalization" model and was a dismal failure.

Face it, neoliberal economics have failed abysmally, and ruined the lives of hundreds of millions of people. The best we in the West can do for the Majority World (what some call the third world) is get our governments and international financial institutions to take their boots off the necks of countries in Latin America, Africa etc -by cancelling the debt for example- and let them run their economies according to what suits THEIR people, not the interests of global corporate capitalism.

Try this:
http://www.cepr.net/globalization/scorecard_on_globalization.htm