Do rich countries use globalization to cheat poorer ones? - Xtratime Community
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 25 (permalink) Old October 11th, 2005, 14:29 Thread Starter
Rising Star
 
Chxta's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04 2005
Location: 3rd rock from the Sun
Teams: Juventus, Nigerian National team
Posts: 557
Do rich countries use globalization to cheat poorer ones?

Read here

Some people think life is black
Other's think life is white
We all know it's black and white
FORZA JUVE

Check out my blog
Then read this.
THANK YOU.
Chxta is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 25 (permalink) Old October 11th, 2005, 16:00
Premier Player
 
Blitzkreig's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09 2004
Location: The Republic Of Mancunia.
Teams: Manchester United
Posts: 1,940
Blog Entries: 1
They do
Eg: african cotton scenario.
Agriculture subsidies, blue box, green box.
but globalization is the reason behind devoloping countires' GDP growth. eg: BRIC countires.


All the drugs in this world won't save you from yourself.
Blitzkreig is offline  
post #3 of 25 (permalink) Old October 11th, 2005, 16:29
Administrators
Xtratime Elite
 
Osman's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10 2000
Location: Uppsala, Sverige
Teams: Juve
Posts: 51,730
You would be fired immediately if you were an Journalist,for asking such a blatantly obvious question.
Osman is offline  
 
post #4 of 25 (permalink) Old October 11th, 2005, 16:48
Legend
Legend
 
Andrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04 2001
Location: Toronto
Teams: Partizan
Posts: 15,157
It's not a matter of countries as it is a matter of corporations, who are the real driving force behind globalization today. Many citizens of rich countries also feel "cheated" by globalization - for example when their jobs get moved to developing countries and they get fired. Corporations push for globalization because it increases their profits. They look at their bottomline, the end. Whether they're "cheating" or "harming" J. Singh of India or J. Smith of the USA really makes no difference in that respect...
Andrix is offline  
post #5 of 25 (permalink) Old October 11th, 2005, 19:04
Tim
Xtratime Legend
 
Tim's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03 2000
Location: Texico
Posts: 33,807
Quote:
he used to go around convincing poor countries (like Nigeria) to accept large development loans which they'll never be able to repay
I often hear this complaint about banks and credit companies that "cheat" people by offering them deals that they cannot afford. I don't think it's valid, however, because people should know what they can and cannot afford. Likewise, countries should be more careful with accepting large development loans.

No doubt some are trying to take advantage of countries with less financial leverage, but that makes little sense. There is only so much they have to give, before the "parasitic" countries/corporations have to look for a new "host." It makes much better financial sense to help poorer countries and to develop them into trading partners.
Tim is offline  
post #6 of 25 (permalink) Old October 11th, 2005, 20:13
International
 
croatian batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11 2003
Location: NYC
Teams: Cro NT, NY Islanders, USA NT, Notre Dame
Posts: 5,029
Idea's like subsides I believe are contradictory to the theories of free markets and globalized trade. I believe its not free trade's fault but unfair trade. A big difference in my eyes.

And with Globablization countries need to be ready and prepared many of which aren't. China, India and south east asia these regions were ready and made the improvements in the necessary infastructure to accomodate the change in economics. their not complaining that bigger countries are robbing them. Its quite the opposite.

A country like Mexico is a perfect example of what not to do when being in a globalized economy. It did everything wrong leading up to Nafta, they increased taxes on foriegn owned land, didn't do a thing with corruption and has lousy infastructure when it comes to transportation and ports.

Captialism, free markets etc. are the best and fastest way for a country to get out of their economic hole. But at the same time if their not ready they will be left behind and a bigger hole might be dug for them. And people will take advantage.
croatian batman is offline  
post #7 of 25 (permalink) Old October 11th, 2005, 20:46
Xtratime Legend
Xtratime Legend
 
AMOROSO!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 06 1999
Location: London
Teams: PAOK and Parma
Posts: 26,731
Rich countries were always taking advantage and cheated poorer ones. Before globalisation is was colonisation and instead of loan negotiators it was army and clergy sent in Africa with pretty much the same purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by croatian batman
Idea's like subsides I believe are contradictory to the theories of free markets and globalized trade.
That is not something negative per se.

Love is the drug, and I'm a junkie.
AMOROSO! is offline  
post #8 of 25 (permalink) Old October 11th, 2005, 21:06
World Class Player
World Class Player
 
Bastin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, the UK
Teams: Arsenal, Watford, UK NTs, and dozens more.
Posts: 7,673
Third World countries have to pay the bills, just like everyone else. There's no 'cheating' going on, given that all of those countries agreed to take on the loans in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMOROSO!
That is not something negative per se.
Yes, it is. Free trade increases, decentralises, and rationalises output. Those are all good things, whether one is from New York or Nairobi.

Glen: "That last post of Bastin's is just too authoritative to argue against."

gOD: "It scares the f*ck out of me but I'm with Bastin here."

Cacni: "Ah, there you go using that absurd ber-memory of your's...not fair."

Boyo: "Even when it comes to rap, Bastin is an authority."

Attila_the_Nun: "A most respected scion of Misty Albion, the illustious Bastin - the redoubtable defender of all our noble traditions."

Humbird: "Bastin is very attractive when talking nautical! "
Bastin is offline  
post #9 of 25 (permalink) Old October 11th, 2005, 21:17
Xtratime Legend
Xtratime Legend
 
AMOROSO!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: 06 1999
Location: London
Teams: PAOK and Parma
Posts: 26,731
Of course, free market has no negatives.

Love is the drug, and I'm a junkie.
AMOROSO! is offline  
post #10 of 25 (permalink) Old October 11th, 2005, 21:25
Legend
Legend
 
Andrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04 2001
Location: Toronto
Teams: Partizan
Posts: 15,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMOROSO!
Of course, free market has no negatives.

I commend your loyalty to the party comrade :thmbup:, oops I mean fellow capitalist.
Andrix is offline  
post #11 of 25 (permalink) Old October 11th, 2005, 22:11
World Class Player
World Class Player
 
Bastin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, the UK
Teams: Arsenal, Watford, UK NTs, and dozens more.
Posts: 7,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMOROSO!
Of course, free market has no negatives.
Not unless one thinks there to be virtue in the restriction of the availability of certain products or services in a certain market or in the protection of a certain trade in a certain uneconomical place. Otherwise, there are no virtues of protectionism, and no vices of free trade.

Glen: "That last post of Bastin's is just too authoritative to argue against."

gOD: "It scares the f*ck out of me but I'm with Bastin here."

Cacni: "Ah, there you go using that absurd ber-memory of your's...not fair."

Boyo: "Even when it comes to rap, Bastin is an authority."

Attila_the_Nun: "A most respected scion of Misty Albion, the illustious Bastin - the redoubtable defender of all our noble traditions."

Humbird: "Bastin is very attractive when talking nautical! "
Bastin is offline  
post #12 of 25 (permalink) Old October 11th, 2005, 22:13
Legend
Legend
 
Andrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04 2001
Location: Toronto
Teams: Partizan
Posts: 15,157
What of market failures then? Externalities? Or do you just close your eyes and pretend they don't exist?
Andrix is offline  
post #13 of 25 (permalink) Old October 11th, 2005, 22:36
World Class Player
World Class Player
 
Bastin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, the UK
Teams: Arsenal, Watford, UK NTs, and dozens more.
Posts: 7,673
Those aren't flaws of free trade any more than flaws of protectionism. A government can create negative externalities when it imposes tariffs, yet only private citizens and private companies are ever blamed for them. A government can create non-market failures when it imposes tariffs just as easily as market failures can be created. Past history indicates, of course, that the government creates far more numerous, and far more harmful, negative externalities and market failures by employing protectionist policies.

Oh, and I forgot to add that one could support protectionism if one believes autarky to be a good end, but I don't think that anybody would advocate that around here (it being generally a position held only by fierce nationalists or fierce environmentalists).

Glen: "That last post of Bastin's is just too authoritative to argue against."

gOD: "It scares the f*ck out of me but I'm with Bastin here."

Cacni: "Ah, there you go using that absurd ber-memory of your's...not fair."

Boyo: "Even when it comes to rap, Bastin is an authority."

Attila_the_Nun: "A most respected scion of Misty Albion, the illustious Bastin - the redoubtable defender of all our noble traditions."

Humbird: "Bastin is very attractive when talking nautical! "

Last edited by Bastin; October 11th, 2005 at 22:46.
Bastin is offline  
post #14 of 25 (permalink) Old October 11th, 2005, 23:20
Xtratime Legend
 
Join Date: 06 1999
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 22,168
Swush.... reality (and any and all politology or socilogy theory on power) whizzed right by Bastin.. again.

Total output is not the only yard stick, Bastin! Your comment about output being decentralized is absolutely rediculous too - morally suspect even.
And you still haven't provided an example of a 'competitive' free market health care model in the other tread. Because - as with your comments here, you talk of an ideal state utopia that doesn't exist, and never existed.

When there are market imperfections, you cite regulation, taxation, corruption or flawed policy in general as the reason(s). Guess what - even if you WERE right about the economic theory holding up it's end of the bargain, something I'd fiercely resist, the basic human charachter trade 'greed' (for whtever), which you hold to be a virtue, will cause those imperfections because people/companies/politicians/governments are trying to get ahead - because concentrations of power leads to misuse of that power. It was always like that. It will always be like that.

APATHY: A word now fallen into disuse due to a lack of concern for it.

The debute said it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guo5p...eature=related
Glen is offline  
post #15 of 25 (permalink) Old October 12th, 2005, 00:36
World Class Player
World Class Player
 
Bastin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04 2002
Location: Hertfordshire, the UK
Teams: Arsenal, Watford, UK NTs, and dozens more.
Posts: 7,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glen
Swush.... reality (and any and all politology or socilogy theory on power) whizzed right by Bastin.. again.
Geez, get this guy an armchair and an economics book: Smith, Ricardo, Viner, anyone that wrote a word on the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glen
Your comment about output being decentralized is absolutely rediculous too - morally suspect even.
The free market depends on the comparative advantage of its participants. That is to say, everyone can produce something, and everyone is encouraged to produce it. Protectionism depends on the idea that only one country can produce things, that they must produce everything, and provides disincentives for other people to produce things. Which one decentralises the global economy? The one that allows Airbus to sell its planes to the USA, or the one that forces them to build them only for European carriers? The one that allows Africans to sell their food for what it's worth, or the one that forces them to accept half its market value? Protectionists are not just morally suspect. They're corrupted to the core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glen
And you still haven't provided an example of a 'competitive' free market health care model in the other tread. Because - as with your comments here, you talk of an ideal state utopia that doesn't exist.
Geez, get this guy an armchair and a philosophy book; he insists on giving no-one a choice, so Ill prescribe him whatever the fck I want: Hume. That socialism is ubiquitous nowadays does not prove that socialism is beneficial. Is-Ought. The best examples of systems that I prescribe don't exist, but existed. The system in the UK pre-1945 was perfectly adequate, and much better than the current NHS. If you want my final answer on the subject, it is this:

The administrative advantages of using a government-payer and a government-supplier are completely different, and your attempt to confuse the two is quite annoying. The objection was that government-run enterprises were inefficient, not that government-funded enterprises were inefficient. The minor administrative savings accrued by paying from one source do not come close to matching the deficit from running hospitals inefficiently. Put another way, whilst government-funded hospitals could certainly do with being more efficient, Id rather take my chances in a hospital in Strasbourg than in Silkeborg. However, now that that minor error on your part is cleared up, Ill continue on the main issue on healthcare.

The higher taxes required to provide universal healthcare reduce the ability to competitive, and reduce re-investment. One accounts for neither of those by using your simplistic GDP comparison. By reducing taxes, the government increases revenue and decreases expenditure by cutting healthcare spending. It can spend such a massive surplus on other areas of government.

The provision of healthcare by the state also turns the healthcare system into a political toy, with which parties can play to win the votes of people that dont know any better. Giving the government another excuse to add another few pages to the budget may be like giving gun licenses to inner-city kids, but its still not the brightest idea. The recent increase in investment in the NHS of 6% per annum in real terms has netted a 2% per annum improvement of services. Yet, the Great Unwashed are cheering for Blair and Brown as if theyd just won the Superbowl, and performed with Macca and Ringo at half-time.

The provision of universal health care also increases the demand for medicines and treatment that are not required, by reducing the accountability on the part of the patient. See the 1971 RAND experiment. This is borne out in just about every transition in the history of the world: Reduced individual responsibility leads to increases individual demand, even in medicine. Moreover, the necessity of the individual to pay for treatment leads to taking better care of oneself, reducing the number of unhealthy practices and increasing the number of healthy practices.

Whilst the fiscal advantages accrued by forcing low wages on the health workforce are plentiful, they are in no way proof that government-provided healthcare systems are beneficial. As the provision of medicine is usually domestic, the increased expenditure, particularly in the middle class healthcare sector, simply results in further economic growth, as illustrated by Keynes. By comparison, the depression of wages creates staffing shortfalls, which are often filled by recruits from the Third World, killing thousands of poorer foreigners.

And, I guess, that brings us back to protectionism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glen
When there are market imperfections, you cite regulation, taxation, corruption or flawed policy in general as the reason(s).
Not at all. Often, it is the fault of companies and individuals. However, non-market failures are FAR greater than market failures. Your connection of competition to market failures is ridiculous (NB that's how you spell the word), just as Andrija's connection of free trade to market failures was. Why ignore those that suffer because the government introduces externalities? Ah, I remember now: Because the politicos included it in their fcking manifestos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glen
Guess what - even if you WERE right about the economic theory holding up it's end of the bargain, something I'd fiercely resist, the basic human charachter trade 'greed' (for whtever), which you hold to be a virtue, will cause those imperfections because people/companies/politicians/governments are trying to get ahead - because concentrations of power leads to misuse of that power. It was always like that. It will always be like that.
Greed is good, numbnuts. Greed (that is to say, freedom of trade) decentralises power by handing it from the 192 governments around the world to the 6,500,000,000 people that are governed. By comparison, protectionist agricultural policies force 450,000,000 Europeans to do as 25 ministers in Brussels tell them: Buy European sugar. If thats decentralisation of power, Im Eva Braun.

Don't bother me with your socialist healthcare clap-trap again, and don't even think about quoting that part of this post. I have to rush out and buy some home pregnancy kits from a 24-hour pharmacist in about five minutes, and pick up my wife, whos been waiting for a test for two days because the hospital makes her work 23 hours a day. Is that OK with you and Big Brother?

Glen: "That last post of Bastin's is just too authoritative to argue against."

gOD: "It scares the f*ck out of me but I'm with Bastin here."

Cacni: "Ah, there you go using that absurd ber-memory of your's...not fair."

Boyo: "Even when it comes to rap, Bastin is an authority."

Attila_the_Nun: "A most respected scion of Misty Albion, the illustious Bastin - the redoubtable defender of all our noble traditions."

Humbird: "Bastin is very attractive when talking nautical! "
Bastin is offline  
post #16 of 25 (permalink) Old October 12th, 2005, 01:02
International
 
croatian batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11 2003
Location: NYC
Teams: Cro NT, NY Islanders, USA NT, Notre Dame
Posts: 5,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMOROSO!
Rich countries were always taking advantage and cheated poorer ones. Before globalisation is was colonisation and instead of loan negotiators it was army and clergy sent in Africa with pretty much the same purpose.



That is not something negative per se.
First ask China, India and Asia if they were taken advantage of during globalization? They were ready they were prepared and they've reaped the benefits nobody can deny that at all. China a communist country droped their communist economic ideals and adapted free market. Says that the free market must work. Similar situation with india high tarriffs high taxes little development. Over 2 billion people on are the right track 1/3 of the population. Its hard to argue that.




Subsides hurt poorer countries. They artificial take away an advantage away from the poorer countries cheaper production and cheaper labor cost. Farmer subsidies in richer countries only take away jobs from poorer countries. While helping a very small few farmers in the richer countries keep an artificial advantage.

Without being able to sell their products for cheaper a third world farmer is done for.
croatian batman is offline  
post #17 of 25 (permalink) Old October 12th, 2005, 05:02
Legend
Legend
 
Andrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04 2001
Location: Toronto
Teams: Partizan
Posts: 15,157
Quote:
While helping a very small few farmers in the richer countries keep an artificial advantage.
If you're talking about the US, yes...but there are countries with very large agricultural sectors. Doesn't mean they should keep protecting them forever, but it does mean it would be irresponsible to expose them to a huge and sudden shock. Just like a country shouldn't adopt free trade with another one if its economy is not ready to absorb it yet.
Andrix is offline  
post #18 of 25 (permalink) Old October 12th, 2005, 09:12
Star Player
 
Alarich's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07 2001
Location: Perth, Australia
Teams: Hong Kong, Japan, Celtic
Posts: 3,277
globalization decreases a country's diversity in its economy, i mean if the world were to operate as a giant economy, with each country specifying in a particular industry, how screw would we be if say all the worlds poultry products came from Asia, i mean if they had a mass outbreak of this bird flu stuff & mass culling we implemented, all of a sudden poultry products would be in short supply & prices would sky rocket

The Christmas Holidays
"Money is tight, times are hard, here's your @#$/& Christmas card!!!"

"The holidays are a great time to be with family. Of course, your family
won't be with you, since I'm taking the kids and moving in with my sister,
you cheating bastard!!!"
Alarich is offline  
post #19 of 25 (permalink) Old October 12th, 2005, 10:49
Xtratime Legend
 
Join Date: 06 1999
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 22,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastin
The free market depends on the comparative advantage of its participants. That is to say, everyone can produce something, and everyone is encouraged to produce it. Protectionism depends on the idea that only one country can produce things, that they must produce everything, and provides disincentives for other people to produce things. Which one decentralises the global economy?
Free market of course. But you're talking macro terms, like you're always talking total output. This topic was started with a post on whether rich countries exploit the poor ones, and if we were to look at the developing economies that has had the most of their protectionist legislation removed, then your argument that free market decentralizes production (and ultimately wealth) is just off in every sense in the real world. Not because of 'free trade', but because there's an absence of free trade the other way, and the host economy is not capable of competing. Thus the principle of free trade could be all good on most areas, but in reality it's daylight robbery in most developing countries. Yet you still advocate it as a principle, knowing full well that the theory won't work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastin
The one that allows Airbus to sell its planes to the USA, or the one that forces them to build them only for European carriers? The one that allows Africans to sell their food for what it's worth, or the one that forces them to accept half its market value? Protectionists are not just morally suspect. They're corrupted to the core.
It will be a very weird day when the two of us disagree on agricultural subsidies. But that is not the point. You're talking protectionism. I'm talking about regulation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastin
Geez, get this guy an armchair and a philosophy book; he insists on giving no-one a choice, so Ill prescribe him whatever the fck I want: Hume. That socialism is ubiquitous nowadays does not prove that socialism is beneficial. Is-Ought. The best examples of systems that I prescribe don't exist, but existed. The system in the UK pre-1945 was perfectly adequate, and much better than the current NHS. If you want my final answer on the subject, it is this:
National health care in the UK pre-1945 was perfectly adequate? What a complete load of rubbish! I suppose you wear your whig with pride.
As for no-choice. Of course you can argue from every ideological point of view you want. But your argumentation makes no more sense, has no more of a real world basis and is every bit as far fetched and speculative, as those who argue that Marx' communist utopia would still be a great thing in principle. All it takes is for human beings to be completely different than they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastin
The administrative advantages of using a government-payer and a government-supplier are completely different, and your attempt to confuse the two is quite annoying. The objection was that government-run enterprises were inefficient, not that government-funded enterprises were inefficient.
You might be surprised to know that I fully agree with you on much of the above. But I don't when it comes to health care, because the market (private hospitals) does not want to provide when it's a losing operation (and aren't required to), and with many patients it always will be. Then there's the issue of 'care' being difficult to put into an economic context. Whereas there are loads of examples where the private sector has taken over government industries yielding better results in many different sectors, as regards hospitals there are none. At least I don't know of any, and you apparently cannot cite one either. This doesn't mean that private hospitals are not a good thing to have also. If you can afford the additional costs it doesn't bring down the services for those who have to rely on the single payer system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastin
The minor administrative savings accrued by paying from one source do not come close to matching the deficit from running hospitals inefficiently. Put another way, whilst government-funded hospitals could certainly do with being more efficient, Id rather take my chances in a hospital in Strasbourg than in Silkeborg. However, now that that minor error on your part is cleared up, Ill continue on the main issue on healthcare.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean with the above Silkeborg-Strasbourg example. Minor provincial hospitals need capabilities in treating the basic diseases, injuries. If you need specialist treatment on third degree burns, very complicated and delicate surgery etc. you're sent to the specialist clinics. Rationalisation is not impossible within a government system... again government is only bad in the absence of good (well... really good) governance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastin
The higher taxes required to provide universal healthcare reduce the ability to competitive, and reduce re-investment. One accounts for neither of those by using your simplistic GDP comparison. By reducing taxes, the government increases revenue and decreases expenditure by cutting healthcare spending. It can spend such a massive surplus on other areas of government.
Take away universal healthcare. Take away the proportion of tax-money that finances it. Make it all a private operation. That leaves nothing to spend on other areas of government. In any case that's not your point eitherr, as you believe the extra economic activity that would follow from less taxation woul make everybody richer and thus better equipped to finance the medicare they need, no?
The GDP example is simplistic, but quite obviously it is a strong indication if the single payer systems are much cheaper and at the same time is able to help all of it's people compared to systems that leaves 15% unaccounted for. Again - I am not adverse to leave to the market what the market does better. I just find it imbecilic to suggest that the market does everything better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastin
The provision of healthcare by the state also turns the healthcare system into a political toy, with which parties can play to win the votes of people that dont know any better.

Same with the police, the roads and infrastructure in general. Let's privatize the police. And no - it's not different. All it needs is that the courts grant whoever wants to operate in the police business the authority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastin
Giving the government another excuse to add another few pages to the budget may be like giving gun licenses to inner-city kids, but its still not the brightest idea. The recent increase in investment in the NHS of 6% per annum in real terms has netted a 2% per annum improvement of services. Yet, the Great Unwashed are cheering for Blair and Brown as if theyd just won the Superbowl, and performed with Macca and Ringo at half-time.
I'd be interested in hearing how you actually estimate a 2% improvement. Health care is not only about getting people in or out of hospitals or waiting rooms. It's also about making them feel better. Again - it's not just simple output.
Much health (psychological treatment for instance) care would be unprofitable from a company's point of view (for the many peeople who cannot pay 100 an hour at a private clinic), but is beneficial to society in terms of productivity in the long term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastin
The provision of universal health care also increases the demand for medicines and treatment that are not required, by reducing the accountability on the part of the patient. See the 1971 RAND experiment. This is borne out in just about every transition in the history of the world: Reduced individual responsibility leads to increases individual demand, even in medicine. Moreover, the necessity of the individual to pay for treatment leads to taking better care of oneself, reducing the number of unhealthy practices and increasing the number of healthy practices.
Yeah... and the US insurance system (for instance) really is making people take great care of themselves and their bodies isn't it?
No abuse, obesity, malnutrition etc. there. Come on!
Btw. I do not argue that there's no truth in the first part of your statement above. I just find that the disadvantages to the single payer system that lies herein, are readily offset by other factors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastin
Whilst the fiscal advantages accrued by forcing low wages on the health workforce are plentiful, they are in no way proof that government-provided healthcare systems are beneficial. As the provision of medicine is usually domestic, the increased expenditure, particularly in the middle class healthcare sector, simply results in further economic growth, as illustrated by Keynes. By comparison, the depression of wages creates staffing shortfalls, which are often filled by recruits from the Third World, killing thousands of poorer foreigners.
The above I need to have explained in greater detail, because reading it now I think you must be entirely out of your mind, and I give you more credit than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastin
Not at all. Often, it is the fault of companies and individuals. However, non-market failures are FAR greater than market failures. Your connection of competition to market failures is ridiculous, just as Andrija's connection of free trade to market failures was. Why ignore those that suffer because the government introduces externalities? Ah, I remember now: Because the politicos included it in their fcking manifestos.
My connection was made in terms of health care - where I'm backed by the stats from the real world, and you are by persons putting imaginary numbers on paper, hypothesizing how it could all be great if only...
Doesn't mean that I disagree that non-market failures are greater than market failures as such.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastin
Greed is good, numbnuts. Greed (that is to say, freedom of trade) decentralises power by handing it from the 192 governments around the world to the 6,500,000,000 people that are governed. By comparison, protectionist agricultural policies force 450,000,000 Europeans to do as 25 ministers in Brussels tell them: Buy European sugar. If thats decentralisation of power, Im Eva Braun.
Talk about twisting someones point. "The Economic Hitman" imposed a 'free market' to guarantee that it wouldn't be free and that US corporations would profit. That's just another kind of protectionism. Major multinational corporations are de facto monopolies/oligarchies and with transfer pricing and all have long since left 'free competition' in the gutter. So - whenever you advocate a free market, I will point out some of the conflicting evidence to it being such a big hooray.
That has nothing to do with me being a proponent of agricultural subsidies.
Either way - the difference between us is that you encourage policies and price settings where the rich get richer, and the poorest get even more desperately poor - if only there's economic growth, because then everyone MUST be richer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastin
Don't bother me with your socialist healthcare clap-trap again, and don't even think about quoting that part of this post. I have to rush out and buy some home pregnancy kits from a 24-hour pharmacist in about five minutes, and pick up my wife, whos been waiting for a test for two days because the hospital makes her work 23 hours a day. Is that OK with you and Big Brother?
Perhaps I can then be the first to congratulate you on the seemingly imminent family increase ? Really, congrats.

But as for 'socialist healthcare trap' I'll bother you as much as I like, when you argue how systems like the Scandinavian ones for instance are non-competitive, because even if they could always perform better, I will always find such an argument silly when few if any are doing better in terms of quality and cost/benefit concerns. It's then your own decision whether you want to answer or not. Ta.

APATHY: A word now fallen into disuse due to a lack of concern for it.

The debute said it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guo5p...eature=related

Last edited by Glen; October 12th, 2005 at 11:34.
Glen is offline  
post #20 of 25 (permalink) Old October 12th, 2005, 14:06
BANNED!
Star Player
 
Makaveli's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08 2004
Location: Hidin in Cuba
Teams: Crazy bout Parma, Barcelona
Posts: 2,825
Do a bear do a shit in the woods?

Yes the poor countries get raped in globalisation, and free market only benifets the rich and greedy, I dont think you and I have a chance in hell in bidding for these type of contracts, or being part of this game.

About loans, this is the usual scenario:

Dictator asks for loans

He gets loan

He puts it in a bank in Switzerland

Or buys weapons

The country is stuck with the debt for a long time

If someone tries to do something about it, the weapons are used on him.

End of a wonderful cycle
Makaveli is offline  
 

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Xtratime Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive. Try to avoid choosing short (like '1'), simple (like 'abcd') and easy to guess passwords (like a name of your favorite team, player, etc)! Complex and long enough passwords, that consists of random string of alphabet and numerical characters, are almost impossible to be stolen and misused.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome