World Politics

[Spare Tyre]

Just a few questions then... Which countries are smart countries? I can't really argue against many of your points because there are a lot of hypotheticals used in your argument. With the maths test argument, maths is black and white. You are either right or wrong. Whn you look at an issue like abortion there are many shades of grey in between black and white.

Please remember that I said generally.

It seems you have missed the point .

I was responding to your claim that if 60% of the people adopt a particular position it is likely to be right.

It doesn't matter whether it's maths or something more complex and multi-faceted ... just because 60% of people think similarly doesn't make them right. They might just be similarly ill-informed.

 

[auscyclefan94]

It seems you have missed the point .

I was responding to your claim that if 60% of the people adopt a particular position it is likely to be right.

It doesn't matter whether it's maths or something more complex and multi-faceted ... just because 60% of people think similarly doesn't make them right. They might just be similarly ill-informed.

Likely: Possessing or displaying the qualities or characteristics that make something probable

 

[The Hitch]

Make a concrete argument to say that I am wrong?

This is how it started.

btw rhubroma, generally when most people have a similar opinion of something it is right. That is pure logic.

ergo. This house believes that "when most people have a similar opinion of something it is right"

My arguments which you overlooked (just like on previous occasions)


1 Opinion of the majority can not be a deciding factor in whether something is right or not because peoples opinions are directly linked to their own interest. The political opinion of the farmers on many issues by nature different to that of the workers.

2 Historically the idea that majority are right is a joke. People believed the jews were responsible for the disease, the sacrifices were linked to the weather, that animals felt no pain etc etc. Why would now be any different. 200 years from now the zeitgeist will likely change.

3 It is not pure logic because logic is a term which belongs in science subjects. Maths, biology, physics were calculations can find correct answers and study the unchangeable laws of our universe. It is not a term which can be used in humanities like law politics history literature philosophy theology etc. In these subjects we have theories and opinions, but there is no logic, there is no right answer.

4
In this debate i am the speaker against the proposition. You are the speaker for the proposition. Hence it is up to you to actually make an argument for your side. If you do not the opposition wins by default. You have not done this . You have just said that the majority are usually right full stop.

We may as well not have elections for parliament anymore because of what your saying because majority is generally not right.

1 Yes we do otherwise we get a worse system of government.

2 No i am not saying that (see my post)

3 The fact that the majority are right is not the basis for democracy.

 

[Spare Tyre]

Likely: Possessing or displaying the qualities or characteristics that make something probable

Odds (likelihood) have nothing to do with it either.

Several people have put forward quite reasonable challenges to your position but you seem determined not to take them on board.

Here's another approach, (from Wikipedia's entry on "group think"):

"Groupthink is a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas."

"Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness".

"During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking".

 

[rhubroma]

I normally would avoid any forum titled 'politics' like the plague - especially on a cycling forum??? But its a slow week in the lead up to Christmas, so.

Gee rhuborma, patronising much? The beauty of the English language is that it allows self-righteous pseudo intellectuals to out themselves through preposterous use of 'non-words' in their "intellectual" arguments. What, did you actually swallow that first year liberal arts text? Is Rik from The Young Ones your role model?

Whilst I won't go on to pick too many holes in your diatribe, I might just point out that a LARGE part of the social benefits that many European nations have enjoyed for the last 50 years have been paid for by their exploitation of both human and natural resources of 'conquered' nations from their respective colonial histories. Do you seriously think the peoples of Africa, India, Asia enjoyed the benefits that their colonial masters did?

That these '3rd World' nations have thrown off the shackles of their past and no longer are burdened with funding the lifestyles of their colonial masters is something you need to get used to. Not to mention that the 1st world lifestyle you enjoy (whether you think you're poor on not - Im sure you earn more than the vast majority of the world) has been at the expense of the environment and now Europe is trying to impose pseudo trade barriers onto emerging economies through carbon emissions policy, effectively telling 2bn Chinese it was ok for us to destroy the environment so that we can enjoy cars, and housing, and flat screen televisions - but you can continue to live on a dollar a day. China is right in pointing out the hypocrisy of Europe as it seeks to maintain its fading place in the world through the continued suppression of "lesser" nations.

But no, your right, Asian and Indian children should continue to exist on a bowl of rice and your pity so that you can enjoy a cheap education. You've turned me, bring back environmental and 3rd world exploitation so that the great European nations of the past can continue to live beyond their means on the sweat and resources of other nations rather than facing the reality that the rest of the world already has.

China is the future, and Asian nations will rightly refuse to bow-down to your first world preachings whilst their people fight to enjoy one-tenth of the lifestyle you already enjoy.



And since you like to add a few "facts" to try and make your argument appear reasoned, you should at least try and get them right. Australia has never applied "Regan" economics, and the vast majority of "Thatcherite" policy was also avoided (the exception being the privatisation of some non-core government services - and the payoff in improved productivity has more than compensated).

1.) No Marx, Pasolini and Gramsci.

2.) I'm well aware of the injustices and evils of neocolonialism, though this has nothing to do with a theory of a social democratic State, nor the missmanagement and squandering of the tax payers kitty.

PS. No system is full-proof, though there are ones with at least a modicum of ethical consideration. Between a social democracy and neoliberal capitalist State, the former, in this regard, wins hands down.

3.) Oh really? Australia has been so self-sufficient and auto-determinant as to avoid the penetration of the effects of the deregulaized financial markets and individualist (as opposed to collectivist) ideology upon its political and economic praxis??? Wow! Do enlighten me, because your land is truly from another planet. But, then again, you Aussies love to be viewed as a separate, and rather self-rightious, entity now don't you...

PS: You're right, though, about the Asian market being your State's destiny. You talk about it in terms of Austrasia...right?

 

[Ferminal]

Mainstream Australians, in general, place absolutely no value on intellectual achievement or academic specialization. We worship footballers and cricketers and life outdoors and in recent times, shopping, instead. We would never react with shock and great sadness to the death of a philospher. In many areas of life the mainstream is ill-informed and easily led because most of us have no critical thinking skills and/or have never bothered to explore (read up on) the relevant issues independently, or by exploring non-mainstream books, journal articles and other media.

Very well said.

 

[PCutter]

1.) No Marx, Pasolini and Gramsci.

2.) I'm well aware of the injustices and evils of neocolonialism, though this has nothing to do with a theory of a social democratic State, nor the missmanagement and squandering of the tax payers kitty.

PS. No system is full-proof, though there are ones with at least a modicum of ethical consideration. Between a social democracy and neoliberal capitalist State, the former, in this regard, wins hands down.

3.) Oh really? Australia has been so self-sufficient and auto-determinant as to avoid the penetration of the effects of the deregulaized financial markets and individualist (as opposed to collectivist) ideology upon its political and economic praxis??? Wow! Do enlighten me, because your land is truly from another planet. But, then again, you Aussies love to be viewed as a separate, and rather self-rightious, entity now don't you...

PS: You're right, though, about the Asian market being your State's destiny. You talk about it in terms of Austrasia...right?

1) Pointing out that you a fan of Marx is probably redundant
2) My point is, and I thought it clear, that you are able to enjoy your social democratic state because of the decades and centuries of profits European governments have garnered from the exploitation of their colonial conquests
3) No, we simply adapted to the new game. We took the pain of adapting to free markets when times were good rather than waiting for it to be forced on us. But no, you shouldn't have to sacrifice anything, never mind that Europe were at the front of putting the pain on Asia during the Asian currency crisis a decade ago. I guess the pain should only be paid by emerging economies, far away from you while you get to enjoy your intellectual discussions about the inevitability of a populist marxist revolution over a coffee and a *** at the university bar.

I probably shouldn't bother to point out the irony of some Marxist student describing someone else as "self righteous"

PS. The Asian market is ALL our destiny. And I have no problem thinking in terms of Australasian, its half my heritage after all.

 

[oldborn]

Democracy has NOTHING to do with getting everything right.

Have you never heard Churchills line "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others".

It is a horrible system of government that leads to lots of misery, but its by far and away the best we have got.

Democracy exists to limit mistakes, limit terror, try to advance mankind, and NOT to get everything right. It exists to prevent tyrany of the minority, autocracy, and things that have been very bad for mankind.

Mein Kampf Volume 2, chapter IV: " There are no decisions made by the majority vote, but only by responsible persons. And the word 'council' is once more restored to its original meaning. Every man in a position of responsibility will have councillors at his side, but the decision is made by that individual person alone."

"Parliaments as such are necessary because they alone furnish the opportunity for leaders to rise gradually who will be entrusted subsequently with positions of special responsibility."

Mein Kampf Volume 2, chapter I: " When the election day is over and the parliamentarians have held their last public meeting for the next five years, when they can leave their job of getting the populace to toe the line and can now devote themselves to higher and more pleasing tasks – then the programme committee is dissolved and the struggle for the progressive reorganization of public affairs becomes once again a business of earning one's daily bread, which for the parliamentarians means merely the attendance that is required in order to be able to draw their daily remunerations. Morning after morning the honourable deputy wends his way to the House, and though he may not enter the Chamber itself he gets at least as far as the front hall, where he will find the register on which the names of the deputies in attendance have to be inscribed. As a part of his onerous service to his constituents he enters his name, and in return receives a small indemnity as a well-earned reward for his unceasing and exhausting labours"

"When four years have passed, or in the meantime if there should be some critical weeks during which the parliamentary corporations have to face the danger of being dissolved, these honourable gentlemen become suddenly seized by an irresistible desire to act"

"For these people change their convictions just as the soldier changes his shirt in war – when the old one is bug-eaten"

Well i must agree with some parts of that cheap book.

 

[rhubroma]

1) Pointing out that you a fan of Marx is probably redundant
2) My point is, and I thought it clear, that you are able to enjoy your social democratic state because of the decades and centuries of profits European governments have garnered from the exploitation of their colonial conquests
3) No, we simply adapted to the new game. We took the pain of adapting to free markets when times were good rather than waiting for it to be forced on us. But no, you shouldn't have to sacrifice anything, never mind that Europe were at the front of putting the pain on Asia during the Asian currency crisis a decade ago. I guess the pain should only be paid by emerging economies, far away from you while you get to enjoy your intellectual discussions about the inevitability of a populist marxist revolution over a coffee and a *** at the university bar.

I probably shouldn't bother to point out the irony of some Marxist student describing someone else as "self righteous"

PS. The Asian market is ALL our destiny. And I have no problem thinking in terms of Australasian, its half my heritage after all.

1.) And to pseudo-intellectual I would also add the word prostitute. As far as being self-rightous is concerned. Nahhh, that's just how I react to the moralists. You see, I'm aware enough of the skeletons in my own closet, to be causious when denouncing those of others with dismissive terms like "animals". And I'm certainly not shocked by them. While I always try to maintain a sense of irony. The history of civilization is one of unbridled violence, intolerance and injustice, masked by nationalist and patriotic myths of a distorting persuasion. Consequently I try to take the objective route.

2.) That Europe benefited from its crimes in Africa and South Asia is undeniable, though this could be said of the entire so called developed world, just as it is without doubt that every colonial founded State from the US to Australia has some of the worst crimes of history hanging over their consciences with regard to the native populations. But I was talking about social and political theory, not convenient sophisms on how wealth itself has been generated in the modern world to detract form another issue. That issue is entirely another story.

PS. No system is full-proof, though there are ones with at least a modicum of ethical consideration. Between a social democracy and neoliberal capitalist State, the former, in this regard, wins hands down.

3.) Everybody "adapted" to the new game which was not foisted upon a bunch innocent lambs, but readily accepted by an over greedy pen of pigs (in the Orwellian "Animal Farm" dystopian allegorical sense) and, precisely for this reason, the world is in such a ghastly state of total chaos. "Total chaos" underlined. The most beautiful regions have fallen victim to the greed and power lust of the new barbarians. Wherever there is a beautiful tree it is cut down, wherever there is a fine house it is demolished, wherever a delightful brook runs down the hillsisde it is ruined. And all in the name of business, with the most appalling hypocrisy one can imagine. Anything even remotely connected with culture is suspect, called into question and obliterated. The obliterators are at work--the killers. We're up against obliterators and killers, who go about their murderous business everywhere, sitting on their fat arses in thousands and hundreds of thousands of office buildings throughout every corner of the globe thinking of nothing but obliterating everything from the Siberian tundra to the Bosphoros, from the tropical rain forests to the Indian Punjab, from the Redwood Forest to the Appennine highlands, to say nothing of all those fine cities in Europe, that were once among the most beautiful in the world and now have been obliterated. One eyesore succeeds another, one monstrosity after another forces itself on our eyes.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Odds (likelihood) have nothing to do with it either.

Several people have put forward quite reasonable challenges to your position but you seem determined not to take them on board.

Here's another approach, (from Wikipedia's entry on "group think"):

"Groupthink is a type of thought within a deeply cohesive in-group whose members try to minimize conflict and reach consensus without critically testing, analyzing, and evaluating ideas."

"Individual creativity, uniqueness, and independent thinking are lost in the pursuit of group cohesiveness".

"During groupthink, members of the group avoid promoting viewpoints outside the comfort zone of consensus thinking".

So your saying that I am causing conflict and am not willing to take on another POV?

This is how it started.



ergo. This house believes that "when most people have a similar opinion of something it is right"

My arguments which you overlooked (just like on previous occasions)


1 Opinion of the majority can not be a deciding factor in whether something is right or not because peoples opinions are directly linked to their own interest. The political opinion of the farmers on many issues by nature different to that of the workers.

2 Historically the idea that majority are right is a joke. People believed the jews were responsible for the disease, the sacrifices were linked to the weather, that animals felt no pain etc etc. Why would now be any different. 200 years from now the zeitgeist will likely change.

3 It is not pure logic because logic is a term which belongs in science subjects. Maths, biology, physics were calculations can find correct answers and study the unchangeable laws of our universe. It is not a term which can be used in humanities like law politics history literature philosophy theology etc. In these subjects we have theories and opinions, but there is no logic, there is no right answer.

4
In this debate i am the speaker against the proposition. You are the speaker for the proposition. Hence it is up to you to actually make an argument for your side. If you do not the opposition wins by default. You have not done this . You have just said that the majority are usually right full stop.

1/ Majority who are involved in this debate think that I am wrong about the issue that "majority is generally right". I guess that MUST MEAN that I am wrong even though I am in the very small minority.



2/3. The reason people thought Jews were disease was because they knew no better. If they knew better and there was a scientific study out there that said otherwise then obviously the majority would say that Jews are clearly not diseased. It is different now because science is far more progressed and people's attitudes are not so influenced by propaganda and advertising. I do think it is pure logic. Rhubroma said that I am someone who follows just what the majority thinks. I don't think that but logic and "common sense" are involved in other things than science. Science is also not nessercarily logical as if it was then we would be able to explain every single thing that exists which is clearly not the case.

4. If you are speaking for the negative side of the argument then the onus is on you to prove that the topic of the debate is false were myself being on the affirmative side of the debate is to prove that the topic statement is true. Both sides need to come up with arguments and I hardly think you have done that either.

 

[Spare Tyre]

@PCutter, doesn't it seem to you that the "rise" of India and China is still an enrichment and exploitation of the developing nations/third world by the West? I don't see any shackles being thrown off. We outsource appalling working conditions and pay and pollution problems that we would never accept for ourselves in order to buy cheap consumer items made by overworked and underpaid people we will never meet and feel no responsibility towards.

There may be an increasing middle class (good thing) and increasing standard of living (good thing) but what happens over time? Presumably the "rise" of India and China and their increasing middle classes means that labor will no longer continue to be dirt cheap. Or will the gross inequities you mention just take place "in house" in the future? What happens in Asia if we can't afford to buy the goods? What takes the place of Western consumers? Will Indians and Chinese simply have to sell to their own markets? Will these markets be large enough to sustain themselves? How would the planet cope with a billion more people who want to buy vast quantities of consumer-crap?

Frankly I still don't understand how globalism and supposedly free markets are supposed to keep on working for the benefit of all into the future (even for the benefit of all Asians). Could you please explain it to me? (This is a serious question; no one has ever been able to explain to me how it is a sustainable situation.)

BTW, I disagree with your perception of Australia's economic policy in recent times. It sounds like you have been reading neo-liberalist promotional literature and have been very taken by the phrase "rise in productivity".

@Rhubroma, I think Australia is lagging a bit re the generational shift. We're just now close to a tipping point. My bet is that the decline in living standards will become increasingly apparent in the next decade. The actual disaffection is probably some way down the track. We still tend to think, however, that the fact we have as yet been relatively untroubled by the problems besetting the Western world is because we're exceptional in some way. One economist calls it "koala" economics: it's not going to happen to us because we have got koalas.

 

[Spare Tyre]

So your saying that I am causing conflict and am not willing to take on another POV?

No. I included the stuff about groupthink to show you yet another way in which a majority opinion might exist and still be wrong. Consensus views are often erroneous because the value is seen as being in the majority opinion, rather than in the process of interrogating the validity of those opinions and arriving at a more accurate understanding of an issue.

I do think you're deeply uncomfortable with views from outside the conservative mainstream Australian "consensus".

And I think you are somehow resistant to a lot of very reasonable argument on this issue of the value of majority opinion. Maybe it is a bit too abstract for you and thus difficult for you to understand. Otherwise you might be just stubbornly sticking to your own position and not truly considering the merit of the arguments put to you. I can't tell.

 

[The Hitch]

ACF. Wtf are you talking about

You seem to be just writing mindless sentences and claiming you are arguing for something.

For example i wrote this

1 Opinion of the majority can not be a deciding factor in whether something is right or not because peoples opinions are directly linked to their own interest. The political opinion of the farmers on many issues by nature different to that of the workers.

And your responce was this.

1/ Majority who are involved in this debate think that I am wrong about the issue that "majority is generally right". I guess that MUST MEAN that I am wrong even though I am in the very small minority.

WTF

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point i made. You just write anything then put the number 1 in front of it to make it look like you are actually saying something. The sentnece doesnt even make any sence either.

Finally when you start, its not too great im afraid.

The reason people thought Jews were disease was because they knew no better. If they knew better and there was a scientific study out there that said otherwise then obviously the majority would say that Jews are clearly not diseased. It is different now because science is far more progressed and people's attitudes are not so influenced by propaganda and advertising

So your conceding you were wrong.

Your statement was
"generally when most people have a similar opinion of something it is right. That is pure logic".

Now thats become
"very rarely when most people have a similar opinion something is right".

You do realise that the majority of the world is still underdeveloped, uneducated prone to supersticion, knows nothing of science.

And please be more specific. How much of the population needs to be educated for your little rule to work? 10%? 50%? 70%? 75? 90?. Considering you have just said that the rule only works when people are educated to a point, i think you need to be more specific.

Oh and you havent responded to one of my points. Please dont ignore it. 70% of Americans are Christians. 80% of Indians are Hindu. Who is right? A majority of people in the UK think the EU is a disaster.A majority of people in Germany support it. Who is right?

As for propaganda not influencing peoples attitudes, what planet do you live on?

4. If you are speaking for the negative side of the argument then the onus is on you to prove that the topic of the debate is false were myself being on the affirmative side of the debate is to prove that the topic statement is true.

No. If you make a stupid statement like "the majority is generally right" then it is up to you to back up that statement. When i start a discussion by saying that "the majority is generally wrong" then it will be up to me to back that up.

What you are doing is the equivalent of saying "i think there are aliens on earth" and telling me i have to disprove that statement.

Both sides need to come up with arguments and I hardly think you have done that either

Stupid comment. If i havent come up with any arguments, then what were the 4 points you were responding to

 

[auscyclefan94]

To some extent I admit I am wrong. For some arguments the "majority rule" does not apply. Personally in other arguments the majority rule is generally right. I think we should try to get back on topic as this is politics therad. My bad for taking it off topic.

 

[The Hitch]

To some extent I admit I am wrong. For some arguments the "majority rule" does not apply. Personally in other arguments the majority rule is generally right. I think we should try to get back on topic as this is politics therad. My bad for taking it off topic.

No. its all right. I thinki this covers general politics. Not your bad at all. A good discussion.

But i wont let you get away with such a half assed attempt to get out

You want out, admit you were 100% wrong

 

[rhubroma]

@PCutter, doesn't it seem to you that the "rise" of India and China is still an enrichment and exploitation of the developing nations/third world by the West? I don't see any shackles being thrown off. We outsource appalling working conditions and pay and pollution problems that we would never accept for ourselves in order to buy cheap consumer items made by overworked and underpaid people we will never meet and feel no responsibility towards.

There may be an increasing middle class (good thing) and increasing standard of living (good thing) but what happens over time? Presumably the "rise" of India and China and their increasing middle classes means that labor will no longer continue to be dirt cheap. Or will the gross inequities you mention just take place "in house" in the future? What happens in Asia if we can't afford to buy the goods? What takes the place of Western consumers? Will Indians and Chinese simply have to sell to their own markets? Will these markets be large enough to sustain themselves? How would the planet cope with a billion more people who want to buy vast quantities of consumer-crap?

Frankly I still don't understand how globalism and supposedly free markets are supposed to keep on working for the benefit of all into the future (even for the benefit of all Asians). Could you please explain it to me? (This is a serious question; no one has ever been able to explain to me how it is a sustainable situation.)

BTW, I disagree with your perception of Australia's economic policy in recent times. It sounds like you have been reading neo-liberalist promotional literature and have been very taken by the phrase "rise in productivity".

@Rhubroma, I think Australia is lagging a bit re the generational shift. We're just now close to a tipping point. My bet is that the decline in living standards will become increasingly apparent in the next decade. The actual disaffection is probably some way down the track. We still tend to think, however, that the fact we have as yet been relatively untroubled by the problems besetting the Western world is because we're exceptional in some way. One economist calls it "koala" economics: it's not going to happen to us because we have got koalas.

Koalas economics, in any case, sounds better then the other catch-terms.

No, you raise the important question and this has to do with the insaneness of our goal and faith in "eternal growth" within the globalized markets. As if we're merely destined to a mad, precipitous rush toward producing, in ever larger quantities, all the base and useless things that flood the markets made by us simply, and for no other reason than, to be consumed, because we've become shackled to consumption.

There's an Italian sociologist, Carlo Petrini, also the founder of Slow Food, who makes some interesting theories about returning to more sustainable regional markets. Instead of the global ones we actually have that have become the praxis of production and circulation of goods.

No solution is facile, and probably it will take some major global conflicts before the current modus operandi is viewed as less tolerable and less as an asset to the peacful and prosperous coexistance between states.

But all things seem to indicate that the times are ripe for something of a jaring nature to hit society in the not too distant future.

 

[Cobblestones]

Well, Africa's still a basket case granted, but India and China have the fastest growing middle classes in the world, so no, the improvement in the lives of these countries isn't limited to a few. Nor could it be possible to go from third world to fully developed in a single decade. As someone who's worked and lived in Asia over the past 10 years I can assure you, the improvement in the standard of living over this time has been amazing - and that improvement has trickled down to vast numbers of people, not just the elite. So yes, I can assure you a lot more of the 'surplus value' flows the people than when it was simply shipped back to the motherland.

I'm not saying that nothing of the surplus value stays in the hands of labor.

Think about it this way: why are businesses outsourcing to China and India? It's probably not out of goodness of their heart or to raise a new middle class there. It's because of shareholders value, i.e., to be able to squeeze out more surplus value out of worse labor conditions and lower environmental standards than what they would encounter in other parts of the world. China for instance does not allow independent workers unions.

Yes, for some people it will be better than imperialism and colonialism was, but that's a really low standard to compare to. If that's your measure of success you're not aiming very high.

 

[Cobblestones]

BTW, I disagree with your perception of Australia's economic policy in recent times. It sounds like you have been reading neo-liberalist promotional literature and have been very taken by the phrase "rise in productivity".

Raise in productivity has become another problem for modern society.

The enormous raise in productivity in agriculture and industry over the last centuries has shifted most of the labor force over to other, often more sophisticated jobs. However, there comes a point when there simply won't be any more need for more service jobs, more administrative jobs and other similar types of occupations (also productivity in these areas rises).

New industries such as biotech and green energy simply cannot take up the slack. Labor and wages become concentrated into fewer and fewer hands which will have to support a larger and larger number of dependents.

 

[rhubroma]

Well, Africa's still a basket case granted, but India and China have the fastest growing middle classes in the world, so no, the improvement in the lives of these countries isn't limited to a few. Nor could it be possible to go from third world to fully developed in a single decade. As someone who's worked and lived in Asia over the past 10 years I can assure you, the improvement in the standard of living over this time has been amazing - and that improvement has trickled down to vast numbers of people, not just the elite. So yes, I can assure you a lot more of the 'surplus value' flows the people than when it was simply shipped back to the motherland.

I am familiar with Africa. It seems to me that before the advent of colonialism and the intrusion of Western economic systems, the Africans were far better off than now. I think of the Masai tribesman, who still live according to their traditions and in nature and they seem to me to be much better off than the villiage and city dwellers of post-colonial times.

As far as India and China are concerned, while the short-term benefits of expanded material wealth of some (even many) have occured in these regions, it has hardly benefited most in those societies. Whereas as the expansion of globalization continues "Western liberal values" can hardly be considered to be the most healthy diet for them, and us, if it means even more intense competition for resources and labor costs.

And what does it say at all, in terms of how the free-market has made a "positive" impact on India and China, when these nations have gone practically from an oppressive and exploitative form of colonialism in the former and in both cases a medieval class-based setup to the modern world practically overnight? I mean just the inertia of history would seem more striking and noteworthy than in the West that has experienced an Early Modern, Enlightenment, Industrial and Post-Industrial, and thus so-called progress. The point is that the effects of such a radical treatment in these zones, and mostly for the benefit of our multi-nationals, have been sensational not because virtuous, but because totally revolutionary within an antiquated environment. While it's undeniable that these regions have some of the worst labor and human rights issues on the planet, though, in no way does that stop the West from doing business there. To the contrary...

The triumphalist rhetoric of your analysis paints a portrait, therefore, that is invisible to me.

 

[oldborn]

Could you Anglo-Saxon, North-American, Aussie, Kiwi folks here explain me couple of things.
I read a lot of crying about mistakes what yours goverments had done to certain people, (WW2, American Indians, Aboriginal, Mauri, Black people, Armstrong etc...) so is that you have learned in schools like kids, is it mainstream politic now, or there is some people who is not very friendly with that, or just cyclist has something to do with it.

I met some American who proudly said that he has 1/14 Indian blood in his veins, so wtf i said. It is very popular this days i mean, but before some 50 years ago you did not let those people had a front seat in public buses.

Apologise i should said Native American or Afro-American, which led us to hipocracy i think.

It could be very tricky example Germans if only say something about Jews. Angela Merkel said that Multikulti should change. For how long you gonna apologize, and how those people react. I mean on long terms it can be good, but it can be following by some major issues.

So what you have to say about it, in short why you have a obligation to apologize as individuals.

 

[PCutter]

Frankly I still don't understand how globalism and supposedly free markets are supposed to keep on working for the benefit of all into the future (even for the benefit of all Asians). Could you please explain it to me? (This is a serious question; no one has ever been able to explain to me how it is a sustainable situation.)

BTW, I disagree with your perception of Australia's economic policy in recent times. It sounds like you have been reading neo-liberalist promotional literature and have been very taken by the phrase "rise in productivity".

I will start with pointing out that Rhubroma and I come form this argument form fundamentally different viewpoints - obviously. He subscribes to the Marxist doctrine, and more specifically, views himself as the proletariat to his external oppressors the bourgeoisie. My point has been that he, as a result of the life that he enjoys - regardless of how hard he sees his life, is, on a global scale, part of the European bourgeoisie to the global proletariat, the workers of the emerging markets who build the things that all of us in the western world use to make out life more comfortable, from cheap electrical goods and clothing, to housing products. While the true proletariat live in conditions so foreign to us that, as far as Im concerned, to have anyone from western society complain about their share of contribution to their education is offensive.

I on the other hand come from the starting point diametrically opposed to Rhubroma in that I believe in free market economics - so he and I will never agree on much to do about economics, the markets, or how the world can improve. I'm fine with that, the world would be a boring place if everyone had the same view, however, as my views (ie free market economics, not my personal views) are prevalent in the world today, it opens me up to easily be placed in the role of the bourgeois ruling class. And Im comfortable playing that role - I simply feel obliged to point out the true proletariat are not some middle class student rioting in London but the true oppressed workers of the world, those in the emerging markets, Asia, India, Sth America etc. This has been the fundamental point of my arguments for the last few pages of this forum.

In answering your question, and again, Rhubroma would come from a fundamentally differing view; rhubroma would come from the views espoused by Marx in his text The Communist Manifesto (given, he's obviously widely read so his views are drawn from more sources than just this title, but for simplicity...); where I would come armed with (again for simplicity) Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations.

So, how do free markets improve the life of an Asian family living off subsistence farming? I will use a couple of very oversimplified examples to provide a basic understanding of how it works in general before showing how it sustains itself. If you go back to the 1950's the US largely manufactured all of its own goods; vehicles, tv's, whitegoods etc. The working classes in the cities of the likes of Detroit 'sold' their skills, or lack thereof to the highest bidder, so unskilled labour got paid the least, moving up to skilled labour (trades) who got paid more, to highly skilled labour (professionals) got more again. Things were fine for America, everyone had a job, and the American dream was that while I may be unskilled labour at the car plant, if I educate my children, maybe they will get a trade and be paid more, or maybe even become a professional - or worse, an economist. Globalization, for many reasons, but lets just say lack of shipping, is non existent, and the Asian family, with the children working the farm along side their parents so that they may grow enough to trade to survive is completely unaware that on the other side of the world there are things called fridges, let alone working class people who own them.

Eventually, being an unskilled worker no longer looks appealing to Americans so in the 60's, 70's and 80's they sought higher skilled jobs and with their improving wages looked to enjoy the fruits of their labours. But they didn't want to pay the wages demanded by the newly skilled masses to build their fridge, so they found someone who would work for less. So Company A goes to the 3rd world. And while we may view their work standards as exploitative, the father back on our subsistence farm sees a regular wage which can ensure his family can eat every night rather than being dependent on the harvest of his small farm, as he doesn't get government grants if he has a bad season, as a big plus. All of Company A's competitors now see they are able to sell their goods at much lower prices and to compete, they move their workforce to the 3rd world, and now the farmer's neighbour also has a job. They both send money back to their families and decide to buy a fridge. Now they can store food, lowering the levels of dysentery, and lowering the infant mortality rates of the nation. (I did say I would oversimplify)

But what about those Americans who no longer have their unskilled labour jobs? Well, those who previously bought a fridge for $1000 using expensive labour, can now buy it for $500 using cheap labour, and they use the spare $500 to improve their life by paying people to mow their lawns and walk their dogs and train them so their belly shrinks.

So our Asian friend, while we see him as exploited, is happy that now his family is able to eat every day, and he can buy his own fridge and store food rather than his wife walk 10k every day to market. It may not sound like much of a life to us, but his kid no longer cries because he's hungry, so he's a little happier.

How does this sustain itself? Eventually, the farmer has the same dream as the American. So rather than have his son work in the field, he sends him to school, something no one in his family has ever done before. Then he saves his money and sends him to univeristy so that he gets a good education (ok, I skipped a genration or two in this, but its getting long). Eventually their nations labour 'skills up' and starts to earn more money and after seeing how we live in the western world, decide they too should have the right to own a house, and a car, and a flat screen television. So they drive more employment at the factories and subsistence farms become consolidated to make food production more efficient. A rising tide lifts all boats and all. Soon these workers want better conditions and demand higher wages to the point that the companies seek cheaper labour again. This is already happening with production facility expansions from Chinese based manufacturing plants being built in Vietnam.

So we have benefited through cheaper white goods, our original farmer has benefited as his standard of living has improved (and may one day reach ours), and the farmer in the next cheap labour country is about to have his life improved when the manufacturer moves there. I think Rhumborma noted no system is perfect, and this one isn't but it allows wealth flows to reach the poorest nations.

Eventually, the nation goes from a low skilled nation selling its product (low wages) to a high skilled nation exporting technical, high value add products. Perfect example being Taiwan as this is exactly how Taiwan has developed itself over recent decades. 30 years ago, made in Taiwan was the sign of exploiting cheap labour, now Taiwan is a technological powerhouse selling high end products to the world - including your carbon bike frame. This in 30 years! Given its a 'captured' environment, being an Island, it is a perfect example of how a nation can grow from low skilled to high skilled (and high wealth) and all in a very short time frame. Rhumboma would probably argue that the pursuit of wealth is a bad thing, but again, we're diametrically opposed on these things.

In answer to you other question, yes, I do believe the size of the 'internal' middle classes of these nations are such that they can sustain the growth, and improved lives of the masses. It will be a bumpy road, but which isn't.

I will leave it to rhumbroma to explain how I'm 100% wrong and how Marxism is a much better way to improve the lives the Asian masses. I will however grant him that I agree that I look on some of these countries which I see as having ideal lifestyles (example pacific islands) wanting to become manufacturing centres and think, wouldn't it be nicer to just be fisherman? I guess upward mobility is hard wired into humanity.

And no, I don't read 'neo-liberalist' propaganda, the rise in productivity is factual and backed up by economic statistics, though it has stalled over the last 10 years as governments of both sides of politics have preferred to take the easy populist route rather than doing the hard yards of economic reform. And I believe 'neo-liberalist' is possibly the wrong term for what you mean, there's a big difference between "small l" liberal and "big L" Liberal (the political party), I assume you mean neo-conservative.

 

[Spare Tyre]

I will start with pointing out that Rhubroma and I come form this argument form fundamentally different viewpoints - obviously. He subscribes to the Marxist doctrine, and more specifically, views himself as the proletariat to his external oppressors the bourgeoisie. My point has been that he, as a result of the life that he enjoys - regardless of how hard he sees his life, is, on a global scale, part of the European bourgeoisie to the global proletariat, the workers of the emerging markets who build the things that all of us in the western world use to make out life more comfortable, from cheap electrical goods and clothing, to housing products. While the true proletariat live in conditions so foreign to us that, as far as Im concerned, to have anyone from western society complain about their share of contribution to their education is offensive.

<snipped for brevity>

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to answer so thoroughly. (And yes, I realise your response has been simplified in order to paint a picture without it requiring an entire book.)

I'm grateful for your reply. I will need to study it and think it through further.

I have some familiarity with parts of S E Asia so have seen aspects of the poverty you describe, and understand how the obtaining of a fridge or television is a life-changing event.

I have always been deeply sceptical about free market economic theory. And my understanding is that Adam Smith himself was not in favour of unregulated markets and argued that the intervention was required to temper the worst excesses of capitalism. I'm also of the impression that Classical economics has dominated the field of economics in the Western world in the past 30 years (since Reaganism, Thatcherism and the perception of the West that it had triumphed over the evils of socialism/communism) and few dissenting voices are heard. Free market economics seems to have become "truth" rather than "theory" and I think this is to the detriment of us all.

I also have all sorts of concerns about the ways in which concepts like GDP are commonly used, given the kinds of data which are incorporated in the figure. For instance, a rise in GDP definitely does not represent a rise in quality of life, despite this often being assumed. I'm in favour of a Gross National Happiness Scale instead, such as that used in Bhutan, which I think covers a wider range of essential quality of life issues. "Rise in productivity" is another term which to me elides a range of insidious factors such as increased use of toxic chemicals to aid agriculture, significant rises in work-related stress levels for the majority of workers etc.

But I'm always keen to learn and explore any limitations that might exist in my thinking, so thank you again.

 

[PCutter]

I have always been deeply sceptical about free market economic theory. And my understanding is that Adam Smith himself was not in favour of unregulated markets and argued that the intervention was required to temper the worst excesses of capitalism.

Correct, full unregulated is more kin to laissez-fair economic theory, which is slightly different from what Smith was describing.

As I said, its not perfect, but I find it a more compelling argument for what we see in the world, and yes economic theory - of both sides - is just that, theory. However governments are run by people, who are flawed, which makes it inevitable that the theory is flawed in application. And Rhumborma can surely point to flawed examples of market economic implementation as sure as I can point to failed implementations of marxist theory.

 

[Ferminal]

The Australian has been pushing the "we are going to be in the **** look at our TFP falling, we must reform reform reform!" line in recent months. I don't necessarily agree that economic reform is the biggest challenge facing us today. I see infrastructure/energy and tertiary education as more pressing issues.

Although I wish they would put the whole Henry Review on the table, rather than the way they cherrypicked it.

 

[PCutter]

The Australian has been pushing the "we are going to be in the **** look at our TFP falling, we must reform reform reform!" line in recent months. I don't necessarily agree that economic reform is the biggest challenge facing us today. I see infrastructure/energy and tertiary education as more pressing issues.

Although I wish they would put the whole Henry Review on the table, rather than the way they cherrypicked it.

I actually view infrastructure, energy and education as instruments of economic reform, so wouldn't disagree with you. Economic reform isn't limited to labour laws.