Corporations leave the west at an amazing pace. Atleast there hiring does...

[chequita guevara]

You're ignoring all other changes aside from labor costs.

[Ned]

Che, it seems to me that the anti-globalization movement is truly an anti-third world movement. Those areas have low cost labor, low cost environmental rules, low taxes. As the left increases the cost of labor in the US, increases the severity of enviromental regulations an increases corporate taxes, business that depend on labor or have high environmental costs will simply leave for the third world. The tax environment is so unfriendly as to no counterbalance the high costs imposed by labor and enviromental laws.

What remains here are the white collar design jobs. But, as the original post indicates, even these are leaving to third world countries that provide an educated workforce that speaks English.

I don't know what to say about the WTO. But I find it interesting that both the left and the far right are against this international organization. How else can one decide international trade disputes?

As to cleaning up the enviroment in Taiwan - isn't that there problem, not ours? As to not burning the forests or killing the bannana's - isn't that the problem of the particular countries invovled. Why are the extremists protesting against the US government? What can we do about telling other countries how to run their governments?

As to fishing rules - shouldn't these rules be negotiated internationally? Otherwise you have the US imposing its views on the rest of the world unilaterally.

[Ramo]

IMO, protecting the environment and people of the third world from businesses and the labor of the developed states from slave labor is best handled through going after the relevant businesses instead of condemning everyone in these states to perpetual poverty.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, it seems to me that the anti-globalization movement is truly an anti-third world movement. Those areas have low cost labor, low cost environmental rules, low taxes. As the left increases the cost of labor in the US, increases the severity of enviromental regulations an increases corporate taxes, business that depend on labor or have high environmental costs will simply leave for the third world. The tax environment is so unfriendly as to no counterbalance the high costs imposed by labor and enviromental laws.

I know you like to bash the left for everything, but let's have a little perspective, shall we? If the anti-globalization movement were anti-Third World, wouldn't that mean that the majority of the movement and its leaders which come from the Third World are anti-themselves? They want labor and environmental protections. They want child labor outlawed. They want to make a living wage. They don't want to be killed for organizing in their workplaces. We support that. How is this anti-Third World except that you keep repeating the mantra?

As for environmental laws, all we demand is that companies pay for pollution themselves. I have no right to destroy your property and health because of what I do on my property. It's unethical for me to hold people's jobs hostage so that I can dump all my garbage in your living room. If I'm going to do something that has the potential to damage you or your property either I should be forced to make sure that it doesn't damage you or that I pay to fix and damages I cause . . . unless I'm a corporation, in which case that's an unfair burden.

How else can one decide international trade disputes?

How about out in the open, with treaties that have to be ratified by each government?

As to cleaning up the enviroment in Taiwan - isn't that there problem, not ours? As to not burning the forests or killing the bannana's - isn't that the problem of the particular countries invovled. Why are the extremists protesting against the US government? What can we do about telling other countries how to run their governments?

It's our problem if our corporations are doing it. We can regulate American's behavior in other countries, why can't we do the same to our corporations?

[DuncanK]

Trade Organizations bring up another point of the inefficiencies of globalization. These trade organizations forbide nations from trading with certain other nations where costs might be lower. They are anything but free trade.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You're ignoring all other changes aside from labor costs.

How? A major factor, as you said, in reducing costs is automation. A circuit layout engineer is far more productive using computers than drawing the circuits by hand. This reduces labor costs by making whatever labor that remains more productive.

An automatice PCB assembling robot is far more productive than a worker hand soldering components onto a PCB as was done 20 years ago.

All this increased productivity by machine can be done in the US. True. But still there remains the environmental laws and taxes. These are costs that cannot be avoided by automation.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo
IMO, protecting the environment and people of the third world from businesses and the labor of the developed states from slave labor is best handled through going after the relevant businesses instead of condemning everyone in these states to perpetual poverty.

Oh sure.

Ramo, so long as money can move from one country to another, there is simply nothing you can do about businesses setting up in low cost areas.

Anti-globalists truely are the enemy of the third world. While the capitalists bring investment, infrastructure and jobs, the anti-globalists bring lawsuits designed to keep the third world in - a third world state.

There is also the matter of politics.

The only third world countries that are benefiting from globalization are capitalist countries. Those that are run by dictators or communists (other than China) remain in the backwater of history.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Ned
Anti-globalists truely are the enemy of the third world. While the capitalists bring investment, infrastructure and jobs, the anti-globalists bring lawsuits designed to keep the third world in - a third world state.

There is also the matter of politics.

The only third world countries that are benefiting from globalization are capitalist countries. Those that are run by dictators or communists (other than China) remain in the backwater of history.

Third world countries are not helped by corporations. Some desperate individuals might have to make the choice to work for them, but the countries are not helped overall.

The majority of the citizens are having real trouble providing for their basic needs. Why? Because there is a shortage. Diverting resources away for these needs certainly isn't helping at all.

[Ned]

Che, I bash the left because they largely deserve it. We are not talking here about a "social safety net," which is something even I support. This is about economics of business and about prosperity. Here the left remains anchored in a vision of the world nearly 150 years old. If you truly want to see the benefits of a state-owned, state- run economy, look to the USSR, to Cuba to North Korea. These were and are failures.

China is an example of a rightist communist government - if we can talk the truth. They have become capitalists.

As to the third world leaders who oppose globalization: I am willing to bet their leader is Castro and their members are countries who have leftist, planned economies. Are there any exceptions?

[Ned]

Originally posted by DuncanK


Third world countries are not helped by corporations. Some desperate individuals might have to make the choice to work for them, but the countries are not helped overall.

The majority of the citizens are having real trouble providing for their basic needs. Why? Because there is a shortage. Diverting resources away for these needs certainly isn't helping at all.

Duncan, look at Singapore. Look at Taiwan. Look at Thailand. Look at Malaysia. Look at India. Look at China.

Contrast South Korea with the North.

There are simply too many examples of capitalism creating prosperity for the whole of a thrid world country to believe your statement.

Companies that invest in the third world bring prosperity for the whole country. There simply is no denying it.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Ned


Duncan, look at Singapore. Look at Taiwan. Look at Thailand. Look at Malaysia. Look at India. Look at China.

Contrast South Korea with the North.

There are simply too many examples of capitalism creating prosperity for the whole of a thrid world country to believe your statement.

Companies that invest in the third world bring prosperity for the whole country. There simply is no denying it.

You have only mentioned a few exceptions. These nations have been able to export their way to industialization, but it hasn't been all that great. They struggle to move from being an exporting nation to one that provides well for its own population. There are countless other nations who have not even managed to export substasntially to industrialized nations.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, I bash the left because they largely deserve it. We are not talking here about a "social safety net," which is something even I support. This is about economics of business and about prosperity. Here the left remains anchored in a vision of the world nearly 150 years old. If you truly want to see the benefits of a state-owned, state- run economy, look to the USSR, to Cuba to North Korea. These were and are failures.

China is an example of a rightist communist government - if we can talk the truth. They have become capitalists.

As to the third world leaders who oppose globalization: I am willing to bet their leader is Castro and their members are countries who have leftist, planned economies. Are there any exceptions?

.

So typical of the right wing. You say that capitalism works better because of the success the Imperialists have had at preventing third world countries from being successfull using Communism. In the same way (and I'm not saying this is you in particular) you assume that white males are superior to minorities. The capitalist nations have had every advantage just as white males have had in America. Furthermore the Imperialist nations have been hostile towards weaker Communist nations just as many white males are hostile towards minorities in industrialized nations. Just because white males have prospered more in our societies doesn't mean that they are superior and just because Imperialist nations have been successfull at exploiting third world societies and determining their outcomes doesn't mean that their ideology is superior. It only means that they have had every advantage. They have had all the resources and all the technology. Third world nations declare war on every idustrialized nation in the world when they become Communist. How can you rate the benefits of Communism just because of recent history?

[Sava]

Capitalism works for the rich... that's about it. I wonder why people think that the socio-economic conditions in America are vastly superior than the rest of the world. Some people watch too much TV I guess...

Imagine this is Europa Universalis. There's a slider bar for Communism --- Capitalism. USSR on the left, the USA on the right... somewhere in the middle is where we ought to be. Sure, people consider me a leftist, but that's only because everyone else is so far to the right. I want an economy/system that provides health care, education, and ample job/career opprotunities for its people while ensuring health competition and free markets for consumer goods. It's not unreasonable, it's not a pipe-dream, and it just requires a little compromise.

Does absolute Communism work? No
Does absolute Capitalism work? No
Can there be a gray area that ensures the type of dream I described? Yes

But it's just easier to argue with one another instead of working together to improve things.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, I bash the left because they largely deserve it.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that it is wrong to believe and advocate tat people have the right to make a living wage and not live in industrial filth. If people who believed what you say had their way, there'd only be a Third World.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't know why you try to debate Ned, che. He lives in a bit of a fantasy world...

Let's just pick something that hasn't changed very much in 20 years. Let's pick 19" color TV sets and disk drives for desktop computers

This, for example.

"Hasn't changed much in 20 years".