give me anti-globalization arguments!

[Adam Smith]

Pleeeeease learn some economics

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The point is when a pollutor doesn't have to bear the full cost of cleaning it up, he has caused a negative externality - the society is now stuck with some of this cost. IOW, he's having a free ride (for not needing to pay the full cost).

So far so good. You should have quit while you were ahead.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger However, in a communist country, such a pollutor is the society itself, with all those state owned industries and such, so there is no negative externality here.

So if the US Department of Energy has leaking hazardous materials and nuclear waste all over its Hanford, WA site, or if the US Army Corps of Engineers dikes fail and flood New Orleans, there has not been a negative externality because the government did it?

With these kinds of externalities defined out of existence, the market system works far better than I ever thought possible.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
However, in a communist country, such a pollutor is the society itself, with all those state owned industries and such, so there is no negative externality here.

No, there'd just be (for lack of a better term) a "negative internality" Since theoretically there is no external arena in a totalitarian state, there could be no negative externality. That seems to be merely a semantic difference, as everyone in the totalitarian state would pay for their "negative internalities" in just the same way as everyone in open states would pay for the negative externalities.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Free borders.

Hey, do you remember that thread where everyone was advocating freer borders to Great Britain and when Park Avenue said that it would lead to a terrorist attack on England sooner or later, he was ignored?

Originally posted by LiberalAtheist
The problem isn't with globalization, but lawless, totally unregulated globalization (something stemming from market fundamentalism). As noble prize winning economist, and critic of globalization Joseph Stiglitz put it: Globalization is neither good or evil, it is a technology that can be used for good or evil.

Just like atomic power, or chemistry, or the internet, economic systems are just a technology. And a technology can be used or misused. In any event some good dirt on globalization can be found in Stiglitz Globalization and its Discontents. Note that globalization does do some good, it has I believe overall raised living standards substantially in the third world (just look at how South Korea has something like 28 times as much wealth as North Korea, and about four times as much wealth as china, probably because those countries are more economically isolated).

[Saras]

Stiglitz in his latter years is a proven moron, more or less.

[Kuciwalker]

So in class today, we all handed in the paper and then he handed each back to a different person. We spent about 15 minutes, I think, reading and writing comments on the paper. The guy whose paper I got had obviously not put much effort into it, which I don't have a problem with as long as he doesn't have a problem with me pointing out that his word use makes no sense and/or is just wrong (after he first read the book he thought Friedman's "arguments were feasible" - this was in the opening sentence of the paper) and that wherever he actually makes an argument (rather than simply reporting that "X website is about such-and-such and they think globalization is bad") it's a BAM (put a bit more tactfully, though, as a "Why?" to the side of such paragraphs) and that he has some major redundancies/tautologies (Such as his explanation of what the electronic herd is - he introduces it as the thing that determines which countries survive, then explains that it's a metaphor Friedman invented to describe the thing that determines which countries survive. Yes, he used "survive" both times). There were also a number of other problems, but I can't remember them specifically and I don't have the paper here so I can't tell you what they were. We were also supposed to rate this person's convincingness from 1 to 10 - where 1 means they've pushed you to oppose their side. He got a 3.

The guy who rated me had only two comments on mine, neither of which I recall specifically (except that they weren't very big), but he gave me a "5" because he thought I didn't go into the arguments of the sources that oppose Friedman enough, even though he said I was convincing otherwise. Wait a second - why am I going to attack the arguments of sources that agree with me? Particularly since the only outside source I cited was simply to say that I agree with their summary of Friedman's thesis (which I had quoted). I submitted some of the ideas in this thread, but backed them up with my own arguments. (I said that Friedman's globalization isn't the only way possible - countries could and sign treaties agreeing to certain minumum labor rights and environmental standards, so that the multinational corporations can't force them to bid lower and lower to attract their capital.)

[Saras]

Oh and the pwnage of UR at the hands of Dr.Smith. On par with Sava vs MtG in 'industry expert' discussion

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
I have to agree with the free borders issue.
Any system in which goods and capital can move freely but labor can't simply can't produce the global benefits it claims.

depends what "it" claims.

Free movement of goods and capital without free movement of labor produces considerably more global economic benefits than a system without free movement of any, while producing less global economic benefits than one with free movement of labor.

[Kuciwalker]

Isn't the effective free movement of labor one of the whole points of globalism and specifically the internet? There's this whole "outsourcing" thing people seem to be complaining about.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Pleeeeease learn some economics

Originally posted by Adam Smith
So if the US Department of Energy has leaking hazardous materials and nuclear waste all over its Hanford, WA site, or if the US Army Corps of Engineers dikes fail and flood New Orleans, there has not been a negative externality because the government did it?

With these kinds of externalities defined out of existence, the market system works far better than I ever thought possible.

No, I am afraid that only works in a communist country, where "properties" are collectively owned. All the wealth/money belongs to the people.

In such a case, if there's a leak of hazardous materials, the society moves the people away from the affected area and cleans it up.

Then we get into interesting areas. Say a waste storage tank somewhere in the US is struck by lightning and starts discharging toxic chemicals. Is it a negative externality if it belongs to ExxonMobil?

[Adam Smith]

Re: Re: Pleeeeease learn some economics

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
In such a case, if there's a leak of hazardous materials, the society moves the people away from the affected area and cleans it up.

Leaving aside the question of whether communist countries actually do this.....


If the failed dike only flooded a park or an army base, there is no externality because the property belonged to the government?

If a steel mill in China pollutes the air and causes emphysema, there is no externality because "all the wealth/money belongs to the people"?

[:) Smiley]

In theory, though in practice it can be argued that in a communist country, party members own the country and not all the people. However if the government properly compensated people for the emphysema, then there would be no externality.

Also Chinese air pollution blows far beyond its borders.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Saras
Oh and the pwnage of UR at the hands of Dr.Smith. On par with Sava vs MtG in 'industry expert' discussion

still to this day I do not understand the fascination with that discussion... I made a point, quoted various sources... MtG made a BAM, and called me a doofus, and the Polytubbies laughed...

I guess it's just one of those things. It doesn't matter if you have facts and reason on your side, but if you can make some "witty" insult.

[Saras]

Sava, you ARE a doofus, and you WERE spouting nonsense, so why don't you just give up?