|
Post by morty14 on Aug 30, 2006 16:35:34 GMT -5
a group that isn't related to the WTO in any way. That's a bold statement. But, I'll go more on topic now. I don't like globalization because it doesn't help anyone but multinational corporations, big bankers, and the elite in general. The people in the third world it is suppose to help are kept down and put into essential slave labor by multi-national corporations. The people in developed countries aren't helped by this because even if prices went down, most lose their jobs because they won't accept being paid ten cents a day for a job that used to pay by dollars per hour. So multi-national corporations get cheap labor and basically own countries (and their populations). Big bankers get to foreclose and repossess everything of the people who lost their jobs in the developed countries have and also gain the ability to give out loans to poor countries that won't be paid back so they can gain assests there as well (as many poor countries are actually quite rich in resources). The elite get to just generally consolidate wealth and power into their tiny little section of the population, bringing all the wealth of the lower and middle classes to their elite group and then basically enslaving them [the lower and middle classes].
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Aug 30, 2006 19:21:16 GMT -5
The problem with you theory, Morty is that in reality, it doesn't happen that way. Look at the large geographical areas that have free(or reasonably close to it) trade. In the countrys that are included in NAFTA or the EU, (with the exception of Mexico), you see economys that are thriving, and societys with a substantial middle class.
The main hold up in Globalization is farm tariffs (basically both the US and the EU are being bastards about it). If these tariffs (and subsidations) were eliminated, third world countrys could sell their food products to the world, thus making money. In fact, not globalizing is far more likely to cause the problems you describe.
Right now, small poor countrys are being forced to go to outside investment to help their economy, since the farm economy that they've been based on for thousands of years can't turn a profit due to high tariffs. If countrys could depend on their own farm productivity to provide a stead economy and more diversified tax base, they would be able to combat the demands of large corporations much more effectivily.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Aug 30, 2006 20:15:45 GMT -5
The problem with you theory, Morty is that in reality, it doesn't happen that way. Look at the large geographical areas that have free(or reasonably close to it) trade. In the countrys that are included in NAFTA or the EU, (with the exception of Mexico), you see economys that are thriving, and societys with a substantial middle class. With the exception of Mexico may be a key little point in that statement. Furthermore, of course you are going to have thriving economies when it is three countries, two of which already had excellent economies. The EU is full of similar countries, no huge dropoffs. A global free trade plan would be putting the United States, Japan, and countries like that in with African countries which make up the entire bottom 25 nations of economic standing. You think that situation will be like NAFTA (small group of three countries, two of which are very developed) and the EU (full of developed countries that all have similar economies)? That, frankly, is quite ridiculous. The trouble with free trade in agriculture is exactly what I stated before. The developed countries will lose all small farms and only the big corporations will be able to compete with the ridiculously cheap labor of the undeveloped countries, who will become dependent on agriculture, even more so than before, and unable to develop because their entire economy will just be producing cheap crops. Corporations will gain control over some of their land and employ the cheap laborers, and slowly the power of corporations will force the small in the undeveloped countries to be forced to sell their land to the corporations because they can't compete with the technology the corporations have, but they don't (because they live in undeveloped countries and cannot waste any money on development as they need as much as they can get to survive) and then we go right back to what I was talking about earlier. But, as all history shows, even when they start making profits they won't "waste" money on development and diversification. One bad season, one price drop, one natural disaster, will end with the banks who loaned them money to get started will take the land, then corporations buy the cheap land of the banks and we are...right back where I was talking about before. Look at the American South from the foundation of the colonies all the way to the Civil War. They had a booming farm economy that made massive profits. But did they develop and diversify? Of course not! They pumped all the money back into their current systems to get more from that. Why change what works, right? Well, when it came time that the North denied them shipping, they had no way to ship their wonderful goods. Sure, they had thousand, millions of dollars worth of crops to sell, but their lack of ability to get it to the markets it needed to go to was their downfall. What happens if the corporations take one vital piece of the puzzle from the farmers of the third world? Then they are, well, screwed. What happens if the corporations undercut their prices for say, a year and they go belly up? Then, the farms are taken away and the few that are left will never be able to compete with a further empowered corporate machine. It's really not all that difficult to imagine.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Aug 30, 2006 20:43:40 GMT -5
Mexico's economy has grown by leaps and bounds since NAFTA. Sure, it is still not economically as strong as the US or Canada, but it's economy is growing more rapidly than before. It has, like developing countrys will, profited from free trade. As for your opinions on the EU, quite frankly, you need to check your facts. Several countrys (mostly in the balkans and Eastern Europe) were not developed countrys before joining the EU.
If you think developed countrys still have small farms, you are mistaken, most farms are now quite large. As for your charges that large corporations would attempt to invest in Africa, and therefore take over countrys, you are sadly mistaken. You seem to think that only one large corporation would take each country. That wouldn't be the case, you'd see mulitple companys making investments. They'd all be competing for the local government's favor, which puts the government, and the voters more power.
As for diversification, you have pointed out a mistake made in history (Although you would do well to remember that the southern US didn't really leave it's agricultural base until the boll weevil in the early 20th Century). Of course, what you forget is that we aren't the only ones with access to History. Developing Countries know the mistakes of the past, and they will take steps to not repeat those mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Sept 8, 2006 15:44:52 GMT -5
Sorry I've taken so long to reply but school just started and I was a little swamped for a while. Mexico's economy has grown by leaps and bounds since NAFTA. Sure, it is still not economically as strong as the US or Canada, but it's economy is growing more rapidly than before. It has, like developing countrys will, profited from free trade. As for your opinions on the EU, quite frankly, you need to check your facts. Several countrys (mostly in the balkans and Eastern Europe) were not developed countrys before joining the EU. Two points here. 1) Mexico is not a state you can reasonably compare with somewhere like say Burkina Faso and many other African countries. Mexico was fairly good to start out with and has one of the greatest set of natural resources in the world. Furthermore, it was already heavily trading with the USA anyway. It also already had a reasonable amount of industrialization. 2) Much of Mexico's prosperity as of late came from unrelated events. It's oil resources suddenly became very profitable when the worldwide increase in oil prices began to move into full swing. It began exporting poverty to the USA via illegal immigration. NAFTA is unrepresentative of a worldwide free trade agreement. In Africa, 36% of the people depend on subsistance agriculture. That would be small farms. Unless farming just enough so your family can eat and having a tiny surplus to sell for other necessities happens on massive, sprawling farms. The large farms in Africa are almost exclusively run by corporations and they control the life and death of their labourers, essentially slave labour. The only reason corporations would have to deal with local gov'ts is if there ARE protections, otherwise they can just buy up land and set up there operations. It's not like land in the poorest places on earth is so incredibly expensive. Plus, again, most of the farms that actually have sellable goods are run by corporations already and if they begin to thrive under free trade, it is still mutli-nationals that increase profits, while the "little people" continue to live in complete poverty. Developing countries may have access to the historical issues, but they, like in almost everything, will mostly just say, "Well that won't happen to me!" and decide to roll the dice. Or they won't look at history at all. Strong possibility that those two things will happen en masse. Free trade helps the rich, NOT the poor. Free trade helps the owners, NOT the labourers. Free trade helps the elite, NOT the commonfolk. It has been shown time and again. Look at even NAFTA. Can it even be determined how many thousands, perhaps millions, of American working class jobs were lost to Mexico? Can it even be estimated what would happen if free trade with Africa and the USA was allowed, especially with people USED TO working for less than $1 a DAY? There'd be literally tens of millions of people who would lose their jobs, and in Africa the situation improves, what, like a few cents per day? People are paid $1.25 instead of $.75 a day?
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Sept 8, 2006 18:39:22 GMT -5
Two points here. 1) Mexico is not a state you can reasonably compare with somewhere like say Burkina Faso and many other African countries. Mexico was fairly good to start out with and has one of the greatest set of natural resources in the world. Furthermore, it was already heavily trading with the USA anyway. It also already had a reasonable amount of industrialization. 2) Much of Mexico's prosperity as of late came from unrelated events. It's oil resources suddenly became very profitable when the worldwide increase in oil prices began to move into full swing. It began exporting poverty to the USA via illegal immigration. NAFTA is unrepresentative of a worldwide free trade agreement. Well, besides the fact that illegal immigration has been going on for years, didn't you just say: So, basically, if it failed it would be free trades fault, and now that you see the truth that it isn't failing, it isn't because of free trade? Stop being bias. In Africa, 36% of the people depend on subsistance agriculture. That would be small farms. Unless farming just enough so your family can eat and having a tiny surplus to sell for other necessities happens on massive, sprawling farms. The large farms in Africa are almost exclusively run by corporations and they control the life and death of their labourers, essentially slave labour. The only reason corporations would have to deal with local gov'ts is if there ARE protections, otherwise they can just buy up land and set up there operations. It's not like land in the poorest places on earth is so incredibly expensive. Plus, again, most of the farms that actually have sellable goods are run by corporations already and if they begin to thrive under free trade, it is still mutli-nationals that increase profits, while the "little people" continue to live in complete poverty. Well, if Africa had any developed countrys, you would have caught me. Lucky for me, I said: since you said: If you want to talk about developing nations losing small farms, isn't it a good thing that people can get off unprofitable farming and find a job where they can improve the lives of their family? As for the corporations treating their workers as slave labor, bring me a source, and make sure it compares their living conditions now to what they are without the corporate farm. Developing countries may have access to the historical issues, but they, like in almost everything, will mostly just say, "Well that won't happen to me!" and decide to roll the dice. Or they won't look at history at all. Strong possibility that those two things will happen en masse. Free trade helps the rich, NOT the poor. Free trade helps the owners, NOT the labourers. Free trade helps the elite, NOT the commonfolk. It has been shown time and again. Look at even NAFTA. Can it even be determined how many thousands, perhaps millions, of American working class jobs were lost to Mexico? Can it even be estimated what would happen if free trade with Africa and the USA was allowed, especially with people USED TO working for less than $1 a DAY? There'd be literally tens of millions of people who would lose their jobs, and in Africa the situation improves, what, like a few cents per day? People are paid $1.25 instead of $.75 a day? I love how you make bold statements about how Free Trade helps the elite, and then you don't back it up. You talk about the jobs Americans lost to Mexico, but you miss the fact that MORE jobs have been created. The unemployment rate over the last few years has been the lowest we've seen in decades. If America lost that many net jobs, why don't we have a high unemployment rate? America will gain jobs, sure, it will lose factory jobs, but hell assembly line work sucks anyways.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Sept 9, 2006 9:16:28 GMT -5
Well, besides the fact that illegal immigration has been going on for years, Certainly not at the rate it is now. "The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that in the 1980’s net illegal immigration was at the 130,000 per year increasing to 450,000 /year from 1990-94, and further increasing to 750,000 /year from 1995-1999 and staying at 700-850,000+ /year since about 2000." [ Source] Being as a major part of Mexico's economy is from these illegal workers who send money back to their families, well, there you have it. Indeed. You were correct in your beginning assessment that NAFTA hasn't helped Mexico much. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Mexico's growth was hardly due to the free trade policies it has. Can you deny that rapidly increasing oil prices was a major boost to the Mexican economy? Can you deny that increased illegal immigration to the United States was a major boost to the Mexico economy? In any case, as I said before and will say again, NAFTA is not representative of a worldwide free trade agreement. I know the United States still has small farms dotting the landscape. What ones we have left would surely be destroyed by such an action. Heck, even the big farms would have trouble competing with Africa. Unfortunately, there aren't any jobs to go to in Africa. The place they will go is right back to the old farm, but this time they don't own it and still will barely make enough money to live. Example 1: Liberia and FirestoneExample 2: Nike, Gap, and CambodiaExample 3: Jordon and, well, all kinds of companiesExample 4: 4 stories about Chinese Labour and American companiesExample 5: Japanese and Mexican Transnationals and NicaraguaAccording to the Economic Policy Institute that is incorrect. In fact, they have a nice little chart that analyzes the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau data for you to show that between 1993 and 2002, NAFTA has resulted in a net loss of jobs in every state and a total of 879,280 jobs lost nationwide. So your claim that more jobs have been created is frankly just wrong. And our population is increasing. And if we aren't creating more jobs, and in fact losing jobs, that's going to catch up with us and unemployment is going to become a much bigger issue.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Sept 9, 2006 11:14:24 GMT -5
Morty. some day, you will either take an economics course, or finally see the light that is capitalism. Until that day I must answer your attacks with the truth. I would cause a decade of 750,000+ years... Oh, and I find it mildly that you bring up the fact that workers are even coming into America, since it really undermines your entire argument. It shows that people would rather live in a capitalist country (the US) than Mexico, a country with slightly less capitalist ways... Free Trade is capitalism. Oh? It hasn't? You mean the manufacturing jobs that have moved to Mexico haven't helped it? Isn't one of your main point against Free Trade that it takes away jobs from developing countrys? So, if these jobs are gone from America, obviously, they must go somewhere. They go to countrys like Mexico. That helps the Mexican economy. Without Free Trade, the US could always slap a huge tariff on Mexican oil crippling their economy. We have other sources of oil, and the Mexican companies would be forced to sell at a much lower profit. Sure, this would never happen, but the sake of an example, it works quite well. Free Trade allows companys to grow through the market without tariffs hurting their ability to export. It is through the free trade of oil that Mexico has profitted. The small farms that still exist are rapidly being bought already. Example 1: No discussion of working conditions in other sections of the country, and your source is slightly suspect. Example 2: "Twelve year-old Sun Thyda lied about her age to get the job." Alright, so the locals are willing to lie about their age to get a job, and yet your blaming the corporation for their poverty? Sounds to me like their life improves in the factorys... Of course, I do believe that they should have better working conditions, but the fact that they want to work says that their life is improving. Example 3: Quite simply, this type of abuse is caused by a lack of local government control. Still, if history is an indication, workers rights improve with time. Look at the changes in the US. Sure, these take awhile to complete, but in the long run, they will happen. Example 4: I'm sure those chinese factory workers wish they were the farmers in western China with water shortages, crop failures, and even worse poverty. Example 5: They're struggling for better working conditions, and I wish them luck. Once again, this is a failure of the local government, not free trade. I expected better than that from you, Morty... Read your source more carefully. It says nothing about jobs created in other parts of the economy, and guess what, they gained more than enough jobs to make up that deficit.The unemployment rate has decreased since NAFTA went into effect. The Stats (select unemployment rate and then hit 'Retrieve data' at the bottom. As you can see from the graph (especially if you role back the starting year to 1993), the US unemployment rate dropped in every year after NAFTA until 2001, when there was an economic crisis after the 911 Terrorist attack. Of course, even then, the annual rate never went back up to the rate it was in 1993, and now it is declining again. This means that we're not lossing jobs.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Sept 9, 2006 12:41:54 GMT -5
Morty. some day, you will either take an economics course, or finally see the light that is capitalism. Until that day I must answer your attacks with the truth. Look who's attacking... In any case, the more I've learned about economics, the further left I've gone in my thoughts on it. The more I've been taught about how capitalism works, the more I've hated it. So I guess the best hope for me becoming a capitalist is for me to suffer some type of amnesia and lose all will to question the systems around me. People moving from a developing and unstable country to a highly developed and stable one has what to do with free trade and capitalism? Mexico has done nothing but move further towards the most capitalist and free trade orientated model possible as of late, and their people are fleeing in uncontrollable hordes. That doesn't say anything about capitalism and free trade, I suppose Helped whom? Helped the elite in Mexico? Certainly. Without a doubt. Having more jobs in your country does not necessarily help your people. There was a time in the United States where just about every African American had a job. One which they would never lose. That didn't mean they were better off then as compared with now where many are unemployed. That is a horrid example. Countries don't "slap tariffs" on necessary goods. Oil, at this point, is a necessary good for the world. That's like a country that has no way to make enough food for its population putting tariffs on food imports. Don't be ridiculous. Yeah, no need to like try and save them. It's only our cultural heritage, tradition, and a testiment to that "competition" thing we all seem to like so much. Why compete when you can monopolize, right? It doesn't matter what working conditions are like in other sections of the country. 21 hour workdays and child labour are not acceptable, period. Do they want to work there, or do they have to work there? Little Ms. Thyda also said " I didn't want to come here - But we're very poor so I had to come." Furthermore, if this was a country like the United States or another developed country do you think the authorities would accept, "Well they said they were of age to work."? Gosh, and decreasing the local government's ability to control trade is really going to help with stopping things like this? Yeah, because bad conditions elsewhere in the country are a solid excuse for obscene labour law violations and frankly inhuman behaviour on the part of large companies. Once again, local government is not helped by taking down even more barriers so even more companies can come in and perpetrate the problem. Just because you set up in a country that has poor conditions doesn't make it ok to keep conditions bad. This is why I hate corporations, because they always are too busy with their bottom line to be thinking of people. It is all about profits. And how do you maximize profits? By lowering the price of production of the things you sell, being as material prices aren't going down, cut down labour costs. Therein, sweatshops and eventually slavery. It appears they took other jobs into consideration: What makes up that other 22%/192,580 jobs? One would assume something, like, else. Not to undercut the essential need to keep manfacturing jobs in America though... You make the mistake of not looking at the bigger picture. Try taking it all the way back to 1948 (the first available year). Thoughout the entire history of these statistics they have gone up and down on little streaks. It is continuing a trend of shifting unemployment and has little, if at all, to do with NAFTA. We went in at a high point on the bell curve of shifting unemployment figures and when it came back down as it has in plenty of recorded circumstances it appeared that NAFTA was to praise. With our current economy, the loss of jobs will not show in unemployment rates. There are lots jobs out there and not enough people to fill all of them. When our population begins really expanding (which with illegal immigration trends it appears that may be sooner rather than later), then you will see the increases in unemployment if these trends continue.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Sept 9, 2006 19:03:38 GMT -5
If they're moving towards capitalism, then why did a socialist canidate ALMOST win the last election?
Comparing slavery with a free market is stupid. Workers have a choose in a free market, they get paid wages, unlike slaves. Seriously, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this...
But what if Mexico's main export was not a necesssary good? What if it was food? Then it's economy wouldn't have experienced the growth that it has. Just because Mexico is fortunate enough to export a necessary good doesn't mean all countrys are.
Monopolize? Hell no. Competition on a massive scale? Hell yes. Heritage can survive in a museum. Oh, this is the land of the free, we're made up of thousands of different heritage. You shouldn't force people to support a certain groups heritage with taxes or higher prices.
It doesn't matter? So, as long as I'm not an evil corporation, I'm allowed to work people 21 hours and have child labor? Of course not!
Good observation. Now explain how her poverty is caused by the corporations and you might turn the tide of the argument.
Free Trade is and always will be unrelated to workers rights. That is what people fail to see.
Are they an excuse? No, but you fail to see the point. The corporations are IMPROVING the lives of the people that work in them. Sure, it could be better, and if the workers wish to fight for better conditions, I'd support them, but the labor practices of companys are more related to what is acceptable in the local community than Free Trade.
Of course, history tells us a different story. Workers in unfair conditions rise up against corporations forcing Labor laws to be put into affect. You have no evidence that sweatshops lead to slavery.
There's a problem with your theory. You see, once job opennings start to decrease, illegal immigration will slow. It is caused by the number of jobs in the US. Once that carrot disappears, it will slow to a trickle.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Sept 9, 2006 22:26:37 GMT -5
If they're moving towards capitalism, then why did a socialist canidate ALMOST win the last election? Because the people were sick and tired of it. That's why new parties win elections, because the people are pissed off at the previous government. Which shows, again, that people in Mexico are fleeing the capitalism not the socialism.Do they? Is being paid just enough to be able to be housed, clothed, and fed really any better than working for nothing and being given those things? Is there some magical greatness surrounding being able to personally buy the things that you will have to get anyway? And again, when there is no where else to work, and you have to work to live, there isn't much 'choice,' now is there? By 'not necessary good' that would mean something other countries produce themselves or is just some ridiculous thing. If the former, then there wouldn't be much trade in it to begin with. If the latter, then they should rethink their exports. You are absolutely right, it wouldn't experience the growth it had. Free trade or not. When countries can produce something domestically, they tend to just buy domestic as it tends to be less expensive. However, if the Mexican food was superior in some way (quality or price) then they would be able to sell it. Countries without exportable goods would not be helped by free trade to begin with. My fault, poor wording. Oligopolize would be more correct. There will be competition between the 3-5 companies that will own all our farmland. I certainly hope they don't like...cooperate. As that could end badly, no? This is the land of the free. Not the land of the corporate dictatorships. But it is falling fast towards that. Who holds the most power in elections? Corporations who provide money for the campaigns. Who has the most lobbying power to protect their interests? Corporations. Who are these elected leaders serving? You, the one little voter? Or are they serving the interests of the corporate elite who fund their campaigns and get them elected? But I digress, that is another agruement for perhaps another time. That's not what I was saying. I was making the point that just because conditions are bad elsewhere in the country shouldn't be a reason for the corporations (who can afford to make it better) to keep it horrible. Of course, paying reasonable wages and having humane working conditions could certainly put a dent in those profits. Can't have that. Well, let's see. Corporations come in and set up. They certainly do have a lot of money, yes, quite a bit. Now, they could certainly afford to pay her parents a decent wage for her work, allow humane conditions, and thereby allow this little girl the ability to go get an education. She could get that education, and when she grows up, maybe she doesn't have to work in a sweatshop like her parents did. Now she is able to move up the economic ladder because she had a chance. Corporations with their money grubbing have denied children that chance to ever be anything better than what their parents were. By their oppressive conditions of employement, they deny the ability for economic mobility. They perpetuate poverty. It certainly works well for them, they get to have sub-human labour conditions forever. But in the process they deny anyone the ability to get out of the system. So that, that is why she will be poor for the rest of her life and unable to do any better. And the same will happen for her children. And their children. And their children. Until something is done about the corporations that delibrately perpetuate slavery for their own selfish ends. Now imagine that, but happening in every third world nation on earth. Yeah, that'd be a reason I'm against globalization. No, you see, they are directly related. Absolutely intertwinned. You heard the previous little speech about how corporations perpetuate poverty. And you saw my little thing about how corporations control governments. Put them together. Now you can see why with free trade this will just happen globally. If corporations can influence Washington DC as much as they do, think what they can do in a place like Africa where the politicians don't even pretend not to be corrupt, self-serving plutocrats. "Wow, you know, I think I was breaking some labour laws in that factory. I really hope nothing bad happens like it closing down. That'd really be a shame." *slides check across table* "What factory?" *wink* Do you actually think that won't happen? Over and over? Here's something that already does, and has in the past, happen. "Wow, land is kinda expensive. You know, I'd really like to set up here and I could really make some profits for you, but I'm not sure I want to pay that much for land." *slides check across table* "Land is very cheap here. Let's say, 50 cents an acre?" Suddenly corporation X just bought up a huge piece of land at a token cost. Then we have a bunch of little corporate dictatorships that are running their countries like big plantations, on which the entire population is essentially slave labour. Then developed countries have to compete with that. How can they possibly compete with the sub-human conditions that exist in those little corporate paradises? They break down their own labour laws. Destroy them in the name of competition. Because a crappy job is better than no job at all, right? And suddenly we have exactly what the corporations wanted all along. Now they have control of developed nations too. Race to the bottom, is the term. Who benefits from a race to the bottom? Certainly not workers. Must be the only other party in this little situation, who was that again, oh yes, corporations. Improving, huh? That's why corporations break even the smallest labour laws, so they can 'improve' the lives of the workers? No, corporations keep people down. Sure, they help them kinda sorta in the short term. But in the long run they destroy any hope of change for the better. Money made in corporate ventures isn't reinvested into the community, it is sent off to the home country and into the pockets of the board members. Not when the government won't support them and they have no other means of making a living. You think some illiterate, dirt poor, oppressed Africans who have been working in sub-human conditions since they were ten years old, living in shacks are going to spontaneously rise up against the corporations and the governments they control? Yeah, think again. They would have no where to turn thereafter. The company could fire all the strikers and not pay them. They will be dead. The corporations know they have created an inescapable system. You think someone with no other option is going to go on strike? There's a problem with your problem. By the time it 'slows to a trickle' we will be saturated with people, Mexican and otherwise. And they will multiply, as all organisms do. Human population will increase, with or without jobs for them to go to. And now you have overpopulation and unemployment. And it will continue to get worse, year by year, month by month, day by day. With that, of course, comes the possibility that even more jobs are lost to developing nations assuming this globalization continues. And the knowledge that Mexico's economy could very well collapse if the oil is all used up. Which will happen first, well no one knows. Either one would pretty well screw over the USA as well, unless we drastically change policies.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Sept 9, 2006 23:12:07 GMT -5
Yes, they aren't immigrating at all to a more capitalist nation than their own. I mean, the huge number of mexicans in the South West are there due to a grand master plan headed by aliens to turn New York into a huge turnip farm.
By that logic any work could be counted as slavery. Please, stop arguing this point. It is undermining the rest of your arguments (which are flimsy enough already).
Wow, morty, I knew you were just joking around with me about being protectionist. I knew you saw the light! You obviously understand that the reason Mexican food couldn't compete in the US market is the huge amount of money that the government gives to US farmers to keep them competitive! That's why domestic is cheaper.
Actually, some of the most powerful lobbiest groups in Washington (like AARP) aren't connected with Corporations. Plus being the incumbant actually has a lot more bearing on whether an official is reelected than funding.
So, how many homeless people do you have living in your house? I'm sure you could afford one or two.
I asked you to prove that it was the corporations that made her poor, and all you did is complain about them not giving her money.
So how did the US ever manage to form a middle class? Explain.
Then why are there so many rebellions in Africa?
Well, if you factor in population trends in developed countrys in Europe (which don't have the immigration the US has), you will see that there won't be population growth once immigration stops. More likely we will see population reductions.
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on Sept 10, 2006 0:53:19 GMT -5
That is a horrid example. Countries don't "slap tariffs" on necessary goods. Oil, at this point, is a necessary good for the world. That's like a country that has no way to make enough food for its population putting tariffs on food imports. Don't be ridiculous. Actually this is a totally unfounded statement. The United States has "slapped" huge tariffs on Japanese and Russian steel in the past. Just because a good is necessary doesn't mean that it will avoid a tariff. And as your points to how capitalism is horrible system, consider two things. 1. Do you not appreciate the standard of living that it has afforded you? 2. What is a plausible alternative that maintains this standard?
|
|