Wednesday, July 18, 2007
|
|
Visiting with the ONE Campaign
|
|
Posted by:
Patrick Ruffini at
12:44 AM
|
|
Along with Soren Dayton and Joe Carter, on Tuesday I had the opportunity to attend a blogger roundtable at the ONE Campaign’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. We got to hear from ONE CEO Susan McCue and her staff. For those that have been hanging out in nuclear fallout shelters over the last couple years, ONE is the campaign to focus attention on global poverty, HIV/AIDS, and debt relief. It’s backed by, well, all of Hollywood, but also by some serious political players on both sides of the aisle. McCue talked of ONE’s goal as “mak[ing] global poverty the next great social justice movement.” That’s sort of a liberal activist way of putting it, but the effort is bipartisan. A senior level official is dedicated to working the organization’s Republican track, and we were joined over the phone by Jack Oliver, who used to run the day-to-day at the RNC. And Sam Brownback is a fan. This fall, ONE will unveil the ONE Pledge, with the goal of getting the Presidential candidates to commit to their agenda, likely to include increased foreign aid and debt cancellation. Right now, the organization, though its ONE Vote ‘08 campaign, is in the process of gathering commitments. After 2008, they’ll move into an “accountability phase.” It’ll be interesting to see ho w they handle it. Right now, the group has been lots of touchy-feely, avoiding any stench of partisanship or controversy like the plague. Let’s see what happens when they start going on record against named public officials. ONE has purposely avoided the strategy of setting up large global concert events to drive their message, a la Live Earth. They want to build something sustainable, that won't fizzle out after a giant media hit. The challe nge with a Live Earth is that it's lots of sizzle and little steak. McCue says the group relies on a little celebrity style to carry its message -- okay, a lot, she admits. But they'd clearly prefer that be in the background. Boots on the ground matters more to them than the air war.
ONE Vote ‘08 has been doing launches in the four early primary states (though does Nevada matter as much as, say, Florida, on the Republican side?). Up in New Hampshire, one of the political reporters remarked that they seemed more organized than most of the Presidential campaigns. With 17,000 members in New Hampshire alone, you can see why. I asked how many of those were likely voters, as opposed to people who texted in their name at a U2 concert. McCue replied that 80% of ONE members are registered voters, and over 10% are super-activists who perform every action online (that would work out to about 250,000 people, based on the numbers provided by ONE.org). The 80% figure is interesting — it implies an audience that’s not totally disengaged, but still relatively apolitical. What other high level advocacy group can you think of that attracts a 20% non-registered membership? If they have email (or have figured out a way to effectively drive it through SMS) on these people, that could make them a powerful force in voter registration this cycle. Their counterpoint to the “young people don’t vote” mantra is that any movement depends on the creativity of young people. They view students and churches as the cornerstone of ONE. Lots of the volunteer energy, new ideas, and great stories get driven by the 18-29 demographic, even if the ultimate effect at the ballot box is more muted. What I’m fascinated by this is new mode of movement building that ONE is pioneering. The old school groups were ideological, direct-mail driven, and special interest-focused. ONE holds itself to be post-partisan, net-centric, and they represent people who don’t have a stake in the American political system — Africans suffering from famine or dying of AIDS. That turns a lot of the political science assumptions about collective action on their heads. I believe ONE is also a model for the advocacy group of the future. They have about 25 employees, and 9 of them (or nearly 40%) are working on the Internet full time. They built out their Internet operation first. Presidential candidates should take note.
|
|
I have read Friedman's other books, and I have never been especially impressed. He has some interesting anecdotes, but then he creates some overly-simply formula based on those anecdotes. If you are recommending Friedman but think Marx was "not a particularly good" theorist, it is a little odd. You can disagree with Marx, and he may have been wrong about economic principles (such as labor theory of value), but all the most important economists have made pretty serious theoretical errors. The bottom line is that Marx a) understood capitalism and b) explained it to millions in a way that previously had not been done.
Now, as for the three countries you are trying to link up -- you seem to elide the major differences -- you argue that, hey, China is not English speaking, Mexico is not English speaking, why can't the latter be like the former? But the differences are vast -- and you focus on only some elements of free trade. The fact is, through the 70s and 80s, as the Chinese shifted to a mixed economy, their government could do anything it liked with its population -- shift whole cities of people to industrial areas etc. Even today, they can command entire towns simply to vanish -- look at their Olympic preperations. Mexico never had that sort of central control. Additionally, China has such a massive population that it has trapped human capital of enormous value. Mexico didn't have that -- their human capital was mobile. And -- they had the advantage of protecting their borders from competition -- the question isn't why did the Chinese penetrate our borders in a way the Mexicans didn't -- it is what impact did our early penetration of the Mexican border have on them relative to our rather late penetration of the Chinese borders. Only now, really, are our largest companies entering China. We entered Mexico so long ago that it stifled domestic industry.
As for all the rest -- well, I guess it is a matter of perspective -- you can dismiss the $2 number about India, but it doesn't sound like you entirely disagree that the worst poverty is untouched by their economic "miracle." So, it seems, it comes down to your satisfaction with the creation of a middle class and my dissatisfaction with massive poverty.
In some of the little details, I have no idea. Do Mexican schools NOT teach English? How do I know? I am not an expert on the minutiae of India, China, or Mexico. |
|
India still has a large poor population, but increasingly that population is relatively rural. These $2 per day figures are always a scam, in any case, as I suspect you know, since they fail to account for ALL economic activity and production that keeps people alive.... or on $2 per day, they'd be dead in a month.
The big news about India's middle class is that it IS growing, fast, but of course the people entering it are from the "upper poor" bracket, not the most desperately poor (and so more likely to be uneducated). Middle class in this case is defined as having enough to live, and to buy some lifestyle... clothes, gadgets, amenities, cell phones, tvs, etc. In other words, like most welfare supported families in the USA (just stuck that in to pull your chain to see if you were paying attention... though it's true enough). Read Friedman's book before you dismiss it out of hand. You haven't, or you would have said so... which means you're dodging a source of input that might jiggle your elbow.
I find your dismissal of Friedman on a single anecdote to be amusing. Such thinking would lead people to dismiss YOU without further ado, I suspect, based on a single silly statement. In any case, MARX was a theorist. Not a particularly good one, either. Friedman is basically a reporter, trying to make sense of facts on the ground. They don't compare. And while we're at it... what have YOU written above that MARX didn't write 150 years ago...
China HAS relatively free markets, compared to 20 years ago. It isn't perfect, but the basic facts of reasonable economic freedom, relatively predictable rule of law in enforcement of contracts, and low tolerance for graft are what make it work. I suspect the economic changes are going to lead to political ones... and hopefully MORE economic freedom, in a positive feedback loop. We'll see. Darker possibilities exist, of course.
The Chinese are NOT educated in English. Why didn't MEXICO perform the production miracle that China has, and penetrate the US market the same way, only more cheaply due to low transportation costs? Especially with NAFTA helping in ways not available to the Chinese? You know the reason, even if you don't want to admit it, I suspect. And none of it is the fault of the USA or USA business.
And yes, Indians have call centers.... but 100,000,000 new members of the Indian middle class in the last 15 years are not manning call centers. Something else is going on. What do you think it is?
Why isn't English acquisition stressed in Mexican schools as much as it is in Chinese schools?
These are serious questions, not red herrings, and you're failure to deal with them directly, instead of nibbling at the margins and sidestepping, is not helping your case.
|
|
First off, I'd like to see a number on the Indian middle-class. The country is nearly 4x the size of America -- so do you mean there are more people in the middle class (and define that) or that the % of the population that is middle class is larger? Because India has the world's largest poor population. There is, in the top % of the population, enormous wealth, and there is some job growth -- but the poverty is not improving. The estimate for the number of people living on $2 or less a day in 2004 was 971 million -- the estimate for 2015 is 968 million. That is not exactly rapid poverty reduction. I might add that India and Mexico have at least one major difference that also explains a good deal of India's advance -- Indians are educated in English. Hence, jobs in call stations etc.
Friedman's book is trash -- the guy is a buffoon. All you need to know is Michael Sandel's inquiry -- what are you writing that Marx didn't write 150 years ago? Friedman couldn't answer that. He is not the world's deepest thinker.
As for China -- you don't seem to be making an argument for free markets there -- it sounds like that is State regulated growth. |
|
|
Just to make the point clearer, Manfred, there is not a single reason why Mexico could not have done what India and China have done in recent years, and done so much sooner, except the corruption of the Mexican elite. The Mexican elite is the cause (or at least the guarantor) of Mexican poverty. India and China both had to give up on central planning to make their economies start to fly. China has absolutely draconian laws enforcing contracts, protecting business arrangements, etc., not from any great ideological commitment, but because they know it is the only way to trade with the rest of the world. In China, if you're caught skimming, or skimping, or scamming, you may HANG... or be shot. India's middle class is now bigger than the ENTIRE USA, and an enormous amount of that number has arisen in the last 10 years. Read "The World is Flat" (after you read "Basic Economics" as suggested above by One Hot Minute), and ask yourself why Mexico has not profited in the same ways, and why MEXICANS have not had the mobility to move up that Indians and Chinese have... and ask yourself who's to blame. If your answer is USA policy and USA business, you just aren't paying attention. I wish the USA had such power... but it does not, and never has, in relation to ANY nation of which I'm aware, except perhaps Germany and Japan after WWII. And look how well THAT turned out. |
|
Manfred,
You wrote;
------------
"This is NOT an endorsement -- it is just a response to the idea that there cannot be innovation in these systems."
------------
Manfred, you continue to dishonestly knock down a straw man by saying that I asserted 'there cannot be innovation' in Communist systems.
I didn't say there "cannot be" innovation in Communist systems---please don't distort what I write.
What I merely said is to look at the facts; all the major innovations do emanate from capitalist nations, not Communist ones---"why" is that ?
Nonetheless, friend, allow me to kindly recommend a couple of books to you---I think they could be helpful to you in better understanding how markets work;
"Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell, and "How Capitalism Saved America," by Thomas DiLorenzo.
|
|
Manfred, no one in the USA has the ability to force the Mexican ruling elite to do anything in particular. The examples you gave earlier just reflect USA companies taking advantage of the facts on the ground, not CREATING the facts on the ground. Do you believe that any of the examples you gave would have worked out that way if Mexico were not corrupt top to bottom?
I have no doubt USA businesses had to bribe Mexican officials in subtle and not so subtle ways, in order to do business at all. Whose fault is that? You have to buy your seat at the table when it's the only game in town, and doing so doesn't make YOU responsible for how the rules of the game were established.
Finally: you engage in straw man arguments when you point to specific persons who are harmed by the transition from less free to more free trade. No one has ever said that no individuals pay a price for these economic adjustments... ask the buggy whip makers about that. What is asserted, and what you're nowhere near disproving, is that, given time (sometimes a generation), a significantly freer trade environment produces benefits for most people at all economic levels, IF coupled with the protection of law, enforcement of contracts, etc. The absence of these things is exactly what's wrong with Mexico.... NOT the fact that USA companies use the local facts to leverage profits. They are not social service agencies, they are businesses. |
|
I give numerous examples above of what we have done to Mexico. It is not unlike what we (and by we, I include the IMF and World Bank, which are extensions of our gov't -- hence, we get to name unilaterally the President of the WB, for example) did in Argentina, when forced liberalization collapsed the economy or in Chile after Pinochet, when the income shifted to the top percentiles and poverty grew enormously (I think I gave numbers elsewhere and don't have them at hand).
We tend to consider free trade as a cure all, but developing countries are extremely vulnerable when forced to open up to subsidized goods and, in turn, are not really able to compete. Now, I grant you, one can argue that it is a sink or swim world -- but then we should not be surprised when -- as those countries sink -- their underclasses come here for a better life. |
|
Manfred, I truly don't know what you're talking about re: how American policies in this century (do you mean last?) have knocked down poor Mexicans, slowed growth of a middle class there, harmed the small Mexican farmer, etc.
To the extent that USA interests did business *at all* with the ruling elite, I suppose you can claim some kind of complicity, but what was the alternative? Invade and replace the government? Do no business at all? |
|
Shostakovich was twice rehabilitated! -- but as I said before, I am not defending Stalinism. I think my point about the arts was that the Soviet system produced genius -- it may, too, have stifled some. But it was the training and investment of the Soviet Union that made their great artists and athletes throughout the century. This is NOT an endorsement -- it is just a response to the idea that there cannot be innovation in these systems. Clearly, in many ways, their educations were probably better than ours (even today Russians are likely far more culturally literate than Americans -- they know their Pushkin better than we know our, well, whomever).
I think your post is thoughtful and hard to argue against -- I don't think we are in complete disagreement -- it is more degrees and stresses. Mexico has been a one party state for most of the century, and it is not a society geared to help upward mobility. But I think we cannot underestimate the chain of events that traces back to the beginning of the century -- and all the American policies throughout the century -- that have knocked them down again and again. And, in particular, our policies have been brutal on those people who teeter between creating a middle class and being swept under, such as the small farmer.
In the interest of relative brevity -- I stop there. I can provide greater detail if necessary. |
|
Can we keep it down to one or two unsupported assertions at a time? That will make it much easier to have a conversation instead of a verbal shotgun fight.
I'm interested in the issue of a "hierarchy of legitimacy" of nation-states because most nations are not formed of the relatively free decisions of a majority of those living there, and are not maintained that way either. When Mexico was a dictatorship, the USA was a democratic republic. It wouldn't be hard to make the argument that Mexico's legitimate claim to the "territory stolen by the USA in the Mexican-American War" was very weak, and existed for the benefit of a very few people... certainly far fewer than died on the Mexican side in the war.
You ascribe very venal motivations to USA employers. Maybe so. But they aren't close to the venality of the Mexican ruling elite/business partnership, whose abuses are precisely the reason Mexico's economy is unable to provide work for it's people, and ours is. You want to criticize someone? Start with Mexico, widely known to be a highly corrupt society that makes the USA interactions of government and business look positively angelic.
Mexico has great natural resources, and hasn't been invaded for quite some time, so it can't claim WAR as the problem. Why, exactly, is Mexico so poor? Or, better, why is HALF of Mexico so poor? The answer to that question will be a lot closer to explaining the situation we're in now than any amount of USA employer bashing you'd like to do.
BTW... Shostakovich (and Prokofiev, too) were both forced to alter their compositional styles by the state. They were accused of "formalism", and told they must practice "socialist realism", denounced in TASS, etc. In fact, they were forced to apologize in print, and write different music than their artistic desires dictated. So much for the Communist dedication to the arts.... |
|
I don't get your question -- what made it seem as though I create a hierarchy of legitimacy? They are equally legitimate -- if they decide otherwise for themselves, that is fine, too. If Europe decides to continue to integrate, and they become some super-state, that is fine. What is the point?
Now, of course, "nations" are far older than set borders, which, for the most part, are extremely recent. For example, the King of France rarely had a solid idea of where his kingdom began and ended -- there were few hard and fast lines and much disputed ground. So I would also say that history shows that nations are nations borders or no. We were no less autonomous or sovereign before about 1917, when our Southern border was not only entirely open, but also a bit fuzzy. The border issue has always been an economic one -- not primarily a security one -- and it only became an issue when owners started to want greater control on Mexican labor. The security arguments have been made for nearly 100 years; they are always the same; and they are always bogus. This nonsense about terrorist coming over the border? Just rehash of the Walter-McCarren act (1952, I think) that was to defend us from communist coming over the border (seriously! People thought that was a threat!). |
|
So, Manfred, there is so much to argue with in your post that I decided to stick to just one thing. The music.
Jazz was invented in the USA. It is probably the most innovative music of the 20th century.... and I know about ALL the rest... it's what I do.
JAZZ will be remembered when Shostakovich is getting as much attention as Lully. And I like Shostakovich.
YWTAHJCFSISW.
OK, now next question for Manfred.... WHICH nation states are the most legitimate? How would you go about determining such a thing? |
|
|
Ok, I apologize for the moronic crack. Most of the writers on here lack civility, and I should not allow myself to follow suit. It was not appropriate. |
|
Goodness, so much to answer for.
a) in a sense you are right -- self-determination might lead to the dissolution of a nation-state. But I think people ought to decide for themselves. It DOES mean that if that decision is a nation-state, I respect their autonomy.
b) that Communists deny sovereignty is touchy. Stalin certainly was brutal about it, no doubt. Lenin, however, wrote extensively about the right of self-determination for the small countries of the Tsarist empire. The Georgian question was one of the breaking points between Lenin/Trotsky and Stalin -- and Lenin died before he had his final say. Read up on it -- intersting stuff.
c) you are confusing self-determination with, well, personal action. People coming here to work has nothing to do with self-determination as a people. My sympathy for people coming here does not at all trump my sympathy for Americans. On the contrary, it is part and parcel with my sympathy for American workers, who suffer from the same forces that Mexican workers do. The whole debate is so dishonest, that I simply wish it were laid bare so workers could see where their interests really are.
d) I have not -- nor would I -- provide a spirited defense for Stalinist states. If saying that I don't recognize the countries that people list as communist as being such is a defense of communist states, then, in that case, I am guilty.
e) I am not 100% I agree with the claim that "communist" states are not innovative -- if by communist states, I take it you mean the Soviet Union or China. Brutality aside, the Soviet Union modernized at a rate unheard of anywhere else in the history of the world. It went from the premodern Tsarist backwater in 1917 to a world superpower in about 30 years. To discount that because some of the technology came from elsewhere is like saying that we don't deserve credit for talk radio because an Italian invented the radio.
I might also point out that there are other kinds of innovation, and the Soviet Union probably outpaced the US in the arts and in athletics throughout the 20th century. We cannot match the likes of, say, Shostakovich. |
|
Manfred,
Friend, feel free to continue to call me all the names ("moronic") you want.
However, saying that you believe in "self-determination for people" does not inherently 'explain' an affirmation of belief in a nation-state.
Ironically, "self-determination for people" actually contradicts your spirited defense of Communist states since citizens living in Communist states are DENIED the right to their own self-determination.
Additionally, "self-determination of people" has its limits.
For example, self-determination of people in Mexico who wish to find work in the USA does end with the sovereignty of the USA.
Your sympathy for people from Mexico "coming here to work" seems to trump your sympathy for the sovereignty of the USA.
Thus, I'm not entirely convinced of your appreciation for the "nation-state."
Also, I never said that Communist states are "INCAPABLE" of innovation, as you asserted that I did.
I merely pointed out that they benefit from the innovations which emanate from capitalist states.
By the way, Manfred, just 'why' do you suppose that it is that innovations don't emanate from Communist states, and why do they largely emanate from capitalist states ?
|
|
|
|
Manfred, you've confused the fact that the USA allowed illegal aliens relatively free access in earlier times with what it has the right to do now. None of the people coming illegally over the border NOW have any right to do so, merely because the laws were not enforced at an earlier time.
If you're serious about trying to redraw geopolitcal lines to remove the effect of any war in the last 160 years, let me know. We'll have fun. If you're not, then bringing up the Mexican-American war as an excuse for any policy NOW is sheer silliness.
Simple yes or no, without equivocation: DO NATIONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL WHO ENTERS THEM? Try hard to give a yes or no without any further explanation or commentary.
If you can't do that, we don't need to waste more time here. |
|
Umm... that is a profoundly moronic post. First off, I was being sarcastic about the planes. It is a bit like saying "communists didn't discover electricity." No. Communism didn't exist as a concept when electricity was discovered. How does that suggest communists are incapable of innovation? The point is moot.
Now, I will put this in terms as simple as I can muster:
I believe that a people (e.g. a collection, a nation-state) has the right to decide its own fate (e.g. its border control, its system of government etc.). Is that still unclear? Let me give you an example, because children like examples: if the American people want to build a great big wall with apes throwing poop from atop it, they may. It may not be JUST, but it is within their rights.
There is a big difference, by the way, between the Mexican example and the American example. In the latter case, individuals are coming here to work. In the former case, they lost a substantial portion of their country. You think if Canada took all of New England, we might still be a tad bitter 150 years from now?
Finally, let me just sum up the overall argument. People got bent out of shape suggesting that it is subsidizes (which they said didn't represent real capitalism) that caused poverty in the world. I pointed out that their "real capitalism" doesn't exist, so they need to live in the real world. They said prove it. I said that because labor doesn't have freedom of movement, it profoundly affects wages -- I wasn't saying we should just go to one world state but merely pointing out a limitation to the concept of "free trade." I also wanted to point out that even when we think of government as being neutral (just letting people pursue their own goods), it is, in fact, protecting the interests of the wealthy.
If any of this is too difficult, I can write it in crayon and mail it to you. |
|
Manfred wrote;
-----------
"And you are right that communists did not develop the airplane, because, given that it was already invented, it might have been mildly redundant."
-----------
Manfred, I was talking about being FIRST to invent it. By definition, that's WHAT being an "inventor" IS.
Oy vey !
But I'll say this---you're first to invent new ways of avoiding responding to direct questions or points.
Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly would be envious of your fancy dancing around Phil Shackleton's questions, particularly regarding his question about nation-states.
You responded to him by writing;
-----------
"I answered this already. I believe in the right of people to self-determination -- so that would include nations etc. etc."
-----------
That answer suggests you just don't know how to answer the question.
I'm not mocking you for it, I'm merely stating as a fact that you didn't know how to respond to the question.
It is kind of ironic how you kick and scream about 19th century Mexico sovereignty---but not 21st century USA sovereignty.
It appears to me that Phil Shackleton knows an awful lot about economics and political institutions.
Rather than parrot Noam Chomsky's prism of history and how things work, you might be smart to soak up a little wisdom from Mr. Shackleton.
|
|
I answered this already. I believe in the right of people to self-determination -- so that would include nations etc. etc. But I also believe that these restrictions are to the advantage of only the owner class. If we care about fairness, there must be policies to balance the losses labor suffers from its loss of freedom. You wrote that you can't have it both ways above -- but you are the one who is having it both ways -- you say that any restrictions on trade are not capitalism, but you also insist on the limitation of the trade of a man or woman's labor. How is that "free" trade? Trade is only free for capital and for corporations who can buy and sell internationally without tariffs -- but workers can't move, or, if they do, they often have to pay for visas etc. If you are willing to admit that "free" trade is a myth on an international scale, then we can proceed from there -- since there are going to be regulations, we then must decide to whose advantage those regulations ought to be.
Also, you wrote that no nation has a right to send its citizens into another to look for work. This is problematic in a number of ways. First, for most of American history, the Southern border was open. Only in the '20s did we shut it down in any way. Second, most of the American Southwest and West WAS Mexico until we took it in an illegal war. Third, why not look into the Bracero program of the 40s-60s -- when the US government imported labor from Mexico in the millions? These workers were often encouraged to surrender any legal status to keep costs down and minimize leverage (of course, immigrant labor from all over has been used since the 19th c. to break unions -- look at the history of California some time). And, finally, I don't really think nations are "sending" their workers -- workers are going on their own. |
|
I note that you do not respond to direct points or questions, and simply change the subject.
So, a straight question: do you believe in nation-states' right to exist, and control their own borders? Or not?
If not, our conversation is over for now...
If so, please reconcile that point of view with your comments on "free flow of labor".
Then maybe we can take up the question of historical wrongs... but I won't be having that conversation with someone who thinks nations have no right to exist as such, including control of borders, who enters, etc.
|
|
Phil, I won't get into my personal feelings or beliefs -- it is distracting. My point about the labor market was simply to say that regulation is inevitable and widespread -- but that we never discuss the regulations that impact the working class. Our concerns are typically with those regulations that are perceived to impact capital. Now, people often argue "well, if it hurts capital, it hurts labor," but that is a canard. It is a "rule" that certainly can be true at times, but just as often is not. The limits placed on the movement of labor are so crippling to it that it seems justified somehow to even the playing field with other regulations -- e.g. higher minimum wage, better protections for pensions etc. etc. etc. When you attack me again, I can flesh it out further.
One Hot Minute -- yes, that is a great point. 3rd world nations look to the 1st world for aid -- that must be a concession to the moral superiority of the system. I will get back to that. And you are right that communists did not develop the airplane, because, given that it was already invented, it might have been mildly redundant. I will point out, however, that the Soviet Union did send enormous amounts of aid to a host of 3rd world countries -- and I might also point out that we have a real problem today with many countries starting to look to China rather than us as a patron. Look at South America -- and while looking there, note how much aid Venezuela sends to its neighbors.
As for the morals of it all. Two things: for one, a substantial amount of aid spent is self-serving -- either it is used to influence political policy or it has strings that force serious economic reforms -- read Stiegliz's Globalization and its Discontents, for example. Second, that aid can be viewed as the debt the 1st world OWES the 3rd world for centuries of exploitation. The industrial revolution was financed by colonialism -- consider, as a small example, the massive fortunes in England made on sugar. Not only was that sugar grown in New World colonies, but it was grown and harvested by African slaves (after the eradication of the indigenous populations who proved to be poor slaves). Hence, when the Brits finally decided to end slavery, there were mass sugar boycotts. But by that time, the money had been made and invested. (Similarly, the Manchester textile trades were enmeshed in the slave trade).
Anyway, the point is that the West would not be as wealthy as it is without having plundered what is now the 3rd world to jumpstart capital.
|
|
Phil Shackleton,
You make an excellent point about Manfred's disdain for the borders inherent in a nation-state.
Also, notice in his first post in this thread, Manfred launched a straw man attack against my premise that capitalism would "raise the standard of living in those poor countries," by asserting that "Capitalism has NEVER "raised" all boats globally."
(Truth is, even states that don't practice capitalism benefit from capitalism, because they eventually utilize at least some of the technological/medicinal advances which emanate from capitalist countries. For example, airplanes, pharmaceuticals, and computers didn't emanate from a Communist country, yet Communist countries eventually enjoy the benefits of those things---when permitted by the totalitarian leaders.)
Of course, the irony still remains that all these groups who seek handouts for third world countries always solicit money from first world countries which PRACTICE CAPITALISM.
Gee, maybe Bono and his buddies figure capitalist countries have a higher standard of living and thus a little money to donate.
I wonder why they never ask for handouts from Cuba !
|
|
Manfred:
My response is predictable because it is correct. Pointing out it's predictability is not an argument. If you want to attack capitalism, make sure you're giving an example of it when you discuss it, not some other system.
Your comments on labor and capital seeking each other, wherever they may be, are simply a cloak for suggesting abolition of nation-states.
Without that abolition, borders DO exist, and should mean something, as determined by the nation-states whose borders are involved.
So can all the chatter about "labor seeking a market", and just come out with your main agenda. It's pretty transparent. Or, if you believe nation-states are a good thing, then be consistent about it and acknowledge that no nation anywhere has ever had the right to send its poorest citizens into another nation to find work... OR social services, free education, etc.
You can't have it both ways. So if your real agenda is the abolition of nation-states, make the case.
Good luck with that.
|
|
|
Interesting -- predictable -- response. It is always something other than capitalism. But what about the free movement of labor? If capital is free to look for the lowest wages where ever it may be -- why shouldn't labor be able to look for the highest wage, where ever it may be? A government that stops labor at the border is not a truly free-market government. At that point, the step to corn subsidies is not that big. They both product the owner class -- not the working class. So, you see, I am betting there are NO free market capitalists on this page -- only capitalists. |
|
Hey, Manfred: Don't blame the effect of dumping subsidized products on Capitalism. Only MIXED economies have subsidies for staples, not capitalistic ones. Weren't you the one who said we should read some economics? Take your own advice, my friend.
It is precisely MIXED economies and outright "command and control" economies that are the cause of multigenerational poverty since 1900 or so.
Re: ONE campaign, a simple observation. Gifts given without strings, and without expectations of specific changes in the behaviors that brought about the situation "necessitating" the gifts, are absolutely guaranteed to produce more bad behavior, which will require yet more rescues in the form of aid... and you see the circle.
Think welfare system and it's effects.
I'm happy to give where it will actually do some good... but I am not happy to give in ways that will encourage people to behave such that people now unborn will suffer, because of behavior my gifts encouraged.
And "post partisan"? You're kidding, Patrick... right? |
|
Please. The arrogance. Unless you have a HUGE family, the fact that yours made it means little. Hell, Bill Gates is far richer than his father -- rising boats!
Let's talk globalization -- a movement that has been going on in other names for centuries. It allows us to export the most miserable conditions to the rest of the world. Hence, for example, the Maquiledoras on the border with Mexico. There, US companies can produce the same goods for %75 less in labor expenses. Thus, real wages have declined in Mexico 66% since 1980. Rising Boats! Wages in the Maquiladoras are around $4 a day -- not enough to survive without employing the whole family -- kids included -- and even then, the people can't afford real housing -- so they live in shanty towns. Rising Boats! Of course, more than 3/4 of the income from the industrial production leaves the country (read: comes back to America) -- so the actual profit from the near-slave labor doesn't stay in Mexico. Rising Boats! Overall, because of this sort of depredation, 3rd world debt has gone from $47 billion in 1968 to $2.3 trillion in 2003. Rising Boats!
Ah, things just get better when you look closer. That debt needs to be financed -- typically through the World Bank and its parter in crime, the IMF. But they won't lend without liberalization. So, for example, in Mexico, they forced anti-inflationary measures -- that would be currency devaluation to you and me. So, in 1976, 1982, 1986, and 1994 (remember the "bailout"?) the poor saw whatever savings or even wages essentially evaporate in massive devaluations. Rising Boats! Before the 1970s, when Mexico liberalized its economy, Mexican workers earned about 1/3 what US workers made; now it is as low as 1/15th. Rising Boats! Yeah for free markets!
Finally, a question. If markets are free, and if a worker has nothing to sell but his own labor, why can't he cross borders freely to seek the best price the way companies can freely sell their goods across borders? |
|
and manfred's right about that whole "capitalism has NEVER "raised" all boats. That's why my whole third generation is still swabbing the decks and hooking cargo down on the docks for starvation wages in Union City.
Yeah. |
|
|
because Catholicism has worked so well for all the Spanish speaking countries of the world. |
|
|
The very term makes my little heart go piddy-pat. Shortly after I clean up the vomit. |
|
First -- "social justice movement" is not just a liberal term -- that sounds a good deal like the language of the Catholic Church, too.
Second -- read some economics people -- NOT Milton Friedman (whose economic miracle with his dear friend Pinochet ended up increasing poverty enormously in Chile). Capitalism has NEVER "raised" all boats globally. In fact, it demands a sizable portion of poverty to work (that's why it hates too-low and unemployment rate: it raises wages). Consider, for example, the liberalization forced on Argentina by the IMF etc. -- it caused a near-complete collapse of the economy and created terrible suffering. Or consider the impact of NAFTA on Mexico -- in just the year after its passage, Mexico lost 1,000,000 jobs. 88% of its exports go to the USA, making it effectively a colonial state. Additionally, since we dump our subsidized, cheap corn on them, 1.3 million Mexican farmers went bankrupt between '94-'04. There is capitalism raising all boats. |
|
... for small government conservatism.
Went through the folks and numbers for the ONE Campaign:
http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/06/one-campaign-gets-minus-one.html
If the ONE Campaign gets what it wants, and it were a separate line-item in the budget, it would rank ahead of: Dept. of Justice, Dept. of Energy, EPA, NASA, Dept. of State, the separate International Assistance Programs, Dept. of the Interior and FCC.
Add it INTO the International Assistance Programs and it then outranks: Dept. of Homeland Security, Dept. of Housing and Urban Development.
That is how much the ONE Campaign is looking to layer on top of the existing outlays. Imagine the bureaucracy, the pork, the *meetings* to try and arrange anything.
Then they want to *expand it*.
Where can I vote *against* this lovely Transnationalist Advocacy group? While I still have my vote and my money. |
|
|
for each country, ONE tyrant will get millions of dollars, while millions of poor may get ONE. |
|
|
they also won't admit that the reason poverty and disease are still prevalent in Africa and elsewhere is because the charity and loans the West dumps into these corrupt govts goes directly to propping up tyrants. |
|
--------
"McCue talked of ONE’s goal as “mak[ing] global poverty the next great social justice movement.”
--------
I thought Communism was supposed to 'cure' poverty !
No ??
Oops...back to the drawing board, then !
It's funny how this group will NEVER admit that practicing capitalism would acutally raise the standard of living for those poor countries, yet they have no qualms about asking for handouts from...wealthy countries that practice capitalism !
|
|
so basically ONE = worldwide communism
tried that before, no thanks. |
|
|
|