New face of capitalism

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm sorry, but I don't see how I'm misinterpreting it...

As Bosse says.

You use the EU as an example of how reducing trade barriers leads to the lowering of immigration barriers in the end. I don't think the EU is a good example of this because it isn't solely a trade organisation. The lowering of immigration barriers within the EU can not be said to be a direct result of the removal of trade restrictions.

Then, I went on a little rant about globalisation but I didn't mention anything about it being good for one company and bad for another. I say it is bad for everybody in its present form.

Originally posted by Wheely
As Bosse says.

You use the EU as an example of how reducing trade barriers leads to the lowering of immigration barriers in the end. I don't think the EU is a good example of this because it isn't solely a trade organisation. The lowering of immigration barriers within the EU can not be said to be a direct result of the removal of trade restrictions.

...[text shortened]... good for one company and bad for another. I say it is bad for everybody in its present form.

I'm not saying it is a direct result, I'm saying that I think it was not by chance that the timetable was such that trade restrictions began to be removed before immigration restrictions.

I don't think the EU would have managed to push politically for the movement of people without using trade integration as a tool for it.

But it's funny how you all make this accusations how trade integration can only be about exploitation and refuse to acknowledge the evidence in front of you that it need not be so.

What do you propose, anyway?

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm not saying it is a direct result, I'm saying that I think it was not by chance that the timetable was such that trade restrictions began to be removed before immigration restrictions.

I don't think the EU would have managed to push politically for the movement of people without using trade integration as a tool for it.

But it's funny how you all m ...[text shortened]... owledge the evidence in front of you that it need not be so.

What do you propose, anyway?

I don´t think anybody said globalisation couldn´t work. In fact Shav implied this with his original statement and I think I said it a couple of times. It will work for the everyday person when you can move and work as you like (as is the case within the EU) but it doesn´t work for corporations if the people can move around as they like. In the EU, you only have the right to move around in the EU but corporations can and do "globalise" outside the EU.

So, extend the EU to include the whole world and then it is all fine. However, if you did that then there would no longer be an incentive for corporations to do it too because corporations only get the benefit if they can buy cheap and sell expensive. If we all move and work in the cheap place, they are completely back to where they started.

Originally posted by Wajoma
People have a right to put a value on an hour of their time and to trade that hour freely.

That is a right.

Just because that right is violated in most countries doesn't make it less of a right.

If you know of any bosses actually forcing workers, or actually threatening them with force then I suggest you take the matter up with the poli ...[text shortened]... oods.

ps, great news for France, people have a smidgen more freedom than they did before.

Bear in mind that coercion can be indirect as well as directly applied by the other party. For example, if you come across someone in a desert who's dying of thirst and you give them water in return for their valuables, that's hardly a fair trade. The same thing applies to contracts between employer and employee where one party has far more bargaining power than the other.

Originally posted by karnachz
Bear in mind that coercion can be indirect as well as directly applied by the other party. For example, if you come across someone in a desert who's dying of thirst and you give them water in return for their valuables, that's hardly a fair trade. The same thing applies to contracts between employer and employee where one party has far more bargaining power than the other.

I disagree. For example, if I am dying of thirst in the desert and you offer me water you are welcomed to everything I own. After all, if one is dead what good are they going to do me? I would just be thankful that someone was there to help.

Originally posted by Wheely
I don´t think anybody said globalisation couldn´t work. In fact Shav implied this with his original statement and I think I said it a couple of times. It will work for the everyday person when you can move and work as you like (as is the case within the EU) but it doesn´t work for corporations if the people can move around as they like. In the EU, you only . If we all move and work in the cheap place, they are completely back to where they started.

Yeah. And there is no globalization because North Korea and Belarus are closed countries. Right. 🙄

Originally posted by Palynka
Yeah. And there is no globalization because North Korea and Belarus are closed countries. Right. 🙄

What are you talking about?

You try and go and get a work permit to work in these countries and have the low cost of living they do and the prices for goods that they get.

Originally posted by UzumakiAi
How does forcing people to work make a nation less competetive? Where did they get their facts??? And nuclear power? The future is not in that, hopefully. We've done enough to hurt the environment already.

Less hours on the job = lower productivity. The socialist government also mandated that workers would receive full wages; employers promptly announced that no raises would be forthcoming, causing the labor unions to strike.

French government officials complained that the 35-hour workweek restrictions raised government spending, partly to bail-out businesses that would have gone bankrupt without subsidies due to the higher labor costs, and because government workers were also subject to the new requirements. They also say that the work restriction has reduced economic growth in France, thus contributing to a budget deficit higher than allowed under European Union rules.

Source: Bruce Bartlett, "Unemployment And The 35-Hour Work Week," National Center for Policy Analysis, October 8, 2003.

http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/2003/bb100803.html

Originally posted by shavixmir
Absolutely.
And until there are no borders, so people can move freely, then I don't see why goods should move freely either.

Say, isn't the internet an American invention? Al Gore, right? Why don't you send it back as a tainted American product?

Originally posted by Wheely
What are you talking about?

You try and go and get a work permit to work in these countries and have the low cost of living they do and the prices for goods that they get.

If I did, then what? What would that prove?

Corporations have gained from the opening of the borders for both people and goods in the EU. Trade between EU countries is bigger than ever.

Your argument implied that this shouldn't happen. If your argument had been right, we should have expected trade with non-EU countries to have increased by more because corporations would "benefit more" . This is clearly false and I begin to wonder why you're not willing to address it.

Originally posted by Palynka
If I did, then what? What would that prove?

Corporations have gained from the opening of the borders for both people and goods in the EU. Trade between EU countries is bigger than ever.

Your argument implied that this shouldn't happen. If your argument had been right, we should have expected trade with non-EU countries to have increased by more becau ...[text shortened]... it more" . This is clearly false and I begin to wonder why you're not willing to address it.

My argument doesn´t imply that. I said it does work in the EU and if the EU model covered the entire world then everything would be fine.

However, corporations can use services outside the EU, such as India. I can not work in India to get the same benefit. So, to make it as clear as I can, Corporations can take advantage of the cheap living conditions in other countries (outside the EU if you want to stick with that theme) but you and I can´t. If we could, then the corporations would get no benefit by doing it.

So, back to the original point. Globalization is a one way ticket. Corporations get to do it but they must stop you from benefitting from it too or it breaks down and becomes the EU model where the benefits of globalisation are not there (though the market is much bigger than it would be without the EU)

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Say, isn't the internet an American invention? Al Gore, right? Why don't you send it back as a tainted American product?

What's the relation between his comment and yours?

Are you tempted to send all your cars back to Germany?

What nonsense.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Say, isn't the internet an American invention? Al Gore, right? Why don't you send it back as a tainted American product?

Internet is for the most users World Wide Web, or WWW for short. It was developed by CERN laboratory in Europe.

The thing ARP in USA was invented and called Internet was only a way to send mails from one point to another. If this is what you mean by internet, then you're right. Sending mail in this way is however not used anymore.

And you know, Internet was not first with sending mail, there was systems before that. Heard about FIDO, only as an example...

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
[b]Less hours on the job = lower productivity.

I'm not sure that I agree with that premise. I worked "3 twelves"--3 days a week, 12 hours per day, then 4 days off. 36 is less than 40, but I didn't see any loss in productivity. Apparantly, neither did the employers, as the system has been in effect for a long time.

Originally posted by whodey
I disagree. For example, if I am dying of thirst in the desert and you offer me water you are welcomed to everything I own. After all, if one is dead what good are they going to do me? I would just be thankful that someone was there to help.

My point is that you have a moral right to survival without being exploited in that way.