babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Borders

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Borders
Ubu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4514

posted 25 November 2003 06:36 PM      Profile for Ubu        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I believe that freedom of locomotion should be a right for every human on Earth and that all non-criminal individuals should be able to work, study and travel to any destination of their choice without restriction. Countries should be treated as states/provinces/counties with a certain degree of autonomy, but controls on the movement of people should be removed. Each province/state/county should pay a minor tax (1-3% of GDP) to a new global body that will redistribute funds on the basis of a development index. I believe that after a few years of upheaval, such a global policy would ease political tension and lend to a greater acceptance of other cultures and belief systems.

So, here is the debate I would like to begin:

Be it resolved that the presence of borders promote intolerance and hatred.

"Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace..."

"Imagine," John Lennon


From: position is relative | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ubu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4514

posted 25 November 2003 06:39 PM      Profile for Ubu        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oops... typo.

"Be it resolved that the presence of borders promotes intolerance and hatred."


From: position is relative | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 25 November 2003 08:03 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Did you want the other side represented?

Point 1. As long as there is a law on the books, anywhere, that treats a corporation like an individual (except when it comes to collecting taxes), borders should not only stay in place, but be considerably reinforced. Nations, especially small ones, need to protect themselves from economic oppression by the citizens of larger, richer, more powerful nations.

Point 2. Populations, especially small ones, need to protect their culture from being overwhelmed and subsumed by a more powerful, more numerous population.

Point 3. In some places, an open border policy would lead, not to greater understanding and tolerance, but to civil war.

Good thought, but needs work; needs time.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 25 November 2003 08:40 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay, a real debate. Great!

Each of nonesuch's points is worth exploring in detail, but I'll limit myself to:

1) What is economic oppression if coercion is not involved?

2) Many cultures manage to survive contact with the outside world, even if they no longer remain 'pure'. Keeping people in a cultural quarantine for their own good seems seems patronising. Let them decide.

3) Sadly, there are indeed serious and legitimate security concerns that would have to be dealt with. There are some places where the original justifications for creating borders are still valid.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 25 November 2003 09:56 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nonesuch:
Did you want the other side represented?

Point 1. As long as there is a law on the books, anywhere, that treats a corporation like an individual (except when it comes to collecting taxes), borders should not only stay in place, but be considerably reinforced. Nations, especially small ones, need to protect themselves from economic oppression by the citizens of larger, richer, more powerful nations.


An Open Borders policy would not necessarily have to follow the model where Coporations are given rights of a person. It wouldn't even have to recognize any rights of a corporation at all while at the same time allowing people free movement . . . do you see this as a necessary consequence of opening borders?

I do agree however that the policy of giving corporations person rights is an "evil" policy, and something to be dealth with in any discussion on this topic.

quote:

Point 2. Populations, especially small ones, need to protect their culture from being overwhelmed and subsumed by a more powerful, more numerous population.

I don't see where there would have to be a conflict between protecting your culture and open borders.

quote:

Point 3. In some places, an open border policy would lead, not to greater understanding and tolerance, but to civil war.

Good thought, but needs work; needs time.



Possibly I suppose, but the potential for violence and wars is there in all human endevours . . . would open borders be more susceptible to this than closed borders?

Interesting topic . . . I hope it goes on further, I would certainly be interested in the potential problems that an open borders policy might cause (all the better to try and figure out ways to solve or avoid them.)

[ 25 November 2003: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 25 November 2003 10:07 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Open borders are absolutely no problem provided two things happen:

1. A regime of extensive controls over capital flows and fixed exchange rates is instituted.

2. Corporations are substantially curbed and reined in either by concerted action by national governments, or by a supranational body with real enforcement powers.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 25 November 2003 10:43 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Where would you draw the line for capital controls? And why? We would expect labour to move away from poor areas towards areas that are more capital-intensive in order to get better-paid jobs. Why can't we let capital move as well? It amounts to the same thing - matching the factors of production.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Catus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4656

posted 25 November 2003 11:27 PM      Profile for Catus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Have to disagree withyou Lefties on two points.

A: Corproations are not individuals nor should they be treated as individuals (even in taxation). Businesses are, however, owned by individuals, ergo that individual retains the right to do with his property what he or she wishes. Or do you suppose you should not be able to cross borders either?

B: If we fixed the exchange rate then poor countries would have no reason to limit their debt, improve their industries, or engage in non-ruinous activities. Floating exchange rates keep nations honest. Recently Argentina released its monetary unit from the US dollar..and Argentina plummeted. Not due to outside investment but because the artificial value of the Argentinian dollar (peso?) allowed local business to engage in less than ideal business practices.

I dont understnd the fear of corporations but the desire to have a centralized governemnt that ignores borders. Why should one person need to be controlled more than the next?

Borders are not wholly worthless. They demarcate the area over which an administrative body has power. They serve a purpose of regulating those who might gain by a particular nation's social welfare programs (thus not overloading the system), they serve as the citizens first line of defense against criminal predation (terrorists, mafia, would be world conquorers etc). Borders, even those in the US in the wake of 9-11, are easily crossed, thus leading to greater trade, capital flows, and population exchanges ( as each person weighs the benits and detriments of "jumping" the border. Closed borders tend to lead to poverty, famine and stem from Authoritarian rule.

open Borders are a great idea, though I think the elimination of borders is a pipe dream. Currently deleting the borders from the world map would result in confusion and a race for power.


From: Between 234 and 149 BCE | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 26 November 2003 12:07 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Controls over capital flows, ironically, would make free trade work better, because the Ricardian theory used to justify it posited the immobility of capital and the mobility of labor.

The factor of production with the greatest mobility wins the game, and today that's capital, not labor.

So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Fixed exchange rates stabilize trade flows by stabilizing the cost and price structure on an international basis. They also prevent distortions arising from increasing profits, on paper, for businesses in an exporting country whose currency devalues relative to an importing country, such as was the case with the USA and softwood lumber.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 26 November 2003 01:18 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:

1) What is economic oppression if coercion is not involved?



If. When is coercion not involved between a weak nation and a strong one?
Opening borders in the present climate is simply taking away even the little bit of self-determination a country may still have.
Add a few little wrinkles like social services. Suppose a country with a population of, say, 30,000 had universal health care. Suppose that country were located next to one of, say, 300,000, half of whom had no health insurance. Now, open the border. What happens next?

quote:
Many cultures manage to survive contact with the outside world, even if they no longer remain 'pure'. Keeping people in a cultural quarantine for their own good seems seems patronising. Let them decide.

Isn't that what i said? Let them decide whom they want to let in, how many and when. Also whom they want to keep out.
Personally, i'm not that big on seperate cultures, pure or mucky. I don't believe any discrete culture can survive the modern world. On the other hand, i'm not eager to see the whole globe turn into a theme park of USian consumptionism. I can see why some people value their culture and feel very deeply about their right to protect it.

quote:
Sadly, there are indeed serious and legitimate security concerns that would have to be dealt with. There are some places where the original justifications for creating borders are still valid.

One might even go so far as to say most places. Most, if not all, present borders are the result of wars. The end result of wars. Take away the border, and the war continues.

Borders don't cause conflict: conflict causes borders. If we had a world government that could keep order, settle disputes fairly and regulate capital, we wouldn't need national autonomy.
Once that governing body is established, has a constitution that works and proves itself effective, i shall withdraw my objection to open borders.

[ 26 November 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 26 November 2003 01:55 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Right now corporations operate without borders. Why can't people?

For example, if my employer moved the plant to the States, why shouldn't I be able to move and apply there without the current restrictions being in place?

It seems coporations are legally individuals, but priveleged individuals with unlimited citizenships.

Maybe we should all be accorded the same privelege, or maybe that privilege should be curtailed.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
babbler/dabbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4633

posted 26 November 2003 08:15 AM      Profile for babbler/dabbler        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote Tommy_Paine
It seems coporations are legally individuals, but priveleged individuals with unlimited citizenships.

Maybe we should all be accorded the same privelege, or maybe that privilege should be
curtailed.
________________________________________________

There is a perspective that I have never heard before but once said, just seems so logical.

The old, who benefits and how comes into play once this question is asked.
It certainly isn't as if corporations do not pose a significent threat to the countries they go into.


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 November 2003 10:45 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It seems coporations are legally individuals, but priveleged individuals with unlimited citizenships.

Are corporations truly "unstoppable" at a country's borders? Or does it just look that way because most countries welcome them?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 26 November 2003 11:32 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nonesuch:

When is coercion not involved between a weak nation and a strong one?
Opening borders in the present climate is simply taking away even the little bit of self-determination a country may still have.
Add a few little wrinkles like social services. Suppose a country with a population of, say, 30,000 had universal health care. Suppose that country were located next to one of, say, 300,000, half of whom had no health insurance. Now, open the border. What happens next?

[ 26 November 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


I must say I don't understand this point, unless opening borders is the same thing as having a world government, in which case population size is a good proxy for bargaining power.

I was thinking more along the lines of keeping governments in place, with their powers of taxation and whatever social policies they decide. The only new thing would that it would be easier to move from one country to the other. It would presumably be the case that people would avoid places with bad policies.

The only way that Americans could change Canada's policies would be if a sufficient number of them moved up here with the aim of changing our policies.

I guess that's another reason for borders. Not just that example, but it's probably a good idea to try to keep the flows at manageable levels. Few would object if a poor person in a poor country wants to try his or her luck in a rich country - but there might be some difficulties if several tens of millions showed up at the border at the same time.

Same idea for capital flows, too, I guess. Too much, too fast doesn't necessarily translate into solid economic development either.

So instead of borders, how about dams? People and capital flow, but at manageable rates.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 November 2003 11:52 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Suppose a country with a population of, say, 30,000 had universal health care. Suppose that country were located next to one of, say, 300,000, half of whom had no health insurance. Now, open the border. What happens next?

99% of our tax revenues go toward paying for health care for all of America and we Canadians find ourselves on a 4 year waiting list for a routine checkup?

Oh, wait — you were speaking of hypothetical countries...


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 26 November 2003 12:31 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
All those people coming to Canada would still have to become citizens or get landed status in order to receive Canadian benefits . . . if they then because productive members of Canadian society, paying into the medicare pot, then they should receive the medicare benefits.

We have just been talking "freedom of movement" here, so I guess a better definition of what you lose from your old locations and gain from your new location and the parameters used to determine when and how you lose or gain would be required.

I suspect that simply hopping in a car/boat/plane and arriving in Canada would not be the only requirement to receive Canadian benefits paid for by taxpayer monies.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 November 2003 12:55 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I suspect that simply hopping in a car/boat/plane and arriving in Canada would not be the only requirement to receive Canadian benefits paid for by taxpayer monies.

Why not? All that's required now is that you be born here. None of us is required to be "productive members of Canadian society, paying into the medicare pot". And what would be the difference between having to become a landed immigrant or citizen and what we have currently?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 26 November 2003 04:16 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's a question of administering the resources. If you have a system in place that works for a small, relatively stable population, that system can't suddenly expand to handle a large influx of new population. The resources have to be collected and allocated first. But the new population needs food, shelter and access to medical aid, long before it becomes productive.

Another consideration is why people want to migrate. Oliver Cromwell mentioned poor people going to rich countries. That's fine, as long as the flow is regulated and each new arrival placed in the society and economy. Otherwise, the rich country just becomes poor - and chaotic.

I'm not saying it's fair that some countries are rich and some are poor.
I might suggest, however, that there is no need for any country to be poor. The disparity is not a function of borders (except for some arbitrary post-colonial borders) but of coercion - economic, military, political, or a combination of all three.
Most people would prefer to stay at home, with their relatives and mother tongue and familiar landscape. If the same world government which could open borders would, instead, keep some countries from messing up other countries, there would be no need for populations to migrate in the first place.

Edited to add an old iron-curtain joke. A Czech is given one wish, and he wishes that all the Chinese people would come and visit him for an afternoon. Why? Because they would all have to travel through the USSR, coming and going.

[ 26 November 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Catus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4656

posted 27 November 2003 06:49 AM      Profile for Catus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
most warfare and internecine conflict is seenin third world/ undeveloped nations precisely because their borders are closed to the flow of investments. Certain "economists" of the left support such actions due to some bizarre and untrue theory that holds that protectionism is good for developing nations. Unfortunately it is these same protectionist countries that are ran by tyrants, despots or see bloody coups and tumultuous governments that often disrespect law and order. Borders are kept closed so that the politically powerful might better exert control over the populace, not to protect their beloved countrymen from outside manipulation (witness most of the African Sahel and large portions of South America).

Dr Conway, I totally disagree. A stable exchange rate is not feasible since we do not use a stable commodity (such as precious metals) to define scrip prices but rather refer to government fiat ( always a bad case. As much as I admire Friedman I do not care for much of his monetary policy).

Stable exchange rates do nothing to prevent countries from running up huge deficits, and then printing tons of bills to cover the difference. What you are supporting is wholly illogical. While the value of the Mexican peso might not change in relation tothe CN Dollar, soon enough investors would cease doing business with a government that devalues its currency and destablizes its market but sufferes none of the normal preventative repurcussions for doing so.

Basically you are undermining price, similar to what a Marxian economy would do thus making it literally impossible to define prices for products and services offered across national boundaries. The world would be reduced to barter in short order and that would not bode well for the expansion of markets or of wealth. You would condemn the world to a perilous state of affairs wherein growth would be severly curtailed (its hard to invest corn or pigs in building new industries or innovations)
You are fixing the rate on a traded commodity. Price fixing has historically lead to market failure ( witness California's "Grey Out").

Now if we required every nation to go to a precious metals standard then fine, international exchange rates would be wholy stable and interdependent. I would not even have a problem with it. Fixing the international exchange rates on fiat money would be senseless and would have profound and unwanted repurcussions on the economies of developing states, the very states you are attempting to aid.


From: Between 234 and 149 BCE | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 27 November 2003 09:57 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Cactus, in typical right wing fashion, you confuse the free movement of people with the free movement of corporations.

The reason some "leftists economists" are in favour of "protectionism", is because the free movement of corporations allows the rich corporations from rich countries to come in and rape the poor countries of their resources (natural and human.)

Then again, maybe I've misjudged you and you really are for allowing the free flow of people across all borders . . . is that possible? No, I suspect it's the former, and you just continue to confuse corporations with people.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4143

posted 27 November 2003 10:19 AM      Profile for Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just do y'all know, Cactus is "Hankerin' Tom" who often posts over on freedominion urging its members to cause trouble over here.

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2//viewtopic.php?topic=16310&forum=16

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2//viewtopic.php?t=15956&highlight=


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 27 November 2003 10:45 AM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
most warfare and internecine conflict is seenin third world/ undeveloped nations precisely because their borders are closed to the flow of investments. ... Unfortunately it is these same protectionist countries that are ran by tyrants, despots .... Borders are kept closed so that the politically powerful might better exert control over the populace, not to protect their beloved countrymen from outside manipulation.

This isn't causing trouble; this is ignorant simplification. "Because their borders are closed to the flow of investment"??! The borders in Africa were drawn arbitrarily by European colonizers who didn't care which warring tribes they shoved in together, once they'd plundered the continent. And who sets up and props up these bloody tyrants? Who supplies them with unlimited arms and burdens them with unsupportable debts? The 'investors'!

Even if this were not so, i would make an exception to my support of borders in Africa. There, the free movement of people is essential to survival; the climate demands a certain amount of seasonal migration. And then the (for want of a better name) UN could reorganize the borders, according to a more realistic plan. This would take quite a lot of study, time and arbitration... but then, that's what a world government is for.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 27 November 2003 10:46 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
is this the point, velma looking self-satisfied for solving it again, when catus snarls "i would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those kids and their pesky dog"
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 27 November 2003 01:56 PM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You know I could just correct your post Catus with a simple word change.

quote:
Certain "economists" of the Right support such actions due to some bizarre and untrue theory that holds that free trade is good for developing nations. Unfortunately it is these same corporations that are run by Multinationals or support bloody WTO Adjustments and tumultuous governments that often disrespect law and order. Borders are kept open so that the financially powerful might better exert control over the populace

And we have the same thing. Almost.
there is always hope to a transitional country to become democratic and seize control of the political and social agenda for the people. But when corporations are are in place, becoming the de facto power in a nation, there is no way to ever regain control. Governments can be accountable and controlled for the people. A corporation with its headquarters in New York and its shareholders spread from Savannah to San Antonio cannot.


From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 27 November 2003 02:53 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd like to explore the language a little further.
"undeveloped": free-for-all; open to plunder and slave-trade
"underdeveloped: we've taken most of the natural resources, destroyed most of the ecology and killed most of the wildlife
"developing": time to bulldoze the farms and force the indigenous population into ill-paid, unsafe factory jobs
"developed": everybody owns too much mass-produced crap, owes too much money and is medicated for emotional stress, at some time in their life
Does anyone know of a "developing" country that has been promoted to "developed"?

Theere is something fundamentally wrong with deciding, from outside, what another country, another people, needs and should want.

This is not entirely facetious, nor thread-drift.
Borders make sense if the people inside them are free to organize their own society, control their own economy and choose their own goals.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 27 November 2003 04:27 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Umm, I'm pretty sure you don't mean this, but this looks almost like we should be sending people in poor countries back to their rural villages. Subsistence farming is a very hard life, and even though we may deplore the lives of industrial workers in developing countries, it seems reasonable to believe that these workers prefer it to life in the countryside.

If they didn't want those jobs, they wouldn't take them - and there wouldn't be any reason to shut out foreign capital. If they do want them, why deny them the opportunity?


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ubu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4514

posted 27 November 2003 05:12 PM      Profile for Ubu        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am delighted with some of the debate that has arisen from this post. It is interesting that opinion seems to be divided both on the 'left' and the 'right' on this issue.

I concur with Nonesuch's definitions of development and appreciate the concern of how 'developed' nations might exploit such an open-border policy. However, I disagree and also think this misses the point. If borders had been open over the past century or two, I don't believe there would be 'developed' and 'underdeveloped' or 'developing' countries in the first place.

I believe that inhibiting the free flow of human beings leads to isolation of ideas, values and beliefs. An analogy without dire consequences (usually) is language. Over time, within a large region, isolated subregions develop their own language/dialect from the same beginning (eg. Italian, Spanish, Catalan, French, Portuguese and Romansche). The same isolation that can lead to alternative evolution of language also leads to differences in ideas, values and beliefs. Diverging value and belief systems, in isolation, promote ignorance of the 'other' and nationalistic senses of identity. Indirectly, this promotes intolerance, and, when combined with issues of resource availability, religious difference (itself often a product of isolation) and power, the intolerance eventually erupts into violence.

I think suggestions that civil war and chaos would erupt by removing borders are exaggerated. Where this would occur, I have two points to make:

(1) the civil war would be the result of the belief and value systems that evolved within borders in the first place

(2) it wouldn't last long and there is a lot of chaos across frontiers as it is

(3) the lack of borders will promote understanding, which, in the long run, would lead to less intolerance and a decreased frequency of civil war and insurgency

Anyway, thanks for the great debate.


From: position is relative | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 27 November 2003 06:18 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:
Umm, I'm pretty sure you don't mean this, but this looks almost like we should be sending people in poor countries back to their rural villages.

I do mean what i said.
We should be sending people back to the countryside? Who the hell are We? I'll tell you. We are the foreigners who forced the people off their land in the first place, took that land, made them grow something on it that we wanted and that wasn't supposed to grow there, work it for our own benefit.

quote:
Subsistence farming is a very hard life, and even though we may deplore the lives of industrial workers in developing countries, it seems reasonable to believe that these workers prefer it to life in the countryside.

Why doe it seem reasonable to assume anything about these poeople we've never met?
"We" may consider the manufacture of electric potato-peelers more valuable than farming, but what good are they, if there is nobody - and no land - left to grow potatoes?

quote:
If they didn't want those jobs, they wouldn't take them

Well, i suppose they could choose death by starvation, instead. Of course they can have a factory job and starvation, too. Plenty of choice.
quote:
- and there wouldn't be any reason to shut out foreign capital.

Except maybe that the locals would rather have their valley with their villages and cattle in it, than a great big dam for hydro to run foreign factories (not their own homes: they can't afford electricity), none of the profit from which is ever seen by the natives.

And i still haven't heard an example of country that ever finished "developing" - or is even marginally better off than before "development" began.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 27 November 2003 09:32 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nonesuch:

We should be sending people back to the countryside? Who the hell are We? I'll tell you. We are the foreigners who forced the people off their land in the first place, took that land, made them grow something on it that we wanted and that wasn't supposed to grow there, work it for our own benefit.


People are leaving rural areas all over the world, in rich and in poor countries - and for pretty much the same reasons. Farming is hard work, and those who leave it think they'd be happier - not to mention richer - doing something else.

quote:


Why doe it seem reasonable to assume anything about these poeople we've never met?


Economists call it 'revealed preference'. If people are rational and are free to choose, then their preferences will be revealed by their choices. If someone leaves their farm in order to work in a factory, then we conclude that s/he prefers factory life to farm life.

quote:


"We" may consider the manufacture of electric potato-peelers more valuable than farming, but what good are they, if there is nobody - and no land - left to grow potatoes?
[\qb] [\QUOTE]

People who have to make that choice don't care what we think - they care only about the choices they have before them. If they can't earn a living growing potatoes, there's no reason to expect them to try. If the supply of potatoes starts to dry up, their price will rise - and some people will decide that they can make a living growing potatoes after all.

[QUOTE]
[qb]
Well, i suppose they could choose death by starvation, instead. Of course they can have a factory job and starvation, too. Plenty of choice.



That was my point. Subsistence farming is a hard life - and many people seem to be willing to accept what we would view as unacceptable living conditions to escape it. For many (or most), it's not much of a choice. But it would be cruel to deny it to them.

quote:


And i still haven't heard an example of country that ever finished "developing" - or is even marginally better off than before "development" began.

How about Canada? If we go back (say) 150 years, most people lived in rural areas, communities were smaller and more tightly-knit, and the environment was (by current standards) relatively pristine. Even so, I'd claim that we're more than marginally better off.

(After several tries at editing this message, I still can't get the quotes right. Sorry. I hope it's clear from the open and close quotes commands which part is me and which part is quotes from nonesuch.)

[ 27 November 2003: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

[ 27 November 2003: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

[ 27 November 2003: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]

[ 27 November 2003: Message edited by: Oliver Cromwell ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3912

posted 27 November 2003 11:21 PM      Profile for Zatamon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Oliver Cromwell: If people are rational and are free to choose, then their preferences will be revealed by their choices. If someone leaves their farm in order to work in a factory, then we conclude that s/he prefers factory life to farm life.
The arrogance of us 'Westerners', in assuming that we understand people who grew up in an entirely unknown (to us) culture, never stops amazing me.

One example: most Canadians I talked to during the Afghanistan war, used the argument of the burka that Afghan women had to wear. They assumed that Afghan women wanted to prance in bikinis on the beaches, like we do. At the same time, many of the Afghan women I heard interviewed expressed disgust at our western women acting like "shameless whores" in public.

We had no idea how their minds worked and they had no clue about our values.

Some humility, please!!!

[ 27 November 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]


From: "The right crowd" | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 27 November 2003 11:44 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
People are leaving rural areas all over the world, in rich and in poor countries - and for pretty much the same reasons.

Yep: the wholesalers and distributors (that is, entrpreneurs with capital and political clout) take all their profits; the bank takes all their savings; the developers take their land.

quote:
Farming is hard work, and those who leave it think they'd be happier - not to mention richer - doing something else.

"Look, Ma, that man has no legs."
"Well, dear, walking is hard work. We must reasonably assume that he's happier in a wheelchair."

Youy need to do some reading, Mr. Cromwell.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 27 November 2003 11:48 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh boy, Catus is a gold bug.

It's simple. A regime of fixed exchange rates can be built on either a fixed link to a precious metal, or on controls over capital flows.

Bretton Woods is an example of the latter, even though there was an "official" linkage to gold; it should be noted that within the USA, it was not possible for anyone but the Federal Reserve to hold gold.

Your nattering about deficits is a red herring, Catus, and I'm just going to disregard your line of argumentation because I think it's fundamentally irrelevant. Countries can and have run up irresponsible deficits under floating exchange rates, as well as the reverse - countries have been very "responsible" under fixed exchange rates.

As I recall very few of the industrial nations ever had persistent problems with their budget deficits in the 1950s and 1960s; a classic example is Japan, whose currency was nailed at 360 yen to the US dollar for twenty years.

Only Finland, in point of fact, needed to go outside the 10% allowable unilateral devaluation, by shaving off a zero or two on the exchange value with the US dollar.

Conversely, many African nations, even after the 1970s, have continued to run up their budget deficits and have, since then, essentially been operated as wards of the World Bank or the IMF. All this under a floating currency regime, although one normally does not need to buy lots of Ugandan Schillings (assuming the currency unit hasn't been changed).

Furthermore, a system of sharing out the seigniorage across all countries whose currencies are in a fixed-exchange-rate regime essentially substitutes for the use of a linkage to gold, because it prevents one country alone from benefitting from the export of inflation by printing currency.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3912

posted 28 November 2003 12:03 AM      Profile for Zatamon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Another (related) western attitude that never stops amazing me is the following: "if we fiddle with the system we live in, we will get it working right -- eventually.

We have been fiddling with the same system (with minor variations) for thousands of years and it has gradually, consistently, predictably led us towards extinction.

So what do we do?

Fiddle some more.

How close to our self destruction do we have to get to realize that only FUNDAMENTAL changes will save our collective asses? Changes we never tried before because we are just too greedy and too stupid for our own good?

Borders. Eliminate them. Great! Let people wander around wherever they please. I can hear many scream in panic: "not in MY backyard!"

If we don't do something about the question of 'fair distribution', borders or no borders, we will be forever at each other's throats.

All human activities fall into one of three groups: production, distribution, consumption. All the wars we have ever fought revolved around distribution, even religious wars, when we look real close. All the 'isms' (Communism, Capitalism, Socialism,...) tried to find a 'fair' way of handling disrubution of goods produced by human division of labour.

None of them worked, all ended up in some form of exploitation or other.

The only rational system that would work has never seriously been tried anywhere on a large enough scale to prove itself. It is so blindingly obvious that it gets, when mentioned, 'naturally' rejected out of hand. I guess it is too simple a solution for our evolved brains. As the saying goes (paraphrased): "It is too simple to be true".

[ 28 November 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]


From: "The right crowd" | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 28 November 2003 10:36 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Francis Mont:

One example: most Canadians I talked to during the Afghanistan war, used the argument of the burka that Afghan women had to wear. They assumed that Afghan women wanted to prance in bikinis on the beaches, like we do. At the same time, many of the Afghan women I heard interviewed expressed disgust at our western women acting like "shameless whores" in public.

We had no idea how their minds worked and they had no clue about our values.


I don't see what the problem is here. In this case, I would object to laws *obliging* women to wear the burka. I would also object to laws *forbidding* women from wearing the burka.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 28 November 2003 10:58 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nonesuch:

"Look, Ma, that man has no legs."
"Well, dear, walking is hard work. We must reasonably assume that he's happier in a wheelchair."

You need to do some reading, Mr. Cromwell.


Any references?

Is the following a fair summary of your argument?
- People everywhere would be happiest living in rural communities.
- The reason they're not able to is that they are being physically forced off the land to work in factories.

If the above is indeed what you're arguing (please correct me if I'm wrong - straw man arguments are a waste of everyone's time), then what should be done for poor people in poor countries? And why would they be better off?

On a related note:
I just came across Paul Krugman's article in today's NY Times about economic development in the past 25 years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/28/opinion/28KRUG.html

(you may need to be registered to read it)


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3912

posted 28 November 2003 10:59 AM      Profile for Zatamon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
OC: I don't see what the problem is here. In this case, I would object to laws *obliging* women to wear the burka. I would also object to laws *forbidding* women from wearing the burka.

Here you go again, OC, assuming that the Afghan people value the same 'unrestricted freedom' as we do. Maybe they don't. Maybe they would prefer strong family and social ties, consensus of the community, accomodation and co-operation. Maybe they need symbols for social cohesion, maybe they don't wish 'democracy' and prefer tribal kinship instead.

Just like we assume that Iraqi people want democracy. What if they don't? Is it our job to force it on them regardless of their wishes? Just for their own good, until they grow up? We know what's good for them, do we? Just look at our decadent, neurotic, self-destructive way of life, and tell them to follow our shining examples.

Small and vulnerable cultures don't want open borders, they want to be left alone, to determine their own destinies, according to their own values.

[ 28 November 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]


From: "The right crowd" | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tackaberry
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 487

posted 28 November 2003 11:40 AM      Profile for Tackaberry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Careful, cultural relativism has long been a slippery slope on these boards.
From: Tokyo | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 28 November 2003 11:48 AM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Francis Mont:

Small and vulnerable cultures don't want open borders, they want to be left alone, to determine their own destinies, according to their own values.

That may well be, and if that's the case, I'm certainly not advocating that the borders should be opened up from the outside by force.

My point is that if poor countries want to take the export-driven path to economic development, rich countries shouldn't be putting up barriers of their own. And if they do, they shouldn't claim that these barriers are being set up for the good of poor countries.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3912

posted 28 November 2003 11:55 AM      Profile for Zatamon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tackaberry:
Careful, cultural relativism has long been a slippery slope on these boards.
Smug, self-righteous, condescending and aggressive arrogance has been way more slippery.

[ 28 November 2003: Message edited by: Francis Mont ]


From: "The right crowd" | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3912

posted 28 November 2003 11:58 AM      Profile for Zatamon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:
My point is that if poor countries want to take the export-driven path to economic development, rich countries shouldn't be putting up barriers of their own. And if they do, they shouldn't claim that these barriers are being set up for the good of poor countries.
If that is TRULY their choice (as opposed to forced on them by external meddling and manipulation), then I agree -- obviously.

From: "The right crowd" | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 28 November 2003 12:43 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oliver Cromwell:
Any references?

Not at this time. Any history book will do to begin with.

quote:
Is the following a fair summary of your argument?
- People everywhere would be happiest living in rural communities.
- The reason they're not able to is that they are being physically forced off the land to work in factories.

Pretty fair.
I never said the first, though i wouldn't be surprised if it were true. The context was Africa and South America, where people are literally starving to death, not allowed to grow their own food, not allowed to live on their ancestral land. Yeah, i guess they'd be happier!

Certainly, the second. As long as capital is free to do as it pleases, go where it wants - and is supported by armed force - individual citizens lose their land, their homes, and their livelihood. This is as true of fishers, artisans and tradespersons as it is of farmers. They all end up working for the 'investor', renting their homes and buying their necessities on credit. The capitalist owns their ass.... and their ox and their children.

Turning the world into one giant pool of migrant-workers is not the best possible answer.

No, Ubu, that won't promote tolerance: it will only create more competition for too few jobs, make the organization of trade unions a bigger nightmare than it already is - and thus provide even more, even cheaper, labour for the capitalist.

[ 28 November 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 28 November 2003 01:45 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So what should poor countries do? Evict foreign capital? Then what?
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ubu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4514

posted 28 November 2003 01:46 PM      Profile for Ubu        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nonesuch: It will increase competition for jobs where they are available and decrease competition for jobs where they are not.
From: position is relative | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 28 November 2003 06:32 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
*sigh*

Jobs are wherever capital wants to create them. Capital wants to create jobs wherever the pay is lowest; where anti-pollution and safety standards are least enforced.
If governments retain power over regulating the movement of both capital and labour, they at least have a fighting chance of improving conditions for their population.

I'm not saying every government would want to toss out foreign investors and nationalize their assets, but if one, or several, or many, did, that should be within their rights - and it would serve justice. If some governments wanted to give the land currently held by foreign colonizers back to the people from whom it was stolen, that would also serve justice. The people who get their land back might cultivate it or build a factory on it: that should be their choice. In either case, they probably wouldn't leave everything they own and love in order to become itinerant labourers. People do that, only if they have no better option.

Corporations should not have the rights and privileges of a person, because they have far more power and far less legal responsibility than persons do.
So, i have no objection to the free movement of persons, as long as the same right does not extend to corporations (my first caveat, way up at the top of this thread).
If there is a world government able to enforce equitable rules, settle disputes and regulate the shift of power, i have no objection to removing all the borders.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Catus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4656

posted 28 November 2003 07:35 PM      Profile for Catus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Corporations have zero power, they are not human beings. people that own corporations, run corproations or invest in corporations have freedoms and power. You do not want Corporations to have the power o individuals yet you treat them as sentient beings. This is ridiculous.

What good is it to have open borders to travelers if they cannot bring thier investments with them? Should people in Kingston be prevented from investing in a business in Downtown Toronto? Should vacationers be allowed to buy foreign goods? should anyone be alllowed to buy foreign goods?

Dr Conway, I urge you to learn somethignaobut economics, though if I am not mistaken, you seem to think you are already an economist. you are spouting pure nonsense.


From: Between 234 and 149 BCE | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3912

posted 28 November 2003 08:05 PM      Profile for Zatamon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Catus, all I can say is:
From: "The right crowd" | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 28 November 2003 08:30 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Corporations have zero power

quote:
This is ridiculous.

[ 29 November 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 28 November 2003 09:53 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Catus, I have found that the "gold bugs" like you tend to be a rather unique minority, since even the "orthodox" economists who aren't Post-Keynesians have their reasons for defending the usability of fiat currencies.

(I should know; I used to read sci.econ and alt.politics.economics where gold-bugs would show up every now and then and even the more conservative economists would manage to refute their silly-assed statements.)


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 28 November 2003 11:17 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm pretty sure that if you look through the academic (i.e., peer-reviewed) literature on monetary economics, you won't find anyone advocating fixed exchange rates as a universal solution to anything. Fixed exchange rates make sense if two countries are subject to more or less the same type of shocks. But if one is more prone to one type of shock than the other, then a floating exchange rate can absorb these different shocks more easily.

And - aside from studies motivated by its role in economic history - no academic economist that I know of has published anything about the gold standard in decades. Or if they have, no one paid attention.

While we're talking about DrConway's post, the Ricardian free trade story that I learned (the one involving English cloth and Portugese wine) doesn't require any kind of factor mobility - all you need is comparative advantage.

The factor mobility story comes up in growth models, and the main result there is that factor mobility allows poor countries to catch up to rich world standards of living much faster than if factors were immobile. The model requires only one mobile factor of production. If it's labour, labour moves from poor countries to rich ones, seeking higher wages. If it's capital, capital moves from rich countries to poor, seeking higher rates of return. If both are mobile, you get both effects. In all versions of the story, factor mobility accelerates the growth of the capital/labour ratio in poor countries. This in turn results in higher wages and output than would otherwise have been the case.


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 29 November 2003 03:36 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was talking about the assumptions on which the Ricardian model of free trade rested - after all, if you're going to develop a theory of trade, or of exchange, or something, you need to start with some reasonably basic assumptions.

For example, a theory of exchange might hold that different people have different wants, needs and desires, and will therefore give up something that is of less utility to them to get something with more utility.

In much the same way, Ricardo took some reasonable (at the time) assumptions to develop his model of trade; after all, prior to widespread telegraphy, capital was fairly immobile, while humans could fairly easily move across borders.

Addendum:

Another thing you should consider, Oliver Cromwell, is that factor price equalization is also at play here, which tends to, as I recall, favor the factor of greater mobility while hurting the factor of lesser mobility; in this way, wages tend to converge absent serious productivity differentials, while capital, due to high mobility, can "seek" the highest return, which at various times has been the Japanese stock market, the Asian tigers generally - both stock market and actual production, and the US stock market.

It is to be noted that in actual fact, interest rates have been tending to converge across countries, which would suggest that the "cost of capital" as far as bank lending is concerned is indeed also subject to factor price equalization.

(I bring this up because you discuss mobility of factors without also discussing what happens to their money values in the process)

[ 29 November 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Catus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4656

posted 29 November 2003 04:21 PM      Profile for Catus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Conway, Sorry i flipped out, You did not deserve that sort of treatment, please accept my appology. I was primarily at my wits end with the other comments, not yours.

For the Record I am not a "Gold Bug", I only advocate precious metals as a backing for currency at a fixed exchange rate, for reasons I have already enumerated.

I have a problem with your 1950s era Japanese economy. Japan was pretty much a quasi-third world economic backwater prior to their introduction to the Chicago school in the 1970s, so how did the fixed exchange rate aid Japan exactly?

more to the matter of fixed vs variable exchange rates I think it is best to look at currency as a tradable commodity. Not even a Fixed exchange rate would prevent values being asigned to currency. Arbitrarily stabilizing the exchange rate does not address the problem of speculation, rather everyone should have a variable exchange rate based on the same thing all commodities are based upon in a free-market: value (based on scarcity and other factors). Any country that has hereto for had a fixed or pegged exchange rate have suffered from speculators that borrow large amounts of the currency in question then exchange that money at the central bank while it is overvalued.

This is exactly what occured in the Asian Crisis of the 1990s, even according to Jabes Tobin, father of the Tobin Tax.

Even screwing with the economy a little is a bad idea. Witness Chile inthe 1980s. Already for over a decade General Pinochet had ruled the country with an Iron Fist. Soon after he took power in Chile he realized his controlled economy was going to collapse. He looked outside of hs nation for aid and turned tot eh emerging Chicago School (Monetarists, Friedmanist, what have you) of economic theory.

He then introduced sweeping Free-market reforms along with strong free-trade reforms. It seems he had the ideal economy ( Chile is the most wealthy nation in all of South America, Central America, and Sub-saharan Africa)
But Pinochet ran his economy demanding that investment captial not be free to move in and out of Chile. Well this resulted in higher interest rates that affected small businesses while larger businesses were able to garner capital in other manners, thus shielding them from heavy loans. This led to a bank failure and a severe devaluation of the Chilean currency.


From: Between 234 and 149 BCE | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 29 November 2003 06:03 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Most of the Asian countries let their rates freely float, so I'm given to understand, and in point of fact, tended to let their currencies artificially fall in value below what might be expected on a purchasing power basis or some other model.

Malaysia, in point of fact, didn't fix the ringgit until after the Asian crisis was at its peak. Its recession was shallower, and its recovery swifter, than neighboring Indonesia, which followed IMF prescriptions.

The key point you keep missing is that controls over capital flows is what keeps the speculators out of the fixed-rate picture. There is a "trinity" of adjustment mechanisms that can be in effect in any international-exchange-rate regime: The currency value, domestic policy, or capital mobility. One of the three must be sacrificed in order to get the other two.

In the gold-standard era, domestic policy autonomy was limited; for example, Great Britain was forced to raise interest rates in 1925-26 when it went back on the gold standard. Similarly, the USA had to follow an "easy money" policy in the late 1920s because of problems with the worldwide gold supply (I forget the details now, but I think what was happening was Americans were buying a lot of gold from Europe, and this was going to throw exchange rates out of whack).

In Bretton Woods, capital mobility was sacrificed in order to stabilize exchange rates. The idea was to get rid of the lack of policy autonomy and allow countries to pursue full employment within their own borders and stabilize trade flows by stabilizing currency valuations.

Today, of course, we let exchange rates go all over and let the dollar drop if we follow an expansionary policy.

Have to go, will edit this later. But my basic point is that I favor a fixed-rate regime in order to curb speculation and stabilize exporters' and importers' cost structures. This is rather important for a trading nation like Canada.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 29 November 2003 06:22 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 22 October 2005: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]


From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 29 November 2003 08:53 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Re your last point - we let financial markets get bigger and we let capital flow more freely. The world as we know it today of floating rates is not a natural construct that just magically got here all by itself. It has been made by policy decisions that were taken.

What has been made, can be un-made. We can, if we choose to, return to Bretton Woods. It is really that simple.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 29 November 2003 09:11 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm unconvinced. Even during Bretton Woods, controlling capital flows between Canada and the US simply wasn't practical - the border was just too big and too porous. And that was with the communications technology of the 1950's and 1960's. These days, it's hard to imagine how a government other than something like that of North Korea that could prevent these flows. And it's hard to imagine people accepting the sorts of restrictions that would be necessary to enforce them.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 29 November 2003 09:36 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Most international money transfers, inbound and outbound, go through just three major clearing centers in the USA, all administered by the Federal Reserve. It'd take two seconds to add in a line of code that chipped off the 0.05% Tobin Tax if the USA chose to levy one.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Catus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4656

posted 29 November 2003 10:57 PM      Profile for Catus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am not an economist, I simply value liberty. Letting the government fix the value of anything, even currency, deprives me of liberty.
The Tobin tax, not only deprives people of liberty ( a disincentive to purchasea commodity? Does anyone think tariffs work anymore? other than George Bush?), but also would deprive develpoing nationsof much needed capital.
Tariffs are isntituted by various nations to protect a domestic product from outside competition. The Tobin tax does virtually the same thing. Tariffs typically make the market for the certain product worse. It Creates malinvestment, reduces the desire to modernize, and deprives other sectors of the cheapest goods available.
A professor at George Mason univeristy put it this way:

quote:
Imagine that you and I are in a rowboat. I commit the stupid act of shooting a hole in my end of the boat. Would it be intelligent for you to respond by shooting a hole in your end of the boat?


he is speaking of the economic stupidity of tariffs. The Tobin tax is merely a tariff on currency. A tariff that amkes investment and trade less profitable and thus less likely. What would happenis that investment would remian in larger richer antions and investment would fallin poorer nations. Foreign business investment accounts for far more money that UN or other national development funds.


From: Between 234 and 149 BCE | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 29 November 2003 11:12 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Man, Catus, edit that post.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 30 November 2003 07:56 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You do not want Corporations to have the power o individuals yet you treat them as sentient beings.

Untrue. In point of fact, it is Catus and those of his ilk that have chosen to treat Corporations as sentient beings under the law. Super beings, actually, with more rights than humans.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 30 November 2003 10:33 AM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree that corporations end up as some sort of super-being (to use your term), but I don't beleive it is because they are given more rights than humans.

It seems to me that corporations are for the most part treated the same as people under the law. What is problematic about this is, something that I believe Catus touched on but certainly didn't take as far as I'm about to, that corporations are directed and controlled by individuals. The specific problem can be seen in a case where the corporation has done something wrong (big or small take your pick) but is punished through a fine or someother mechanism. The individuals behind the corporation, who are responsible for the wrong, do not suffer in the same way that an individual acting without the "protection" of a corporation would suffer. In this way, corporations are used by individuals to make alot of money without taking on personal risks. I'm not saying that it always works out in this way, but it is certainly not an uncommon MO.

Having said that, I realize that there is an argument to be made for the necessity of an instrument which allows individuals to invest a certain amount of money without putting everything they own at risk. The fear is that people will not invest in larger projects that carry a lot of potential risk for fear of losing everything they own. If anyone is interested in pursuing such an argument, please explain to me how the mass of numbered companies with one person behind and no assets would fit into such a scheme.

The other thing about corporations that makes them "super-beings" is that they do not have a life span. They can continue as a "being" for much longer than any human can, so long as they are useful to those who control them. The flip-side of this is that they can exist for a very short period of time, just to do one thing and then "die". A common example of specific purpose corporations is in property development where a corporation is set up for a specific development project and then disolves when the job is done. (Or until those who control it have gotten what they can out of the deal and it is starting to "cost them money" [business terminology meaning: lower profits, or lower return on investment from here on in - not actually getting less than was invested], they declare bankruptcy and leave those who have bought into the development, having fully paid for an unfinished product, with no recourse - I'm speaking from personal experience on this last one so if I'm coming across as frustrated it's because I am.)

In his book "Wealth by Stealth", Harry Glasbeek outlines a number of ways in which corporations are used by individuals to avoid responsibilities that individuals would be normally have.

[ 30 November 2003: Message edited by: clearview ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Catus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4656

posted 01 December 2003 12:10 AM      Profile for Catus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Clearview, I understand your concern over the "Super beings" that corporations sometimes become. The problem is only government can do anything so silly as to give inanimate, non sentient, often totally amorphous things "rights" and "responsibilities". I forget the intricacies of the case but i seem to recall NIKE, the shoe manufacturer, winnign a ruling that is was alright for them to lie in advertising because it violates NIKE's liberty of speech. This is ridiculous on its face. NIKE has no liberties to speak of. its investors do, its employees do, its contractors do, its executives and administrators do, but the Company itself is an investment vehicle, not a person that has rights available to him or her.
It would be similar to ascribing human qualities to your piggy bank.
If anything we should work to make sure government does not award civil and human rights to companies, nor arbitrarily award property rights and/or sales rights to comapnies (This is typically how companies create a monopoly, the governemnt protects them).

Now about you being burned on an investment, that is normal, that is how markets work. Or do you think governemnt should prop up Businesses so investors won't be harmed? next thing you know governemnt will prop up marriages so children wotn be harmed, prop up failing regimes so trade won't be harmed (oh wait, that is already done!), subsidize vehicle care so your employer will be able to counto on you, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Back to the borders question.

Yes, borders should remain open to investment, business immigration, and human immigration...but should be watched to make sure you dont allow in indigents, criminals, or other people who might have a negative impact on the economy or safety of the nation in quetion.


From: Between 234 and 149 BCE | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 December 2003 12:14 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The problem is only government can do anything so silly as to give inanimate, non sentient, often totally amorphous things "rights" and "responsibilities".

No, that would be the courts in this case.
And before you get all down on governbment, best I can tell most governments represent the interests of "capitalists" and are disproportionatley comprised of business men and their lawyers.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 01 December 2003 01:14 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, that would be the courts in this case.

Actually, the courts didn't in fact establish "corporate personhood" in the US at all. As it turns out, the 1896 case -- Santa Clara County v. the Southern Pacific Railroad -- which is generally believed to have done so, did nothing of the sort. The "corporations = persons" argument was inserted into the headnote of the case by a court reporter who also happened to be a former railroad executive. And headnotes have no legal force. The actual body of the case left the issue untouched and unmentioned.

See here.

So the concept of corporations having all the rights of "persons" -- besides being certifiably insane and against all common sense -- actually has no basis in legality either. In the US at least. Though that hasn't stopped corporations from exercising those rights aggressively for the last 117 years, claiming the right to "free speech" (or, worse, the "right-to-lie" Catus mentions), the right to fund political parties, protection against "discrimination", etc.

It's possible you might see the US Supreme Court officially strike down this whole bizarre notion sometime in the next few years -- though you can expect corporations to fight against that possibility with every resource at their disposal, to put it mildly. If it goes thru, though, the effects could be profound, and not just for Americans.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 01 December 2003 01:43 AM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The problem is only government can do anything so silly as to give inanimate, non sentient, often totally amorphous things "rights" and "responsibilities".

I'm not really sure what you mean by only a government can do anything so silly...Surely you realise that governments are run by people? Do you mean to say that we should not have government at all? If there was no such thing as a government, what's to stop people from getting together and creating entities such as corporations with these rights?

quote:
NIKE has no liberties to speak of. its investors do, its employees do, its contractors do, its executives and administrators do, but the Company itself is an investment vehicle, not a person that has rights available to him or her.
It would be similar to ascribing human qualities to your piggy bank.
If anything we should work to make sure government does not award civil and human rights to companies, nor arbitrarily award property rights and/or sales rights to comapnies (This is typically how companies create a monopoly, the governemnt protects them).

I agree, we should work to curtail the power of corporations. But if you believe that a corporation does not have rights, read the Canada Business Corporations Act - you'll find that they have all the rights, powers, and privileges of a natural person. I realise that you likely believe that should not be the case, but it is. The reason why people are concerned about the way corporations behave is because they do have rights.

quote:
Now about you being burned on an investment, that is normal, that is how markets work. Or do you think governemnt should prop up Businesses so investors won't be harmed? next thing you know governemnt will prop up marriages so children wotn be harmed, prop up failing regimes so trade won't be harmed (oh wait, that is already done!), subsidize vehicle care so your employer will be able to counto on you, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

I'm forced to assume that you missed my point. I realize that people getting burned on investment is normal. My point was, if I had a contract with an individual and they decided to throw it out the window they would not be able to get away with it so easily unless they had a corporate shield to hide behind. Burning others on investments is facilitated through incorporation.

And about propping up business, I didn't make any such suggestion, nor could any such suggestion flow naturally from my comments. What I said was not that the company was losing money, and so required propping up, rather, they reached a point whether they were not going to make as much money from that point on as they had made up until then and decided to bail - to throw their commitments out the window. Propping up? I'd settle for taking on responsibilities.

quote:

Back to the borders question.

Yes, borders should remain open to investment, business immigration, and human immigration...but should be watched to make sure you dont allow in indigents, criminals, or other people who might have a negative impact on the economy or safety of the nation in quetion.


Curious, would you consider people who hide behind corporations to avoid responsibility/liability as part of those having a negative impact on the economy?
Do you consider Employers who run unsafe workplaces because it makes sense for them from a financial point of view as part of those having a negative impact on the safety of a nation?
How would you distinguish between 'human immigration' and 'indigents'?


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ubu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4514

posted 01 December 2003 01:37 PM      Profile for Ubu        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I am surprised to have attracted so many economists with the borders thread. I must admit that economics is not my forte. Perhaps this imaginary world body I refer to (the one that would administer the equalization payments - if I can call them that without inciting western alienation) would need to set some ground rules on worker's rights and trade. I never said that each 'state' within the borderless world would lose its autonomy altogether - just that locomotion should be a human right. Perhaps a new thread should be "do we need a world government," with greater legislative power than the UN.

I think it is useful to consider the potential benefit of a (hypothetical) borderless world. Would this would be politically impossible to set up right now in the midst of the paranoia of the 'post 9-11' west? It certainly would run against the grain. But there are examples of freer movement of peoples (eg. the new Europe). I think we owe it to our species to include the less fortunate within such unions. Why not just have one ?

The point that I am trying to make is that most of the world's problems that I can think of today (ie. most wars and all famines) are related to the separation of peoples who have evolved distinct values and beliefs along with an intolerance of others, at least among those in power. I think that in the long run, freedom of locomotion would reduce intolerance, and promote peace. I don't think it would result in a loss of cultural diversity, but, rather, a growth in diversity and understanding. In short, it is important to be acquainted with the 'other.' I find it frightening that some nations are becoming increasingly introverted rather than global in perspective. I wish the trend could be reversed.


From: position is relative | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 01 December 2003 02:38 PM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think I understand what you mean Ubu, but there is also something to be said for that old saying: good fences make good neighbours.

A good fence need not be impenetrable, but it is good to respect boundaries (whether on a personal level or an international one). It seems to me that one way in which we respect the other is in acknowledging their right to make rules for themselves.

I get the impression from your posts that you support the use of force to bring in and maintain a borderless world. This doesn't suggest a respect for 'others' to me. And, it seems to me, the resources required to maintain a regime able to exert such power throughout the entire world would necessitate a lowering of labour standards.

I guess I just don't see borders as the key problem in the same way that you do. Sure, it would be a longterm goal, but not something that should be enforced.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ubu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4514

posted 01 December 2003 04:27 PM      Profile for Ubu        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Clearview wrote:
quote:
"I get the impression from your posts that you support the use of force to bring in and maintain a borderless world."

No, I do not support the use of force to enforce a borderless world. I didn't mean to imply this. I like to consider myself somewhat of a pacifist, actually. I almost never support military action. Of course, negotiation doesn't always help. Military action was clearly needed against Nazi Germany and in Rwanda, for example.

The imaginary body I was referring to would have legislative power only. There are existing bodies to deal with keeping the peace. I'm not sure which post you are referring to (probably the last one?).

My argument was just the opposite, actually. I think conflict often stems from isolation of peoples over time (slightly more detail in previous posts).


From: position is relative | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 01 December 2003 05:41 PM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, I do not support the use of force to enforce a borderless world. I didn't mean to imply this. I like to consider myself somewhat of a pacifist, actually. I almost never support military action. Of course, negotiation doesn't always help. Military action was clearly needed against Nazi Germany and in Rwanda, for example.

The imaginary body I was referring to would have legislative power only. There are existing bodies to deal with keeping the peace. I'm not sure which post you are referring to (probably the last one?).


Well, I guess I misunderstood what you meant in your first post about a global policy that would see upheaval for a few years. My Bad. I too am somewhat of a pacifist.

Regarding a body with only legislative power, you mean something Parliament or Congress for the world?

If so, it would be a useless body without a mechanism for resolving disputes that arose out of the rules it created, and a body that enforces those rules.

What bodies do you propose for keeping the peace? The only one I'm aware of is the UN Peacekeeping program, the UN would have to get a whole lot more power for it to be effective. A major obstacle to that is that powerful countries won't be handing over their sovereignty.

I think that the only way a borderless world can exist is when there is a worldwide government. I know, I know, that's probably another thread, but I think that the economic problems as discussed by people earlier in the thread are an example of how complex the border issue is.

quote:
My argument was just the opposite, actually. I think conflict often stems from isolation of peoples over time (slightly more detail in previous posts).

Sure, I can see how that happens.

Earlier, you suggested that civil wars would disappear over time in a borderless world. I'm not so sure. Civil wars continue to occur between people undivided by borders. I still think those would continue and that a belief that they would just go away with time as peoples get to know one another is wishful thinking. Leaders, War Lords, Presidents, they all use differences to promote wars they want to fight for whatever reason they have. Sometimes the reasons are economic, sometimes they are racial or ethnic, sometimes they are religious, etc.

Curious, If war erupts in the borderless world, what would prevent other regions from illegally closing their borders for self preservation? (I guess this goes back to the issue of enforcement)


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Catus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4656

posted 01 December 2003 10:22 PM      Profile for Catus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wingnut, I will address your concerns first.
First, Courts are not truly distinct from the government. As the final adjudicators of laws passed by the legislators they are inextricably linked to the government. Granted they are supposed to be independent of partisan ties and not subordinated to, nor to subordinate others. Still the courts are a major part of government, ergo if a court rules that a corporation has rights normally ascribed to humans then government did , indeed, allow for such a bizarre situation to develop.

Second, Capitalism is not something imposed by the state in most cases. It is the natural relationship betwixt seller and buyer, producer and consumer that develops when government gets out of the way. Capitalism does not preclude communes, nor barter, nor charity, nor any other form of philanthropy or "participatory economics" but the same cannot be said for socialist systems.
Monopolies, price gouging, and other "anomalies" occur when government gets involved.

Government might support businessmen, but in all fairness they support workers and poor people as well. Government should not be inthe business of protecting much of anything except for life, liberty and property. I agree that government should not protect nor serve the interests of business, but neither shouldit shun business either and discourage it. That is not the Government's place (Federal government in any case)
If you want to discuss this more I might recommend we take it to a new thread.

Clearview, I am no anarchist, I just believe in a minimalist government. i understand government is run by people, and realizing it i also note that businesses are ran by individuals and just as tempted by power, and just as much under the control of the majority as government is.

yeah, I know that government has awarded rights to corporations and such. But rather than adding new laws to curtail such granted rights, why not strip those rights from the corporations?

About failed investment and the corporate shield from investors. this, in all honesty is legitimate useage of business. You invested in the business not a person. As an investor (major investor I am assuming) you are partly responsible for the business. If the business goes down you can claim that on your taxes, so why can't the owner/operator point towards the business when investors come knocking?
maybe I am missing your point.

Now in all fairness government penalties on businesses (due to fraud or other reasons) should be taken out of the CEO's Board of Directors' pcoket books, not the business dole. Primarily because penalties paid by the corporation are actually paid by the consumers. Why not try to make the penalty stick to who was supposed to be punished anyhow.

Care to expand on this?

quote:
Curious, would you consider people who hide behind corporations to avoid responsibility/liability as part of those having a negative impact on the economy

indigents are those who are lazy and/or unwilling to get jobs and prefer to such fromthe government teat, human immigration is what exactly? (other than the obvious)

Other than that I dont see Businesses willingly engaging in unsafe behaviour for the buck that often. Sure it happens, and those guys get shut down or people stop working for them or they change practices. Sure, some jobs have a record of safety that borders on perilous, but most people know this going into the job. other than that i fail to see what you are getting at.


From: Between 234 and 149 BCE | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 01 December 2003 11:51 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I’d agree that corporate power and influence is a troubling concern. Exhibit A is the recent US Medicare Reform Bill.

Since the relationship of regulation, subsidy, and taxation to DC lobbying and campaign donation is well understood, it would seem to me that if we lessen those pressures on the corporate mind, they might have more reason to focus on their core mission.

Corporations pay no tax; never have; it’s impossible. It’s simply a pass-along cost to the owners, customers, and employees. All this global hop-scotch is much about this dodge and is a complete waste of energy for everybody. (except for the 'expert facilitators')

Although I strongly favor environmental and safety regulations for corporations, I’d like to see all corporate income taxes eliminated (certain sir taxes and property taxes remain fair, though, imo).

Instead, tax the income at the personal source (CapGain, Dividend, Salary)...as in the person...,that entity uniquely allowed to vote.

I could support the “If you can’t vote, you can’t participate” notion.

That and “Top Heavy” salary minimums and truly independent executive compensation committees would go along way towards reducing corporate influence on the political system. (And salary theft).

I think most of the corporate boys (ie, those not already heavily enmeshed) would gladly take that deal, and we’d all be the better for it.

Fat chance though. Both sides have their hands either in the pockets or are open palmed. Usually both (if not zipper-down). This is why, I think, in relatively prosperous times like these last few decades, politicians and Party's rank below used car salesmen on the scale of trust. They're seen as relatively unnecessary; as lying riders-on. Police and Fire, as usual, are exempted.


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
clearview
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4640

posted 02 December 2003 12:04 AM      Profile for clearview     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Catus: Well, we can agree on somethings, but others remain unclear.

First off, how is it that business is just as much under the control of the majority as government?

Second, I did not suggest that we should make new laws to curtail the rights of corporations, so I, like you, don't see why stripping them of rights wouldn't work.

This leads to your fourth point regarding penalties on corporations. I too think that those responsible should be made to pay the penalties. The laws allowing this exist in some areas.

Regarding this corporate sheild that we are grappling with: I wasn't considering an example of investor / corporate entity relationship. I was thinking more along the lines of the relationship between the corporate entity and those it contracts with. If a contractor contracted with a person, it would be difficult for that person to avoid responsibility should they decide, before the contract is complete, to bale. On the other hand, if the contract was with a corporation and the corporation decided to bale, avoiding responsibility is much easier for those behind the corporation. The problem that I have with this is that the corporation is more than just an investment tool, it is a tool that sheilds people from responsibilities that they would otherwise have to face.

My question regarding negative impacts on the economy and avoidance of responsibilities: I really can't expand on it at the moment - I'll try later

Ok, I guess we have different experiences with businesses cutting corners on safety. In my experience, businesses engage in and encourage/pressure their employees to engage in unsafe practices all the time. The reasons for this are the profit motive: you do what gives you the best return for your money. If this means not providing the right safety equipment so be it. Many workers, especially those who have gone through some rough financial times would rather go along and keep quiet than insist on their right to a safe workplace. Employers know this, and sometimes use it to their advantage. I'm not saying they all do, but it happens. What doesn't happen regularily is the business being shut down, or that people stop working for them. I've worked with many injured and unemployed workers, people who have been injured and continued to work because their employers lied to them about their right to compensation or intimidated them into not applying. Often the employer wouldn't even get a slap on the wrist. I guess what I'm getting at is that unsafe workplaces are more common than people think, and where employers are responsible for violations, they are not always penalized.

I was also trying to get back to the borders question. I guess I see businesses trying to get an egde by moving to places with lower labour and environmental standards. This with borders in place. A lot of people don't like it, and they are trying to find a way to maintain standards in their own part of the world. I guess the solution of just opening borders to me sounds as plausible as arguments surrounding deregulation of [industry, sectors, investments, etc.] - it seems too simplistic, and those who propose it often have a self-serving reason. (I don't mean you Ubu, I'm talking more about the self serving interest of deregulators)


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 02 December 2003 12:14 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Second, Capitalism is not something imposed by the state in most cases. It is the natural relationship betwixt seller and buyer, producer and consumer that develops when government gets out of the way.

You are confusing capitalism with markets. They are not the same thing although many fail to make the distinction.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 02 December 2003 01:31 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Re: Corporate income tax.

If corporations could really "pass on" the cost of the corporate income tax, then those who own and run the corporations should have no problem with the corporate income tax.

The fact that they can and do loudly protest this tax suggests that they do indeed worry that the corporate income tax will take a bite out of the retained earnings of the corporation - which, SHH, you have failed to acknowledge yet again as that part of the monies a corporation holds which were not paid out as dividends or wages.

I have, however, advocated that since everybody whines and moans and snivels on and on and on till they're blue in the face about the evil communistic double-taxation of dividends, that corporations be allowed to deduct off dividend payouts when calculating net revenue for the corporate income tax.

Never mind of course, that workers get double, triple and quadruple taxed all the friggin' time. I will once again recite my laundry list.

Own a house? You pay property tax on it in after-income-tax dollars. Double taxed.

Buy anything that has sales tax on it? You paid with after-income-tax dollars. Double taxed.

Buy alcohol or cigarettes? You just got triple-whammied, because you pay sales tax, and the sin taxes that are sometimes tax-on-tax. not just on the base price, so you got trifecta'ed.

Inherit an estate in the USA? You pay the estate transfer tax on an estate that has already been income taxed and sales taxed.

In Canada? You have to remit the probate fee either out of your after-tax dollars or out of the estate, again, which has been multiply-taxed.

Given also that 95+% of share purchases aren't even IPOs, would you like to tell me again why shareholders, who already hold a privileged position vis-a-vis ownership of a corporation which most of them wouldn't even have a clue as to what it manufactured or sold, should be doubly privileged in the tax system?

Nevertheless, since they carry on about it as though the dividend tax was the bloody reincarnation of V.I. Lenin, I've quit trying to argue for excluding dividends from corporate taxation.

[ 02 December 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 02 December 2003 02:54 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
re/ the inane drivel spouted by catus:

For the second time he refers to the 'natural' state of capitalism. There is no nature involved. Capitalism is not practised by any other species, it is a construct of human society - and only one, one of several that have taken shape beyond basic barter.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
SHH
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1527

posted 02 December 2003 09:36 PM      Profile for SHH     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If corporations could really "pass on" the cost of the corporate income tax, then those who own and run the corporations should have no problem with the corporate income tax.
Corporations, being ever pressed for better pricing, and besieged upon by competitors from all quarters, are always on a fanatical quest to reduce costs; any costs. That includes tax expense. Your very premise suggests you might want to get your nose outa those Econ books and open up a lemonade stand. (And I didn't even mention the cost of compliance, ie, 'tax departments')

quote:
The fact that they can and do loudly protest this tax suggests that they do indeed worry that the corporate income tax will take a bite out of the retained earnings of the corporation - which, SHH, you have failed to acknowledge yet again as that part of the monies a corporation holds which were not paid out as dividends or wages.
Doc, a corporation retains earnings primarily because the managers have decided that those (already taxed) earnings will generate a higher yield in the future via capital purchases, acquisition, R&D, financial investment, etc. If successful, that would enhance the market capital value of the stock. Thus, even if corporate taxes were eliminated, the RE income would ultimately be taxed as CapGain thru stock sales.

Did you know that Intel once held a larger stock portfolio than most mutual funds? I don’t mean its own ‘buy-backs’; they had a whole division that bought and sold everything like a mutual fund. There’s an interesting regulatory angle there if you think about it.

And of course dividends are double taxed, probably triple taxed. So what. Taxes are transactionally triggered by the character and timing of the transaction; and it’s arbitrary (as in subject to politics). Thus, it could be argued that most everything is infinitely taxed as the money circulates. The argument that dividends are double taxed is both true and hollow.


From: Ex-Silicon Valley to State Saguaro | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Catus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4656

posted 03 December 2003 02:54 AM      Profile for Catus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes, many taxes are double taxes, yet another reason to go to a simple tax system.

Wingnut, yes, the difference betwen "capitalism" and " free-markets" is that Marx invented the term "capitalism" and it has passed into commonusage to denote the sort of structure Locke, Mills, and Adams described.

Lard Tunderin, I do not wish to get into a war of words with you my dear fellow but you are a nutcase that seriously needs an education. i did not indicate that capitalism is found in anture ( though it is) i argued that it is natural, ie the system that normally arises when human beings are allowed to interact freely amongst one another. It is also the only system that caters to natural human drives and actually promotes liberty. But I doubt your walnut-sized brain can wrap itself around that concept.

Now onto Corporate taxation. If corporatiosn cannot pass costs onto consumers then why do products cost anything at all?


From: Between 234 and 149 BCE | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 03 December 2003 10:45 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps you should look up the definitions of the word 'natural'.
Nearly all of them reference what is to be found in nature.
This one did not:
"Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate" - was this what you wished to say about capitalism?
If so, I doubt you'll get too much argument here.

BTW, I believe I recognize that circular 'logic' - and your propensity to use the word 'nutcase'. Welcome back, Archimedes.

Try to behave this time.

[ 03 December 2003: Message edited by: Lard tunderin' jeesus ]


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Catus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4656

posted 03 December 2003 11:27 PM      Profile for Catus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Lard, my buddy, I have not posted to Rabble since the late winter/early Spring of 2003, and was booted when I promoted free association and flexible wages.
But in any case I see that you are one of those. You know the sort, unfamiliar with Locke,, Natural Rights, or Classical Liberalism.

Capitalism is not found in nature precisely because Marx made up the term to describe a strawman so he could push his unscientific dogma off on the uneducated and power hungry.

Fortunately natural rights are found in the wide world of nature (human beings being a natural actor). Apes claim territory, claim property rights, engage in free-trade, jealously guard what they percieve as their property as well as property they see as a common good, etc, etc.
Strangely enough the best the animal kingdom can do in the area of "socialism" is the petty ant and the slavish bee (two of the few matriarchies in the world, another being hyenas, though Hyena packs are better described as tyrannies).


From: Between 234 and 149 BCE | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 04 December 2003 12:20 AM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You know the sort, unfamiliar with Locke,, Natural Rights, or Classical Liberalism.

But don't you know you've assembled here the cream of the crop of babblers, the sort who are so familiar with Locke, Natural Rights and Classical Liberalism they can poke holes through any part of those arguments.

BTW, it's great to see a rapid right winger equate capitalists with Apes. You save us the work of hurling insults at you.


From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Catus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4656

posted 04 December 2003 04:02 AM      Profile for Catus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sara, yes, you are so smart. So smart that you think that I equated Apes with Capitalists when I actually pointed out that the elementary forms of natural rights are practiced by apes. Why don't you and Tard Lunderin go play in traffic, as you are both far too witty for the likes of me.

Oh, and if you can poke holes in things try doing so, rather than threatening me.


From: Between 234 and 149 BCE | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
googlymoogly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3819

posted 04 December 2003 09:24 AM      Profile for googlymoogly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And you're so smart that you actually thought she was threatening you .
From: the fiery bowels of hell | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ubu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4514

posted 04 December 2003 07:49 PM      Profile for Ubu        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whoa... for a post intended to incite debate on how to promote tolerance and prevent hatred, I don't think I have done a very good job. Now Catus wants some of you to go play in traffic!?! As an aside, it probably wasn't particularly intelligent to inform everyone that you were booted from rabble... at least you're honest!
From: position is relative | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 December 2003 09:29 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Strangely enough the best the animal kingdom can do in the area of "socialism" is the petty ant and the slavish bee (two of the few matriarchies in the world, another being hyenas, though Hyena packs are better described as tyrannies).

What about the servile termites? Or the sycophantic wasps? Or the cloyingly obsequious meerkats?


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 04 December 2003 09:38 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ubu:
Whoa... for a post intended to incite debate on how to promote tolerance and prevent hatred, I don't think I have done a very good job.

I told you: borders don't cause conflict; conflict causes borders. If you don't have a line, you can't boot somebody out for crossing it.
Nothing can keep people from reverting to... wherever on the evolutionary/civilization scale they feel most comfortable.

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Catus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4656

posted 05 December 2003 12:01 AM      Profile for Catus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have been booted from rabble no less than three times, maybe four, I forget. Audra knows I am here and why.
I am not ashamed of being booted from this message board at all.

Hinterland, glad you understand whati was getting at. Maybe you can help ole lardy.


From: Between 234 and 149 BCE | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 05 December 2003 12:05 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sorry, Catus...can't help you out...I'm not really paying that much attention.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 05 December 2003 12:13 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hinterland, glad you understand whati was getting at.

(psst... Catus... it could just be that Hinterland was winding you up, there...)


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Catus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4656

posted 05 December 2003 03:37 AM      Profile for Catus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
psst, idiots, perhaps I was poking fun at ole hinterland as well.
From: Between 234 and 149 BCE | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 05 December 2003 10:02 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, perhaps I was unfair to you, Catus. It's just that people who take pride in being booted from babble are usually devoid of a sense of humour.

It's odd that among right-wingers, rabble has gained the reputation of Mean Old Mr. Johnson's house down the street -- where kids delight in daring each other to play Nicky-Nicky-Nine-Door, and then run away giggling.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ubu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4514

posted 05 December 2003 02:15 PM      Profile for Ubu        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nonesuch wrote: "I told you: borders don't cause conflict; conflict causes borders."

I concede that the decision to draw a line in the sand is often the result of conflict, but the conflict itself stems from the differences discussed above. Whatever the cause of war; greed (resource distribution), religious intolerance, racism or political persuasion, these differences are the result of collective notions of identity and fear of the 'other'. There is nothing wrong with identity, but fear of the 'other' is the obvious consequence of ignorance. We are all human - we all love our children.

Today, we have much greater means of transportation and dissemination of information than ever before. This presents us with both opportunity and challenge. On the one hand, it is now much easier to meet and understand the 'other.' On the other hand, historical wrongs, conflict and differences between peoples are still plaguing us. The will is often not there to understand the 'other' in the first place - in fact, the will is often to use these tools to demonize the other (just look at the US administration). In this environment, light-speed dissemination of information is often used as a tool to promote difference and spread hatred more effectively (both spatially and temporally). I think freedom of locomotion would dramatically increase the proportion of people who meet the 'other' and, at the risk of sounding simplistic, begin to finally understand that they are people too. This should be done 'cold turkey,' despite the temporary unrest this may cause in certain areas, so that we can begin to see the benefits within a few years/decades. We should all be working toward common goals, rather than fighting one another.

As another aside, I think we should remind ourselves that restriction on free movement is overwhelming to most citizens of the world. Citizens of most countries need a visa to go just about anywhere, and they are usually denied. The Canadian passport brings us very close to the type of freedom of movement I am referring to already (though with unnecessary restrictions on what we can do in another part of the world). Most people do not have this luxury. This should be a human right. What a frustrating and unjust world it would be if we were one of the billions of people, who often can't travel even when they have the wherewithal. Why? Because people in countries like ours are paranoid of the other, even though deep down we are all the same.

Nonesuch wrote: "If you don't have a line, you can't boot somebody out for crossing it."

At the moment, we can't kick them off the planet. If we boot them out, they're still here. We need a paradigm shift. I'm trying to have us think of the Earth, not Canada.

[ 05 December 2003: Message edited by: Ubu ]


From: position is relative | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Ubu
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4514

posted 05 December 2003 02:18 PM      Profile for Ubu        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 05 December 2003: Message edited by: Ubu ]


From: position is relative | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 05 December 2003 03:58 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Nonesuch wrote: "If you don't have a line, you can't boot somebody out for crossing it."

At the moment, we can't kick them off the planet. If we boot them out, they're still here. We need a paradigm shift. I'm trying to have us think of the Earth, not Canada.


I was referring to the Catus situation and being just a little bit humorous.

I have known all along what you're talking about, and i'd like to agree with you. (My protest sign for December is a globe with a pigeon over it.) I just don't believe we're ready. Look at Detroit or Toronto, where 'the other' has been living next door to one another for decades or generations and have, so far, failed to become one big happy family. We need better and stronger parents - a UN with the power to spank and the wisdom to know when a good talking-to is sufficient - to make it happen. And even then, it will take a long time.


From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
zaphod
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4261

posted 05 December 2003 05:56 PM      Profile for zaphod     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think borders are necessary. If a culturally or racially connected group works hard to create a country (for lack of better word) which they deem successful or even superior then they should have the right to protect it. It will undoubtably attract some beneficial and some destructive people from unsuccessful or undesirable places so if the citizens wish to preserve what they have created they need a defended border and immigration rules.
From: toronto | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca