Shug on 30/6/2006 at 04:22
Stick to your guns, I say
...guys?
aguywhoplaysthief on 30/6/2006 at 04:25
I agree Shug.
Go down with the ship!:thumb:
Thief13x on 30/6/2006 at 04:39
Quote Posted by Stitch
Good call, god knows we all uniformly subscribe to the "flag-draped-over-eyes" brand of ignorance Thief13x so perfectly displays.
On topic: I'd consider this to be both a good thing and merely a step towards the inevitable.
Oh you had better beleive I am aware of the EU, but just because it works for them doesn't mean it will work for us, nor that we want it. I am of the oppinion that this whole thing is being done just under the nose of most Americans. If you lived in the US you would know that nothing is being said about it on the media, which should explain why I am utterly disgusted with all the attention flag burning is being given. Additionally, the immigration issue seems to be going the same direction the search for Osama has gone. Maybe im paranoid but I think this might be why...
demagogue on 30/6/2006 at 15:26
Well, I guess someone needs to stand for the internationalists position.
One, let's be really clear what the reality is on the ground. These agreements are not really the driving force eroding national boundaries and sovereignty. Economic globalization is eroding national boundaries and sovereignty, the four "great" economic freedoms, movement of goods, services, capital, and labor/people across borders, and it's been doing so for the last 20 years -- and it's going to happen whether govt's get involved in the action or not. And this is one situation where Pandora's box can't be closed, unless you envy the lifestyle of the Cubans, North Koreans, and Zimbabweans, so it's no use crying over what might have been.
Ok, apparently I have chores to do today :rolleyes: so I'm going to have to do this in installments ... Or maybe I can get these points in quickly...
Two is going to be the fact that economic globalization creates an insane amount of wealth across a very wide spectrum of society (Aguy sort of skimps on just how much efficiency we're talking about.
Three, but it also creates challenges that cannot be addressed by a single national gov't, since of course the problem is across borders ... issues with labor, environment, product safety standards, anticompetition policy, intellctl proprty, etc. Since the alternative of closing pandora's box is never going to fly, but it's unacceptable to let transnational corporations take over the govt's role, governments have to reassert themselves across borders. And that requires international organization.
Four, is the big point, democratic accountability. International decision making needs it, desparately, nobody denies it, and Aguy is totally on point in worrying about it. But my attitude is the way forward is not retreat (Pandora's box, etc), but to actually work to build those features into the system. But the picture isn't as bleak as some people make it, because there are ways to get it, or something close to it. I mean, that's what those of us in the field are working at every day.
Ok, gotta run, maybe edit to come later...
Convict on 30/6/2006 at 15:42
This is getting a bit off track but what I've been thinking about globalisation is this:
On the (correct IIRC) premise that there is a global shortage of certain types of labour (skilled):
If labour becomes more freely mobile then skilled (rarer) labour will be concentrated in countries that pay more/have lower tax rates. Of course people consider other factors such as the climate, but IMO what will happen is that governments will be forced to lower income taxes in order to attract and retain skilled workers. I think also a similar situation may well occur with companies and company taxes.
The result of this would be low taxing nations which also have smaller government revenues and thus smaller government expenditures. This means that as the governments try to attract and retain skilled workers by lowering taxes (making the rich richer) and the governments will be able to spend less on welfare due to reduced revenue from lower taxes, the inequality of the distribution of wealth will increase. This may well lead to increased crime and most probably gated communities for the wealthy to escape crime.
SD on 30/6/2006 at 16:06
Quote Posted by Convict
If labour becomes more freely mobile then skilled (rarer) labour will be concentrated in countries that pay more/have lower tax rates.
Pay more, yes. Have lower tax rates, not necessarily. We could stick income tax up to 80% in this country and Dr Mabubu is still going to earn a fuckload more here than he would in Kenya.
Quote:
The result of this would be low taxing nations which also have smaller government revenues and thus smaller government expenditures. This means that as the governments try to attract and retain skilled workers by lowering taxes (making the rich richer) and the governments will be able to spend less on welfare due to reduced revenue from lower taxes, the inequality of the distribution of wealth will increase. This may well lead to increased crime and most probably gated communities for the wealthy to escape crime.
Lowering taxes need not necessarily mean lowering welfare. Lowering taxes and/or welfare need not necessarily mean that the gap between rich and poor grows. An increased gap between rich and poor need not necessarily mean that the crime rate goes through the roof, and in any case, any government worth its salt is going to put taxes up if there's a major upsurge in crime to pay for better policing. You're making a whole load of assumptions here without a great deal of supporting evidence.
aguywhoplaysthief on 30/6/2006 at 19:41
Wait, did StD just write something I agreed with?
Well slap my ass and call me Susan.
Convict on 30/6/2006 at 22:57
Hey it was only some things I had been thinking about! But I would have thought that in lowering taxes (in a progressive system which is 99% of 1st world systems) it would increase the gap between the rich and the poor. Also I thought you as a socialist would have agreed with the theory that an increased gap between the rich and the poor leads to an increased crime rate.
But the climate's still better in Kenya than the UK.
demagogue on 1/7/2006 at 00:17
Convict has a point though ... A lot of developing countries and small island States are encouraging foreign investment, in-State incorporation, and banking deposites, by exempting things like income or capital gains taxes, and it's working. You'd be surprised how many big, multinational corporations incorporate or put branch officies in small island countries, or keep millions in capital in their banks, etc.
I realize Convict was talking about labor, not capital, but the handwriting is on the wall.
Of course, the liquidity of labor has some other catches. One, because it's people, of course, issues like culture and way of life get involved ... even if some guy could make bigger gains doing his internet business in investor or labor friendly Kenya, he may not like the standard of living there.
But also, it misses a very important point. As the EU example shows, opening movement of labor won't necessarily lead to a "flood" of labor from one State to another. The argument is, low-wage countries get an upward pressure on wages; high-wage countries get a downward pressure on wages until it reaches equilibrium, and then both wages grow together. My professor described it using the examples of Mexico and the US. If there were perfect liquidity in labor, Mexicans could just tell their factory, pay us more or we'll go to the US. And US factories can tell their US labor, accept less or we'll just hire Mexicans. And even with very few people crossing borders the wages will pretty quickly go to equilibrium. So that's another reason why the ability to move doesn't mean people will, at least not just for economic reasons.
Convict on 1/7/2006 at 00:31
Quote Posted by demagogue
My professor described it using the examples of Mexico and the US. If there were perfect liquidity in labor, Mexicans could just tell their factory, pay us more or we'll go to the US. And US factories can tell their US labor, accept less or we'll just hire Mexicans. And even with very few people crossing borders the wages will pretty quickly go to equilibrium.
I'm not so sure about this example because Mexico has a rapidly increasing population (with a young age) which puts downward pressure on the price of labour. If there was complete freedom of movement and Mexico kept the same birthrate then for both countries there would be downward (but less assuming Mexicans in America take on American birthrates) pressure on the price of labour in both countries.
