Renegen on 1/7/2006 at 00:32
I think we should give globalization a chance, and it's not for a particularly bright reason. Globalization is the natural evolution of a capitalist society and we need to see where it leads. There were a lot of critics of capitalism, and they were right on some points, but capitalism has been going strong for the last 150 years, it must do something right. We've had economic disasters of epic proportions during these years, but capitalism survived. Globalization really begun 150 years ago, when the British Empire was spanning across the whole globe, and it worked. We should see where globalization leads us this time... and if it doesn't work then we'll get a chance at a change. Remember change can only come from revolution. No middle ground I say.
Mexicans are people too. The US and Canada will have an aging population, maybe the younger Mexican population will be the best way to pay for the social programs?
Convict on 1/7/2006 at 00:35
Quote Posted by Renegen
Globalization really begun 150 years ago, when the British Empire was spanning across the whole globe, and it worked.
I think someone was arguing that Africa didn't benefit from this (but obviously Singapore and Hong Kong did) but the cause was debatable.
Quote Posted by Renegan
Mexicans are people too. The US and Canada will have an aging population, maybe the younger Mexican population will be the best way to pay for the social programs?
This depends on the amount of economic growth created and the government revenue gained from it. I suspect with unskilled labour and with powerful business interests in America, this will not be the case.
Renegen on 1/7/2006 at 00:38
You must look at the number of countries that switched to capitalism to see evidence of its success.
Renegen on 1/7/2006 at 00:41
Quote Posted by Convict
This depends on the amount of economic growth created and the government revenue gained from it. I suspect with unskilled labour and with powerful business interests in America, this will not be the case.
More people = more government revenues. That's exactly what we need, to have a bigger working population supporting the retirees. Education is an issue and I don't know how it would work, but since the Mexicans would need to learn English there's nothing to keep them from furthering their education in the US.
Convict on 1/7/2006 at 01:27
More people = More government revenue.
BUT
More people = More government expenditure.
In QBASIC this becomes:
IF required government expenditure (infrastructure, education, welfare) > government revenue THEN Problem$ = "yes"
Renegen on 1/7/2006 at 04:42
I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense. Somewhere the books have to balance out. Young workers are those who put the most in the economy and don't use the social programs that much. What kind of government expenditures are you talking about?
1. Social Security. We can both agree that the better the young/old people ratio the more money there will be in this correct?
Unemployment Assurance? negligible.
2. Cops, Firefighters etc. More or less a fixed cost..
3. Municipal projects. More or less fixed costs.
4. Debt Reduction. Well the higher the GDP the better you fight debt and old retirees don't contribute to the GDP. You do need educated workers however not low-skilled ones.
paloalto on 1/7/2006 at 06:54
Most of these arguments have been about economic globalization.How about jurisdiction and soverignty.
For example:Should an international court or agency be able to tell you how to raise your kids?
Should an international body tell a country what standards its food handling should be?
We see today that many judges in the U.S. are applying international standards in their decisions regardless of the Constiitution.
I see a more sinister side in a concentration of power in the hands of international entities.
Currently the economic policies of the IMF banks in many countries are not lending toward a greater expansion in economic freedom in order to encourage a free market system,but give money to a few despots and leaders who maintain the status quo of poverty for their people without creating jobs.
aguywhoplaysthief on 1/7/2006 at 07:28
Quote Posted by paloalto
Should an international body tell a country what standards its food handling should be?
Of course, because it makes trade easier!!!
demagogue on 1/7/2006 at 16:29
Seriously .... Welcome to (
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp) 1963. And since 1994, the WTO has basically been enforcing int'l food safety standards.
But since it's all based on "science", and decided by "technical experts", do we really need to care what the common Joe thinks?*
By the way, paloalto, I'm just finishing off my thesis on this exact topic. Such a good topic because this sort of thing is only accellerating, and like you say, almost nobody is talking about it and it's where all the real action is happening in governance these days.
* This question is just trying to get a rise out of people; I think we need to care, but just why and how ... harder to answer.
aguywhoplaysthief on 1/7/2006 at 16:41
Make sure you tell us when it gets done.
