Re: Farang Beggar in Silom Rd


Nick wrote:
> "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:1127647888.314360.82540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> >
> > Nick wrote:
> >> "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> >> news:1127630809.609334.275880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> > Yes it is. That's the whole point. An improving economy in India
> >> > helps everyone in the world to one extent or another.
> >>
> >> "Helps everyone in the world to one extent or another." is quite a
> >> broad statement isn't it?
> >
> > Yes it is. And a factual one.
>
> I don't think the facts are established and i see really no way of
> measuring how "An improving economy in India helps everyone in the world
> to one extent or another."?

Ask the countries that sell products to India. Ask their neighbors
whose economies are improving from the halo effect. Ask the people of
the US who take advantage of the lower prices from companies
outsourcing to India. Ask employee of the other companies where the
people of the US spend their extra money when they get lower prices
from Dell or Wal-Mart.

One thing that some people (not talking about you) don't understand is
that the basis of a good economy is not money. It's wealth. Not the
same thing. When there is more wealth and it is spread around to more
people then the world benefits as a whole. Wealth is being created in
both the US and India from the outsourcing.

> In other words can you prove your claim that "An improving economy in
> India helps everyone in the world to one extent or another."?

Economics 101. Can you observe it and measure it on a daily basis when
it's happening? No. This is a long-term process. But look at history.
We outsourced manufacturing to Japan when it was a poor country coming
up in the world. We did the same to Taiwan and South Korea. All are
completely successful countries at this point and their consumers buy
products from the US but more importantly from all around the region.
The market improves.

Look at the US companies. If they improve their bottom line their stock
values benefit. Either they go up or they don't go down as much as they
otherwise would have. Who benefits? Stockholders, of course. Now the
Left (and I know you don't like dividing people up that way but this,
again, is the way it is in the US) immediately jumps on that to talk
about how it's all those evil robber baron stockholders benefiting and
the average US Joe gets nothing. What they fail to understand is that
the average US Joe is a stockholder. Something like 80% of Americans
own stock either directly or through mutual funds. Do you know what
entity is the largest shareholder on the NYSE? It's Calpers. The
California State Pension Fund for employees. They are directly
benefiting.

> >> Some countries do seem to slip away more in poverty since the rise of
> >> China.
> >
> > Some European countries have, true. But that is not because of China,
> > it's because they are commiting economic suicide. Germany, for
> > example.
>
> I'm not surprised you come up with European countries and seem to claim
> your familiar with German economic policies. Actually i was thinking more
> about third world countries. From what i've been reading in newspapers
> and on the www, those are the countries feel the most threathened by the
> (economic)rise of China.

"Feel" threatened? Yes, they do. But most of the threat is from the
fear of China using its new found wealth to bolster its military or to
use other tactics to politically dominate. But they are also benefiting
economically today.

Further, just because one "feels" threatened economically doesn't mean
they actually are threatened. Many on one particular side of politics
(and I won't mention which hand you should be looking at, but it's not
your right hand) don't understand the long term benefits for everyone
so they also feel that there is a threat.

The only thing threatened by an improved and broadened world economy is
poverty. And, of course, those who politically feed on poverty.

<snip>

> > Yes, whole neighborhoods do see disruption. Other whole neighborhoods
> > see gains. Overall the net is positive. The US is probably the primary
> > example of disruption. Companies are outsourcing, moving overseas,
> > etc. But they've been doing that for decades. And the US economy keeps
> > pumping along. Why? Because in many cases the jobs that are being
> > moved out *need* to be moved out to make room for other jobs.
>
> If like you say there's a *need* to make room for other jobs, you mean
> there are not enough people to fill all jobs (present ones and the ones
> newly created)?

No. I mean because the jobs no longer fit a changing economy. When you
have an uneducated populace with strong backs and untrained minds you
need monotonous manual jobs like working on an assembly line. But as
the people become better educated and capable of advancing these jobs
become unneeded. Yet in places like India, Indonesia, Vietnam they are
needed. So the economy shifts to match the changes in the world. Any
attempt to stop that creates stagnation. And we *need* to prevent that.

<snip>

> >> For the ecomomy "at large" of a nation sure that's a good thing if it
> >> plays out like that, where you and differ i think is that i'm not so
> >> sure it will always play out like that.
> >
> > Could you cite an example where you think it hasn't?
>
> The process of globalization is still happening and hasn't played out
> yet, like i said i'm not sure about the outcome one thing i'm sure about
> is that i'm not clairvoyant.

History is pretty clairvoyant. And this is not the first time economies
have spread out beyond their borders.

<snip>

> >> Those "naked" Europeans are trying to make Kyoto work even though it
> >> might cost Europeans jobs.
> >
> > Actually they are not. They are talking about it but doing nothing.
> I can only advise you to read a bit more about initiatives in the EU if
> your genuinly interested in the topic.
> Here's a start:
> http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/eccp.htm
> An report about progress can be downloaded following this link:
> http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/pdf/second_eccp_report.pdf

Go back and read them again. Show me the specific actions taken. I see
nothing but more bureaucrats making more speeches and talking about
changing without actually doing anything.
("a directive to promote", "voluntary commitment", "develop further
policies", "number of working groups were set up to consider and give
recommendations", and on it goes)

> > Centralized control of the economy and businesses. Government
> > ownership of major industries. Are they as extreme as NK and Cuba? Not
> > yet. And I emphasize "yet".
>
> What can i say, you must be joking.

Not at all. One of the things that Marx failed to understand is that
economies include people and that people won't accept Socialism.
Socialism fails to reward ambition and hard work. People want to
succeed. They want to better their lives. They are willing to work
harder to create a better life for their families. Socialism prevents
that. Eventually people will see that and demand change. The only way
for the Socialists to stay in power when that happens is to suppress
the people. Socialism will inevitably give way to oppression. It's
almost automatic. The oppressive governments of the USSR, China, Cuba,
North Korea are *not* anomalies. They are the inevitable result of
Socialism taken to its logical goal.

> >> Privatisation of state companies has been going on in the EU for
> >> quite some time and is still going on.
> >
> > If they aren't Socialist then how can they be privatizing companies?
> > Are you saying they're becoming *less* Socialist? If so, I disagree.
>
> I don't get your question, why can't governments that aren't Socialist
> privatize state companies?

Because the mere fact that they *own* companies makes them Socialist.

> I would think governments that aren't
> "Socialist" would be more inclined to privatize state companies, you want
> to argue exactly the opposite?

No. I want to argue that France, for example, is shedding some
industries under pressure from the EU and the USA and that it goes
against what the government would really like to do.

> Yes i'm saying private entrepreneurship, get's more and more room and
> governments encourage competition in the marketplace.

100% agree. And that is the absolute polar opposite of Socialism.

> >> To bring this a bit on topic (meaning Thailand, not Farang Beggar),
> >> you do often seem to be critizing Europe for it's policies but you
> >> never seem to critize Thailand. Whereas Thailand has a national
> >> airline, railroad, radio and tv stations, telephone company (maybe
> >> even more) and even seems to be planning a national shipping company.
> >> What do you think of this, would you call the present Thai govenment
> >> a socialist government?
> >
> > In part, yes. They also have a Socialized Medical system that is
> > failing miserable. I have said before that Thailand needs to move more
> > toward a free market if they want to improve.
>
> Do you think Europeans should get the same benifits as US citizens (as
> part of an FTA between the USA and Thailand) have in LOS?

Yes.

<snip>

> > If so, then how can you look at Socialism without feeling anger at
> > what it did to these people and what it will do to others?
>
> This will propably be lost on you, but living in the Ëast" i've learned
> it's not all that black and white a picture. E.g. many of the elderly in
> the east feel they were much better off than they are now being part of
> the FRG. Some feel the social fabric was stronger than as
> it is now, sure there's anger too about waisted lives, missed
> opportunities, oppression etc. At times i've felt that anger too and a
> certain sadness, but like others i was more concentrated on the future,
> making a business work just like many of the people i worked with.
> As i tried to convey before i don't think that much in terms of
> capitalism or socialism, left or right these terms to me don't equal good
> or bad.

Then you're missing the point that the wasted lives, missed
opportunities, oppression, etc. are the direct result of Socialism.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Why Socialism ? Albert Einstein
    ... Socialism Comes to America " Albert Einstein ... The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists ... because of competition among the capitalists, ... The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • ebooks share lits 81
    ... History of the Protection of Regional Cultural Minorities in Europe: ... From Menger to Lachmann Routledge ... Premodern Chinese Economy: Structural Equilibrium and Capitalist ... Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei.--Schutzstaffel, National socialism and ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: Farang Beggar in Silom Rd
    ... An improving economy in India ... Because in many cases the jobs that are being ... >> in Europe ruled by governments where a Socialist party is part of the ... The Eastern side is the result of Socialism. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: Countering Imperialist Propaganda: North Korea, Zimbabwe, Yugoslavia
    ... the American working class -- whoever that is, ... Marxism is only recommending those things that will benefit the economy ... countries mentioned were examples of the best socialism has to offer. ...
    (soc.politics.marxism)
  • Re: Farang Beggar in Silom Rd
    ... > Ask the countries that sell products to India. ... > that the basis of a good economy is not money. ... The connotion that the US in outsourcing jobs to Japan advanced the rise to ... > economies include people and that people won't accept Socialism. ...
    (soc.culture.thai)