3 ms·

I don't think post scarcity is a precondition of post poverty. The more economically advanced nations need to reach income and worker/environmental protection

I don't think post scarcity is a precondition of post poverty. The more economically advanced nations need to reach income and worker/environmental protection parity with less economically advanced nations. I'd prefer that be done by raising the level of the less advanced nations rather than lowering the level of the more advanced nations but that's a different discussion.

arca_vorago 11y ago
I don't think it's a different discussion, I think it's the discussion we should be having, because it cuts straight to the heart of the matter. Due to globalism other nations are rising, it's true, but the argument I keep hearing is that, "well, now they are rising they are going to compete with us and America just has to get used to a lower level of living standards than it's used to..." and I have major issues with this point of view, largely because of the pretense that globalism was good for America and just now suddenly won't be. I think that NAFTA (and the soon to pass travesty that is the TPP) are globalization tools that negatively affect the American worker, and largely this is due to the undermining of the idea of national sovereignty and the dismissal of protectionism that I think is premature. I think protectionism should be a duty of a nation-state to it's citizens, because until I can call myself a citizen of the world, I think my own government has a duty to protect it's and my self-interests, one of those being economic stability and growth. In this case this is my primary issue with the supranational oligarchy. They operate on a global scale, without regard to borders, and while they formerly exploited the third world, now that the third world has been ravaged so much, they are turning inward to their own populaces, and have begun eating us from the inside out, extracting wealth. Corporations have a charter from the government, and corporations that undermine national sovereignty and interests should have their charters revoked (as Max Keiser would say,executed). If we don't curtail these powers now we are going to wake up with a global government of oligarchy unaccountable to the people. (who are sure to say "but look at how much better off everyone is now! it was all for the greater good!") The key element to remember is is that class warfare is real, and the rich are winning. Globally. It's not just about money either, it's about freedoms and liberties.
- xixi77 11y ago
  "now that the third world has been ravaged so much" -- have you actually read the article?
  - arca_vorago 11y ago
    Yes, and poverty is more than just the purchasing power of extremely low wages. Let me give you an example of ravaging a third world country, as talked about by John Perkins in Confessions of an Economic Hitman. I countries wealth should be in their natural resources and labor, but we have undermined that principle in favor of exploitation. Not to mention that the article itself starts out saying that once the rate of poverty is adjusted less people are in poverty! Magic! "One of my jobs as an economic hit man was to identify countries that had resources like oil and arrange huge loans for those countries from the World Bank and sister organizations. But the money would never go to the actual country; instead it would go to our own corporations to build infrastructure projects in that country like power plants and industrial parks; things that would benefit a few very wealthy families. So then the people of the country would be left holding this huge debt that they couldn't repay. We would come back and say, "well, since you can't repay your debt, you have to restructure your loan." That's when the IMF comes in. So the World Bank makes the original loan and IMF shows up and says, "We'll help you restructure your loan, but in order to do that you have to meet certain conditionalities. You have to sell your oil or whatever the coveted resource is at a cheap price, to the oil companies without restrictions." Or they would suggest the country sell electric utilities, water and sewage, maybe even your schools and jails to private multi-national corporations. Or maybe allow military bases to be built; these sorts of things."
- clavalle 11y ago
  The TPP was supposed to be the lever that pushed governments that have comparatively weaker worker and environmental protections to higher standards. We won't know until we read it in a month, but it sounds like corporations were over-represented in the negotiations and a lot of that leverage has been lost. If true, that makes the agreement very dangerous. People will argue that the third and second world are better off now than they were but that is a low bar, IMHO. We need to catapult them to our modern standards. Workers must be represented more in these negotiations. We must rethink the 'exploitation is ok as long as it is profitable and legal' idea that underlies a lot of our policy both at home and between nations. It is not a 'free trade or nothing' discussion as so many free trade advocates would like to paint it. In short, I think I agree with you but there is a lot of changing of minds that will have to happen to foster support of these ideas.

arca_vorago 11y ago

I don't think it's a different discussion, I think it's the discussion we should be having, because it cuts straight to the heart of the matter. Due to globalism other nations are rising, it's true, but the argument I keep hearing is that, "well, now they are rising they are going to compete with us and America just has to get used to a lower level of living standards than it's used to..." and I have major issues with this point of view, largely because of the pretense that globalism was good for America and just now suddenly won't be. I think that NAFTA (and the soon to pass travesty that is the TPP) are globalization tools that negatively affect the American worker, and largely this is due to the undermining of the idea of national sovereignty and the dismissal of protectionism that I think is premature. I think protectionism should be a duty of a nation-state to it's citizens, because until I can call myself a citizen of the world, I think my own government has a duty to protect it's and my self-interests, one of those being economic stability and growth. In this case this is my primary issue with the supranational oligarchy. They operate on a global scale, without regard to borders, and while they formerly exploited the third world, now that the third world has been ravaged so much, they are turning inward to their own populaces, and have begun eating us from the inside out, extracting wealth. Corporations have a charter from the government, and corporations that undermine national sovereignty and interests should have their charters revoked (as Max Keiser would say,executed). If we don't curtail these powers now we are going to wake up with a global government of oligarchy unaccountable to the people. (who are sure to say "but look at how much better off everyone is now! it was all for the greater good!") The key element to remember is is that class warfare is real, and the rich are winning. Globally. It's not just about money either, it's about freedoms and liberties.

xixi77 11y ago
"now that the third world has been ravaged so much" -- have you actually read the article?
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  Yes, and poverty is more than just the purchasing power of extremely low wages. Let me give you an example of ravaging a third world country, as talked about by John Perkins in Confessions of an Economic Hitman. I countries wealth should be in their natural resources and labor, but we have undermined that principle in favor of exploitation. Not to mention that the article itself starts out saying that once the rate of poverty is adjusted less people are in poverty! Magic! "One of my jobs as an economic hit man was to identify countries that had resources like oil and arrange huge loans for those countries from the World Bank and sister organizations. But the money would never go to the actual country; instead it would go to our own corporations to build infrastructure projects in that country like power plants and industrial parks; things that would benefit a few very wealthy families. So then the people of the country would be left holding this huge debt that they couldn't repay. We would come back and say, "well, since you can't repay your debt, you have to restructure your loan." That's when the IMF comes in. So the World Bank makes the original loan and IMF shows up and says, "We'll help you restructure your loan, but in order to do that you have to meet certain conditionalities. You have to sell your oil or whatever the coveted resource is at a cheap price, to the oil companies without restrictions." Or they would suggest the country sell electric utilities, water and sewage, maybe even your schools and jails to private multi-national corporations. Or maybe allow military bases to be built; these sorts of things."
clavalle 11y ago
The TPP was supposed to be the lever that pushed governments that have comparatively weaker worker and environmental protections to higher standards. We won't know until we read it in a month, but it sounds like corporations were over-represented in the negotiations and a lot of that leverage has been lost. If true, that makes the agreement very dangerous. People will argue that the third and second world are better off now than they were but that is a low bar, IMHO. We need to catapult them to our modern standards. Workers must be represented more in these negotiations. We must rethink the 'exploitation is ok as long as it is profitable and legal' idea that underlies a lot of our policy both at home and between nations. It is not a 'free trade or nothing' discussion as so many free trade advocates would like to paint it. In short, I think I agree with you but there is a lot of changing of minds that will have to happen to foster support of these ideas.