4 ms·

As I said, first the imperialism would stop. No more military threats, no more WTO enforcing unfair rules, forgiving all IMF loans, etc. That would allow trade

by lucian1900 5y ago

As I said, first the imperialism would stop. No more military threats, no more WTO enforcing unfair rules, forgiving all IMF loans, etc. That would allow trade to no longer be based such an extreme difference in the price of labour, so the victim countries could retain a majority of the value of their labour. By no longer losing value to profits at every step of production and distribution, consumer prices wouldn’t have to increase and could even be lowered in most cases. Merely dismantling the US army would vastly reduce global carbon emissions. Building high density housing, public transportation, universal healthcare, public utilities, etc. would further reduce the US’s majority contributions. Countries that were kept poor for centuries could be gifted low-carbon energy sources as part of reparations, so as to not need to emit carbon to develop. A lot can be done once the oppressor countries stop constantly extracting value for a few individuals.

parineum 5y ago
> That would allow trade to no longer be based such an extreme difference in the price of labour That doesn't make sense. The entire reason the WTO was interested in China (and any other poor country) was because they had cheap labor. It's not like the WTO is depressing wages. >By no longer losing value to profits at every step of production and distribution, consumer prices wouldn’t have to increase Wait, we pay everyone more but we don't have to pay for production and distribution? >Merely dismantling the US army would vastly reduce global carbon emissions. Building high density housing, public transportation, universal healthcare, public utilities, etc. would further reduce the US’s majority contributions. I agree but it's completely non-sequitar. > Countries that were kept poor for centuries could be gifted low-carbon energy sources as part of reparations, so as to not need to emit carbon to develop. Again, non-sequitar but what are these countries going to do with some solar panels? They're dirt poor. You might as well buy them some air pods. > A lot can be done once the oppressor countries stop constantly extracting value for a few individuals. It's not a zero sum game. Richer countries do extract value from poorer countries but the poorer countries also extract value from the richer countries. Just because the majority of the advantage comes from the richer country doesn't mean the poorer country is losing, they just win much less. In general, you're making a lot of points about globalism that I generally agree are problems but you're offering no solutions past stop doing the bad thing and everything will be good. I don't care about labels of imperialism, oppressors or communist, I care what actually can be done in the real world to make the world work better. Keep in mind that while China is sort if at odds with the WTO, it's not because they don't think it's ethical, they don't like it because it's not them.
- lucian1900 5y ago
  WTO terms are designed specifically to extract profits and prevent independent development. Refusing such terms comes with sanctions, coups and sometimes invasions. The US army are ultimately the enforcers of this exploitation. Solar panels are quite useful in many poor countries, actually. But indeed much more is needed in terms of means of production: agricultural equipment, infrastructure, factories, etc. Expertise and technology (which are restricted by IP laws) are also needed. All of this is what the Belt and Road Initiative does. If you look at it over time, the poor countries only get poorer over time. It may not be a zero sum game, but development is actively prevented. The only exceptions are countries where workers have at least some control over the state. That’s where the solution lies: ending the control of capitalists over the world. The poor countries have succeeded a few times with good results, but the rich countries doing it would have a much bigger impact.

parineum 5y ago

> That would allow trade to no longer be based such an extreme difference in the price of labour That doesn't make sense. The entire reason the WTO was interested in China (and any other poor country) was because they had cheap labor. It's not like the WTO is depressing wages. >By no longer losing value to profits at every step of production and distribution, consumer prices wouldn’t have to increase Wait, we pay everyone more but we don't have to pay for production and distribution? >Merely dismantling the US army would vastly reduce global carbon emissions. Building high density housing, public transportation, universal healthcare, public utilities, etc. would further reduce the US’s majority contributions. I agree but it's completely non-sequitar. > Countries that were kept poor for centuries could be gifted low-carbon energy sources as part of reparations, so as to not need to emit carbon to develop. Again, non-sequitar but what are these countries going to do with some solar panels? They're dirt poor. You might as well buy them some air pods. > A lot can be done once the oppressor countries stop constantly extracting value for a few individuals. It's not a zero sum game. Richer countries do extract value from poorer countries but the poorer countries also extract value from the richer countries. Just because the majority of the advantage comes from the richer country doesn't mean the poorer country is losing, they just win much less. In general, you're making a lot of points about globalism that I generally agree are problems but you're offering no solutions past stop doing the bad thing and everything will be good. I don't care about labels of imperialism, oppressors or communist, I care what actually can be done in the real world to make the world work better. Keep in mind that while China is sort if at odds with the WTO, it's not because they don't think it's ethical, they don't like it because it's not them.

lucian1900 5y ago
WTO terms are designed specifically to extract profits and prevent independent development. Refusing such terms comes with sanctions, coups and sometimes invasions. The US army are ultimately the enforcers of this exploitation. Solar panels are quite useful in many poor countries, actually. But indeed much more is needed in terms of means of production: agricultural equipment, infrastructure, factories, etc. Expertise and technology (which are restricted by IP laws) are also needed. All of this is what the Belt and Road Initiative does. If you look at it over time, the poor countries only get poorer over time. It may not be a zero sum game, but development is actively prevented. The only exceptions are countries where workers have at least some control over the state. That’s where the solution lies: ending the control of capitalists over the world. The poor countries have succeeded a few times with good results, but the rich countries doing it would have a much bigger impact.