5 ms·

So what's your alternative to "globalised capital"? No money moves from rich to poor countries?

omegaworks 5y ago
"Rich" countries should not be allowed to externalize their environmental concerns. What makes a country "poor" but the value placed on the lives of the people in it? The resource-rich countries of Africa and South America are considered "poor" because the US and Europe see their people and institutions as expendable and replaceable.
- ben_w 5y ago
  > "Rich" countries should not be allowed to externalize their environmental concerns. Morally sound, but how would you enforce that? > What makes a country "poor" but the value placed on the lives of the people in it? The value of the goods, services, business, and real estate that those people collectively control. > The resource-rich countries of Africa and South America are considered "poor" because the US and Europe see their people and institutions as expendable and replaceable. Assuming this is true, how did China shift from being poor to being not poor? Did they make their institutions unexpendable and irreplaceable, or did they do something else?
  - omegaworks 5y ago
    >The value of the goods, services, business, and real estate that those people collectively control. You're asserting that the people collectively control the capital wealth (goods, services, businesses, real estate) of the country. This has been tried by more than a few countries but the folks that do try to do this are often labeled "communists" and toppled by US and European interests. >how did China shift from being poor to being not poor? China shifted from being poor to not being poor by asserting that control over its capital wealth, and thus far has been able to avoid having its institutions undermined by the west. Not that it hasn't[1] been[2] tried[3]. 1. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-trade/2021/07/19/trumps-china-tariffs-near-100b-mark-796565 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-trade/2021/07/19... 2. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/biden-taiwan-first-arms-sale-b1897376.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... 3. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49317695 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49317695
    - ben_w 5y ago
      I mean “collectively” in the sense that some control one part and others control a different part, not that everyone has equal control over everything. In this sense it is also a description of America or even a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist zone. The sum of all the stuff that all the people own or otherwise control is the sum of the wealth. That sense of “collectively”.
      - omegaworks 5y ago
        If your definition accurately described the difference between rich and poor countries, the people of the Global South would be considered wealthy. If that wealth is not used to secure stable living conditions (like freedom from environmental hazards) for the people of the country, that wealth is not effectively owned or controlled by the people of the country. >In this sense it is also a description of America or even a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist zone. This also describes the conditions that result from the massive disparities in how America's wealth is distributed. After World War II massive resources were poured into segregating people into white-only neighborhoods[1] that accrue value (and wealth) over time and non-white neighborhoods that are targeted for dis-investment. When hazardous industries want to open, they choose the non-white neighborhoods[2] and when they close they leave the neighborhood with the task of cleaning up their messes[3]. America is able to reproduce the dynamics of its foreign policy internally because of this policy of geographic segregation. These dynamics continue to this day even as it has become taboo to implement segregationist policy explicitly. This is because there has been no appetite for the structural change that is necessary to keep the disparities from growing over time. 1. https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history... 2. https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/05/18/major-explosion-and-fire-at-general-iron-scrap-plant-rocks-neighborhood/ https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/05/18/major-explosion-and-... 3. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/environment/ct-chicago-superfund-toxic-site-20201204-5nqtkvxwhbge3e24tcocftdzuq-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/environment/ct-chicago-s...
        ben_w 5y ago

"Rich" countries should not be allowed to externalize their environmental concerns. What makes a country "poor" but the value placed on the lives of the people in it? The resource-rich countries of Africa and South America are considered "poor" because the US and Europe see their people and institutions as expendable and replaceable.

ben_w 5y ago
> "Rich" countries should not be allowed to externalize their environmental concerns. Morally sound, but how would you enforce that? > What makes a country "poor" but the value placed on the lives of the people in it? The value of the goods, services, business, and real estate that those people collectively control. > The resource-rich countries of Africa and South America are considered "poor" because the US and Europe see their people and institutions as expendable and replaceable. Assuming this is true, how did China shift from being poor to being not poor? Did they make their institutions unexpendable and irreplaceable, or did they do something else?
- omegaworks 5y ago
  >The value of the goods, services, business, and real estate that those people collectively control. You're asserting that the people collectively control the capital wealth (goods, services, businesses, real estate) of the country. This has been tried by more than a few countries but the folks that do try to do this are often labeled "communists" and toppled by US and European interests. >how did China shift from being poor to being not poor? China shifted from being poor to not being poor by asserting that control over its capital wealth, and thus far has been able to avoid having its institutions undermined by the west. Not that it hasn't[1] been[2] tried[3]. 1. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-trade/2021/07/19/trumps-china-tariffs-near-100b-mark-796565 https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-trade/2021/07/19... 2. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/biden-taiwan-first-arms-sale-b1897376.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... 3. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49317695 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49317695
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I mean “collectively” in the sense that some control one part and others control a different part, not that everyone has equal control over everything. In this sense it is also a description of America or even a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist zone. The sum of all the stuff that all the people own or otherwise control is the sum of the wealth. That sense of “collectively”.
    - omegaworks 5y ago
      If your definition accurately described the difference between rich and poor countries, the people of the Global South would be considered wealthy. If that wealth is not used to secure stable living conditions (like freedom from environmental hazards) for the people of the country, that wealth is not effectively owned or controlled by the people of the country. >In this sense it is also a description of America or even a hypothetical anarcho-capitalist zone. This also describes the conditions that result from the massive disparities in how America's wealth is distributed. After World War II massive resources were poured into segregating people into white-only neighborhoods[1] that accrue value (and wealth) over time and non-white neighborhoods that are targeted for dis-investment. When hazardous industries want to open, they choose the non-white neighborhoods[2] and when they close they leave the neighborhood with the task of cleaning up their messes[3]. America is able to reproduce the dynamics of its foreign policy internally because of this policy of geographic segregation. These dynamics continue to this day even as it has become taboo to implement segregationist policy explicitly. This is because there has been no appetite for the structural change that is necessary to keep the disparities from growing over time. 1. https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history... 2. https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/05/18/major-explosion-and-fire-at-general-iron-scrap-plant-rocks-neighborhood/ https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/05/18/major-explosion-and-... 3. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/environment/ct-chicago-superfund-toxic-site-20201204-5nqtkvxwhbge3e24tcocftdzuq-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/environment/ct-chicago-s...
      - ben_w 5y ago