BF2S Forums Globalisation is good

Mekstizzle wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

They weren't led by the poor, they were led by the middle class. Lenin wasn't starving in the gutter, nor was Mao.

True they were inspired by the middle class, but most of the muscle was at the bottom.

Mao wasn't exactly middle class...

Lower class are usually too dumb to revolt and money is what they care about the most anyway.

and then when they do win, these idiots end up becoming just like the elite/bourgeois they wished to replace, infact its 100x worse because you throw in the god complex and all that shit. It's all just about power and greed at the end of the day.

Which is precisely why moderation is the best option, healthy competition but with fair wages and work practices. It is my dream for mankind to develop to the point where we don't have to keep swaying between left-wing and right-wing extremes every few years. Moderation ftw.

eleven bravo wrote:

A lot of the reason why these multi national corporations have such deep ties with these foreign governments has to do with direct interference by the corporation's home nation.   USAID isnt some kind of benevolent organization seeking the betterment of all man kind.

Nations don't need USAID, the IMF, or other world organizations to help them. They need to be able to grow their own strong legs to stand on. This is why foreign aid has failed and continues to fail in places like Africa. Only healthy economic activity can bring nations out of poverty, if their governments allow it. Limiting or denying of property rights, heavy regulation etc prevents that. These are problems mainly caused by home, not foreign nations, although Johan makes a good point about the EU unfairly giving subsidies to their farmers, hurting Africa.

I don't think any company should have deep ties with any government. The business may benefit, but the people don't.

Phrozenbot wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

A lot of the reason why these multi national corporations have such deep ties with these foreign governments has to do with direct interference by the corporation's home nation.   USAID isnt some kind of benevolent organization seeking the betterment of all man kind.

Nations don't need USAID, the IMF, or other world organizations to help them. They need to be able to grow their own strong legs to stand on. This is why foreign aid has failed and continues to fail in places like Africa. Only healthy economic activity can bring nations out of poverty, if their governments allow it. Limiting or denying of property rights, heavy regulation etc prevents that. These are problems mainly caused by home, not foreign nations, although Johan makes a good point about the EU unfairly giving subsidies to their farmers, hurting Africa.

I don't think any company should have deep ties with any government. The business may benefit, but the people don't.

lol IMF fucks over countries but cutting down major public services, especially education. Hell the IMF benefits companies the most, look at Argentina.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Braddock wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

They weren't led by the poor, they were led by the middle class. Lenin wasn't starving in the gutter, nor was Mao.

Shifting the goalposts after making your original point, eh? You said "the lower class has never successfully revolted", not "the lower class has never successfully led a revolt", whereas the fact is there have been two very significant working-class revolutions in recent history. Many historians would also argue that the French revolution was the result of the gap between the poor and the privileged becoming too wide.

No, the French Revolution occurred because the 3rd Estate wanted more representation because they were the ones paying all the taxes while the 1st and 2nd Estate were the ones squandering said taxes. The 'people' had no voice and really didn't care. It was a revolt by the middle class against the landed class.

So there was a gap between a privileged section of society and a less privileged section of society... mmmm, sounds kinda like exactly what I was talking about. Once you reach a tipping point in society whereby one section benefits excessively from a situation while another section suffers excessively you end up with problems. Unchecked globalisation promotes this type of scenario.

EDIT: Just to clarify on the causes of the French revolution, here's what Wikipedia has to say on the matter...

Adherents of most historical models identify many of the same features of the Ancien Régime as being among the causes of the Revolution. Economic factors included widespread famine and malnutrition, due to rising bread prices (from a normal 8 sous for a 4-pound loaf to 12 sous by the end of 1789),[1] which increased the likelihood of disease and death, and intentional starvation in the most destitute segments of the population in the months immediately before the Revolution. The famine extended even to other parts of Europe, and was not helped by a poor transportation infrastructure for bulk foods. (Recent research has also attributed the widespread famine to an El Niño effect following the 1783 Laki eruption in Iceland,[2] or colder climate of the Little Ice Age combined with France's failure to adopt the potato as a staple crop.)[3]

Another cause was the fact that Louis XV fought many wars, bringing France to the verge of bankruptcy, and Louis XVI supported the colonists during the American Revolution, exacerbating the precarious financial condition of the government. The national debt amounted to almost two billion livres. The social burdens caused by war included the huge war debt, made worse by the monarchy's military failures and ineptitude, and the lack of social services for war veterans. The inefficient and antiquated financial system was unable to manage the national debt, something which was both caused and exacerbated by the burden of a grossly inequitable system of taxation. Another cause was the continued conspicuous consumption of the noble class, especially the court of Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette at Versailles, despite the financial burden on the populace. High unemployment and high bread prices caused more money to be spent on food and less in other areas of the economy. The Roman Catholic Church, the largest landowner in the country, levied a tax on crops known as the dime or tithe. While the dîme lessened the severity of the monarchy's tax increases, it worsened the plight of the poorest who faced a daily struggle with malnutrition. There was too little internal trade and too many customs barriers.[4]

There were also social and political factors, many of which involved resentments and aspirations given focus by the rise of Enlightenment ideals. These included resentment of royal absolutism; resentment by the ambitious professional and mercantile classes towards noble privileges and dominance in public life, as many of these classes were familiar with the lives of their peers in commercial cities in the Netherlands and Great Britain; resentment by peasants, wage-earners, and the bourgeoisie toward the traditional seigneurial privileges possessed by nobles; resentment of clerical advantage (anti-clericalism) and aspirations for freedom of religion, resentment of aristocratic bishops by the poorer rural clergy, continued hatred for Catholic control, and influence on institutions of all kinds by the large Protestant minorities; aspirations for liberty and (especially as the Revolution progressed) republicanism; and anger toward the King for firing Jacques Necker and A.R.J. Turgot (among other financial advisors), who were popularly seen as representatives of the people.

Sounds like a lot of the ingredients I was talking about were involved there.

Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-12 09:43:51)

Braddock, if you don't see a major difference in the ability for the lower and middle classes to foment a successful revolution... The lower class is always nothing more than a pawn of either the middle or upper class. The end result is never anything more than a flip flop between those in the middle and those in the upper classes. The lower class stays unchanged.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Braddock, if you don't see a major difference in the ability for the lower and middle classes to foment a successful revolution... The lower class is always nothing more than a pawn of either the middle or upper class. The end result is never anything more than a flip flop between those in the middle and those in the upper classes. The lower class stays unchanged.

Class is neither here nor there at the end of the day, change still results. Look at it this way, if the fat cats in power get too comfortable and push things to extremes in society, thus resulting in the outright exploitation of the working class, then some creative middle-class opportunists will exploit the situation and bring about a regime change using the muscle of the working-class. It won't matter to the deposed regime whether it was a working-class boot or middle-class boot they just got up their ass... all they'll know is they got a boot up their ass.

EDIT: What you're talking about is kinda like the way the US back regime changes in countries they're not fond of. Even with copious amounts of support from outside, there still has to be a big enough desire among the populous for said change otherwise it will ultimately fail. It's the same with social upheaval from within, the Russian working class would have just ignored Lenin at al. if they did not have the deep desire to change society.

Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-12 09:54:32)

Phrozenbot wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

Yea but not everyone would like you to believe that. You've got free-market globalists, and then you've got world-government globalists. Not the same thing. IMF, WTO, UN, are crap.


No. Are we talking objective journalism? That's what I thought, maybe I'm mistaken.

Well, entirely neutral journalism doesn't exist

It certainly doesn't!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtlFlmYA … r_embedded

Johan could have denounced the WTO and the like, but that would have made for a longer video.

That guy has the most annoying voice/accent combo in history. Christ.

Braddock wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Class is neither here nor there at the end of the day, change still results. Look at it this way, if the fat cats in power get too comfortable and push things to extremes in society, thus resulting in the outright exploitation of the working class, then some creative middle-class opportunists will exploit the situation and bring about a regime change using the muscle of the working-class. It won't matter to the deposed regime whether it was a working-class boot or middle-class boot they just got up their ass... all they'll know is they got a boot up their ass.

EDIT: What you're talking about is kinda like the way the US back regime changes in countries they're not fond of. Even with copious amounts of support from outside, there still has to be a big enough desire among the populous for said change otherwise it will ultimately fail. It's the same with social upheaval from within, the Russian working class would have just ignored Lenin at al. if they did not have the deep desire to change society.

The end result is no different than the previous regime.

Ultimately, no, it usually isn't much different. But continuous swaying from a 'left-wing' to a 'right-wing' regime is a turbulent pain in the ass and that's why a moderate approach to economics is more advisable. Look at the current banking crisis, that's what happens when you let the market run wild without regulation; on the other hand, too much regulation can be just as disastrous. Globalisation is too cut-throat in its implementation, it refuses to acknowledge the human element, what happens when the third world nations catch up on education and no longer want to sew soccer balls? It's not a sustainable system in the grand scheme of human existence.

The financial crisis was caused by too much regulation in the form of political meddling. All regulation does is give a say to politicians on how they feel the economy should run. It doesn't help anyone except those who have a god complex. see: Barney Frank.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Braddock wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The end result is no different than the previous regime.

Ultimately, no, it usually isn't much different. But continuous swaying from a 'left-wing' to a 'right-wing' regime is a turbulent pain in the ass and that's why a moderate approach to economics is more advisable. Look at the current banking crisis, that's what happens when you let the market run wild without regulation; on the other hand, too much regulation can be just as disastrous. Globalisation is too cut-throat in its implementation, it refuses to acknowledge the human element, what happens when the third world nations catch up on education and no longer want to sew soccer balls? It's not a sustainable system in the grand scheme of human existence.

The financial crisis was caused by too much regulation in the form of political meddling. All regulation does is give a say to politicians on how they feel the economy should run. It doesn't help anyone except those who have a god complex. see: Barney Frank.

Well I'm no economist, but a Government sitting back and allowing banks to grant 110% mortgages without having a word in the ear of those in charge is just plain irresponsible. A reasonable amount of oversight might have prevented banks from trading on figures that just didn't exist in reality. Now the tax payer has to bail out the irresponsible idiots, how would the banks like it if the tax payer 'regulated' the amount of money they are now supposed to give them?

Braddock wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Ultimately, no, it usually isn't much different. But continuous swaying from a 'left-wing' to a 'right-wing' regime is a turbulent pain in the ass and that's why a moderate approach to economics is more advisable. Look at the current banking crisis, that's what happens when you let the market run wild without regulation; on the other hand, too much regulation can be just as disastrous. Globalisation is too cut-throat in its implementation, it refuses to acknowledge the human element, what happens when the third world nations catch up on education and no longer want to sew soccer balls? It's not a sustainable system in the grand scheme of human existence.

The financial crisis was caused by too much regulation in the form of political meddling. All regulation does is give a say to politicians on how they feel the economy should run. It doesn't help anyone except those who have a god complex. see: Barney Frank.

Well I'm no economist, but a Government sitting back and allowing banks to grant 110% mortgages without having a word in the ear of those in charge is just plain irresponsible. A reasonable amount of oversight might have prevented banks from trading on figures that just didn't exist in reality. Now the tax payer has to bail out the irresponsible idiots, how would the banks like it if the tax payer 'regulated' the amount of money they are now supposed to give them?

They ARE regulated as to how much they can lend. The subprime mortgage crisis was instigated by certain politicians who wanted more poor people to live the "American Dream" and be homeowners. So, due to political meddling, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government sponsored lending institutions gave out far more loans to people that couldn't afford them than would of otherwise occurred. Those mortgages were then parceled up into derivatives and stamped with a AAA rating and bought up by investment and commercial bankers. The whole financial mess was caused by politically motivated loans coupled with a failure of the ratings agencies to gauge the true risks of what they were rating.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Braddock wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The financial crisis was caused by too much regulation in the form of political meddling. All regulation does is give a say to politicians on how they feel the economy should run. It doesn't help anyone except those who have a god complex. see: Barney Frank.

Well I'm no economist, but a Government sitting back and allowing banks to grant 110% mortgages without having a word in the ear of those in charge is just plain irresponsible. A reasonable amount of oversight might have prevented banks from trading on figures that just didn't exist in reality. Now the tax payer has to bail out the irresponsible idiots, how would the banks like it if the tax payer 'regulated' the amount of money they are now supposed to give them?

They ARE regulated as to how much they can lend. The subprime mortgage crisis was instigated by certain politicians who wanted more poor people to live the "American Dream" and be homeowners. So, due to political meddling, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government sponsored lending institutions gave out far more loans to people that couldn't afford them than would of otherwise occurred. Those mortgages were then parceled up into derivatives and stamped with a AAA rating and bought up by investment and commercial bankers. The whole financial mess was caused by politically motivated loans coupled with a failure of the ratings agencies to gauge the true risks of what they were rating.

I think we're proving each other's point here. The US situation, from what you've described, sounds like the victim of too much of the wrong type of regulation while the Irish crisis (whereby banks were allowed to lend irresponsible amounts of money to people who clearly were not safe financial bets) was the victim of not enough regulation. Our banking system was trading on figures that had no bearing on reality, basic regulation regarding how much cash money you actually have on your books versus how much you are lending would have lessened the damage of this recent shitstorm.

Too much regulation = bad.

Not enough regulation (or no regulation) = bad.

Braddock wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Well I'm no economist, but a Government sitting back and allowing banks to grant 110% mortgages without having a word in the ear of those in charge is just plain irresponsible. A reasonable amount of oversight might have prevented banks from trading on figures that just didn't exist in reality. Now the tax payer has to bail out the irresponsible idiots, how would the banks like it if the tax payer 'regulated' the amount of money they are now supposed to give them?

They ARE regulated as to how much they can lend. The subprime mortgage crisis was instigated by certain politicians who wanted more poor people to live the "American Dream" and be homeowners. So, due to political meddling, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government sponsored lending institutions gave out far more loans to people that couldn't afford them than would of otherwise occurred. Those mortgages were then parceled up into derivatives and stamped with a AAA rating and bought up by investment and commercial bankers. The whole financial mess was caused by politically motivated loans coupled with a failure of the ratings agencies to gauge the true risks of what they were rating.

I think we're proving each other's point here. The US situation, from what you've described, sounds like the victim of too much of the wrong type of regulation while the Irish crisis (whereby banks were allowed to lend irresponsible amounts of money to people who clearly were not safe financial bets) was the victim of not enough regulation. Our banking system was trading on figures that had no bearing on reality, basic regulation regarding how much cash money you actually have on your books versus how much you are lending would have lessened the damage of this recent shitstorm.

Too much regulation = bad.

Not enough regulation (or no regulation) = bad.

All banks in the world have a reserve ratio that they must keep when lending out money in order to 'insure' the loan. The Irish are included in this. The problem is that more bad loans than normal were handed out by various countries in order to artificially improve the lot of those at the bottom. It backfired and hence the financial crisis occurred. Politicians need to stop meddling in the free market. They do much much much more harm than good.

Also, I think you have a mistaken view of what regulation actually is. There are three kinds.

One is instigated by industries that want to push off some of their own responsibilities onto the government (and actually receive something for their tax dollars). This would include regulations like forcing everyone to play fair, not commit fraud and enforce contracts etc.

The second kind is where companies use the government to write legislation that regulates an industry to make the cost of entry into said industry more expensive and creates an insulated environment where competition is limited. An example of this would be a group of insurance companies having legislation written that makes it almost impossible for a new company to entire the market in their state.

The third kind is populist regulation such as regulating the size of bankers paychecks or bonuses.


The first kind of regulation is semi-good because it frees up resources within the companies in the industry and allows them to focus them elsewhere. The problem is they become dependent and lazy by having someone else do their homework for them.

The last two? Well they're the most common and have the most negative consequences.