From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Thu Jun 28 2001 - 07:37:31 MDT
From: "Waldemar Inghdahl" <waldemar.ingdahl@eudoxa.se>
>> Nonsense, capital maybe, but corporations almost never miss the
>> opportunity to move production/labor to the least competitive
>> environments they can find.
>Excuse me, why don't we then see corporations flocking to
>countries as Haiti or Afghanistan? The wages would low, very low
>indeed. Why are they investing in so (relatively) high wage
>countries as Thailand or Indonesia?
I'm guessing you're being rhetorical, but I'll answer it anyway.
As to the first part, there are industries that have moved to
Haiti, baseballs for one are manufactured there. Afghanistan is too
obvious to mention, but it's because of the bad political situation
there
As to Thailand or Indonesia.
First, these are not high wage countries compared to the U.S.
Second, when companies first started moving to these countries they
were lower wage than they are now.
Third, companies will move from these countries when it becomes
economically necessary.
>The alternative to working in a foreign company plant in
>Indonesia, isn't to have a workplace in nice US plant.
>It is often to work in a plant of an Indonesian company. Nike sure
>looks like paradise: higher wages (they give you wages, in the
>first place on a regular basis- WOW!), better environment, a boss
>that doesn't use the stick as the only method of communication.
>But most often the alternative is simply NOTHING!
>here is no way they can return to a low intensive farming
>culture.
As I pointed out in my post to Robert, lets not pretend about this,
the reason these companies are there is to sidestep wages and
regulation here in the U.S, not because they've suddenly become
altruistic.
>One might wonder why some transglobals are so big in developing
>countries. Naomi Klein (TM) screams about it. But the reason is
>that in order to make business in these countries you got to be
>big. That gives you at least some leverage against the corrupt
>regimes, that may get the idea that today El Presidente needs a
>new Rolls Royce and thus we will "nationalize" all factories.
>As shown by Hernando De Soto in his books "The other path" and
>"The mystery of capital" the problem is often this, there is no
>protection for ownership and an immense bureaucracy.
It makes good economic sense for them.
>You know, the rich have been globalised for a long, long time.
>They don't benefit from the globalisation, we see today (rather
>they often loose, since many of their riches were made because
>they were protected from foreign competition). It is people that
>previously weren't able to take benefit at all of globalisation
>that profit most.
The rich don't profit from globalization? You aren't actually
trying to sell this are you?
>The anti- globalists are often the terrified global elite of the
>20th century that are very afraid to loose their privileges.
>Seattle as the rebellion of the Mandarin class.
I think many different groups are against globalization for many
different reasons.
For the record, I'm in favor of economic globalization, but not
world government.
>Globalization puts all the eclectically absorbed myths of the 20th
>century on their head.
Be more specific.
>Did you know that many of the undeveloped countries have greater
>welfare providements than the US?
Examples please.
>In Uruguay for instance (a country that was one of the top 10
>richest in the world and gave foreign aid to Sweden about a
>century ago) 600 000 senior citizens share 800 000 pensions.
This doesn't sound like underdevelopment.
>But the problem is that soapbox chanting politicians have given
>out benefits that are simply not there. Some Brazilian states are
>so heavily burdened by pensions for their former employees that
>they have faced bankruptcy many times.
I don't support government socialism.
>The real wealth to do so isn't there, and all of these programs
>are directed to the middle class (as in most welfare states)
>eschewing the poor. And it is this middle class that is deadly
>afraid of globalization, no wonder they vote socialist.
>The Ipanema- left of the less developed countries is the one that
>tries to stop the loosing of privileges by stopping globalization.
As I said I think many people oppose globalization for many
different reasons.
>Everything you heard on Barney is wrong
Watched it once with my nephew, but I don't get my economics or my
worldview from there.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:19 MST