Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on April 29, 2005, 04:47:13 pm
-
Sooooo:
-Jose Miguel Insulza, Chilean minister of something or other and socialist is set to win the OAS (Organization of American States) presidency, against the wishes of the Unites States, probably a historical first. His Mexican rival recently withdrew.
-Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the popular leftist major of Mexico city looks to be the favourite for the 2006 Mexican election, if he can bring an end to the trumped up charges brought against him by the current government (he built an access road to a hospital without authorization)
-There's trouble brewing in Nicaragua, where demostrations are taking place to protest the raising of gas prices, by which the poor will be hardest hit. It could concievably bring down the government and help the main opposition party, the Sandinistas, form a coalition government. Quite conspicously, several attack helicopters have arrived from the US and been stationed at Villa Nueva military base.
-The 2005 elections in Chile seem to favour Michelle Bachelet (though this is argueable), a socialist who's father was tortured and killed when Pinochet came to power.
This is in addition to the leftist, anti-neoliberal (to varying degrees) governments in Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, which have recently formed Petrosur and Telesur, a trans-national petroleum firm and media outlet, respecitvely. (sur meaning "of the South"). Oil rich Venezuela in particular has been strengthening ties with the likes of India and Russia, even as Condi Rice's South American tour has failed to convince any of the above nations to side with Washington against Chavez.
I can think of nothing else like this. Almost the entire contintent has united (minus Columbia and El Salvador) and rejected the notion that they lie within America's "sphere of influence" and are therefore to accept the century-old belligerance with resignation.
Exciting stuff.
-
lol, looks like american companies will be shifting more business to china.
-
hehehe As I've said before, it's getting to the point where money is not the deciding factor any more.
-
I think China in particular also offer more; they're probably offering an equal - maybe more - investment, but without really trying to force a foreign or domestic policy.
Chinas making a big play IIRC for strategic 'partnerships' with oil (etc) producing countries.
-
As a Venezuelan by birth, I find my country's current state and political climate distressingly bad...and the seeming ignorance of the rest of the world, especially one certain nation, which seems to think 523 thousand barrels of oil a day (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html) is worth more then 1,357 barrels...but maybe I'm just weird like that.
-
Money is the deciding factor still, I think a socialist government will most likly drive up the cost of labor in those countries.
-
You mean to a fair wage? ;)
-
Fair wage here doens't equal a fair wage in SA. I should mention that the wages american companies pay in SA is more than most other jobs in the area that the workers can get.
-
That doesn't mean it's a decent living standard provided by that wage.
-
if we provided a "descent living standard" according to our standard what would be the point of making use of their labor resources. However, what ever we give them enables them to attain a higher living standard than they currently have without.
-
[q]if we provided a "descent living standard" according to our standard what would be the point of making use of their labor resources[/q]
There wouldn't be any point meaning there'd be one less group of people for the rich to ****.
-
They're ****ed one way or another.
Might as well take advantage of it while you can and help them out a little.
-
So basically, the trickle-down theory. Those with the power plunder everything in sight: people's labour, natural resources, entire economies, and in doing so they inadvertantly contribute a few meager dollars to keep those who they have plundered fed so that they can put in another's day work.
I wonder what you would think if you were on the recieving end of such policies. Hell, minimum wage in the West is enough to piss off anyone with half a mind, and working ten times as hard for ten times as little is bound to cause enormous resentment. Ever wonder why Latin America has the longest and strongest history of socialism? Cause they have gotten the worst of US policies for like a hundred years.
-
Originally posted by Jal-18
As a Venezuelan by birth, I find my country's current state and political climate distressingly bad...and the seeming ignorance of the rest of the world, especially one certain nation, which seems to think 523 thousand barrels of oil a day (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html) is worth more then 1,357 barrels...but maybe I'm just weird like that.
How so? I'de be interested in what you think of the whole situation; Chavez, the coup and all that. From what I gather, he hasn't been advocating anything more than social democracy, much like what can be seen in Western Europe and Scandinavia, but becuase Latin America has such a long history of being lorded over, this somehow seems radical.
I look at Venezuela, and I look at someplace like the US, and I know where I would rather live. Inevitably, there's bound to be a certain degree of simple ignorance on my part, that pretty much unavoidable, but I find it hard to condemn what is one of the rare cases of the lower class bettering their lot and ending the domination of a narrow elite, while maintaining a democratic government.
-
Better than just handing them cash, I say.
People choose to work those jobs that pay ****. Be it here or in SA. It is their choice. Like I said they are better off with little than with nothing.
-
Yes, but better yet to reform the system where the only choice is essentialy to be an indentured wage slave or to starve. And yet when this happens, it is condemned and those who cast off their shackles are made out to be monsters. If the US wasn't ro busy taking over the Middle-East, do you doubt we would see a repeat of Nicaragua/Chile/el Salvador? They tried in 2002, and very nearly succeded.
To kill someone is wrong, to starve them is perfectly acceptable.
-
We are not starving them by not offering them work, frankly. Also if we were not going to offer them work at all they would be in far worse condition.
However, they are completely free to revolt against the government is they choose to do so.
-
Which is generally what is happening, except they're civil enough not to do it with guns, but by electing like-minded leaders. Frankly, if it was me, I'de be reaching for an AK-47 and civility be damned. I guess I wouldn't make a very good politician.
-
*pulls out 10' pole*
*carefully pushes topic away*
*runs the other way*
-
Originally posted by Rictor
So basically, the trickle-down theory. Those with the power plunder everything in sight: people's labour, natural resources, entire economies, and in doing so they inadvertantly contribute a few meager dollars to keep those who they have plundered fed so that they can put in another's day work.
I wonder what you would think if you were on the recieving end of such policies. Hell, minimum wage in the West is enough to piss off anyone with half a mind, and working ten times as hard for ten times as little is bound to cause enormous resentment. Ever wonder why Latin America has the longest and strongest history of socialism? Cause they have gotten the worst of US policies for like a hundred years.
Weren't you the one who claimed on an earlier thread that corporations should exploit the poor as much as they liked as long as the poor wanted the money and knew what they were getting themselves into?
-
That doesn't sound like something I would say. Except in sense that the increased exploitation would increase resistance, and give critical mass to an alternative vision, which has already happened.
The problem has never been lack of vision, where the previous attempts at some sort of leftist governance have failed is either a)being crushed militarily or b)achieveing success after such a prolonged period of fighting that most of the original ideals have given way to a necessary authoritarianism for the sake of military efficiency. (the FARC comes to mind)
-
How so? I'de be interested in what you think of the whole situation; Chavez, the coup and all that. From what I gather, he hasn't been advocating anything more than social democracy, much like what can be seen in Western Europe and Scandinavia, but becuase Latin America has such a long history of being lorded over, this somehow seems radical.
Being from South America (Brazil) I though I`d post
The thing with chavez is that the old-radical-fidel follower flag doenst work anymore. While the reforms he proposes are indeed nescessary the way he goes about doing them is not the best one.
To put it simply he scares off possible investors and Venezuela needs money to grow.
He`s also a populist and thats not the best aproach to politics. Populists try to please their voters but at the expence of the countrys future.
If you compare his speach with those of other South American presidents you`ll see that he`s the most redical.
Fair wage here doens't equal a fair wage in SA. I should mention that the wages american companies pay in SA is more than most other jobs in the area that the workers can get.
A fair wage is the same everywhere. Its the ammount you need in order to live with confort, dignity, health and have a proper education.
What difers is the LEGAL minimun wage wich is not a fair wage in most SA countrys as it doesnt sufice to fufill the above.
US companys do not nescerally pay more. They`ll have similar wages to other companies in their area inorder to stay competive and cut losses.
Also you guys usually talk bout SA as a whole, not taking into consideration the huge diferences between the countrys involved. Brazil is the 11th world economy, its an idustrialized nation and the middle class here has all the commodities of modern techonoly : calbe tv, internet etc. Our main problem is with the poor clases. Many poor ppl here are indeed miserable. Those are the ones that need help.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Better than just handing them cash, I say.
People choose to work those jobs that pay ****. Be it here or in SA. It is their choice. Like I said they are better off with little than with nothing.
The problem is that this type of economics doesn't work to solve national problems; what you get is companies arriving to take advantage of cheap labour, lax local laws or financial incentives and pulling out as soon as the receive a better 'offer' elsewhere. Ergo, you have no economic development, your workforce doesn't really gain skills (i.e. as low-wage jobs are usually low-skilled by nature), and you end up caught in a situation of barely surviving in the short-term.
The specific oil issue in Venezuela is that (in my understanding) they simply wish to nationalise their oil reserves and thus be able to diversify their export markets; also Chavez has apparently spent billions on social welfare programs, and wishes to fund this via the nations oil resources. The US obviosuly opposes this as a) it wants as much of a hegemony on global oil as possible (particularly access outside of the hostile M.East climate) and b) it'll hurt its oil companies there. I can't see a logical reason to oppose this; ultimately it's Venezuelas oil & territory, and they have the same right as ever other nation to control & charge access to it.
-
Well, like you said, Chavez is the most radical of the bunch, even though his policies are no more leftward than say Sweden. Lula and especially Nestor Kirchner are much more moderate, hell Argentina is even promising to pay most of it's credtors back after it was driven into bankruptcy.
But I still maintain that the approach taken by any of those countries, across the spectrum, is superior to the neolib program, which has AFAIK not yielded a single success anywhere in the world. But even within these policies, there are specific issues of pacing and sequencing and the like, which have been wrong so consistantly that the only conclusions are that either the whole IMF/World Bank outfit is hopelessly incomptetent, or that the policies were deliberately enacted, knowing full well what their consequences would be.
When you say that the way that Chavez has implemented the policies scares off investors, my first reaction is "so ****ing what". Like I said, I wouldn't make a good politician, but the notion that the development of a country, any country, is at the mercy of an all-mighty foreign elite called investors, a sacred cow who's needs come before that of the population, frankly this repulses me. Every country has to toe the line and above all else, be nice to the investors, lest they pull their money out, which they usuallly do anyway. But almost every industrialized country today, though there are exceptions, has grown prosperous by implementing strictly protectionist policies, and now has quite successfully managed to kick down the ladder.
Venezuela is rich in oil, Brazil and others have a large, industrialized economy; there is no reason why any of these countries should be at the beck and call of foreign investors, any more so than Spain or France. That's probably oversimplifying it a bit, but well, that's inevitable.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The problem is that this type of economics doesn't work to solve national problems; what you get is companies arriving to take advantage of cheap labour, lax local laws or financial incentives and pulling out as soon as the receive a better 'offer' elsewhere. Ergo, you have no economic development, your workforce doesn't really gain skills (i.e. as low-wage jobs are usually low-skilled by nature), and you end up caught in a situation of barely surviving in the short-term.
But it is not the job of companies to bring about change in those countries.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
But it is not the job of companies to bring about change in those countries.
Perhaps not (although we as consumers should expect and force some degree of social responsibility), but it also means the countries have every right to chuck them out.
IIRC (in my understanding) your original point was with regards to Rictors criticism of US (in particular) multinationals coming into cheap-labour countries, and of the foreign policies of the multinational companies when they are designed to help said multinationals rather than consider local economic concerns.
The implication you made was that (again, IMU), without multinationals and such, there would be nothing. My belief is that multinationals tend to use business practices intended to leave themselves as the only option anyways, and furthermore do so without the need to address local issues as domestic companies and industries would have (or be more likely) to.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
That doesn't sound like something I would say. Except in sense that the increased exploitation would increase resistance, and give critical mass to an alternative vision, which has already happened.
I refer you to the earlier smoking thread where you claimed that the government shouldn't be allowed to set any kind of workplace chemical exposure standards (Even in chemical plants and laboratories) because if I choose to work in an environment dangerous to my health then I should be allowed to.
The obvious result of this of course being that companies wouldn't pay huge amounts to have a clean environment but would instead simply exploit the poor.
So logically if companies can exploit the poor in jobs which will kill them you shouldn't have too much of a problem with them exploiting the poor in jobs that merely keep them poor and downtrodden.
-
Hmm, ok I probably did say something along those lines. And I do stand by the notion that the government should not be able to regulate smoking except on land that atually belongs to them (government buildings). However, that's a long way from saying that I endorse the exploitation of several hundred million, if not billion, people. In a prosperous, industrialized country such as Canada or the UK, a person who needs to leave his/her job because the smoking is intolerable and the employer won't do anything about it (let's not kid ourselves, employers these days are scared ****less of litigation, so that I think this is a very remote possibility) can rather easily find another job and even if they can't, there is a social saftey net to keep them from falling too far.
The trouble is that large corporations are not simply business entities, they are political and sometimes even military entities. The international insitutions who right the rules by which the globalization game is played are controlled by the G8 governments. Those in turn are controlled by lobbysists from multinationals (at least when it comes to matters which can and do affect their business), which means that Wall Street and Pepsi (not them specifically, but you know) are affectively in control of Haiti's economic policies, which dictate the social climate of that country.
And just as a sidenote, this thread wasn't really intented to be me *****ing about the same old, but rather about the quite extrordinary about-face in Latin America that happened within a span of maybe 5 or so years, and shows no signs of stoping.
-
I wasn't just talking about smoking on that thread though Rictor. You said that the government didn't have any right to set workplace exposure limits for any chemical not just those from smoking. According to your post it didn't matter if workers were exposed to harmful or even chronically toxic amounts of chemicals as long as they choose to do so because that was between the worker and the corporation.
Compare that against your whole argument on the minimum wage. If a company wishes to set the wage below what you feel is the minimum that should be allowed why is it the governments job to step in there and insist on a minimum wage when they aren't stepping in to insist a company isn't slowly killing its workers?
Surely by your logic if someone wants to work below the minimum wage then that is just between him and the company too?
Now do you see why I find it hard to reconcile your earlier statement with your comments in the thread about the minimum wage and trickle down economics?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I think China in particular also offer more; they're probably offering an equal - maybe more - investment, but without really trying to force a foreign or domestic policy.
Chinas making a big play IIRC for strategic 'partnerships' with oil (etc) producing countries.
China has to make strategic partnerships with oil producing countries because it has no oil reserves.
China is also making a push to develop the R&D side of its economy. If that area develops as quickly as manufacturing did, then the economy would be in big trouble rather soon.