If not capitalism then what exactly?

[vimothy]

What i am saying though is that i don't honestly believe that the interests of capitalism fly in the face of concerns for human/labour rights. I agree that many business enterprises (big and small alike) would prefer to operate in a free environment with impunity, considering profit and nothing else.

Is even that true? I think it's overstating the case a bit. Obviously there must be something about the high tax, high regulation western states that keeps MNCs coming back there and that makes them the recipient of the large majority of FDI relative to global GDP.

Martin Wolf has a very sensible chapter on this in Why Globalization Works.

 

[vimothy]

One Economy, Many States - Martin Wolf

 

[IdleRich]

I've no opinion on hunter-gatherer vs agricultural life-style Zhao. I simply think that some of the ideas you put forward are just wishful thinking, notably the idea that people in pre-history lived longer than they do now (Diamond has it at 26 in that essay you just quoted), that there were no disagreements, all the stuff about the super-brains obviously - just the idea that life was an easy paradise then.

 

[IdleRich]

"Is even that true? I think it's overstating the case a bit. Obviously there must be something about the high tax, high regulation western states that keeps MNCs coming back there and that makes them the recipient of the large majority of FDI relative to global GDP."

Well, the low regulation third world is a good place from which to take other people's money.
The high regulation west is a good place to keep your own.

 

[vimothy]

Well, the low regulation third world is a good place from which to take other people's money.
The high regulation west is a good place to keep your own.

Well, the second point - obv.

But the first... What do you mean, a good place from which to take other people's money? Do you mean that the third world is a good place to go if you're a multi-national and you want to... what? Steal from the native population? Sell them shit they don't need? Isn't one of the defining characteristics of the third world that most people there have very little money? If you were going to take people's money, wouldn't you be better off taking money from the developed world, because there's so much more of it?

If this is about so-called "sweat-shops", I'd love to see some evidence that MNCs under-pay their workers relative to the average wage for any given country.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I think Rich is using 'taking people's money' as shorthand for 'making a killing by paying them peanuts'.*
And it's no defence at all to say that MNCs are perfectly OK because they pay 'average' wages when average wages are barely enough to live on: that just means they're as tight-fisted as they can possibly get away with. If they raised their worker's wages, then the average wage would go up too, wouldn't it?

*or maybe he isn't - Rich?

 

[zhao]

Anyway, I'm talking about Diamond, not me. If you have links to thinkers who back up your claims (hint: not Zerzan), just post them. If you can cite papers, then do so. If you can advance an argument that would explain why this would have happened (for which you don't even need any evidence) - then bloody do it.

Otherwise, you're simply making pronouncements: "everything was great, then it went shit so we developed agriculture". What's the point? I'm not trying to shut down the debate. I won't to know why you think that these things happened, why you think your timeline makes sense. It doesn't even seem logical to me. Agriculture obviously developed accidently, over time, due to the confluence of favourable geographical factors. In no way does its existence lend support to the idea that pre-civilisation was a time of cornucopean abundance.

it would seem now that i have backed up my claims with an authoratative paper, you are choosing to ignore most of the points which vindicate my outlandish claims.

1. Diamond clearly makes a case for "everything was great, then it went to shit so we developed agriculture" --- he says it was a necessity which arose from the end of the last ice age. in this paper he does not spend much more time on this, i promise i can find you another in which he elaborates more on it.

2. Diamond uses "my" timeline - dating the advent of agriculture/civilization to roughly 10,000 years ago.

3. Diamond cites many sources to make the argument that pre-civilized life was of a much higher quality than agricultural life. in terms of leisure time, in terms of health, in terms of an absence of subjugation/slavery/hierarchy.

I'm sensing a little unwillingness to really take in the article. but look, we're all adults, this is not about who is right who is wrong. hell Diamond himself may be completely off his chain. but the point is that I have done what you asked, and you should acknowledge that at least some, if not most, of my original claims are not as absurd as everyone seemed to think.

I simply think that some of the ideas you put forward are just wishful thinking, notably the idea that people in pre-history lived longer than they do now (Diamond has it at 26 in that essay you just quoted), that there were no disagreements, all the stuff about the super-brains obviously - just the idea that life was an easy paradise then.

but the main stance of our respected UCLA professor is one that is critical of civilization, and advocates the re-thinking of commonly held beliefs about our ancesters and their way of life ---- which was my main point.

I have said over and over and over again that whether an edenic paradise existed or not is not the most important thing - just that these ideas allow us to open up to the possibility that what civilization and capitalism would have us believe may not be the whole truth, should be questioned, and that we may not have always lived the way we do now.

and Mr. T, you listenin?

 

[vimothy]

Therefore IMHO, this constitutes a contradictory quality inherent in capitalism; these processes of social change which break down the old (feudal) restrictions on capitalisation have ultimately generated new restrictions in the form of demands for 'rights' (a welfare state) i.e. a minimum wage, a maximum working week, legislation governing working conditions, regulations governing the environmentally damaging impacts of companies, sick pay, holiday pay, government subsidised healthcare and education etc etc.

Are these things even ideal? Vimothy i expect you'll have something to say about that...

From the (inhuman) perspective of capitalism and relentless growth, no. From the perspective of the interest groups who benefit (be they workers or bosses), yes. From the perspective of the economy more broadly, it's pretty ambiguous (IMO). They only way for the west to compete with China and India's comparative advantage is to junk (i.e. offshore) whatever's junkable and to focus on the higher level value-added work. The government needs to incentivise this and provide provision, but there are cultural factors involved as well. There's no reason why the west or America must be at the top of the foodchain. If China and India are more efficient, more innovative, more driven, more ambitious and companies can do better higher level work there, they will.

 

[IdleRich]

"I have said over and over and over again that whether an edenic paradise existed or not is not the most important thing - just that these ideas allow us to open up to the possibility that what civilization and capitalism would have us believe may not be the whole truth, should be questioned, and that we may not have always lived the way we do now."

And I said I agree with that bit. Anyway, back to the main thing....

"But the first... What do you mean, a good place from which to take other people's money?"

Well, make corrupt deals with dubious leaders (BAE for example), build pipelines (BP) or damns or polluting factories that wouldn't be allowed in countries with stronger human rights, privatise water, sell tanks to regimes that will repress their people and, yes, like Ollie said, pay people a derisory wage.

If you were going to take people's money, wouldn't you be better off taking money from the developed world, because there's so much more of it?

Not if it's harder to get at.

One Economy, Many States - Martin Wolf

OK, read that, so globalisation will decrease inequality - but I thought you said inequality was a good thing, now I am confused.

 

[vimothy]

it would seem now that i have backed up my claims with an authoratative paper, you are choosing to ignore most of the points which vindicate my outlandish claims.

Er, no I'm not.

1. Diamond clearly makes a case for "everything was great, then it went to shit so we developed agriculture" --- he says it was a necessity which arose from the end of the last ice age. in this paper he does not spend much more time on this, i promise i can find you another in which he elaborates more on it.

As I recall in Guns, Germs and Steel, he describes agriculture as a system that develops gradually with the slow domestication of crops, or their migration as a subsistance package to a different but environmentally similar location.

Agriculture was necessary to support larger populations, so once it had set in, there would be no way of returning short of mass-death.

2. Diamond uses "my" timeline - dating the advent of agriculture/civilization to roughly 10,000 years ago.

And so do I - congratulations on developing that.

3. Diamond cites many sources to make the argument that pre-civilized life was of a much higher quality than agricultural life. in terms of leisure time, in terms of health, in terms of an absence of subjugation/slavery/hierarchy.

Indeed he does. But that's not quite what we're arguing about, is it?

I'm sensing a little unwillingness to really take in the article. but look, we're all adults, this is not about who is right who is wrong. hell Diamond himself may be completely off his chain. but the point is that I have done what you asked, and you should acknowledge that at least some, if not most, of my original claims are not as absurd as everyone seemed to think.

No, I don't disagree with what Diamond says, although, I'm hardly an authority. What Diamond says (as far as I can see) is that hunter-gatherer bands were healthier than their contemporary agricultural cousins.

but the main stance of our respected UCLA professor is one that is critical of civilization, and advocates the re-thinking of commonly held beliefs about our ancesters and their way of life ---- which was my main point.

Well, calling it "the worst mistake in human history" seems pretty daft to me, since without it Jared wouldn't even be alive today, let alone writing papers like this, but never mind... Anyway, it seems he's not making quite as grand claims as you are, but merely suggesting that relative to agricultural societies at the time, hunter-gatherers had a better standard of living.

 

[vimothy]

Well, make corrupt deals with dubious leaders (BAE for example), build pipelines (BP) or damns or polluting factories that wouldn't be allowed in countries with stronger human rights, privatise water, sell tanks to regimes that will repress their people and, yes, like Ollie said, pay people a derisory wage

Ok, wages first, then the rest. I do not believe that there is any evidence that proves MNCs pay anything less than more than the national average in developing countries. It's basically a no-brainer. I will post the titles of some studies supporting this tomorrow. Can you do the same with studies supporting your view?

Making deals with dubious leaders is beside the point if we're interested in the welfare and economic progress of the people unfortunate enough to live under them.

Privatisation of natural resources is better than leaving them under the nationalised control of kleptocratic incompetents, as the tenor of your argument suggests (cf. the "tragedy of the commons").

Polluting factories are less likely to be caused or run by private corporations (as opposed to unanswerable elites running nationalised industires), and also it is up to the countries in question to set their own environemtental regulations - it's not up to special interest NGOs trying to wreck the comparative advantage in the one are the developing world holds it - cheap labour.

Selling arms is a different question. I'm talking abour foreign direct investment.

Not if it's harder to get at.

How could it be harder to get at?

OK, read that, so globalisation will decrease inequality - but I thought you said inequality was a good thing, now I am confused.

There are different types of inequality.

 

[zhao]

Anyway, it seems he's not making quite as grand claims as you are, but merely suggesting that relative to agricultural societies at the time, hunter-gatherers had a better standard of living.

no vimothy, he is not MERELY saying that. what he is saying is that our ancesters had a much better way of life than OURS.

Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and longest-lasting life style in human history. In contrast, we’re still struggling with the mess into which agriculture has tumbled us, and it’s unclear whether we can solve it. -- Jared Diamon

what he has demonstrated in this article is completely against all the commonly held beliefs with which we were raised -- mainly that life has gotten better and better through out human history. and that our way of life is the most advanced, and therefore the best.

and idlerich, i am completely crazed with sleep deprivation, and can not find where he says 26 years is average life span of our pre-civilized ancesters. in the quote above he clearly says "Hunter-gatherers practiced the most successful and longest-lasting life style in human history." ... maybe he means the lifestyle itself was longest lasting, and not the lifespan of individuals? yeah that's probably it.

ok nap time.

 

[vimothy]

Longest lasting - obviously not meaning in individual life times, but in terms of the length of time hunter-gatherer society lasted for. How could they not?

what he is saying is that our ancesters had a much better way of life than OURS.

Definitely not how I read it.

 

[Mr. Tea]

OK zhao, if we accept the premise that life for our (distant) ancestors was better than it is for us today (which I don't), then are you saying this merely to bemoan how terrible the world is today, or do you advocate actually trying to go back to this way of living? And if you do, what do you advocated doing with the billions of people who could not be supported by the resources available to (neo-)pre-technological cultures?

 

[IdleRich]

"Ok, wages first, then the rest. I do not believe that there is any evidence that proves MNCs pay anything less than more than the national average in developing countries. It's basically a no-brainer. I will post the titles of some studies supporting this tomorrow. Can you do the same with studies supporting your view?"

I didn't say that they pay less though did I? Did you read what Mr Tea said?
Also, in India where western companies pay more for graduates to work in their service centres than they could earn doing the jobs they are qualified for there is a brain drain of doctors, dentists etc

"Making deals with dubious leaders is beside the point if we're interested in the welfare and economic progress of the people unfortunate enough to live under them."

Not if it consolidates their power.
Anyway, you asked me how companies take money from undeveloped countries, that's one way that they do it, how is it besides the point?
Where do you think the leaders get their money?

"Privatisation of natural resources is better than leaving them under the nationalised control of kleptocratic incompetents"

Not when it goes horribly wrong as in the recent well-publicised water privatisation case in... I forget, I'm sure you know.
Also, who is to say the choice is between private companies and kleptocratic incompetents? That's not always the case.

"Polluting factories are less likely to be caused or run by private corporations"

Are they? What about the coke factory been in the news this last year? What about the Bhopal thing? That's pretty much the worst case of industrial pollution I've ever heard of.

"and also it is up to the countries in question to set their own environemtental regulations"

And companies to exploit the lack of them - that's exactly my point.

"Selling arms is a different question. I'm talking abour foreign direct investment"

I don't care what you were talking about, I said companies take money from poor countries, you asked how, that's one of the many ways that they do it, you can't just disqualify it because you don't want to talk about it.

"There are different types of inequality."

Oh.

 

[IdleRich]

Zhao, this bit:

increase in iron-deficiency anemia (evidenced bya bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), a theefold rise in bone lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. "Life expectancy at birth in the pre-agricultural community was bout twenty-six years," says Armelagos, "but in the post-agricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive."

About a quarter of the page down the second extract of the essay.

 

[vimothy]

I didn't say that they pay less though did I? Did you read what Mr Tea said?
Also, in India where western companies pay more for graduates to work in their service centres than they could earn doing the jobs they are qualified for there is a brain drain of doctors, dentists etc

Look Rich, poverty is the default for many millions of people round the world. Either foreign companies go to these countries and build factories and employ people for much less than they would employ people for here, but much more than the employees could expect to make without them, or they don't. If you could force factory owners to pay people in China the wages that they would have to pay them here, you would simply end industrial manufacturing in China - fact. If factory owners can't make a profit, China has nothing to offer them. Without cheap labout it has no comparative advantage, i.e. it has nothing. It is entirely to the benefit of the developing world that foreign MNCs pay them a "derisory wage" - it's actually not derisory at all. As i said, it's actually uniformally better than the wage they could expect to earn otherwise.

The crime of the Indian economy is that it trained some of the finest engineers and scientists in the world and then provided no where for them to use the talents. So they fucked off to America in droves. Good luck America - it got some of the smartest people on the planet, trained by Indian taxes. Check out the names of US investment bankers - plenty of Indians; ditto software firms, etc. The fact that they couldn't do the jobs that they wanted to and were trained to do is the fault of the Indian obssession with the USSR's economic model, nothing to do with multi-nationals.

 

[IdleRich]

"Look Rich, poverty is the default for many millions of people round the world. Either foreign companies go to these countries and build factories and employ people for much less than they would employ people for here, but much more than the employees could expect to make without them, or they don't. If you could force factory owners to pay people in China the wages that they would have to pay them here, you would simply end industrial manufacturing in China - fact. If factory owners can't make a profit, China has nothing to offer them. Without cheap labout it has no comparative advantage, i.e. it has nothing. It is entirely to the benefit of the developing world that foreign MNCs pay them a "derisory wage" - it's actually not derisory at all. As i said, it's actually uniformally better than the wage they could expect to earn otherwise"

Of course there have been instances where MNCs have been allowed to build factories due to corrupt deals with local government and thus been able to pay low wages even for the country in question but I accept that this is on the decrease these days, that is why this was not near the top of the list of things I identified (why haven't you taken issue with the others by the way?).

"The crime of the Indian economy is that it trained some of the finest engineers and scientists in the world and then provided no where for them to use the talents. So they fucked off to America in droves. Good luck America - it got some of the smartest people on the planet, trained by Indian taxes. Check out the names of US investment bankers - plenty of Indians; ditto software firms, etc. The fact that they couldn't do the jobs that they wanted to and were trained to do is the fault of the Indian obssession with the USSR's economic model, nothing to do with multi-nationals."

But multi-nationals are exacerbating that by paying them more to work in a call centre than as a doctor. That makes it doubly hard to provide somewhere for these people to use their talents wouldn't you agree?

 

[Mr BoShambles]

Aaaanyway, what's more interesting here I think is your [Mr BoShambles's] equation of capitalism with a fairer, enlightened and more generally more humane society. Sure, early capitalism started to emerge in Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe, but consider how long it took from that time, and all the various social phases that Western culture went through - religious genocide, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the agricultural and industrial revolutions, imperialist expansion - before we finally arrived, in the 20th century, at universal suffrage, the universal declaration of human rights, the welfare state and modern, liberal society (via a couple of World Wars). So while I'd agree that these good things have come about as part of a whole range of cultural changes, including the huge increase in wealth and resource availability that is part and parcel of capitalism and the technological advances that facilitated, and were facilitated by, capitalism, I'd like to point out that massive time lag even between the emergence of modern capitalism (early 19th century, more or less) and the life of wealth, leisure and freedom most people in the developed world enjoy. I'm not sure it's really possible to say that India and Bangladesh are in an 'equivalent' stage of industrial and economic development to any particular point in Britain's past, for example, but I think it's a bit shitty to tell third-world textile workers who work all hours in horrific conditions just to stay alive not to worry as life will be much better for their grandchildren.

But this is just how it will be. Of course, reforms designed to improve the process of capitalisation to make wealth generation faster have the potential to speed up the process. So much revolves around the relationship between the state and its people - the 'social contract'.

As you've recognised there have been many stages on our 'Western' path to the prosperity and opportunity of today. This path of development will take time in today's 'developing world' and it will obviously not mirror 'our' experience since there are many differing factors. But the creation of a strong social contract backed up by representative and respected institutions is ultimately what is necessary....

I accept that it seems unfair when in a world of such wealth that there are still people living shitty lives in the hope of a better future for their children/grandchildren but what do you suggest?

 

[zhao]

OK zhao, if we accept the premise that life for our (distant) ancestors was better than it is for us today (which I don't), then are you saying this merely to bemoan how terrible the world is today, or do you advocate actually trying to go back to this way of living? And if you do, what do you advocated doing with the billions of people who could not be supported by the resources available to (neo-)pre-technological cultures?

neither.

I am suggesting that the only way to envision a better future is to strip away the lies and illusions that we have been living under - the myths perpetrated by civilization - and to realize that human potential is much wider and bigger than our culture would have us believe, and that maybe we haven't ALWAYS lived the lonely dog-eat-dog way we do now. only when we break from these limited and limiting traps which define us can we possibly find another way of existing.

if we deny that there are other ways of life, if we refuse to acknowledge the possibility that we once were different, if we do not believe that our specie is CAPABLE of living peacefully, gracefully, then what better future can there be?