Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Holes in my bucket! Feudalism and Child Labor?
Options
Comments
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post had been deleted.
It's not so much that regulation is a panacea, it's that unregulated markets will lead to exploitation and ultimately disaster. The "magic of the markets" will not deliver decent living standards, it isn't capable of doing it.
It's interesting, also, in that child labour paper I posted above, that legal intervention was found to be more effective than inducements to re-enter education, despite the fact that the author was clearly favouring the latter course.This post had been deleted.
This is what liberalisation of the capital markets did for us. The minimum wage has very little to do with it - except as a bulwark against employers using the crisis as their excuse to cut wages to a far greater extent than deflation.
You need to have a serious rethink, sonny.
"Liberalization leads to growth": not in itself, it doesn't. In fact, even the IMF admit that capital market liberalisation doesn't necessarily lead to growth, and almost invariably does lead to volatility in the domestic market.
Further, if "liberalization" (the z is important) is the main route to growth, how do you explain the massive growth-rate of the East Asian countries, who "governed the markets" - China retained collective ownership of land, but managed double-digit growth rates.
South Korea, on the other hand, abandoned this approach during the 90s in favour of a more "liberal" regime, and look what happened to them:In short, the severity of the Asia crisis and its timing (the fact that it took place in 1997 and not, say, 1993), can be explained in terms of the conjunction of (a) pre-existing domestic financial fragility, (b) growing excess liquidity in the major industrial countries over the 1990s, in the hands of money managers caring little about long-run fundamentals and seeking high short-term returns wherever they could find them, (c) opening the capital account over the first half of the 1990s, and (d) a surge of momentum-driven private-to-private capital inflows into Asia that were largely unregulated by governments. This line of argument suggests that financial deregulation and unstrategic opening of the capital account was a decisive factor in the built-up to crisis and in the intensity of the subsequent slump. If so, those who pushed for it without constraining their push by the capacity of the financial regulatory apparatus on the ground—Wall Street investment banks, the US Treasury, the IMF, and segments of domestic policy elites--were grossly irresponsible.
Seems like a familiar story. I'm not saying that the likes of China are perfect, mind, far from it, but the evidence does effectively torpedo your "free markets equals growth" theory.It's a given that many components in the computers that the anti-libertarians are using to post were manufactured in so-called "sweatshops" in Asia.
You really couldn't make this up if you tried.
Jesus, you must be really stuck. Lamest of the lame arguments, right here.0 -
This post had been deleted.
Conversely, some people really believe that to improve domestic living standards, and eradicate Third World child labor, all they have to do is increase sweatshops.
That too is comical.Ireland has instated one of the highest minimum wages in the world, and we see what that has helped to achieve: 14.5 percent unemployment, rampant welfare dependency, emigration, and soaring national debt.
Nothing to do with the libertarianesque deregulated markets and resultant worldwide financial implosion of 2008 at all of course..0 -
The veracity of the doctrine of historicism is central to the success of the sort of economic central planning you are continually proposing. Popper pointed out its flaws in both The Open Society and Its Enemies (which I haven't read) and The Poverty of Historicism, and with that, put another nail in the coffin of the idea of 'planning' society. I'm willing to discuss Popper's sceptical epistemology but I find it very telling indeed that the discussion is framed entirely as if Karl Popper never even existed.Which debate is this? I thought that The Poverty of Historicism very effectively refutes Marx's theory of history, but that's about all it does. It also raises serious question marks over Hayek's approach to spontaneous order and cultural evolution, if I remember correctly, been a quite while since I've read it.
Anyway, my main point was that Kyussbishop's criticism of free-market economics is that it hasn't been empirically tested which is an inaccurate criticism both for the issues with historicism and the fact that we can't quantify the 'unseen' in an economy.
For example, you may propose that we all grab a baseball bat and some molotov cocktails and run down Grafton street smashing windows and burning a few shops as the resultant business being thrown towards builders and glaziers etc presents a measurable benefit to the economy. However, what can't be empirically tested here is what the business proprietors would have spent their capital on -- a new shop or an extra staff member, for example. This is Bastiat's broken window fallacy.
There is a joke about an economist who loses his watch on one side of the street but keeps looking for it on the other side. When someone asks him why he keeps looking on the side of the street he didn't lose it on, he remarks that the light is better over there. I think this sums up my point in a way!0 -
The best I can come up with? There was a lot more in my post, and the one above, feel free.
And, that wasn't an attack, that was a question. From the time I've spent in the developing world, I've always been struck by how small the "middle class" is and how privileged, by comparison to the grinding poverty that defines these countries. To be honest, the term "middle class" is pretty much meaningless.
Some of my best friend are middle-class Africans, they live behind barbed wire and electric fences, with armed private security guards at their gates. Outside their gates there's a whole mass of people living in absolute destitution.
You can have a great life as part of the "middle class" elite, but there's a constant risk of robbery, carjacking, burglary. To be honest, it's always struck me as very consistent with how I'd imagine a libertarian society to look like.
Went back to Kenya for a month last year after a little while away, they've got a boom, massive growth and property bubble going on at the moment - some of my friends are getting very rich indeed, but conditions for the rest of society haven't changed one iota - there's still famine.
A 5% growth rate doesn't mean much if it's all going in to the pocket of a tiny segment of society.
Let's be clear about what I said. I said that "[d]eveloping nations that have embraced free trade are [...] working their way out of poverty". You then mentioned Kenya, which is a massively corrupt country. An economy in which the average person has to pay 16 bribes per month is not a free one.
What do you attribute Brazil and China's rapid growth to?0 -
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
Anyway, my main point was that Kyussbishop's criticism of free-market economics is that it hasn't been empirically tested; which is an inaccurate criticism both for the issues with historicism and the fact that we can't quantify the 'unseen' in an economy.
For example, you may propose that we all grab a baseball bat and some molotov cocktails and run down Grafton street smashing windows and burning a few shops as the resultant business being thrown towards builders and glaziers etc presents a measurable benefit to the economy.
Is this not an argument against blind faith in a libertarian / neoliberal / Thatcherite / Reganomic system? Fast coming to the conclusion that the terms are synonymous, at this stage?
We deregulated on a piecemeal basis, primarily in the capital markets, and look at where that got us.
I don't think, as above, that the evidence supports the proposition that wholesale "liberalization" will inevitably lead to growth, given Popper's conclusions, isn't it dangerous to suggest "free markets" as a panacea, a one-size-fits-all prescription?
I think it's the neoliberals who are the revolutionaries here, and it seems abundently clear to me that their revolution has failed.0 -
It's not so much that regulation is a panacea, it's that unregulated markets will lead to exploitation and ultimately disaster. The "magic of the markets" will not deliver decent living standards, it isn't capable of doing it.
You continue to repeat this claim but at no point have you shown this to be true. The facts disagree with you here. Why is the West rich and how did it come to be?
For all your waffle and bluster you appear to be massively out of your depth when it comes to the actual economics underpinning the points you're trying to make.
It's all well and good having unions and passing social reforms to divvy up the pie, but you're completely neglecting to acknowledge how the pie came into existence and why it is so big. I'll give you a hint, it's not by massive fiscal intervention, which was the approach you suggested earlier in this thread.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post had been deleted.
In simple terms, technological advances and massive untapped potential. By all means, the adoption of limited market approaches helped, but it's not the whole story - it never is.You then mentioned Kenya, which is a massively corrupt country. An economy in which the average person has to pay 16 bribes per month is not a free one.
You don't need to tell me that. Part of the problem with corruption is that police and other institutions pay so poorly. Anyway, I wouldn't have thought libertarians would have had a problem with corruption?
However, they implemented low-tax, small-government, privatisation and fiscal liberalization policies during the mid 00s - I know, because I was working there at the time.
If you look more closely at the index of economic freedom, you'll see that their Government Spending rating is 75.3%, their Fiscal Freedom rating is 77.7% and their Monetary Freedom rating is 79.1%. That's a pretty open financial market, with limited government intervention. They score higher than Ireland, the UK, the US and practically all of the developed countries on Fiscal Freedom - interestingly, Denmark and Sweden come bottom of the pile on that one.You continue to repeat this claim but at no point have you shown this to be true. The facts disagree with you here. Why is the West rich and how did it come to be?
You see, there was this thing called colonisation ...
And your posts seem to be pretty strong on supposition, very weak on verifiable facts. I've backed up my argument, I'd suggest you do the same, rather than pointing to some mysterious "facts" that are beyond the grasp of a poor mortal such as I.For all your waffle and bluster you appear to be massively out of your depth when it comes to the actual economics underpinning the points you're trying to make.
I have posted more evidence to back my points than the rest of you put together - I'm afraid that this attack has no weight whatsoever. Unless you think that my sources are inaccurate, in which case make that point instead demeaning yourself with baseless slurs.it's not by massive fiscal intervention, which was the approach you suggested earlier in this thread.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Western economies weren't massively protectionist as they developed? As Foreign Affairs magazine said about Reagan, "the postwar chief executive with the most passionate love of laissez faire, presided over the greatest swing toward protectionism since the 1930s".
And I'm not suggesting that massive fiscal intervention is the best approach, either, the point is that wholesale "liberalization" is not the answer in every single instance. The case for this is irrefutable.This post has been deleted.
If that's the case, why don't you directly address my posts - I note that you've been studiously avoiding doing so - and deal with the substance my arguments? Please do enlighten me, o wise one? I don't see what's emotive in deriving conclusions from cited sources either. In fact, this seem a lot like a stock attack to me.This post has been deleted.
You see on the "information super highway" there are these things called "hyperlinks" that allow you to "download" the "sources" that the poster has helpfully supplied. Getting a bit desperate here.0 -
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
You don't need to tell me that. Part of the problem with corruption is that police and other institutions pay so poorly. Anyway, I wouldn't have thought libertarians would have had a problem with corruption?
You thought wrong. I'm unsurprised by your ignorance, however.However, they implemented low-tax, small-government, privatisation and fiscal liberalization policies during the mid 00s - I know, because I was working there at the time.
If you look more closely at the index of economic freedom, you'll see that their Government Spending rating is 75.3%, their Fiscal Freedom rating is 77.7% and their Monetary Freedom rating is 79.1%. That's a pretty open financial market, with limited government intervention. They score higher than Ireland, the UK, the US and practically all of the developed countries on Fiscal Freedom - interestingly, Denmark and Sweden come bottom of the pile on that one.
And yet, as you acknowledge, it is still a massive corrupt country, and therefore its economy is not free. Multinationals are generally put off by that kind of thing.
From the same site Kenya ranks lower than all of the countries you mentioned. Interesting indeed. Also interesting is this ranking which places Kenya in 109th place for the ease of doing business. It should actually be ranked much lower - the only thing that drags it up is the 8th place ranking for accessing credit. Very interesting. I wonder if one of those 16 bribes the average Kenyan pays per month would help there.
Comical stuff.You see, there was this thing called colonisation ...
Lol. It would be hilarious if it weren't so predictable. This is exactly why I accused you of being out of your depth. Exactly where did the likes of Canada and South Korea colonise when they became so prosperous? (And I deliberately chose these two contrasting examples).And your posts seem to be pretty strong on supposition, very weak on verifiable facts. I've backed up my argument, I'd suggest you do the same, rather than pointing to some mysterious "facts" that are beyond the grasp of a poor mortal such as I.
I have posted more evidence to back my points than the rest of you put together - I'm afraid that this attack has no weight whatsoever. Unless you think that my sources are inaccurate, in which case make that point instead demeaning yourself with baseless slurs.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Western economies weren't massively protectionist as they developed? As Foreign Affairs magazine said about Reagan, "the postwar chief executive with the most passionate love of laissez faire, presided over the greatest swing toward protectionism since the 1930s".
And I'm not suggesting that massive fiscal intervention is the best approach, either, the point is that wholesale "liberalization" is not the answer in every single instance. The case for this is irrefutable.
You see on the "information super highway" there are these things called "hyperlinks" that allow you to "download" the "sources" that the poster has helpfully supplied. Getting a bit desperate here.
Unlike you I'm trying to stick to the topic. I have neither the interest nor patience to engage with your tangents and obfuscations.
You want to divvy up the pie, fair enough. I get that you're into redistributing wealth. Let's take a step back from that battle line and examine the pie. Where did it come from and how did it get so big? This is a very basic question that you keep ignoring.0 -
This post had been deleted.
I noticed that too, and laughed.
Also amusing is this ranking. The only thing that drags Kenya's abysmal rating up is "getting credit". I'd say the integrity of Kenya's central bank may bear some relation to its corruption. Just maybe though.
You couldn't make this stuff up.0 -
This post had been deleted.
So South Korea is a Western country now? Actually, per the book and article, by Prof. Robert Wade, I posted above, the evidence seems to suggest that state driven development spurred Korea's growth, before capital market liberalisation caused a crash in the late 90s.
As for Canada, you see there were these people some like to call "natives", who had lots of land, but no formal system of land tenure. Jesus, this is weak.Sounds like a bastion of libertarianism, all right.
Who's saying it is?
But you're not saying that the figures I cited were inaccurate, are you? There was a fair degree of liberalization in certain sectors of the economy, by these indices, and the country scores relatively highly in terms of "small government".
What I was saying is that they've had fairly consistent 5% growth rates for the past few years, 8.2% in the financial sector for 2011, higher again before the political violence in 2007, but that the growth is basically all going in to the pockets of a small segment of society. Corruption is part of the problem, for definite, but it's not the whole story.
Exploitative and child labour is rampant in Kenya, which I would attribute to the country's gross inequality. It is most definitively not a route out of poverty.
How do I know? I've visited flower farms in Naivasha, met with the child workers, and seen their working and living conditions. Even in times of famine, Kenya is a massive exporter of fruit, veg and flowers - check the label on your mangetout the next time you're in Tesco.
The point: economic growth, in and of itself, is not sufficient to make a real difference to peoples' lives, and to put an end to poverty. It's grossly simplistic to reduce a complex reality to one blunt indicator.You want to divvy up the pie, fair enough. I get that you're into redistributing wealth. Let's take a step back from that battle line and examine the pie. Where did it come from and how did it get so big? This is a very basic question that you keep ignoring.
So the answer is growth, obviously. Would have thought that was self-evident.
However, growth as a means to an end, and on a sustainable basis, rather than growth as an end in itself. Plus, it's by no means clear for me that small government and unregulated markets are the best way to achieve this, especially given the obvious weaknesses of these approaches, as evidenced by the various financial crises and crashes, and it most certainly isn't the only way of achieving massive growth.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post had been deleted.
Well, if that is the case, you'd be much better advised to explain these nuances rather than trying to shout people down.
And, from what I understand, libertarians want pretty much unrestricted freedom, particularly in the economic sphere, yes? So, when my Kenyan airline's booking agent tacitly looked for a couple of hundred shillings "tip" to fit me on to a flight to Lamu, where previously there had been "no space", and I paid, that was a contract freely entered in to? Or how would it be objectionable on a principled basis from a libertarian angle? Serious question.This post had been deleted.
I have never suggested that Kenya is any way libertarian, I do think that liberalisation in certain sectors has helped to fuel growth, but I also think that this growth is unsustainable, would be surprised if there's not a crash there in the next five years, although Chinese support might stave this off, and that it hasn't benefited the common people in the slightest.
There's a property boom going on at the moment, last time I was over, I spent most of my time listening to my friends' stories of their new-found property "wealth", turning down their offers of property investment opportunities, and advising them that it would be a bad idea to over-commit. Now, take a look at this again:Government Spending rating is 75.3%, their Fiscal Freedom rating is 77.7% and their Monetary Freedom rating is 79.1%.
If you're saying that imperfect liberalisation or piecemeal liberalisation is worse than none at all, than maybe you might have a point. But certain areas of the market are significantly more open than they were when I was living there a few years back, the evidence is plain to see, together with the fact of near double-digit growth in the financial services sector.
In any event, equality, as I see it, is the main problem in Kenya - to reduce the political difficulties to tribalism is, again, grossly simplistic, trust me on that.
Anecdotally, it seems to me that the property rights of land-grabbers there are pretty secure - granted, the property rights of slum dwellers and "squatters" are non-existent. The latter are often people whose lands have been sold, or otherwise appropriated, out from under them.
How could a libertarian system address this? One of my biggest objections is that there doesn't seem to be any capacity within the ideology for dealing with unequal power relations, or material inequality.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post had been deleted.
Not getting in to nitpicking here, but I've put my points with evidence, and there has been no substantive reply other than unsustainable claims about a "lack of empirical evidence" or ad hominem attacks. I do not shout down, I put my point with evidence.This post had been deleted.
Not an upgrade, to be allowed to buy a ticket on to a flight that I still had to pay full price for. This is the reality of day-to-day corruption.
Trust me, I know all about grand corruption as well. Some of these schemes, like Goldenberg involved the exploitation of regulations, while others, like Anglo Leasing, corruption of the procurement process. You wouldn't believe the half of it ... but it's not just a government problem, the private sector are equally complicit.Yet another uninformed claim.
And when is the last time you've been to Kenya? Undoubtedly, the country does seem to be on the up to an extent, but there are serious question marks over the sustainability of the economic growth seen in the past decade or so, and there's still famine, there are still a million people living in abject poverty in Kibera (interestingly, the govenment put the figure at 170,000, this most assuredly is not true), and many millions more around the country. In terms of a substantive improvement in the past five years or so, I'm not really seeing it, nor are my Kenyan friends, many of whom are development professionals. They themselves, however, are doing nicely.
Think about it - for such a corrupt country, do you really trust the figures furnished by the Government to the IMF? And I'm not sure how accurately "poverty" can be measured.Protecting private property rights is at the very root of libertarian philosophy (with the distinguishing feature that libertarians are opposed to all incursions against private property whether they come from private or state actors, while statists generally turn a blind eye to government aggression).
That's the point - how can there be redistribution, which is necessary, especially in a country like Kenya, when the right to property is absolute. There's an argument that property = freedom in the libertarian scheme, because it's only on your own property that you can be absolutely free from interference - those without property will have to subject themselves to wage labour, whether they like it or not.This post had been deleted.
Listen, I made a post here, similar to the sketch in the above paragraph, and specifically asked for people to clarify if I was in error:benway wrote:Denying less powerful sectors of society these rights, in the name of unrestricted rights for others, allowing exploitation in the name of freedom, is a huge difficulty with the general "libertarian" theory of rights, as I see them ... any errors are my own, and I'm sure you'll all be quick to correct me.
I stand uncorrected.0 -
I never claimed it was a free market, what I said was various western economies of the last 30 years had components of a free market, even if it didn't exist in purest form.Suryavarman wrote:This post had been deleted.
Criticism of Libertarian economics, based on similarities to the economic crisis, usually elicits dismission based on the argument "it wasn't a true free market", even though much of the components of that were in place.
Seems a bit selective and convenient, to say market bubbles are "almost always" caused by government interference. You'll need to back that up with something.Suryavarman wrote:I believe that market bubbles are the result of an artificial increase in the money supply, which is almost always a result of government interference in the supply of money. So therefore I don't see a need for government regulation in that regard.
Also, what are the cases your statements allows, where market bubbles are not caused by government?
So regulations should not exist to try and prevent fraud, just deter and react to it? Are there not plenty of examples of fraud causing significant economic damage?Suryavarman wrote:I've said it before that fraud is the equivalent of theft and as a result, doesn't need any special rules regarding it.
The market punishes mismanagement by forcing badly run companies out of business.
Where do you deem regulation is necessary (or do you think absolutely every bit of regulation should be removed?), and what current regulation would you strip away?Suryavarman wrote:In general I believe that economic regulation does more harm than good. I think that in most cases where one might deem regulation necessary, the market will tend to work pretty well without it.
That's a fair point that it would cost money to provide such information, but the Internet makes the cost of providing this information tiny, and most of the information already passes through electronic systems (and is already recorded electronically), so the costs of making that publicly available would be negligible.Suryavarman wrote:Indeed these would all be valuable pieces of information to have and services to provide. It costs money to provide these pieces of information and services though, so we then must ask whether the costs justify the benefits? We also need to ask will the markets provide these services and pieces of information without being forced to? There is also no need to provide these services and pieces of information if there aren't any real problems in the marketplace without them.
This is a bit of regulation that would need to be forced on markets, yes (they would provide it now already, if they didn't need to be forced to); some fraud is always inevitable in any market, so this information would be invaluable for helping to expose that.
Well, I've already covered that in my posts; it's not a one-step process, you can't just put a blanket-ban on it and that's it. The UNICEF report comprehensively outlines how to eradicate child labour better than any of us could really, and they are pretty much the world-leading experts on the issue.Suryavarman wrote:I totally agree that child labour is wrong and most libertarians do also. The problem here is what are the alternatives?
You're not actually blaming all that on the minimum wage now are you? Bit disingenuous to imply that really, can we try to remain a bit more honest in our arguments?Permabear wrote:This post has been deleted.
That is a cop-out, you don't need to understand every step of the process to determine that a particular result is correlated with a specific action, and to make inferences from that.Valmont wrote:Anyway, my main point was that Kyussbishop's criticism of free-market economics is that it hasn't been empirically tested which is an inaccurate criticism both for the issues with historicism and the fact that we can't quantify the 'unseen' in an economy.
If you base your economic plans on theory alone, that is absolute insanity; you need to research past economies and use empirical methods to discern how particular aspects of your planned economy fared in the past, and how they are likely to fare in the future.
The burden of proof is on you to show it will work, and if you base your arguments on theory instead of empirical evidence based on past economies, your are promoting ideology not fact. Simple as.Permabear wrote:This post has been deleted.
There is ample evidence of deregulation leading to instability in economies; while people love to point to "cheap credit" as the sole cause of the current economic crisis, they ignore completely how the deregulated markets went crazy with that and the part they played in the massive economic damage.
Attack the arguments, not the posters; this is exactly the kind of dismissal of peoples posts which sent the last few threads down into repeating ideological arguments. If you're going to throw around accusations, back them up (with quotes preferably) or hold them back, and address the arguments.Permabear wrote:In short, the entire argument appears to rest on little more than illogical, emotive bluster.
It should not be so hard to have discussions on this topic, without these pointless unsubstantiated jabs and generalizations about other posters. All it does is drag down what could otherwise be a decent discussion.
To those promoting deregulation: Do you see any damage coming from that? Lay out what exact damage you see happening, and if you say "the market will sort that out" back it up with evidence (from past events/economies, not from theory).
Pretty much all of us who are critical or skeptical of Libertarianism acknowledge the faults with the state and regulation, but you never see any acknowledgement of the potential faults of Libertarian economics or the free market; it is untouchable apparently.
So lets have a bit more of a skeptical look at things (take a devils advocate role for a bit), point out the actual problems in the system you advocate implementing, and how to mitigate those problems.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
-
This post had been deleted.
What, interrogating the evidence? Feel free to do the same with any sources I post. I think you've already been doing it with regard to the Economic Freedom Index, you don't see me complaining.This post had been deleted.
Poa sana bwana. If we're honest with ourselves, I think we both know that economics, in particular is not an objective science - there's a great deal of political and ideological bias. Maybe I'm just the suspicious type, but I rarely take any report at face value - it's always worth checking. Plus, having read, and prepared my share of reports for the GoK, I would take any of their figures with an additional shovel-load of salt.
I freely admit that my personal experience is obviously a dubious source, but at the same time, I have lived there for an extended period, working in the development sector, at a time when Washington Consensus approaches were in the ascendancy ... before the Chinese arrived on the scene in earnest.This post had been deleted.
It most certainly is relevant - you accused me of making "uninformed claims", the irony is that you're probably taking such strident positions on the basis of a scan through a single document.This post had been deleted.
I've been quite consistent - some of my friends are now Ksh millionaires on the back of the property boom, at least in theory, and they're living the high life, there's a lot of activity in the construction sector, including massive Chinese infrastructure projects, so it obviously appears that the country is on the up.
On the other hand, they tell me, and I saw myself, that conditions for the poorest sector of society, roughly half the country, haven't improved in the slightest. It's the unevenness of development that's the problem, both in terms of social classes, and regions.
That is actually consistent with the IMF figures, btw. I would say that the 7.8m internet users is the most telling statistic from that, out of a country of 40m, these are the ones who are really benefiting. Safaricom has made cheap mobile phones commonplace as well - less than $10 - but still it's only half the population that have them.
They've had substantial growth for a decade, resulting in, at best, 8% of the population no longer being classed as living poverty, with 42% remaining. This doesn't take in to account the precariousness of the position for a much larger section of the population, for whom losing their jobs would mean overnight destitution.This post had been deleted.
Wage labour is great, so long as people can earn enough, after subsistence, to actually acquire property and to start to find their own way in life. Can we rely on the market to do this? Especially in circumstances where losing one's job means certain destitution?
I don't believe so, which is why I believe the minimum wage is necessary - I don't for a second believe that any company would pay more than the absolute minimum required to keep their employees turning up in the morning - it's the only rational course, with the current corporate arrangements.
Mainly, the point is that in a country as grossly unequal as Kenya, but anywhere, really, a wholesale leveling of the playing field would be hugely beneficial for the economy. In fact, I'd be fully in favour of a laissez faire system, if everyone started out from a position of relative equality. I'm with Adam Smith on this one:Adam Smith wrote:The establishment of perfect justice, of perfect liberty, and of perfect equality is the very simple secret which most effectually secures the highest degree of prosperity to all the three classes.
But I don't see how libertarian approaches, as I understand them, could legitimately go about achieving this.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
This post had been deleted.
FYPThis post had been deleted.
After a decade of 5% growth +? Yes, I am. The poverty line is $1 per day, it's a pretty modest achievement.
Even taking those figures at face value - again, from my experience, I wouldn't - that doesn't include the vast mass of people who are on the brink, nor does it take into account how unevenly the growth has been spread.
And let's not forget the massive role that NGOs and foreign aid play, in addition to the economic growth, I absolutely would expect better. There's still famine.This post had been deleted.
I got paid £2.50 an hour as a waiter in Pizza Hut, Rathmines, in 1998, while I was in college.This post had been deleted.
Well, having actually lived as one of the smarter, hard-working, talented, creative people ... who happened to be born into massive material advantage to 90% of the country's population, and accordingly was better educated, traveled, etc. ... earning many, many times the national average wage, but paying modest taxes, a grossly unequal society doesn't work for anyone, on any level.
It's all well and good living like a minor prince, but when you have to have armed guards, barbed wire, electric fences, when you can't walk around on your own after dark, or even during the day, because you're a target, when your friends are routinely carjacked and mugged - thankfully avoided that myself - when you get mobbed by prostitutes whenever you're out, because they see you as a walking wallet ... then you start to think that you'd happily give away some of your money for a better quality of life, rather than feeling like you're under siege.
Actually, that I think of it, some of the destitute street husslers in Nairobi were pretty smart, hard-working, talented and creative people. First day in the city centre, this guy came up to me, asked me where I was from, I said Ireland, he said, "Trinity College, I have a scholarship to go there, I just need money for flights". I was so taken aback that I gave him a few shillings, apparently he has a big university for most European cities. Same guy seemed to find me any time I was in the city, always had a different story, always convincing. Eventually I said, "you don't remember me, do you" ... "ah, you all look the same".
Anyway, this is aside from the economic benefits of greater equality, as Adam Smith recognised. Don't let your self-esteem blind you, try a Rawlsian "original position" every once in a while.0 -
Yesterday Kyussbishop hadn't heard of Karl Popper's book The Poverty of Historicism; today the whole thing is a 'cop-out'. No more arguing with speed-readers for me this week!0
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,223 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 36369
MOD COMMENT:
Please tone it down a bit posters. Play the ball, not the man. Avoid personal digs when refuting someone else's position.0 -
This post had been deleted.
Hyperbole it is not, it is a rather common occurrence in highly unequal societies that those with money must live behind castle walls with armed security. In fact, my guess is if your latest flavour of libertarianism was wrought on our society it wouldn't be long before it was happening here. Already you have gated communities in the US with 24.7 security, one of the most unequal societies in the western world. It doesn't take much of a leap of imagination to see it get worse.0 -
Advertisement
-
Right, well say that then, instead of implying the whole problem is down to that, and exaggerating the supposed effects of it.Permabear wrote:This post had been deleted.
If you propose an economic plan you have to back up that it will work with evidence, and that you can overcome all the problems presented, based on past experience and evidence, not on theory.Permabear wrote:
No, sorry, if posters such as you and benway wade into threads with loud claims about how libertarianism will result in "exploitation" and "disaster," the burden of proof is on you.KyussBishop wrote:The burden of proof is on you to show it will work....
For the sake of a simpler discussion, please outline the economic plan you would implement, including any minimal regulations, the setup of a central bank (if any) etc..
The more detail the better, as then specific problems with that system can be presented, and people could provide explanations (based on evidence not theory) of how those problems could be resolved.
Much of the savings and loan crisis in the US was contributed to by deregulation.Permabear wrote:
Can you present some, please?KyussBishop wrote:There is ample evidence of deregulation leading to instability in economies...
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in the US repealed many regulations that had been in place since the 1930's, which is widely regarded as having had a significant effect on the current financial crisis.
It repealed restrictions separating commercial/investment banks, insurance companies and other financial firms, which in the past had been shown to create conflicts of interest when combined.
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act deregulated the trade of specific kinds of derivatives sold in off-exchange markets, reducing transparency and leading to inflated risks; this is regarded as a contributor to the current economic crisis. This act also put in place a regulatory hole which Enron and AIG exploited.
I'd appreciate if you don't put words in my mouth, thanks; have I ignored the role of the government in the crisis? No.Permabear wrote:
So governments threw fuel on the fire, and your reaction is to blame the fire. That makes sound sense, all right.KyussBishop wrote:while people love to point to "cheap credit" as the sole cause of the current economic crisis, they ignore completely how the deregulated markets went crazy with that and the part they played in the massive economic damage
That's a pretty clear example of twisting statements into an ideological "Us vs Them" argument, whilst avoiding engaging in any real argument with the substance of what was said.
I'll admit I'm finding it difficult to see the relevance of historicism to my arguments; while I see how arguments against historicism would preclude developing a complete economic model based on past events, I don't see why it would preclude being able to use past events to empirically support components of proposed economic theories (or to empirically present problems with them).Valmont wrote:Yesterday Kyussbishop hadn't heard of Karl Popper's book The Poverty of Historicism; today the whole thing is a 'cop-out'. No more arguing with speed-readers for me this week!
You'll need to clarify your argument more; it seems like your pointing out of the problems with historicism actually undermines the ability of Libertarian supporters to claim their economic models will work (as opposed to might work), without precluding the ability to examine specific isolated aspects of economic models based on past events.0
Advertisement