Sustainable Economics

Chaos-Engine

These r some of the answers that Anti-Globalisation is producting:

Sustainable Economics is the alternative to this endless cycle of consumption we have fallen into

I have found this excellent site dedicated to the Pure Economics behind Sustainability Vs Modern John Smith Economics

"51 of the worlds top 100 economies r Multi-national Global corporations which r democratically unaccountable"

"the 49 r nations"

"General Motors has a larger Budget than Denmark"

"Ford has a larger Budget than S Africa"

"Interest is the process of transfering Wealth from the Poor to the Rich, thus widening the "Have" and "Have nots" gap. Making teh Rich richer and the poor even poorer"

---

"Information is Ammunition"
Choas Engine
Email: choas@netshop.ie
ICQ: 34896460

WhiteWashMan

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Chaos-Engine:
These r some of the answers that Anti-Globalisation is producting:
</font>

however, globalisation is what companies are all about thesedays.
its the buzzword, and if youre not in, you will not survive.
apart from that, globalisation really does make sense for a multi national company that is spread across many areas

C B

The author of the article on that site is making the exact same mistake as Marx. he has omited the one major catalyst for wealth creation - enterprise. His understanding of conventional models is extremely poor. His hijacking of the work of Paul Ekins is reprehensible. It is necessary to point out that social and environmental capital have been included in traditional economic models from as early as the 1950's so it seems odd to say that "economics has been in crisis for two decades" when the crisis refered to was pre-empted almost five decades ago, long before it was even nessesary to do so.

the stream of economics he refers to is so conventional that its central "gurus" have already received Nobel prizes (Ken Arrow and William Nordhaus) and others (including Wiliam Baumol) are serious contenders for the prize in the near future.

The authors understanding of the debate surrounding GDP and QOL indicators would almost be ammusing if I didn't think that some people would take it seriously. I'm too busy to type out any info on this right now but "here's some I made earlier"


[This message has been edited by C B (edited 19-07-2001).]

Chaos-Engine

Company survival at the expanse of Human live IS NOT THE ANSWER

ffs!!!
Is money all u think about!!!!!
yes Globalisation benefits Multi-nationals
but why should they be aloud??

Entreprise exists everywhere
I am no Communist Marx was wrong with alot of things
that Sustainability article was just 1 theory
there are lots
it isn't all the answers but it works and has been proven

Cheque out the JAK interest-free bank

---

"Information is Ammunition"
Choas Engine
Email: choas@netshop.ie
ICQ: 34896460

Shinji

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Company survival at the expanse of Human live IS NOT THE ANSWER</font>

Nor are the ludicrous suggestions of most of the anti-globalisation mob.

Anti-Globalisation arguments consist entirely of economic understanding with no idea of psychology, or tabloid rhetoric with no understanding of economics.

The problems caused by multi-national companies need to be handled by a simple system of accountability - but this cannot be implemented without proper government in the "exploited" countries. The issue isn't that the world is full of multinationals, or that the global economy is set up wrong; the issue is that so many countries are ruled by governments that are more interested in lining their own pockets than in the welfare of their own people.

If anything the global "megacorporations" will benefit us in the long term. Who do you think is carrying out all the truly innovative scientific, medical and technological research these days?

Chaos-Engine

Pharmisutical Companies r caring out lots of research in the area AIDs/HIV durgs etc.
But patients on them mean they have a monopoly on the drugs which poorer governments cannot purchase and distrubute to there citzens as the drugs r just ridicuallisly high... As for Anti-Globalisation... goto the Convergence Festival in Temple Bar next May with an open mind

u may be just alittle enlightened and wake up from your singleminded Blood money view

---

"Information is Ammunition"
Choas Engine
Email: choas@netshop.ie
ICQ: 34896460

bugler

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Shinji:

The issue isn't that the world is full of multinationals, or that the global economy is set up wrong; the issue is that so many countries are ruled by governments that are more interested in lining their own pockets than in the welfare of their own people.

If anything the global "megacorporations" will benefit us in the long term. Who do you think is carrying out all the truly innovative scientific, medical and technological research these days?</font>

The issue is that many of these countries are kept in their current states by the IMF et al.The issue is also that in very many of these countries, guess whos money is lining the leaders pockets? And guess who is quite happy to line the leaders pockets?

As for who carries out the technological advancements etc, you are right its the corporations.And who benefits? Just recently we had the case of the distribution of AID's treatment medication being held back by said corporations, and I'm not aware of too many third world citizens who can avail of say ,chemotherapy , if they get cancer. Until people realise that it's not all as simple as "money = bad", or "big corporations = bad", then they will hold no understanding of what the anti-globalisation movement is about.Then again, their probably happy just referring to them as hippies and window breakers, as its nice and convenient.

Shinji

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">u may be just alittle enlightened and wake up from your singleminded Blood money view</font>

See, pointless rhetoric like this and the constant assertion that everyone who disagrees with your view is closed-minded and somehow stupid sinks your arguments before you even make them. Make some valid points and you might even stand a hope of convincing some people, insult their intelligence and all you do is make sure they'll dismiss you as a naive kid.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The issue is that many of these countries are kept in their current states by the IMF et al.</font>

This constantly seems to boil down to the IMF. Anyone care to point out what makes this an "anti-globalisation" protest as opposed to a "we don't like the way the IMF is run" protest?

It's also worth pointing out that it would be nigh-on impossible to improve the governmental states of most of these nations without military intervention from western nations - and hey, I bet you're against that too.

It's bloody naive to assume that the lot of people living in the developing world would be improved by simply removing their debts and taking a hatchet to the IMF. The political systems won't stop being corrupt, the leaders won't stop being bastárds, the people won't stop being oppressed, the infrastructure won't stop being shíte, the military won't stop being all-powerful. If you want to fix the developing world, you have to have the balls to back it up with decisive action and the guts to take the flak for removing democracy in much of the world while you try and educate the people in the art of self-government.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As for who carries out the technological advancements etc, you are right its the corporations.And who benefits?</font>

Initially, the people who can pay for it - because then they can continue developing new tech and medicine.

The AIDS medicines to which you refer are not cures, they provide limited defence against the disease and prolong the life of the sufferer. If we could actually cure AIDS then your argument for making the drugs available freely in the third world would hold much more water - but it's simply not possible to administer massively expensive and complicated drugs in a controlled environment to AIDS sufferers in Africa, where there are MILLIONS of them, when all the drug will do is prolong their lives and make it so that they have to remain in care for the rest of this prolonged life!

THAT is why the AIDS drug thing never made the front pages of the newspapers. It's not a conspiracy on the part of the media and drugs companies, it's because the newspapers see the common sense of the situation as it stands.

WhiteWashMan

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Chaos-Engine:
Pharmisutical Companies r caring out lots of research in the area AIDs/HIV durgs etc.
But patients on them mean they have a monopoly on the drugs which poorer governments cannot purchase and distrubute to there citzens as the drugs r just ridicuallisly high</font>

id rather there was a monopoly on a cancer curing drug, than no drug at all. a slim chance is better than no chance.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Chaos-Engine:
goto the Convergence Festival in Temple Bar next May with an open mind

</font>

why do you assume that people with different vewpoints do not have an open mind. maybe they just dont like what they are being told and have rejected it. it happens, its called freedom to think.
which brings us to...

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Chaos-Engine:


u may be just alittle enlightened and wake up from your singleminded Blood money view


</font>

hmmmmmmm. indeed. you might just be a little enlightened yourself and wake up and see that there are pros and cons to both arguments, and that because you happen to have a certain philosophy in life, doesnt mean you are single minded. in fact, to actually run a global multi-national, the last thing you can afford to be is single or narrowminded.

to be honest when you posted up here and in the admin forum looking for a mod job, i figured you would be a bit more of a expert on the subject. im far from it, but you really arent putting forward any decent argument. youve posted basically the same thing twice in two different posts and given ythem diffeerent names. come on, at least give us a decent argument.....

---

Your Imps Demand Cable...

C B

Chaos engine I replied to the information in the site you linked to it would be common courtesy to reply to the info in the site I linked you to. There are 4 other people in this thread and only two extra hits on the site and not one person has made reference to the document.

On the issue of drugs companies: Without international patents no research would be carried out and we would not have half the cures that exist today. It is diffficult to say that the law should be broken in the case of AIDS as it is hard to assess the consequences for the future R&D and production of medicines.

Now lets see if you can absorb these points digest them and repond in a rationale manner rather than flinging out a rant.

You should also note that that your link should read "Adam Smith" rather than "John Smith" (that is unless you have something against the late leader of the British Labour Party). I suppose I shouldn't really expect anything better from someone with such an aversion to reading.

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 20-07-2001).]

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Chaos-Engine:
Company survival at the expanse of Human live IS NOT THE ANSWER

ffs!!!
Is money all u think about!!!!!
yes Globalisation benefits Multi-nationals
but why should they be aloud??
</font>

Now, here we have a rational first statement, followed by some completely irrational follow-ons.

Globalisation, using Free Trade (without the western gravy-train subsidies) with proper accountability (and the corresponding lack of exploitation) would give you :

1) No explotation, which everyone agrees is good
2) No chance of "company survival at the expense of human lives", which everyone agrees is good
3) Massive amounts of revenue due to economies of scale, which can be used to DEVELOP nations, people, and mankind in general, which noone can even doubt is good
4) Massive amounts of money to spend in R&D which could lead to new improvements in everyones standard of living. Thats good.
5) Globalisation, which you think is bad

Now, here is the problem...all the rabid anti-globalisation chants I've been reading recently are all focussed on one false assumption. Globalisation == exploitation.

Here's some shocking news...exploitation existed long before globalisation, and in scales equally as large. Globalisation neither created, nor even improved on it.

Globalisation is not the enemy here. Hell, good old capitalism isnt even the enemy. Corruption and exploitation is.

Neither CB nor any other economically-savvy poster here has argued that the current system is perfect, nor that it does not require change. Why do they need to open their minds?

I would argue that the "destroy the IMF, abolish debt, and destroy globalisation to make the world a better place" is about as closed-minded an argument as I have heard in a long time.

You have neither been willing to admit tehere may be flaws in yoru argument, nor that there may be merit in others. Instead, you throw out nice sound-bytes which will obviously show us the error of our ways in believing a logical, well-presented argument.

They, conversely, have argued that the system needs to change, but not in the way you are suggesting.

I would argue against the sentiments that patents are necessary to protect R&D costs, and that the patent system has led to so many breakthroughs being possible, but I think the argument of patents, IP, and the like belongs in a seperate topic.

jc

Xterminator

Just a small point.

Advantages in medicine are made, and sold to those who can afford to pay the huge amounts of money nessacary to recoup expenses.

As newer treatments are developed, the former cutting edge treatments filter down to the mainstream medicine, available to most developed countries.

Eventually these treatments become available to all, inc. the 3rd world countries( whose leaders always seem to be able to afford the best).

If these compaines were forced to share the new treatments to those who cannot pay, then they could not recoup their money and invest in newer treatments.

Innovation and new research would be stifled, because we know the vast majority of research is done by the private sector.

Now i can see where this is not a perfect system, but I dont have a better solution!

solo1

Whether we like it or not, we are drifting towards a global capitalism very quickly. As was pointed out originally, of the top 100 economies in the world, most of them are privately-owned companies, who have no interest in public welfare, excepting that the publicity from it might create more income.

This situation is not the fault of the companies - anyone will take the laws as far as he is allowed in the accumulation of wealth. It is a disgusting natural instinct, but I do it myself every day. The trick is to not allow the companies to act in this way, using a pan-global legal framwork, which is what the G8 countries should be talking about, instead of how they can bend over backwards to help the companies.

In Ireland, my vote is useless, it's a complete waste of time. There are three vaguely effective political parties, but no matter which one of them is calling the shots, they will always serve the interests of the huge multi-national corporations before they serve my interests as a citizen of the state.

Last year, our finance minister was in a bit of trouble with the EU over a budget he produced for this country, and this was just part of ongoing efforts by various European countries to get Ireland to raise its corporate rates of tax. These rates are specifically geared to entice multi-nationals to settle here and give employment to the people using cheap labour. Why not?

Because I don't like the idea of a privately-owned foreign company's interests being looked after *as a matter of policy* before my interests as a citizen of the state.

Am I wrong?

Shinji

You don't think it's in the interests of the citizens of the country to see a good high rate of employment, then?

Draco

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by solo1:
Last year, our finance minister was in a bit of trouble with the EU over a budget he produced for this country, and this was just part of ongoing efforts by various European countries to get Ireland to raise its corporate rates of tax. These rates are specifically geared to entice multi-nationals to settle here and give employment to the people using cheap labour. Why not?
</font>

First of all, it was not just corporate Tax that the EU was complaining about. It was also the fact that it was a budget designed to win vote by giving taxes cut and not one that would help slow down the rate of inflation.
Secondly, cheap labour? Ireland? hahahaha! Ireland is no longer a cheap source of labour for the Multinationals.

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by solo1:
Last year, our finance minister was in a bit of trouble with the EU over a budget he produced for this country, and this was just part of ongoing efforts by various European countries to get Ireland to raise its corporate rates of tax. These rates are specifically geared to entice multi-nationals to settle here and give employment to the people using cheap labour. Why not?
</font>

Its very simple.

We joined a group, now known as the EU. Part of the idea is a common set of policies. Two major financial areas which the Irish had to toe the line on was to decrease personal tax, and increase corporate tax to be in line with the other nations.

After several years of decreasing personal taxes, and getting massive investment from the EU, we are now being asked to play on a level playing field re: corporate tax.

Ireland is not owed any special favours, where we can attract the multinationals by way of having lower taxes for them (and tax breaks etc) than the other EU member states.

If we want to play by our own rules, we do not belong in the EU, and will suffer all the loss of benefits that this has given us.

If, on the other hand, we wish to be a part of the EU, we do not have any special status which should let us ignore the fiscal policy which the other countries are adhering to.

jc

solo1

You seem to have misunderstood. I was using the Hunter S. Thompson "Why not?" as a sarcastic, fatalistic, devil-may-care, rhetorical codicil. I didn't expect an aswer. But I take your points.

I was only using the corporate tax allowances as one example of how foreign corporations can dictate national policy, and I personally find it annoying. That's all.