»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Yeah for change
| The Alley |
|
Yeah for change |
|
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams 
|
Change? The Clinton administration did alot of "good" and changed the country in "good" ways. Sure he can be acknowledged for free trade agreements; the same ones that caused third world countries to be in poverty [AKA Jamaca] Become Dependant on the united states and unable to be independant. I generally don't hate socialists, because the idea behind it is not basically evil. But neo-liberalism caused the gap in wealth in the world [and even more in the US] to greatly increase. To much spending on band-aides. So Obama placed himself as a communist or socialist, but now we see his tru colors. he is a neo librel (:< My predictions in the next four years Welfare to be dramatically decreased, regulation on business to decrease, more money invested on renovation of cities based on big business, taxes for the upper middle classed greatly increased[middle and upper middle pay the taxes]- many of them will go bankrupt, revenues to go down, education to drop, RIA's willl be absorbed into social security, Social security funds available to more poeple... That is unless the Clinton Administration learns from their past mistakes. Either way people will be thanking him. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/7749748.stm Juju Obama -Juju |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Juju - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Excellent link, Juju... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I agree - good link. Your post is confusing though - there are large parts of it that don’t seem to make any sense. Care to elaborate? |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Yes let me know what part you are talking about and I will provide proof or further explanation. Mostly I am just shocked that someone who clams to be socialist picked neo-liberals in his office. -Juju |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ok let’s start at the beginning: quote: Free trade agreements didn’t cause the poverty in third world countries. The poverty existed in third world countries long before free trade agreements were implemented. Unless you can prove the effect preceded the cause then this is simply nonsense. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Watch movie "life in debt" on you tube. Poverty was caused by the IMF, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ckF3Wt47lE -Juju -"So you found a girl Who thinks really deep thougts What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That’s not true. Even if it were true the responsibility for the introduction of free trade agreements doesn’t lie with America or the IMF, it lies squarely at the feet of Jamaica and CARICOM, the members of that organisation are the ones pushing for free trade agreements. I don’t blame them either, a free trade agreement guarantees open access to a market for exports - it’s a tool to increase revenue and GDP not an instrument to escalate poverty. If you’re looking for a cause for poverty you’re looking in the wrong place, try the fiscal irresponsibility of the Jamaican Government, the move towards independence from Britain or the lack of natural resources and an underdeveloped manufacturing industry. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22372.pdf |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
The government5 of Jamaca didn't have a choice, but to do that though. In order to get the loan form the IMF -Juju -"So you found a girl Who thinks really deep thougts What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Juju, Hmmm . I think you’re confusing a free trade agreement with a free trade zone - the two aren’t the same. A free trade agreement removes protectionist tariffs on imported goods and allows a country to export more easily. A free trade agreement is a good thing. A free trade zone is a designated area within a country where employment legislation and laws are relaxed, taxes and tariffs are reduced and foreign businesses are encouraged to set up manufacturing industry. If the zones aren’t carefully monitored they can easily become dominated by sweat shops - which is what you were probably talking about. Free trade zones are not always a good thing. They're not always bad either though.  |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
I actually am not confusing the subject. I know the difference. Though there was no tariffs which sounds good, we were funding large corporate farms which made our food far cheaper than anyone else's. People bought the cheaper food. Than local businesses died. It is the unfortunate thing about global market is that it focuses on on price, instead of quality. This in turn causes poeple to be taken advantage of. -Juju |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Are you sure? Here’s a list of free trade agreements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_trade_agreements Which one are you talking about? |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
You misunderstood what I was saying. Both the free trade agreements the us has with other nations and the IMF has screwed the third world. This happens because the US government funds Large corporations and give them unfair competitive advantage over other countries. Some countries who have recently become independant from their parent countries were not given the means to be independant and thus had to turn to the IMF for funding. IMF forced them to lower interest rates greatly cut tariffs and use money for manufacturing. This didn't work so well for the developing countries because their starting manufacturing could not compete with the US's and ended up becoming obsolete and then unable to pay back their debt. Soon after [and one of the arguments in this post I was making] the US saw opportunity in many developing countries for outsourcing. Some of these places were designated for US companies to pick and choose the rules and regulations that they saw fit[this is the free trade zones], mostly due to the countries corrupt government. there was no regulation from the US on the behavior of these companies. This resulted in many free trade zones in corrupt governments, that did little if that to contribute to that country. This lead to even further increase to the ratio of wealth. The Clinton administration wanted to stop the trade preferences that Briton had with some of its former colonies. This would have meant the end of the livelihood of these former colonies, because of US cooperations would have greatly benefited. These US cooperations relied on the almost slave labor used from this outsourcing in undeveloped countries. [IE children making soccer balls]This labor was much, much cheaper than the labor in these developing country. The clinton administration performed what is called neo-liberalism. Which refers to their attitude that the government does not have to regulate the system, when consumerism will regulate it's self. Let me know if you want me to explain more -Juju |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Juju, Obama as far as I know has placed himself as neither a communist nor as a socialist, though many on the right wing here in this country seem to have tried to place him here. As near as I can tell, he is a slightly to the left of center Democrat, and an old-fashioned Liberal in terms of domestic politics. The presence of of Clinton folk on his proposed staff — again, as best I understand it — comes from Obama being caught between a rock and a hard place. If he brings in entirely new blood to bring about the promised changes, then he sets himself up for an attack by the right for being a dilettante, bringing in a team of people who aren't up to the task of governing. When Bill Clinton tried this in 1992, this is in fact what happened. It greatly slowed his ability to consolidate his power, and was not in the end very productive for the country. The other option for Obama is to do what he is doing — to draw from the pool of experienced talent that's available to him. In this case, that talent has mostly gotten its experience in the Clinton administration. He must then hope to use a seasoned chief of staff to make them work his way, rather than Bill Clinton's way, and bring about change by stamping his own mark and direction on the team. In doing this, he also draws criticism from the right, but he has the possibility of an effective administrative team that can move into action more quickly. The right will be trying to sabotage him whatever he tries to do unless he can make them see things his way. They may try to sabotage him anyway, even if he does. They're not bad people, it's simply how the system works at this point. "Neo-liberals" you may understand better than I do, Juju. You confuse me, though, because you use them in a spectrum with socialist and communist in your talking about Obama, as though Liberal and Neo-liberal were stops along the same continuum. Liberal and Conservative may be; Neo-liberal, near as I can tell, is not, but has something to do with international politics and game theory, including zero-sum games. I'd need more understanding than the Wikipedia article I read to say that Neo-Liberalism had anything to do with American Liberalism at all. The globalization questions seem to be involved, somehow, as well as trade barriers. Liberals, as near as I can tell, at this point (many are calling themselves "progressives" now) are in favor of tarriff protection. Neo-Liberals, if I understand you correctly, are not. Neither are Conservatives, according to their traditional economic position. They tend to be Free Trade folks. Bill Clinton, though he was a Democrat, was something called a New Democrat, which meant that he favored many actual Republican positions. This may be one of the reasons the Republicans were so darned mad with him. One of those positions was Free Trade, which led him into NAFTA. Hillary was, apparently, against it at the time. Whether or not it was a smart move would depend on whether or not the actual provisions of the act were or could be enforced. Labor fairness, health and safety provisions, I'm told, are in there, but have not been enforced. This pretty much blows the whole thing out of the water. GATT may have similar problems, though I'm not sure. Thoughts, comments, corrections from you or anybody among the multitudes who know more about this than I do? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
No I mostly agree with you, but I see I need to clarify something. I knew Obama pre-election as a liberal, but during the election he used language which implied socialism. Which is why is you went to any collage campus durring election season you would see posters that said socialism and communism. The difference between in conservatism and neo-liberalism is sticky but their is a big one. First of all even though conservatives like tax breaks and reducing government programming, it is not in the faith of consumerism, but good business. Conservatives don't believe that people can be self policed by the free market. Thus why the conservatives hate neo-liberals. Conservatives really view this policy as corrupt, because instead of people policing themselves out of patriotisms, it says that people will police themselves because of their own greed. [you correctly understood neo-liberalism but I think that game theory was slightly modified [numbers] for this] Neo liberals are liberal with the market place instead of in government.[the market can govern people] I don't know any conservatives disagree? -Juju |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: No, Juju. Conservatives are free market junkies. "Let the market work it out," has been their watchword since Adam Smith. They get upset at Liberal attempts to manage the free market, as in Keynesian economics. Campuses have had banners and groups in favor of socialism and communism for a very long time indeed. In the mid thirties, campuses were full of Communists and socialists. During the sixties, the same, and they've maintained a presence on campus as I understand it ever since. You used to be able to get pamphlets handed to you by student types when you were walking through Harvard Square pretty much right through from 1970 or so. They were always there. The right wing called Obama socialist or communist. I don't think he's anything but a nice middle of the road guy, probably like a Rockefeller Republican — yes, Juju, the Republicans actually had centralists too at one time, before the current crop decided they weren't right wing enough and threw them out of the party. That's part of the reason there are so many Independents these days. Sorry, Juju, I get carried away sometimes. I still really don't understand who the Neo-liberals are. Sincerely yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
There are a lot of fairly intelligent folks milling about that believe free trade agreements exacerbate poverty in third world countries. I would hardly call it nonsense to believe so. Free trade has a tendency to allow the movement of products and employers, but not much in the way of employees. As with any political discussion, there are differing views and opinions, none of which are nonsensical, and often all are correct to some degree. I don't find it hard to buy the argument that free trade agreements have negative consequences on the third world. I would submit it is a widely held view, even amongst those folks who are considered to have fair to middlin' intelligence. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Conservatives are free market junkies but for different reasons. The best way to describe a conservative view is they want the government to act as efficiently as possible of each buck to taxes. While neo liberals like bandaides [they don't call them that I do]That believe that investing in business will help the government as well. Mean while they have to tell every one that those funds will benefit the city. Personally I think that if the government wants to be so friendly with business, then they need to adopt policies that leave them accountable for there results. Why not have six sigma introduced in the government? That won't happen for any ones, but the Republicans, for two reasons. The first one is that Democrats will never admit that the same filthy lobby the republicans get from big business, Democrats get as well. the second reason Democrats want to separate themselves publicly from big business. But they take their money anyways, while they put on the mask of FDR. Conservatives strongly avoid investing in business(This is my opinion I am waiting for someone to porve me wrong). As for the collage campuses always promote socialism and communism... I guess they never grow up than. Even though I am neither, I have to say Obama like totally quoted some famous marx quotes two months before the election. But I guess he was just being two faced. (: But then again we will see maybe Obama wont be a neo-liberal. -Juju |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
