:(I was hoping you'd link to my Our Own Future site. It's disappointing that you left it out.
(,
Fri 8 Jul 2011, 15:48,
archived)
I did read it when you posted it.Not sure I agree with one of the central economic tenets of its argument which appears to be that the amount of wealth is finite. That's basically wrong.
Your drift is very public spirited and well-motivated, but this sense of protectionism of local things for local people is one of the things I find most frustrating as a barrier to genuinely helping the developing world. "The more we support our local economy, the better off we become." I dispute this. Quite strongly. And so does Adam Smith.
Point 4 of your principles is "maximise the human resources". You do this by specialising, and sometimes that involves going "hey, this thing can be done better by people who don't live here. We should pay them for that, and sell them something we can do well in return."
(Your drift is very public spirited and well-motivated, but this sense of protectionism of local things for local people is one of the things I find most frustrating as a barrier to genuinely helping the developing world. "The more we support our local economy, the better off we become." I dispute this. Quite strongly. And so does Adam Smith.
Point 4 of your principles is "maximise the human resources". You do this by specialising, and sometimes that involves going "hey, this thing can be done better by people who don't live here. We should pay them for that, and sell them something we can do well in return."
prince-igor si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses,
Fri 8 Jul 2011, 15:57,
archived)
Sorry but you are wrongFor practical purposes, wealth is finite, for if we could just keep printing money when we don't have enough of it, it would become as worthless as using grains of sand. The reason it has value is due to its scarcity.
Re: point 4 - Yours is a very impractical idea and that has been proved massively by the sweatshops and how industry has collapsed in the western world. It is a deeply unfair system that favours one side and keeps the other side firmly under foot.
(,
Fri 8 Jul 2011, 16:03,
archived)
Re: point 4 - Yours is a very impractical idea and that has been proved massively by the sweatshops and how industry has collapsed in the western world. It is a deeply unfair system that favours one side and keeps the other side firmly under foot.
Wealth is not finite.It just really isn't. There is more wealth today than there was in 1980. More then than in 1950. It's so dramatically true I don't understand how you could not see this?
Wealth is not money. Money is one store of wealth. Others are things, like buildings, art, furniture, etc etc etc. For practical or impractical purposes wealth is not finite.
If you have a job, it consists of taking something from a low economic state, and turning it into a higher one. Whether that's turning a lump of rock into a sculpture, or ideas in your head into a business proposal. You add value, and add worth (hopefully)
The point about free trade is that if it's done honestly, both sides win. Using sweatshops as a counter argument is a bit like me going "well all websites are shit because lolcats.com is rubbish". Yes, trade does happen unfairly, but trade is not inherently unfair. In good, honest, open trading, BOTH sides trade something they have for something they want more. That's a good thing for both sides. I know it doesn't always happen this way, but it's the BAD trading we need to nail, not all trading.
If you haven't, I REALLY REALLY recommend reading the Wealth of Nations. It's actually very well written, and quite interesting, and he does actually go into great depth on why trading goes bad, and how we should go about avoiding that. He was really quite a radical academic trying to work out the best way to help everyone, not an evil rich banker.
(Wealth is not money. Money is one store of wealth. Others are things, like buildings, art, furniture, etc etc etc. For practical or impractical purposes wealth is not finite.
If you have a job, it consists of taking something from a low economic state, and turning it into a higher one. Whether that's turning a lump of rock into a sculpture, or ideas in your head into a business proposal. You add value, and add worth (hopefully)
The point about free trade is that if it's done honestly, both sides win. Using sweatshops as a counter argument is a bit like me going "well all websites are shit because lolcats.com is rubbish". Yes, trade does happen unfairly, but trade is not inherently unfair. In good, honest, open trading, BOTH sides trade something they have for something they want more. That's a good thing for both sides. I know it doesn't always happen this way, but it's the BAD trading we need to nail, not all trading.
If you haven't, I REALLY REALLY recommend reading the Wealth of Nations. It's actually very well written, and quite interesting, and he does actually go into great depth on why trading goes bad, and how we should go about avoiding that. He was really quite a radical academic trying to work out the best way to help everyone, not an evil rich banker.
prince-igor si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses,
Fri 8 Jul 2011, 16:10,
archived)
O.k.I see your point about wealth rather than money but the main point, concerning the average person, is that the rich-poor divide has increased year-by-year over the last century and this obviously does not help those of us who don't have a great deal of wealth or influence.
My point is that we can make a difference to this divide but only if we work together from the same book. My intention is to show people that spending their money on imported goods that they don't need is not going to do them any good in the long run but it is going to make the rich-poor divide even greater. By being resilient, people are going to become collectively more stable.
And if you haven't read the New Economics Foundation's site (neweconomics.org), I seriously recommend you do.
(,
Fri 8 Jul 2011, 16:19,
archived)
My point is that we can make a difference to this divide but only if we work together from the same book. My intention is to show people that spending their money on imported goods that they don't need is not going to do them any good in the long run but it is going to make the rich-poor divide even greater. By being resilient, people are going to become collectively more stable.
And if you haven't read the New Economics Foundation's site (neweconomics.org), I seriously recommend you do.
I have read some of the site before, but......might give it another go.
I suppose my sense is that "imported goods you don't need" is so subjective. There's actually very little you need in life, and you mostly spend money on what you want.
My question over the rich-poor divide argument is that it is often postulated in a way that suggests two tribes, the rich and the poor, growing apart. Actually that's just not true. Grab the Sunday Times rich list and see how many are people whose parents were in there. Some obviously, like the Queen, but actually most have not begun life in that elite, and the wealthiest few percent are constantly changing.
I personally have no problem with wealth gaps IF (and only if mind) we also have mobility - i.e. it's not the same families being rich and the same families being poor. As long as that's true, I couldn't give a crap that some people have loads of money. Good for them.
(I suppose my sense is that "imported goods you don't need" is so subjective. There's actually very little you need in life, and you mostly spend money on what you want.
My question over the rich-poor divide argument is that it is often postulated in a way that suggests two tribes, the rich and the poor, growing apart. Actually that's just not true. Grab the Sunday Times rich list and see how many are people whose parents were in there. Some obviously, like the Queen, but actually most have not begun life in that elite, and the wealthiest few percent are constantly changing.
I personally have no problem with wealth gaps IF (and only if mind) we also have mobility - i.e. it's not the same families being rich and the same families being poor. As long as that's true, I couldn't give a crap that some people have loads of money. Good for them.
prince-igor si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses,
Fri 8 Jul 2011, 16:24,
archived)
HmmPossibly because you suggested 'closing the rich-poor divide' by stopping giving money to impoverished starving families in the third world and instead giving it to local farmers who are already hundreds of times better off.
Or that 'noone thinks of other people' any more, and the answer to that is to promote xenophobic economics.
(Or that 'noone thinks of other people' any more, and the answer to that is to promote xenophobic economics.
Cassius Kray floats like a butterfly, stings like a trout,
Fri 8 Jul 2011, 19:46,
archived)
You have misunderstood me thereWell, to be accurate - taken my words out of context. I didn't suggest stopping giving money to the developing world, for it is not them who are getting richer. It's the big companies that buy their products from them, of course. We also need to set up a system so that we can help developing countries to develop more but that's a whole different area and one that lies outside of my project.
I am very anti-xenophobic but just wanting people to support each other as a community certainly doesn't mean that they should dislike any 'ousiders' in any way.
PS - I accidentally clicked 'I like' on your post when I was going to click reply.
(,
Fri 8 Jul 2011, 19:56,
archived)
I am very anti-xenophobic but just wanting people to support each other as a community certainly doesn't mean that they should dislike any 'ousiders' in any way.
PS - I accidentally clicked 'I like' on your post when I was going to click reply.