tWiStEdD
deity of ultimate reason
Is anyone here totally against Capitalism and/or Globalisation or believe more strongly in Socialism and/or Communism?
If you do, or even if you dont and you're more of an economic rationalist like myself, I'd like to see a comment or two as to how you justify your beliefs.
In my opinion, it is not globalisation which causes these immense inequalities, but rather the fact that we only partially embrace it. Given an entirely free market we surrender ourselves totally to market forces and will therefore reap the -full- benefits of economic interdependence. The forces of convergence are currently limited by the fear of extreme fluctuations in the international business cycle. This results in what I believe is a half-hearted attempt at eradicating protection and institutionalising the liberalisation of both trade and financial flows.
I also believe that lefties hinder this movement through their constant bleeding heart soap-box speeches of inequality and trade unionism. While I understand the concerns, I believe that inequality is not a tangible arguement owing to the fact that while the rich ARE getting rich, so too are the poor getting richer. It is true that the poor's real income increases slower than that of the rich, but I would suggest that the increases would be roughly proportional. It is unfortunate that these people cannot afford the luxuries that the rich can, but if they worked for it or even come across a stroke of luck, they could obtain an income which rivals that of the 'rich'. Truth is, the rich are lucky. The rich worked for what they have, so too should the poor work to obtain such incomes. As for trade unionism, I believe much more can be obtained from enterprise bargaining, the individual needs to be able to negotiate their own pay rate given their skills, experience etc. Trade unions only ensure that those with poorer skills are paid the same as those with greater skills. That's hardly 'fair' and goes against the everything the lefty believes in.
Furthermore, why should inefficient, high cost producers be allowed to operate under cost-perpetuating protection when the opportunity costs are so extreme?
The provision of merit goods and public goods is an issue which is open to debate. I am in favour of slow and steady privatisation of all markets with the exception of hospitals, medical services and medicare schemes (Owing to the fundamental importance of this part of our society).
Otherwise I have to say that Capitalism and Globalisation is all but flawless in its purest form, it is the partial adaptation which causes all the negative impacts.
If you do, or even if you dont and you're more of an economic rationalist like myself, I'd like to see a comment or two as to how you justify your beliefs.
In my opinion, it is not globalisation which causes these immense inequalities, but rather the fact that we only partially embrace it. Given an entirely free market we surrender ourselves totally to market forces and will therefore reap the -full- benefits of economic interdependence. The forces of convergence are currently limited by the fear of extreme fluctuations in the international business cycle. This results in what I believe is a half-hearted attempt at eradicating protection and institutionalising the liberalisation of both trade and financial flows.
I also believe that lefties hinder this movement through their constant bleeding heart soap-box speeches of inequality and trade unionism. While I understand the concerns, I believe that inequality is not a tangible arguement owing to the fact that while the rich ARE getting rich, so too are the poor getting richer. It is true that the poor's real income increases slower than that of the rich, but I would suggest that the increases would be roughly proportional. It is unfortunate that these people cannot afford the luxuries that the rich can, but if they worked for it or even come across a stroke of luck, they could obtain an income which rivals that of the 'rich'. Truth is, the rich are lucky. The rich worked for what they have, so too should the poor work to obtain such incomes. As for trade unionism, I believe much more can be obtained from enterprise bargaining, the individual needs to be able to negotiate their own pay rate given their skills, experience etc. Trade unions only ensure that those with poorer skills are paid the same as those with greater skills. That's hardly 'fair' and goes against the everything the lefty believes in.
Furthermore, why should inefficient, high cost producers be allowed to operate under cost-perpetuating protection when the opportunity costs are so extreme?
The provision of merit goods and public goods is an issue which is open to debate. I am in favour of slow and steady privatisation of all markets with the exception of hospitals, medical services and medicare schemes (Owing to the fundamental importance of this part of our society).
Otherwise I have to say that Capitalism and Globalisation is all but flawless in its purest form, it is the partial adaptation which causes all the negative impacts.
