|
|
#11
10-31-2007, 01:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?
I disagree with your basic premise that poor or middle class Americans are worse off in the short run. I think it's a given that trade has given us many cheap products and fueled growth and stability. That said, in the long run I think it's terrible for the economy to outsource advanced technologies to cheap countries. The innovation created by keeping things like robotics, and car manufacturing in local hands, drives economies, and creates local intellectual capital and progress that has benefits in many unrelated areas.
I'm also greatly against doing trade with countries that aren't advanced, responsible democracies, which excludes everywhere except Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, the UK and Western European countries (I may have missed a couple). The world is truly a cesspool of worthless humans, who breed too much, care little for civilization, for human rights, for higher ideals, or the long term future. Giving these people the fruits of the most advanced civilizations on Earth is retarded. For one, it greatly increases overpopulation. The green revolution in Asia is a perfect example of this. For two, it harms their local environments significantly. For three, it gives power to civilizations that have never gone through a Western style Enlightenment, and indeed may not be capable of it. And finally, a resource war is coming that will be both serious and prolonged. The more technological advantage we have, and less industrial development the rest of the world has, the better. I realize you asked a question about the morality of it, but I think in this case the morality is best determined by likely consequences. 
|
|
#12
10-31-2007, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your basic premise that poor or middle class Americans are worse off in the short run. I think it's a given that trade has given us many cheap products and fueled growth and stability. That said, in the long run I think it's terrible for the economy to outsource advanced technologies to cheap countries. The innovation created by keeping things like robotics, and car manufacturing in local hands, drives economies, and creates local intellectual capital and progress that has benefits in many unrelated areas. I'm also greatly against doing trade with countries that aren't advanced, responsible democracies, which excludes everywhere except Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, the UK and Western European countries (I may have missed a couple). The world is truly a cesspool of worthless humans, who breed too much, care little for civilization, for human rights, for higher ideals, or the long term future. Giving these people the fruits of the most advanced civilizations on Earth is retarded. For one, it greatly increases overpopulation. The green revolution in Asia is a perfect example of this. For two, it harms their local environments significantly. For three, it gives power to civilizations that have never gone through a Western style Enlightenment, and indeed may not be capable of it. And finally, a resource war is coming that will be both serious and prolonged. The more technological advantage we have, and less industrial development the rest of the world has, the better. I realize you asked a question about the morality of it, but I think in this case the morality of the action is determined by its likely consequences. [/ QUOTE ] omg wow Thinly veiled racism, eugenics, empire, class warfare, fascism?? wtf
|
|
#13
10-31-2007, 02:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?
[ QUOTE ]
omg wow Thinly veiled racism, eugenics, empire, class warfare, fascism?? wtf [/ QUOTE ] racism - no eugenics - no empire - no class warfare - of a sort fascism - no I'm talking about voluntary trades between nations, and whether they should be encouraged. I'd be interested in hearing what parts of that you think are unreasonable or incorrect.
|
|
#14
10-31-2007, 02:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?
While I disagree with a good portion of Phil's post, it is pretty clear you don't know the true meaning of the majority of words you used in your criticism.
|
|
#15
10-31-2007, 03:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?
[ QUOTE ]
From the American workers view the negative side of Globalism is that the standard of living of many Americans will decline significantly because of the work that has gone to poor countries. [/ QUOTE ] This is only true in the very short run. In the long run (i.e. more than a year or two) it is completely, totally fallacious. Do you see why? Try this: [ QUOTE ] From the farm workers view the negative side of tractors is that the standard of living of many farm workers will decline significantly because of the work that has gone to tractors. [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#16
10-31-2007, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your basic premise that poor or middle class Americans are worse off in the short run. I think it's a given that trade has given us many cheap products and fueled growth and stability. That said, in the long run I think it's terrible for the economy to outsource advanced technologies to cheap countries. The innovation created by keeping things like robotics, and car manufacturing in local hands, drives economies, and creates local intellectual capital and progress that has benefits in many unrelated areas. I'm also greatly against doing trade with countries that aren't advanced, responsible democracies, which excludes everywhere except Japan, Korea, Australia, Canada, the UK and Western European countries (I may have missed a couple). The world is truly a cesspool of worthless humans, who breed too much, care little for civilization, for human rights, for higher ideals, or the long term future. Giving these people the fruits of the most advanced civilizations on Earth is retarded. For one, it greatly increases overpopulation. The green revolution in Asia is a perfect example of this. For two, it harms their local environments significantly. For three, it gives power to civilizations that have never gone through a Western style Enlightenment, and indeed may not be capable of it. And finally, a resource war is coming that will be both serious and prolonged. The more technological advantage we have, and less industrial development the rest of the world has, the better. I realize you asked a question about the morality of it, but I think in this case the morality is best determined by likely consequences. [/ QUOTE ] Wow.
|
|
#17
10-31-2007, 05:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?
[ QUOTE ]
The world is truly a cesspool of worthless humans, who breed too much, care little for civilization, for human rights, for higher ideals, or the long term future. [/ QUOTE ] Countries that are dirt poor tend not to care about "civilization" or "ideals". They care more about if they're going to eat that day. Protectionist policies perpetuate poverty (say that three times fast lol), so you are in effect promoting these characteristics. [ QUOTE ] Giving these people the fruits of the most advanced civilizations on Earth is retarded. For one, it greatly increases overpopulation. [/ QUOTE ] How? Creating more wealth (which free trade does) is a solution to overpopulation. [ QUOTE ] For two, it harms their local environments significantly. [/ QUOTE ] How? [ QUOTE ] For three, it gives power to civilizations that have never gone through a Western style Enlightenment, and indeed may not be capable of it. [/ QUOTE ] People aren't going to have enlightenment until they have enough wealth to care about something besides survival. This is socio-economics 101. [ QUOTE ] And finally, a resource war is coming that will be both serious and prolonged. [/ QUOTE ] Protectionism incentives resource wars. The better the ability to trade with people for resources the less likely you are to go to war for them. [ QUOTE ] The more technological advantage we have, and less industrial development the rest of the world has, the better. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, that's why we didn't give boatloads of money to Europe and Japan for industrial development after WW2....
|
|
#19
10-31-2007, 07:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?
[ QUOTE ]
Countries that are dirt poor tend not to care about "civilization" or "ideals". They care more about if they're going to eat that day. Protectionist policies perpetuate poverty (say that three times fast lol), so you are in effect promoting these characteristics. [/ QUOTE ] Disagree. Tibet comes to mind. Also, our aid, loans and trading with Africa doesn't seem to have had much impact. I'm a great believer that social development must come from within. [ QUOTE ] How? Creating more wealth (which free trade does) is a solution to overpopulation. [/ QUOTE ] Are you joking? I can't tell. The populations of the second and third world have exploded because Western technology and know how has given them the ability to support many times the population they could otherwise. I mentioned Asia's green revolution which came from the advanced Western technologies of pesticides, better rice strains and crop management. Consider the scenario where Europe had never established forced empires or traded technology with the rest of the world. The population of many regions would be a fraction of what it is today in my opinion. [ QUOTE ] For two, it harms their local environments significantly. How? [/ QUOTE ] Overpopulation again. Most of the world will breed like rabbits until all of their natural resources are consumed. We see this in just about every third world country, from China to India to Brazil to Africa. Population pressures are the cause of most of the environmental damage in these countries - most forest destruction is done via slash and burn agriculture for example, done by peasant farmers in overpopulated areas. [ QUOTE ] Protectionism incentives resource wars. The better the ability to trade with people for resources the less likely you are to go to war for them. [/ QUOTE ] No, lack of resources incentives resource wars. The industrial development of the second and third world - based almost entirely on Western inventiveness, know how and technology - is going to put a serious strain on world resources. The oil situation alone (it's looking very much like we've peaked already), combined with the rise of fascist China which is funded by US consumers and US know how, is likely to make the future rather ugly. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The more technological advantage we have, and less industrial development the rest of the world has, the better. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, that's why we didn't give boatloads of money to Europe and Japan for industrial development after WW2.... [/ QUOTE ] I have no trouble with giving money and trade to the advanced and responsible civilizations I mentioned.
|
|
#20
10-31-2007, 08:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Countries that are dirt poor tend not to care about "civilization" or "ideals". They care more about if they're going to eat that day. Protectionist policies perpetuate poverty (say that three times fast lol), so you are in effect promoting these characteristics. [/ QUOTE ] Disagree. [/ QUOTE ] What are you disagreeing with? Are you disagreeing that- [ QUOTE ] Countries that are dirt poor tend not to care about "civilization" or "ideals". They care more about if they're going to eat that day. [/ QUOTE ] Because if so you're disagreeing with every sociologist and psychologist ever. If you're disagreeing with [ QUOTE ] Protectionist policies perpetuate poverty [/ QUOTE ] Then I'd like to hear how restricting competitive advantages doesn't economically hinder a nation. Taken to it's logical consequence it hurts me anytime I do anything with the help of anyone else. I should grow my own food, build my own house, etc. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] How? Creating more wealth (which free trade does) is a solution to overpopulation. [/ QUOTE ] The populations of the second and third world have exploded because Western technology and know how has given them the ability to support many times the population they could otherwise. [/ QUOTE ] The problem of overpopulation comes from not having enough resources to cover the population. If you can now support more people, how can you call it overpopulation? [ QUOTE ] Most of the world will breed like rabbits until all of their natural resources are consumed. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, there isn't any possible reason not to just constantly have kids, such as you know, having to pay for them. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Protectionism incentives resource wars. The better the ability to trade with people for resources the less likely you are to go to war for them. [/ QUOTE ] No [/ QUOTE ] Yes. It’s a logical truth. The easier it is to get something peacefully through trade the less likely you are to kill people for it. If you don’t understand this then this discussion is worthless. [ QUOTE ] The industrial development of the second and third world - based almost entirely on Western inventiveness, know how and technology - is going to put a serious strain on world resources. [/ QUOTE ] Except for the fact that some poor dude that you're keeping in poverty could find a more efficient way to use a resource, helping the rest of us. You're logic leads us to the best case scenario being one with the least amount of people which isn't true. What do you think your standard of living would be like if you were the only one alive? Or put another way your logic basically says that wealth is bad because more wealth = more people which = less resources. [ QUOTE ] I have no trouble with giving money and trade to the advanced and responsible civilizations I mentioned. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, and Europe was very responsible right? It’s not like they haven’t you know, been waging war throughout all the world for the last few hundred years or so before hand.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
