Globalisation

Sand

The fact of the matter is that economics (or the current dominant ideology) is a blinkered discipline that ignores many other aspects of human activity. Von's point, I believe, was that modern economics has become a self-perpetuating ideology that gives license to those in power to ignore the other equally, if not more important, aspects of human activity, reducing humans to functions of utility rather than ends in themselves

Rubbish imo - Economics devotes itself to economics; It does not waste its time trying to become the next bible telling us how to treat other human beings- it is hoped you can figure this out for yourself.

Economics an idealogy? Sure, A rather divided and self testing idealogy where every commentator is out to make a name for themselves by developing an new understanding or thrashing previous understandings. Economics views humans as dispassionately as biology does. For both there is only what works and what doesnt - subjective judgements and opinions merely cloud the important information both offer to help you make judgements, hopefully with some moral judgements.

Von's point was that if modern bureaucratic thinking wasn't so lopsided, the implications of economic utility could never be divorced from moral judgements.

Interesting, economic thought holds that a healthy, educated workforce is for all intents and purposes more productive than a sickly , uneducated one. It holds that firms should be held responsible for their pollution so that they produce at a level in keeping with the true cost to society as well as there own private costs. It believes that monopolies and ogilopolies are bad for the economy in most cases. Dammed evil utilitarian thinking!!!

I suppose sociologists believe health and education are unimportant? That pollution isnt worth bothering about? That Microsoft should be given free reign?

Again, If you seek your morals in a book then I strongly advise the Bible - hundreds of millions of Christians cant be wrong.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Interesting, economic thought holds that a healthy, educated workforce is for all intents and purposes more productive than a sickly , uneducated one.

I would have said that this only applies to certain segments of the workforce.

For example, I cant see companies like Nike preferring an educated, healthy workforce demanding proper pay and rights over the oppressed, uneducated, sickly workforce they favoured for some years.

Put a different way (perhaps less controversial) surely economics holds that a workforce only needs to be educated enough to do its job? You can look at a nation as an average, and say that the average worker should be educated and your economic model holds up fine. However, this automatically implies that it is not only acceptable but potentially desirable that at least a segment of your workforce is under-educated (to maintain averages and all that).

With the uprise of globalisation (positive and negative), this has made it possible in a way never before dreamed of to seperate workforces into nations with educated, advanced workforces and other nations with oppressed, sickly, undereducated workforces and corrupt governments happy to reap the benefits of it.

Economics, being removed from sociology, wouldnt necessarily care about this problem, would it?

jc

Sand

For example, I cant see companies like Nike preferring an educated, healthy workforce demanding proper pay and rights over the oppressed, uneducated, sickly workforce they favoured for some years.

Nike may not, but Nike are not deciding economic policy (hopefully ). Governments should take steps to invest in their peoples education and health, so they can attract high technology jobs rather than stitching shoes together because that earns feck all in the greater scheme of things and the factory is easily transferred to another country. With a relatively cheap, educated workforce youve an important edge over both more expsensive workforces and less educated workforces.

Put a different way (perhaps less controversial) surely economics holds that a workforce only needs to be educated enough to do its job? You can look at a nation as an average, and say that the average worker should be educated and your economic model holds up fine. However, this automatically implies that it is not only acceptable but potentially desirable that at least a segment of your workforce is under-educated (to maintain averages and all that).

Id contend that economics would argue that you get the job that corresponds with your level of education - Well never run of " Want fries with that Sir?"s so long as we dont run out of arts students. A poorly educated workforce is never going to be able to compete with a highly educated workforce in the long run.

With the uprise of globalisation (positive and negative), this has made it possible in a way never before dreamed of to seperate workforces into nations with educated, advanced workforces and other nations with oppressed, sickly, undereducated workforces and corrupt governments happy to reap the benefits of it.

Or, maybe Rome wasnt built in a day:) Malaysia boasts a low cost workforce for contract factories. It is also building itself a "silicon valley" - remains to be seen if they can replicate with government spending/backing what the americans developed almost by accident but whatever - with the attendant demand for a well educated workforce. Which side of the divide do they fall into?

Von

Originally posted by Sand
Von, Economics is a science, not an "ology". Its whole purpose is to understand how economies work so that we can say if we do this then this will happen, if we do that then that will happen.

Economics is a science yeah, but one encompassed by ecology, because all commerce is bounded by what the world's ecology can produce and absorb. As long as economics continues to function as if ecology didn't exist, and as if people can and indeed must be written off as necessary sacrifices to the market god, it will continue to grotesquely misunderstand the non-market - i.e. real world - consequences of an economy that externalizes and hence ignores ecological effects. How can an economic model that tends to exacerbate inequalities between and within nations be sustainable socially, politically and environmentally? As incomes diverge, so do interests and empathies, and social cohesion is broken. That leads directly to alienation and instability.

Like you say economics is supposed to take into account the effects of policies and learn from them but as Stiglitz and others argue, neoliberalism, today's dominant strand of economic theory, has become a politicised ideologically driven fundamentalism and anyone who questions it is some kind of a heretic.

Sand

Von, Economics has already taken into account enviromental concerns - the whole raz ma taz about externalities and third parties and cost to society vs private cost, as well as theory regarding sustainable growth with natural resources.

So Id still rather an economist dealing with economic policy rather than an ecologist. Much as Id rather having a doctor deal with my medical needs as opposed to a ecologist.

today's dominant strand of economic theory, has become a politicised ideologically driven fundamentalism and anyone who questions it is some kind of a heretic.

Dont you mean socialism?

How can an economic model that tends to exacerbate inequalities between and within nations be sustainable socially, politically and environmentally? As incomes diverge, so do interests and empathies, and social cohesion is broken. That leads directly to alienation and instability.

Hardly, it just rewards those who work hard towards their education and their job - incomes will of course diverge in such a case. Id much prefer a society where everyone has the potential to fufill their own ambitions should they oput the work in rather than a world where everyone is equally poor and extra effort isnt really worth it.

DadaKopf

Sand, what's yer beef? You're so angry.

Sand

What? Im a teddy bear - Just despise arts students thats all:)

.

DiscoStu

Marxist ideology staes that only when the lower class has been opressed long enough that a socialist revolution takes place. it has also been stated earlier in this thread that a workforce only needs to be educated enough to do the job in hand. ie in the developing world where the likes of nike have their factories people only need to be educated enough to stich a sole onto a shoe whereas in ireland we need to be educated to make silicon chips. i dont know if the figures would prove this but we are in esence acting a a cushion against a marxist type revolution in america due to the fact we(i am not in any way implying thar ireland is worse off than the many third world coutries exploited by multinationals.) are removing any kind of hardship or discomfort for the american people.

"as long as we have our 6 litre v8 SUVs we dont give a damn what our government does"

that may not be the exact quote but something very similar was posted on this board my an american a short while ago and in my mind it makes perfect sence.

mike65

Originally posted by Sand
What? Im a teddy bear - Just despise arts students thats all:)

Tell 'em Sand! The trouble (at times) with boards.ie is the user profile is too bloody student-dominated hence daft young socialist "make beer not war", "USA is source of all evil" posts.

How many ppl here would wish to live in a "proper" socialist state
rather than a captialist one?

Mike.

Sand

Hmm theyve really flocked to sign up for the potential workers state in the last 8 or more hours havent they.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
What? Im a teddy bear - Just despise arts students thats all:)
.

Ho ho ho. How nice that you logged on on Christmas Eve to tell us this (and how sad that I logged on on Christmas Day to read it). But don't stop at arts students - remember that you despise the public in general, or so you've said.

Originally posted by Mike65
How many ppl here would wish to live in a "proper" socialist state rather than a captialist one?

Well, I think that's a pretty silly question, but perhaps you'd have liked to ask the people who lived and died in 1970s Chile. Oh, I forgot, they weren't asked. Just like the populations of socialist governments invaded, undermined, isolated and harassed throughout the Cold War. And yeah, the Soviet Union didn't ask too many questions either, neither does Castro.

It's a silly question because people in different positions in every society will have a different desire for socialist and capitalist policies. People in deepest poverty will want social housing and a minimum wage, people in charge of the biggest corporations will want free trade and tax havens.

It's also a silly question because it treats each country in isolation, and this is a thread about globalisation. Europe and America's development was aided in large part by the slave trade and looting of the colonies. Today, the Western way of life depends on things like cheap labour in the Third World, tied aid, subsidised agricultural exports, currencies propped up by the reserves held by developing countries to guard against the effects of financial liberalisation, and unsustainable debts and their exploitation as levers for liberalisation of developing markets.

So I think a better question to ask is whether the present model of globalisation serves the interests of the rich more than the interests of the poor, and if so what are the costs we are willing to pay to reverse that? Are we willing, for example, to live up to our promise to redistribute wealth in the form of at least 0.7% of GDP in aid to Third World countries? Will we stop using the G8-dominated IMF and World Bank to impose damaging liberalisation programmes onto developing countries, and start letting them decide their own development policies?

DadaKopf

So I think a better question to ask is whether the present model of globalisation serves the interests of the rich more than the interests of the poor

But that's just the way things are. Better just get used to it.

Sand

Ho ho ho. How nice that you logged on on Christmas Eve to tell us this (and how sad that I logged on on Christmas Day to read it). But don't stop at arts students - remember that you despise the public in general, or so you've said

Dont worry about it- pubs are closed, TV is notoriously crap, relatives can get a tad boring and friends are busy getting bored by relatives themselves......

But that's just the way things are. Better just get used to it.

Much the same as no matter how many times you headbutt a wall its still going to hurt ( hopefully ). Protectionism is an outdated policy - its been bandied about since trade has existed, capitalising on nationalism and paranoia about self sufficency, only things that different is the exscuses. Same for socialism - socialism isnt bad as a philosophy but its terrible as a economic model. You cant blame people for going with what works.

DadaKopf

You cant blame people for going with what works.

Exactly. That's why we're looking for a better solution.

Sand

In the failed philosophies of 18th century capitalists and marxist rantings?

Maybe the answer might lie in economics.

Ajnag

Maybe the answer might lie in economics.

What the personal gratification of greed, to the detrement of the greater good, If we go by modern example.Hey Economics gave us Louis walsh.why am I the cynical one all of a sudden.

Forgive me If I want to be more then a Consumer.

However I agree some new system needs to be found, Its been a while since we'v seen any serious advances in social and economic theory.