[berntb]

This article by Krugman changed my world view: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/19...

It is almost 20 years old and notes that industrialization and modernization is a process. It doesn't really work for a country to get rich without climbing it [edit: except free money, like with oil], including simple jobs in the beginning -- and now China is doing it.

In my book, it is good for humanity with a billion less horribly poor people. It doesn't feel bad to be on the other side of that, because of ideology?

[muninn_]

Thanks for posting this. It's incredibly Euro-centric to sit here and complain about the perceived child/human rights abuses that happen in China when those very exact things are what industrialized Europe.

I really wish we would all just spend more time focusing on our countries and improving our quality of life through trade and the free exchange of ideas. Other countries don't have to listen to our lessons or advice, or our experience, but being critical gets us nowhere.

[ue_]

>It's incredibly Euro-centric to sit here and complain about the perceived child/human rights abuses that happen in China when those very exact things are what industrialized Europe.

It's also incredibly Euro-centric to be thinking that other countries ought to be following the path Europe and the US took to capitalism, and then to say that these countries should be implementing it in such a way that there's the same worker exploitation everywhere.

Worker exploitation isn't some thing in the past. It doesn't just happen in China, it's happening all the time and everywhere. But the case of it is so readily apparent in China it ought to be a case against worker exploitation as a whole. Yet some people still say "nevermind these countries, they're just on their way to being like us". We do not stop to question whether being like Europe is actually beneficial?

[maverick_iceman]

>It's also incredibly Euro-centric to be thinking that other countries ought to be following the path Europe and the US took to capitalism

Other countries like Soviet Union or Maoist China have tried other paths with not exactly stellar results.

[rqebmm]

Exactly. China tried one path, found it didn't work, and then chose to draft behind the best economies in the world, do what they did to get there, and do it faster because they have the benefit of hindsight.

[gertef]

You can't blindly assert that Maoist China was not Euro style and modern China is Euro style, and also claim that Maoist China has nothing to do with modern China's economy. There's a near-direct line from Maoist China to modern China -- the next generation of the same Communist Party is in charge.

[muninn_]

You did notice that they liberalized the Chinese economy, right? That's why it's Modern China and not still Maoist China. Maoist China is unequivocally not European style, and is one of the worst tragedies in all human history. Modern China has created wealth, people who can attend university, start businesses, etc. even if it has some issues as we perceive them in the West.

[parhurs]

You are not addressing gp's points - that Maoist and "Modern China" are directly related and that "Modern China" is not "Euro style".

[parhurs]

It's not like there are no other paths, or that there even is one 'European path' for that matter. The Nordic countries took a very different path than UK did, for example.

[berntb]

You are wrong about at least Sweden following a different path.

When Sweden had a high growth, the taxes were low and it was much more of a strict capitalist economy.

When the taxes were raised to be internationally high in the early 70s, the growth crashed and Sweden fell quite a few places in GNP/Capita.

(I am Swedish.)

[muninn_]

Worker exploitation indeed takes many forms.

I think countries should be free to choose their own paths and for those countries to find their own unique implementations of economic policy and whatnot is fascinating, and we can always learn from them and implement the good things while eschewing the bad. As long as they don't interfere with what my country wants to do, they can do whatever they want.

[ue_]

Even Marx said that capitalism and its rapid use of industrialisation is better than the feudalism that preceeded it in many places. I do not however agree that it's somehow better for there to be cheap labour and low wages in the thought that this will lead to progress. Rather we should compare our situation (speaking from the perspective of somewhere there are 'good' standards for workers and better wages than in some places) to those of the less fortunate workers, and see that we are both being exploited.

They are going through the same thing as us, but we still have people saying that capitalism will move us "forward". No, capitalism in these countries simply means that their exploitation isn't as readily obvious. It's "friendly". This is why there are pool tables in offices for example, it's there to placate you while your wages fail to represent the work you do. The discrepancy between the value of what is produced and the wages given in return is most visible in countries like China in these factories. It's less readily obvious when your boss lets you play pool in the office.

As far as I can tell, the only "indistrialization and modernization" that's going on is workers being treated better, while retaining the idea that it's fine to do certain things that, say, damage the environment and it's fine to maintain the discrepancy between the labour applied and the wages.

I think it ought to be abandoned as a whole, and this concept of "limits to what capitalists can do is better than stopping them from doing it" is abandoned. That's my two cents anyway.

[berntb]

I would ask for examples of alternative economies being built up and creating nice and democratic countries, but we both know that if you had any supporting data you would have started with it. :-)

Please note that experiments with alternative societal models often have failure modes like dictatorships and/or a large part of the population dying in horrible ways and/or... It is not something to experiment with lightly.

It is a pity that you proponents of alternative models are so full of hot air, good research and analysis would be needed; there ought to be better ways. Most of you guys sound like you are paid to discredit everything but the status quo.

[ue_]

>Please note that experiments with alternative societal models often have failure modes like dictatorships and/or a large part of the population dying in horrible ways and/or... It is not something to experiment with lightly.

I agree it's not something to be taken lightly, but saying that there have been failures in the past is not an argument against trying to fix those failures by systematically identifying them. The modern Marxist movement is focused on finding the failures of the 20th century attempts at Socialism.

Besides that, calling out capitalism for the exploitative system that it is by no means implies I'm supporting any particular societal model, nor that I approve of other's societal model. It only means that I disapprove of capitalism.

And you know, I'm sure that during feudalism there were lords, barons and peasants all saying the exact same thing you are saying right now. You can't simply dismiss every other model that society may be fitted to by pointing out that atrocities were committed in the past. That's painting with a brush that is too thick.

>nice and democratic countries And you're even assuming democracy is something inherently good. There is also the distinction between 'pure' democracy and 'bourgeois' democracy that's worth knowing about, as Engels wrote about.

[berntb]

>> but saying that there have been failures in the past is not an argument against trying to fix those failures by systematically identifying them.

>>You can't simply dismiss every other model that society may be fitted to by pointing out that atrocities were committed in the past.

That was not the point, really.

My point was partly the horrors of a failed societal experiment of the left wingers. But also not that the most other utopian attempts also failed -- but not generally with tens of millions murdered.

For instance, a Nazi would have a point if he/she argued "The mass murders was just one mistake, trust us next time about corporatism; look at the left extremists -- that is systematic failure all the way from Kuba/Nicaragua to the tens of millions in Sovjet/China to Campuchea. They are also systematically pro antisemites as much as we are, today."

So -- most experiments will fail; societies are really, really complex and hard to predict. See my last paragraph in previous comment -- the alternative left I've seen doesn't exactly inspire confidence in any new experiment when hand waving about the obvious problems and arguably having less credibility than the Nazis...

Any arguments for societal experiments need to acknowledge this. It is hard to better what we have now, reading most any history of alternative societies.

(Yes yes, Godwin. But I argue here that Godwin is unfair; the extreme lefties have worse statistics than the Nazis.)

>> And you're even assuming democracy is something inherently good.

Any society will by definition consist of interest groups pulling in different directions. They need to have a say. If you don't even acknowledge that, see my last paragraph in my previous comment... (which you didn't touch.)

(Or in the classical way of putting it: "Sure, democracy sucks -- but I have never seen a suggestion of anything close in niceness that wasn't just hand waving e.g. a juntas obvious interest in keeping the rest of the population as personal property...")

[berntb]

Sigh, I cleared up a bad grammar and made it worse. :-(

Change: My point was partly the horrors of a failed societal experiment of the left wingers. But also not that the most other utopian attempts also failed -- but not generally with tens of millions murdered.

To: ... The other part was that most other utopian attempts also failed badly (but not generally with tens of millions murdered).

[gertef]

Almost no one is opposed to globalization, per se. We are opposed to globalization that drags down worldwide avearge income, and traps people in subsistence lifestyles, paying people 5cents of every $ of value they create, and then boasting about they should be happy they aren't dead.

The article doesn't even make sense! He's actually arguing that low wages are better than zero wages, while low wages are also better than high wages, and that the wealth creation whose impact he boasts about isn't even having a subsantial impact!

> First of all, even if we could assure the workers in Third World export industries of higher wages and better working conditions, this would do nothing for the peasants, day laborers, scavengers, and so on who make up the bulk of these countries' populations. At best, forcing developing countries to adhere to our labor standards would create a privileged labor aristocracy, leaving the poor majority no better off.

He doesn't even think to consider that, for example, a tax+entitlements scheme, that every civilized nation has, could stave off this "labor aristocracy". Nor does he explain why a Western labor aristoracy is OK, but an Eastern labor aristocracy is not.

The article is thin logically-bankrupt apologetics.

Krugman himself has walked back his old claims, he calls it "hyper-globalization" (~5minute mark). https://www.ubs.com/microsites/nobel-perspectives/en/paul-kr...

[berntb]

I can't hear Krugman argue what you claim in that video? Are you bluffing or did I misunderstand?

Can you transcribe exactly what support your extreme claims (without taking it out of context from where Krugman said he supports globalization and why he do that.)

Did Krugman EVER talk about any other way of countries to start getting rich and going towards becoming nice societies (democratic, high education, taking care of people, etc)?

If he can show that, I'd guess he'll get another Nobel... at least. :-)

(Krugman discussed income inequality inside societies a bit, not relevant here. And a bit about US politics.)

[slededit]

Given the wide disparity in income on the high side, anything that increases equality would necessarily bring down average wages. When it comes to globalization the west must understand its part of the 1%.

[AJ007]

I would seriously question the long term stability of the countries who have been on the receiving end of "free money" - whatever the natural resource is.

[Alex3917]

> It doesn't really work for a country to get rich without climbing it

Bali went straight from having an agrarian economy to a service-based economy without ever going through an industrial period. It can happen given the right conditions, but it isn't common.

[maverick_iceman]

Is a small touristy island comparable to a country like China?

[dilemma]

Did it really? Is Bali's GDP per capita comparable to that of United States or Germany?