| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"thatguy" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2005 02:12:22 AM |
| Object: |
name this logical argument! |
OK, so globalization advocates, who invariably represent
big money corporate interests, tell us that globalization
is inevitable. But they stand to benefit from NOT
putting up protectionist barriers to products exported
from countries ruled by oppressive regimes like China
and the rest of Asia, where some factories are run
like prison camps. And they stand to profit from lower
wages when unlimited immigrants are allowed in to take
jobs at all wage levels. So... what do you call it when a
claim is made that X (globalizastion) must happen using
a bogus argument (it's inevitable) to conceal the fact
that the arguer (capitalists) will profit from X?
Thanks folks.
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: name this logical argument! |
15 Jun 2005 05:23:56 AM |
|
|
"thatguy" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:sZOdnfkJn9gUEzLfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
OK, so globalization advocates, who invariably represent
big money corporate interests, tell us that globalization
is inevitable. But they stand to benefit from NOT
putting up protectionist barriers to products exported
from countries ruled by oppressive regimes like China
and the rest of Asia, where some factories are run
like prison camps. And they stand to profit from lower
wages when unlimited immigrants are allowed in to take
jobs at all wage levels. So... what do you call it when a
claim is made that X (globalizastion) must happen using
a bogus argument (it's inevitable) to conceal the fact
that the arguer (capitalists) will profit from X?
The argument that globalization in inevitable is not bogus in the sense of
necessarily being a false statement. Calling it inevitable does not conceal
the belief that capitalists will profit. Capitalists always profit.
Understanding what globalization is, or the economic dynamics and history
it represents, is to analyze why (on what basis) it is being called
inevitable.
You have stated numerous negative aspects of globalization, and it apears
that you don't believe that it is an inevitable trend. It is however
certainly inevitable in the sense of already having taken place to whatever
extent it did. If one wishes to counteract or even to reverse a trend, it
would very seldom be sufficient simply to point out its unwanted aspects.
One interesting aspect of globalization would seem to be its undermining of
the traditional labor movement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thatguy" |
|
| Title: Re: name this logical argument! |
15 Jun 2005 01:24:19 PM |
|
|
Ike wrote:
One interesting aspect of globalization would seem to be its undermining
of the traditional labor movement.
Are you kidding? It's decimating the middle class too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: name this logical argument! |
20 Jun 2005 12:12:37 PM |
|
|
"thatguy" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:KbCdnb46-7GdsS3fRVn-tg@comcast.com...
Ike wrote:
One interesting aspect of globalization would seem to be its undermining
of the traditional labor movement.
Are you kidding? It's decimating the middle class too.
What's a middle class?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: name this logical argument! |
15 Jun 2005 09:04:42 AM |
|
|
Eventually things will balance out. Wages in India will approack US &
EU levels and the competitive advantage will disappear. What concerns
me is that we do NOT have true glogalization. There are massive
agricultural subsidies in the US and EU. Chirac rants about the British
Rebate but will not do anything to tackle the real issue which is
bloated subsidy and LACK of globalisation impoverishing Africal famers
who are being priced out by EU dumping.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thatguy" |
|
| Title: Re: name this logical argument! |
15 Jun 2005 01:29:27 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Eventually things will balance out. Wages in India will approack US &
EU levels and the competitive advantage will disappear.
Nope. If you look at population growth, India will always have
cheaper labor. They simply have too many people who are too
desperate. The USA and the rest of the West are in for a heck
of a time if they continue with globalization.
What concerns
me is that we do NOT have true glogalization. There are massive
agricultural subsidies in the US and EU.
So? The chinese have massively propped up their currency.
You think that's cheap?
impoverishing Africal famers
who are being priced out by EU dumping.
Africans are their own cause of poverty. They are producing
far too many children and infecting one another with HIV
because they have a culture of promiscuity. They've done
interviews where Africans say it's abnormal not to sleep around.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: name this logical argument! |
19 Jun 2005 06:01:19 AM |
|
|
"thatguy" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:2cSdnaD1SY-psC3fRVn-pA@comcast.com...
ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
Eventually things will balance out. Wages in India will approack US &
EU levels and the competitive advantage will disappear.
Nope. If you look at population growth, India will always have
cheaper labor. They simply have too many people who are too
desperate. The USA and the rest of the West are in for a heck
of a time if they continue with globalization.
What concerns
me is that we do NOT have true glogalization. There are massive
agricultural subsidies in the US and EU.
So? The chinese have massively propped up their currency.
You think that's cheap?
impoverishing Africal famers
who are being priced out by EU dumping.
Africans are their own cause of poverty. They are producing
far too many children and infecting one another with HIV
because they have a culture of promiscuity. They've done
interviews where Africans say it's abnormal not to sleep around.
Only if you are a male. Of course, where the males think they're finding the
females to sleep with is an interesting question...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: name this logical argument! |
19 Jun 2005 06:14:10 AM |
|
|
thatguy wrote:
ianparker2@gmail.com wrote:
Eventually things will balance out. Wages in India will approack US &
EU levels and the competitive advantage will disappear.
Nope. If you look at population growth, India will always have
cheaper labor. They simply have too many people who are too
desperate. The USA and the rest of the West are in for a heck
of a time if they continue with globalization.
As wages rise, it becomes too expensive to have many kids. Only the
rich or the utterly poor can afford many kids. Ultimately, the solution
to most financial problems will be to make th e whole world middle
class. This is not necessarily inevitable, and probably won't be
painless, and will take entirely too long to suit anybody.
What concerns
me is that we do NOT have true glogalization. There are massive
agricultural subsidies in the US and EU.
So? The chinese have massively propped up their currency.
You think that's cheap?
I suspect that it's healthier in the long run, and faster, to let
prices and wages normalize on their own. But I doubt if anyone in power
would let it happen. I am worried about predators and certain runaway
feeback loops (e.g. a company gets power, stifles competition, gets
more power, kills new threatening technology, gets more power, rinse
lather repeat). But I suppose that it's not any better if they get to
call the shots on terrifs, subsidies, etc.
impoverishing Africal famers
who are being priced out by EU dumping.
Africans are their own cause of poverty. They are producing
far too many children and infecting one another with HIV
because they have a culture of promiscuity. They've done
interviews where Africans say it's abnormal not to sleep around.
What, *all Africans?
Perhaps in 40 years the only native-born Africans will be the children
of the very few rational and the many sexually oppressive Christian and
Muslim fundamentalists.
In the meanwhile, the "many children" is the result of poverty. A
hundred years ago Americans and Europeans had lots of kids, too. Some
in Europe and the US worry about dropping birth rates. They should
enjoy it while they can. When they find affordable treatment for aging
and most metabolic diseases (in 30 years? 100?) the birth rate will
shoot up again. I have no idea what it will do to retirement, stock
investments, real estate, etc. I do know that one kid per couple is a
lot when the average age of death is 300.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: name this logical argument! |
15 Jun 2005 02:16:50 AM |
|
|
Good business practice?
"thatguy" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:sZOdnfkJn9gUEzLfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
OK, so globalization advocates, who invariably represent
big money corporate interests, tell us that globalization
is inevitable. But they stand to benefit from NOT
putting up protectionist barriers to products exported
from countries ruled by oppressive regimes like China
and the rest of Asia, where some factories are run
like prison camps. And they stand to profit from lower
wages when unlimited immigrants are allowed in to take
jobs at all wage levels. So... what do you call it when a
claim is made that X (globalizastion) must happen using
a bogus argument (it's inevitable) to conceal the fact
that the arguer (capitalists) will profit from X?
Thanks folks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thatguy" |
|
| Title: Re: name this logical argument! |
15 Jun 2005 02:27:57 AM |
|
|
LawsonE wrote:
Good business practice?
Actually not. If all the jobs & factories are offshored
and unemployment shoots up, no one will have money to
buy things and the economy will crash, there will be
political instability (already evident) and the country
will become a police state (already happening).
"thatguy" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:sZOdnfkJn9gUEzLfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
OK, so globalization advocates, who invariably represent
big money corporate interests, tell us that globalization
is inevitable. But they stand to benefit from NOT
putting up protectionist barriers to products exported
from countries ruled by oppressive regimes like China
and the rest of Asia, where some factories are run
like prison camps. And they stand to profit from lower
wages when unlimited immigrants are allowed in to take
jobs at all wage levels. So... what do you call it when a
claim is made that X (globalizastion) must happen using
a bogus argument (it's inevitable) to conceal the fact
that the arguer (capitalists) will profit from X?
Thanks folks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: name this logical argument! |
15 Jun 2005 03:50:48 AM |
|
|
"thatguy" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:IcmdnfPnxfewDzLfRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
LawsonE wrote:
Good business practice?
Actually not. If all the jobs & factories are offshored
and unemployment shoots up, no one will have money to
buy things and the economy will crash, there will be
political instability (already evident) and the country
will become a police state (already happening).
Yeah, but if you're living in another country and stash your profits in
offshore banks...
"thatguy" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:sZOdnfkJn9gUEzLfRVn-ow@comcast.com...
OK, so globalization advocates, who invariably represent
big money corporate interests, tell us that globalization
is inevitable. But they stand to benefit from NOT
putting up protectionist barriers to products exported
from countries ruled by oppressive regimes like China
and the rest of Asia, where some factories are run
like prison camps. And they stand to profit from lower
wages when unlimited immigrants are allowed in to take
jobs at all wage levels. So... what do you call it when a
claim is made that X (globalizastion) must happen using
a bogus argument (it's inevitable) to conceal the fact
that the arguer (capitalists) will profit from X?
Thanks folks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thatguy" |
|
| Title: Re: name this logical argument! |
15 Jun 2005 01:21:57 PM |
|
|
LawsonE wrote:
Yeah, but if you're living in another country and stash your profits in
offshore banks...
In the old days, that kind of trickery got people shot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LawsonE" |
|
| Title: Re: name this logical argument! |
19 Jun 2005 05:59:49 AM |
|
|
"thatguy" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:KbCdnb86-7Hvti3fRVn-tg@comcast.com...
LawsonE wrote:
Yeah, but if you're living in another country and stash your profits in
offshore banks...
In the old days, that kind of trickery got people shot.
These days, it gets you high-level access to the White House...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: name this logical argument! |
16 Jun 2005 12:03:56 AM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, thatguy poured fuel on the fire with
the following:
....
So... what do you call it when a
claim is made that X (globalizastion) must happen using
a bogus argument (it's inevitable) to conceal the fact
that the arguer (capitalists) will profit from X?
It's a diversion or rationalization for the purposes of concealing true
motives.
Regards,
Josef
Facts, or what a man believes to be facts, are delightful... Get your
facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.
-- Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: name this logical argument! |
15 Jun 2005 04:54:28 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:12:22 -0400, thatguy <a@b.c> let
us all know that:
OK, so globalization advocates, who invariably represent
big money corporate interests, tell us that globalization
is inevitable. But they stand to benefit from NOT
putting up protectionist barriers to products exported
from countries ruled by oppressive regimes like China
and the rest of Asia, where some factories are run
like prison camps. And they stand to profit from lower
wages when unlimited immigrants are allowed in to take
jobs at all wage levels. So... what do you call it when a
claim is made that X (globalizastion) must happen using
a bogus argument (it's inevitable) to conceal the fact
that the arguer (capitalists) will profit from X?
Well, that's special pleading and poisoning the well on your
part (assuming an ulterior motive and condemning for it).
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barry Trotter" |
|
| Title: Re: name this logical argument! |
15 Jun 2005 09:01:45 AM |
|
|
In the great debate about "name this logical argument!" in
alt.atheism, thatguy <a@b.c> catapaulted the following boulder:
OK, so globalization advocates, who invariably represent
big money corporate interests, tell us that globalization
is inevitable. But they stand to benefit from NOT
putting up protectionist barriers to products exported
from countries ruled by oppressive regimes like China
and the rest of Asia, where some factories are run
like prison camps. And they stand to profit from lower
wages when unlimited immigrants are allowed in to take
jobs at all wage levels. So... what do you call it when a
claim is made that X (globalizastion) must happen using
a bogus argument (it's inevitable) to conceal the fact
that the arguer (capitalists) will profit from X?
Business.
Thanks folks.
You're welcome.
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N. aa #2208
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bonnie B." |
|
| Title: Re: name this logical argument! |
15 Jun 2005 03:11:04 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 22:12:22 -0400, thatguy <a@b.c> wrote:
Special case of argumentum ad novitatem
OK, so globalization advocates, who invariably represent
big money corporate interests, tell us that globalization
is inevitable. But they stand to benefit from NOT
putting up protectionist barriers to products exported
from countries ruled by oppressive regimes like China
and the rest of Asia, where some factories are run
like prison camps. And they stand to profit from lower
wages when unlimited immigrants are allowed in to take
jobs at all wage levels. So... what do you call it when a
claim is made that X (globalizastion) must happen using
a bogus argument (it's inevitable) to conceal the fact
that the arguer (capitalists) will profit from X?
Thanks folks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
