UK Elections

Discussion of current events
neverfail
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: UK Elections

Post by neverfail » Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:15 am

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:25 am


It's not low labour costs alone that makes them competitive, it is the fact that productivity in some sectors is approaching industrialized countries standards while their skilled labour is much cheaper than similar labour in developed countries. But to reach that point less developed countries must invest heavily in technology, state of the art equipment and top notch management, and most of them do not have the means to invest as heavily as necessary. Deliberately starving them of money - as often happens - will hinder their progress.
Who or what is starving them of money Sertorio?

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: UK Elections

Post by Sertorio » Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:37 am

neverfail wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:15 am
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:25 am


It's not low labour costs alone that makes them competitive, it is the fact that productivity in some sectors is approaching industrialized countries standards while their skilled labour is much cheaper than similar labour in developed countries. But to reach that point less developed countries must invest heavily in technology, state of the art equipment and top notch management, and most of them do not have the means to invest as heavily as necessary. Deliberately starving them of money - as often happens - will hinder their progress.
Who or what is starving them of money Sertorio?
Those who insist on "austerity" as the way out of the crisis. Austerity tries to reestablish economic equilibrium by means of impoverishment of the country and its people, which is a selfdefeating policy. The only money allowed to those countries is that which is meant to pay their external debt, none goes to necessary investment.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: UK Elections

Post by cassowary » Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:08 am

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:25 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 4:59 pm
Sertorio wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 1:50 pm
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2017 8:25 am
Sertorio,

Undeveloped countries tend to have lower wages. So they can do the labour intensive jobs. So yes, it is possible for less developed countries to trade successfully with developed ones.
Which labour intensive jobs? Through automation developed countries can outperform less developed economies dependent on unskilled labour. Thism is the 21st century, Cass...
Not all jobs can be automated - yet. That is why the US has trade deficits with countries like Mexico and China which have lower wages. That's what Trump has been complaining about. At one stage during his election campaign, he even threatened to impose a 40% tariff on goods from these countries.
It's not low labour costs alone that makes them competitive, it is the fact that productivity in some sectors is approaching industrialized countries standards while their skilled labour is much cheaper than similar labour in developed countries. But to reach that point less developed countries must invest heavily in technology, state of the art equipment and top notch management, and most of them do not have the means to invest as heavily as necessary. Deliberately starving them of money - as often happens - will hinder their progress.
These things take time to develop Sertorio. But the examples I gave proves that less developed countries can successfully trade with more developed ones.

neverfail
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: UK Elections

Post by neverfail » Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:11 am

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:37 am
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:15 am
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:25 am


It's not low labour costs alone that makes them competitive, it is the fact that productivity in some sectors is approaching industrialized countries standards while their skilled labour is much cheaper than similar labour in developed countries. But to reach that point less developed countries must invest heavily in technology, state of the art equipment and top notch management, and most of them do not have the means to invest as heavily as necessary. Deliberately starving them of money - as often happens - will hinder their progress.
Who or what is starving them of money Sertorio?
Those who insist on "austerity" as the way out of the crisis. Austerity tries to reestablish economic equilibrium by means of impoverishment of the country and its people, which is a selfdefeating policy. The only money allowed to those countries is that which is meant to pay their external debt, none goes to necessary investment.
Lack of credit worthiness may not have something to do with it, I suppose?

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: UK Elections

Post by Sertorio » Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:41 am

neverfail wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:11 am
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:37 am
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 2:15 am
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 1:25 am


It's not low labour costs alone that makes them competitive, it is the fact that productivity in some sectors is approaching industrialized countries standards while their skilled labour is much cheaper than similar labour in developed countries. But to reach that point less developed countries must invest heavily in technology, state of the art equipment and top notch management, and most of them do not have the means to invest as heavily as necessary. Deliberately starving them of money - as often happens - will hinder their progress.
Who or what is starving them of money Sertorio?
Those who insist on "austerity" as the way out of the crisis. Austerity tries to reestablish economic equilibrium by means of impoverishment of the country and its people, which is a selfdefeating policy. The only money allowed to those countries is that which is meant to pay their external debt, none goes to necessary investment.
Lack of credit worthiness may not have something to do with it, I suppose?
Mostly not. I don't know of any less developed country which could not benefit from investment in the modernization of its economy. If the country itself has few resources, then the necessary investment must be supported by friendly or associate countries or by means of aid. The trouble is that most developed countries do not encourage the development of poorer countries because they are not interested in fostering competitors.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: UK Elections

Post by cassowary » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:02 am

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:41 am


Mostly not. I don't know of any less developed country which could not benefit from investment in the modernization of its economy. If the country itself has few resources, then the necessary investment must be supported by friendly or associate countries or by means of aid. The trouble is that most developed countries do not encourage the development of poorer countries because they are not interested in fostering competitors.
I think most foreign aid was wasted. The first world has funded the World Bank whose job was to assist in development. There are countries that received no or little foreign aid and succeeded by attracting investments.

You do that by providing business with a good business environment such as:

1)honest government. Corruption is a deterrent to investment
2)rule of law. Capricious governments deters investments
3)hardworking labor force. Lazy people will not attract investment
4)low taxes. No need to elaborate.
5)co-operative labor unions. Unions must not adopt the Marxist notion of class struggle. Instead, they must understand that the struggle is workers + management against the outside competition. The more the company makes, the higher the wages. Grow the pie and not focus on getting a bigger slice.

Unfortunately, there are many nations that have lazy, dishonest, nepotistic people. So the culture matters. That's why some are rich and some are poor.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: UK Elections

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:03 am

cassowary wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:02 am
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:41 am


Mostly not. I don't know of any less developed country which could not benefit from investment in the modernization of its economy. If the country itself has few resources, then the necessary investment must be supported by friendly or associate countries or by means of aid. The trouble is that most developed countries do not encourage the development of poorer countries because they are not interested in fostering competitors.
I think most foreign aid was wasted. The first world has funded the World Bank whose job was to assist in development. There are countries that received no or little foreign aid and succeeded by attracting investments.

You do that by providing business with a good business environment such as:

1)honest government. Corruption is a deterrent to investment
2)rule of law. Capricious governments deters investments
3)hardworking labor force. Lazy people will not attract investment
4)low taxes. No need to elaborate.
5)co-operative labor unions. Unions must not adopt the Marxist notion of class struggle. Instead, they must understand that the struggle is workers + management against the outside competition. The more the company makes, the higher the wages. Grow the pie and not focus on getting a bigger slice.

Unfortunately, there are many nations that have lazy, dishonest, nepotistic people. So the culture matters. That's why some are rich and some are poor.
The breakaway Republic of Somaliland is a great example of this. Somalia as a whole is a basket case, but the Somalilanders in the north put together a functioning country over two decades ago and it's been doing pretty well even though (or, in reality, because) the lack of international recognition has left them unable to take on debt from so-called development banks.

If you want to modernise your economy, you don't need to hike the national debt, you just need the rule of law and a market economy.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: UK Elections

Post by Sertorio » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:04 am

cassowary wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:02 am
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:41 am


Mostly not. I don't know of any less developed country which could not benefit from investment in the modernization of its economy. If the country itself has few resources, then the necessary investment must be supported by friendly or associate countries or by means of aid. The trouble is that most developed countries do not encourage the development of poorer countries because they are not interested in fostering competitors.
I think most foreign aid was wasted. The first world has funded the World Bank whose job was to assist in development. There are countries that received no or little foreign aid and succeeded by attracting investments.

You do that by providing business with a good business environment such as:

1)honest government. Corruption is a deterrent to investment
2)rule of law. Capricious governments deters investments
3)hardworking labor force. Lazy people will not attract investment
4)low taxes. No need to elaborate.
5)co-operative labor unions. Unions must not adopt the Marxist notion of class struggle. Instead, they must understand that the struggle is workers + management against the outside competition. The more the company makes, the higher the wages. Grow the pie and not focus on getting a bigger slice.

Unfortunately, there are many nations that have lazy, dishonest, nepotistic people. So the culture matters. That's why some are rich and some are poor.
There are no lazy or dishonest nations or peoples. There are lazy and dishonest people in every country, and people in less developed countries are as honest and hard working as any people in the world. Thinking otherwise is a sign of racism.

Just think about how Westerners thought of Chinese people in the 19th century. That's very much the way you think of Latin or African people...

Image

Image

:lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Dr M called his people lazy and dishnoest.

Post by cassowary » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:44 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:04 am
cassowary wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:02 am
Sertorio wrote:
Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:41 am


Mostly not. I don't know of any less developed country which could not benefit from investment in the modernization of its economy. If the country itself has few resources, then the necessary investment must be supported by friendly or associate countries or by means of aid. The trouble is that most developed countries do not encourage the development of poorer countries because they are not interested in fostering competitors.
I think most foreign aid was wasted. The first world has funded the World Bank whose job was to assist in development. There are countries that received no or little foreign aid and succeeded by attracting investments.

You do that by providing business with a good business environment such as:

1)honest government. Corruption is a deterrent to investment
2)rule of law. Capricious governments deters investments
3)hardworking labor force. Lazy people will not attract investment
4)low taxes. No need to elaborate.
5)co-operative labor unions. Unions must not adopt the Marxist notion of class struggle. Instead, they must understand that the struggle is workers + management against the outside competition. The more the company makes, the higher the wages. Grow the pie and not focus on getting a bigger slice.

Unfortunately, there are many nations that have lazy, dishonest, nepotistic people. So the culture matters. That's why some are rich and some are poor.
There are no lazy or dishonest nations or peoples. There are lazy and dishonest people in every country, and people in less developed countries are as honest and hard working as any people in the world. Thinking otherwise is a sign of racism.

Just think about how Westerners thought of Chinese people in the 19th century. That's very much the way you think of Latin or African people...

(PIctures take up too much space.)

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Well, Sertorio. I come from a part of the world not blighted with political correctness and we are permitted to speak the truth. Former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr Mahathir, himself an ethnic Malay, called the Malays lazy and dishonest.

Dr M, as he is commonly called, has spent his entire political life trying to get his people to improve themselves. If you want people to improve you have to be honest about what the problem is. If political correctness prevents you from making an honest assessment, then you will get a wrong diagnosis. This means that policy prescriptions cannot bring you the desired results.

It is not racism to speak the truth.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 663
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: UK Elections

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:59 pm

Similarly, you will find Dominicans who admit that Chinese immigrants to Dominica prosper disproportionately there because, on aggregate, they're harder working than Dominicans are. But culture is only one factor among many, and is never a reason to consider individuals on anything other than an individual basis.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Doc, Sertorio and 2 guests