G8 protests

[Gerben42]

Who are these violent people that are always protesting at G8 summits? What do they want? Why do they want it? And don't they have to work?

[pbleighton]

Who knows? Who cares?

 

Peter

[Gerben42]

I care because my tax money is spent on all these security measures that wouldn't be needed if these protesters wouldn't always turn up?

[pbleighton]

I care because my tax money is spent on all these security measures that wouldn't be needed if these protesters wouldn't always turn up?

 

You'd still need security measures even if the protesters were all non-violent.

 

You have a LARGE number of people who wish to protest against globalization. I don't wish to join them, since I see globalization as both inevitable and as generally beneficial (though I have been laid off because of it :P ). However, I have no problem with non-violent protests. Ithink think political protests are a good thing. As to the very small number of violent protesters, too bad, but go to a soccer game and you see the same thing.

 

Peter

[Gerben42]

Seems to me that saying "I'm against globalization" is a bit like saying "I'm against bad weather"... So what do they really want? It is good when world leaders get together and talk, can't see what's bad about that. And if you think they will be influenced by some protests, get a reality check.

[helene_t]

I used to participate in such manifestations when I was young and idealistic.

 

We burned some US flags, drunk a lot of beer, and sang Yankee Go Home (only those three words, nobody knew the rest of the song).

 

It was the ideal combination. Getting drunk and improving the World at the same time. On a good day we might even reach the news.

 

Gerben is right of course but after a dozen of beers nobody could follow such discussions anyway.

[pbleighton]

Seems to me that saying "I'm against globalization" is a bit like saying "I'm against bad weather"

 

I agree with you, but tey obviously don't...

 

Respect Diversity!

 

:rolleyes:

 

Peter

[Gerben42]

I must have missed that phase of my life. And since I don't like beer, most of the point seems lost anyway.

 

BTW I'm really against bad weather! The question is... does global warming bring less or more of it?

[sceptic]

the river Thames in london used to freeze over in the 1850's now it never does, global warming was going on before the car was invented so blaming that is rather futile in my mind, but I am sure there are some well educated saddos out there that are making a fortune out of the doomsday scenario so it will continue to be debated by thinkers rather then doers

 

to answer Gerbens question does it bring more or less bad weather, it depends how you define bad weather, all weather is good to the world, if you don't like rain the answer is no , if you don't like the heat the answer is no, if you don't like the cold the answer is no, but then that brings the issue, you can't please all the people all of the time

[P_Marlowe]

Who are these violent people that are always protesting at G8 summits? What do they want? Why do they want it? And don't they have to work?

First of all, in the past, there were several important themes that got

ignored at those summits.

Take your pick (Africa, Enviroment, how the World Trade is regulated, ...)

 

Some of those issues get discussed now, which is partially the result

of those protests.

I am not saying "I am against globalization" is a great slogan, since

globalization is happening, but the way how it is happening can

sometimes be improved.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Gerben42]

First of all, in the past, there were several important themes that got

ignored at those summits.

Take your pick (Africa, Enviroment, how the World Trade is regulated, ...)

 

They were not ignored, the conference was just way too short. After all that spectacle I would have expected a 7-day summit or something but it was over before it started.

 

I don't have anything against friendly protests, in fact I encourage it. But... actually discussion should not be in the form of protest but in the form of dialogue.

[Winstonm]

But... actually discussion should not be in the form of protest but in the form of dialogue.

 

 

Since when has Marie Antoinette invited in Jean Valjean for cake and discussion?

[P_Marlowe]

First of all, in the past, there were several important themes that got

ignored at those summits.

Take your pick (Africa, Enviroment, how the World Trade is regulated, ...)

 

They were not ignored, the conference was just way too short. After all that spectacle I would have expected a 7-day summit or something but it was over before it started.

 

I don't have anything against friendly protests, in fact I encourage it. But... actually discussion should not be in the form of protest but in the form of dialogue.

You need both.

 

You need those guys, chaining themselfs on trees,

blocking ways etc., how else to get attetion.

 

Of course in the end the realist have to take over,

because else you wont achieve anything.

 

I may have cieted this one before, but I find the following

citate fairly good:

 

Realism without Idealism is Zynism,

Idealism without Realism is worse,

Idealism should help you to have your

eyes open.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Aberlour10]

Globalization as a force majeure? "Eat it or die"? What is at the end of this way, Manchester A.D. 1870?

[mike777]

What is Globalization?

Is the internet that or buying a diamond or gold wedding ring part of globalization? Is the oil or farm business, globalization?

 

If so I guess I understand why people want to stop all of that.

[Al_U_Card]

It is, in part, the fear that not everything discussed will be revealed. These people are our elected representatives yet they keep all kinds of secrets. Most involve who has influence and who benefits by it. The protesters want to keep them honest as well as presenting agendas that the G8 may not even want to deal with. Power to the people, especially the less diffident ones that can haul their asses off from the couch and represent!

[hrothgar]

wrong thread

[Winstonm]

What is Globalization?

Is the internet that or buying a diamond or gold wedding ring part of globalization?  Is the oil or farm business, globalization?

 

If so I guess I understand why people want to stop all of that.

This is globalization, too.

 

From Business Week:

 

But new evidence suggests that shifting production overseas has inflicted worse damage on the U.S. economy than the numbers show. BusinessWeek has learned of a gaping flaw in the way statistics treat offshoring, with serious economic and political implications. Top government statisticians now acknowledge that the problem exists, and say it could prove to be significant.

 

The short explanation is that the growth of domestic manufacturing has been substantially overstated in recent years. That means productivity gains and overall economic growth have been overstated as well. And that raises questions about U.S. competitiveness and "helps explain why wage growth for most American workers has been weak," says Susan N. Houseman, an economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research who identifies the distorting effects of offshoring in a soon-to-be-published paper.

 

I can understand how we want more of that.

[Gerben42]

Globalization is that if I buy for example tennis shoes (that used to be produced less than 10 km from my house) the shoes were made in China at 5% the personnel cost compared to Germany and then transported over 10000 km to here. This is good for the consumer who gets more stuff cheaper, but bad for the worker who has made tennis shoes all his life in the nearbay factory and now cannot find a job.

 

In general socialist parties will be on the side of the now jobless worker, whereas liberal parties will usually be on the side of the manufacturer. At some point things cost and benefit will even out because:

 

* Wages will rise in the "cheap" countries

* Transport costs will rise because of bottlenecks and higher fuel prices

* More efficient production in the high-wage countries (that have more pressure to increase productivity than the low-wage countries)

 

The short explanation is that the growth of domestic manufacturing has been substantially overstated in recent years. That means productivity gains and overall economic growth have been overstated as well. And that raises questions about U.S. competitiveness and "helps explain why wage growth for most American workers has been weak," says Susan N. Houseman, an economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research who identifies the distorting effects of offshoring in a soon-to-be-published paper.

 

I love economic statistics because they are so inpersonal. These figures say nothing about the economy of any one household. And the other way around if someone for example gets a pay rise or loses his job or whatever, that won't affect the numbers.

 

Economic growth is in fact an irrelevant number if it doesn't increase the wealth of the masses but instead just increases the wealth of a happy few. Besides if everyone gets 3% more compared to last year, how does that translate in quality of life? Are we now 3% happier? I doubt it.

[mike777]

I am on the side of the jobless worker!

1) He/She is a worker

2) They are jobless!

 

A) As a noneconomist, I define economics as the science of how people make decisions. True Forum economists may object, :ph34r:, and have another definition.

 

 

1) Here we have a worker..not a slacker

2) They do not have a job....

3) I think this is a huge huge problem that economists need to help us make a decision. If they cannot help us on this one issue.....they are worthless.......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[helene_t]

A) As a noneconomist, I define economics as the science of how people make decisions.  True Forum economists may object, :ph34r:, and have another definition.

I think economics is the science of resource allocation. "Making decisions" is slightly too broad, I think. But it's subtle. In fact I'm not sure if I can think of a decision which cannot be decribed as resource allocation, in some sense.

 

if everyone gets 3% more compared to last year, how does that translate in quality of life? Are we now 3% happier? I doubt it.

For psychologists, this is a tricky question.

 

In economics, the answer is (or at least used to be) "yes" (except that 3% is arbitrary, happyness is just on an ordered scale, not an addidive one). The fact that people appear to be maximizing wealth is sufficient argument for wealth being good for them. Except that it could be it is only relative wealth, not absolute wealth, that makes you happy. But the fact that politicians try to maximize growth, and people vote for politicians who promise growth, suggests that growth is actually a good thing.

 

It could be that growth, to many people, is not an aim in itself but rather a proxy for employment.

[mike777]

A) As a noneconomist, I define economics as the science of how people make decisions.  True Forum economists may object, :ph34r:, and have another definition.

I think economics is the science of resource allocation. "Making decisions" is slightly too broad, I think. But it's subtle. In fact I'm not sure if I can think of a decision which cannot be decribed as resource allocation, in some sense.

I meant the science of how people make decisions as very broad.......extremely broad.....perhaps economists object as too broad?

[Gerben42]

I am on the side of the jobless worker!

1) He/She is a worker

2) They are jobless!

 

This is exactly my point. You've identified whose side you are on. Great! Now what? There is no easy solution. You could:

 

A. You could force the manufacturer to stay open and keep his wages as they, which means that he will have to lose money or not sell anything, either way they go bankrupt and then even more people lose their jobs.

 

B. The government could keep people busy for lower wages and supplement what they are missing. Lovely idea but who is going to pay for it? For the government it is better to have 100 workers that they don't need to look after and 200 jobless people that might get another job than to have 300 workers with a low wage job that they have no hope of moving to another job and will have to supplement for the rest of their life. This takes the burden off the manufacturers and more and more supplemented jobs will appear until it can no longer be financed. Then the government goes bankrupt.

[mike777]

I am on the side of the jobless worker!

1) He/She is a worker

2) They are jobless!

 

This is exactly my point. You've identified whose side you are on. Great! Now what? There is no easy solution. You could:

 

A. You could force the manufacturer to stay open and keep his wages as they, which means that he will have to lose money or not sell anything, either way they go bankrupt and then even more people lose their jobs.

 

B. The government could keep people busy for lower wages and supplement what they are missing. Lovely idea but who is going to pay for it? For the government it is better to have 100 workers that they don't need to look after and 200 jobless people that might get another job than to have 300 workers with a low wage job that they have no hope of moving to another job and will have to supplement for the rest of their life. This takes the burden off the manufacturers and more and more supplemented jobs will appear until it can no longer be financed. Then the government goes bankrupt.

Perhaps I was unclear, but not sure why.

 

Did I not say this is an issue/problem economists should solve or they are worthless?

 

If they do not know what the decision is, at the very least they should have economic tools helping others arrive at a decision. To repeat...economics is the science of how people make decisions. If the science is imperfect, and I assume it is, fair enough. I just want all those extremely high IQ's helping me in the decision process with the best they got. :ph34r:

[helene_t]

A. You could force the manufacturer to stay open and keep his wages as they, which means that he will have to lose money or not sell anything, either way they go bankrupt and then even more people lose their jobs.

 

B. The government could keep people busy for lower wages and supplement what they are missing. Lovely idea but who is going to pay for it? For the government it is better to have 100 workers that they don't need to look after and 200 jobless people that might get another job than to have 300 workers with a low wage job that they have no hope of moving to another job and will have to supplement for the rest of their life. This takes the burden off the manufacturers and more and more supplemented jobs will appear until it can no longer be financed. Then the government goes bankrupt.

There is a third option, Gerben: Close the boarders so that wages and prices both remain high for the lack of foreign competition.

 

I predict that the consequences of that would be more unemployment (because with only a domestic market, employers have less opportunities for finding use of excess labor) and more inequality (because lack of foreign competition creates monopolies).

 

But maybe my predictions are negatively biased by the fact that I just don't like the idea.