Does Economic Freedom Foster Tolerance?

[opebo]

Vast swathes of the globe have improved their standard of living dramatically in the last 30 years, including most of Latin America, China, Southeast Asia and India, which is more than half the world's population right there. In fact, the transition has been simply amazing, along with the dramatically falling fertility rates, which go in tandem with it all typically these days.

So?  Why on earth should an american electorate care one whit about that?

[opebo]

Vast swathes of the globe have improved their standard of living dramatically in the last 30 years, including most of Latin America, China, Southeast Asia and India, which is more than half the world's population right there. In fact, the transition has been simply amazing, along with the dramatically falling fertility rates, which go in tandem with it all typically these days.

So?  Why on earth should an american electorate care one whit about that?

What has that got to do with the price of potatoes?  Anyway, the "american electorate" should care about it if they have a clue about anything.

The point was, obliquely I'll admit, that the process you described was one of transferring a bit of income from a moderately well-paid working class (protected by the State), to one not so protected.  And naturally the vast majority of the savings realized by this transfer of work has gone to the top 0.1%.

[opebo]

The record shows that globalization ultimately promotes peace and prosperity.

For some.  The developed country workers have to accept drastically diminished standard of living for this plutocrat utopia, Politico.

[opebo]

Yes, because housing, TV sets, computers, food, medicine, cars, clothing, etc. in 1970 were so superior to what is consumed in middle America today *rolls eyes*

Well, it is true that most of those things were superior in 1970, and a far superior value for money (as a percentage of median income) - certainly cars, housing, clothes, and food.  Only the electronic stuff, which is a mere incidental expense, was worse then, and medicine, which they at least they had access to due to unionization.

[opebo]

No one is saying the Chinese model is the best one, but it's also pretty clear that most of the suffering in China stems, not from capitalism, but from an oppressive, still nominally Communist, government.

That is pure crap.  Suffering comes from poverty, from having to work a lot, having to move far from home for work, being confined in factory towns/encampments, etc.  The vast majority of people in China couldn't care less about free speech (which obviously doesn't exist for working-class people under capitalism either, anyway), or 'political rights'.  Their suffering comes from their boss, not from the CPC.

[opebo]

You are destroying him, Gus.

This guy?



Yes, Gustaf is always giving that guy a heck of a beating.

[opebo]

Who is the straw man, opebo?

Gustaf is an intolerant and fanatic argumentator and he was clearly bullying me. I made a terrible mistake answering his posts yesterday since I've realized that he was using dirty hackish tricks: distorting the previous poster's statements in an attempt to ridiculize them;

Yeah that is precisely what is meant by 'straw man argument', Velasco - he sets up a 'straw man' in place of you by mischaracterizing your position, and then knocks it down.  He always does that.

aggresive and insulting language and so on.

Yes, he always does that too.

I'm on your side Velasco, it is a waste of time to argue with the guy, he's just trolling.

[opebo]

     I'm sure I'll be accused of bias, but I'll say that Gustaf's characterization of andi's argument was essentially spot-on. If you claim that globalization has not benefitted the lower-class of China, you really need to compare their station today to their station before the advent of globalization in China.

No doubt people have different idea of 'benefit', PiT.  I think nearly everyone might agree that the agricultural and domestic market loosening which occurred in the very late 70s through late 80s showed uncontroversial benefits (more calories, vitamins, etc.), but what has happened since is highly debatable in terms of subjective value.

After all, is one better off to be a minion of vast forces in a suburban labor camp or a peasant?  In all honesty, I don't think the answer is clear, even if quantitatively the former is 'better off' according to some calculations.