| Revision as of 17:56, 20 June 2007 editTimofmars (talk | contribs)21 edits →removed this paragraph← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:12, 4 November 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,580 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Race to the bottom/Archives/2021. (BOT) |
| (70 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Business & Economics|class=|importance=}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Business|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Globalization|importance=Mid}} |
|
Is this a synonym for ]? |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|ethics=yes|importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Trade|importance=Mid}} |
|
==removed this paragraph== |
|
|
|
}} |
|
I've removed this paragraph from the text, until someone is able to explain or rewrite it: |
|
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Race to the bottom/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
:Global ], ], ] and ] also tend to gravitate to jurisdictions where local laws permit them to thrive. |
|
|
|
|
|
While it is possible that such "gravitation" may be associated with races to the bottom, this text makes no attempt to demonstrate or explain why regimes would compete for these activities. Maybe states with no other sources of finance may find some of these industries to be better than nothing.-- ] 02:24, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Industries make profit. Governments take a portion of that profit. The government that offers to take the least amount will be more successful in attracting those industries, generally speaking. The government can take their portion either in taxes, bribes or some other mutually beneficial arrangement. So for example, there is an incentive for a country to allow activities that are normally illegal in other nations. This is because they can take a portion of the profits in return for providing sanctuary. So I don't see what's wrong with that statement. ] 17:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==This doesn't make sense to me== |
|
|
"The positive argument for free trade rests on the economic theory of comparative advantage, which in turn depends on the necessary condition of "capital immobility." If financial (or labor) resources can move between countries, then the comparative advantage theory erodes, and absolute advantage dominates. Given the liberalization of capital flows under free trade agreements of the 1990s, the necessary condition of capital immobility no longer holds. As a consequence, the economic theory of comparative advantage no longer supports free trade theory. Because labor is fairly immobile, financial capital is moved across international borders seeking the least cost labor. Because a huge pool of labor exists in the world, this process is often cited as another example of the race to the bottom." |
|
|
|
|
|
This doesn't make sense to me. Cooperative advantage is about the relative efficiencies in making certain products, labor plays a part in that but only one part. Labor and financial mobility might destroy some cooperative advantages but not all. 18 October 2004 {{unsigned|67.180.61.179}} |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree that the paragraph doesn't make sense. The principle of comparative advantage works on all levels: from the level of monolithic ]-type economies that trade with each other, to the level of an individual person in a global labour market. There will always be comparative advantages at the individual level, regardless of how easy it is to move capital across national borders. I suggest that the whole paragraph is removed. I will remove it myself unless someone can rephrase it into something that makes sense... --] 17:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Can someone provide a reference for the "in practice, it's not a big a problem as..." bit? -- 6 April 2006 ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Not true at all, in fact comparative advantage thrives even more with greater capital, good, and labor mobility. Perhaps mobility makes the advantage less distinguishable but the comparative advantage always exists. 4 September 2006 {{unsigned|66.169.212.63}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Minor POV problem== |
|
|
The following has NPOV problems and needs to be backed up and reworded to conform to NPOV: |
|
|
: Mainstream economists argue that strict environmental and labor rules hurt the economy, with ] bearing the brunt of the adverse effects. There is solid ] behind this argument. |
|
|
"Mainstream economists argue..." implies all mainstream economists which should be backed up if it is to remain in it's current form. Also the use of the term mainstream, a debatable classification in this case seems problematic. Also the part about solid economic theory needs to clarify who says it is solid since certainly not everyone accepts this as fact. --] 16:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Profit margin query== |
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder about this statement: "Some economists believe, however, that "races to the bottom" can help ameliorate poverty, for if businesses can operate for less money, they can cut prices while maintaining their profit margins." |
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't today's American economy based wholly on growth of profit margins? If so, wouldn't there be as much evidence that a race to the bottom will only help to maintain poverty, while increasing the economic conditions of those who can and do invest in the Amerian economy? Or is it more complex than that? |
|
|
|
|
|
== Major POV problem == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article needs to be rewritten so that it isn't obviously railing against the so-called "race to the bottom". ] 09:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removed paragraphs terrible article== |
|
|
I moved a couple of paragraphs on this talk page, to the respective users talk pages. These paragraphs which has nothing to do with the article itself. People need to realize this is not a web blog. I can pull up the wikipolicy if too many people shout bloody murder. |
|
|
|
|
|
I need to come back and rewrite this terrible article, problem is I don't care that much about the topic...sigh... |
|
|
|
|
|
There are a few redeming parts to this article, but they are overshadowed by the really bad...] (]) 12:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Downplaying == |
|
|
|
|
|
This article seems to be mostly from the viewpoint of mainstream Marginalist economists who are unconcerned about this phenomenon because of their ardent faith in Neoliberal globalization. It claims that labor migration and poverty is higher in more protected areas, but seems contrary to reality as there is less poverty in Europe (which largely have protected capitalist systms) than there is in less protected states such as Niger, Congo, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Eritrea, Uganda, Columbia, Mexico, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. Most of the immigrants from Mexico to the US leave unprocted ares deregulated by NAFTA reforms to the more protected US system. ] 14:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
True, but I'm not sure that matters. Some of the countries you mention come close to being failed states. Others greatly interfere in their economy. The Mexican/USA example is more one of peasants coming North... and that's an issue of industrialization forcing populations to urban environments. ]] 05:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== POV == |
|
|
|
|
|
The "Counter-argument" section should be deleted. It is a total POV rant (please read it before responding). ] 17:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Wow... where do I start == |
|
|
|
|
|
Almost every country to try neo-liberal economics has seen it's Gini index and infant mortality rate rise. Numerous studies have linked Union penetration to a lower pre-tax pre-transfer gini index and left governments to a lower post-tax post-transfer gini index. See: which calls the first important but not over whelming and the second over whelming, and then goes on to say how these findings are consistent with several previous studies, but also says countries without this are high GDP per capita, and low unemployment. Second many countries to institute neo-liberal reforms to make their economies more attractive have introduced user fees for education and scaled back public health spending. School enrollemtn exploded upon the elimination of user fees in Uganda, and user fees used to be a neccesity for IMF/Worldbank education loans - this could hardly have a 'positive' effect on literacy. There evidence however to suggest that the most neoliberal first world countries have lower long term unemployment - NZ Can USA are in top 5, France, Germany, or Sweden are not - and I imagine this works too for LDC. Also any statistics on povery rates decerasing, quality of goods *increasing*? ] 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
