(Cont...)

Your assertion Rhian, that ‘welfare measures…should capture any general improvement in human wellbeing’, is a nonsense as the UN has no definitive method of assessing real poverty or increases or declines world-wide. The problem of poverty is so widespread and largely inaccessible, any figures are a guesstimate at best. Governments like that of Robert Mugabe deliberately fudge the numbers of poor and needy for their own ends.

Figures released today from ‘Beyond Blue’ spokesperson, Jeff Kennett, indicated that 6 people per day are suiciding in Australia…higher than the national road toll! (Of course suicide figures are always conservative as many suicides are simply labelled as ‘accidental deaths’, due to insufficient evidence being available for a definitive decision.)

Meg
Again you miss the point. The data in the table already take account of inflation, so the increases are after price changes, or “real” gains. If your income goes up by 3% more that your living costs then you’re better off, even if Bill Gates’ income goes up by $1,000,000 a week.

There is indeed no single definitive measure of poverty, but there are lots of measures that point towards it. The UN’s Millennium Goals (see link above) include a target to reduce by half the proportion of the world’s population living on US$1 A day (in 1990 prices, from memory) by 2015. There is every chance that this goal will be reached.

Fozz is right that financial indicators can be a poor measure of economic welfare in subsistence societies. That why I listed a range of other indicators that also capture welfare improvements. What’s more, they can’t be distorted by a handful of fortunates (in theory a country can get richer on average if most people are poorer but a handful are much, much richer. But no country ever raised its life expectancy if most people die younger while a few live to be 300,000).

Your assertion that Mugabe is dishonest is of course true, but for some seriously dysfunctional countries fairly good estimates can be obtained from independent data. Look at IMF or other data and you’ll find they show Zimbabwe at or near the bottom of the list many welfare measures, and heading backwards rapidly. That seem consistent with what we know of Zimbabwe. Some countries, of course, are too hard to track with any accuracy at all – I don’t think any agency has good data on North Korea (now there’s a country that takes economic self-sufficiency seriously!).

Meg, you seem to associate globalism with suicide. Check out the data in the link I gave earlier – Australian suicide rates are declining overall. Do you have any data to support your argument?

Rhian,

We may just have to agree to disagree on the issue of globalization reducing poverty. I remain unconvinced.

To my mind, the whole idea of globalism is a furphy. I do believe that there will be a united world one day, but I find laughable (and disturbing) the fervent belief of some that money will be the unifying factor.

The exchange of ideas is a good thing. Trade and investment are potentially good things. But trade for trade's sake appears not to have lived up to globalism's promises. Since 1970, world trade has increased by (depending on whose figures you use) between 12 and 22 times. What is harder to measure is the effect. Such a massive explosion in trade should have produced an equally massive explosion in growth but there is a serious disjunct between the two that economists struggle to explain.

Some have suggested that the huge expansion of multi-national corporations (an undisputable "success" of globalization) may go some way towards explaining it. For example, company x owns the mining lease. Company x owns the shipping company that transports the raw material down the coast to my town, to the processing plant which is part owned by company x. The processed material is loaded onto ships owned by company x and shipped accross the tasman to it's final destination - the smelter, once again owned by (you guessed it) company x.

Where was the trade?

The fact that goods have crossed international borders is irrelivent since the whole process is owned by one company or a conglomerate, it is probably more accurate to call it "internal shipping". It lacks the effect of real trade between nationally-based companies.

This process is thought to now account for a good half of all world trade.

The subject of globalization if far too broad for one post, suffice to say that I disagree with most of it. IMHO trade exists to SERVE a purpose. Under globalism, trade exists to BE a purpose unto itself. I see no advantage for the common good in that theory.

Rhian, you’re clearly attempting to justify your willingness to trade off the basic human rights of others for a bigger slice yourself…unconvincingly.

Perhaps Bill Gates is coming to that realisation also…given his recent change-of-heart-activities.

There’s not a snowflakes-chance-in-hell of achieving the goals you mention on poverty with corporate big-shots being paid increasingly more obscene salary packages while price-takers like farmers, workers and fixed-income earners are increasingly forced into penury…

Remember Bob Hawke thumping his chest with the ‘no-child-will-be-living-in-poverty-by…’ Well, guess how many more have joined the list now?

RE: North Korea...you’ve got the wrong definition of self-sufficiency…

Take a look at the EU, Japan and the US…all demand as high a level of self-sufficiency in essential items as possible…for defence purposes alone…which is why their subsidy levels remain so high…

Examine the countries who don’t place much importance on feeding their own or providing basic necessities…there’s a word limit, so I won’t bore you with lists on poverty you should already know.

The level of spin and statistical misinformation from the IMF is legendary…somewhat like ABARE…don’t make life-changing decisions based on their data…nor on Saul’s regular ‘economic comments’ to placate anz’s customer base.

Check your own data again…suicide rates are NOT declining – overall or any other way…and your ‘data’, as any welfare agency will privately acknowledge, ignores the numerous ‘unproven’ suicides.

Interesting that you also see the link between suicide as a result of glolbalism…of course, there is significant evidence of human devastation from the offshoots of globalism domestically, e.g., NCP, deregulation (alias hyper-regulation and elimination of all market control by the non-corporate sector), etc.

I share Fozz’s scepticism regarding ‘money as the unifying factor’ for the one-world policy…also his statements regarding trade for trade’s sake.

Australia continues to sign ‘so-called FREE trade agreements’ with none to date doing any more than exposing our own industry and agriculture to exploitation by countries who subsidise their own product and then dump it on our shores to the detriment of our own population and for the increased profiteering of the transnationals.

(tbc...)

(Cont...)

I share Fozz’s scepticism regarding ‘money as the unifying factor’ for the one-world policy…also his statements regarding trade for trade’s sake.

Australia continues to sign ‘so-called FREE trade agreements’ with none to date doing any more than exposing our own industry and agriculture to exploitation by countries who subsidise their own product and then dump it on our shores to the detriment of our own population and for the increased profiteering of the transnationals.

So-called Free Trade has enabled little more than freedom for foreign dumping of often inferior and subsidised product with the result that Australian companies are forced out of production. Australia's manufacturing industry, for example, is reduced from being the envy of other developed nations to the smallest in the developed world, except for Greece...some achievement, Saul and Rhian!

RE: Fozz’s ‘internal shipping’ scenario, you’ve left out a few details…1. Company X also imports ‘contracted employees’ at lower wages from Country X ( where the profits and taxes will disappear and all transactions are done).

You may be aware that the tourist industry also has foreign companies operating under this scenario…importing foreign nationals, contracted and paid in their country of origin to avoid Australian taxes – even to the extent of importing workers from ‘the oldest profession’ to accommodate tourist-clients while on holiday here…

Company X imports all requirements for establishment and sustenance of ‘plantX’ on Australian shores…usually guarded by a security fence…no transactional taxes or benefit locally except for essentials.

Again, the lists could go on and on…reflecting on the number of foreign-owned companies versus the remaining Australian-based ones and their values will give you a clue to how ‘successful’ at selling out Australia’s infrastructure, globalism has been…right down to selling our valuable water rights off-shore.

Fozz’s final paragraph/statement gives an appropriate summary…and condemnation of globalism-trade as it exists.

Fozz
I’d agree that trade is a means to an end not an end in itself, but I also think it’s quite effective at attaining that end. It’s hard to think of a country that has pulled itself out of severe poverty in recent years without trade and international investment being important contributors to growth.

You’re right than “internal shipping” may not generate the same benefits as conventional trade, but it still create jobs and derived business in the countries affected.

Meg
Another fact-free rant. For your information, these are the ABS data on suicides, clearly showing that they peaked in 1997 and have trended downwards since:

1995 ___ 2,368
1996 ___ 2,393
1997 ___ 2,720
1998 ___ 2,683
1999 ___ 2,492
2000 ___ 2,363
2001 ___ 2,454
2002 ___ 2,320
2003 ___ 2,213
2004 ___ 2,098
2005 ___ 2,101

Doubtless you rank the Australian Bureau of Statistics along with the United Nations, IMF, World Bank and Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics as people whose statistics are not to be trusted because they don’t support your preconceptions.