Dubai - a brilliant article on what we all know

[soccerballtux]

Well, those maids can work for pennies on the dollar in Dubai or sit in their home country and starve to death.

This is why jobs are leaving America.

Protectionism is quite selfish.
World poverty rates have fallen from 40% to 20% since 1980.
This has been thanks to American outsourcing and getting Chinese to build our crap.
Trade is good for everyone involved.

 

[Craig234]

Craig,

You don't have the slightest idea of how free markets work.

Please read Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations"

-John

You're wrong; Adam Smith is old reading material; and he was on my side, not yours. You one of the typical righties who think he was some radical libertarian who hasn't read him?

 

[Zorkorist]

Protectionism is quite selfish.
World poverty rates have fallen from 40% to 20% since 1980.
This has been thanks to American outsourcing and getting Chinese to build our crap.
Trade is good for everyone involved.

It's not good when someone like Obama is in power. He wants to control prices, spending, etal. (And Trade)

Free trade is good... Controlled trade is not good.

 

[Zebo]

For Concubines, see Vegas...

er' um...

-John

They don't volunteer to be treated as sex objects but come as waitresses and are forced into it. That is why it is referred to as “sexual slavery” and “sexual terrorism” and NOT prostitution, like Vegas.

If you're going to be an apologist at least try a reasonable argument. It sickens me when people are aware of this yet still think “eh, whatever look over there.”

 

[Zebo]

You're wrong; Adam Smith is old reading material; and he was on my side, not yours. You one of the typical righties who think he was some radical libertarian who hasn't read him?

Heh - they'd be shocked if they read what he said about Unions necessity.

 

[Zorkorist]

You're wrong; Adam Smith is old reading material; and he was on my side, not yours. You one of the typical righties who think he was some radical libertarian who hasn't read him?

Craig,

I am not sure what you are talking about, but Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" was a seminal Free Market doctrine.

It explained supply and demand, the invisible hand, among other things.

It's obvious you haven't read it.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

They don't volunteer to be treated as sex objects but come as waitresses and are forced into it. That is why it is referred to as “sexual slavery” and “sexual terrorism” and NOT prostitution, like Vegas.

If you're going to be an apologist at least try a reasonable argument. It sickens me when people are aware of this yet still think “eh, whatever look over there.”

Sexual Slavery exists everywhere in the world. If you want to duel on the worst of it, look to Americans like Charles Ing and Countries like Turkey.

Cry me a river, because a woman is subservient to a man.

See the Bible...

-John

 

[Craig234]

Craig,

I am not sure what you are talking about, but Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" was a seminal Free Market doctrine.

It explained supply and demand, the invisible hand, among other things.

It's obvious you haven't read it.

-John

You're making a fool of yourself. I don't recall having had to say you are an idiot before, but you are not leaving much choice. I'll let you back off your mistake before commenting.

Since you mention 'invisible hand', I decided to google for a quote to illustrate my point about Smith's limitations on the 'free market' I agree with veesus the right-wing version, but found these instead:

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel, winner for Economics (see my sig):

Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, is often cited as arguing for the ?invisible hand? and free markets: firms, in the pursuit of profits, are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do what is best for the world. But unlike his followers, Adam Smith was aware of some of the limitations of free markets, and research since then has further clarified why free markets, by themselves, often do not lead to what is best. As I put it in my new book, Making Globalization Work, the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there.Whenever there are ?externalities??where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay, or for which they are not compensated?markets will not work well. Some of the important instances have long understood environmental externalities.

Markets, by themselves, produce too much pollution. Markets, by themselves, also produce too little basic research. (The government was responsible for financing most of the important scientific breakthroughs, including the internet and the first telegraph line, and many bio-tech advances.)But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets?that is always.

Government plays an important role in banking and securities regulation, and a host of other areas: some regulation is required to make markets work. Government is needed, almost all would agree, at a minimum to enforce contracts and property rights.The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government (and the third ?sector??non-governmental non-profit organizations.) Both are needed. They can each complement each other. This balance differs from time to time and place to place.

Noam Chomsky:

Throughout history, Adam Smith observed, we find the workings of "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind": "All for ourselves, and nothing for other People." He had few illusions about the consequences. The invisible hand, he wrote, destroys the possibility of a decent human existence "unless government takes pains to prevent" this outcome, as must be assured in "every improved and civilized society." It destroys community, the environment, and human values generally—and even the masters themselves, which is why the business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect them from market forces. (...)

 

[Zorkorist]

Jesus Christ,

You are going to argue Adam Smith with me by quoting Noam Chomsky!?

-John

 

[Craig234]

Jesus Christ,

You are going to argue Adam Smith with me by quoting Noam Chomsky!?

-John

I wondered if someone would respond merely by attacking the name Noam Chomsky and not a word on the substance.

I had a choice, put in a note mocking the idea so prevent it, or see what happened, and I decided to see what happened. How disappointing. I assume you back off telling me whether I've read it?

 

[Zorkorist]

Absolutely not.

Craig, I think we will have to talk a lot more, but honestly it that you have no idea of what free markets are, and why they are important. You believe you have moved past free-markets, by regulating markets, and you are wrong.

So, I guess it's possible you have read Adam Smith, but you didn't understand it.

-John

 

[Craig234]

Absolutely not.

Craig, I think we will have to talk a lot more, but honestly it that you have no idea of what free markets are, and why they are important. You believe you have moved past free-markets, by regulating markets, and you are wrong.

So, I guess it's possible you have read Adam Smith, but you didn't understand it.

-John

'Absolutely not' backing off the wrong claim, but 'maybe you did'. Glad you cleared that up.

You dodged the idiot response barely, but aren't that far off. Try reading the quotes I posted that are views I hold, and say something of substance for a change.

You are the one not understanding. We'll see if you can discuss it enough to get help with that.

Edit: part of your posts leads to the tone above, and part leads me to want to respond less harshly, you are posting mixed tones.

Try more comenting on the *issue*, not the sort of nonsense you have. You saying what you said with zero specifics is not an argument.

 

[Craig234]

Heh - they'd be shocked if they read what he said about Unions necessity.

Yes, Adam Smith was filled with warnings that government moderation of free markets was necessary to avoid inevitable disaster.

(He wasn't an unconditional fan of governmemt activity - he felt much did not do the intended good).

I suspect some righties can't wait to say "but uf there's government intervention it's not a free market!"

Read it again. *Society* needs government protection from inevitable harms *from the free market*.

 

[sandorski]

re: the Free Market argument...What about the Dubai Economy is not Free Market?

 

[StageLeft]

Free market aspects are definitely at play here.

Dubai should be congratulated in some ways but scorned in others. They are still a backwards hell hole and live on the sweat of the poor and that must be remembered about it above and beyond their profligacy.

 

[Cattykit]

Craig,

I am not sure what you are talking about, but Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" was a seminal Free Market doctrine.

It explained supply and demand, the invisible hand, among other things.

It's obvious you haven't read it.

-John

'I'm proud to have read this book. I'm sure nobody has read it. I feel gifted and smart. How can I be possibly wrong? I'm all backed-up by ever great Adam Smith!! Whoever disagrees with me is just wrong! They must've not read the book'

You sound like a 13 year old kid who is acting all big and grown-up after cheek-kissing. Now why don't you read Marx's "Capital" and "Manifesto of the Communist Party"? I have a feeling you might, all of the sudden, turn into a crazist communist.

My point is that you're the type of people who believes in something so hard, you're willing to go extremly far. Just like certain religious people and self-claimed communists. The reality is a complex ground and such simplified way of thinking will get you nowhere. Just like Karl Marx himself distanced himself from wacko communist, Adam Smith would distance himself from someone like you.

 

[Zebo]

re: the Free Market argument...What about the Dubai Economy is not Free Market?

How about not paying those SE asain dudes who built that big ass icicle (Burj Dubai)? Entice em with work then ship em out when bill is due.

 

[Greenman]

I'll clarify my point. The 'free market' phrase is a delusion that righties have a simplistic version of.

They look at some crazy government regulation, are against it, and think the alternative is being for the 'free market'.

It's a lot more complicated than that. The entire theory of democracy has close to its middle the idea of 'the people' influencing the society in ways that adjust the 'free market' for the better.

And the 'free market' is inflenced by countless factors that they are not well understanding. Things that god back decades and longer, various political powers, wars, all kinds of factors.

This all leads to my point that sometimes the 'free market' leads to terrible misery and poverty for some people, and the reasons can involve 'corruption' and 'injustice' having only to do with private, not public, factors. Indeed the history of the human race is just dominated by such bad situations. And the 'free market' rhetoric directly attacks good things that can help improvie the situation. It's a big lie.

My point here wasn't to say that there aren't factors that aren't 'free market' but rather to point at the miserable situation, and say that can happen in a 'free market', and it's a reminder why it's unacceptable.

You greatly misunderstand my position, my objction to 'free market'. I'm hardly against 'buying and selling goods'. In fact I'm strongly for it.

But I'm for democracy being able to improve things, and not be blocked in every effort by an ideology. "No, sorry, you CAN'T have the government pass food safety laws, that's not free market."

Not being for the free market doesn't look all that different from what you think of as the free market. In fact, we are far from a 'free market' now and that's been the case for the nation's history.

Though we came closer - with the misery - in the late 19th century.

Perfectly clear now, but I think your original comment missed the mark, I don't know a single conservative that want's an uncontrolled market. They quickly become a cesspool.

Edit: Thank you for the well thought out response.

 

[grebe925]

I visited Dubai for the first time last year after years of hearing friends and acquaintances singing it's praises. I never felt more out of place as a human being. Even without the horrible underbelly scars exposed by the OP's article, it's a place where only the mechanical aspect of life exists. Most of the other places I've visited make me want to go back; this is one place I'll probably never return to.

That said, I won't fault the ruler for his daring experiment. I think he was trying to emulate Singapore and would probably have succeeded were it not for it's unfortunate location on the edge of the desert.

 

[Specop 007]

It's interesting how righties sometimes uncover some consciece when confronted with what 'free market' can mean. It's a good thing. Much of human history is filled with such bad situations.

No, its unsurprising how someone will treat another fairly when free markets are in place rather than being forced by laws and taxes.

 

[ayabe]

It's not good when someone like Obama is in power. He wants to control prices, spending, etal. (And Trade)

Free trade is good... Controlled trade is not good.

"Free trade" do you even know what means? We don't have any sort of free trade going on with China or anyone, their markets and currencies are highly regulated. It's a one-sided relationship and detrimental to our economy.

We just lost a decade of "growth" thanks in part to worship of the myth of free trade in the "New Economy".

 

[Craig234]

Thanks Greenman.

In response to your not knowing a single conservative that wants an uncontrolled market,because they quickly become a cesspool. I think many think they want it and base decisions on that idea.

You might be right that if they realy understood they'd change their position, but it seems to me many of them are of the option that they are for it and have knee-jerk responses to any government policy of 'that's bad because it's not free market' and don't consider the issue itself. That's what makes it a 'blind ideology'. They don't understand what you said that their 'free market' isn't the case and if it were it'd be a cesspool. They just think 'free market is reat, so say no to that government proposal'.

They are in an environment that's well protected from the real effects of free market, and ignorance is bliss. They don't have to deal with a cesspool, they can just attack particular good programs.

(At this point, I just lost most of one of my favorite posts in a long time. I'd meant to just save it instead of posting it and because of this limited browser, I had to cut and paste pieces and trash the other parts to make room in the process, and then I hit the wrong button losing the whole post, except the fragments left in the window here. I'm pretty disgusted and I guess I'll post the fragments and a bit I remember.)

Indeed, Alan Greenspan and others, despite this view, had the simplistic notion that 'the market is always knows best', and strongly opposed government reglation as an ideology, with a major effect on our country. Greenspan finally said his ideology was wrong, that the market cannot control its own harmful excesses. Oops.

I remember one point being to say if I suggest a credt card interest rate cap, discuss the pros and cons of that, don't just say 'that's not free market' and ignore the issue.

(Sorry, but several paragraphs of supporting structure and points are just lost here. I finally went on to mention my opinion of the 'invisible hand' at the end of the post.)

There are market efficiencies. If a community having 25% farmers, 10% millers and 5% food salesman is an especially efficient ratio of labor, then people doing what's best for them tends to lead to that ratio without uneeding a central government determine it's a good ratio and assign people to those roles - and indeed Smith IMO would argue the 'invisible hand' is more likely to get the ratio right than planners.

If you get too many farmers, the oversupply of product decreases prices making it less attractive to farm, making farmers look at milling. Too few farmers, it looks like good money.

My opinion is that there is some truth to that but it's limited. See the quotes from Stiglitz and Chomsky for examples.There are many 'corrupting influences' to the 'invisible hand'.

Smith himself understood many dangers of a blind 'free market' but many of his claimed followers ignored that.

I'd rather not see 'free market' mentioned in a topic, it's just a false distraction, like calling everything you don't like 'communist'. "Free Market" that extreme is a bad, simplistic ideology.

 

[Craig234]

No, its unsurprising how someone will treat another fairly when free markets are in place rather than being forced by laws and taxes.

Except that that's completey false. Would you like me to introduce you to human history outside your basement, where man has millenia of treating fellow man without those qualities when left on his own?

The whole point of democracy, eventually one adult one vote, was to let the society be governed by the ordinarily powerless masses to reign in those excesses and abuses.

Taxes have normally gone to an elite who own and use them as they see fit, and they weren't noted for 'treating othes fairly', rather than into a community fund with spending determined by a democratic system.

Laws have normally been decreed by the elite to serve its interest and limit the behaviors of the masses, not for 'fairness' especially, but they've been more for the 'public good' when the masses get a say.

 

[CitizenKain]

No, its unsurprising how someone will treat another fairly when free markets are in place rather than being forced by laws and taxes.

Hahahahahaahahaha. So one person has the semblance of a conscience is somehow proof that if it wasn't for those pesky laws, human kindness would show through? Crack open a history book, I know, reading is scary, and take a look at the early 1900's in the US.

 

[CanOWorms]

They learned a lot from the British Empire.