Japan earthquake exposes interdependencies

I guess the name speaks for its self.

Re: Japan earthquake exposes interdependencies

Postby Teiana on Wed May 18, 2011 6:09 pm

i think crudely the answer is taxation, it is some system that artifically makes things more or less favourable, giving a means of control... you tax imports when things are good and remove those taxes when you need the help... thing is i don't understand enough about economics...
H.R.H. 8-)
Teiana
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:46 pm
Location: planet earth

Re: Japan earthquake exposes interdependencies

Postby Andrea on Thu May 19, 2011 1:57 pm

Personally, I don't think we even have a choice:

Like Peak Oil advocates, I believe that the coming crisis will reverse globalization. I believe that advances in the current economy in the industrial global north are based far less on technological innovation, and far more on increased consumption of fossil fuels and the abuse of a global labor pool which is forced away from subsistence farming towards industrialized work. [The article as a whole is well worth a read: http://www.forthefuture.org/assets/arti ... e_0412.htm]


petrol prices in the UK are already exceeding £1.50 per litre and the global economy still hasn't "recovered" prerecession consumption levels....
esse sequitur operari
Andrea
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:31 am

Re: Japan earthquake exposes interdependencies

Postby Neill on Wed May 25, 2011 9:35 am

I agree with Teiana that taxation (and regulation) in general can control things but ...
Who regulates? If we let one of the localities exert control then the regulations may benefit only that locality.
Ideally an external "thing" that understands everything and cares about the better good of the whole model.
In reality things may be different. (I wrote "may" to give Andrea an opening :-) )

Neill
Neill Hogarth
Life is not a practice [www.hogarth.de]
T307-10
Neill
 
Posts: 1166
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 8:20 pm
Location: Nesselwang, Germany

Re: Japan earthquake exposes interdependencies

Postby jim_lewis1 on Thu May 26, 2011 10:51 am

Having been to a screening of 'the economics of hapiness' the other day, it seems there is little doubt that at present trade agreements and tax regulations, ostensibly designed to ensure a 'free market' and to allow us all to benefit from globalisation, are in fact favouring the small minority who benefit from transnational corporations, (executives and shareholders), at the expense of everyone else. The film focussed on the experienc ein Ladakh where prior to it opening to the world economy the presenter had asked a local boy to point to the poorest house in the area. after thinking for some time the boy was unable to, as he said, 'we do not have any poor people here', twenty years later and the same man was seen talking to tourists saying, 'can't you please help us poor Ladakhies?'. IE whatever our conception of poorness, (lack of Western medicine perhaps), the people themselves did not consider themselves poor until presented with images of Western consumption.
to what extent can labour forces really compete globally? is ensuring local employment more important than being able to consume the next designer device, prodcue in the far east, cheaply?
It's clearly hugely complex, but the present situation, which led to the economic collapse and the avoidance of tax by corporaitons, is clearly unsustainable.
I don't understand how we know, after nationalising the banks, have not had a proper debate about alternatives to free market capitalism, not least as we simply do not have a free market in any sense!
Current OU study: A230
Studying towards: BA Humanities
Past OU Study: MBA (Tech Man), BEng/MEng (incl T214, T306) PG Dip EDM (incl T863, TU812), AA100, AXR272
(OU Systems courses)
jim_lewis1
 
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:14 pm

Re: Japan earthquake exposes interdependencies

Postby Teiana on Thu May 26, 2011 11:20 am

i wonder if it depends how you define 'poor', how you translate it?

poor could mean 'someone with less than someone else'
or it could mean 'someone with below a fixed amount of income/unspent money regardless of how much anyone else has'.

saying 'there are no poor people here' could mean 'nobody is worse off than anyone else' rather than 'everyone has enough'.

if poor is defined as 'someone with less than someone else'.

However if you defined poor as below a certain income, then it is possible for everyone to be poor.
H.R.H. 8-)
Teiana
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:46 pm
Location: planet earth

Re: Japan earthquake exposes interdependencies

Postby Teiana on Thu May 26, 2011 11:28 am

not least as we simply do not have a free market in any sense



i actually don't mind so much that the system is flawed - that our 'democracy' or 'free market' isn't perfect - what i mind dreadfully is the pretence that they aren't flawed. we should have other ways of explaining it, of transparent definitions and language, such that we admit the flaws so they can be worked on.

there's the old chestnut thing again ... one the one hand, we want simple ways of explaining things, models, shorthand, simple soundbites, easy terms.. (covering up the flaws, but, making things manageable)
and on the other hand, we want details, taking into account the whole picture, noticing the butterflies, flaws, tiny imperfections,' erroneous' results, picking out small changes and not glossing over the cracks...(giving us a more realistic idea of what is actually happening and allowing better systemic intervention)

<sigh>

makes you want to go sit on the swings and have an icecream.
H.R.H. 8-)
Teiana
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:46 pm
Location: planet earth

Re: Japan earthquake exposes interdependencies

Postby jim_lewis1 on Thu May 26, 2011 3:55 pm

i think the point regarding poverty was that everyone had everything they needed and didn't want for more. Everyone had enough, was part of the society and all were heard equally as members of the community. After commercial interests entered the scene, some people had more and others aspired to it, and some were so poor as to not have the basic human requirements, (unemployment was an unknown concept previously).
No doubt to an outsider, even the original scenario would have represented poor people in a western sense, but if they had a full life and were valued in their community and had all their basic human needs met, were they really poor because they didn't own a tv?
globalisation needs to find new markets, needs to make people want things they didn't need and flourishes by dividing people into haves and have nots. I don't know how we turn the clock back on that, but we should at least acknowledge it.
Current OU study: A230
Studying towards: BA Humanities
Past OU Study: MBA (Tech Man), BEng/MEng (incl T214, T306) PG Dip EDM (incl T863, TU812), AA100, AXR272
(OU Systems courses)
jim_lewis1
 
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2008 2:14 pm

Previous

Return to Systems in the news

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron