ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
When remittances and their effect in supporting economies have been mentioned previously to Balders and his mate Durutti02 they have been uniformly dismissive about the subject.
Too many immigration threads on UK P&P?
- Thread starter nino_savatte
- Start date
urbanrevolt
New Member
But what about the idea of overthrowing capitalism? Are they dismissive of that too?
I would be interested what people, especially Chilango, think of this article:
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=581
Two quotes:
"As labor economist Sandra Polaski has pointed out, for the Mexican economy, the cheap-labor/export-led model has led to a fragmented manufacturing sector, a stagnant economy, a shrinking and increasingly insecure formal labor market, a growing informal sector, and deepening poverty, social marginalization, and inequality."
"For the Mexican macro economy, remittances, second only to oil revenues, constitute the fastest growing source of foreign exchange and a main support of the country's trade balance. Meanwhile, maquila exports have stagnated since 2000. In addition, as CONAPO and INEGI data indicate, remittances stand as a source of family subsistence for 1.6 million households, slowing down the growth of poverty and social marginalization."
So what tbaldwin argues on the one hand and what VP and chilango argue on the other are by no means contradictory. Its a lot more complex than anyone thinks.
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=581
Two quotes:
"As labor economist Sandra Polaski has pointed out, for the Mexican economy, the cheap-labor/export-led model has led to a fragmented manufacturing sector, a stagnant economy, a shrinking and increasingly insecure formal labor market, a growing informal sector, and deepening poverty, social marginalization, and inequality."
"For the Mexican macro economy, remittances, second only to oil revenues, constitute the fastest growing source of foreign exchange and a main support of the country's trade balance. Meanwhile, maquila exports have stagnated since 2000. In addition, as CONAPO and INEGI data indicate, remittances stand as a source of family subsistence for 1.6 million households, slowing down the growth of poverty and social marginalization."
So what tbaldwin argues on the one hand and what VP and chilango argue on the other are by no means contradictory. Its a lot more complex than anyone thinks.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
urbanrevolt said:
tbaldwin's main idea seems to be a system he calls "authoritarian socialism", while Durutti02 appears to favour overthrowing capitalism. I know this because he recently stated to me that anti-fascism was a waste of time better spent overthrowing capitalism.
mikeinworthing
New Member
Pigeon said:
I wasn’t going to post on this thread, I was just enjoying the latest car-crash from the psychiatric professor, but this reply made me PMSL.
Gold star Pigeon!
Pigeon said:
Second Gold Star awarded!
Poor old psychiatric trolling professor dwyer has been truly pwned!
And extra Gold Stars to Violent Panda - for playing his game so well!
mikeinworthing said:I wasn’t going to post on this thread, I was just enjoying the latest car-crash from the psychiatric professor, but this reply made me PMSL.
Gold star Pigeon!
Second Gold Star awarded!
Poor old psychiatric trolling professor dwyer has been truly pwned!
And extra Gold Stars to Violent Panda - for playing his game so well!
You can stop grovelling now Mike, they've all logged off. Don't you ever get embarrassed by the constant crawling and bootlicking you indulge in? Its excruciating to watch.
mikeinworthing
New Member
phildwyer said:
No doubt, because you have totally derailed the thread!
I tell you what psychiatric professor dwyer, when you sober-up in the morning, re-read what you have posted, and see what a total arse you have made of yourself, whilst totalling derailing yet another thread.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
mikeinworthing said:And extra Gold Stars to Violent Panda - for playing his game so well!
Game?
Who was playing a game?
mikeinworthing said:
There's certainly no love lost between me and Violent Panda. But I'll tell you one thing: I have respect for him as a worthy opponent. But you, Mike in Worthing, are a truly despicable creature.
First of all, you're deeply, unfathomably stupid. OK, that´s not a crime. But in your case, stupidity is a particularly severe handicap, because it prevents you from seeing how low, vile and contemptible your incessant sucking up to the big boys really is.
You're unable to stop humiliating yourself by creeping around after more brave and intelligent people, holding their coats, egging them on to do what you are too dumb and cowardly to do yourself. It is painful to watch your attempts to ingratiate yourself around here. You're so unabashedly desperate to be liked that you would evoke pity, if you weren't so unutterably revolting in your obsequiousness.
You have not a shred of pride. You have not an ounce of shame. You're one of life's bootlickers, and you're too much of a moron to see how obvious this is. Really Mike, give it up. Look for some friends somewhere else. You truly do make me sick. I feel dirty just reading your posts.
mikeinworthing
New Member
phildwyer said:
You make me laugh dwyer, you are so fucking funny, sad , but funny all the same.
But, I’ll always remember, having read your published article about the joy you get out of trolling, and this comment you posted:
As, I am not prepared to be manipulated by you, into your schoolyard games I’ll leave the thread, having made my point, with this quote from the other thread you have been baiting posters on:
editor said:
Have a nice day, you poor thing.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Who does that make you, phil, Jonas Chuzzlewit?
BTW, didn't you get told a little while ago to tone down your abusiveness?
BTW, didn't you get told a little while ago to tone down your abusiveness?
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
You can stop stirring and all - I've already mentioned this issue on another thread.mikeinworthing said:I wasn’t going to post on this thread, I was just enjoying the latest car-crash from the psychiatric professor, but this reply made me PMSL.
Gold star Pigeon!
Second Gold Star awarded!
Poor old psychiatric trolling professor dwyer has been truly pwned!
And extra Gold Stars to Violent Panda - for playing his game so well!
mikeinworthing
New Member
FridgeMagnet said:
To be fair, you posted only 8 minutes before (on the other thread) I posted my comment that you have quoted on this thread, and before I had moved on to read the other thread, finding your post on page 5 of that thread.
I would have to have been superman to spot that before making my comment on here.
Now you know. Shut up.
And you keep trotting this bollocks out again and again and again.tbaldwin said:
No data, no evidence, nada.
I've refuted these specific arguments three times on three different threads, baldwin, and yet each time, you ignore it and then trot the same bollocks out on the next thread.
And that's just bollocks!
Woof
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Jessiedog said:And you keep trotting this bollocks out again and again and again.
No data, no evidence, nada.
I've refuted these specific arguments three times on three different threads, baldwin, and yet each time, you ignore it and then trot the same bollocks out on the next thread.
And that's just bollocks!
Woof
You'll just have to face up to a simple fact, Jessie.
The fact (supported by most of the posts on this subject that he's made) that Balders doesn't do "data" or "evidence", just prejudice and gobshitery.
It's an interesting piece you link to, Knotted, but I'm not sure your presentation of these two quotes as offering a neat balance of opinion, actually reflects the balance of the article, if read in its entirety.Knotted said:
Firstly, the article sets out to refute the - probably generally accepted - notion that the "Mexican model" has, on balance, done not too badly for Mexico. Even so, the authors are forced to admit the strongly beneficial effects of remittances.
Indeed, it seems to me that the meat of the refutation centres on the lack of locally generated, long-term, secure, unionised, high-paying jobs being created, rather than foriegn invested, less secure, minimum wage, jobs. This is a global trend, of course.
But (I suppose for the purpose of trying to strengthen their case), the authors actually count these jobs - worked by Mexicans in Mexico - as "exported jobs" as if the workers were overseas.
They note that foriegn invested enterprises have created over half a million jobs between 1994 and 2004 and then argue that they should count as exported workers since the only main benefit to Mexico is the wages paid to those workers.
Hmmmmmm.I guess I can see the point, but I think it's stretching things a bit.
There's also some interesting statistics thrown in:
Now, this says that in the ten years betwen 1994 and 2004, the US has done a little bit better than Mexico in terms of the growth of the overall size of it's economy. The US' economy has expanded a wee bit faster than Mexico's during that decade.
It also says that average manufacturing wages during the decade have grown a wee bit faster in the US than in Mexico.
What we also know is that this is no surprise. The US is the worlds largest, most competitive economy.
What we don't have is any other raw or comparative data. How about a table of ALL countries vis-a-vis the US over that decade? Maybe that would show that Mexico did comaratively well compared to most other countries - even developed ones - during that period?
Neither do we know HOW much Mexico grew during that period - was is a stunning decade for economic growth and an even better one for growth in employment AND in average wages (just not quite as stellar as US growth)?
Selective? Hmmmmmmm.
That said, the majority of the article basically seems to be admitting the strongly beneficial effects of remittances, while also pointing out some of the pitfalls of globalisation.
It's a very weak refutation that largely seems to support remittances, with a couple of reservations.
And that's also the position I take. I'm more familiar with the "Philippine model", which IMO actually has a more detrimental effect on the country than occurs in Mexico but, on balance, still has a strongly beneficial effect.
So, Knotted, I don't believe your presentation of those two quotes represents either a true reflection of the balance of benefit-to-detriment brought to "remittance economies".
Nor do I think it even acurately represents the balance of the article, which despite perhaps attempting to refute the generally strongly positive effects of remittances, actually merely reinforces the view that, on balance, despite some possible negative influences (that themselves seem more related to globalisation in general), remittances remain a powerfully beneficial force on the Mexican economy.
Certainly in the Philippines, th export of labour has some profoundly negative effects - particularly upon the sociological infrastructure - and yet until a viable alternative is created through sensible government policy and administration (rather than corruption, nepotism and greed,), the "model" remains the only thing keeping the country from mass starvation.
And I know for a fact that there are many, many millions who benefit directly, and many tens of millions indirectly, from this "model", despite its deficiences.
Most overseas workers I know are absolutely torn; on the one hand they'd rather be at home with their family and kids and on the other, they recognise the profound benefit that not just their families derive from their labours and sacrifice, but also the wider community in their home provinces and their country in general. It's a tough, tough choice.
Woof
biff curtains
Fred West or Fred Housego
N_igma said:Try living in Northern Ireland, we get killed for our religion nevermind race.
I thought you got killed for wanting an equal say and religion was just an excuse to get some dumb prods to back the Brit state.
Similar threads
