more on OECD on employment protective laws

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Date: April 17, 2006 4:29:17 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
Cc: "'Frode Hegland'" <frode () hegland com>, Russell Nelson  
<nelson () crynwr com>
Subject: RE: [IP] more on OECD on employment protective laws

And the Brits haven't stopped - how much of the world's fiber  
capacity is
kept off the market to assure scarcity so C&W can maintain its prices?
With all the talk of debt relief wouldn't make far more sense to make  
the
capacity available to those economies?
A new book "The Box" is about how container shipped changed world  
economics
because renegades were able to bypass the old guard. It's much harder to
lay fiber as long as its treated like the prerogative of robber barons
rather than a public necessity.
As I pointed out in http://www.frankston.com/?name=AssuringScarcity the
industry (in this case cellular) has an explicit policy to maintain
control. Until we recognize that bits are content are unrelated will
confuse monopolies with real businesses
(http://www.frankston.com/?name=TelecomPhrase)
Alas, the WTO is more likely to preserve the fiction of tele/com than to
create opportunity. Perhaps the World Bank and others may want to voice
their concerns.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 15:26
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] more on OECD on employment protective laws



Begin forwarded message:

From: Frode Hegland <frode () hegland com>
Date: April 17, 2006 11:47:03 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] OECD on employment protective laws

On 11 Apr 2006, at 19:35, David Farber wrote:
> > Russ Nelson writes: Globalization is nothing new ... and during
> > that time wages have risen, not fallen

Though of course not uniformly. Some place win (like the British
Empire being efficient enough to make cloth that they could ship them
back to India and pretty much eradicate the local industry. (This
made the British India Company more powerful than the British Empire
for a while! Yes, even the British Empire was an international
corporate affair, as much as a government expansion). This of course
happens often, to degrees. And it swings back and forth between
regions on the rise, and regions on a plateu.

But when the winners become monopolistic, this breaks down.

Within a capitalistic country regulation is need to keep large
companies from becoming monopolies. There is no such regulation on a
world-wide basis, only the WTO which is a representative of the
monopolistic countries, not of all countries.

One example of this is the monopolistic trade barriers the US and
Europe have against Africa, which removes five times the amount of
potential trade income than Africa receives in aid (please help me if
you can remember who pointed this out, I cannot find the name right
now, but it was not a hippe, it was someone from the World Bank, I
think).

In fact, the trade imbalance with Africa is so bad that locally grown
produce is more expensive in many places, than US imports due to US
subsidies.

Please, this is my current understanding, if anyone would like to
correct any of this, please do, my position is just that you can't
have a purely capitalist system without some regulation to keep
monopolies from happening so globalization, in its current form is
not as much capitalism run far, than good old fashioned monopolies.

Hey we could call it cross-border fascism maybe? BTW, I am a firm
internationalist, so pro-globalization arguments I agree with in
general, let's just discuss how to improve the outcome for more
people, instead of simple pro/con arguments. End rant.


Frode Hegland
ceo
The Hyperwords Company
www.hyperwords.net

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as BobIP () Bobf Frankston com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
people/

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/