New World Economics, Colonialism, and UN influence

I have been in several discussions about socialist nations recently, stemming primarily from the USA's actions towards Venezuela, and something has occurred to me. Even socialist nations engage in capitalism on the international level. This has been the downfall of many nations: they sell what they have for profit so the government can accumulate certain things instead of using foreign trade to build an economy. Socialism in my opinion constitutes a form of centralized barter aimed at making sure each participant in the economy gets their share of the necessary items. This can happen in international trade, and I believe that it will be a very useful tool in the expansion of power, especially China's power (as they are most likely to embrace this) into the third world, which is a necessity for bringing about a true New WORLD ORDER note the emphasis not only on truely global reach but on the need for true order.

Capitalist international trade works like this: America wants oil from and influence in South America. It seeks to install corrupt rulers in Venezuela then buys oil for cash and that cash is used to make wealthy men out of a very few. This is intended to create similiar ambitions in the aristocracy of neighboring nations bringing about a capitalist domino effect.

Socialist international trade is more complex and more beneficial to all nations involved. If you wanted influence oil and influence in South America you might go to Cuba and train teachers, doctors, etc there in exchange for them taking a certain approach to other nations in the region. Cuba in turn sends its doctors and educators to Venezuela in trade for oil- Cuban professionals cost less than your professionals because they are poor, so this is easier on you than direct trade with Venezuela but is just as good for Cuba and Venezuela. Venezuelan oil goes to Cuba and Cuba hands most of it straight back to you for your help. Meanwhile the development of these nations is creating a market for your exports, so now you can buy yet more resources from them in trade for export goods.

Alternatively, lets say this situation were taking place in Africa somewhere.
Congo has ore and arable land. Ethiopia has geo-thermal and hydro-electric power potential and is plauged by droughts. Sudan has the population for manufacturing and it has Red Sea ports.
So, a first world nation can help Ethiopia develop its electrical generating and distribution infrastructure to sell power to Sudan and helps Sudan develop its transportation and industrial infrastructure.
Ethiopia gives power to Sudan, Sudan gives manufactured goods to Democratic Republic of Congo, Congo gives food to both and ore to Sudan for use in manufactured goods, some of which go back to Ethiopia in exchange for power.
You've fed two starving nations, created industry and jobs in 3, and you're getting ore in exchange for goods and services provided by poor nations which are therefore cheaper, lowering the cost to you of gaining that ore over the long term. While you're at it there are now assetts in the region to barter with that weren't there before, so you have new opportunities to expand trade in the surrounding region.

The US does not do this. The US finds it far easier to go directly to the resources, muscle in with American corporations and pay the higher price for resources in the name of keeping the supply more stable and steady as well as reaping the profits into their own stockmarket rather than foreign ones. This is good for stocks but bad for your overall access to resources.

China on the other hand needs the resources more than the commerce because the resources are necessary for continuing their high rate of production and export, unlike the United States which does not hinge its economy so much on exports of finished products.
As a result of this I can make a few predicitons. I predict that as American military dominance over far corners of the world decreases and as China becomes more wealthy that we will see such creative ventures as this. China will gain great influence in the Middle East and Africa by these means. As indirect controllers of new resource supplies as well as of regional economies, China will have significant power towards implementing the NWO agenda on the third world. This could preclude the development of "Casablancas" and could create a broader base of military power for the UN to draw upon, which would make it possible for the UN to marshall sufficient forces to impose its will on any nation which does not follow along with the NWO program.

The danger of a single nation successfully carrying out this modern version of colonialism is considerable. The point is that for ballance between the power of various nations to continue and for citizens to be able to steer their governments along a free course of their choosing, nations like America need to get into the game of nation building and mutually beneficial economics so that power remains ballanced militarily, diplomatically, economically, etc.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

This is intended to create similiar ambitions in the aristocracy of neighboring nations bringing about a capitalist domino effect.
This domino effect is proably less intentional (setting aside any concerns as to the validity of the scenario) and more the result of what Adam Smith called 'The Invisible Hand' of the free market. The free market results in organization of the system as a sort of secondary effect of people investing capital to get profit returned to them.

Capitalism isn't just selling and buying products or bring gold or money into a country, thats more properly 'mercantalism'. The british operated under that economic system wrt to their overseas colonies, as did the spanish, whereas the revolutionaries were calling for the 'unhindered' action of capitalism, the investment of capital.

Socialism operates, distinct from capitalism, with closed markets and with the government merely creating stuff, but not for a return on profits. So a 'capitalist' will look to the market to decide what product is needed and make the 'capital' expendatures to purchase the equipment to produce that product and then sell it in the market, with that ultimate sale and profit being the goal. A 'socialist' on the other hand, will not look to the market, even if one some how operated, and instead will decide what the people need and then gather the resources in anyway and produce that need in anyway and then distribute it to the people. So the 'context' of each is different along with the method. The capitalist is thinking about markets and sale, the socialist doesn't care about the market, doesn't recognize it as meaningful, and thinks about what populations of people need and distribution.

So, to use your example, if Cuba wantd oil, it, as a socialist, would simply go about getting that needed resource. But cuba won't, as a socialist, look to the world market, recognize that there is a niche for, i dunno, cuban sanwiches, and then invest in pickle slicing machines, drills to bore holes in swiss cheese, and garlic harvesting equipment; all necessary for cuban sandwiches, and then sell them on the market a market value.

So its kind of a fuzzy thing, and, since the international system is market oriented, socialist countries probably tend to act at that level as 'market oriented'. Thats why socialism is an internationalist movement that has to wipe out capitalist markets and replace the global 'market' with a socialist system. Because the government in venezuala isn't going to give cuba oil, or even expect that cuba will give it some resource later. Under socialism there has to be 'one government' to simply distribute the resources and any 'products'.

Also, in your scenario, when the countries exchange, if they exchange in equal amounts, or rather not according to some rate based on an items 'value' (ie diamond has more 'value' than coal, or whatever), then they are behaving in something like a socialist manner. If Ethiopia gave a huge amount of hard to produce power to Sudan, and Sudan gives some small amount of easy to manufacture goods (but still ones that they needed in ethiopia), then I'd say thats something like socialism. But if they try to make it like a market transaction, then its different.
Like, lets pretend there are two countries, one with Oil, the other with Coal, but the oil bearing country only has coal burning power plants, and the coal bearing country only has oil burning power plants, and both have equal power needs. If they exchange one for one(say, one kilowatts worth of coal for one kilowatts worth of oil),without giving regards toany markeyt consideration, then thats sort of socialist. But if, say, there was a market, say in the rest of the world, and in that market coal was twice as valuable as oil, and the coal bearing nation wanted two kilowatts worth of oil for every kilowatts worth of coal, then that'd be a 'market system' (i hesitate to use 'capitalist' because no capital is involved).

So, of course, in this way of thinking, market thinking is, well, heck its exploitative and 'evil' or something I guess, and the 'socialist system' is 'nice' because everyone is on the same team practically.

Problem is that capitalism and the market based economy seems to result in more people haveing their needs and wants met over all and better organization to teh entire system and more products and uses and all that, because of the 'Invisible Hand'.

Eww, that was like a lecture or something.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by The Vagabond
This is intended to create similiar ambitions in the aristocracy of neighboring nations bringing about a capitalist domino effect.

This domino effect is proably less intentional (setting aside any concerns as to the validity of the scenario) and more the result of what Adam Smith called 'The Invisible Hand' of the free market. The free market results in organization of the system as a sort of secondary effect of people investing capital to get profit returned to them.

I agree that the domino effect brings itself into being and that the invisible hand dictates economics. My point is that it is within our power to use our own hand to organize a more intricate and widely beneficial international economy, but that this is consciously avoided because a select few benefit more heavily through simple bi-lateral trade of cash for resources.

Capitalism isn't just selling and buying products or bring gold or money into a country, thats more properly 'mercantalism'. The british operated under that economic system wrt to their overseas colonies, as did the spanish, whereas the revolutionaries were calling for the 'unhindered' action of capitalism, the investment of capital.

Forgive me "unpolished" phrasing and specific knowledge. I think you'll find that in matters like this I have ideas which may or may not be valid, but that they can be hindered by my misunderstanding of the language which deals with those ideas.

Socialism operates, distinct from capitalism, with closed markets and with the government merely creating stuff, but not for a return on profits. So a 'capitalist' will look to the market to decide what product is needed and make the 'capital' expendatures to purchase the equipment to produce that product and then sell it in the market, with that ultimate sale and profit being the goal. A 'socialist' on the other hand, will not look to the market, even if one some how operated, and instead will decide what the people need and then gather the resources in anyway and produce that need in anyway and then distribute it to the people.

Here is exactly my point. International trade is capitalist in nature and looks for the quick buck- wherever the good market is. This works within a nation because citizens can follow the market. You can go to where the jobs or investment opportunities are and become a viable provider and consumer.
On the international scale you run into a problem. When providing for or buying from a nation directly is not sufficently lucrative that nation stagnates and the people therein can not always follow the market to other nations.
Some of these situations I believe could be rectified by centrally planned multilateral transactions. It could be beneficial for rich nations to organize such markets among less wealthy nations in situations where doing so will raise the supply of resources which are in undesireably short supply, or where the cost of organizing such a system would be less than the profit offered by new demand from these new economies.
I believe that a mingling of socialism and capitalism, perhaps best termed "centrally planned capitalism" can be highly effective for expanding economies as well as ensuring that citizens of the international community are appropriately provided for.

So the 'context' of each is different along with the method. The capitalist is thinking about markets and sale, the socialist doesn't care about the market, doesn't recognize it as meaningful, and thinks about what populations of people need and distribution.

Agreed, and inbetween lies a middleground where creativity can satisfy issues that would be the primary concern of socialists (providing for the people) while also generating new market opportunities. It's not a panacea, but it is a useful idea which could at least in part better our world and advance non-economic agendas, especially the desire for peace and stability.

So its kind of a fuzzy thing, and, since the international system is market oriented, socialist countries probably tend to act at that level as 'market oriented'.

Agreed, chalk it up to a poor labeling of systems. What I'm looking for is the prospect to provide for the people through a coordinated economy while respecting local markets as the driving force of economics. I am essentially proposing the inverse of the current sytem (which has wrecked so many weak nations for the benefit of only a few strong ones, which seem to be perenially endangered by their own success). Consider it a sytem of observing and reacting to the invisible hand in order to both provide and profit.

Thats why socialism is an internationalist movement that has to wipe out capitalist markets and replace the global 'market' with a socialist system. Because the government in venezuala isn't going to give cuba oil, or even expect that cuba will give it some resource later. Under socialism there has to be 'one government' to simply distribute the resources and any 'products'.

This is socialism's fatal flaw. It disregards the market instead of interacting with it. Natural forces without control are inefficient (capitalism) Control without understanding of natural forces is utterly useless. Control operating in congruence with an understanding of natural forces will enhance the benefits of natural forces. The struggle to destroy world markets and ineffect redistribute wealth on a global scale is precisely what lead to the cold war and the decline of communist nations. They should have respected the market and worked within it in a way suitable to socialist values.
Socialism is an incomplete work. People took a new idea and ran with it too quickly. Democracy is over a thousand years old and we're still working the bugs out as new situations arise every now and then. What we need is new great thinkers to refine the theory.

Forgive me for snipping the following quote to keep things short and readable. If I miss anything valuable in your quote please point it out so that I can correct myself.

Also, in your scenario, when the countries exchange, if they exchange.... not according to some rate based on an items 'value' (ie diamond has more 'value' than coal, or whatever), then they are behaving in something like a socialist manner... if they try to make it like a market transaction, then its different.

Agreed and again there we go with my less than prefect ability to give sound technical descriptions of things I am not intricately familiar with.
I envision equitable "market-like" transactions in which nations exchange roughly equal values. The idea is essentially to engage in several seemingly unncessary "zero-sum" transactions which allow nations to lend eachother their respective strenghts and shore up eachother's weaknesses. This is made possible by the profit motive of a small number of primary transactions whereby the resources offered by the region in question go out to another nation in exchange for the capital which drives these "zero-sum" trades which benefit the regional parties engaging in the resource cartel for the outside nation. (By Zero-sum I mean that neither side is profiting- trades are ideally equal in value except when a "sacrifice" trade is necessary to faciliate another profitable venture which makes up for that. For example if nation A traded concrete to nation B at a loss in order for nation B to build a port which would serve to open up outside trade opportunities for nation A, that would be an exception to the rule of wanting trades to be completely market-value based.)

So, of course, in this way of thinking, market thinking is, well, heck its exploitative and 'evil' or something I guess, and the 'socialist system' is 'nice' because everyone is on the same team practically.

Problem is that capitalism and the market based economy seems to result in more people haveing their needs and wants met over all and better organization to teh entire system and more products and uses and all that, because of the 'Invisible Hand'.

I believe that's where the system I'm describing comes into play. I believe that operating to socialist ends by capitalist means might hypothetically be efficient enough to blur the lines between the two systems and make them both "nicer".

Eww, that was like a lecture or something.

Yeah I know what you mean. The down side of having ideas and wanting to discuss them is that if you're not careful you come across as a pretentious psuedo-intellectual snob. I think it's OK as long as you do it with people who have a genuine interest in the ideas and aren't just comparing IQs for ego's sake.
I get caught in stuff like this all the time though. Once in the process of blasting pretentious intellectuals I quoted Thoreau without even thinking twice about it because I actually read Walden just because it sounded like fun at the time. That was a little embarassing, and i didn't actually even do anything wrong.

Originally posted by The VagabondWhen providing for or buying from a nation directly is not sufficently lucrative that nation stagnates and the people therein can not always follow the market to other nations.

Hmm, interesting point. Inside a nation the 'invisible hand' is free to operate, between nations its actions can be restricted, if that nation is not a free one anyway. If people can freely move between countries, as within a country, then its a bit of a problem.

Of course, under capitalism, its understood and 'accepted' that there will be people who are not doing too well, whereas in socialism thats 'unacceptable' and every one has to do alright first, then anything else can follow. Problem is, capitalism, despite being 'cruel' in that sense, still results in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, while socialism just doesn't seem to work out at all.

believe that a mingling of socialism and capitalism, perhaps best termed "centrally planned capitalism" can be highly effective for expanding economies as well as ensuring that citizens of the international community are appropriately provided for

Indeed, the 'Third Way' of blair and others, or even the simple 'Mixed Economy' of the US. Raw and complete laissez faire, aka 'hands off' policies wrt the market are almost never used and don't seem to be strictly necessary. Something very much like what you say does happen. Look at third world debt releif. There's no reason to releive valid debt. And yet, third world debt relief is a popular movement and it might actually see some results soon.

middleground where creativity can satisfy issues that would be the primary concern of socialists (providing for the people) while also generating new market opportunities

Thats the thing tho, capitalism and the competition of the market is supposed to result in greater creativity, whereas central planning has a serious potential for polticizing and stagnation. Even non-centrally planned and still non 'market' 'economies' have stagnation built into them. 'Ancient' economies, which aren't market economies or socialist/communist ones, don't seek to maximize efficiency or work at large scales or promote inovation. They do the opposite. Some times they'll even actively work to maximize the labour that is put into a task, which is somewhat absurd.

What I'm looking for is the prospect to provide for the people through a coordinated economy while respecting local markets as the driving force of economics

I seriously doubt that a globalist centrally planned economy can work out tho, especially with various market economies operating beneath them, becuase in a sense they'd be at odds. I'm certainly not trained in even rudimentary economics, but I'd suspec that markets will re-inforce the existence of nations (with their own national interests and identities) and the central economy requiring a reduction of nationalist identities and interests. Of course, I'd think that there must be 'balances' too.

They should have respected the market and worked within it in a way suitable to socialist values.

Well, strictly speaking, market thinking and socialist values are anti-thetical to one another. Fortunately the world and reality isn't so strict tho.

This is made possible by the profit motive of a small number of primary transactions

Effectively its highlighting the 'needed/humanitarian' products and selling them at non-market rates, perhaps by having the industries nationalized, thus allowing the state to regulate things so that necessary products are received, even if they'd be unprofitable to an indivual capitalist on the free market. Can't allow the market to act with free reign, can't plan the entire thing central, so you use a regulated market to sort of 'force' profits in some things. This allows the inovations of capitalism and its efficiency in some areas to work for 'humanitarian' benefits. Seems reasonable enough.

I believe that operating to socialist ends by capitalist means might hypothetically

I think you might be interested in that 'third wayism' that i referenced above. I am not particularly familiar with it tho. I think its also sometimes called 'Communitarianism'(or also here) as a sort of play on 'communist, but not'. It seems to be based in the british ecomic traditions, where 'liberalism' and 'conservatism' mean practically the opposit to what they mean in the US, apparently. Its also not just an economic system too. Also here is an intersting article I just googled up that seems to talk about it becoming more prevalent in the US. Actually it looks like its a pre-sept 11th article, so that in itself is intersting.

Originally posted by Nygdan

middleground where creativity can satisfy issues that would be the primary concern of socialists (providing for the people) while also generating new market opportunities

Thats the thing tho, capitalism and the competition of the market is supposed to result in greater creativity, whereas central planning has a serious potential for polticizing and stagnation.

The difference is that in this case there has been no creativity because no lucrative market exists in some region. That makes it necessary for a government entity to act primarily out of a socialist impulse to provide for those people. That spark will open up opportunites for creative investors to expand into a newly opened market.

Even non-centrally planned and still non 'market' 'economies' have stagnation built into them. 'Ancient' economies, which aren't market economies or socialist/communist ones, don't seek to maximize efficiency or work at large scales or promote inovation.

Again, I'm basically talking about a means to an end. A system which is no good in and of itself can be used to build avenues through which the better system can operate. The better system won't come operate until conditions in a country improve, so we need to turn to the inferior system to get the ball rolling.
Once a diesel engine is running it is powerful and hard to stop, but I can pump all the diesel fuel into it that I want and it wont start unless a weaker force (glow plugs) act as a catalyst.

What I'm looking for is the prospect to provide for the people through a coordinated economy while respecting local markets as the driving force of economics

I seriously doubt that a globalist centrally planned economy can work out tho, especially with various market economies operating beneath them, becuase in a sense they'd be at odds.

I think the whole point would be to keep them from being at odds by keeping the globablist planning out of the way of market force. You want to assisst the invisible hand without getting in its way.
Think of the planning as a secondary system which rather than being an all-powerful institution, simply targets stagnated/non-existant markets for improvement and then steps aside and lets the market work (with slight restrictions by international law of course- we don't want a nation selling its food supply while people starve just because the government wants to buy new tanks.).
I think we can expand the reach of market economics if we just pushed them back for a second while we cleared obstructions out of its way.

They should have respected the market and worked within it in a way suitable to socialist values.

Well, strictly speaking, market thinking and socialist values are anti-thetical to one another. Fortunately the world and reality isn't so strict tho.

Indeed the world is not strictly so, and the nice thing about theories is that they can be shaped and adapted.
Socialists and capitalists start with the same goal: to open up access to goods and services.
Most goods and services can be produced, distributed, and profited from. There is a little bit extra however that can be accomplished at little or no loss, but with no profit. If the people want this extra, they (through government organized efforts) have to produce it for themselves out of consumption motive rather than profit motive.

This is made possible by the profit motive of a small number of primary transactions

Can't allow the market to act with free reign, can't plan the entire thing central, so you use a regulated market to sort of 'force' profits in some things. This allows the inovations of capitalism and its efficiency in some areas to work for 'humanitarian' benefits. Seems reasonable enough.

That's about as technical as I ever care to get in economics, but yep, sounds right. You regulate certain things and make them happen, most likely through nationalizing unprofitable industries, because they are a means to a profitable end. Engaging in inefficient economics in one industry can actually constitute an investment in another industry.
For example, I can produce thingies for 2 dollars and pay my workers 1 dollar with which they can buy food, or I can buy thingies abroad for 1.25 and still have to somehow provide my people with a dollar each for food. By nationalizing the thingie industry and taking a loss of 75 cents per unit on thingies, I can save myself a dollar per worker on welfare, for an efficiency increase of 25 cents.

I think you might be interested in that 'third wayism' that i referenced above. I am not particularly familiar with it tho.

Thanks for the resources. I'll give them a look when I've got a little more time. As always its been great to have you in the discussion. Who would have thought I'd get through this thread without being called a pinko?

Oh, sorry,
PINKO COMMUNIST BASTAAARD!!!


now all is right in the world.

I can't remember... what's my line now?
Oh yeah...
BLEEP you, you BLEEP BLEEP of an American fascist BLEEP.
HAHAHAHAHAHA

(thanks to Siberian Tiger for cluing me in on my line there).

The eternal battle between good and evil continues.