Interesting article on SA economics

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...02/188387.html

I can’t find a right wing extremist smiley.

Neither myself or this isssue fits in that box. The information on Tiger Wheels can be found in the Economist and the New York Times - not exactly bastions of right wing extremism.

Coming up with a pejorative label is not the same as thinking. ;-)

favor:
The analysis and conclusions in the article are that of Thomas Sowell--a well known extremely conservative economist/writer.

<i>The information on Tiger Wheels can be found in the Economist and the New York Times - not exactly bastions of right wing extremism.</i>

Half right, anyway.

That Thomas Sowell is conservative doesn't make him wrong.

Is your point here (Nyamera, bat, and Gardyloo) that high minimum wages are good for South Africa? Or is it that sufficient intellectual effort is shown by pointing out how much you dislike the messenger?

favor:
I was trying to point out that I did not think that nyamera's comment was directed at you but at the author.

I disagree with Sowell's views pretty much across the board--whether it be gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, or judicial interpetation of the U.S. constitution-so, yes, I disagree with his economic analysis about minimum wage laws as well. I do not claim to have any knowledge about the specific economic situation in SA but my understanding of his analysis of the economic situation in the U.S. would lead me to believe that he is wrong about SA.

That Thomas Sowell is conservative means that he wants the world to stay unfair, and low minimum wages are one of many good tools for keeping it that way

bat - Anything about what was actually said in the article? I did not assume Nyamera was refering to me. Both my responses leave the matter open as to who was supposed to be gaffed.

Clearly my second surmise about your point was correct.

Your understanding of global economics is clearly very limited. What rubbish, &quot;wants the world to stay unfair&quot;.

Economics is not &quot;fair&quot; or &quot;unfair&quot;. It does not make economic sense to keep the jobs in South Africa. The work is simply cheaper done in Poland - less mistakes and a more literate worker for the same wage. In a non-economic sense you could say this is &quot;unfair&quot; to the South African worker. Yet, if you keep the jobs in South Africa you could in another non-economic sense say this is &quot;unfair&quot; to the workers in Poland.

If the wage in South Africa was in line with the productivity (i.e. lower wage than in Poland) the jobs might have stayed there. South African labor representatives have played &quot;chicken&quot; with the laws of economics and (like betting against gravity) have lost.

bat - The second half of my last post refers to Nyamera - not you. My apologies, I hit post too quickly.

”Economics” is not a law of nature, but rules made up by people with specific interests. The best interest of both SA and Polish workers - and others – is international solidarity and cooperation - and not competing to be the cheapest and most efficient workers while others take all the money.

Nyamera - Yeah, all those instantiations of &quot;solidarity and cooperation&quot; the Marxists and Communists have come up with really worked out well, right?

&quot;Others take all the money&quot; come on - remove your tinfoil hat. There is no secret cabal controlling the world economic pie and deciding how much to dole out.

The world economy is shaped by billions of people making billions of decisions everyday at the individual level about what they will or won't spend their money on. You think central planning can reproduce that exact fit and freedom?

Central planning = ruling elite with all the money, everybody else with nothing and pollution levels many times worse than those of capitalist economies.

napamatt - Exactly. The worst pollution and treatment of workers I've seen is in Communist China.

Have I said anything about “central planning”? I’m talking about workers taking things in their own hands, for example not letting profitable companies move to where they can exploit people even more. There are some things happening in South America that I have to study more closely. And, of course there’s no “secret cabal”; there are lists in magazines over who is taking the money. BTW, Communist China has low minimum wages and I thought it was very popular with “economists”.

Nyamera - Of course you're talking about Central Planning, you mentioned it again when you invoked this entity who won't let companies move where they want to. That's what you're advocating, even if you don't use those exact words.

China has no minimum wage. They are not &quot;popular&quot; or &quot;unpopular&quot; with economists. At this point in their history, they simply are kicking the world's butt in the global supply of many types of labor.

Your comment about whose &quot;taking&quot; the money belies your lack of understanding of money. There is no set amount of money in the world. Wealth is created and vaporized all the time - my Google stock as an example

As for looking into South America, it's economy is shaped by illegal drugs to a great extent. I'm in favor of legalizing all drugs. This illegal nature, messes up economic order and corrupts governments to a horrific degree. That's how &quot;right-wing&quot; I am

Favor,
“The entity” is the workers themselves.

The people on the lists who “take the money” have almost unlimited access to real resources – some of them very limited, others maybe not - that are necessary for living and people on SA minimum wage have almost no access at all – and that’s unfair.

And, I wasn’t thinking about drugs, but coca growers should be left in peace.

Nyamera - Your wealth-envy has blotted out the sun. You think an unequal distribution of resources is reason to impose some monolithic worker's union on the world. Some monolith that will decide what's &quot;fair&quot; and &quot;right&quot; and force behavior to match its view. Who will run it? Where will its voice come from? Who will be most equal among equals?

I think history has its money on billions of individuals making individual decisions for themselves. This can only happen if the rule of law holds. One of Africa's biggest problems is the weakness of the rule of law and the preponderance of the rule of rulers. Corruption and thieving by those in power is what's done the most damage to Africa - not Capitalism.

Favor,
The unfairness of unequal distribution of resources is blotting out the sun, and one thing people can do to stop being slaves under those who have the money and power – including African rulers - is to stand up as individuals and come together in, for example, workers’ unions to fight the injustices. Corruption and thieving is a symptom of the problem and nothing exclusive to Africa.