tampaknya angin globalisasi semakin gencar menerpa daerah Asia. apakah indonesia sudah siap menghadapi kompetisi bebas atau masih cengeng meminta lindungan tarif dan subsidi?

jangan lupakan teriakan buruh yang menolak perdagangan bebas. Kita ngga bisa menutup mata kalo banyak buruh yang menolak. Jangan cuman memikirkan kepentingan kaum industrialis aja :)

lha wong di negara asia lain yg ekonominya kuat seperti korsel dan jepang, masih didemo terus-terusan kok. masalahnya bukan hanya sekedar pro atau kontra, tapi lebih kepada kesiapan strategis.....

Originally posted by anak_chambers
jangan lupakan teriakan buruh yang menolak perdagangan bebas. Kita ngga bisa menutup mata kalo banyak buruh yang menolak. Jangan cuman memikirkan kepentingan kaum industrialis aja :)

harus sama2 lah.. kl cuma mementingkan teriakan buruh aja, industri2 pada bangkrut, buruh2 mau kerja dimana? :D

Kok bisa industri bangkrut?
Emang perkembangan industri itu berbanding terbalik dengan kesejahteraan buruh? :o :hehe

Originally posted by Bo Tat
Kok bisa industri bangkrut?
Emang perkembangan industri itu berbanding terbalik dengan kesejahteraan buruh? :o :hehe

kenapa gak? :o

Originally posted by anak_chambers
jangan lupakan teriakan buruh yang menolak perdagangan bebas. Kita ngga bisa menutup mata kalo banyak buruh yang menolak. Jangan cuman memikirkan kepentingan kaum industrialis aja :)

nah ini kan mental cengeng. selamanya aja minta dilindungi dan nggak perlu berkompetisi. justru globalisasi itu demi kepentingan rakyat karena mereka bisa punya akses ke barang2 yang lebih murah, berkualitas tinggi dan bervariasi banyak.

kalau diperhatikan yang selama ini anti globalisasi adalah kaum2 industrialis yang ketakutan dengan barang2 asing yang lebih berkompetitif. contohmya petani2 di negara2 kaya seperti jepang, korsel, amerika dan eropa. mereka nggak mau membuka pasar negara mereka ke barang2 impor dan malahan menuntut disubsidi oleh pemerintah. akhirnya yang rugi adalah rakyat senegaranya dan petani2 dari negara miskin yang nggak bisa mengekspor hasil produksi mereka.

buruh nggak perlu takut tapi malah senang. lihat saja di cina, sejak mereka merangkul globalisasi buruh2 mereka malah mampu meningkatkan produktivitas mereka sehingga mendominasi industri2 ringan dunia seperti tekstil, elektronik, perabotan, dll.

jadi sudah ketahuan kalau selama ini yang anti-globalisasi adalah orang2 yang semala ini malas nggak mau tingkatkan produktivitas tapi malah minta dilindungi subsidi dan tarif agar bisa mengeksploitasi pasar lokal. yang sengsara adalah rakyat karena nggak punya pilihan harus membeli dan memakai barang2 dan jasa yang mahal, jelek, dan monoton.

sudah terbukti kalau negara2 yang merangkul globalisasi ternyata menjadi kaya seperti amerika, eropa, jepang, korsel, taiwan, singapura, HK, dan cina 1979-sekarang. sedangkan negara2 yang menutup diri seperti korut, uni soviet, cina pra 1979, kuba, amerika latin, dan afrika malah meleleh.

pertemuan kemaren lebih sering ditolaknya...

jd nggak jelas apa maunya..............

Originally posted by Nelson
buruh nggak perlu takut tapi malah senang. lihat saja di cina, sejak mereka merangkul globalisasi buruh2 mereka malah mampu meningkatkan produktivitas mereka sehingga mendominasi industri2 ringan dunia seperti tekstil, elektronik, perabotan, dll.




Karena buruh di China cuman digaji more or less $2/day (based on yg gwe liat di discovery tentang pabrik mitra lokalnya Nokia di China). besides, di China emang buruh bisa demonstrasi? Salah2 malah ditangkepin polisi laghi. http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/labor/1230china.htm Seandainya 20 taun laghi upah dan perlindungan buruh di China udah bagus sementara di saat bersamaan negara2 Afrika punya infrastruktur bagus dan buruh2-nya bersedia dibayar $1/day, gwe berani taruhan kalo industri2 itu bakal pindah ke Afrika :haha Pada saat itu, banyak orang bakal ngomong Afrika sebagai calon superpower dunia, Afrika sebagai ekonomi terbesar dunia, bla bla bla. Semua itu ngga lepas dari sekedar menindas kepentingan buruh koq.

Besides, Nelson, tolong donk tunjukin kalo globalisasi membawa efek baik buat buruh2 di US dan Eropa. Sebab, setau gwe, justru malah industri manufacturing di negara2 maju macam US atau Eropa banyak yang ditutup. Ambil contoh di US. Buruh2 yg semula kerja di sektor industri banyak yg pindah ke service job. Sure, banyak diantara mereka yg dapet kerja. Tapi apa pendapatan mereka sama seperti sebelumnya mengingat service job dibayar lebih rendah drpd manufacturing job. Jangan lupa juga kalo cost of healthcare makin naek, education makin mahal. (Thanks 2 George Bush). Yang diuntungkan dari globalisasi cuman org2 kaya doank.
Ini gwe ada quote: " between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the income of the top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent. (Those numbers exclude capital gains, so they're not an artifact of the stock-market bubble.) The distribution of income in the United States has gone right back to Gilded Age levels of inequality." Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040105/krugman

" Summary of Section I Results: Manufacturing productivity growth from 1990 to 2004
should have taken away 7.5 million of the 17.7 million manufacturing jobs that existed in
the US in 1990, while GDP growth should have added back (at the new productivity
levels of 2004) 5.7 million manufacturing jobs—for a net loss of 1.8 million. In fact, the
US economy lost 3.3 million manufacturing jobs during that period, implying that
structural and competitive factors shifted 1.5 million of the GDP-growth-implied jobs
from the manufacturing sector to other sectors of the US economy. I applied this same
Job Shift Analysis” to the sub-periods 1990-1995, 1995-2000, and 2000-2004 and
found striking differences between those intervals in terms of manufacturing employment
changes (and job quality changes—Section II). For one thing, more than 80% of the
manufacturing job losses by the US economy since 1990 occurred after 2000. I find that
100% of the (3.0 million) manufacturing jobs lost since 2000 were lost to manufacturing
productivity growth and that 100% of the (1.8 million) jobs that should have been added
back by GDP growth in the US after 2000 were shifted to other sectors of the US
economy than manufacturing."
source: http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=effect+of+globalization+on+US+manufacturin g+jobs&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u=business.clemson.edu/cit/Documents/Mfg%2520Employment%2520Working%2520Paper%2520draft %25208%25202005.pdf&w=effect+globalization+us+manufacturing+jobs&d=U2imAA0DL5HH&icp=1&.intl=us

Let's do some fact check :D

Originally posted by anak_chambers
Buruh2 yg semula kerja di sektor industri banyak yg pindah ke service job. Sure, banyak diantara mereka yg dapet kerja. Tapi apa pendapatan mereka sama seperti sebelumnya mengingat service job dibayar lebih rendah drpd manufacturing job.

(source: factcheck.org)
We respectfully disagree: neither the statistics cited by Kerry nor the numbers cited by USA Today really prove the case, for the simple reason that broad industry averages tell nothing about the pay levels of the specific jobs that have been gained or lost within those industries. The USA Today figures tell us there's been a gain in the relatively low-paid restaurant industry -- but can't tell us how many of those new jobs are dishwashers and burger flippers and how many are managers, chefs or wine stewards. Nor can it tell how many jobs lost in the relatively high-paid manufacturing industry are engineers, foremen, managers or other professionals, and how many are lower-paid assembly-line workers or janitors.

Besides, if the economy is adding mostly bad jobs, why are average earnings rising?


Take a look: Since Bush took office in January 2001, average weekly earnings of private-sector production workers have gone up nearly 8 percent -- and that's despite the eight-month economic recession that began in March 2001 and the long job slump that continued until August 2003.
Those "production workers" are roughly the lowest-paid 80% of those on private payrolls, including working-level supervisors. They don't include managers or government workers, who tend to make more.

Even after discounting those rising earnings to account for inflation, the average production worker's buying power -- before any tax cuts are figured in -- still gained just over 1%.

To be sure, as Bush critics point out, in the past few months inflation has slightly outstripped the rise in earnings. Since August, 2003 (the month the economy stopped losing jobs) weekly earnings have gained 1.6%. But after adjusting for inflation earnings are down -- by less than two-tenths of one percent. Critics cite this dip in inflation-adjusted earnings as evidence that mostly poor-quality jobs have been added since the upturn began.

We disagree here as well. The very recent decline in inflation-adjusted earnings has more to do with rising oil prices than with any change in job quality. The Consumer Price Index has risen 2.3% since August, but with energy prices taken out it has risen only 1.6%. So, if energy prices hadn't spiked, inflation-adjusted average weekly earnings wouldn't have declined. In any event, the critics are mostly silent about the overall rise in inflation-adjusted earnings since Bush took office.

Originally posted by anak_chambers

Ini gwe ada quote: " between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the income of the top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent. (Those numbers exclude capital gains, so they're not an artifact of the stock-market bubble.) The distribution of income in the United States has gone right back to Gilded Age levels of inequality." Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040105/krugman

ini elu nge-quote si michael krugman the commited left propagandist ya? :haha

here's a more balanced view :p

Which of these conflicting statistical views of job quality is closer to the truth? Economists don't agree on this.

David Wyss, chief economist for Standard & Poor's, says it's just not true that bad jobs are growing faster than good jobs. "They're not," Wyss tells FactCheck.org. "Good jobs are growing faster than bad , although there is some evidence that both bad and good jobs are growing faster than middle jobs."

And Randy Ilg, a staff economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics who has studied the question of job quality for nearly a decade, says the same thing. "Over the last couple of years, if you look at it from a perspective of occupations within industries, clearly there has been more growth in occupation categories that pay above the median. "

But Mark Zandi, chief economist of Economy.com, who supplied USA Today's industry-by-industry figures, focuses on the past few months and says, "We're creating a lot more jobs but they are still largely lower-paying jobs . . . It means the jobs we are creating pack less of a punch for the economy."

The best we can say is that no survey we know of even attempts to compare the specific jobs lost with the specific jobs added throughout the whole economy. Statistics solid enough to settle the question definitively just don't exist. But -- given the increase in average weekly earnings we mentioned -- we'll venture a guess that the trend in job quality has been up over the last year, or even three years, at least for the rank-and-file workers who make up 80% of the private-sector workforce.

Katanya ga pernah kategoriin/nyebut orang sebagai ini atau itu :D

Buruh2 yg semula kerja di sektor industri banyak yg pindah ke service job.


jaman udah berubah, dulu era agraris, kemudian era industri, kemudian era industri modren, skrg era informasi, jadi wajar

manufacturing pasti semakin lama semakin dikit, udah digantikan oleh robot, kok gak ada yg menentang robot ya, padahal robot berdampak menimbulkan pengangguran besar2an, apalagi puluhan tahun mendatang yg diprediksikan robot bisa mengambil alih hampir semua bidang pekerjaan. lebih hebat dari globalisasi :haha

pada dasarnya org yg menentang globalisasi ialah org yg takut menghadapi perubahan....globalisasi aja belum di mulai di indo, kok udah takut duluan

Perubahan itu mutlak

yang mutlak ialah perubahan

Originally posted by anak_chambers
Katanya ga pernah kategoriin/nyebut orang sebagai ini atau itu :D

loh michael krugman emang a pronounced leftist koq :haha
kayaknya org2 dah pada tau deh :p dia baru2 ini dicopot dan column-nya di LA Times dibatalin juga karena view-nya yg terlalu radical left (jadinya ga salah dong gw bilang dia committed, malah jauh lbh halus daripada bilang extremist :D ). Dan propagandist.. itu deskripsi yg tepat.. masak seorang jurnalist yg harusnya netral malah terang2an take side dan since he is a journalist dan punya media/forum utk menulis idea2 left-nya utk dibaca org banyak, menjadi sumber informasi dan mempengaruhi pendapat orang banyak, apa dong namanya kl bukan propagandist?? :haha

yg ga pernah gw lakuin sbg kategoriin/nyebut seseorang sbg ini atw itu adalah.. misalnya ada org nyembuhin org sakit, gw ga akan langsung manggil orang itu dokter. Tp kalo jelas2 gw ke rumah sakit, org itu pake baju putih, di assist ama suster, ada ruang prakteknya.. nulis resep dan akhirnya gw sembuh, masa gw ga boleh manggil dia dokter?? :haha

Originally posted by anak_chambers
Karena buruh di China cuman digaji more or less $2/day (based on yg gwe liat di discovery tentang pabrik mitra lokalnya Nokia di China). besides, di China emang buruh bisa demonstrasi? Salah2 malah ditangkepin polisi laghi. http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/labor/1230china.htm Seandainya 20 taun laghi upah dan perlindungan buruh di China udah bagus sementara di saat bersamaan negara2 Afrika punya infrastruktur bagus dan buruh2-nya bersedia dibayar $1/day, gwe berani taruhan kalo industri2 itu bakal pindah ke Afrika :haha Pada saat itu, banyak orang bakal ngomong Afrika sebagai calon superpower dunia, Afrika sebagai ekonomi terbesar dunia, bla bla bla. Semua itu ngga lepas dari sekedar menindas kepentingan buruh koq.

ini sih lagu lama yang nggak pernah terbukti. lupa ya dulu tahun 1960an orang bilang perusahaan asing mengeksloitasi buruh murah dijepang. kok sekarang jepang ekonomi terbesar kedua didunia? lupa ya tahun 1970an orang bilang perusahaan asing mengeksploitasi buruh murah HK, korsel, taiwan dan singapura? kok sekarang mereka sudah bukan negara berkembang lagi, malah jadi negara maju? lupa ya tahun 1980an orang bilang perusahaan asing mengeksloitasi buruh murah malaysia, thailand dan indonesia? kok sekarang per kapita income thailand dan malaysia malah lebih besar daripada indonesia yang nggak benar2 merangkul globalisasi. nggak tau ya kalau sekarang per capita income RRC lebih besar daripada indonesia? begitulah kalau menolak globalisasi jadi semakin ketinggalan dan cuma bisa komplain minta dilindungi tarif dan subsidi.



Besides, Nelson, tolong donk tunjukin kalo globalisasi membawa efek baik buat buruh2 di US dan Eropa. Sebab, setau gwe, justru malah industri manufacturing di negara2 maju macam US atau Eropa banyak yang ditutup. Ambil contoh di US. Buruh2 yg semula kerja di sektor industri banyak yg pindah ke service job. Sure, banyak diantara mereka yg dapet kerja. Tapi apa pendapatan mereka sama seperti sebelumnya mengingat service job dibayar lebih rendah drpd manufacturing job. Jangan lupa juga kalo cost of healthcare makin naek, education makin mahal. (Thanks 2 George Bush). Yang diuntungkan dari globalisasi cuman org2 kaya doank.
Ini gwe ada quote: " between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent. Meanwhile, the income of the top 1 percent rose by 148 percent, the income of the top 0.1 percent rose by 343 percent and the income of the top 0.01 percent rose 599 percent. (Those numbers exclude capital gains, so they're not an artifact of the stock-market bubble.) The distribution of income in the United States has gone right back to Gilded Age levels of inequality." Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040105/krugman

" Summary of Section I Results: Manufacturing productivity growth from 1990 to 2004
should have taken away 7.5 million of the 17.7 million manufacturing jobs that existed in
the US in 1990, while GDP growth should have added back (at the new productivity
levels of 2004) 5.7 million manufacturing jobs—for a net loss of 1.8 million. In fact, the
US economy lost 3.3 million manufacturing jobs during that period, implying that
structural and competitive factors shifted 1.5 million of the GDP-growth-implied jobs
from the manufacturing sector to other sectors of the US economy. I applied this same
Job Shift Analysis” to the sub-periods 1990-1995, 1995-2000, and 2000-2004 and
found striking differences between those intervals in terms of manufacturing employment
changes (and job quality changes—Section II). For one thing, more than 80% of the
manufacturing job losses by the US economy since 1990 occurred after 2000. I find that
100% of the (3.0 million) manufacturing jobs lost since 2000 were lost to manufacturing
productivity growth and that 100% of the (1.8 million) jobs that should have been added
back by GDP growth in the US after 2000 were shifted to other sectors of the US
economy than manufacturing."
source: http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=effect+of+globalization+on+US+manufacturin g+jobs&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u=business.clemson.edu/cit/Documents/Mfg%2520Employment%2520Working%2520Paper%2520draft %25208%25202005.pdf&w=effect+globalization+us+manufacturing+jobs&d=U2imAA0DL5HH&icp=1&.intl=us



globalisasi membawa efek bagus untuk seluruh rakyat karena mereka bisa membeli barang dan jasa dengan harga yang paling murah, kualitas paling bagus dan variasi banyak. tanpa globalisasi pilihan mereka menjadi terbatas. buat apa dukung buruh yang nggak mau berkompetisi dengan buruh asing sehingga merugikan sejawat rakyatnya?

misalnya tekstil. sekarang amerika masih menggunakan kouta impor teksil dan garmen dari cina demi memproteksi 2 juta buruh industri tekstilnya. akhirnya siapa yang rugi? buruh di cina yang seharusnya mendapat order dari amerika jadi nggak punya pekerjaan. rakyat amerika terpaksa membeli baju buatan lokal yang mahal dan harus membayar pajak untuk mengsubsidi 2 juta orang itu. coba kalau perdagangan dibebaskan. buruh cina mendapat pekerjaan dan malah bisa membeli barang2 dari amerika, rakyat amerika bisa membeli baju dengan lebih murah dan bisa membeli barang2 dan jasa yang lainnya dengan uang sisa itu dan buruh amerika menjadi tertantang untuk lebih produktif dan kompetitif. yang rugi hanyalah orang malas saja.

Liat ajalah ntar ghimana :haha Kalo emang menguntungkan, masak banyak buruh yang menolak seh? Laghian yg menolak selalu buruh khan? Ga pernah pengusaha demonstrasi menolak ghitu ? :p Well, seandainya yg demonstrasi pengusaha seh gwe bakal ga peduli dengan free trade ini.

Ada atau nggaknya globalisasi belom tentu membawa efek baik ke buruh. Loe juga lupa ya dulu buruh2 di amerika selatan juga dieksploitasi, tapi Amerika Selatan ngga pernah kaya sampe sekarang. Justru puncak kekayaan Amerika Selatan waktu era nasionalisasi, seperti Argentina di jaman Peron taun 45-50 an.

Originally posted by Nelson
misalnya tekstil. sekarang amerika masih menggunakan kouta impor teksil dan garmen dari cina demi memproteksi 2 juta buruh industri tekstilnya. akhirnya siapa yang rugi? buruh di cina yang seharusnya mendapat order dari amerika jadi nggak punya pekerjaan. rakyat amerika terpaksa membeli baju buatan lokal yang mahal dan harus membayar pajak untuk mengsubsidi 2 juta orang itu. coba kalau perdagangan dibebaskan. buruh cina mendapat pekerjaan dan malah bisa membeli barang2 dari amerika, rakyat amerika bisa membeli baju dengan lebih murah dan bisa membeli barang2 dan jasa yang lainnya dengan uang sisa itu dan buruh amerika menjadi tertantang untuk lebih produktif dan kompetitif. yang rugi hanyalah orang malas saja.



Sekedar catatan, buruh tekstil di Lousiana dan Alabama juga udah banyak yang kehilangan kerjaan tuh. Btw siapa bilang baju2 disini buatan lokal? Yg top of the range doank kali. Majority seh diimport dari negara2 berkembang.

Laghian koq cuma mikirin buruh di China? Emang buruh di dunia cuman ada di China? Ghimana dengan buruh2 di US? buruh2 Eropa? Indonesia? Thailand? Bangladesh? Latin Amerika? Ngga dipikirin tuh mereka yg bakal keilangan kerjaan karena serbuan barang2 import yg dibikin buruh sweatshop? jangan cuman nanya soal produktivitas. Ghimana mereka mau jadi produktif kalo pabriknya aja pindah ke China demi ngejar buruh murah? :p

dari CNN

Police clash with anti-WTO protesters

Saturday, December 17, 2005; Posted: 12:05 p.m. EST (17:05 GMT)


Hong Kong
International Trade
HONG KONG, China (CNN) -- Hundreds of protesters have clashed with police outside Hong Kong's convention center where World Trade Organization talks were taking place.

The violent demonstrations on Saturday, the worst seen in Hong Kong for decades, were later quelled by police who sealed off the area. But protesters were refusing to disperse.

Protest organizers say they may cancel anti-WTO demonstrations planned for Sunday because of the violence, The Associated Press reported.

Hong Kong Police Commissioner Dick Lee said about 40 people were injured in the demonstration, including five police, AP reported.

Earlier, police used tear gas, fire hoses and pepper spray in attempts to quell demonstrations as the protesters tried to edge closer to the building where negotiations are taking place.

Although demonstrations have largely been peaceful this week, there had been a few minor scuffles involving South Korean protesters.

The Hong Kong gathering has so far been spared the intense violence that greeted WTO delegates at previous conferences in Cancun and Seattle.

Many South Korean farmers are desperate to have their view against globalization and imports heard at the WTO.

They are opposed lower trade barriers for agricultural imports, which they claim would flood the South Korean market with cheap rice and force many of the country's farmers out of business. It is a view shared by many anti-globalization groups in other countries.

On Saturday, South Korean demonstrators in Hong Kong attempted to break through a barrier marking the designated protest zone, CNN Senior Asia Correspondent Mike Chinoy reported.

When they failed, the group of about 1,000 to 1,500 split into smaller groups of about a dozen and spread out over several square blocks in a cat-and-mouse game with police, then reassembled closer to the Hong Kong convention center, where the talks were being held, and began to push forward.

Police holding riot shields and wearing gas masks tried pepper spray and fire hoses to keep the demonstrators back, then fired tear-gas canisters -- a nearly unheard-of tactic in normally civilized Hong Kong.

A main thoroughfare through the densely populated district, which includes shops, nightclubs and residences, was shut down because of the alternating standoffs and clashes with police.

The city center has been virtually paralyzed, Chinoy said.

Although an estimated 6,000 to 7,000 protesters have shown up at the WTO talks, only a small fraction of them were participating in Saturday's violence, Chinoy reported from the scene.

About 2,000 police have been deployed into the area to stop any violent protests.

Saturday night, protesters were about 100 meters (328 feet) away from the entrance to the convention center -- the closest they have been able to get.

Hong Kong has drawn criticism for holding the talks at the center, a building that is easily accessible, and also for establishing a protest area with a clear line that can be breached.

Inside the building, only limited progress was being made. A draft agreement touching on a variety of issues was released Saturday, but no final agreement had been reached as of Saturday night. (WTO: No firm date for farm rules)

Among other issues, the draft attempts to reach a compromise on a timeline for eliminating agricultural export subsidies in richer countries -- an issue that has caused a rift between the United States and the European Union during the talks.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/12/17/wto.protests/index.html

Originally posted by aquarius
jaman udah berubah, dulu era agraris, kemudian era industri, kemudian era industri modren, skrg era informasi, jadi wajar



Perubahan itu mutlak

yang mutlak ialah perubahan

sekali-sekali setuju dengan aquarius ah...

emang benar kata mas ius, dari jamannya jalan sutera ampe sekarang ini tekhnologi Informatika, globalisasi telah ada sejak lama..
hanya saja berkat tekhnologi Informasi Globalisasi semakin kentara terasa perubahan-perubahannya...
saat ini manusia mengalami fase re-evolusi, jadi bener kita harus siap! tapi jangan jadi kejem, yg "males" dan yg "belom siap" jangan ditinggalkan, bisa2 itu jadi bumerang disuatu waktu nanti.
iya nggak iyus..?::muach::

HK police tear gas WTO protesters, detain 900
By John Ruwitch and Tan Ee Lyn
1 hour, 47 minutes ago


HONG KONG (Reuters) - Hong Kong police fought running street battles and fired volleys of tear gas on Saturday to repel hundreds of protesters trying to force their way into a building where world trade ministers were meeting.

Seventy-four people were injured in the fighting, including 12 police officers, the government said. Most of the injuries were minor and most of the injured were South Korean farmers and workers who say free trade is ruining them.

"The protesters got very close to the building, they were standing just across the street," a Reuters reporter said.

"They made several advances on police but pulled back a block or so after tear gas was used."

The clashes were the heaviest since the six-day World Trade Organization meeting began on Tuesday and the worst violence in Hong Kong since protests following China's bloody crackdown on democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square in Beijing in 1989.

But the fighting was less intense than that which marred the 1999 WTO conference in Seattle, which was the scene of huge and violent demonstrations against trade globalisation.

Nine hundred protesters were rounded up on one road in the area, Police Commissioner Dick Lee told a late-night news conference. Asked if they would be arrested, he said: "they will be handled according to the law."

"At the moment, the majority of areas in Wanchai are under control," Lee said. "Police will be taking all necessary action to restore order. We are fully confident the venue (trade meeting) can proceed as normal."

Some 1,000 protesters were involved in various street battles, facing off against twice as many police, Lee said.

Inside the convention center, trade ministers were locked in talks into the night, trying to find an elusive world trade deal which critics say will hurt the world's poor. Journalists, delegates and policemen crowded round TV monitors watching the brawls outside.

Police said they had not yet decided whether another large demonstration scheduled for Sunday would be allowed to proceed.

At one point on Saturday, protesters seized metal barricades and used them as battering rams against the police, but police lines held and reinforcements pushed the protesters back.

TEAR GAS

Police fired numerous volleys of tear gas in the area near the building, Reuters correspondents said, and television showed officers bringing up what appeared to be armoured vehicles.

European and Japanese delegates were taken to the harbourfront center by boat for late-night meetings as fighting raged.

Hong Kong, a former British colony, was returned to China in 1997. Lee said police had not asked the local Chinese army garrison for help and China's official Xinhua news agency ran only a short story saying order would be restored.

Protesters wielding bamboo sticks and iron poles began storming heavily fortified police lines in late afternoon, breaking through ranks of police who used pepper spray, batons and blasts of water from fire hoses to try to beat them back.

Some demonstrators put plastic wrap around their eyes while others donned goggles and surgical masks to protect themselves from the irritating spray.

Police sealed off large parts of the crowded Wanchai entertainment and office district and closed a nearby subway station to prevent protesters from moving around the area.

Early on Sunday morning, some seven hours after the fighting began, police moved in and started rounding up the last several hundred protesters who had been staging a sit-in in the area.

"We love Hong Kong," some of the demonstrators chanted as wary police encircled the group. "Down, down WTO."

Policewomen were the first to wade into the crowd, dragging some female protesters away one by one and packing them into police buses as remaining demonstrators started singing protest songs. Others walked quietly to the buses escorted by police.

It was not clear where the protesters were being taken. Earlier, police had told them they were under arrest.

Thousands of protesters from numerous anti-globalisation groups had taken to the streets in the early afternoon, handing pink and yellow roses to police officers manning barricades and releasing yellow balloons printed with "No, no WTO."

As numbers swelled, they began to push against police and probe their defences.

An estimated 10,000 anti-globalisation protesters converged on Hong Kong for the trade meeting, including about 2,000 South Korean farmers, workers and unionists, who have a reputation as the most militant anti-globalisation group in Asia.

(Additional reporting by Dominic Lau, Wendy Lim, John Chalmers, Nao Nakanishi, Susan Fenton, Alison Leung, Dominic Whiting and Chris Buckley)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051217/wl_nm/trade_wto_dc_43;_ylt=AtKfbCfrQJWXlXKOLcbKRdh11AEB; _ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Free trade is not fair trade for the poor
By Jack De Groot
December 14, 2005

THE world's trade ministers meeting in Hong Kong this week carry with them much more than just the aspirations of their own vocal farm lobbies and exporters. The silent hopes of millions of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people will also rest on their shoulders.

Trade, when combined with more and better aid and debt relief, has an enormous role to play in making poverty history. A 1 per cent increase in developing countries' share of world exports could lift 128 million people out of poverty.

But without ministers taking concrete steps towards a substantial overhaul of the global trading system at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Hong Kong, developing countries will continue to get a raw deal — particularly on agriculture.

We all rely on agriculture to feed us. In the world's poorest countries, seven out of every 10 people also depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. Yet nearly 900 million people in these countries do not have enough food to eat and despite being home to 98 per cent of the world's farming population, developing countries capture just a third of agricultural trade.

For too long rich countries have been manipulating international trade rules to protect their own interests.

The United States, the European Union, Japan and other rich countries insist that poor countries open their markets to all their exports while they spend around $300 billion each year subsidising and protecting their own farm industries — more than the combined income of the world's poorest 1.2 billion people.

These subsidies lead to massive overproduction of most farm products, which rich countries then dump on world markets at prices well below the cost of production, making it impossible for agricultural exporters from poor countries to compete.

This must stop and the Make Poverty History coalition in Australia supports efforts at the WTO meeting — including the strong push by the Australian Government, for rich countries to end all forms of dumping and instigate meaningful cuts to trade-distorting farm subsidies.

Taking a purely "free trade" approach is not the best way to eliminate poverty.

Even if these farm subsidies and dumping were scrapped tomorrow, many of the poorest people in developing countries would not be able to benefit from the change without further support.

Rich countries, including Australia, would also have to stop trying to force developing countries to open up their agricultural markets, without consideration for the impact this will have on the most marginalised members of their societies.

Forcing developing countries to open their markets too quickly and too deeply can have devastating effects, including putting millions out of work, increasing poverty, stymieing development, undermining food security and even creating political instability and conflict. Developing countries must be allowed to retain some control over how fast and how far they open their markets when the livelihoods of millions of their poorest are at stake.

Developed countries must also acknowledge that aid and trade are inseparable, rather than seeing them as competing solutions to poverty.

For poor countries to benefit from fairer trade they need more and better aid aimed at improving health, education, roads, ports, electricity, telecommunications, banking and legal systems. As, without a healthy and highly skilled workforce and functional infrastructure, transport, legal and commercial systems most poor countries will not be able to take up the new export opportunities offered by fairer trade.

If fairer trade rules were combined with more and better aid and debt relief, in this way the silent call to end global poverty may finally be answered.

Jack de Groot is chairman of Make Poverty History (Australia), a coalition of more than 70 organisations fighting poverty.



http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/free-trade-is-not-fair-trade-for-the-poor/2005/12/13/1134236068743.html

Originally posted by Piecesoffire
sekali-sekali setuju dengan aquarius ah...

emang benar kata mas ius, dari jamannya jalan sutera ampe sekarang ini tekhnologi Informatika, globalisasi telah ada sejak lama..
hanya saja berkat tekhnologi Informasi Globalisasi semakin kentara terasa perubahan-perubahannya...

saat ini manusia mengalami fase re-evolusi, jadi bener kita harus siap! tapi jangan jadi kejem, yg "males" dan yg "belom siap" jangan ditinggalkan, bisa2 itu jadi bumerang disuatu waktu nanti.
iya nggak iyus..?::muach::

I like the first part :)

Tp the second part.. hanya sedikit mo nambahin sih. Perubahan, kemajuan itu adalah proses natural. Semua manusia mau maju, yg tidak siap utk berkompetisi akan tertinggal. Jadi mungkin kata2 "kejem" itu tidak terlalu tepat.. krn sometimes it's not an option. Kl yg sudah maju memutuskan utk berhenti sebentar berkompetisi utk menunggu yg "malas" dan yang "belom siap", belum tentu others will. Dan konsekwensinya, mereka akan menjadi "yang tertinggal" :)

*gw blg gini bukan krn gw dari kalangan pengusaha :P org suami gw juga "buruh" koq :haha status boleh buruh, tp semoga mentalnya jangan.. :hehe *

sukur deh kalo kalian bukan termasuk orang yg malas dan blom siap.
tapi sekali lagi, kalo mau maju dengan tenang kita tidak bisa meninggalkan mereka, ibarat kanker, kebodohan, kemiskinan adalah sesuatu yg harus diberantas dengan hati2 tidak asal cut
kalo masih ada tuh penyakit, percaya deh di tambah ketamakan keegoisan untuk mengejar "ketertinggalan" (entah ketertinggalan apa saya tidak cukup mengerti) ya hasilnya lihat saja di seluruh penjuru dunia dari negara yang baru berkembang sampe negara yg katanya maju tidak tenang-tenang.

karena menurut saya ada terjadi salah kaprah dalam pola hubungan manusia, antar negara saat ini, dimana yg dikejar adalah kemajuan ekonomi, material oriented.
mereka melihat itu sebagai asal, sebab jika sebuah hubungan manusia, antar negara harus terjadi, bukan civil society bukan sisi manusiawinya yg dipilih
sehingga meski yg kata orang ahli, tekhnologi telah semakin mendekatkan manusia dengan slogan global village nya
semuanya berlangsung kering.....

Originally posted by Piecesoffire
sukur deh kalo kalian bukan termasuk orang yg malas dan blom siap.
tapi sekali lagi, kalo mau maju dengan tenang kita tidak bisa meninggalkan mereka, ibarat kanker, kebodohan, kemiskinan adalah sesuatu yg harus diberantas dengan hati2 tidak asal cut
kalo masih ada tuh penyakit, percaya deh di tambah ketamakan keegoisan untuk mengejar "ketertinggalan" (entah ketertinggalan apa saya tidak cukup mengerti) ya hasilnya lihat saja di seluruh penjuru dunia dari negara yang baru berkembang sampe negara yg katanya maju tidak tenang-tenang.


sekali lagi, gw setuju dengan pernyataan elu, tapi minus kata2 "dengan tenang" :haha

tentu aja, that goes without saying lah.. yg gw mau address dari postingan elu sebelumnya adalah kata2 "jangan kejam". Krn my point is, change and improvement is not about cruelty. It's a fact of life. Dan kadang org2 yg menjalaninya don't have any option (about the change and improvement).

Akan ttpi regarding the poor, the weak and the unprepared (I can care less about the lazy ones), it's our obligation as fellow humanbeings to help others who are less fortunate and less prepared.

Dan gw resent pemikiran kl the poor and the weak are lazy, stupid, less motivated, less inspired and violent!! Those who are eager to control all the resources in order "to help" the poor, in my view are against improvement and while they think they're helping the poor, in fact, they are insulting the poor people!

Originally posted by anak_chambers
Liat ajalah ntar ghimana :haha Kalo emang menguntungkan, masak banyak buruh yang menolak seh? Laghian yg menolak selalu buruh khan? Ga pernah pengusaha demonstrasi menolak ghitu ? :p Well, seandainya yg demonstrasi pengusaha seh gwe bakal ga peduli dengan free trade ini.

loh itu kan buruh2 cengeng yang mau berkompetisi tapi malah enak2 dilindungi tarif dan subsidi. ibaratnya anak manja yang selalu dibiayain oleh orang tuanya lalu kemudian disuruh mandiri, tentu saja dia nangis2.


Ada atau nggaknya globalisasi belom tentu membawa efek baik ke buruh. Loe juga lupa ya dulu buruh2 di amerika selatan juga dieksploitasi, tapi Amerika Selatan ngga pernah kaya sampe sekarang. Justru puncak kekayaan Amerika Selatan waktu era nasionalisasi, seperti Argentina di jaman Peron taun 45-50 an.

waduh puncak kekayaan argentina itu diawal abad 20 tuh waktu ekonominya dibuka ke investor asing dan pasar ekspor dunia.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Argentinas-Economy-in-a-Nutshell&id=109887
In the early 20th century, Argentina was one of the world's richest countries, with a higher per capita income than that of France or Germany.

The government of Juan Domingo Peron (1946-1955) left an indelible mark on the Argentine economy, making it less open to foreign trade, nationalizing key industries, and greatly expanding the benefits of workers. While Peron was somewhat able to redress the gross inequalities permeating the country, he also left a legacy of state control of the economy, stifling private entrepreneurship and creating an environment ripe for corruption.

In the post-Peron years, governments increasingly relied on deficit spending to smooth out social problems. To cover the difference between spending and tax revenue, they simply printed more money, creating inflation. By the 1980s, inflation was out of control; in 1989 the inflation rate was over 5,000 percent.


ya begitulah jadinya kalau bikin buruh terlalu cengeng. harus tergantung pemerintah terus untuk membiayai mereka, akhirnya nggak ada uang ya cetak saja, alias inflasi. ini sih nggak beda sama soekarno.

nih contoh lagi bagaimana poils2 peron itu cuma momentum jangka pendek dan malah merusak ekonomi argentina dalam jangka panjang.

http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/argent2.htm
Perón was able to issue decrees increasing the minimum wage and regulating working conditions. There was a immediate improvement in the standard of living of the working classes.

But the gains for the working class were often at the expense of the ranchers and farmers in the countryside. When Perón held down the prices of food products to benefit the urban workers it resulted in reductions in production.

While Peron may have decreed measures that brought some improvement in the living standards of the poor it was a short term gain at the expense of the long term deterioration of the Argentine economy. At the same time political freedoms and stability were erroded under the Peron regime.

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/argentina3.htm
"Perón began to rely more on the redistribution of income between industries and occupations, thus reducing wage differentials between skilled and unskilled workers. Political patronage caused wages to rise substantially above output per worker. Government policies resulted in a redistribution of the labor force into the least productive sectors of economic activity. All these developments had serious implications for economic growth: it was simply a failure. At the end of Perón's regime, per capita gross product was only 5.9 percent higher than in 1946.

Originally posted by anak_chambers
Sekedar catatan, buruh tekstil di Lousiana dan Alabama juga udah banyak yang kehilangan kerjaan tuh. Btw siapa bilang baju2 disini buatan lokal? Yg top of the range doank kali. Majority seh diimport dari negara2 berkembang.


dan seharusnya semakin banyak lagi diimpor dari negara berkembang.

http://www.bharattextile.com/newsitems/1997543
The major textile importing countries like the US are still maintaining unreasonably high customs duties ranging from 16 to 32 per cent

http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/publish/article_23919.shtml
The proposal at World Trade Organisation talks in Hong Kong grants duty-free and quota-free access to all so-called least developed countries. But the U.S. has raised objections over textile imports from Bangladesh. Japan also has concerns over rice imports.

A complete package would bring benefits of up to US$8 billion a year for the economies of the 50 least developed countries

gara2 ulah segelintir pihak yang enggan berkompetisi akhirnya seluruh rakyat amerika rugi harus bayar barang bertarif dan rakyat di negara2 berkembang kehilangan pasar ekspor.




Laghian koq cuma mikirin buruh di China? Emang buruh di dunia cuman ada di China? Ghimana dengan buruh2 di US? buruh2 Eropa? Indonesia? Thailand? Bangladesh? Latin Amerika? Ngga dipikirin tuh mereka yg bakal keilangan kerjaan karena serbuan barang2 import yg dibikin buruh sweatshop? jangan cuman nanya soal produktivitas. Ghimana mereka mau jadi produktif kalo pabriknya aja pindah ke China demi ngejar buruh murah? :p
makanya instropeksi diri kenapa buruh asing bisa menghasilkan produk dengan lebih murah dan kualitas tinggi. lu dulu pernah sekolah kan, nah masa karena mau adil supaya semua anak dapat nilai yang sama lantas nggak perlu ada ulangan dan anak yang pintar dipenalti dengan kerjaan yang lebih susah? masa karena takut berkompetisi lantas enggan ikut lomba olimpiade fisika atau debat atau kompetisi olahraga antar sekolah?

dan apa maksud dari sweatshop? justru buruh di china senang bisa dapat pekerjaan di pabrik yang bayarannya lebih tinggi daripada pekerjaan mereka yang lama. kalau nggak mereka otak udang sekali, terpaksa kerja di sweatshop padahal pekerjaan mereka yand dulu lebih enak.

They are opposed lower trade barriers for agricultural imports, which they claim would flood the South Korean market with cheap rice and force many of the country's farmers out of business. It is a view shared by many anti-globalization groups in other countries.

nah ini sudah ketahuan kan siapa sebenarnya anti-globalisasi itu. mereka adalah orang2 egois dan manja yang cuma memikirkan kepentingan diri sendiri daripada sejawat rakyatnya. gara2 ulah mereka 50 juta orang korsel terpaksa harus membayar biaya makanan yang lebih mahal. dan jutaan petani dari negara miskin nggak bisa menjual produknya ke korsel.

Originally posted by Nelson
nah ini sudah ketahuan kan siapa sebenarnya anti-globalisasi itu. mereka adalah orang2 egois dan manja yang cuma memikirkan kepentingan diri sendiri daripada sejawat rakyatnya. gara2 ulah mereka 50 juta orang korsel terpaksa harus membayar biaya makanan yang lebih mahal. dan jutaan petani dari negara miskin nggak bisa menjual produknya ke korsel.

atau sebaliknya... gara-gara segelintir pemimpin negara yang berkepentingan :haha .... maka milyaran orang dunia hanya menjadi kaum marjinal dalam proses ekonomi global atau akan bermetamorfosis menjadi "manusia mesin".
Kenapa dialognya mentok?? Uni Eropa menolak pencabutan subsidi terhadap pertanian dan Asia menolak menurunkan bea import.
Jadi dengan kata lain, di dunia ini yg tidak manja hanya AS kali ya :kakaka: Tapi coba logikanya kita balik, pertanyaannya kenapa AS tidak berani bersaing dengan petani eropa yg disubsidi atau berhadapan dengan tingginya bea masuk di Asia? Coba aja yg paling gampang... tekan habis seminimal mungkin upah buruh AS dan pajak, bisa kan. Harga murah, akan bisa bersaing dengan "petani bersubsidi" di Eropa dan bea masuk di Asia. Kalo ada yg protes.... bilang aja, INI DEMI KEPENTINGAN YG LEBIH BESAR atau................. DASAR MANJA!!! :haha (ini cuman contoh lho... ndak perlu diambil hati) :kakaka:

Originally posted by Nelson
loh itu kan buruh2 cengeng yang mau berkompetisi tapi malah enak2 dilindungi tarif dan subsidi. ibaratnya anak manja yang selalu dibiayain oleh orang tuanya lalu kemudian disuruh mandiri, tentu saja dia nangis2.



waduh puncak kekayaan argentina itu diawal abad 20 tuh waktu ekonominya dibuka ke investor asing dan pasar ekspor dunia.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Argentinas-Economy-in-a-Nutshell&id=109887
In the early 20th century, Argentina was one of the world's richest countries, with a higher per capita income than that of France or Germany.

The government of Juan Domingo Peron (1946-1955) left an indelible mark on the Argentine economy, making it less open to foreign trade, nationalizing key industries, and greatly expanding the benefits of workers. While Peron was somewhat able to redress the gross inequalities permeating the country, he also left a legacy of state control of the economy, stifling private entrepreneurship and creating an environment ripe for corruption.

In the post-Peron years, governments increasingly relied on deficit spending to smooth out social problems. To cover the difference between spending and tax revenue, they simply printed more money, creating inflation. By the 1980s, inflation was out of control; in 1989 the inflation rate was over 5,000 percent.


ya begitulah jadinya kalau bikin buruh terlalu cengeng. harus tergantung pemerintah terus untuk membiayai mereka, akhirnya nggak ada uang ya cetak saja, alias inflasi. ini sih nggak beda sama soekarno.

nih contoh lagi bagaimana poils2 peron itu cuma momentum jangka pendek dan malah merusak ekonomi argentina dalam jangka panjang.

http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/argent2.htm
Perón was able to issue decrees increasing the minimum wage and regulating working conditions. There was a immediate improvement in the standard of living of the working classes.

But the gains for the working class were often at the expense of the ranchers and farmers in the countryside. When Perón held down the prices of food products to benefit the urban workers it resulted in reductions in production.

While Peron may have decreed measures that brought some improvement in the living standards of the poor it was a short term gain at the expense of the long term deterioration of the Argentine economy. At the same time political freedoms and stability were erroded under the Peron regime.

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/state_and_revolution/argentina3.htm
"Perón began to rely more on the redistribution of income between industries and occupations, thus reducing wage differentials between skilled and unskilled workers. Political patronage caused wages to rise substantially above output per worker. Government policies resulted in a redistribution of the labor force into the least productive sectors of economic activity. All these developments had serious implications for economic growth: it was simply a failure. At the end of Perón's regime, per capita gross product was only 5.9 percent higher than in 1946.


Apa yang salah dengan menaikkan minimum wage dan standar hidup pekerja? Jangan lupa Argentina itu sukses di awal2 abad 20 itu karena adanya WW1 yang mengakibatkan export mereka (produk pertanian, daging asap) naek tajam. Sesudah perang berakhir, ya turun laghi. Gwe emang ga pernah punya temen org Argentina, tapi gwe punya temen2 org South America. Most of them kalo gwe tanya soal Peron (karena gwe dulu bikin paper tentang populist government) berpendapat kalo org miskin di Argentina, pasti cinta Peron.

Originally posted by Bromocorah
Coba aja yg paling gampang... tekan habis seminimal mungkin upah buruh AS dan pajak, bisa kan. Harga murah, akan bisa bersaing dengan "petani bersubsidi" di Eropa dan bea masuk di Asia. Kalo ada yg protes.... bilang aja, INI DEMI KEPENTINGAN YG LEBIH BESAR atau................. DASAR MANJA!!! :haha (ini cuman contoh lho... ndak perlu diambil hati) :kakaka:


Kalo perlu sekalian aja upah minimum dihapus Brom :haha Dijamin bisa bersaing :p

jd mending manja atau cengeng?

Originally posted by anak_chambers
[COLOR=royalblue] Apa yang salah dengan menaikkan minimum wage dan standar hidup pekerja?

ini diatas kertas sih mulia dan suci tapi coba lihat dalam praktiknya.
dalam sistim kapitalis pasar bebas, gaji ditentukan oleh persetujuan kedua pihak, pengusaha dan pegawai.
misalnya dengan equilibrium yang katakanlah Rp1 juta/orang si pengusaha memperkerjakan 10 orang.

tiba2 datang seorang politisi yang berkoar2 akan menaikkan UMR menjadi Rp 1.5 juta/orang. apa yang terjadi? si pengusaha sekarang harus membayar Rp 15 juta/bulan sedangkan harga jual barang tetap sama saja. si pengusaha pikir, lebih baik pakai 7 orang saja deh tapi suruh mereka lebih giat atau dengar2 ada mesin baru yang bisa menggantikan tenaga kerja manusia dengan biaya Rp 12 juta/bulan, toh masih lebih bagus daripada dipaksa dengan UMR yang baru.

nggak heran negara2 yang diatas kertas katanya mau melindungi buruh malah mencelakakan mereka dengan tinggat pengangguran yang tinggi seperti perancis dan jerman. sedangkan negara2 seperti amerika, australia dan inggris yang kapitalis dan gampang memecat pekerja justru mempunyai angka pengangguran yang rendah karena pengusaha tidak takut merekrut orang.


Jangan lupa Argentina itu sukses di awal2 abad 20 itu karena adanya WW1 yang mengakibatkan export mereka (produk pertanian, daging asap) naek tajam. Sesudah perang berakhir, ya turun laghi. Gwe emang ga pernah punya temen org Argentina, tapi gwe punya temen2 org South America. Most of them kalo gwe tanya soal Peron (karena gwe dulu bikin paper tentang populist government) berpendapat kalo org miskin di Argentina, pasti cinta Peron.


loh argentina itu sukses sudah dari akhir abad 19 berkat investasi asing dan perdagangan internasional dan justru zaman keemasannya berakhir pada waktu PD I

www.ehs.org.uk/ehs/conference2005/Assets/LenzAbstractIIIF.doc
In the late 19th century Argentina went through a phase of great economic growth, the Belle Époque , represented by a strong foreign presence of products, labour and, especially, capital.

http://www.academictermpapers.com/abstracts/11000/11602.html
ARGENTINA'S GOLDEN AGE: MAIN FACTORS IN ECONOMIC GROWTH & DEVELOPMENT, 1860-1914.

malahan si peronlah yang mengakibatkan merosotnya ekonomi argentina dalam jangka panjang

http://www.economist.com/cities/findStory.cfm?city_id=BEA&folder=Facts-History
Peron nationalised the railways and introduced Mussolinian notions of a corporate-cum-nationalist society and a new global notion, the welfare state. Peron also financed generous benefits to workers by printing money.

Peron’s clumsy management saw him fall from grace after two terms in office. Argentina slid into economic decay and faced repeated military coups and violent struggles between Peronist factions.


tentang teman2 south america lu itu, mereka itu sama saja dengan penggemar soekarno. sebenarnya soekarno dan peron itu sama, menyuap rakyat dengan iming2 naikkin gaji dengan cara mencetak uang sehingga inflasi tinggi dan merusak ekonomi dalam jangka panjang. tapi anak muda zaman sekarang yang kebingungan dan apalagi malas berkompetisi dalam sistim kapitalis perlu idola yang idealis dengan teori2 cantiknya seperti che guevara, mao zedong, castro dll. tapi sayang kalau mereka rajin sedikit belajar tentang sejarah akan kelihatan kalau tokoh sosialis macam mereka adalah korup dan menyengsarakan rakyatnya dalam jangka panjang.

WAHAI Buruh2....berdemolah selagi sempat, terutama yg skill rendah, sebelum kalian digantikan oleh robot :haha robot suatu teknologi paling potensial utk menambah tingkat pengangguran para buruh skill rendah secara besar2an, tapi kalian belum sadar.....

sayangnya kalian gak bisa membendugnya, Perubahan itu mutlak. kalian harus belajar menghadapi perubahan, bukan membendung / menolak perubahan...karena hanya akan sia2


tiba2 datang seorang politisi yang berkoar2 akan menaikkan UMR menjadi Rp 1.5 juta/orang. apa yang terjadi? si pengusaha sekarang harus membayar Rp 15 juta/bulan sedangkan harga jual barang tetap sama saja. si pengusaha pikir, lebih baik pakai 7 orang saja deh tapi suruh mereka lebih giat atau dengar2 ada mesin baru yang bisa menggantikan tenaga kerja manusia dengan biaya Rp 12 juta/bulan, toh masih lebih bagus daripada dipaksa dengan UMR yang baru.


you are right, di perusahaan swasta, kalo bisa pakai mesin, maka mereka akan memilih pakai mesin, sdgkn di perusahaan negri, mereka lebih memilih memperkerjakan org utk membantu buruh2 yg skill rendah dan menurunkan tingkat pengangguran.

.