Becoming a Capitalist President in El Salvador. Some advices?

[AlexES16]

My country is still poor and it has a lot of social problems.

This are

-Extreme Violence.
-Poverty.
-Ignorance.
-And a lot of leftist that admire Fidel Castro and totalitarism.
-Pollutio.

We don't have to much resources , but we have people who love to work.

Some solutions:

-Open the country to foreign inverstion
-Deregulate the economy
-Privatize Important sectors
-Make the government more transparent so there be more trust in iverstion.

Things I am not sure:

-In capitalism education and healthcare are private, but in my country they are socialized in a big part. It would be smart to privatize this? Does private healthcare really works and improves quality? Full private education would be better? What happened if people can't pay?

-Enviromental regulation is good? Does is it have a place in capitalism?


Notes:

-Would be good to become the Honk Kong of Latin America(they are ranked 1 in economic freedom) but even they have some state owned in education and healthcare?

Please some adivices =).

 

[rootX]

The solutions you presented are not close to the reality, and capitalism wouldn't solve those problems.

 

[fluidistic]

Before Sarkozy, France's education (even university) was free. Healthcare system was free (to many) and many important corporations were public (trains, phone, mail, gaz, etc.). The country wasn't so bad to live in. I'm pretty sure that many mostly socialist countries are doing great in terms of quality of life.
I don't know El Salvador. But I'm guessing that eradicating corruption should be a priority (so change the Government entirely), reforming the education (I'm guessing that pupils are brainwashed early in their life, even by their parents) and spending better the money of the people (who is likely stolen by the Government) should do an improvement in the quality of life of El Salvador's people.
The problem is that I'm not sure about the chances of this to happen. Probably very, very low unfortunately.

 

[mheslep]

Before Sarkozy, France's education (even university) was free. Healthcare system was free (to many) and many important corporations were public (trains, phone, mail, gaz, etc.). The country wasn't so bad to live in.
.

Maybe, if one could get a job there.

Oh, and nothing is free.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Hey now. France may have an unemployment rate worse than Nicaragua, Bulgaria, and the Central African Republic, but at least it's improving.

 

[mheslep]

Hey now. France may have an unemployment rate worse than Nicaragua, Bulgaria, and the Central African Republic, but at least it's improving.

Yep, especially since Sarkozy came in.

 

[humanino]

Oh, and nothing is free.

That is your answer to where people feel good to live ? Are there not dedicated studies to this specific question ?

Your view is biased, your argument is misplaced and unnecessary in this context. Why point out to negative points instead of admitting positive ones ? In particular, you can not brush out the fact that education and healthcare are crazily expensive in the US. Those are deep structural problems.

 

[fluidistic]

Maybe, if one could get a job there.

Oh, and nothing is free.

Irrelevant in the discussion. According to your chart, the unemployment before Sarkozy came in was below 9% and now it's below 8%. What an improvement within 3 years you may think? What we should look at isn't this data but rather the HDI which is more representative of the quality of life of people in a country in my opinion. It has probably increased of course, but my point still holds, when France had a socialist prime minister, it wasn't doing that bad. In fact I'm pretty sure that people that didn't have a job and were subscribed to the chomage when Jospin was prime minister had a better quality of life than many working people in El Salvador today. My point was that socialist countries can "do well" in the sense that people's quality of life is high compared to the average. Eradicating socialism from El Salvador isn't the way to go. By the way your chart doesn't show who took the data. I'm guessing that it's the INSEE (public institute) but it wasn't working for months (maybe more than 1 year? Because Sarkozy wanted to eradicate it) back in 2008/2009 so where your data comes from during those times? Private institutes... how reliable are they? Anyway it's not relevant to the thread anyway.

Also by saying nothing is free, you're partially right since it's working people that pay the whole public system which is available for most of French population. A "poor" in France could go to University without having great financial problems, it was possible for poors to go to University if they really wanted to (I guess you'll come in with a stat of people's going to University and their income, but I don't care, a poor could still go to University regardless of their number). Now it's very different, one has to pay to go to University, "thanks" to Sarkozy.

 

[CRGreathouse]

What we should look at isn't this data but rather the HDI which is more representative of the quality of life of people in a country in my opinion.

I love the idea of the HDI. I think it would be hard to do a worse job in creating such an index, though, unless one was trying to do poorly. What a lost opportunity.

 

[russ_watters]

-In capitalism education and healthcare are private...

We've been over this before: your beliefs about how capitalist countries work are unconnected with reality. You need to read about and learn how they actually work.

 

[fluidistic]

I love the idea of the HDI. I think it would be hard to do a worse job in creating such an index, though, unless one was trying to do poorly. What a lost opportunity.

I don't understand English enough to realize whether you imply that it's a bad or good index. I think it's still better than the unemployment rate. If you look at Argentina's unemployment rate (around 9% I think), you'd think that the country is doing as well as France. Wrong, around 40% of workers work in the black market. The HDI would be a better index, though it doesn't work well for a few countries like Argentina and Chile.

 

[humanino]

About "bad indices", to my mind it is rather much worse than "a compound index is better than a single one". Any index, be it compound, is necessarily partial and thus will be criticized.

For instance, you could read people on this board claiming that when socialist party took over in France, unemployment raised. In fact, one could answer simply by reminding of the best method from right wing politics in France : they often cut down the unemployment rate by just stripping people from the unemployment benefit.

 

[rootX]

The problem is that I'm not sure about the chances of this to happen. Probably very, very low unfortunately.

I don't know how countries like that make improvements and how one can determine the likelihood of a country would overcome its barres other than that it would get a powerful leader or get invaded be foreign power. Some like BRIC have made significant improvements during last decades. *(I will try to look for some information when I reach home).

 

[fluidistic]

I don't know how countries like that make improvements and how one can determine the likelihood of a country would overcome its barres other than that it would get a powerful leader or get invaded be foreign power. Some like BRIC have made significant improvements during last decades. *(I will try to look for some information when I reach home).

You're right.
Here is a list of the index of corruption in countries:http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table.
El Salvador appears to be 84/180 which isn't good but could be worse. As I said in post #3, corruption should be taken very seriously. My solution would be to change the president and ministers so that the new ones make the laws to be respected by uncorrupting the police. If the police is used not to respect the laws, then it's very hard to make any progress. This is what happens here in Argentina (though the country is corrupted at all levels. So much that it's badly affecting people's quality of life) and I guess also in El Salvador.

 

[AlexES16]

Thanks for the posts.

Some information:

-El Salvador is Ranked in place 32 in economic freedom. Place of information: http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/ElSalvador

--El Salvador is not a socialist country, the last 20 years a right wing neoliberalist party was in power(Wich i am goin to join)

Note: Last time my thread was closed becouse of not saying were the information came from.

-Chile is ranked 10 in economic freedom. Info: http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Chile .

--Chile is the best country in Latin America, good economy and good HDI.

Maybe we have to make 1st in economic freedom, and fight corruption as many of you have say.

 

[AlexES16]

We've been over this before: your beliefs about how capitalist countries work are unconnected with reality. You need to read about and learn how they actually work.

Give some ligth please =)

 

[CRGreathouse]

I don't understand English enough to realize whether you imply that it's a bad or good index.

I was saying that it was a bad index. Badly-designed, I mean.

I think it's still better than the unemployment rate.

Agreed. But the unemployment rate doesn't bill itself as a general development index like the HDI.

If you have a sledgehammer and a claw hammer, and the claw hammer is marketed as a screwdriver, then I'd say that the claw hammer is a bad screwdriver, even if it's a better screwdriver than the sledgehammer.

 

[CRGreathouse]

they often cut down the unemployment rate by just stripping people from the unemployment benefit.

Aside: Is that how the unemployment rate is calculated in France/the EU? Really? I thought economic technology was more advanced than that...

 

[humanino]

Aside: Is that how the unemployment rate is calculated in France/the EU? Really? I thought economic technology was more advanced than that...

In my understanding it is the same measurement in the US. The difference with employment-to-population ratio is known, and monitored. It is all available
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab1.htm

 

[Pythagorean]

Depends on how you define "free". If I have an electric car and I only plug it in at my workplace, then transportation is free for me : )

 

[AlexES16]

Depends on how you define "free". If I have an electric car and I only plug it in at my workplace, then transportation is free for me : )

Nice view of the future =)

 

[AlexES16]

Maybe a good environment policy will be inform the people which companies are greener and telling people that is in their hands to choose to protect the environment and not government force.

 

[drankin]

Here is true capitalism:

http://www.aolnews.com/world/articl...ind-god-or-be-fired/19596333?test=latestnews"Here is true capitalism:

A business owner can fire for whatever reason he wants to. I actually support this as a right of a business owner. Whether it's a gay only, Muslim only, women only... whatever the business owner wants for employees in his company.

Parallel to topic anyway.

 

[rootX]

Here is true capitalism:

http://www.aolnews.com/world/articl...ind-god-or-be-fired/19596333?test=latestnews"Here is true capitalism:

A business owner can fire for whatever reason he wants to. I actually support this as a right of a business owner. Whether it's a gay only, Muslim only, women only... whatever the business owner wants for employees in his company.

Parallel to topic anyway.

I thought in capitalism, a company looks for profit maximizing goals and nothing more. Freedom of firing for reasons like that seems like nothing to do with capitalism. You seem to be describing cons of non-regulating market environment not capitalism itself.

 

[drankin]

I thought in capitalism, a company looks for profit maximizing goals and nothing more. Freedom of firing for reasons like that seems like nothing to do with capitalism. You seem to be describing cons of non-regulating market environment not capitalism itself.

It's not the definition of capitalism but a facet of it.

 

[AlexES16]

I thought in capitalism, a company looks for profit maximizing goals and nothing more. Freedom of firing for reasons like that seems like nothing to do with capitalism. You seem to be describing cons of non-regulating market environment not capitalism itself.

In capitalism there is no labor laws, there is freedom of choosing who you will work with.

Well that's theoreticall capitalism in reality is more a mixed capitalist economy

 

[humanino]

In capitalism there is no labor laws [...] Well that's theoreticall capitalism

That is your definition of theoretical capitalism. What drankin's article describes in unacceptable and has nothing to do with capitalism. You reject your imaginary notion of capitalism, but that is beating a dead horse.

It is well known that the well being of workers improves productivity and thus profit. Capitalism is essentially based on maximizing private profit. There is a long history to capitalism. You have already been advised to study it.

Note that drankin's article does not describe a situation with "freedom of choosing who you will work with". That is more or less fine. The article describe a situation where one is fired (looses their job) based on an arbitrary (random) decision. This guy is free to re-define his own notion of religion whenever he pleases apparently. This happens long after he has already chosen to work with you. Ironically, he would probably have lost his own job based on his experience of prison, which indicates he probably not always had an "orthodox" behavior. This is ridiculous, and I can not understand whomever would endorse such craziness.

 

[drankin]

That is your definition of theoretical capitalism. What drankin's article describes in unacceptable and has nothing to do with capitalism.

It has to do with capitalism in that only in true capitalistic environment can this be practiced. And I don't find it unacceptable. If a worker does not like the conditions of his/her employment they are free to find work elsewhere. In this situation an employer may have to reconsider the hiring standards in order to retain employees and remain competitive in a given market.

 

[humanino]

It has to do with capitalism in that only in true capitalistic environment can this be practiced.

So it would have been unthinkable in communist Russia to be sent in Siberia because one would not conform to the ideology ? I know almost first hand of people who have lost their work there because they were "dissidents".

By the same token, many advanced countries practicing a sane capitalism have labor rights and worker protection. Again I can tell you about France where people tried to pass a law according to which anybody could be fired on the spot without justification during the first two years. It was deemed illegal according to international Labor organization "Termination of Employment Convention", 1982. To my mind, this is the generally agreed upon reasonable law in modern capitalist societies.

If a worker does not like the conditions of his/her employment they are free to find work elsewhere. In this situation an employer may have to reconsider the hiring standards in order to retain employees and remain competitive in a given market.

Especially in the current employment market, your proposal that one could be fired without reason, warning and compensation appears particularly cruel to me. I know for instance France Télécom during the last couple of years decided to put a harsh pressure on their workers, threatening them to be fired if they did not work up to crazy standards. They obtained an average of 15 suicides per year⁽¹⁾ proven to be directly related to work conditions. In no way was this experience positive for the company.

(1) This rate is comparable to the total rate in the total population, except that the total rate for the total population includes all possible disasters happening to individuals

 

[mheslep]

That is your answer to where people feel good to live ? Are there not dedicated studies to this specific question ?

Where people 'feel good to live', whatever that means, was not the OP's question. It seems to me the OP was looking for suggestions on improvements to the local economic system.

Your view is biased, your argument is misplaced and unnecessary in this context.

My unemployment figures are biased? The truism that nothing is free is biased? Your view is biased, your argument is blah blah... Now where did that get us?

Why point out to negative points instead of admitting positive ones ?

Are you serious? When did this become a propaganda session?

In particular, you can not brush out the fact that education and healthcare are crazily expensive in the US. Those are deep structural problems.

As you know, I didn't mention the US, or compare the the US to France (as you did above), or brush away high costs.

 

[mheslep]

Irrelevant in the discussion.

In a discussion about improving economic systems facts on unemployment are hardly irrelevant. Unemployment is not the only issue, nor did I suggest it was.

 

[drankin]

Especially in the current employment market, your proposal that one could be fired without reason, warning and compensation appears particularly cruel to me.

Based on your comments it seems to me that you come from the perspective that jobs are a right or something owed to someone and cannot be taken away from them by their employer.

I disagree. If my boss were to come down here and fire me and he gave me no reason what-so-ever, I would leave and not come back or even consider legal retribution. I will not be fired, because I provide a competitive service for my employer and my employment is based on merit. Not the economy, not the law, not from some sort of social obligation. And that's the way it should be in a capitalistic society.

 

[mheslep]

Depends on how you define "free". If I have an electric car and I only plug it in at my workplace, then transportation is free for me : )

You still don't know that the car charge is free for you. You just don't directly pay for the electricity at the time of the charge. Maybe your next raise is off because the business's bottom line is off. Maybe you get laid off for the same reason, and so on.

 

[humanino]

My unemployment figures are biased?

No, but you answered to "that's a nice place to live because of healthcare and education" by quoting those numbers. The three are supposedly taken into account in the HDI which is why I mentioned it. My main point when claiming the view is "biased" was exactly that every single number is partial and the problem is more elaborated that suggested in the OP. Since we agree this is off-topic, and that the main issue here is the simplistic approach to a complicated problem as you seem to suggest in

In a discussion about improving economic systems facts on unemployment are hardly irrelevant. Unemployment is not the only issue, nor did I suggest it was.

and

You still don't know that the car charge is free for you. You just don't directly pay for the electricity at the time of the charge. Maybe your next raise is off because the business's bottom line is off. Maybe you get laid off for the same reason, and so on.

I'll just rather leave the specificities of France out of this thread.

 

[cesiumfrog]

Would be good to become the Honk Kong of Latin America(they are ranked 1 in economic freedom)

Then you should copy how Hong Kong became so. It's very easy (for your government). For more information see:
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer.html"
Basically, invite a trustworthy first-class nation (like Britain, or a west-European nation) to completely govern a small region of your country for a fixed time, say 100 years. Foreign companies will want to invest their money in that region (because they will trust its stability better than anywhere else in Latin America). Many of your own people will freely move into the region, for better paying jobs and the higher human-rights standards expected from Western governance. Within a lifetime, you will have a great city that is the pride of your continent.

My country is still poor and it has a lot of social problems.

This are

-Extreme Violence.
-Poverty.
-Ignorance.
-And a lot of leftist that admire Fidel Castro and totalitarism.
-Pollutio.

We don't have to much resources , but we have people who love to work.

Some solutions:

-Open the country to foreign inverstion
-Deregulate the economy
-Privatize Important sectors
-Make the government more transparent so there be more trust in iverstion.

Things I am not sure:

-In capitalism education and healthcare are private, but in my country they are socialized in a big part. It would be smart to privatize this? Does private healthcare really works and improves quality? Full private education would be better? What happened if people can't pay?

-Enviromental regulation is good? Does is it have a place in capitalism?

Transparency is a major issue. A good idea I've heard would be to ask for foreign bodies to send teams of their accountants into your country. They can help you get rid of corruption. Once corruption is gone, your country will be naturally more productive, and foreign investors will no longer be as afraid to invest more capital into your economy.

It is not smart to completely privatise education or healthcare. Both are socialised in "first world" countries. (In the past, some people traveled from the USA to Cuba to get better health care.) Likewise, environmental regulation is important (for capitalism, the term is "externalities". If no single person has ownership of the environment, then regulation is always necessary). The countries with the highest living standards are all capitalist countries, but tempered with social welfare institutions and market regulations, this is all compatible.

There is a number of organisations that have done lots of research into ways of best improving countries where the living standard is comparatively low. You should try to make use of their expertise. I'd say you want to be looking to the type of people that are invited to TED, and invite them to you.