The dark side of Dubai
Re: The dark side of Dubai
I have a friend who lives and works there at the moment for a company call MaxBox. I mailed him the article. Obviously he loves it there as he doesn't see the other side. I've only been there on a stopover on the way to Australia so didn't really have chance to experience it first hand.
As for the toilet thing, that's quite unhygienically amusind. In Thailand you're not even allowed to flush paper away because the sewage system is so bad, so you end up with bins full of shitty paper
As for the toilet thing, that's quite unhygienically amusind. In Thailand you're not even allowed to flush paper away because the sewage system is so bad, so you end up with bins full of shitty paper
Re: The dark side of Dubai
Maybe in terms of syntax, because other than that it's ridiculous. Neo-liberalism is not a term used in the United States, but as I understand it, it refers to laissez faire economic policy. That being the case, to say it may be "crashing - at last- in to history" is both ridiculous and clearly shows the agenda of the author.Adurentibus Spina wrote:This is a brutal and beautiful sentence: "Dubai is a living metal metaphor for the neo-liberal globalised world that may be crashing – at last – into history." Really well written.
Neoliberalism, or midieval dictatorship?They lure you in telling you it's one thing – a modern kind of place – but beneath the surface it's a medieval dictatorship."
Clearly it's the latter.
Wanting less government interference in to business operations for the sake of easier start ups etc. is in no way comparable to a slave state with no legal means of retribution for breach of contract.
To compare Dubai to "neo-liberalism" is absolutely disturbing. It reeks of propaganda.
In fact, the government is complicit in all of this. They are INVOLVED in what is happening in Dubai.
That's the opposite of "neo-liberalism!"
Furthermore:
This is the best place in the world to be young! The government pays for your education up to PhD level. You get given a free house when you get married. You get free healthcare, and if it's not good enough here, they pay for you to go abroad. You don't even have to pay for your phone calls. Almost everyone has a maid, a nanny, and a driver. And we never pay any taxes. Don't you wish you were Emirati?"
He says the lack of political freedom is fine by him
I could go on and on about how terribly misinformed the sentence you seem so fond of is a gross mistatement. Disgustingly so.
Re: The dark side of Dubai
I can't resist:
Who has their hands ALL OVER Dubai? The big wonderful government. You know, just like the good ol regular American liberals (We. Are. The 99%!") want!"Most companies are owned by the government, so they oppose human rights laws because it will reduce their profit margins. It's in their interests that the workers are slaves."
-
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:23 pm
Re: The dark side of Dubai
I think in this case it would be more helpful to think of neo-liberalism as the opposite of protectionist policies. In that sense, Dubai, which has lured scores and scores of large, high-profile international/multinational corporations, can be said to be oriented towards the 'neo-liberal world economy'.
I have a semi-related question for you Hoka, and I am curious for your response and eager for you to drop some knowledge. I often hear the claim (actually, you yourself may have said this, but I'm not sure) that governments are not supposed to pick winners/losers in the economy. I would argue that governments are best served by catering to and preparing their populace for the country's competitive advantage. Rather than say: "all industries should be given a chance" shouldn't we say "this industry is the most profitable/sustainable for our future, and we will pursue it aggressively"?
Flame away.
I have a semi-related question for you Hoka, and I am curious for your response and eager for you to drop some knowledge. I often hear the claim (actually, you yourself may have said this, but I'm not sure) that governments are not supposed to pick winners/losers in the economy. I would argue that governments are best served by catering to and preparing their populace for the country's competitive advantage. Rather than say: "all industries should be given a chance" shouldn't we say "this industry is the most profitable/sustainable for our future, and we will pursue it aggressively"?
Flame away.
Re: The dark side of Dubai
According to that article, Dubai's biggest businesses are owned or propped up by the government. That's the opposite of "neo-liberalism" by any definition. If anything, that article, and Dubai in general, should serve as a perfect example of why it's dangerous to involve government with business beyond the usual arguments of creating boom/bust cycles and inhibiting entrepreneurs from getting their small businesses off the ground because of ridiculous amounts of red tape. On a related side note, I was just reading an article in the local paper about a small business owner that cannot put a sign on his store because it has to be the same signage as on every other local store (material, lettering etc.) and it's near impossible to have that created because the business that made the signs no longer exists! So now his business is failing because no one knows it's there. Gooooo government.Pure Method wrote:I think in this case it would be more helpful to think of neo-liberalism as the opposite of protectionist policies. In that sense, Dubai, which has lured scores and scores of large, high-profile international/multinational corporations, can be said to be oriented towards the 'neo-liberal world economy'.
I have a semi-related question for you Hoka, and I am curious for your response and eager for you to drop some knowledge. I often hear the claim (actually, you yourself may have said this, but I'm not sure) that governments are not supposed to pick winners/losers in the economy. I would argue that governments are best served by catering to and preparing their populace for the country's competitive advantage. Rather than say: "all industries should be given a chance" shouldn't we say "this industry is the most profitable/sustainable for our future, and we will pursue it aggressively"?
Flame away.
Why would the government need to do that? The most profitable/sustainable industries don't need the government, they're already succeeding on their own. The problem comes in when the government begins propping up businesses that are failing or have failed, thus promoting the idea that it's not necessary to do it right, just put yourself in the position to make the government believe you're too important to go away, or make enough friends with politicians with too much power and never worry about failing.
Re: The dark side of Dubai
Empirical claim. Where's the data?The most profitable/sustainable industries don't need the government, they're already succeeding on their own
Re: The dark side of Dubai
... 'Adurentibus Spina wrote:Empirical claim. Where's the data?The most profitable/sustainable industries don't need the government, they're already succeeding on their own
The data is the profit....and sustainability.
Why are they already sustainable? The initial post that I'm replying to implies already that the numbers exist to prove the government isn't needed. Why would it be needed to sustain something already sustainable? Unless you're attempting to argue the definition of sustainable, in which case...
Re: The dark side of Dubai
Well, if you're building "don't need the government" into your definition of 'profitable/sustainable', then your argument is viciously circular (and therefore fallacious). It wouldn't follow from such an argument that we would have to accept your claim, since there may not be any such businesses. I asked for data because I figured the argument is stronger if not interpreted that way. If what you mean was: there are industries in which there are businesses/corporations that are profitable and sustainable in such a way that they have no need for the government, because they're already succeeding without any help, then this is a claim that requires empirical proof, i.e., data to show that there are businesses literally succeeding "on their own", in some sense of that phrase. It seems highly unlikely to me that there are any such businesses. Corporations succeed in part because incorporating allows them to take advantage of government help they wouldn't have otherwise. That's the whole point of being a corporation.hokahey wrote:... 'Adurentibus Spina wrote:Empirical claim. Where's the data?The most profitable/sustainable industries don't need the government, they're already succeeding on their own
The data is the profit....and sustainability.
Why are they already sustainable? The initial post that I'm replying to implies already that the numbers exist to prove the government isn't needed. Why would it be needed to sustain something already sustainable? Unless you're attempting to argue the definition of sustainable, in which case...
Re: The dark side of Dubai
Adurentibus Spina wrote: Well, if you're building "don't need the government" into your definition of 'profitable/sustainable', then your argument is viciously circular (and therefore fallacious). It wouldn't follow from such an argument that we would have to accept your claim, since there may not be any such businesses. I asked for data because I figured the argument is stronger if not interpreted that way. If what you mean was: there are industries in which there are businesses/corporations that are profitable and sustainable in such a way that they have no need for the government, because they're already succeeding without any help, then this is a claim that requires empirical proof, i.e., data to show that there are businesses literally succeeding "on their own", in some sense of that phrase. It seems highly unlikely to me that there are any such businesses. Corporations succeed in part because incorporating allows them to take advantage of government help they wouldn't have otherwise. That's the whole point of being a corporation.
This is silly. The discussion was about governments picking and choosing a corporation to "prop up", not how all corporations are are taking advantage of government help. That's still a common starting point. If one is then "more successful," what assistance do they need? That's what makes no sense.
Re: The dark side of Dubai
It depends. 'more successful' than what? Regional, national, or international competitors? Or all of them? If it's all of those (say, Wal-Mart), then you might have a point. Otherwise, it just depends on what value the industry plays for national interests. Some industries (e.g., Canada's soft-wood lumber, or the oil-sands), might be unable to remain within a country (that is, in the control of local companies) without the government implementing protectionist policies, and it sometimes might be in the national interest to do so (e.g., Petro-Canada's original formulation under the Trudeau government).hokahey wrote:If one is then "more successful," what assistance do they need?
Re: The dark side of Dubai
Adurentibus Spina wrote:It depends. 'more successful' than what? Regional, national, or international competitors? Or all of them? If it's all of those (say, Wal-Mart), then you might have a point. Otherwise, it just depends on what value the industry plays for national interests. Some industries (e.g., Canada's soft-wood lumber, or the oil-sands), might be unable to remain within a country (that is, in the control of local companies) without the government implementing protectionist policies, and it sometimes might be in the national interest to do so (e.g., Petro-Canada's original formulation under the Trudeau government).hokahey wrote:If one is then "more successful," what assistance do they need?
He also said "sustainable."
Re: The dark side of Dubai
That doesn't really change what I said. 'Sustainable' the way Pure Method meant it probably meant something like: 'has a view which is both proven historically and takes into account the long-term'. That still has nothing to do with whether more short-term-minded multi-nationals will fuck things up by buying out regional competitors who would have otherwise been successful, and would have promoted or preserved the interets of a nation.hokahey wrote:Adurentibus Spina wrote:It depends. 'more successful' than what? Regional, national, or international competitors? Or all of them? If it's all of those (say, Wal-Mart), then you might have a point. Otherwise, it just depends on what value the industry plays for national interests. Some industries (e.g., Canada's soft-wood lumber, or the oil-sands), might be unable to remain within a country (that is, in the control of local companies) without the government implementing protectionist policies, and it sometimes might be in the national interest to do so (e.g., Petro-Canada's original formulation under the Trudeau government).hokahey wrote:If one is then "more successful," what assistance do they need?
He also said "sustainable."
Re: The dark side of Dubai
Empirical claim. Where's the data?Adurentibus Spina wrote:That still has nothing to do with whether more short-term-minded multi-nationals will fuck things up by buying out regional competitors who would have otherwise been successful, and would have promoted or preserved the interets of a nation.
Re: The dark side of Dubai
The sentence you quoted there is in the subjunctive -- i.e., it's a counterfactual ('whether [or not]' is a standard variant of 'if it were the case, or not the case that' in English sentences expressing counterfactual claims). I didn't assert that this is the case. This is distinguishable from the original sentence you used, because you asserted that something is the case (namely, that there exist profitable/sustainable industries that don't need the government).hokahey wrote:Empirical claim. Where's the data?Adurentibus Spina wrote:That still has nothing to do with whether more short-term-minded multi-nationals will fuck things up by buying out regional competitors who would have otherwise been successful, and would have promoted or preserved the interets of a nation.
Re: The dark side of Dubai
A friend of mine is in Dubai for work and took this photo of people wearing gloves while eating their KFC. Apparently, they give them out with your meal. I don't know if it is to get a better grip on the greasy chicken or to preserve water so people don't have to wash their hands.
Re: The dark side of Dubai
that's a good idea. one of the things that freaks me out is eating with my hands. i hate getting food on my hands. i think it's disgusting that people eat buffalo wings. i will never eat those.Artemis wrote:A friend of mine is in Dubai for work and took this photo of people wearing gloves while eating their KFC. Apparently, they give them out with your meal. I don't know if it is to get a better grip on the greasy chicken or to preserve water so people don't have to wash their hands.
Re: The dark side of Dubai
creep wrote: i think it's disgusting that people eat buffalo wings. i will never eat those.
love em.
Re: The dark side of Dubai
i would eat them with a fork and knife but that would look pretty stupid.hokahey wrote:creep wrote: i think it's disgusting that people eat buffalo wings. i will never eat those.
love em.