[/B]
I'll concede the point.
You'll be saying that a lot more...
But doesn't this work against your argument? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we seem to still be gaining here.
WAS gaining jobs, yes. The US was going through a economic boom during the roaring 90's. But the US was doing that in the 20's too, and in the 20's the US debt exploded, as it did in the 90's...hmmmmmm....interesting. American companies are employing less workers because:
i) Technology has made the worker much more productive, thus jobs are redundant and thustly eliminated.
ii) Cheap overseas labour.
Provide a source to prove that we were losing jobs to other countries.
Firstly turn on your TV at 6:00 pm est, on CNN. You'll see if you are ADD enough here:
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
Read and watch
exporting America Very interesting.
If they all downsize then how are any of them supposed to make money?
OH GOD here I have to teach again... ok Pollux the world is not the United States concede? Ok, now since jobs are going to China for instance they are creating markets in China. Which has a larger market then the US non? Ok so the money going to China is employing more workers, and thus creating more markets, and with wages rising and inflation nearly 0 in China you get a market. Last year car sales in China boomed 13%, in the US did it even grow? The US is an exploited market, India, and China aren't. It is in the best interests of TNC's to increase wages in China and employ more ppl then fewer high paid workers in the US.
Prices would not go up because there would be no one to buy anything.
You aren't making any sense now Pollux. You said that you will stop the exportation of jobs, which essentially means closing the US to imports, which will create a shortage of goods, and thus an increase in prices for goods that are rare. Your economic plan is laughable at best.
I don't know about the UK,
Yet you still talk?
but Argentina is in the position that it's in because it borrows too much of its money, that's all. Goddamn world banks charge too much interest. There needs to be an organization that helps countries get out of debt, any country, whether it's the US or Brazil. We have plenty of organizations like that for individual people, why not individual nations?
I am talking Argentina 80's not 90's, but let's use 90's sure why not. The US is no different then Argentina, you owe the world $3 trillion. Yes banks and other nations charge too much interest but interest is the whole reason why ppl lend money, and Argentina knew what it was getting itself into. Amnesty should be made to the billions inherited from the dictators, but that won't happen. Your idealism is something that I am forced to respect, but it is nothing more then mere idealism.
I'd buy the $2.70 if I knew that the company was fairly paying its workers relative to current United States labor laws.
I assume then Pollux you are every single American citizen?
Source?
JPS showed me, and good ole Lou Dobbs.
Being an American who will be able to vote in two years I'd say that I am more relevant than you nico, as I believe you are Canadian?
I am undecided; if you continue to use nico your posts will be deleted. Secondly I can vote and I can make a difference, but I resign to the fate that Globalization is here to stay. You cannot do anything that is actually meaningful unless of course you have a lobby in Washington.
Yes, sure it will. Everything is written in stone. Utah's going to be the capital of God's Kingdom, too.
If you say so, but since that was a surrender as big as the French in 1940. I'll take it you agree with me.
Costa Rica has the best economy in Latin America, buddy boy.
LOL, your undeserved condescension is seriously killing me. Argentina was considered the poster boy for neo-liberalist reforms in the 90's the model for the rest of Latin America. But of course since it seems you have ADD you missed this:
Argentina had the "best" economy in latin america in the 90's too mein friend.
Not visit, stay.
Sure, if I have an American job that pays well.
Yes nico ur so much older and more maturer than me. I was conceded this point.
I am, and it's evident, and the last portion of ur sentence makes no sense.
If it's so obvious nico I'm curious as to why you aren't conceding?
But you are asserting it is a hell hole, not moi. There is nothing to concede.
Just because you say they will, oh prophet nico.
Thank you for agreeing with me, surrender #2.
You just agreed with me!
Right... obviously you don't know what the sentence means.
There was rampant poverty in the United States under Reagan, inflation was out of control, as I recall the FCC was trying to pull as much money out of circulation as they could by raising their rates to 20%. The deficit was higher than it is now
When ignorance abounds my friend, when ignorance abounds. Reagan had to go through these reforms early in his term to transform the US economy from a Keynesian model to a neo-liberalist one. By 1983-84 the US economy was red hot; this was common in the UK in the early 80's as well. It was the painful transition. Reagan's term lasted longer then 2 years Pollux.
