Continuing from "White Man's Burden". Sandoz: The advantage is cancelled out, or made worse, by the job paying crap and taxation up the yin-yang. Examples of the US' lowering quality of life: http://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/middle class nation.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101735.html http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/berube/20060708.htm Not to mention the fact that it is now routine for both spouses to work, more and more people go without health insurance, tuitions are rising... Why should any country expect its citizens to pay instead of foreigners? Sandoz: Yet America certainly lost great jobs that actually paid well and did well for Americans. Moreover, if it wasn't for Reagan's foresight, we'd have been litterally shafted. Thank God Carter and/or Mondale didn't get in. Obviously. I was just taking the Skype theme. Is it wise for a nation to subsist on the whims of people who are not part of it? A non-Estonian ultimately has very little stake in Estonia. This can mean a lot in corporate decisions. Last I've noticed, computer engineering is starting to go over to India. Same level workers, 1/5th the wages. Wait until European and American software engineers start going out of work. Then we'll see it. It certainly is. I wouldn't mind living there myself if I had to move to another nation. However, the last time I was there was in 2002, when the Dotcom fiasco was still a big deal in economics, thus my experience of the recession pretty much the entire civilized world faced over that. The average income is something like 1/4th of Americans and Europeans even in the best areas. Moreover, they suffer under political oppression, and the Chinese government has its fingers in every pie. If it wasn't for the Chinese willingness to kill anyone who won't slave away, the entire rotten system would collapse. We might all have computers and the internet, but if things go, we'll be making less in 10 years. You will also note the connection to warfare in 13th century trade, namely, in Venice' maritime domination of the Mediterrenean and the minor advances secured by the crusaders. Moreover, the 18th and 19th centuries, obviously, were all about imperialism, massive new land mass exploration and development, and more warfare. And yet their nations came out on top and with a healthy economy that didn't bankrupt the people and rob them of any good work. The burden I was referencing was the public services and other such things that used to be paid by tariffs and now are paid by taxation. It's basically free reign to give every other foreign marketeer a leg up and every citizen a knock down. If it gets to 0, we'll have one hellavua lot of people with no work whatsoever. There is no way in Hell we can support 100% white collar workers and professionals. Prosperity usually brings about -greater- amounts of children, rather than less. The West has suffered through years of Feminism and other social forces that have made family rearing less an issue, but if everyone is supposed to be flowing in money when the third world grows up, I fail to see how the population is going to curb. Do you really think there is any capacity for an economy to consist of: Robots The robot workers and builders Everyone else professionals Even on the simple fact of pure brain power alone, this seems absurd. Not to mention that there are only so many lawyers, doctors, et cetera, that can be handled by an economy at any given time, without making this professions utterly worthless to pursue, for the utter lack of benefit one gains for the years of training it takes to adopt them. We'd essentially have to have doctor guilds driving up the prices of stuff to accomodate the amount of money a doctor needs in order to break even with the 10+ years of medical training and hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt they start with. Whereas clearly you are right in regards to autos, I fail to see how the economy is going to adjust for 0 percent menial labour jobs. How many professors, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, et cetera, do we need? It's growing, but not necessarily growing with the population. Populations can and do outgrow their economic possibilities. This is a fact that goes back as far as Rome. The emperors had to constantly give out free food regularly, as the empire itself was too stretched to truly accomodate them all. Are you saying any economy can subsist -purely- on those? The GDP doesn't mean crap if the real wages of people constantly are going -down-. It doesn't matter if Bill Gates and Richard Branson are making tons of money, if no one else really is seeing a significant, or really any, increase in wages. Actually, pound for pound, everything seems like it is getting more expensive. Of course, technologies some technological things are becoming less expensive, but by the time they do become decently priced they tend to be at least semi-obsolete. LOL I would hope not! You do realize that after a certain extent of competition, wages go -down-, yes? Western engineers will have millions of new engineers competing with them and what does this mean? Less wages! As in order to compete, one must be willing to work for less, or be so great as to warrant higher prices - and even then that is a risky endeavour. Moreover, as far as I am aware the increasingly good Indians are not being paid significantly more, and the massive exodus of jobs are continuing to countries such as India. I'd like that to be secured for the next hundred years. Rather than economic primacy going to China in maybe 50 at most. ALso, for people to not have to toil and slave after their parents managed to live better overall whilst working less. American unions are certainly parasitic, but is bad to you know, actually want to live -well-? If the Japanese are willing to live like animals, fine. But I thought economic prosperity was about living -better-? It's very little to do with the free market when the government constantly shafts them with all the crap they give the unions in terms of new laws and restrictions, and allow unfiltered access to the market from countries that don't have such restrictions. But here's a question for you: If globalism is so great, when will we see people be able to afford college for their children (and not just single children, but two or three), not have to have both parents work full time, and be able to get decent health care without a tremendous government programme backing it? Also, to not go bankrupt in old age, or subsist on a failing social security system? Are we going to get some practical growth like that any time soon? 20? 50? 100 years from now?
I'm surprised the Baron has not jumped in with his usual reminder of our narrow perspective. I'm sure he would say it's much more important for the hundreds of millions of people on earth who--by the standards of any of us--live in poverty, to get out of that poverty. We worry about college when their kids can't finish elementary school? We complain about our wives needing to take jobs when the heads of their households can't get one? We demand a free annual physical and bypass surgery (after a lifelong diet of pork rinds) when they have no access to emergency care? We expect to stop working and still get paid when they're lucky to find paying work? The better question might be: How is globalism going to help these people? And the answer, as I've stated a few other times, is that it already is helping them. During my lifetime the people of China--who constitute one sixth of the world's population--were universally acknowledged as abjectly poor. People died of starvation in China. China's per-capita GDP is now increasing by around ten percent a year. Half the country is too young to remember its last famine, there's a substantive middle class, and the working poor have TV sets. The same can be said of India, which has another one sixth. And of course globalization is the direct cause of this: the Wal-Marts that we revile and the customer service centers in Bangalore that we grumble about. Globalization is lifting one third of the human race out of poverty. The starving become poor, the poor become working poor, the working poor become middle class. When this process is complete, then it will be time to talk about university educations, stay-at-home moms, and cruises for retirees. Perhaps what we need to remember is that globalization means taking into account the plight of the whole human race, not just the ones who have already made it into the middle class.
Globalisation is making our world smaller and the life conditions even out. I think that it generally means that those with better life conditions will live a bit worse off than before and those with poorer conditions will live a bit better off. Of course that is a primitive and an incomplete view on the globalisation, but I don't have more time to write about that - stupid exams!
Funny that the leftie purveyors of domestic class-equalization abhor global class-equalization. One would think that their intentions are more selfish than they'd admit to your face.
Fraggle Rocker: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. (I love "Gone with the Wind".) That is to say, I do not care about the rest of the world. I am mostly looking out for my country and my people. I couldn't care less if !Tong, Jose, and Tien Tien were living like crap. In essence, your internationalist concerns do not bother me. Moreover, the use of the poor in globalization is simply exploitation. Eventually they will be irrelevant as they'll demand too much and we'll have too little. But yes, to put it bluntly: Screw them. I am not sacrificing my future, the future of my nation and people, and the future of our next generation for their interests. They can eat mud for all I care.
I see your reading comphrension is subject to personal bias. A couple posts up, I made the same assertion about you lefties. You must have missed it. Typical. You're so like righties -- it's scary. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think this is a pretty good insight. Not only content to "not give a damn" but to also inflict suffering on other people if it leads to your own selfish gain. Just don't be suprised then, when they turn on you and bite you in the ass. I can't see any difference between you and the Islamic fundamentalists that you despise so much. I suppose those deaths that Saddam was responsible for- that you bleat on about ("internationally verified atrocities") really were none of your concern anyway. You took pleasure in his death though, strange, seeing as you didn't care what he did to his own people. You separate yourself not only by country, but by race too, comforted by your own superiority complex. Indeed thanks for clearing all this up, if it was ever in doubt.
Don't you find it interesting, if not a little hippo-critical, that the typical liberal is wealthy and living well ....while ranting about the poor and the hungry? How 'bout you, James? Do you have a lot of money? Do you live well? If so, then isn't your liberal rants a bit hypocritical? Baron Max
Nickelodeon: I have no desire to inflict undue suffering on them. However, I will dismantle every structure that helps them at my suffering. I like to see my nation's enemies killed. It pleasees me to see victory. My race? I said "my people".
I'm not going to go through all of that unless it's shortened, because I'm sure it's just ragging against globalization. You know what? It doesn't matter. Globalization will happen whether you like it or not. As America turns more and more towards a service based economy, it needs less and less of it's manufacturing sector, because it's cheaper to do it somewhere else. If you don't like it, BOYCOTT the American companies that are doing it. Why would American companies want to pay $10/hr to an American when it can pay a Chinese or Vietnamese $0.50/hr for doing the same work, but even MORE efficiently? And through globalization, poverty is being eliminated elsewhere. I know you stated you don't care about anything outside of America, but you can't do anything about it. But go ahead and keep complaining. It's not like the CEOs/CFOs of these multi-national corporations are going to listen to you. They don't care about nationality. They care about profitability only. What will become scary is when today's generation of Chinese and Indian manufacturers make enough money to send all their children to higher education, and those skilled students graduate, and do the work that the average American service sector employee can do, but at ten times less the cost. In that case, it's not like the Chinese/Indian manufacturing will suffer. They still have 800 million people on or below the poverty line willing to do the manufacturing jobs. So while America is struggling to compete with Eastern Europeans, East Asians, and South Asians in the service sectors, the Asian countries (especially) will still have the population to sustain their manufacturing cheaply. It'll be a disaster for America, honestly. But that's what happens historically. No one nation has ever been dominant forever. In fact, within a decade (more like 5 years), China's purchasing power parity will be greater than America's (China's nominal GDP will take a while to catch up to America's though...probably in 25 years).
I agree. But the problem is that you see it as a great and wonderous humanitarian movement. It ain't and it won't be ...globalization is simply a new and more varied method of exploiting others so as to make a buck. When use the term "globalization, you're simply glorifying basic human greed and selfishness and exploitation of others on a global scale. Perhaps on a small scale. But as soon as those people begin to see that they could have more, that they want more, the very companies that brought them out of poverty will go elsewhere and find cheaper labor. All globalization will do is move the poverty from one place to the next, but poverty will still be widespread over the globe. With all that new-found profit coming into the nation, how will it be a disaster for America? Baron Max
James: Obviously your belief that there is a fixed amount of wealth and labor in the world stems not from reasoning but faith, and therefore there is little I can do to make you deviate from this view, even though it does not hold up to even superficial scrutiny. I also have to put down on record my utter disbelief at how you try to reconcile a plainly socialist view of the economy with conservative views on topics like unions and taxes. And finally, I can only urge you to try and read on economics, as it may help you learn a few things and view the world more rationally. This book comes highly recommended: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The picture of the "globalized" world: ~1% - rentier leaches ~10-20% - overworked wage slaves (no matter the compensation) ~10-20% - golden "plebians" of the western countries picking up crumbles of the social help, etc. ~60-80 - human garbage to be used (very cheaply) and discarded as (and if) needed For such a wonderful structure to exist, world economy must grow and grow and .... That means the future is bleak. I bet on the total collapse of modern civilization within the next 100 years. Maybe a race of the intelligent cockraches will be wiser&luckier in 1 billion years.
there is no freaking globalization. It just "capital" was let lose to roam the planet in search for the maximum profit, expressed in the units of semi-fictitious money. There is silent and allgrowing disgust to te global westernized mass "culture". Besides, without cheap hydrocarbons and American militalristic gorilla even globalization of capitals is impossible. I bet the very same companies would love slave labor for at least some jobs. Shall we let them, it will certainly boost their bottomline. Isn't bottomline the measure of it all? Serivice based economy is BS. You can't eat&wear your domestic services, can you? You can't sell your domestic services to vietnamiese, can you? But they work and clothe, etc. your arse, because they are trapped in this insane financial system, killing the planet. Do you think such state of things is just? Americans becoming leeches on somebody's labors because they own financial bloodlines of so called "global" economy. That's not justice, that's insanity. BS, if you cared to check statistics, global poverty rates grow faster than ever before. Is profitability untouchable God? That could be a root problem. BS, Chinese already have hordes of graduates. Have you ever been to sci.&eng. graduate schools in the USA? Many of them certainly look like a chinese graduate schools, not the american one. Improving living standards in the third world by means of global economic growth is impossible (Earth is finite, unfortunately). I would not mind Americans becoming twice poorer so that Chinese could have better lives, however this "sacrifice" will accumulate in the pockets of the transnational financial elites. That's the point of globalization. Americans have no need to compete with anybody, and competing with slave labor isn't that morally straightforward. Americans had luxury to choose (and create) the terms of the global competition. Alas, they've chose the most inhumane, the most destructive (if not suicidal), solely profit based competion. How? USA, provided some limitations on the consumption, is quite a self-sufficient country. OK, China will be dominant country of the global scrap-heap (if there will be one). What a honor. Times are changing, in no time before humanity could self-destruct (civilizationwise at least).
Globalization isn't the most humanitarian movement, but it's the one most plausible that can rid the world of chronic poverty. The thing is, when a factory moves itself to, say China, the lowest of the low will take the factory floor jobs. Do I want them to be exploited? No. But there isn't an alternative. At least with these factories, they are earning some form of income. All poverty-stricken regions need to start somewhere, because they have NO capital to start industries on their own. And especially in countries where there is little to no natural resources, it would be insane to ask them to start their own industries. So yes, in a sense, it is exploitation. But you have to look at it from the flip side as well. These jobs spur skills-growth. China, like Japan, isn't like other countries where once the factories leave, the country is devastated. The governments of Japan and China have recognized early on that they are on a slippery slope with outsourcing. So what did they do? They invest as much money into their own industries as the foreign companies too. Which is why China is set to become the 2nd largest R&D investor in the world, behind the US, and overtaking Japan for the first time. The Chinese and Japanese have successfully stolen and implemented critical technology from US manufacturers, which allow these countries to sustain their own industries at dirt-cheap prices. But as I said before, is it ideal? No. But as the economy expands and more and more people come out of poverty, the situation will improve. Even America's rise wasn't all sugar and spice. Children were exploited. Women were exploited. Non-white people were exploited. That's the sad reality of progress, for now. Until technology and education can make the playing field equal to ALL countries on earth, progress will always come with varying degrees of exploitation. Now that depends on your definition of poverty. There are two types of poverty: moderate and chronic (or extreme). Moderate poverty is a situation where the person (or family) has at least the minimum amount of money, food, education, etc... to survive. These people are not hopeless cases. With a bit more money, they can improve their situation and slowly move towards the middle class. What sums up this group is that they are not in a good position, but they at least have a chance to move up in the social scale (via individual will or some outside help). Examples of this include China, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, etc... Chronic (extreme) poverty is a situation where the person (or family) does not even meet the minimum requirements to survive. These people cannot will themselves out of their situation, but instead require a LOT of outside help. This sums up countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. For all the people saying "Oh, those people are just lazy" or "let them get themselves out of that situation", it's impossible. They just don't have the money, infrastructure, resources, skills, education, nutrition, arable land, government help, right economic situation to help themselves. What globalization is doing, and what most people don't see, is that it's moving people out of the latter into the former. That's what we want. I think it will be impossible to get rid of moderate poverty as long as capitalism exists. What we can do is get people of the extreme poverty category. At least that's what globalization CAN do. It remains to be seen how fast things will chance, but from indications so far, it's working. Bangladesh, being a long time "basket-case", is no longer a basket-case country. Their economy is expanding thanks to foreign aid and globalization. Same for India. Now the trick is to somehow expand into Sub-Saharan Africa, while also putting in place more open, capitalist governments who actually care about expansion of the economy and well-being. I know it's tough to realize at first, but globalization is a good thing (all things considered). As long as it's not taken to the extreme, it can benefit everyone. Depends. As I explained in a previous post, China and India will be the single greatest threats to US jobs in the future. I'll quickly explain why. China is gradually becoming the manufacturing hub of the world. India is gradually becoming the service-industry hub of the world. Right now, the US economy is emphasizing the manufacturing less, but is becoming more of a service industry. The problem is, India is becoming as good if not better than the US, and they do it at a lower cost. That's one reason why Morgan Stanley, Reuters, Intel, and AOL are shipping over their services to India. The skills are similar, but the Indians do it at 15 times less the cost of Americans. So why would they do it in America? In the next 20 years, India and America will be jockeying for the top medical, technological, and pharmaceutical jobs. The advantage the Indians have is that they, like Americans, speak English, their quality of education is comparable, and they're willing to do the work cheaper. The only advantage that the US have is the name recognition of their universities. It's a sad reality. Into this mix will come the Chinese in the future. As the Chinese become more educated in areas requiring more advanced degrees, China will also be moving into the service sector industries, while still having 800 million people to fill the manufacturing jobs that started China's boom. As the Chinese become more educated, they will also be competing for the same jobs that Americans and Indians are jockeying for. And you know what? US companies are gladly willing to ship these jobs overseas, because they DO NOT feel patriotic loyalty to their nation. The only thing they, and the investors, care about is the profit margins. And you know what? It's more profitable to do the work overseas than in America. The quality in America might be better, but it costs helluva lot less overseas with only a minimal amount of quality loss. That's why I'm scared for America by time I'm 50 years old (approx. 30 years from now). By that time, China and India will have a higher GDP (real and nominal) than America if present trends are extrapolated. China is already going to have a higher purchasing power parity than the US in 5 years. But you know what? This could be a good thing for the US too. It's not all doom and gloom. It's only doom and gloom for those who like to trick themselves into thinking that the US will be supreme forever. And about the profit coming to America. Sure, it will. But what does that mean to average American employee? Nothing, unless they are heavy investors. Something to add to that. I'm shocked at the US companies who have sold their souls to outsourcing. I'm not against outsourcing, but what I am against is when the companies do it while trading their manufacturing secrets and designs to the Chinese. It's happened time and time again. That's one reason why I don't think all profits will flow to America in the future. Everyone is expecting that, because China is the worlds biggest market, American products will be bought up like crazy and it will solely benefit the American companies. Not entirely true. The Chinese aren't dumb about this. That's why they do that "build here, we'll provide the land at low rent, we'll provide the cheap labour, but you must share your designs and product line with our Chinese engineers/scientists/manufacturers". And you know what? The companies do it. Of course, if no one here is against America losing it's economic dominance in their lifetime, none of this matters, because like it or not, it's going to happen anyways. Frankly, I'm indifferent to it. I don't care if I live in a uni-polar (American dominated) world, bi-polar (America, China), tri-polar (America, China, EU), or multi-polar world (America, China, EU, Russia, India, Brazil, Japan, etc...).
Baron Max: What do you base this profile of the "typical liberal" on? What are the characteristics of the "typical conservative", do you imagine? The richest and most powerful people in America, as far as I can tell, tend to be conservative, right now. But, maybe I'm wrong. Sorry, but I'd rather not disclose my personal financial information on the internet. But, no, I'm not hypocritical. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another.
James R.: It actually depends on who you consider to be richer and powerful. Almost all of Hollywood and the media are Jewish and Liberal. Businesses tend ot have more conservatives, as does Wall Street, although obviously plenty of Jewish people there, also. Not to turn this into a Judaism issue, mind you.
If you'd get rid of the term "most powerful", then I think you're wrong. An article I read in the paper not too long ago seems to point to the richest people in America as being liberals by a wide margin. What that means to me, of course, is that once they've made their money and are comfortably wealthy, they can afford to be *gag* liberal! And it also says .....they're fuckin' hippo-critters, which is worse than being a liberal by a little bit. In case ye're wondering, the "most powerful" part kinda fucks things up in that article I read. I.e., the richest tend not to be in politics or such where power is a major issue or concern. Baron Max
