Globalization

POSTED BY: deepgirl187
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 22:20
VIEWED: 9221
PAGE 2 of 15

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:31 PM

"economies will be evening out, that is, the world will become mostly one big lower, lower middle class"

And I believe it will be a race to the bottom.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:32 PM

"economies will be evening out, that is, the world will become mostly one big lower, lower middle class"

And I believe it will be a race to the bottom. And with the capitalist system in general, it will be a race to see who can use up the earth first and fastest.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

HERO

Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Do you really need one that big? Seriously I have problems watching SD content on a 32 and there doesnt seem to be that much HD content to be had. Doesnt SD on a 60 inch look like Picasso?

SD content is not bad...more like a subconcious blur.

HD content is available in my area on almost every network. I sprang for the special de-Picassonator...ie the HD DVR from my cable company.

I have tickets to some of the Browns games this season and I'm torn as to which I like better, the stadium...or my comfy stadium seat in front of the TV.

I note for the record that, at 2-3 the Browns have won every game I've seen in person and lost every game I've watched on TV.

H

MISSTRESSAHARA

Friday, October 12, 2007 1:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
On the other hand, I love my 60" flatscreen Sony

Can I come over to your house?

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
~Peter*Peter*Power>~re-peater~

HEROES IS MY CRACK!

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

FLETCH2

Friday, October 12, 2007 1:40 PM

Classical economic theory involves the principle of comparative advantage, the idea that if another country can do something better than yours and is cheaper it makes sense to have them do it buy the cheaper product from them and sell them the things you are good at making. That's the principle on which Free Trade works. A problem with the theory is that it is based on agricultural or first level industrial products.

WHERE things are made is as important to the economy as the profit you make. Perhaps even more important because every $ you make through manufacture trickles down theough the local economy. That's why when the mill in a "mill town" closes, restaurants, movie theatres and stores tend to close as well. Economic theory tends to look at the big picture which is profits and GDP. People live in a smaller world and feel the effects directly.

So when you outsource production to China the chinese economy gets the trickle down advantages inherent in being where things are actually made. Over time this will build a middle class and small businesses there. Eventually in theory those people will start buying goods made in America and the world will be a good and happy place.

While that will happen eventually it's worth noting that,

1) It is the western economy that suffers pain from this transition.

2) It could take a while (decades) before the bounceback occurs.

3) the average western consumer uses far more than his own "fair share" of energy and raw materials. Since there is physically not enough material to allow the whole planet to share that same level of consumerism the current western system can only continue it some kind of false "two tier" world is created or the level of excess of Western consumerism will have to fall as the playing field "levels.."

SIGNYM

Friday, October 12, 2007 6:19 PM

My reading of economic history is that "bounceback" never occurs unless it is forced to occur through political action. If you look at the industrialization of England, when people were forced off the land in droves and starved under bridges or in poorhouses, the rich kept getting richer and the poor poorer until labor unions demanded better conditions. The same has pretty much happened everywhere. Under capitalism, the development of a "midddle class" in India, China, and Russia ia accompanied by the development of an even poorer class. (I'll be happy to link you with exhuastive amounts of data which proves this point). What happens is not wealth creation so much as upwards wealth redistribution. And that is simply capitalism doing what capitalism does best.

I have a problem with globalization under the purview of monopolies which will do their best to make sure that their profits are maximized while salaries are minimized everywhere. In the current dynamic, the big banks and corporations get to write the rules of international "free" trade which overrule national, state, or local laws for product safety, environmental effect, or worker protection. In other words, it is not possible to apply tariffs to products from Malaysia (for example) even if they were made by starving child-slaves in concentration camps. Until the equation is balanced... owners facing equally-organized employees- the "negotiation" which is an essential part of capitalism cannot occur.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FLETCH2

Friday, October 12, 2007 6:39 PM

I think the point here is that the market WILL grow, which is the aim of free trade and in time the developed economies will want to buy things from places like the US. The problem is that like a lot of things this would take a long time. America is an instant gratification culture, if it doesnt happen in 3-5 years people have no interest in it. That's why things like Global Warming doesnt stick here, 20-30 years is outside the US attention span. So when politicos "explain" the benefits of global free trade they make it sound like the loss of jobs to developing economies is a short term blip, that in 5 years India will be a huge market with an affluent middle class just crying out for US goods. That may happen but in a 30-50 year timecycle rather than 3-5 years. Politicos are selling the displaced worker the idea that the cycle will complete soon and that he will see the benefit of his "sacrifice" personally, in his work lifetime. That is probably not the case.

I read an article by the guy that wrote the book Rue linked (just to see the crux of his argument since I have no easy access to the book.) His view is very similar to mine including the same worries about the classical view of comparative advantage. He also thinks that benefits have a longer time scale than is being sold by politicians but he adds an extra factor, that loss of capability in the developed world can go so far that they are too weak to benefit from the improved markets that off shoring creates.

I do disagree with your historical take. Most poor Americans have electricity, TV's refrigerators, items that less than 100 years ago have been high end luxury goods. If enclosure hadn't happened and freed up the workforce for urban industry there would have been no industrial revolution. While you are correct that distribution of wealth was not even fact still reamins that the market grew and more wealth was created. People do better today on a smaller part of a larger pie than they did 100 years ago with a larger part of a smaller pie. What you are discussing is a social justice issue more to do with distribution of the gains the fact remains however that there WHERE gains and almost everyone benefits from them to some degree.

SIGNYM

Friday, October 12, 2007 6:44 PM

Quote:
I think the point here is that the market WILL grow, which is the aim of free trade and in time the developed economies will want to buy things from places like the US.

And this is exactly what I'm contesting because IMHO the market will SHRINK in the long run. Has nothing to do with how long we wait or "instant gratification". The "American dream" was accompanied by a deterioration of many of our supplying trade partners: Africa, Central and South America, Indonesia, Maylasia etc. I believe that what we saw was nto so much "wealth creation" in the USA as much as wealth distribution from other nations to ours.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

CHRISISALL

Friday, October 12, 2007 6:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

And I believe it will be a race to the bottom. And with the capitalist system in general, it will be a race to see who can use up the earth first and fastest.

There will be the inevitable 'feeding frenzy' as the corporations begin to be faced with just modest profits as opposed to a continual increase in gain....at that point we can expect the 'Corporate Wars' to decide the big winners, and it might or might not include violence.

'Just enough' is a hard nugget for Corporate America to imagine, much less swallow.

Duck and cover Chrisisall

RUE

Friday, October 12, 2007 6:48 PM

Despite abundant historical examples, Fletch doesn't seem to understand how profit concentrates wealth which leads to depressions and smaller markets. And that's just on a strictly economic analysis. There is the problem of the commons and also the effects of structuring your society on the basis of an economy.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE