However global prosperity and living standarts have improved a lot over the last 30 years thanks to globalization.
How do you know they're because of globalization instead of far more powerful forces, like the green revolution or a vast number of technological advances?
because it is globalization that brings technological advances and know-how to 3rd world countries.
No it isn't. the green revolution started just after WW2 and was spreading of its own accord. The implementation of most strains of food which resulted in the revolution occured prior to 1970.
The modern era of globalization started in earnest after the tokyo GATT round in 1973 where the amount of tariff reductions secured was around 8 times higher than the prior round. This series of concessions then went on to create the WTO.
So your entire argument is that the system is unsustainable because corporations are greedy and take out more than is put into the "system." First of all, the only thing you've demonstrated is that the US government, which is not a capitalist enterprise, last time I checked, takes out money that isn't put back in. So your entire argument that it's the corporations fault is based off of the US government taking money out through taxes.
You can use the taxes as a substitute for any form of externality, or any form of non transactional cost. Even the material upkeep of the store would break the cycle. The point is there's no wealth being created in the cycle, but there's a transactional cost regardless.
While this is true, L, his entire argument mentions nothing of externality, nor does it mention something about transactional costs either. It simply talks about taxes.
If you're insisting that transactional costs are a flaw, though, then by that argument no market system can ever be good because your outputs will never be 100% from your inputs. It's like the idea of a Carnot engine in chemistry-you will never have 100% efficiency with your heat engines because of the second law of thermodynamics and how entropy works. The transactional cost represents the difference of inputs to outputs.
I also like it when the OP proceeds to ignore my post and go to the next one.
That's not really true, because even if you don't have 100% efficiency, you can always have something other than a closed system; if you create wealth, then it can be destroyed by inefficiencies, but the onus would be on creating more wealth. If we take manufacturing to be the prototypical example of a clear value added process, we can see that MAKING STUFF GIVES YOU MONEY. If, however, the only thing you do is cyclically trade around retail goods, you simply run out over time.
The idea behind his statement is that the near complete collapse of manufacturing has stopped the input of wealth into the system, which is now spinning around in service industries being shaved down slowly.
On January 28 2010 05:40 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:
On January 28 2010 05:28 L wrote: No it isn't. the green revolution started just after WW2 and was spreading of its own accord. The implementation of most strains of food which resulted in the revolution occured prior to 1970.
The modern era of globalization started in earnest after the tokyo GATT round in 1973 where the amount of tariff reductions secured was around 8 times higher than the prior round. This series of concessions then went on to create the WTO.
If you read my post again you will notice that I spoke about technological advances and know-how not the green revolution. Some people might spend money to educate people in 3rd world countries just because they are awesome persons, but corporations that operate factories also have to educate and bring know-how to their personnel in order to function properly.
The green revolution is the largest example of a sharing of technological advances and know-how. It occured pre globalization and has probably saved billions from starvation.
You need to do more than say that globalization has existed while the standard of living has increased. You need to isolate globalization.
Yup ,100% L. Thank you for communicating that more eloquently than I did. The point of my Gamestop analogy was not to show off the precise mechanics of economics, it was merely to illustrate in a very simple way for people NOT acquainted with economics, that the value-added process has been destroyed in America.
what value-added process? do you know what that means? you're talking about taxes and how taxes somehow make everyone poor and unsustainable. are you serious? your manipulation of numbers is astounding i don't know how you went from paying taxes to
The middle and lower classes cannot live much longer with these types of conditions. This is why there is a constant drain of money OUT of the middle and lower classes and INTO the upper classes.
but either you're a super mega genius or you have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm a super mega genius. The entire point was to illustrate that there was no point in that cycle that any value was ever added.
You're crying because you don't see where any value was added in that process. So, I accomplished my job. Wewt.
I'm not saying taxes make everyone poor and unsustainable. I'm saying capital leaves the retail industry in the form of taxes and salaries to corporate execs. If the Main Street labor market is dependent on growth in the retail industry, then it's a very shaky foundation, seeing as retail has these constant siphons to pull money out of the industry. AKA growth in the retail sector is unsustainable.
Normally, this would be curtailed by the interplay between the manufacture sector and the retail sector playing off each other. The more sales retail has, the more orders for the manufacture sector, back and forth etc. That's how growth emerges in both sectors.
But now the manufacturing sector has been exported to foreign nations. This symbiotic dynamic has been broken. There is nothing but a constant flight of capital away from Main Street. It's really a simple concept, but you're so busy trying to get indignant over my imprecise economics that you choose to bluster and screech instead of see the actual point. It's an analogy. It's not a precise model of exactly what's going on in the entire US economy with every single tax law and channel of capital flow being described. If I wanted to write that, I'd go get a PhD in economics as I'd have pretty much done all the work with none of the benefit.
you're assuming that the retailers lose money because manufacturers are being exported? there is no change in the dynamic here just because manufacturing has moved. more retail still = more manufacturing. people buy things, retail makes profit, manufacturer makes profit. sure, this takes away low skill labor but it creates labor as well because now there are more distribution and management issues to be handled. keeping manufacturing here would hurt retail far more as cost for labor would be so much higher raising price for goods.
But the distribution/management chains require far fewer people, whereas our population is growing with each generation. I see mechanization replacing human labor in the USA, but the people who lost those old manufacturing jobs are just not intelligent enough to find work in a society only interested in high skill labor. At best, the lower classes can become janitors, trash collectors, room service etc. And very few of these jobs are enough to sustain a family.
Traditionally, society relied on agriculture as a way for poorer, less educated people to sustain themselves. This was transferred in large part to manufacturing during the industrial era. But now in the computer age, many of the manufacturing jobs that were lost don't have a parallel to shift into. I'm not trying to be mean, but there are a significant number of people in the population with limited intellectual capacity. They can't really go become supply-chain managers, or financial officers, etc.
Maybe that is progress, but I see it as a source for future volatility as the lower-middle classes will feel increasingly resentful towards income stratification. A big part of USA's stability in the 20th century was the formation of a large middle class. We're now seeing that middle class disappear, and with it, that once stable core of American citizens.
It's because morons run around trying to claim that the free market leads to increased efficiency and prosperity for all as long as everyone just makes decisions in a totally selfish manner. It doesn't. It doesn't work. The past 30 years have shown it doesn't work. It's led to disaster. The globalization and free market proponents were wrong. They did nothing but justify selfishness as a good thing.
Amen to this. You hit the nail on the head. It's not the concept of globalization that is the problem, it's the implementation. There will always be monied interests who will game the system and screw up a good thing for the rest of us.
Capitalism has flaws. But the trillion dollar question is...
What's the alternative?
The drive for wealth (or accumulation of capital - non-human, non-raw materials portion of production such as machinery, building, infrastructure, etc...wealthiest people own these in the form of stocks) serves as an incentive for investment, invention and production. It's the biggest incentive humanity has ever seen, and therefore capitalism produces more than any other system has done.
The problem you point out is how this maximally produced (at least at this point of history...who knows some other weird system produces more in the future) wealth is redistributed.
Welfare, taxes, etc distribute the wealth. Too much of this, there's no incentive for investment, invention and production and wealth shrinks. Too little of this, the world is screwed like you describe.
It's all about finding the right balance between these extremes.
On January 28 2010 07:25 sky_slasher wrote: Capitalism has flaws. But the trillion dollar question is...
What's the alternative?
The drive for wealth (or accumulation of capital - non-human, non-raw materials portion of production such as machinery, building, infrastructure, etc...wealthiest people own these in the form of stocks) serves as an incentive for investment, invention and production. It's the biggest incentive humanity has ever seen, and therefore capitalism produces more than any other system has done.
The problem you point out is how this maximally produced (at least at this point of history...who knows some other weird system produces more in the future) wealth is redistributed.
Welfare, taxes, etc distribute the wealth. Too much of this, there's no incentive for investment, invention and production and wealth shrinks. Too little of this, the world is screwed like you describe.
It's all about finding the right balance between these extremes.
You are trying to discredit capitalism and free market by comparing it with ideals. Your flawed argumentation is built upon that. That's just dumb. Capitalism has flaws, nevertheless, a free-market is and has been the best way for countries wealth to be produced and distributed.
On January 28 2010 07:36 GoTuNk! wrote: You are trying to discredit capitalism and free market by comparing it with ideals. Your flawed argumentation is built upon that. That's just dumb. Capitalism has flaws, nevertheless, a free-market is and has been the best way for countries wealth to be produced and distributed.
Would you mind backing that up? Thats your entire argument right there, and it's just a blind statement of fact. Something tells me you can't back it up with any evidence.
On January 28 2010 04:32 StorkHwaiting wrote: The problem with this theory is it doesn't account for the destructiveness of monopolies.
Which is why no country have ever run a completely free market without laws to protect against monopolies. No kind of pseudo monopoly will ever get stronger than the state and if they become too much of a problem the state will stop them. Big companies like Microsoft are constantly walking on a thread trying to exert as much power as possible will still staying within the laws, the reason they haven't crushed all competition is thanks to those laws. If there is a hole it will get patched and temporary abuse do not cause that much damage, so the system is safe.
Still socialists in Sweden want alcohol and drugs/meds monopolized....by the state?
That's some BS. The entire idea with a free market is to oppose monopolies, which are often times monopolies of the government/state. The idea is that competition leads to lower prices and thus is good for the customer.
Yeah, I know. I am like most educated Swedes on our right wing while the crazies are mostly on the left. It seems like in the US on the other hand that this is reversed.
(This isn't to say that all who are on those sides are like that, just that those groups are drawn towards those sides)
On January 28 2010 07:36 GoTuNk! wrote: You are trying to discredit capitalism and free market by comparing it with ideals. Your flawed argumentation is built upon that. That's just dumb. Capitalism has flaws, nevertheless, a free-market is and has been the best way for countries wealth to be produced and distributed.
Would you mind backing that up? Thats your entire argument right there, and it's just a blind statement of fact. Something tells me you can't back it up with any evidence.
On January 28 2010 07:36 GoTuNk! wrote: You are trying to discredit capitalism and free market by comparing it with ideals. Your flawed argumentation is built upon that. That's just dumb. Capitalism has flaws, nevertheless, a free-market is and has been the best way for countries wealth to be produced and distributed.
No, he's trying to discredit modern globalism and the last 3 decades of laissez faire policies.
Like I said in my first post: this is the type of people you need to convince to the point of rebellion; it isn't going to happen, so this argument is going to be a waste of time in the big picture.
On January 28 2010 07:44 L wrote: Like I said in my first post: this is the type of people you need to convince to the point of rebellion; it isn't going to happen, so this argument is going to be a waste of time in the big picture.
Or maybe it is just because you guys are crazy and that this isn't such a big deal after all?
On January 28 2010 05:08 L wrote: [quote] How do you know they're because of globalization instead of far more powerful forces, like the green revolution or a vast number of technological advances?
because it is globalization that brings technological advances and know-how to 3rd world countries.
No it isn't. the green revolution started just after WW2 and was spreading of its own accord. The implementation of most strains of food which resulted in the revolution occured prior to 1970.
The modern era of globalization started in earnest after the tokyo GATT round in 1973 where the amount of tariff reductions secured was around 8 times higher than the prior round. This series of concessions then went on to create the WTO.
So your entire argument is that the system is unsustainable because corporations are greedy and take out more than is put into the "system." First of all, the only thing you've demonstrated is that the US government, which is not a capitalist enterprise, last time I checked, takes out money that isn't put back in. So your entire argument that it's the corporations fault is based off of the US government taking money out through taxes.
You can use the taxes as a substitute for any form of externality, or any form of non transactional cost. Even the material upkeep of the store would break the cycle. The point is there's no wealth being created in the cycle, but there's a transactional cost regardless.
While this is true, L, his entire argument mentions nothing of externality, nor does it mention something about transactional costs either. It simply talks about taxes.
If you're insisting that transactional costs are a flaw, though, then by that argument no market system can ever be good because your outputs will never be 100% from your inputs. It's like the idea of a Carnot engine in chemistry-you will never have 100% efficiency with your heat engines because of the second law of thermodynamics and how entropy works. The transactional cost represents the difference of inputs to outputs.
I also like it when the OP proceeds to ignore my post and go to the next one.
That's not really true, because even if you don't have 100% efficiency, you can always have something other than a closed system; if you create wealth, then it can be destroyed by inefficiencies, but the onus would be on creating more wealth. If we take manufacturing to be the prototypical example of a clear value added process, we can see that MAKING STUFF GIVES YOU MONEY. If, however, the only thing you do is cyclically trade around retail goods, you simply run out over time.
The idea behind his statement is that the near complete collapse of manufacturing has stopped the input of wealth into the system, which is now spinning around in service industries being shaved down slowly.
On January 28 2010 05:40 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:
On January 28 2010 05:28 L wrote: No it isn't. the green revolution started just after WW2 and was spreading of its own accord. The implementation of most strains of food which resulted in the revolution occured prior to 1970.
The modern era of globalization started in earnest after the tokyo GATT round in 1973 where the amount of tariff reductions secured was around 8 times higher than the prior round. This series of concessions then went on to create the WTO.
If you read my post again you will notice that I spoke about technological advances and know-how not the green revolution. Some people might spend money to educate people in 3rd world countries just because they are awesome persons, but corporations that operate factories also have to educate and bring know-how to their personnel in order to function properly.
The green revolution is the largest example of a sharing of technological advances and know-how. It occured pre globalization and has probably saved billions from starvation.
You need to do more than say that globalization has existed while the standard of living has increased. You need to isolate globalization.
Yup ,100% L. Thank you for communicating that more eloquently than I did. The point of my Gamestop analogy was not to show off the precise mechanics of economics, it was merely to illustrate in a very simple way for people NOT acquainted with economics, that the value-added process has been destroyed in America.
what value-added process? do you know what that means? you're talking about taxes and how taxes somehow make everyone poor and unsustainable. are you serious? your manipulation of numbers is astounding i don't know how you went from paying taxes to
The middle and lower classes cannot live much longer with these types of conditions. This is why there is a constant drain of money OUT of the middle and lower classes and INTO the upper classes.
but either you're a super mega genius or you have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm a super mega genius. The entire point was to illustrate that there was no point in that cycle that any value was ever added.
You're crying because you don't see where any value was added in that process. So, I accomplished my job. Wewt.
I'm not saying taxes make everyone poor and unsustainable. I'm saying capital leaves the retail industry in the form of taxes and salaries to corporate execs. If the Main Street labor market is dependent on growth in the retail industry, then it's a very shaky foundation, seeing as retail has these constant siphons to pull money out of the industry. AKA growth in the retail sector is unsustainable.
Normally, this would be curtailed by the interplay between the manufacture sector and the retail sector playing off each other. The more sales retail has, the more orders for the manufacture sector, back and forth etc. That's how growth emerges in both sectors.
But now the manufacturing sector has been exported to foreign nations. This symbiotic dynamic has been broken. There is nothing but a constant flight of capital away from Main Street. It's really a simple concept, but you're so busy trying to get indignant over my imprecise economics that you choose to bluster and screech instead of see the actual point. It's an analogy. It's not a precise model of exactly what's going on in the entire US economy with every single tax law and channel of capital flow being described. If I wanted to write that, I'd go get a PhD in economics as I'd have pretty much done all the work with none of the benefit.
you're assuming that the retailers lose money because manufacturers are being exported? there is no change in the dynamic here just because manufacturing has moved. more retail still = more manufacturing. people buy things, retail makes profit, manufacturer makes profit. sure, this takes away low skill labor but it creates labor as well because now there are more distribution and management issues to be handled. keeping manufacturing here would hurt retail far more as cost for labor would be so much higher raising price for goods.
But the distribution/management chains require far fewer people, whereas our population is growing with each generation. I see mechanization replacing human labor in the USA, but the people who lost those old manufacturing jobs are just not intelligent enough to find work in a society only interested in high skill labor. At best, the lower classes can become janitors, trash collectors, room service etc. And very few of these jobs are enough to sustain a family.
Traditionally, society relied on agriculture as a way for poorer, less educated people to sustain themselves. This was transferred in large part to manufacturing during the industrial era. But now in the computer age, many of the manufacturing jobs that were lost don't have a parallel to shift into. I'm not trying to be mean, but there are a significant number of people in the population with limited intellectual capacity. They can't really go become supply-chain managers, or financial officers, etc.
Maybe that is progress, but I see it as a source for future volatility as the lower-middle classes will feel increasingly resentful towards income stratification. A big part of USA's stability in the 20th century was the formation of a large middle class. We're now seeing that middle class disappear, and with it, that once stable core of American citizens.
what you are describing is what has happened before, is happening now, and will happen for all time. unskilled laborers becoming irrelevant, who'd have thought?
this, however, is a separate issue and really has nothing to do with globalization as it would happen regardless.
On January 28 2010 04:32 StorkHwaiting wrote: The problem with this theory is it doesn't account for the destructiveness of monopolies.
Which is why no country have ever run a completely free market without laws to protect against monopolies. No kind of pseudo monopoly will ever get stronger than the state and if they become too much of a problem the state will stop them. Big companies like Microsoft are constantly walking on a thread trying to exert as much power as possible will still staying within the laws, the reason they haven't crushed all competition is thanks to those laws. If there is a hole it will get patched and temporary abuse do not cause that much damage, so the system is safe.
Still socialists in Sweden want alcohol and drugs/meds monopolized....by the state?
That's some BS. The entire idea with a free market is to oppose monopolies, which are often times monopolies of the government/state. The idea is that competition leads to lower prices and thus is good for the customer.
Yeah, I know. I am like most educated Swedes on our right wing while the crazies are mostly on the left. It seems like in the US on the other hand that this is reversed.
(This isn't to say that all who are on those sides are like that, just that those groups are drawn towards those sides)
Your definition of 'crazy' seems to be 'people who don't think like me'.
On January 28 2010 07:36 GoTuNk! wrote: You are trying to discredit capitalism and free market by comparing it with ideals. Your flawed argumentation is built upon that. That's just dumb. Capitalism has flaws, nevertheless, a free-market is and has been the best way for countries wealth to be produced and distributed.
Would you mind backing that up? Thats your entire argument right there, and it's just a blind statement of fact. Something tells me you can't back it up with any evidence.
That wasn't me, but are you serious?
Yes. I'm serious. How can you possibly back that up? The domination of capitalism (at either the point of a gun or the threat of total withdrawl of investment or the strings attached to various IMF loans) has stopped all serious alternatives being tested.
Furthermore, wealth shouldn't be the ultimate indicator anyway. General quality of life perhaps.
I have so many problems with the OP that I want to cry. My advice is simple; if you "100% agree" with the OP then take some economics courses, go read Globalization and Its Discontents by Stiglitz (if you're interested in globalization, deregulation, historical contexts, etc), and let this thread die.
And to preempt those people that want a "spirited debate" on this topic, I assure you that there is little substance in these posts, and those in disagreement with the OP somehow have mustered the energy to teach you economics 101 (instead of letting you go on with your lives in ignorance).
On January 28 2010 05:19 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: [quote] because it is globalization that brings technological advances and know-how to 3rd world countries.
No it isn't. the green revolution started just after WW2 and was spreading of its own accord. The implementation of most strains of food which resulted in the revolution occured prior to 1970.
The modern era of globalization started in earnest after the tokyo GATT round in 1973 where the amount of tariff reductions secured was around 8 times higher than the prior round. This series of concessions then went on to create the WTO.
So your entire argument is that the system is unsustainable because corporations are greedy and take out more than is put into the "system." First of all, the only thing you've demonstrated is that the US government, which is not a capitalist enterprise, last time I checked, takes out money that isn't put back in. So your entire argument that it's the corporations fault is based off of the US government taking money out through taxes.
You can use the taxes as a substitute for any form of externality, or any form of non transactional cost. Even the material upkeep of the store would break the cycle. The point is there's no wealth being created in the cycle, but there's a transactional cost regardless.
While this is true, L, his entire argument mentions nothing of externality, nor does it mention something about transactional costs either. It simply talks about taxes.
If you're insisting that transactional costs are a flaw, though, then by that argument no market system can ever be good because your outputs will never be 100% from your inputs. It's like the idea of a Carnot engine in chemistry-you will never have 100% efficiency with your heat engines because of the second law of thermodynamics and how entropy works. The transactional cost represents the difference of inputs to outputs.
I also like it when the OP proceeds to ignore my post and go to the next one.
That's not really true, because even if you don't have 100% efficiency, you can always have something other than a closed system; if you create wealth, then it can be destroyed by inefficiencies, but the onus would be on creating more wealth. If we take manufacturing to be the prototypical example of a clear value added process, we can see that MAKING STUFF GIVES YOU MONEY. If, however, the only thing you do is cyclically trade around retail goods, you simply run out over time.
The idea behind his statement is that the near complete collapse of manufacturing has stopped the input of wealth into the system, which is now spinning around in service industries being shaved down slowly.
On January 28 2010 05:40 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:
On January 28 2010 05:28 L wrote: No it isn't. the green revolution started just after WW2 and was spreading of its own accord. The implementation of most strains of food which resulted in the revolution occured prior to 1970.
The modern era of globalization started in earnest after the tokyo GATT round in 1973 where the amount of tariff reductions secured was around 8 times higher than the prior round. This series of concessions then went on to create the WTO.
If you read my post again you will notice that I spoke about technological advances and know-how not the green revolution. Some people might spend money to educate people in 3rd world countries just because they are awesome persons, but corporations that operate factories also have to educate and bring know-how to their personnel in order to function properly.
The green revolution is the largest example of a sharing of technological advances and know-how. It occured pre globalization and has probably saved billions from starvation.
You need to do more than say that globalization has existed while the standard of living has increased. You need to isolate globalization.
Yup ,100% L. Thank you for communicating that more eloquently than I did. The point of my Gamestop analogy was not to show off the precise mechanics of economics, it was merely to illustrate in a very simple way for people NOT acquainted with economics, that the value-added process has been destroyed in America.
what value-added process? do you know what that means? you're talking about taxes and how taxes somehow make everyone poor and unsustainable. are you serious? your manipulation of numbers is astounding i don't know how you went from paying taxes to
The middle and lower classes cannot live much longer with these types of conditions. This is why there is a constant drain of money OUT of the middle and lower classes and INTO the upper classes.
but either you're a super mega genius or you have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm a super mega genius. The entire point was to illustrate that there was no point in that cycle that any value was ever added.
You're crying because you don't see where any value was added in that process. So, I accomplished my job. Wewt.
I'm not saying taxes make everyone poor and unsustainable. I'm saying capital leaves the retail industry in the form of taxes and salaries to corporate execs. If the Main Street labor market is dependent on growth in the retail industry, then it's a very shaky foundation, seeing as retail has these constant siphons to pull money out of the industry. AKA growth in the retail sector is unsustainable.
Normally, this would be curtailed by the interplay between the manufacture sector and the retail sector playing off each other. The more sales retail has, the more orders for the manufacture sector, back and forth etc. That's how growth emerges in both sectors.
But now the manufacturing sector has been exported to foreign nations. This symbiotic dynamic has been broken. There is nothing but a constant flight of capital away from Main Street. It's really a simple concept, but you're so busy trying to get indignant over my imprecise economics that you choose to bluster and screech instead of see the actual point. It's an analogy. It's not a precise model of exactly what's going on in the entire US economy with every single tax law and channel of capital flow being described. If I wanted to write that, I'd go get a PhD in economics as I'd have pretty much done all the work with none of the benefit.
you're assuming that the retailers lose money because manufacturers are being exported? there is no change in the dynamic here just because manufacturing has moved. more retail still = more manufacturing. people buy things, retail makes profit, manufacturer makes profit. sure, this takes away low skill labor but it creates labor as well because now there are more distribution and management issues to be handled. keeping manufacturing here would hurt retail far more as cost for labor would be so much higher raising price for goods.
But the distribution/management chains require far fewer people, whereas our population is growing with each generation. I see mechanization replacing human labor in the USA, but the people who lost those old manufacturing jobs are just not intelligent enough to find work in a society only interested in high skill labor. At best, the lower classes can become janitors, trash collectors, room service etc. And very few of these jobs are enough to sustain a family.
Traditionally, society relied on agriculture as a way for poorer, less educated people to sustain themselves. This was transferred in large part to manufacturing during the industrial era. But now in the computer age, many of the manufacturing jobs that were lost don't have a parallel to shift into. I'm not trying to be mean, but there are a significant number of people in the population with limited intellectual capacity. They can't really go become supply-chain managers, or financial officers, etc.
Maybe that is progress, but I see it as a source for future volatility as the lower-middle classes will feel increasingly resentful towards income stratification. A big part of USA's stability in the 20th century was the formation of a large middle class. We're now seeing that middle class disappear, and with it, that once stable core of American citizens.
what you are describing is what has happened before, is happening now, and will happen for all time. unskilled laborers becoming irrelevant, who'd have thought?
this, however, is a separate issue and really has nothing to do with globalization as it would happen regardless.
Structural unemployment has nothing to do with globalization? Hm, that's a new one.
And I disagree that this has happened before. We have not had a precedent where a sector as huge as agriculture or manufacturing was rendered obsolete with no sustainable, value-added industry to replace it. A service based economy that relies on consumerism just doesn't work in my opinion. It doesn't benefit Main Street. Modern nations need to come up with a good solution to employing their less-skilled citizens. This is not like 5-8% of the population. It's a majority of the population that is increasingly losing their jobs without a sustainable industry to be employed in.
When you take the military, agriculture, and manufacturing out of the equation as main sources of employment, as we are seeing machines take over these jobs more and more, it becomes a serious issue that modern capitalism needs to address. So far, the answer has been rampant consumerism so that people can be employed in retail or service sectors. My point the whole time has been that this is an unsustainable strategy, built on the backs of 3rd world labor (which will not be 3rd world forever), and leads to no real growth because all we've really built are shopping malls and overflowing landfills full of thrown away merchandise.
Look at what's considered the modern day savior in economics right now. The world is hoping that China's citizens will rise up and create such a ridiculous amount of demand for products that it will pull the rest of the world out of the doldrums. What kind of exit strategy from recession is that? Let's hope China joins in on the rampant consumerism so we find more people willing to blow all their money on unneeded luxury goods and we can keep this ball rolling?
I'm sorry but quality of life is not ipods, flat screens, and blackberries. Not when we're forced to work more hours, at more intellectually strenuous occupations, with higher stress levels, for less effective pay. That's not an increase in quality of life.
On January 28 2010 04:32 StorkHwaiting wrote: The problem with this theory is it doesn't account for the destructiveness of monopolies.
Which is why no country have ever run a completely free market without laws to protect against monopolies. No kind of pseudo monopoly will ever get stronger than the state and if they become too much of a problem the state will stop them. Big companies like Microsoft are constantly walking on a thread trying to exert as much power as possible will still staying within the laws, the reason they haven't crushed all competition is thanks to those laws. If there is a hole it will get patched and temporary abuse do not cause that much damage, so the system is safe.
Still socialists in Sweden want alcohol and drugs/meds monopolized....by the state?
That's some BS. The entire idea with a free market is to oppose monopolies, which are often times monopolies of the government/state. The idea is that competition leads to lower prices and thus is good for the customer.
Yeah, I know. I am like most educated Swedes on our right wing while the crazies are mostly on the left. It seems like in the US on the other hand that this is reversed.
(This isn't to say that all who are on those sides are like that, just that those groups are drawn towards those sides)
Your definition of 'crazy' seems to be 'people who don't think like me'.
No, I said that crazy people are there, not that all who are there are crazy. I strictly pointed it out. For example one of our major left parties wants to forbid interest on loans and another is a mix between communism and feminism. (Real communism, not socialism, that is the biggest left party and they are quite sane)
On January 28 2010 07:36 GoTuNk! wrote: You are trying to discredit capitalism and free market by comparing it with ideals. Your flawed argumentation is built upon that. That's just dumb. Capitalism has flaws, nevertheless, a free-market is and has been the best way for countries wealth to be produced and distributed.
Would you mind backing that up? Thats your entire argument right there, and it's just a blind statement of fact. Something tells me you can't back it up with any evidence.
That wasn't me, but are you serious?
Yes. I'm serious. How can you possibly back that up? The domination of capitalism (at either the point of a gun or the threat of total withdrawl of investment or the strings attached to various IMF loans) has stopped all serious alternatives being tested.
Furthermore, wealth shouldn't be the ultimate indicator anyway. General quality of life perhaps.
Can you name the serious alternatives? The only I know of is that most is state or family owned and monopolies are everywhere, kinda like Soviet or almost any state at all before the modern times.
On January 28 2010 07:44 L wrote: Like I said in my first post: this is the type of people you need to convince to the point of rebellion; it isn't going to happen, so this argument is going to be a waste of time in the big picture.
Or maybe it is just because you guys are crazy and that this isn't such a big deal after all?
Well, most people would care about having a huge amount of money essentially milked from them, but I suppose when you don't bother about thinking about it, its easy to carry on producing so that you can support someone else's opulent lifestyle, one that you work harder to achieve in an expression of envy.
On January 28 2010 07:58 InsideTheBox wrote: I have so many problems with the OP that I want to cry. My advice is simple; if you "100% agree" with the OP then take some economics courses, go read Globalization and Its Discontents by Stiglitz (if you're interested in globalization, deregulation, historical contexts, etc), and let this thread die.
And to preempt those people that want a "spirited debate" on this topic, I assure you that there is little substance in these posts, and those in disagreement with the OP somehow have mustered the energy to teach you economics 101 (instead of letting you go on with your lives in ignorance).
Um, sorry to inform you, but Stiglitz is in agreement with my position. He's probably one of the biggest proponents of government intervention in capitalism. Sorry, but you kind of came out here, name dropped, then made yourself look bad by not even understanding what it is Stiglitz advocates.
Just because Stiglitz takes it from the angle of asymmetrical information and inefficiencies in the "invisible hand," while I take it from the angle of damage to domestic economies caused by said globalization, does not make me wrong. I'm choosing to focus on the effects, while he is focusing on the causes. Way to not understand anything, yet act like a pompous ass. Still, it was a pretty brilliant example of self-ownage.
Laissez-faire was the 1920s. This so called trend towards deregulation is just an increase in Ayn Rand fanatics.
That said, you are not focusing on your strongest point: that globalization is not always a good thing. Among other factors, it is an enforcer of political instability in Africa. I don't really feel like elaborating, just believe me =)
Also, if you make some grand theoretical statement like "EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING IS WRONG," please provide in the OP 1) concrete example 2) a fair representation of a counter opinion and 3) why this opinion is wrong.
This allows for a reasonable discussion about facts instead of a completely subjective discussion about fake politics and fake economics.
On January 28 2010 07:44 L wrote: Like I said in my first post: this is the type of people you need to convince to the point of rebellion; it isn't going to happen, so this argument is going to be a waste of time in the big picture.
Or maybe it is just because you guys are crazy and that this isn't such a big deal after all?
Well, most people would care about having a huge amount of money essentially milked from them, but I suppose when you don't bother about thinking about it, its easy to carry on producing so that you can support someone else's opulent lifestyle, one that you work harder to achieve in an expression of envy.
Controlled capitalism most of all produces economic growth, socialism produces equality. You can't make things equal without disrupting growth.
Anyhow, the problems you see are that jobs moves overseas. But you know, that isn't a problem! Those overseas are much poorer than the middle class of America. And you are still getting it better by all of this, since you can now buy cheap quality goods from Asia. You couldn't do that before. The downside is that when fewer buys American goods you get less jobs.
But really, what is happening is a great global equalisation, you guys had it way too good compared to the rest of the world and now capitalism is showering money over those countries getting things up to par.
You are just angry because this isn't making things better for yourself in every conceivable way. You want to stay as one of the over consumers of the world with 90% of the world having it worse than you.
On January 28 2010 07:44 L wrote: Like I said in my first post: this is the type of people you need to convince to the point of rebellion; it isn't going to happen, so this argument is going to be a waste of time in the big picture.
Or maybe it is just because you guys are crazy and that this isn't such a big deal after all?
Well, most people would care about having a huge amount of money essentially milked from them, but I suppose when you don't bother about thinking about it, its easy to carry on producing so that you can support someone else's opulent lifestyle, one that you work harder to achieve in an expression of envy.
Controlled capitalism most of all produces economic growth, socialism produces equality. You can't make things equal without disrupting growth.
Anyhow, the problems you see are that jobs moves overseas. But you know, that isn't a problem! Those overseas are much poorer than the middle class of America. And you are still getting it better by all of this, since you can now buy cheap quality goods from Asia. You couldn't do that before. The downside is that when fewer buys American goods you get less jobs.
But really, what is happening is a great global equalisation, you guys had it way too good compared to the rest of the world and now capitalism is showering money over those countries getting things up to par.
You are just angry because this isn't making things better for yourself in every conceivable way.
The point of a government is to better the lives of its citizens, not the world. Therefore, I have every right to be angry.
EPT
