Bernie Sanders:America's Biggest Export is Jobs

From the Website of Cong. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

http://bernie.house.gov/documents/opeds/20031014111646.asp

Published on 10/14/2003 in the The Hill

Free Trade Means America’s Biggest Export is its Jobs

by Rep. Bernie Sanders

Our economy has been decimated by “free” trade, and someone has to point out that, like the proverbial naked emperor, our policies have no clothes — or more appropriately in this context, no jobs making clothes, or electronics, or a host of other products we use every day.

Unsurprisingly, proponents of an unfettered free-trade seem unwilling to admit the error of their ways. This group, which includes virtually all of corporate America, every major editorial board, as well as Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, has told us for decades how many new jobs free trade would create here at home. Now the evidence is in and guess what — they were dead wrong. The exact opposite is true.

Largely because of our trade policies, manufacturing is in a state of collapse. In the past three years, we have lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, 16 percent of the total. At 14.7 million, we are at the lowest number of factory jobs since 1958.

In 2002, the United States bought $435 billion more in goods and services made in other countries than products and services made in the United States. And this year, the deficit with China alone is expected to be $120 billion, and getting worse. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that the deficit will grow to $330 billion in five years.

Our disastrous trade policy is not only costing us millions of decent jobs but has put enormous downward pressure on wages as workers compete for an ever-shrinking pool of jobs. Despite huge increases in productivity, real wages for private-sector employees have dropped 8 percent since 1973. The average American is working longer hours for lower wages and most middle-class families now require two breadwinners to pay the bills. For entry-level workers without a college education, the situation is far, far worse. Their real wages have dropped more than 20 percent in the past 25 years.

The demise of well-paid manufacturing jobs is best illustrated by the following: 20 years ago, the largest private employer in the United States was General Motors, where workers earned — and still earn — a good income. Today, our largest employer is Wal-Mart, where workers earn below-poverty wages.

It didn’t take a genius to predict that unfettered free trade with China would be a disaster. With Chinese employees available at 50 cents an hour, and with the ability to bring their Chinese-made products back into this country tariff-free, why wouldn’t American corporations shut down their plants in this country and move to China? Should anyone be surprised that Motorola eliminated 42,900 American jobs in 2001 and invested $3.4 billion in China? Who is shocked that General Electric threw tens of thousands of American workers out on the street while investing over $1.5 billion in China? Honeywell is a sophisticated company. Why wouldn’t we expect them to build 13 factories in China?

China, for American multinational corporations, is a great place to do business, if by “do business” we mean making products for export to the United States that companies previously made here at home. Wages are extremely low in China, and if workers try to stand up for their rights and form unions, they go to jail.

Environmental regulations are almost nonexistent, and, while China becomes one of the most polluted countries on earth, companies don’t have to “waste” money on environmental safeguards.

Over the years, free-trade advocates have tried to gloss over the bad news about declining factory employment by promising that a new economy was in the making — one in which Americans would be working at high wages in high tech. Wrong again! Manufacturing jobs are not the only casualty of free trade.

Estimates are that 560,000 high-tech jobs have been lost in this country in the last two years and that many have ended up in India. More ominous, according to Forrester Research, “over the next 15 years, 3.3 million U.S. service industry jobs and $136 billion in wages will move offshore. The Information Technology industry will lead the initial overseas exodus.”

According to the Booz Allen Hamilton consulting firm, companies can lower costs by 80 percent by shifting tasks such as computer programming, accounting and procurement to China. Among many companies moving high-tech jobs abroad is Microsoft, which is spending $750 million over the next three years on research and development and outsourcing in China.

So free trade has not only cost us our textile industry, our shoe industry, our steel industry, our tool and die industry, our electronic industry, our furniture industry and many others but will now cost us millions of high tech jobs as well.

The United States needs to have a strong, positive relationship with China, but that does not mean allowing corporate America and its supporters in the White House and Congress to destroy the American middle class by making jobs America’s No. 1 export. If we continue to force American workers to “compete” against desperate people throughout the world, American workers will continue to lose.

The United States is the most lucrative market in the world. We need to leverage its value to achieve trade agreements that result in the export of American products, not jobs.

Bernie Sanders is a true treasure.

And they getting out while the getting is good? Could they suspect that there is a full-on collapse/depression coming, and are trying to move as much money and operations out of the U.S. as fast as they can?

Hmmmm.....

One of the problem with turning everything over to the corporations is the illusion that they know so much more than we do.

But they donb't. They're short-sighted, and lose sight of the "forest for the trees." Many of their actions are simply to pump up the next quarterly statement.

They've been feeding us this nonsense about things like "free trade" for years, and many of them obvoiously think it will be beneficial for all. The problem is that the concept is STUPID. It sounds gopod on paper, but is a miserable failure in reality.

They're just trying to increase their productivity by cutting their labor costs.

Trade should be tied to: formation of truly independent labor unions with the right to strike and with comapnies forbidden to hire "replacement workers" in BOTH countries.


And:

America needs an industrial policy beyond what we in fact have for the Fed for banking.

Wait until his Republican challenger unseats him next year! Then we'll get some REAL leadership on these issues and get past all the naysaying. </sarcasm>

Thanks for posting this, Armstead. Bernie is dead-on, as usual. What really galls me is that this could be such a BIG issue for the Democrats, especially with working and lower middle class voters, but instead they've just adopted the same agenda as the Republicans with regards to trade.

Until the party leadership realizes this, and takes more cues from the Progressive Caucus and less from the DLC, they will continue to fail to woo the working and middle class voters that used to be their backbone.

come out. If employment - steadily dropping for 3 years now - has bounced up, all the media people smile happily and proclaim it "good news." If it goes down, administration officials wear concerned expressions on their faces, & voice hopes that "soon we'll be seeing a turnaround."

Yet, as Bernie makes clear above, exporting jobs is POLICY. It is the specific & unavoidable INTENTION of the policy, to ship jobs to China & other low-wage regions. To have adopted that policy, while pretending to hope that results opposite to policy will magically materialize, is completely hypocritical -- which means, of course, that it happens as a matter of course in US society, and passes unremarked upon.

This is so dead on :thumbsup:

People like Krugman and Robert Reich and JK Galbraith support this too, and won't explain why> . Particularly in light of our losses in the Computer programming sector. Even high tech stuff can be done cheaper in these other countries, so what in the hell will we be left with? Krugman said it had to do with the bogus lump of labor theory, but wouldn't expound on it

it improves the bottom line for our corporate community and, hey, look at how our stock market is surging, the baromenter of our corporate economic health is flourishing. Prosperity is right around the corner. How long do you suppoe they can prop this up?

In a global economy could US business thrive while US citizens starve?
What does it matter, the only class whose measure of worth matters is the celebrated corporate class, Americans who are not in the club are on the level of Reagan's welfare mothers.

It improves the corporate bottom line for now, but the consumer is 2/3 of GNP and the refinance money is spent, credit card debt is coming due. Couple this with jobs lost, the consumer spending is approaching a cliff IMO. This will affect the corporate bottom line and let the rest of the air out of the market.

Almost forgot, great going Bernie. That's why we always return you to Washington.

What if, in the global age, US companies don't need to rely on American markets to pump up their bottom line? They are no longer obligated to the US in any way other than to fund politicians who support legislation to grant them tax relief and corporate handouts. Other than that, their allegiance is little more than an off-shore address.

And some astute individual pointed out, with closing military bases and lost jobs, the down and out can sign up and demonstrate their "new American patriotism" to "volunteer" for meager wages as the new American third world work force.

Right now young people who can't find employment are joing the army because it is a job. A sign of things to come?

With the U.S. consumer tapped out, maybe the multinational corporations will be able to find a new consumer base in Asia, for example, where the consumers are just coming on line.

Right now, it seems jobs are being exported to allow making goods cheaper, which are in turn imported back to the U.S., where the dollars are. In the future, the dollars may all be in China, where the jobs are, and so the goods may stay in China?

The United States is the most lucrative market in the world. We need to leverage its value to achieve trade agreements that result in the export of American products, not jobs.

no jobs eventually means no consuming, once the credit bubble bursts. We're headed for the rise of a new feudalism.

:dem:

can we say good riddance to corporate amerikkka ... take your biz and go wherever? what kind of new economy can America sustain, i.e. local economies ... a return to the small town existence and mom & pop shops.

Bernie can complain all he wants but the decline of low skill/high paying jobs was inevitable. It is naive to think that the US could sustain the incredible wage gap that existed with the rest of the world over the long term.

I agree there should not be such a wage gap. But IMO the way to fix that is NOT to drag down the US to the lowest wage-scale nations, while also keeping those low-wage nations down.Rather we should be pushing to spread the wealth by helping others rise.

Under the current model of "free trade" jobs will continuously follow the bottom. And thus the bottom will continue to be lowered. As soon as Poor Country B begins to rise on the scale, Poor Country C will entice the corporate pigs to their trough with a new source of slave labor. Rather than bring up Country C, this dynamic will bring down Country B too.

As Bernie says, as the largest market, the US has a lot of clout, Unless we assert that both to protect OUR standard of living and bring up OTHERS on a reasonable basis we'll all go down.

Under the current model of "free trade" jobs will continuously follow the bottom. And thus the bottom will continue to be lowered. As soon as Poor Country B begins to rise on the scale, Poor Country C will entice the corporate pigs to their trough with a new source of slave labor. Rather than bring up Country C, this dynamic will bring down Country B too.

In reality, this is not what happens. All the data indicates that average income in developing countries is rising, not falling. Agreed, jobs and money will always flow to the poorest countries (and it that a bad thing...?), but workers in other countries do not cut their wages to compete unless the difference is huge (like US vs. China).

I think economic development should be more of a situation where countries develop in partnership with the rest of the world, not as colonies and beggars seeking our jobs..

Free trade is based on a model that WE send our jobs to them, and those lucky peasants get a chance to work for our multinational corporations. All we ask is that they decimate their own economies and remove all efforts to support their own domestic industries. Doesn;t sound very "free" to me. Rather than create a broader basis oif wealth, it is concentrating wealth -- those who benefit get to set the terms and figure out how they are going to spread the crumbs to everyone else.

Aren't any simple formulas for this. Bit there are solutions, if the nations of the world are allowed to handle things based onb their own needs and goals.

The problem is that "free trade" encourages simple formulas. And formulas that aren't working.

All we ask is that they decimate their own economies...

We are not decimating their economies. Their economies are growing at an incredible pace and their standard of living is rising.

Also depends on the country. I won't deny that some countries have become much better off due to international trade.

But in many nations it depends on how you define "economic health." Is soneone who was a self-sufficient subsistence farmer better off as a serf on a multi-national corporate export plantation still working for subsistance wages?

Is an economy healthier when their own domestic manufacturing industries are obliterated by ourside multi-national monopolists as a result of free trade?

Their economies are growing at an incredible pace and their standard of living is rising.

While their economies are "growing at an incredible pace", inevitably so is their environmental degradation and rapid depletement of resources. Just look at how for-profit farming has taken off in many parts of South America -- but the cost has been the elimination of vast stretches of one of the most diverse ecosystems on the face of the earth. The same mistakes of ravaging the earth -- the source of life for all of us -- are being repeated in this insatiable hunger for "economic growth".

As for standard of living, I would argue that in many ways rapid industrialization makes this WORSE. While I am not going to romanticize the life of subsistence farming, in many ways it is highly superior to the realities of industrialization. It promotes the maintenance of an extended family, while industrialization often tears it apart due to the need to move to work. It also supports local communities, while industrialization often tears them apart. And it isn't very often that you find of mass polluting of air or drinking water from subsistence farming, but it's a common practice under industrialization.

At what point does the economy revert back from some sort of entity at whom we serve to its proper place as a means to deliver basic human needs in the most equitable and efficient manner possible while causing minimum damage on our environment and our social fabric?

And if CEOs are making over more than 500 times the amount of their average employee now, what will it be when they no longer have to meet labor and environmental standards and the bottom is reduced even further?

Is it something the poorer countries have a choice in or are they coerced from global pressures seeking to open their markets--labor, natural resources, lack of environmental oversight? How is this benefiting a culture that may have a local economy of small farms and marketplace trade? how is it effecting their quality of life to be sweatshop slaves?

And do we want a culture that is dominated and controlled by those who operate behind the scenes and reap obscene profits to control our government and press--our institutions, our laws with guranteed bloated incomes even -if they fail?

I really am not following you.

So my company really has moved thousands of its phone bank jobs to the Philippines.

We wanted good workers, so we are paying high wages by Filipino standards, though not high by US standards. We fly the best workers into Minnesota for additional training so they can take more and more responsibilities.

Now, somehow this is devastating the Filipino economy? I don't see it. It's pumping American money into their economy. It's cutting their unemployment rate. It's giving their workers a level of training that they never could have had before. In fact many of them will turn around and use this training against us some day in settting up competing businesses with ours.

Devastate our economy I'd agree, but devastate their economy? I don't see that.

If your company is truly giving people decent jobs over there, fine.

However, how many simply exploit the workers? The jobs you are talking about are ones that requre "head" skills. But do the companies that just want people to do lower-level manual labor treat their foreign workers as well?

And also, I'd ask why your company doesn't support the domestic economy, but keeping those jobs here? That's not a slam, but just a statement of reality.

The notion that labor is an unacceptable cost is one that has arisen in the last couple of decades. There's a pretty clear answer. if a company can't afford to hire people at decent wages, then maybe it shouldn't be in business. That sounds harsh -- but we don;t question that a small company has certain obligations. If it can;t afford to pay the electric bill or the rent, then it has to make adjustments.

:kick:

Although you wouldn't know it much by looking at inner cities across the country.

I would suspect that the figure you're using to make this point would be GDP. In that sense, you would be only marginally correct. In fact, GDP of Latin America slowed almost sevenfold, while Africa went from modest positive to negative growth, when comparing the periods of 1960-1980 to 1980-2000. The fact is that, in many cases, "market liberalization" in less developed nations actually led to a much slower (if not negative) rate of growth.

(these figures are taken from economist Mark Weisbrot, Center on Economic and Policy Research)

But I must digress even further. GDP is a horribly inaccurate indicator of economic progress, because it does not factor in social costs, nor the value of work performed that contributes to social health (i.e. health care, child care, stay-at-home parenting, caring for elderly family members, etc.) in terms other than purely fiscal. Additionally, it does not factor in pollution, infant mortality, literacy, resource depletion, ecological health, or any number of a host of other issues.

You were correct to point out above that the US could not be expected to maintain the "wage superiority" over developing nations in many industries, most notably low-skill manufacturing. But the problem with your analysis, as so often exhibited before, is that you attribute this strictly to "the market". If you go back and read your Adam Smith, you will note that in his perfectly functioning theoretical economy, he insisted that capital and labor have equal rights. But it was Marx later on who pointed out the reality that capital can survive for longer without labor than labor can without capital. In today's marketplace, capital can be transferred across the globe with a click of a mouse, goods can be transported across the world in a matter of days -- weeks at most, but labor is largely static in comparison. This inevitably means that capital has an even greater advantage over labor than before.

It is also equally inevitable that capital should seek to exploit this advantage -- and boy howdy, have they done so! And like the insatiable beast that modern capitalism has begun, this exploitation will only seek to "push the envelope", not "level itself out" as you claim. The past 20 years should be evidence enough of this phenomenon.

But the primary question before us is, do we want our governments to remain willing partners and cheerleaders in this exhaltation of capital? Or do we want them to work to institute a greater degree of fairness (and humanity), and to provide parameters that help direct capital to work in a manner that is more beneficial to the social health of both our nation and others? Simply leaving it a free-for-all and expecting this exploitative and unbalanced system to work everything out on its own without a serious crash is not a viable option.

...that you mention Latin America and Africa but fail to mention Southeast Asia, given that SE Asia is the area of the world that most readily embraced free trade and Africa pretty much rejected it until recently. The trend toward globalization is simple. Countries looked at what happened in South East Asia and saw a model that worked. South Korea went from being dirt poor to the 11th largest economy in the world in under 25 years.

The results are interesting. Developing countries tried to emmulate the South Korean model by negiotiating lower tariffs with rich countries and creating export based economies. First world countries took steps to make sure that next go round they got a piece of the action--they insisted that third world countries open their economies up to foreign investment. As a result, the South Korean model which work so well is no longer an option.

South Korea developed because of state-sponsored capitalism -- which is the opposite of what you espouse Nederland.

A,ong otehr things, if you want a free-market system in the US that is competing against nations where the state subsidises industries big time, then your own laissez-faire philosophy will be obsolete. We will have to move even closer to a Corporate Government than we are now, just to compete.

And encouraging all nations to develop export-based economies is not necessarily healthy. Exports and international trade are good things, but instead of this model of One Immense Market, perhaps a greater degree of decentralization and self-sufficiency would be preferable and healthier for countries.

South Korea developed because of state-sponsored capitalism -- which is the opposite of what you espouse Nederland.

Not true. I support a system which allows goods, services and people to flow freely across national borders, and provides strong environmental regulation. Within this context, countries should be free to develop whatever systems they want. If a country wants to create a full blown socialist system they are welcome to. If a country wants to create a laisse-faire type system they too should be free to do so (provided they obey global environmental standards). However, neither of these contries should be surprised (or try to prevent) when hordes of people start leaving their country in search of countries that embrace a mixed model of socialism and capitalism that is increasing becoming the norm planetwide.

I'm beginning to think that those who are "realists" are the ones who are pir-in-the-sky idealists.

What you seem to be saying is that if Country A has a balanced, enlightened and healthy form of capitalism but has to spend $5 to make a shirt as a result, they should be forced to compete on a level playing field with Country B, which is an oligarchy that uses slave labor to produce $1 shirts. No accomodation should be made by Country A to protect its own economy and society?

The idea that Country B cannot sustain its system is naive. Perhaps the peasants would flee or revolt -- but that might not happen or it could take decades (i.e. Burma). Does that mean Country A should go through that time allowing its own economy and society to decay?

What you seem to be saying is that if Country A has a balanced, enlightened and healthy form of capitalism but has to spend $5 to make a shirt as a result, they should be forced to compete on a level playing field with Country B, which is an oligarchy that uses slave labor to produce $1 shirts. No accomodation should be made by Country A to protect its own economy and society?

No, that is not what I'm saying. If you look back at my post, you'll see that I very clearly stipulated a system where goods, services and people flow freely across national borders. Such a system, naturally, precludes the existence of slave labor.

Granted some of the slaves may escape, but Country is still whacking out those $1 shirts and flooding the market of Country A, which foeces the businesses in Country A to either get their own slaves or be driven out of business.

Countries that practice slavery are kicked out of the free trade club.

Then why do we eat chocolate grown by child slaves?

And who sets the rules for the free trade club?

My feeling is that the US (and otehr nations) shoulkd use our own soverign power and market position to enforce such things. Like (keeping it simple here) slavery is illegal here and thus goods made by slaves elsewhere are also illegal.

Then why do we eat chocolate grown by child slaves?

Because the system is fucked up. Note that I'm an advocate of free trade, not the current system.

And who sets the rules for the free trade club?

Currently the WTO operates by consensus. I see no reason to change this.

Currently the WTO operates by consensus. I see no reason to change this.

Currently the WTO operates through the green-room consensus. What this basically means is that the rich countries get together and make up the rules, then try and force them down the collective throats of the poorer countries.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/int/wto/2002/1104reject.htm
www.nathaninc.com/nathan/files/ccPageContentDOCFILENAME000560705546reform_k.pdf
http://www.ciel.org/Tae/WTO_5Min_112002.html

Of course, the last ministerial in Cancun was encouraging, because the poorer nations decided to show some unity in standing up to the rich ones. But in the end, nothing REALLY was accomplished toward the end of instilling some equality into the system -- and the US has made it clear that they will now concentrate on bilateral deals, meant to weaken the bargaining position of poorer nations one by one.

Finally, since you are in such favor of a more "pure" system, can you explain to me how you propose to eliminate manipulation of markets by the more powerful to skew them in their favor? How do you propose to eliminate manipulation of the populace through advertising practices? How exactly do you propose to enforce "high environmental standards"?

Your call for "pure" free-market fundamentalism raises many questions that become somewhat complex when the equation is subjected to the unpredictable variable of human nature.

Of course, the last ministerial in Cancun was encouraging, because the poorer nations decided to show some unity in standing up to the rich ones. But in the end, nothing REALLY was accomplished toward the end of instilling some equality into the system -- and the US has made it clear that they will now concentrate on bilateral deals, meant to weaken the bargaining position of poorer nations one by one.

I assume by this that you think that the current system of consensus isn't fair. What would you propose in its place, poor countries controlling everything?

... and then I'll address the one that you raised.

But I'll add another -- do you deny that the "green room consensus" process actually exists? If not, what do you propose to do to change it?

Finally, since you are in such favor of a more "pure" system, can you explain to me how you propose to eliminate manipulation of markets by the more powerful to skew them in their favor? How do you propose to eliminate manipulation of the populace through advertising practices? How exactly do you propose to enforce "high environmental standards"?

Your call for "pure" free-market fundamentalism raises many questions that become somewhat complex when the equation is subjected to the unpredictable variable of human nature.

explain to me how you propose to eliminate manipulation of markets by the more powerful to skew them in their favor?

Market manipulations (such as dumping products at below cost to eliminate budding competition) are forbidden by WTO regulations and subject to WTO court rulings and possible sanctions.

How do you propose to eliminate manipulation of the populace through advertising practices?

People are influenced by other people in a wide variety of ways. They are influenced by corporate advertising, government propaganda, educational institutions, religious organizations, etc. This is a simple fact of life and to think that you can prevent this is naive.

How exactly do you propose to enforce "high environmental standards"?

Deal with offenders the same way you do market manipulators. See above.


Now my questions:

1) If the WTO should not be run by consensus, how should it be run?
2) In the long run, do tariffs help or hurt a country?
3) Can the incredible wage gap between the rich and poor countries be narrowed without lowering first world wages?

http://www.cepr.net/globalization/scorecard_on_globalization.htm

A "Scorecard on Globalization." Since you like analysis and data, here's some. The authors are admittedly critics of the neo-liberal "free trade" model of globalization, but they have done a lot of research, and attempt to be as fair-minded in their evaluation as possible.

I've found Weisbrot to be one of the most compelling critics of globalization as it is currently practiced. I was lucky enough a year and a half ago to observe a panel discussion in which he participated along with Lori Wallach (Public Citizen Global Trade Watch) and Jeffrey Sachs, among others.

Market manipulations (such as dumping products at below cost to eliminate budding competition) are forbidden by WTO regulations and subject to WTO court rulings and possible sanctions.

Then can you please explain to me how the US and EU have not yet been drug before the WTO to answer for their dumping of agricultural products in developing nations? The US almost singlehandedly has wiped out Mexico's corn farming industry through dumping of subsidized agricultural products. Of course, Mexico was forced to accept this as a provision of NAFTA -- but that's just another case of a rich country bullying a less powerful one, a reality that I wouldn't want to cloud your rosy market idealism.

People are influenced by other people in a wide variety of ways. They are influenced by corporate advertising, government propaganda, educational institutions, religious organizations, etc. This is a simple fact of life and to think that you can prevent this is naive.

Perhaps "eliminate" is a bad word. I should have chosen "minimize". But then, when businesses are controlling everything in the "free market", how do you step in to take measures to minimize the effects of blatant manipulative advertising? Would not the companies and businesses in question be able to cite such action as an "unfair barrier to trade"?

With regard to environmental offenders, what do you do when the offender is not a nation but a corporation? Do you impose sanctions against that corporation? How do you ensure that they are enforced? How do you rectify environmental damages committed by corporations?

And my answers to your questions:
1) If the WTO should not be run by consensus, how should it be run?
I never said it shouldn't be run by "consensus". What I said is that it is CURRENTLY run by "green room consensus", which is a bullying tactic of the developed nations on less developed ones. Read through the three links I provided you (I could give you many, many more). Former WTO head Michael Moore (no, not THAT one!) once declared the green-room process as "non-negotiable".

2) In the long run, do tariffs help or hurt a country?
Too general of a question. Let's look to your favorite example, South Korea. SK used tariffs to their advantage to protect fledgling industries until they were on a level that they could compete on the global stage. Undeveloped countries that are forced to eliminate tariffs and simply open up are overwhelmed by richer nations.

3) Can the incredible wage gap between the rich and poor countries be narrowed without lowering first world wages?
Not a direct relationship, you are treating it as if it is a zero-sum game. I would rather that we look to completely eliminate corporate welfare, which would in turn cause an immediate reining in of corporations and the breakup of many of the bigger, more unwieldy ones. Promote an economic model based more on small-to-medium sized businesses that are more responsive to the needs of the communities in which they operate. Promote a similar model overseas in less-developed nations. Provide the kinds of small-business loans that have enabled farmers and craftspeople to improve their lot in impoverished nations like Bangladesh.

If the businesses of one country want to buy the products of another, they should be free to do so. But what must be eliminated is this idea that transnational corporations must be given the "right" to operate in other markets. All this does is create a dependence on these large corporations, along with sucking most of the money OUT of the country that is doing the work, rather than seeing that money re-invested in the communities (as is the case with more local businesses).

You keep saying you want to move to a freer market. But what you need to realize is that so long as you have these huge corporations with the ability to straddle the globe like a colossus (many have higher revenues than the GDP of the countries in which they operate!), you will need equally large regulatory agencies to police them. The idea is to get everything back to a scale in which it is manageable by the people themselves, not to allow the corporations to even further consolidate their vast power and wealth.

The US and EU have not been brought before the WTO on dumping charges because what they do is not dumping as currently defined. Yes, argicultural subsidies in the US and Europe artificially lower the prices of these goods and accomplish the same thing. I also have repeated argued in favor of removing these subsidies. I'm pro free market, remember? BTW, the biggest obstacle to removing argiculural subsidies are those in the US and Europe that oppose free trade, so your argument here is rather contradictory.

The only way I can think of to minimize the effect of corporate advertising is a more educated populace. I think you and I can agree that education is important.

When the environmental offenders is a corporation it is the responsibility of the country where the infraction occurred to take action against that corporation. If that country refuses, sanctions should be imposed upon the entire country.

Yes, I'm opposed to the green room process. Transparency has been a cornerstone of free market and capitalist theory since the days of Adam Smith. I see no reason why it shouldn't be implemented here as well.

I'm also in favor of eliminating corporate welfare. I'm pro free market, remember? Those that support subsidies for large corporations are anti-free market are largely responsible for the mess we are in. With rare exception, a corporate monopoly becomes a monopoly because of government interference in the market. The rare exception (Microsoft comes to mind) should be broken up in order to restore competitition to the market (competition being a key element in capitalist theory as well)

BTW, the biggest obstacle to removing argiculural subsidies are those in the US and Europe that oppose free trade, so your argument here is rather contradictory.

Not at all true. The biggest obstacle to removing these subsidies are called Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, Cargill, ConAgra, etc. -- because they reap the lion's share in rewards from it.

The only way I can think of to minimize the effect of corporate advertising is a more educated populace. I think you and I can agree that education is important.

This is rather naive. It's difficult to minimize the effect of something, through strictly education, that surrounds us nearly every waking moment of every day.

Ever turn on a kids' show lately? It's sickening how much stuff is marketed directly to kids -- BEFORE they are even old enough to go school. A good piece on this is in the book Affluenza, and the ad companies readily acknowledge their aim in "branding" kids through advertising.

Yes, I'm opposed to the green room process. Transparency has been a cornerstone of free market and capitalist theory since the days of Adam Smith. I see no reason why it shouldn't be implemented here as well.

Just try slipping that past all of the US and EU-based corporations who benefit immensely from the current process. And it's important to remember that many of the people participating in this process are actually representatives of corporations.

I'm also in favor of eliminating corporate welfare. I'm pro free market, remember? Those that support subsidies for large corporations are anti-free market are largely responsible for the mess we are in. With rare exception, a corporate monopoly becomes a monopoly because of government interference in the market. The rare exception (Microsoft comes to mind) should be broken up in order to restore competitition to the market (competition being a key element in capitalist theory as well)

So, you're pro free market, but willing to intervene in the market to prevent excess of monopoly? That doesn't sound very "free market" to me. I thought that the "invisible hand" was supposed to take care of all of that....

As for Microsoft, I'd hardly call ANYTHING in the high-tech industry a "self-made monopoly" due to the incredible amount of public investment in the fledgeling electronics and computer industry, via the Pentagon and NSA.

In short, it is IMPOSSIBLE to extricate this "government investment" from the "free market". The key is to find some way of getting things back to a level at which they can be policed by THE PEOPLE. Democracy fails when either government, business, or both reach a size that they are no longer directly responsible to the people, who are supposed to be the owners (not servants) of the government.

I said that the biggest obstacle to removing argiculural subsidies are those in the US and Europe that oppose free trade. This is true. The fact that ADM, Monsanto, Cargill, ConAgra, etc. are among those that oppose free trade does not detract from my statement. The mistake that you seem to be making is to assume that corporations are in favor of free trade. They are not. They want to rig the system in their favor, and far too many anti-free trade politicans are perfectly willing to help them do it in the name of representing the voters that work for those corporations. These politicans can be found in both parties.

I share your concern for school room advertising and think that voters should insist that its practice be banned.

The fact that many people and corporations oppose transparency in the WTO in no way dimishes my desire to see it happen. You asked me how I would change the system, not whether or not I thought those changes would be easy to implement.

So, you're pro free market, but willing to intervene in the market to prevent excess of monopoly? That doesn't sound very "free market" to me. I thought that the "invisible hand" was supposed to take care of all of that....

This is simply a result of the fact that theory and reality don't mesh very well. Yes, certain extreme supporters of capitalism will tell you that competition should prevent monopolies from coming into existence. However, most, like me, admit that no system can 100% insure that they will not come into being at some point in time and therefore are perfectly willing to suggest government action to rectify the situation. Remember, I'm not pushing a laissez-faire solution. Government has a role, and that role is to insure that competition is preserved. What government should not do is try to pick winners and losers. As history has proven, politicians seem unable to resist the temptation. Such is life in an imperfect world filled with imperfect people.

Which, BTW, I am COMPLETELY against. I think that advertising in all shapes, sizes and forms should be 100% banned from our public schools -- to include vending machines!

What I was talking about was direct-to-children marketing, which can be most easily seen on networks like Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network.

McDonalds helped pioneer this trend through its creation of characters like Ronald McDonald. Their goal was to get kids to bug their parents to take them to McDonalds.

But now it is COMPLETELY out of control. The goal of the ad agencies is to have these kids "branded" (that is, recognizing -- and demanding -- certain brands of toys, soft drinks and fast food) before they are even old enough for kindergarten.

This isn't advertising. It's brainwashing. Some industrialized nations (Sweden, for example), have laws on the books that make it illegal to market direct to children during children's shows. Attempts to institute such a ban in the US were defeated by the business and advertising lobbies.

This industry (advertising) is completely insidious. They're lower than pond scum, IMHO, and evident of the problem with modern capitalism in that profit is elevated above all other concerns -- and pursued at the expense of them.

I agree with everything in this post. What are we arguing about? :)

I guess I should be encouraged that our "disagreements" seem to more often end in some kind of "agreement", as opposed to only entrenching us in our stances. ;-)

I'm not speaking for IC but this is also a reply to your reply to my post.

Put the authority for rulemaking regarding trade back into the hands of nations. If a country wants to be wide-open to all trade, so be it. If a country wants to be totally insulated and protectionist, so be it. If the country wants to find a balance that best fits their particular needs and goals, so be it.

Allow trade tresties to be bi-lateral between nations. If groups of nations also want to form trading blocs, maybe that'd be okay, if the participating countries negotiate treties among themselves too.

That would allow nations to determine their own trade policies to reflect their own goals and needs.

Keep something like the WTO as a resource and referee in trade disputes. But do not make it an all-powerful rulemaking body that is used to push a "one size fits all" set of rules down everybody';s throat.

That would be more like real free trade.

I'm confused by your post. I'd make the following points.

1) No one is forced to join the WTO. Membership is optional.
2) Bilateral trade treaties are allowed and happen all the time.
3) Any country that wants to be open can be.
4) Any country that wants to be protectionist can be.

That is the type of system that the "free traders" are trying to eliminate.

No one is forced to join the WTO. But the political and economic pressures to do so if a country wants to be part of the international marketplace is overwhelming. (Also applies to points 3 and 4).

They are trying to weaken and eliminate the ability to negitiate bi-lateral trade treaties (or make them toothless) by imposing these larger trade rules on the entire world.

As with many otehr aspects of life in the last 25 years, systems that basically worked well are being tossed out in favor of "free market fundamentalism" and Corporate power grabs.

It wasn't perfect 30 years ago, and everything is always in need of improvements and updates. But with the "free trade" movement, we've thrown out the baby with the bathwater. And the new bathwater we're replacing it with is really stinky stuff.

No one is forced to join the WTO. But the political and economic pressures to do so if a country wants to be part of the international marketplace is overwhelming. (Also applies to points 3 and 4).

Yes, this is true. That's also just the way life is. You can't always get your way, all you can ask is that you be given the freedom to make choices. The fact that many of those choices are often perceived by individual members as a choice between the lesser of two evils is a biproduct of the fact that people and groups disagree. The system that can prevent this does not exist.

They are trying to weaken and eliminate the ability to negitiate bi-lateral trade treaties (or make them toothless) by imposing these larger trade rules on the entire world.

True, and if you don't like it you can leave the group. Again, at an ultimate level countries are free to do what ever they choose. You have a right to choose, you do not have a right to make other countries choose the way you want them to.

That's like telling people they have a choice not to pay the heating bill.

The problem is that the WTO is not simply content with greasing the wheels of trade. It is an attempt to push a specific ideology on the entire world, using access to international commerce and financing as blackmail.

If a poor country wants to trade with exports, while following a path that does not conform to the economic/political model of the WTO, that country is SOL (shit-outta luck). Why should a banker in new York tell that nation how it is going to provide healthcare to its people, when that country is seeking access to global markets?

That's like telling people they have a choice not to pay the heating bill.

That's an excellent example. Fact is, people do have a choice to not pay the heating bill. The fact that one of those options, freezing to death, is rather undesirable does not detract from the fact that a choice exists. This truism results from a fundamental truth that seems to be lost on the far left: life requires work. Work is not an option, it is a requirement. The basic necessities of life--food, clothing and shelter--do not magically appear. They are the result of work. The requirement of work is not imposed by the economic or political structure in which we live, it is a requirement imposed by the universe in which we live. The logical application of this truth to the subject at hand is this: if you want to live, be prepared to work and earn enough money to pay the heating bill.

If a poor country wants to trade with exports, while following a path that does not conform to the economic/political model of the WTO, that country is SOL (shit-outta luck). Why should a banker in new York tell that nation how it is going to provide healthcare to its people, when that country is seeking access to global markets?

Yes, this is true. Poor countries have the choice of going at it alone or doing things the way other countries ask them to do. The New York Banker is not "telling" poor countries how to do anything. What they are saying is that if you want our money you have to do things a certain way. To imply that somehow we should change the system to one where poor countries get to tell rich countries that they must give them their money on whatever conditions poor countries stipulate is ridiculuous. I don't expect anyone to just give me money anytime I want it, and poor countries should be no different.

Your reply to the heating bill analogy misses the point. My original point was that there are often "choices" that aren't really choices at all. This is not about a country wanting a free ride. It's about that country having the right to determine how it is going to work, and for what purpose. The WTO is a form of market-rigging, which tells countries (including us) that if you don't follow the policies established by a small group of elite "leaders" you don;t get to sell your goods outside of your country.

As for the loan aspect, international instiututions that are expressly established to help provide development financing to poor nations should be able to dictate the terms of loans in terms of payback, and what will be done with the money from those loans. But they do NOT have the right to dictate all social policies of that nation....That's be like the person who is giving you a home loan that to qualify you have to take a bath every Saturday night, be an Episcopalian and drive a blue automobile.

Should individual countries have a right to refuse to trade with another country?

(I assume you're setting me up for something ;-) but just so's you know, I have to go out for a while, so any further response will have to come later.)

I am trying to set something up :) BTW, I agree with your answer.

I would argue that the current situation is simply the natural outcome of the right mentioned above being exercised.

Basically what happened is this. Countries got together and decided to form a group to promote and regulate trade. Given that all countries have a right to refuse to trade with anyone they want to, membership in this group must be voluntary. Likewise, decisions must be made by consensus, because any country that didn't like a decision could always just drop out.

However, even though membership is voluntary and all decisions are made by consensus, rich countries have defacto control. The reason is simple. The fact is that rich countries have the largest most valuable markets and the inherent right to refuse access to those markets. Rich countries call the shots, because they inherently have the absolute right to shut out anyone they don't approve of. The consensus aspect of the group enables poor countries to walk out, as they did in Cancun, but that sword cuts both ways. Sure, they walked out and refused to give rich countries what they wanted, but in turn they don't get what they wanted either.

This is basically where we are at today. Is it fair? No. However, I fail to see a way out of it unless you are willing to compromise on the principle that you and I both agree every country should have. I liken it to the 1st amendment. Sure, the 1st amendment results in outcomes that are distasteful, e.g. neo-Nazi parades. However, the principle is far too important and valuable to compromise on.

I can't believe it, but I'm actually AGREEING with Nederland on something. :wtf:

I tend to believe that the walkout by the G-23 at Cancun, led by China, India and Brazil, was a great thing -- simply because it was the first real show of solidarity by developing nations against the bullying strategies by the US and EU.

But the real test will now be if the developing nations -- particularly those in the Western hemisphere -- will remain united as the US tries to peel them off, one at a time, in bilateral talks. I also hope that Brazil leads a charge to scuttle FTAA, because it is a horrible deal -- much like NAFTA was. While I do not have a problem with trade blocs, I do have a problem with "one size fits all" deals, such as NAFTA and FTAA, between nations that are far from on equal footing. IOW, a bloc agreement between the US and Canada is OK, because they are more or less equal trading partners. But Mexico was only going to be used and abused, due to the initial inequalities between them and the other member nations.

...but when the offending parties are big campaign donors or have other strings to pull, theory kinda gets conveniently lost.

For a real example, conditions in the late 70's created a real problem for Savings and Loan companies, which theoretically could have been cured by allowing them to float their rates. However, the poeple who understood the problem weren't just pressing for such a "course correction" adjustment, they pressed for wholesale dergulation, and they mustered the political clout to bring it off.

Frankly, I'd prefer the failsafes against slavery or near-slavery kick in at a much higher level.

. So they aren't following the model very well.

The Asian tiger economies (SK, Japan, Malaysia, etc.) developed their economies by basically ignoring the "Washington consensus". That is why they should not be viewed as the standard, but rather the exception.

Second, I notice that you completely ignore (as usual) ANY and ALL of the points I bring up regarding the difference between "economic growth" and societal health. Can't say I'm surprised, but I keep hoping that some day you'll actually be willing to engage me on these issues and stop trying to compartmentalize economic growth from a much broader context.

Second, I notice that you completely ignore (as usual) ANY and ALL of the points I bring up regarding the difference between "economic growth" and societal health. Can't say I'm surprised, but I keep hoping that some day you'll actually be willing to engage me on these issues and stop trying to compartmentalize economic growth from a much broader context.

Of course there is a difference between economic growth and societal health. The difference is that you can't have societal health without first having economic growth. You can talk all day long about good sewers, universal health care, free education, etc. but unless you've got money to pay for these things then talk is all you've got. Economic growth must come first--this is the mistake that Latin America and Africa made. They tried to create state sponsered welfare systems before they had economies capable of supporting them. The result has been a complete and total disaster. South East Asia, and the other hand, went about things the right way. They first concentrated on developing rich robust economies and now we are starting to see the beginnings of demands for social services to match.

The difference is that you can't have societal health without first having economic growth. You can talk all day long about good sewers, universal health care, free education, etc. but unless you've got money to pay for these things then talk is all you've got.

Is this how you define societal health? I would, once again, place this as a compartmentalized definition.

Societal health is, essentially, the manner in which people living in a society view others around them. Two of the biggest tools to promoting a more healthy society are the extended family, and the community.

I moved away from home at 18, and couldn't wait to leave. But I came to realize the value of an extended family -- I grew up with not only both parents, but one set of grandparents a scant 200 yds away. After I no longer had this support structure, I realized the value of it. Luckily, my wife has both parents and two sisters living within a 40-mile radius.

Additionally, look at the lack of community that we now have in the US. True human interaction, connection, and mutual support is vital to a healthy society. Here in the US, we live in increasing isolation from one another. As a direct result, we lose the ability to see the interconnectedness we have with all around us.

You have chosen, once again, to frame issues in purely economic terms. You never fail to fall back on your convenient compartmentalization. But it's an incomplete view of the world -- one through which you simply continue to make the same mistakes in your analysis, because in concentrating only on this narrow issue, you miss the rest of the world around you.

It began in the early 80's, and has become a truism. "You can't do .... without a growing economy."

There are elements of truth in it, but it has been taken far beyond the pale as a mantra of society. It has even forced social services and artists to behave more like bean counters and marketers than to concentrate on what they do best.

Somehow the balance between economic goals and social and cultural goals has to be restored. That type of change is key to everything else.

And what is so damned frustrating to us older folks is that this would NOT be a radical notion or drastic change. I remember when these things WERE more in balance -- and how the process that has led us to the present situation is the one that is truly artificial.

That's my new favorite word for describing the breakdown that often occurs in attempting to analyze theories and applying them to the world around us. I fully adopted it after recently reading The Sacred Balance by David Suzuki and The Politics of Meaning by Michael Lerner, but it has been in my thoughts now for quite some time.

Our society teaches us to separate things out -- to break them down and analyze them. But in doing so, we often miss so much around us. We begin to separate OURSELVES from our surroundings in the process.

Case in point, the environment. Most people view the environment as something separate from ourselves, something "out there". But it is not. The environment is a part of us, just as we are a part of it. We can no more separate ourselves from it, than we can our brain from our body. If we would view the environment as such, perhaps we would have more respect for it.

Likewise, we view other people in a cynical manner, rather than realizing the common bonds that we share as, well, PEOPLE. This leads us to work AGAINST our more natural state, which is one of cooperation in the name of self-interest rather than complete, narrow selfishness disguising itself as self-interest.

I don't know if we'll ever get back on track on these kinds of things. I really don't. We've been out of whack now for so long, and such ideas are so foreign to the false realities we've been conditioned to believe as true, I don't know if we can fix it in time. But we HAVE to fix it, because if we don't, then it will only lead to disaster.

>>>>>I don't know if we'll ever get back on track on these kinds of things. I really don't. We've been out of whack now for so long, and such ideas are so foreign to the false realities we've been conditioned to believe as true, I don't know if we can fix it in time. But we HAVE to fix it, because if we don't, then it will only lead to disaster.<<<

The
But there was more responsibility expected of corporations and the media. Politicians did address real issues and offer real choices. Conservatives were decent people. Fair treatment of employees was expected....etc.

The ugly realities of today are not a natural evolution of anything. They were induced and artificial. Getting back to at least a saner baseline is not that unrealistic a goal.

>>>>>I don't know if we'll ever get back on track on these kinds of things. I really don't. We've been out of whack now for so long, and such ideas are so foreign to the false realities we've been conditioned to believe as true, I don't know if we can fix it in time. But we HAVE to fix it, because if we don't, then it will only lead to disaster.<<<

The
But there was more responsibility expected of corporations and the media. Politicians did address real issues and offer real choices. Conservatives were decent people. Fair treatment of employees was expected....etc.

The ugly realities of today are not a natural evolution of anything. They were induced and artificial. Getting back to at least a saner baseline is not that unrealistic a goal.

>>>>>I don't know if we'll ever get back on track on these kinds of things. I really don't. We've been out of whack now for so long, and such ideas are so foreign to the false realities we've been conditioned to believe as true, I don't know if we can fix it in time. But we HAVE to fix it, because if we don't, then it will only lead to disaster.<<<

The
But there was more responsibility expected of corporations and the media. Politicians did address real issues and offer real choices. Conservatives were decent people. Fair treatment of employees was expected....etc.

The ugly realities of today are not a natural evolution of anything. They were induced and artificial. Getting back to at least a saner baseline is not that unrealistic a goal.

I'm not compartmentalizing anything. I'm recognizing that my own preference for things does not necessarily match those of others. You have an experience that tells you that something is missing from life in the United States. That's fine, and I may even agree with you, but ultimately what you are talking about is only an opinion. More importantly, it is an opinion that millions of people who risk life and limb to immigrate here disagree with. For all your talk of how life in the US lacks community and mutual support, the fact remains that people all over the world are desperate to leave their own countries and come here.

If you want to measure societal health, what better measure than to look at where free people will chose to live? By this measure, the answer is clear. People are not clamoring their way into societies that have restrictive economies. Across the globe, people are seeking countries that embrace economic freedom.

are desperate to leave their own countries and come here."

An oft repeated myth.

People are forced to leave their homes, even when they would rather not, because of war or famine or the allure of streets paved with gold. People migrate all over the world in order to survive, not just to the US. If you travel overseas you will find many countries experiencing an influx of immigrants. Maybe Canada has an increase in numbers of Americans moving across the border in search of better life as well.

This is not a myth, it is a fact. In the year 2000 the US lead the world in immigration with 34.9 million people. That's more than twice the next closest country.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/ittmig2002/2002ITTMIGTEXT22-11.pdf

But the proportional growth for a country the size of England might br much higher.

England's immigration was 4 million, which is 6.7% of their population. The US, by contrast, absorbed 35 million immigrants or 12.5% of it population. It would be helpful if you actually took the time to get the facts before making assertions. That way you wouldn't be wrong so often.

In any case, your basic assumption is flawed. The size of the country people immigrate to is irrelavant in determing how desirable that country is. The real test of a country's desirability is to consider what proportion of those that are immigrating worldwide choose a particular country. In that measure, the US is the clear leader. Out of a total of 174 million people immigrating, nearly 35 million or 20% percent choose to come here. That is far larger than any other country.

Doesn't mean legions more aren't trying to get in.

I know what you motive is here, you are trying to paint the US as the most desirable destination as part of that old elementary school indoctrination. The US opened the floodgates to allow more immigrants to do the labor of building the country in the last century. My guess is that many Europeans would be less enthusiastic about migrating to the States now, but what we have are more Latinos coming up from countries that the US has been meddling in for decades and causing all sorts of problems for their populations.

If you want to measure societal health, what better measure than to look at where free people will chose to live? By this measure, the answer is clear. People are not clamoring their way into societies that have restrictive economies. Across the globe, people are seeking countries that embrace economic freedom.

No, people are clamoring their way into countries that have historically experienced a greater and longer period of economic GROWTH, not necessarily economic freedom. It's a notable difference.

And people that come do so without realizing many of the "disconnects" that we have that lead to an unhealthy society. While they may not be affected initially -- historically, immigrants have some of the best senses of "community" within America -- they do realize it by the 3rd generation at the latest, if not the 2nd.

And none of these peoples have been "clamoring" so long as they were free to live the same kind of life their ancestors had in indigenous communities. It is only after they have been sufficiently immersed in "modern civilization" that they begin to move. In fact, in most instances, I would classify those communities thought of as "uncivilized" as experiencing a great deal more societal health than we have EVER experienced in America.

Look, I'm in favor of a system that gives people the freedom to live however they want. If you want to go off and live in some community that practices subsistence farming and communal living I'm not going to stop you. The problem is that you seem to believe that people are hungry for something that, for some bizarre reason, they are unwilling to sacrifice anything for to obtain. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that large numbers of people crave 'the simple life' enough to give up their modern lifestyle. What they really want, what we all really want, is to have all the conveniences of modern life without having to make any of the sacrifices required to obtain it.

It is not easy to pick up your family and move to another country, and yet millions of people do exactly that for the opportunity to live here. Sure, I have no doubt that by the 2nd or 3rd generation the memory of how miserable life was in their home country has faded. I'm sure that some acquire the ridiculous notion that life was better there and their parents or grand parents were absolutely insane to have left. However, this is nothing more than simple Bob Dole syndrome--nostalgia for some idealic time and place that never actually existed.

Funny thing, I received in the mail last night an envelope from Representative Bernie Sanders. Included with the request for donations was his newsletter, "The Sanders Scoop". One of the main items in the newsletter was a transcript of Bernie's grilling of Alan Greenspan during a House committee testimony. And debating you on the fallacies of the market fundamentalism that you hold up like Zeus's lightning bolt standing atop Mt. Olympus, I can certainly sympathize with Bernie's frustrations in dealing with Mr. Greenspan.

Here's a link to the exchange, thanks to commondreams.org:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0716-13.htm

That's become a semi-annual ritual. Greenspan appears before a committee Sanders is on. Sanders blasts Greenspan -- and by extension the assumptions of the corporatists.

It's just too bad Bernie is the only one who is so direct with Mr. Greenspan. That's the kind of thing the Democrats ought to be saying as a matter of course.

just instantly made me think of this exchange with Nederland.

"That is an incredible answer."

America sure wasn't rich when we instituted the New Deal. I also don't see any evidence that Africans ever tried a welfare state.

America sure wasn't rich when we instituted the New Deal.

It certainly was. Prior to the New Deal America was the strongest industrial power in the world. The main problem was that the wealth was trapped in the hands of a select few.

I also don't see any evidence that Africans ever tried a welfare state.

Then I think you are ignorant of African history. Nationalized health care and other government services are the norm in Africa.

Then I think you are ignorant of African history. Nationalized health care and other government services are the norm in Africa.

So are corrupt dictators, puppet regimes, colonialism, and outside-sponsored overthrow of governments. But I'm certain that none of these have ANYTHING to do with Africa's current situation, that it's all based on their insistence on such fallacies as nationalized health care.

well. The wealth is just concentrated at the top.

As for you insistence that all the african contries have national health insurance. Please provide a citation.

America was the only country in the world where it was routine to see average middle-class people owning their own car. You could get get one for around $ 300. Germany became the second country with the Volkswagen, but their production was switched to kubelwagens before many average people ever got theirs, though many people paid for them in advance.

as people in India and the Philippines can handle more and more jobs for American corporations, their incomes will rise. Eventually, they will become so expensive that it won't be worth the trouble of training and locating them. At that point the falling wages of America and the rising wages of India will meet in the middle and jobs will stop leaving.

That's how economics will solve this problem. It's not a meeting I'm anxious to have though.

We've had "free trade" for at least 15 years now (depending on how you want to define it) and the hollowing out of our economy has only gotten worse and worse.

Maybe a hundred years from now, the standard of living in India will be so high -- while the US descends to the level of the most dirt-poor country -- that the corporate elite will say "Well we can';t afford to do business in India anymore. We have to go to lower wage markets like the US."

They are gone, what is going now is high skill computer programming, and engineering jobs. The people who worked in these jobs were not highschool dropouts by any stretch.

It isn't just manufacturing jobs, its high tech jobs too. However, the movement their is much slower because the wage differential is much smaller. In the end, it all comes down to how out of wack US wages are with the rest of the world. If, as with manufacturing, we have a 20:1 wage differential, the shift will be swift; if the wage gap is smaller as it is with tech jobs (4:1), the shift will be slower and less prounouced.

than you should want their wages to rise rather than ours fall. Having said that, I don't really think I have an obligation to be unemployed for people who are not citizens here. They don't have to work for American businesses. They can start their own. Our businesses just fuck up their countries anyway. That is why so many are banana republics. I think their wages are out of wack. They have open sewers and no electricity, because their wages and tax base are low. I believe that is what will happen here if our workers earn as little as Chinese workers.

This is an enormous problem for us.

as long as we can do things no one else can do.

As long as we keep inventing new industries and technologies and pharmaceuticals, we can let the rest of the world do the old jobs because we will move into the better new ones they can't do.

The problem with that is you can't slow down, because as Satchel Paige said, "don't look back. Someone might be gaining on you."

Once we are no longer the engine driving the world's progress, we won't deserve, and won't long enjoy the highest standard of living in the world.

So, what can we do to invent, explore, create new things?

As long as we keep inventing new industries and technologies and pharmaceuticals, we can let the rest of the world do the old jobs because we will move into the better new ones they can't do.

This turns out to be a false assumption. Please take a look at our educational system and compare it to the education kids get in Japan or India or even China. Many come to America to complete their education. Ask the college professors in America which students arrive in college better prepared in the subjects that feed high tech and innovation. The foreign students can way outperform American high school grads in areas like math and science (maybe other subjects too) even though they have to operate in a language that is not their first language.

No, I think the writing is on the wall. The big advances in technology are at least as likely, if not more so, to come from places outside the United States.

We have dropped the ball. Can we regain our position as the leaders? I don't see us even trying to chase that goal.

should only have if we deserve it by your standards.

I'd love to live in a country in which we had more time off to spend with our families and pursuing the arts.

I'd love to live in a country in which local communities became real communities again -- where people all knew each other and would help each other out in times of distress.

I'd love to live in a country that saw nature not as a resource to be exploited, but rather as the source of life for all of us, and therefore accord it the respect and admiration it deserves.

I'd love to live in a country that taught values like kindness, compassion, cooperation and empathy -- rather than glorifying greed and selfishness.

All of these things would, IMHO, vastly increase our "standard of living", but they have very little to do with economics. I, for one, am sick of the whole idea of "standard of living" being presented as a purely economic phenomenon, when economics is really only a very small part of it.

:bounce: Americans way of life is over!

agree with you. America, as we've known it, has been destroyed by this administration.
Until the election, they will continue to say the debt is no big deal. IF Bush wins, this time, they'll say that we're broke and must do away with social services. Doing away with everything that happened since Roosevelt has been the aim of the consevatives since then. Now, these neocon psychotics are willing to bankrupt the nation to achieve that, while simultaneously doing away with our rights.:nuke:

source: http://www.computerworld.com/developmenttopics/development/story/0,10801,85642,00.html?nas=APP-85642


<snip>

Although tapping into cheap, skilled labor pools seems to be an attractive alternative to the expensive wages paid to developers in the U.S. and Europe, the practice is rife with controversy and pitfalls.

<snip>

my own experience with outsourcing has taught me that the loss of jobs pales in comparison to the damage done to our industry by the poor-quality software produced by outsourced contractors.

<snip>

But for true outsourcing, where work is done by a contractor overseas, can you afford to wait five years before quality work is produced? It takes time for contractors to learn your products, your code, your methodologies and how to work with you effectively. Are you prepared to work with an outsourced contractor for the long term? Is it committed to be your exclusive resource, or is it a code "sweatshop" that takes on many projects? If it's the latter, you're guaranteed to get low-quality products that are devoid of true innovation.

<snip>

Taking U.S. jobs away Americans and giving them to foreigners - this is the utmost in unpatriotic behavior.

why don't Americans get this?

It was meant to be about Chinese companies exporting goods to America without tariffs. It has been corrupted by the right wing like everything else. It was not ment to be about American Corporations putting plants in other countries.

A possible solution would be to invoke a "Multinational tax" on all American Companies that make products overseas. With the Chinese buying up Dollars, there is more than enough capital for them to start up thier own companies and then export thier own products to America.

When the cost to American Business is too expensive to do business overseas, they will come back.

Or we can just say, "screw you" and seize thier assets for endangering the American populace economically.

The Corporations are the real terrorists.