Globalization was RE: Was Re: PHYSICS: force fields (RANT)

From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Tue Jun 10 2003 - 16:04:29 MDT

  • Next message: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: FWD [forteana][ExT][Para-Discuss] Re: faster than light?"

     Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:

    Rafal said:
    <<### This is incorrect - almost all Americans benefit from the
    globalization
    of the labor market by being able to buy services and products at a lower
    price. Additionally, the foreign employees of American companies benefit
    from American capital and knowledge, which enables them to purchase globally
    produced goods.

    Freedom is good for you.

    Rafal>>

    If one has a high-paying job one can, indeed benefit from globalization. On
    the other hand, if hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs go overseas,
    and those being paid are paid at a tenth the wage-level that the American IT
    workers were paid at; there is no way that they, as the "new" workers can
    ever afford goods and services offered by American companies.

    ### The "new" foreign workers buy American grain, movies, machines, American
    debt, weapons. A huge part of American export is dependent on the demand
    created by increased affluence abroad, due in part to globalization.
    Conversely, even poor (especially poor) Americans benefit from cheap but
    high quality imported goods. You don't need to have a high-paying job to
    shop at K-mart, and without K-mart you would be so much poorer, even with
    the same relative amount of cash on hand.

    -------------------

    In essence, the "new country" employees are not part of the American
    economic cycle.

    ### Yes, they are.

    ------------------------

     Its not, as if, the Parent company which off-shores these jobs, invests in
    many new jobs in the US. Why should they, if goods and services are so
    inexpensive overseas? This also leads to the de-stablization of American
    society because skilled jobs are no longer to be had, because of the
    corporation's cost savings. This can't be a good thing and is already and
    election issue and a "class warfare" issue as well.

    ### You can look at from a short-term point of view, or a long-term point of
    view. In the former case, you try to maximize return over 1, 5 or 15 years.
    Then it pays to keep knowledge controlled and tied to a place, to buy cheap
    raw materials abroad, and sell your knowledge-enhanced products at a
    premium, to buy more cheap raw materials. It pays to exclude competitors
    rather than to improve your own abilities, so you can keep consuming more.
    In the short term.

    In the long term however, 50 or 500 years, you want to maximize growth, even
    at the cost of reducing immediate consumption (obvious to anyone who chooses
    between paying off a mortgage and buying a new car when the old one still
    runs). Since globalization of the economy increases the effective amount of
    resources available for enlarging our knowledge, allows uniform increase in
    production capacity, and a uniform increase in demand across the whole
    world, including long-term demand for American goods, globalization is the
    long-term favorite over narrow, parochial approaches, like mercantilism, and
    protectionism. This is why globalization is good for the American consumer,
    as well as the European, African or Asian consumer.

    Rafal



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 10 2003 - 13:24:12 MDT