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

From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Tue Jun 10 2003 - 15:07:35 MDT

  • Next message: Brian Atkins: "Re: Query: Re: Matrioshka Brains"

    In a message dated 6/10/2003 2:25:45 PM Central Standard Time,
    rafal@smigrodzki.org writes: 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,
           I won't say you are right or wrong. There are too many contradictory
    facts flying around for me to evaluate at this date.
    -- I was in manufacturing for almost 30 years and a consultant to
    manufacturing management for a little over 20 years after that. My observation informs
    me that the expense of American goods is more due to the incompetence of
    American Manufacturing Managers than to the price of American Labor.
    -- As we transition to automated equipment we actually go down the
    productivity curve compared to the old manual labor. The logic is simple. We lay off
    the more intelligent skilled labor that actually did a lot of the managing of
    our systems and replace them with less intelligent workers. We are left with
    untrained managers making the decisions.
    -- Within the last week a von Mises institute article stated that the average
    American family is spending about 10% of their savings, on balance, each
    year. My memory could be faulty on that data. They may have said 10% of their
    income. I am not sure.
           That is but a small portion of what I am hearing.
    Ron h.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 10 2003 - 15:19:33 MDT