Globalization is a dirty word in Washington, D.C., these days. Many politicians are hasty to make a blanket denunciation in the name of protecting American interests. However, history shows that a country’s economic growth is tied directly to its involvement in the global economy. Countries that have closed themselves off to the global economy, either out of fear or perceived self-sufficiency, have eventually experienced steady economic downturn.
As Robert J. Samuelson of the Washington Post notes, “If global investors fear that the United States might make its economy less open to foreign trade and investment, the result might be the very dollar panic that everyone fears.”
While politicians may believe themselves soothing to American ears, the international trade community is listening in and taking note.
Posted by Kristin Mehler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- thomaswitt on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- Phantom on Let immigrants run
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
58 Comments
“Globalizaton” might indeed be a dirty word. It is, after all, an inflated vision whose sparkles and flashing lights so often pointed out by economists and big business leaders hide the deceit, the pain, and the poverty that it causes good people on both sides of the ocean.
Who are these “global investors” that are now said to be so important to us? What are their interests and purposes? Do they wish to sell us something or do they wish to take something from us?
A good example would be the Canadian aerospace industry, which now owns 3 of the 4 major aircraft plants in Wichita. Did they buy here because we were so good at what we do, or are they just wanting labor they can control more easily than that in their own country? Did they buy for the technology, only to move it to another location? Are we just another pawn in their game of shuffling projects to each of their locations, making one compete with the other in a square dance that is completely controlled by the corporate callers at the top?
What about American companies that invest in other countries in this lopsided “Globalization” scheme? Are they doing either the American worker who has lost his job to oursourcing or the foreign worker who is paid substandard wages any favors? Or are they just lining their pockets and claiming to be watching out for the “stockholders interest”?
As a whole, I think history shows that a countries economic growth, in the long term, is directly inverse to it’s involvement in the global economy. At one time Rome controlled the then known world, but it didn’t keep invaders from the north from coming into it’s capital of commerce and center of government and destroying it’s power and economy. Spain was a power of the sea. It so commanded the global economy that Columbus was searching for new trade routes to the Orient and discovered new worlds, yet today they look to the past instead of the future to describe their glory days. And what about England? At one time it was said that the sun never set on the English empire! And what did globalization get for that great nation? A nasty reputation for colonization, many of the problems we face today in world diplomacy, and her renouned army and navy was soundly beaten by a small, disorganized group in one of her colonies who declared their independance and told the King they did not need him, his army, nor his laws to run their country! They would take care of their own business within their own borders, and they would worship, live their own lives, make their own laws, and buy their tea from whom they saw fit! And they did very well living that way for almost 200 years!
Trade, whether local or global, will only work on a level playing field. When one person has something of value and another person determines that they value that item as much as the person who owns it, a trade is made and both people are happy. The afore mentioned countries were brought down by GREED, when they schemed to gain something from one group (or country) for much less than it was valued at and sell it to another group for more than it was worth, leading to war or revolt. The corporate part of globalization is working the same way, moving to another country and dictating what they will pay for labor while selling the product in another country and dictating the selling price. The only thing limiting the profit they make for being the controller of the whole transaction is that another global company can undercut them in the marketplace to gain an advantage. And judging from gas prices and prescription drug prices, we can see that competition in the marketplace doesn’t always work to the consumers advantage.
Clearly, any country (or company, or even family) that does not control it’s own economy is doomed to failure. And the hallmark of lack of control is that economics are driven by greed instead of welfare of it’s citizens.
And on the note of “controlling economics” and “welfare of citizens”, I notice that we have spent more than $430 Billion (with a B!) on the Iraq war, with a request for another $46 Billion more this year, but cannot agree on a comprehensive bill that would insure the health of the less fortunate children of our country.
It does appear that our SCHIP is, if not sinking, at least listing heavily to the right.
The heart of a country’s economy is manufacturing, making something that can be sold as a value-added product. The decline of the British Empire came once they moved away from that principal and started to become a “dependent nation”. GDP is a true indicator of a nation’s wealth as much so or more then its GNP. As more of our infrastructure is becoming owned by outside forces it becomes less the United States infrastructure and more another country’s. As more of our country’s consumer good are being made oversea and not here. We are becoming a “dependent nation” too.
When the command that the majority of our national defense depended more on “American made” then of foreign made. The Pentagon response was “we could not afford that!”. Yes a large GDP would mean higher prices, but it is also offset by higher wages for the citizens. Greater buying power and an overall strength for the economy as a whole. If after eight hours someone’s total effort gained sales on paper and no product that can be sold here or aboard then that is all that was gained “on paper”.
America becomes a “paper Tiger” in the world, I give all you “free traders” a hint, and it should not be the goal to sell more American made product over sea. It should be to get other country’s GDP up, once that happens then their citizens will have the money to buy U.S. Products. It will build up their middle class without it draining our own. As it stands, China is winning, India is winning but the United States is trading off their wins for our loses. Their medium income is raising while our is falling, this will occur till there is a global medium income. This make sound good on paper, but it is written on toilet paper.
The United States has to be very careful about whom we allow to own certain industry in the country. For example, there are reasons who foreigners are forbidden from owning American AM, FM and TV stations. To allow them to do so would be a threat to our democratic way of life. He who controls the media controls the people. I also would extend that ban to defense, high tech, pharmacutical and anything having to do with airlines, airports and trains. Also they should be forbidden from owning more than a certain minority position in other businesses such as telecom companies. Some exceptions could be made for LONG term friendly nations that are also western democracies such as Canada, the UK and Australia. But we must be careful and not put our country into a position where we can be further compromised by foreigners as we are with oil now.
“”"The heart of a country’s economy is manufacturing, making something that can be sold as a value-added product. The decline of the British Empire came once they moved away from that principal and started to become a “dependent nation”.”"”
The end of the British Empire was a good thing for the UK. The UK is more properous today than it was at anytime as an empire. And, since about 1/2 of the UK’s male population is not constantly at war or getting killed defending the empire, the Brit women are much more happy too.
“”"A good example would be the Canadian aerospace industry, which now owns 3 of the 4 major aircraft plants in Wichita. Did they buy here because we were so good at what we do, or are they just wanting labor they can control more easily than that in their own country? Did they buy for the technology, only to move it to another location?”"”
The only thing the Canadians bought was the skilled labour of the Wichita Machinist and the customer base. Everything else they could have built themselves in Canada. Whether that would be economical or not, I don’t know. Canada has higher taxes than Kansas or the federal taxes but lower health cost for employees. But they do not have thousands of skilled machinist either. As far as I am concerned Canada is welcome here. They have been good friends for a long time.
Globalization is inevitable, as well as the relative decline of the US in comparison with other countries (we can only hope that other countries come up more than we come down, I liked most of writerdog’s comments on that topic-except as I discuss below there is some power in being a dependent nation-within limits). That being said, economics is an extremely potent foreign policy tool, and as (still, I think) the world’s number one consuming nation, we as a country have a remarkable opportunity to influence the policies of other countries and the multi-national companies that in many ways are more powerful than the majority of countries. Fair trade chocolate (Do you know where your chocolate came from? It may have been picked by kidnapped or sold enslaved children.), wood from sustainable practices, and yes increased minimal gas milage and emission standards are all ways that we as a country can use our status as a consumer nation to improve the lot of people all over the world. One of the most potent weapons we have used against Islamist terrorists is freezing assets when we find them, and punishing countries and institutions who have dealt with them (although I doubt we have done this anywhere near enough). We as a country can and should be able to regulate what comes into our country. Demands for free trade should not be used as a weapon to force a country to accept goods that are produced by activities inconsistent with its stated ideals (and yes, I know that the United States has not by and large done this, or done it very awkwardly).
Right now, I am very concerned about sub-Saharan Africa. China (a country that may well become an example of how it is possible to combine the worst excesses of socialism/communism and capitalism in to one nation) is threatening to make much of it an economic colony.
“Demands for free trade should not be used as a weapon to force a country to accept goods that are produced by activities inconsistent with its stated ideals (and yes, I know that the United States has not by and large done this, or done it very awkwardly).”
Speaking of an awkward sentence that implies something very different than what I intended.
Actually, the United States has (often unfortunately) proven adept at using free trade as a weapon. Other countries have tried to do the same thing to us. What I meant was the US has generally not done as well at using import restrictions as a means to advance its stated ideals of democracy and freedom. There have been exceptions (e.g., South Africa).
Wouldn’t it be nice if all WEBlog threads offered this kind of adult discourse? Great job RF, wd, kev, ksag. Keep it up!
Some time ago I got into a discussion of China, trade and motives, the mistake we can not afford to make is to assume a trade partner has the same motivation as we do. Though China would suffer from using the imbalance in trade, it would be a effective weapon for them. Yes American business is becoming a great force in building the infrastructure of China. Both in GDP and GNP, for China to suddenly end shipment to the United States would cause their economy to go into a tailspin. But what would the effect upon the U.S. economy? The largest retailer in the U.S. with what is more then likely an inflated figure though close to true. 98 % of the product they sell are made in China. The same retailer is also one of the largest employers in the nation. How long could they continue to operate, through their own efforts many of the old domestic suppliers have gone under. Or in fact moved their manufacturing overseas, to where? China!
Though China using the threat or even the weapon of stopping shipment to the U.S. does not make sense in a Capitalist mind. Their are still a Communist country and the mindset is still in effect there. The effect upon the U.S. economy would be worst then that of China’s. A “nuclear” effect, mass unemployment, loss of a major provider of domestic products to the citizens of the U.S. Again, though it would make no sense for them to do it in a capitalist sense, they do not think like capitalists!
IIRC, isolationism was one of the things that led to the Great Depression…
Globalization?
Fight it!
We don’t need their cheap, slave manufactured crap.
We sure as HELL don’t need their wages and working conditions for our people.
Fear of globalization and global trade often produces shooting wars.
At the very least, protectionism causes poverty.
Poor countries do not have trade deficits.
By the way, I like Huckabee as a person, but he is a trade protectionist and will have to moderate his views to get my vote.
No other Republican with a clear shot to win is a protectionist.
Hillary is a free-trader all the way.
There is a very simple and proven way to compete against low wages:
QualityTrainingInnovationRisk taking
If you want to keep making buggy-whips, well, then you will soon be out of a job.
If we have a trade war, who will buy all of our Kansas Beef, Kansas Wheat and Kansas Airplanes?
By the way:
The fall in the dollar is actually helping us sell more overseas, while buying fewer imports.
The exchange rate is like a tax or tariff, all by itself. The difference is that the exchange rate, or value of the dollar, is set by the market and not corrupted government officials.
The dollar would crash and inflation would go through the roof if we decided we wanted another trade war.
“Some time ago I got into a discussion of China, trade and motives, the mistake we can not afford to make is to assume a trade partner has the same motivation as we do. Though China would suffer from using the imbalance in trade, it would be a effective weapon for them.”
Indeed.
“Though China using the threat or even the weapon of stopping shipment to the U.S. does not make sense in a Capitalist mind. Their are still a Communist country and the mindset is still in effect there. The effect upon the U.S. economy would be worst then that of China’s. A “nuclear” effect, mass unemployment, loss of a major provider of domestic products to the citizens of the U.S. Again, though it would make no sense for them to do it in a capitalist sense, they do not think like capitalists!”
A major mistake Karl Marx made in predicting the rise of communism and “worker owned” capital is not accounting for nationalism. The “communist” revolutions in Russia and China took place in old countries with enormous national pride and sometimes frustration. In Russia the State replaced the Tsar and in China the Party replaced the Emperor, but the concern remained the same. The honor and strength of the country, as measured against other countries, rests with the strength and honor (as seen from the outside, not as it relates to personal conduct) of its rulers. The well being, much less the confort, of rank and file are expendable. In a democratic republic like the US, not so much.
On the other hand, China pisses its pants when its leadership is “dishonored” (e.g., the recent Dali Lama and lead paint incidents). In the latter, China seems less worried about the actual fact that defective products were sold than the fact that companies within its borders were embarrassed by what happened.
With huge trade deficits, a weak American dollar and millions of American jobs going overseas the solution is not to keep the status quo. If we export a car to South Korea we have to pay a 20% tariff, but to import one they have to pay an 8% tariff. Such imbalances encourage manufacturing jobs overseas.
We could go back to a day when a large amount of our nation’s revenue was a result of tariffs where the people who consumed the product paid the tax rather than the taxes paid from our labor.
Currently corporations are given an incentive to move overseas to take advantage of the cheap labor costs. There is no tariff penalty which every other nation on the planet employs to protect their economy. We have seen the results from NAFTA where America once exported automobiles to Mexico but now one of Mexico’s largest export to America is automobiles. NAFTA was specifically designed to provide an imbalance in favor of Mexican manufacturers.
Increased national debt, increased deficits, loss of manufacturing jobs, decaying infrastructure and politicians who take huge bribes from corporations to keep on looking the other way.
Writerdog, I think Sam Walton would roll over in his grave to see the way his children sold out his company to the Chinese, I think it was Leno who making fun of walmart said Waltons Autobiography is called Made in America but nothing in his stores are.
If the Dollar stays weak over other currencies esp China’s isn’t that bad for Consumers as as writerdog stated 90% of consumer goods made in china. AS imports become more expensive it hurts consumers. The plus side to a weak dollar exports well we would have to export something? Hell we cant sell beef in many markets because of mad cow scares and the inability to keep the bones out of it for the Japanese and Koreans. And we import wheat from China now, remember the tainted pet food?
DougYou are flat wrong.
Those nations that have free trade agreements with us do NOT place tariffs on US goods.
TomUnder some circumstances, Saudi Arabia imports petroleum products from the US.Mostly additives, gas treatments and the like.
The point is, in a free market, efficiency rules.
We do sell a huge amount of beef and wheat and corn and milo to other countries, as well as oranges and airplanes and other products.
Free trade is the only way to go.
If you can’t hack it, go back to school or start your own business.
Life is hard.
However, don’t force me to buy your product if a foreign product is better.
(By the way, I drive a Chevy Lumina, I think it is great.)
The US travel insdustry is doing well, as far as bringing people to American resorts.
Exports are doing well.
A big chunk of the rise in oil prices is actually due to the fall of the dollar.
A very large portion of our trade deficit is oil and energy.
sorry ImpalaSon has the Lumina
I liked them both
justify
When the difference between my height and my childerne height naorrowed, it wasnt because I shrank —It was because they GREW!
RelaxEverything is fine.
Here is Kudlow’s outlook.
He is pushing for moderate intervention:
http://author.nationalreview.com/latest/?q=MjE0OA==
I was always concerned about American ownership of the Canadian economy until I discovered that Canadians actually have more money invested in the US than vice versa. It’s the size of the two different economies and population (ie, 10 to 1) that gives a false reading of the investment situation. You can get a bigger % of our smaller economy with the same amount of money, that’s all. With the fair valuing of the Candaian Dollar (at last) by US traders, I would think there will be more overseas investments/purchases by Canadians, including the US. To begin with, the Blue Jays need help in the bullpen……
Indian ’slave’ children found making low-cost clothes destined for Gap
Dan McDougall in New DelhiSunday October 28, 2007The Observer
Child workers, some as young as 10, have been found working in a textile factory in conditions close to slavery to produce clothes that appear destined for Gap Kids, one of the most successful arms of the high street giant.Speaking to The Observer, the children described long hours of unwaged work, as well as threats and beatings.
Gap said it was unaware that clothing intended for the Christmas market had been improperly subcontracted to a sweatshop using child labour. It announced it had withdrawn the garments involved while it investigated breaches of the ethical code imposed by it three years ago.
The discovery of the children working in filthy conditions in the Shahpur Jat area of Delhi has renewed concerns about the outsourcing by large retail chains of their garment production to India, recognised by the United Nations as the world’s capital for child labour.According to one estimate, more than 20 per cent of India’s economy is dependent on children, the equivalent of 55 million youngsters under 14.
The Observer discovered the children in a filthy sweatshop working on piles of beaded children’s blouses marked with serial numbers that Gap admitted corresponded with its own inventory. The company has pledged to convene a meeting of its Indian suppliers as well as withdrawing tens of thousands of the embroidered girl’s blouses from the market, before they reach the stores. The hand-stitched tops, which would have been sold for about £20, were destined for shelves in America and Europe in the next seven days in time to be sold to Christmas shoppers.
With endorsements from celebrities including Madonna, Lenny Kravitz and Sex and the City star Sarah Jessica Parker, Gap has become one of the most successful and iconic brands in fashion. Last year the firm embarked on a huge poster and TV campaign surrounding Product Red, a charitable trust for Africa founded by the U2 lead singer Bono.
Despite its charitable activities, Gap has been criticised for outsourcing large contracts to the developing world. In 2004, when it launched its social audit, it admitted that forced labour, child labour, wages below the minimum wage, physical punishment and coercion were among abuses it had found at some factories producing garments for it. It added that it had terminated contracts with 136 suppliers as a consequence.
In the past year Gap has severed contracts with a further 23 suppliers for workplace abuses.
Gap said in a statement from its headquarters in San Francisco: ‘We firmly believe that under no circumstances is it acceptable for children to produce or work on garments. These allegations are deeply upsetting and we take this situation very seriously. All of our suppliers and their subcontractors are required to guarantee that they will not use child labour to produce garments. In this situation, it’s clear one of our vendors violated this agreement and a full investigation is under way.’
Professor Sheotaj Singh, co-founder of the DSV, or Dayanand Shilpa Vidyalaya, a Delhi-based rehabilitation centre and school for rescued child workers, said he believed that as long as cut-price embroidered goods were sold in stores across Britain, America, continental Europe and elsewhere in the West, there would be a problem with unscrupulous subcontractors using children.
‘It is obvious what the attraction is here for Western conglomerates,’ he told The Observer. ‘The key thing India has to offer the global economy is some of the world’s cheapest labour, and this is the saddest thing of all the horrors that arise from Delhi’s 15,000 inadequately regulated garment factories, some of which are among the worst sweatshops ever to taint the human conscience.
‘Consumers in the West should not only be demanding answers from retailers as to how goods are produced but looking deep within themselves at how they spend their money.’
“”"If the Dollar stays weak over other currencies esp China’s isn’t that bad for Consumers as as writerdog stated 90% of consumer goods made in china.”"”
The Chinese Yuan is pegged to the US dollar and the exchange rate is not really affected by the devaluation of the US dollar.
The fact is that the USA has long lived better than other nations. We consume more- far more- of everything and we live in huge houses with 1/2 acre lots and most of us have more than one car or SUV. We live far better than any people anywhere else on the planet including Canada and Europe. In order to pay for this way of life, we have to earn alot more disposable income than people elsewhere in the world. What really worries Americans is the fact that more and more of what we do and get paid for can be done for less by somebody else who is willing to do it for less- whether in Mexico, India, China or HERE in the USA. That is what all the yelping but IT professionals about “H1-B” visas is all about. I don’t need to pay an American programmer $70,000 a year when I can get one from India for $35,000 a year who will be happy to do the job. Therefore, I can simply say to the American “you can continue to work for the $35,000 I am offering or I will hire the Indian to do it”. Now, why can the Indian come to the USA and do it for $35,000 while the American wants twice that? The answer is simple- the American has grown accustomed to a lifestyle that the Indian has not. The American has a 5000 sq foot house and an SUV and probably another car. The Indian is happy with a 2000 sq foot house or condo and a Honda Accord. So it is very unlikely that free trade will raise the standard of other nations to what we have.
What’s this? The liberals are concerned about INVESTORS??????????????????????????????????????????
No way. Say it ain’t so…………………
Oh I get it, the more money investors make the more you libs can STEAL from them.
Nice start of this thread from the intern. Congratulations.
Actually, a dollar crisis might just be what we need to get everyone’s head screwed back on straight. Let some other currency play the role for awhile.
Yet, we have something more close to look at (hint, Eagle).
Spirit is due to a type of globalization effort. But, it, too, is only one of several players in a particular game.
Now, for several years, we have heard the cheer leaders touting that some new plane would be out to fly this year.
Yet, what was shipped from Spirit and all their cohorts shocked Boeing management in regard to its poor quality.
Where have those management guys / gals been? Plenty of Boeing workers could have told them about problematic parts coming from suppliers and their suppliers; fortunately, inside people could do fixes as required.
Now, good suppliers, don’t get your dandruff up; many suppliers actually work; but, suppliers, deny that you aren’t under an unreasonable set of guns defined by Boeing. Globalization (farming out) is essentially stupid (recent events hint at that, we’ll prove it eventually).
It pushes out a whole lot of responsibility (like sweeping under the rug) and warps judgment so that obvious things are not seen. How could Boeing have been surprised? Just Randy and them saying that is stupid.
So, what was rolled out for this new plane was a type of shell game. That was funny, you guys/gals. Thought that you could pull the wool?
There are rumors that some barrels may need to be reworked (meaning the tooling, too). A barrel cannot be easily morphed (gosh, if only Jeff and Nigel paid for this, assuming that it was true – or, that Onex had to put up their dime (make that Canadian, please).
Other rumors fly.
Boeing is sending out hordes of overseers. It may be that globalization will not work correctly without some interlinkage with an internal group beyond that which the current models allow (this army of overseers is sort of metaphorically showing the real need).
A chance was missed here by Boeing not having (retaining) more technical control over what Spirit is doing (especially in regard to the new plane).
Is it too late to backtrack? Oh well, lessons learned are mostly hard; if only they could be as easy as the new plane people led many to believe (remember perfect storm?).
By the way, I have nothing against globalization. Let’s share the wealth.
Oh. For the lib-bashers, what do we do with the people grossing $300M+? Do you know that we’ve exported that type of greed, too? Yes, they’ve learned from the best.
“The point is, in a free market, efficiency rules.”
Nope. It’s not nearly that simple. The above statement echoes one of the cornerstone beliefs of economic free market cheerleader conservatives who honestly believe that they alone really understand economics. People who believe this confidently make assertions like this because they don’t believe that they have to actually analyze the truthfulness of it.
The free market favors the kind of behavior that every other economic system ultimately favors, trying to get the most out of the least. The most money and benefit out of the least expense and effort. 64 plus illustrated how free trade actually creates complexity rather than simplicity. To cut costs, one company exports and subcontracts functions of its manufacturing or product support services it used to do itself. Efficiency? Well, the company who subcontracts has less to directly keep track of, and their costs are cut, so for them efficiency is increased. But, the overall process of actually fabricating, marketing and supporting a product become much more complex, i.e. less efficient, particularly from the point of view of a customer trying to get accountability. Ask anyone who has had trouble with their internet or cable recently (”Oh, we don’t handle that, call THESE GUYS.”–>”No, we don’t handle that either, call THESE GUYS part deux.”–>Guess who THESE GUYS part deux tell you to call? You guessed it, the company you originally started with). One person’s or company’s efficiency becomes other persons’ or companys’ loss of efficiency.
Justify your cost.
If you can’t, someone will undercut you.
It is really that simple.
Businesspeople deal with this every day. Yes, it is hard.
However, I don’t find myself trying to justify my price very often.
Make yourself an expert at what you do, and don’t try to be all things to all people. Specialize, train, and think about kicking the competition in the teeth every day.
“Cost is an issue in the absence of value” — If you don’t bring value to the table, you have nothing to talk about but cost.
Not the sort of society I care to live in. Dog eat dog?
Nah no thanks.
Free traitors (not mis spelled) ought to think about what it means when a country doesn’t know how to make and do for itself anymore.
The decline and fall of the Roman Empire is a good place to start your reading….
Yes, getting the most for the least. It is sort of like life, isn’t it. Interesting that the economists picked up on that.
You see, it’s a continuum. For each of us at the start, getting the most from our parents for nothing (oh wait, being cute counts).
I’ll forgo any but a slight reference to the other end of life (let’s see, our pot being diminished – hence, getting nothing from something :-).
But, in the middle, we see managers wanting something for nothing (and, not seeing what they are doing). Many times, that involves taking it (too many examples to pick one). And, of course, we see a lot of other variation.
Recent, real work (if that isn’t an contradiction in terms as far as it relates to the doings of the dismal scientists) by economists deals with applying game theory (and others of the ilk) to approaches that might be an analog of an experiment (or as close as it might be). And, many times an optimality is associated with some state from which no movement improves those involved.
Now, tell me, where is it anywhere seen in ‘globalization’ as currently touted by the cheerleaders that such a state is even to the slightest extent within the horizon (Nike’s poor treatment of kids, India’s infrastructural [and worse] issues, …, my keyboard complains that I would even try to enumerate this set of atrocities [guess what? a red state can't see this type of thing anyway with their particular glasses as it's filtered])
The fact remains that a ‘true’ survey of Boeing’s engineers would not have shown them to be proponents of farming out. How could such a thing (survey) be done?
Engineers, please keep quiet, this is for the other folks.
Do you know of an engineer who doesn’t take pride in his work? Now, ‘engineer’ here connotes one that is working (not the sumthin for nuthin manager). Do you also know of engineers who work in a team that is virtually spread (a true type of globalization)? Have you seen an engineer just pick up someone’s work and not take a critical eye to it? … enuf …
How many engineers in Boeing are having angst due to this collection of stupidities brought on them by Harry (oops, he’s gone) and crew?
NONSENSE JR
Not a single Democrat running for President agrees with your view on protectionism and trade tariffs.
Not one.
Those who might be a bit more protectionist are not nearly as radical as you.—-
Dog eat dog?
So, you can be as rough and rude and insulting on the Blog as possible, but when it comes to earning a living for your family, you are just a pussycat and you roll over?
Probably not.
You probably demand more money and benefits all the time, but want to do the same job you did last year, with no improvement.
Turn yourself into a better product, and that product will naturally command more money.
It is a “dog eat dog” world, JR.
However, you seem to waste your tiem biting the hand that feeds you, rather than fighting the competition. Try fighting the competition by making yourself, and your company, better.—-By the way,
The Roman Empire fell in large part because it turned into a “welfare state” — lazy people learned to vote themselves money and benefits, and the working, taxpaying people simply could not afford it anymore.
Not the sort of society I care to live in. Dog eat dog?
Nah no thanks.
That is because you are a whimp. You cannot compete and survive in the real world. Instead, you hope to adopt and create an artifical world where any idiot like you can advance – without trying.
Sorry, it is dog eat dog. Always will be. You might try, like Lenin, and Marx for awhile. But in the end, it is every man for himself.
Whimps will die. They do today.
And surprise, surprise – that is WHAT MADE AMERICA GREAT.
It’s downfall is trying to spend it’s resources on whimps.
Re: JR and Econ101.
Two people trading certainties.
World is not that simple folks. Isolationism and protectionism will not work out very well if done unilaterally with countries that hold most of the goods that we use, not to mention the raw materials. Paul meanwhile, sings the same old song with the same old platitudes.
Oh goody. Now we’ve heard from the free market cheerleader social darwinist contingent.
(Rolleyes)
ksagnostic
Truth is, on free trade and avoiding protectionism, I am in agreement with all of the current, leading contenders for President, and with all of the Presidents we have had in the last 50 years.
Karl Marx and Lenin, Stalin and Mao —
More blood on their hands than anyone else’s hands in history.
They cared so much about the masses that they committed mass murder, in order to push their cause on all of us!
Well I am not about advancing myself at the expense of others, personally or nationally.
I advance myself WITH others. And I do not do so under any msters whip or by stabbing my fellows in the back.
Econ said:”You probably demand more money and benefits all the time, but want to do the same job you did last year, with no improvement.
Turn yourself into a better product, and that product will naturally command more money.
It is a “dog eat dog” world,”
You have a lot to learn, Econ! In the world where I work, if I get more efficient I will actually make LESS money, because I get the job done quicker! And, yes, in spite of that I stretch myself to do a better job in a more efficient way. I don’t demand increases that I cannot produce for.
You said, “It is a dog eat dog world.” That is true, but the fact of the real world is that the top dog eats the best, and also controls the scraps that the rest of the dogs get!
If you are going to class us as dogs, and business treats most of us like dogs, we have to learn to fight like dogs to get and maintain what we deserve!
Re: Dog eat dog.
Actually, wild dogs (i.e., wolves) while observing a strict heirarchy, are actually quite cooperative. Much like people in a workplace usually have to be.
Paul, you have all the depth of thought of a dime. What do Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao have to do with this topic anyway?
Oh wait, they’re communists, which means they aren’t free marketeers, which means that those who aren’t uncritical free marketeers are…
Whatever.
Like I said, the depth of a dime.
And JR, globalization does not necessarily equal stabbing others in the back or snapping the master’s whip.
Our standard of living has come at the expense of resources from the rest of the world, and that is simply not going to continue as it has before. But, we will continue to be dependent on the world’s resources. As one of the leading markets for those resources, however, I think we can help ensure that fewer people in the world (here and abroad) are stabbed in the back or under the master’s whip for their work and resources. I trust our country’s potential to do it better than some of the other countries out there, particularly in comparison with countries like China, who combine a nationalist communistic disregard for its own people with a wild west frontier mentality regarding other continents’ and countries’ resources and products.
Paul, I never said we had tariffs with NAFTA countries. South Korea is an example I used which isn’t a NAFTA country. You’ve already proven you are clueless about American trade policies in a previous discussion so it’s best not to embarrass yourself again.
We are the fools to have such open trade, when our trading partners are more protectionist than we ever dreamed of being!
“”"You probably demand more money and benefits all the time, but want to do the same job you did last year, with no improvement.”"”
It is easy for you to blame the worker but the fact is that many corporations do not provide the worker with the best and most up to date equipment to do a better and faster job. If they did, the worker would. I know a truck driver for a major freight company and I was astonished when he told me that the company does not provide GPS navigation for their drivers. He said that they either buy their own or spend time having to pull over and look at paper maps which waste fuel and productivity,
Econ 101 did mention cost and value in his note (October 27, 2007 at 09:17 PM). That was a nice balance except both have their problems (also, they’re seemingly inversed related in some cases).
The leaning toward the right (not meaning truthful! rather top-downism) of business (more or less permanent) is so much like some dreadful views. More than one regime has worked people to death (and, business tried this too [is doing so now with some types of off shoring]).
We Americans frown (or worse) on that, yet our system leads many to think that cutting costs is imperative (only to the sharks or cheetahs as characterized by a recent Business Week article on private-equity denizens). Taken to an extreme, it’s not like becoming anorexic (or using a resource beyond some replenishment state). How can there be any build up of capability under this type of thinking?
Aside: now, for those who want to rant, not adopting cost cutting (as a prime focus) is not the same as being (arguing for one to be) profligate — actually, cost cutting in many cases comes from management decisions to put money elsewhere (like their pockets) and then to cover the void by taking from the already depleted (whose rights have been slowly eroding away). The inversed relation is only seeming (to binary thinkers); making it real would then allow movement along a line (where it may be too messy for the binary brain).
Thankfully, we continue to see, with each generation, the wild ways of the Googles (too much, probably more money than sense [but, hey, they never have seen a downturn]). Who wants to predict when cost control might come into play in that arena?
So, the Googles (and the likes) are providing value (we’re told), hence cost issues are nil. Has anyone tried to eat a ‘google’ or fly it?
Gosh, we need to have people who know how to do more than just twiddle bits upon the ether (whether they’re doing so in clever and unexpected ways or not) and provide real stuff.
And, these people (who can do or create actual stuff) are really the ones with class (how do we get them excited and let them work? [oh yes, play the IPO game where only little percentages dribble out of the big guys' pockets - give me a break]), not those floating on their mega-bucks (the world is upside down in this regard) who couldn’t beat their way out of a wet paper bag (we used to say).
Aside: the mega-buck class is not represented in Iraq or any of the types of services either. How did we let this come to be?
For us to get the proper balance, there needs to be more rewards than just pocket filling of the bosses (recent example in Wichita). Too, we need respect given to the doers (where value is actual), not just to the talking-heads and other performers of sleights-of-hand [they 'do' too, of course, and provide a 'value' which ought not be consider with such weight as we have been known to give].
LibsTry to read most every post on the thread before you hurl insults about being off topic.
If you start from the top, you will see that Communist theory was first brought up by someone other than me.
DougNAFTA is only ONE trade treaty.
We have several trade agreements and treaties.
Here’s tidbit from Wikipedia on NAFTA:”NAFTA was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against).[5] and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38[6]”
It appears that there was Bi-Partisan support and even President Clinton made improvements to the NAFTA agreement.
Contrary to Ross Perot’s “Giant sucking sound,” NAFTA has empowered countries to seek trade and further their economic development.
“If you start from the top, you will see that Communist theory was first brought up by someone other than me.”
And then you will see that Paul’s comments were a complete non-sequitur from the earlier comments about communism as it effects the economic behavior of China. Writerdog made some good comments, but I did not agree with the relevance of communism to China’s behavior. China is an autocratic country and its obsession with its external honor dates back to well before the emergence of communism. Since China has officially embraced communism, the Communist Party is an institution to be honored in much the same way that the Emperor was to be honored in the past. Paul’s comments about communists leaders just kind of hang out there.
(On the other hand, I’ll take your comments on the immigration thread over JR’s any day of the week)
ksagnosticThanks
I like to have fun here.
If it ain’t fun, it ain’t worth it.
Yes, Chinese Communism is much different from Latin Communism.
Both are different from JR Communism.
LOL.
Yes well,
Perhaps SOME are lucky enough not to have had their lifestyles altered by the effects of “free trade’ and illegal immigration. I wish I was one of them.
Hey it’s ok. Everybody gonna be right where I am soon enough if we don’t stop this madness.
Kansas: the original “free trade” agreement between the US and Canada was a boone to both countries. About equal standards of living, wages, techincal skills, R & D, social safety net and other criteria helped it work. Too well I guess, because the US wanted to spread it to Mexico. The inclusion of Mexico drained jobs from everywhere north of the Rio Grande and, Ross was right. Canada and the US tied themselves to a corpse that started a race to the bottom, eventually becoming offshore outsourcing on a scale never imagined.I believe the elite in commerce benefitted from NAFTA, but the averge Joe on both sides of our borders didn’t. Aggregate numbers look good,(as can a balance sheet be made to look good even when the P& L is a disaster) but on the ground it’s very, very different.
Kansas: Wikipedia is a best a source I question after finding out that a lot of their information is written by those who have a specific agenda on the topic at hand. Brian Mulrooney,a Conservative P. M. of Canada, who like Reagan ran up consectuive deficits and our total debt while in office. With a huge majority in Paliament he easily rammed through NAFTA, and when next faced the electorate he and his party were wiped out, going from about 200 seats to just 2. That party is now defunct, and Mulrooney is reviled as perhaps the worst PM we’ve ever had. Wikipedia seems to have overlooked the consequence of his “partnership” with Reagan.
We’re talking about an America “by the Companies, for the Companies, and of the Companies.” Lincoln is rolling over in his grave, when will ‘people’ ever become the focus.
Wikipedia is great for things that can be vetted; unfortunately (or is it fortunately?) politics is not one of those. ‘wiki’ excels as a place to generate an integrative (holistic) view (in about any real discipline) in this day of extreme partitioning (one consequence of runaway reductionism) and sustains any ‘vet’ through its linking capability and convergence to a consensus view (very eastern – is it too much for an extreme western mind to grasp?).
That those with malfeasance at heart exploit our little tool says more about them than about us wiki’ans.