Hey I don't plan on voting for Bush, but still think this is stupid. Telling anyone to "create" jobs is just asking for trouble. There is no policy that will create un-economic jobs, whether that means creating new opportunities here or preventing a job from going out of the country. If someone else tells you differently, you ought to be suspicious as it flies in the face of economic reality. I agree that you can do something about preventing companies from setting up sham headquarters overseas merely to avoid corporate taxation, but the actual production process is what is real and those jobs will move away as sure as the sun will rise. If we weren't to allow that to happen then we are just further assuring our marginalization of our economy.
Bush is a fraud, while saying how much he has done to boost the economy and reduce unemployment, he's allowed his corporate cronies to waltz right out of the states for cheaper labor and create a bigger mess than what he stepped in. Anything that is put out by the govt' whether it's figures or estimates is part of his spin machine.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>he's allowed his corporate cronies to waltz right out of the states for cheaper labor <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Welcome to the global economy,G2G. Forcing companies to pay for more expensive labor in the US will only encourage them to establish subsidiaries on foreign soil.
FOUR MORE YEARS!
FOUR MORE YEARS!
While this solution may not completely prevent jobs from leaving the US (and Canada for that matter) our respective governments could implement transparency requirements so that labour laws in foreign countries are at least met (the National Labour Committee estimates that over half of all sweatshop contractors don't pay minimum wage and that workdays are much longer than allowed.) In addition, if foreign governments were given loan and/or interest relief from the IMF and/or World Bank, in much the same way that Iraq was granted it, then infrastructure would grow in many of these third world countries, reducing the desperation factor that forces people into such incredibly cheap labour.
There is alot that our governments could do, but the interests of corporations and the rich side of free trade would have to take a hit.
There is alot that our governments could do, but the interests of corporations and the rich side of free trade would have to take a hit.
Good luck with that one. No country wants to give up the right to enforce their own laws, no one is going to accept oversight like that. What if Mexico said they know an escaped convicted criminal is in the US and they know exactly where he is, will you let us go in and get him? The uproar would be endless if it was allowed. The FBI and a number of US states complain when they can't do the same thing in Mexico. You can't play something one way when it comes to sovereignty. That is what your labor law requirements would be. Every country will SAY they enforce their laws, but of course we know it isn't true. Then again plenty of laws in the US are on the books, but aren't enforced so it goes both ways.
Desperation for cheap labor isn't going to go away. There just happen to be billions that need the work and have no qualms about getting treated poorly for it. Reality is that the labor could be even cheaper in some cases and people would still accept the work, poverty is just that desperate in much of the world. Instead of assuming we are "exploiting" or "mistreating" these people, lets face the reality that most are essentially glad we bothered because without the work they and their families might not even have food to eat.
Desperation for cheap labor isn't going to go away. There just happen to be billions that need the work and have no qualms about getting treated poorly for it. Reality is that the labor could be even cheaper in some cases and people would still accept the work, poverty is just that desperate in much of the world. Instead of assuming we are "exploiting" or "mistreating" these people, lets face the reality that most are essentially glad we bothered because without the work they and their families might not even have food to eat.
Bullshit.
First, if the US can use it's military prowress to push countries to disarm, it most certainly can encourage countries to adapt tougher labour laws and/or provide evidence of routine inspections. (Never mind the power it weilds at the table during WTO summits.)
Second, countries like Bangladesh, Bolivia, Honduras, etc. are crippled by interest payments to the IMF et al to such a degree that their domestically generated GDP funds these payments while their infrastructures are wildly dependent on foreign aid. These countries have no economic sovereignty.
Bush asked us all to forgive the Iraq debt because he knows damn well how hard it is to rebuild when you owe so much money. How hard is this concept to extend to other parts of the world? Simply put, Westerners have become g****ly rich on the backs of third world citizens. To suggest that they will be 'glad we bothered' is very short-sighted.
First, if the US can use it's military prowress to push countries to disarm, it most certainly can encourage countries to adapt tougher labour laws and/or provide evidence of routine inspections. (Never mind the power it weilds at the table during WTO summits.)
Second, countries like Bangladesh, Bolivia, Honduras, etc. are crippled by interest payments to the IMF et al to such a degree that their domestically generated GDP funds these payments while their infrastructures are wildly dependent on foreign aid. These countries have no economic sovereignty.
Bush asked us all to forgive the Iraq debt because he knows damn well how hard it is to rebuild when you owe so much money. How hard is this concept to extend to other parts of the world? Simply put, Westerners have become g****ly rich on the backs of third world citizens. To suggest that they will be 'glad we bothered' is very short-sighted.
I got to admit I don't know much about this, but it seems to me that this would be the result of phoney baloney globilization that the Cumbaya crowd is always pushing.
X, I am not being a smart ass but what were the people out of work overseas getting paid before these Coorps. got there?
You mentioned something about Halliburton paying Irqys 100 bucks a month, isn't that about 3 times what they were making before?
X, I am not being a smart ass but what were the people out of work overseas getting paid before these Coorps. got there?
You mentioned something about Halliburton paying Irqys 100 bucks a month, isn't that about 3 times what they were making before?
Took me a minute there to stop laughing at 'Cumbaya crowd.'
I didn't make mention of Halliburton and Iraqi workers, although a website I sent you to (www.corpowatch.org) has an article in there on that subject, which I haven't read in any great depth. So, I glanced over it quickly and one thing that stood out is that Texans who have been transferred there are earning between $7500 and $8000 a month for the same job that an Iraqi is being paid $100 to $300 to do.
Look, while there is much truth in the notion that these people wouldn't have jobs if it weren't for the WalMarts of the world, it's also just as true that if it wasn't part of the 'American Dream' (and by 'American' I mean western in this instance) to have a net worth of over a billion, drive 2.5 cars per couple, and live in 4,000 square foot homes, then richer nations could do much to lift the standard of living of some of the most unfortunate people. For every one poor American who has opportunity but doesn't capitalise on it for whatever reason, there are 1 million (at least) people abroad who are stuck where they are as their birthright. Our riches are not because you or I work any harder than any of these people (probably quite the opposite, really) but it is our singlular determination to be the biggest consumers of all time that keeps things this way.
I didn't make mention of Halliburton and Iraqi workers, although a website I sent you to (www.corpowatch.org) has an article in there on that subject, which I haven't read in any great depth. So, I glanced over it quickly and one thing that stood out is that Texans who have been transferred there are earning between $7500 and $8000 a month for the same job that an Iraqi is being paid $100 to $300 to do.
Look, while there is much truth in the notion that these people wouldn't have jobs if it weren't for the WalMarts of the world, it's also just as true that if it wasn't part of the 'American Dream' (and by 'American' I mean western in this instance) to have a net worth of over a billion, drive 2.5 cars per couple, and live in 4,000 square foot homes, then richer nations could do much to lift the standard of living of some of the most unfortunate people. For every one poor American who has opportunity but doesn't capitalise on it for whatever reason, there are 1 million (at least) people abroad who are stuck where they are as their birthright. Our riches are not because you or I work any harder than any of these people (probably quite the opposite, really) but it is our singlular determination to be the biggest consumers of all time that keeps things this way.
Once again, half the story is being told by the Chicken Little Americans...
A Potent 'Insource' of U.S. Jobs
RALEIGH -- Recent headlines have raised concerns about "outsourcing," or the movement by U.S. companies of jobs to foreign countries. Some prominent tech companies are considering moving thousands of well-paying programming positions overseas,and we've also heard about customer service jobs being sent to India.
While outsourcing has captured current attention, it is not a new phenomenon. If the term is defined as jobs operated by U.S. companies in foreign countries, the current total is 10 million positions, or 7 percent of domestic U.S. employment. Further, there's been an upward trend in the number of outsourced jobs since the mid-1990s, when trade barriers were significantly reduced following the signing of the NAFTA and GATT agreements.
What is less well publicized and understood is that "insourcing" also occurs in our economy. Insourcing happens when foreign companies establish jobs in the United States.
The latest statistics show insourcing accounts for over 6.5 million jobs nationwide. Although this is less than the number of outsourced jobs, the gap has actually narrowed in the past quarter century. That is, there's been a recent trend of foreign companies adding jobs in the U.S. faster than U.S companies have increased jobs in foreign countries.
Consider what's happened in heavy manufacturing, which includes the manufacturing of vehicles, computers, electronics and other machinery. Since the mid-1990s, foreign companies have added 400,000 jobs in these industries in the U.S. Over the same time period, U.S. companies moved 300,000 jobs to foreign countries in the same sectors. The insourced jobs in these industries are also high-paying, with average compensation per employee of over $ 65,000.
Insourcing also plays an important role in the North Carolina economy. The most recent data show 240,000 insourced jobs in North Carolina, with 100,000 in manufacturing. And the total number of insourced jobs in North Carolina has risen in recent years.
With an increasingly globalized economy, more and more jobs will be candidates for both outsourcing and insourcing. The jobs most vulnerable for outsourcing are those performing routine tasks, not requiring close supervision, and where lower-cost foreign labor is readily available.
For example, 20 years ago computer programming was a new and cutting-edge job. Today, many programming tasks are straightforward and routine, and millions of workers worldwide have been trained to do them. These are the kind of technical jobs that can go to foreign nations with lower costs.
But as the recent experience with heavy manufacturing indicates, the U.S. is still an attractive location for the siting of plants matching advanced technology and equipment with highly skilled labor and modern research. Foreign companies looking for such ingredients know they can be found in the U.S. and, I might add, in North Carolina.
The scorecard on job outsourcing versus job insourcing has actually moved in the favor of the U.S. in recent decades, and policy-makers must consider both when evaluating the worldwide movement of jobs. Jobs increasingly are up for grabs in a new world without economic borders.
Yet the implication for American workers is the same as my father gave me years ago: to get a good-paying, you must get an education. The updated version is: to get and keep a good-paying job, you must get more and more education.
A Potent 'Insource' of U.S. Jobs
RALEIGH -- Recent headlines have raised concerns about "outsourcing," or the movement by U.S. companies of jobs to foreign countries. Some prominent tech companies are considering moving thousands of well-paying programming positions overseas,and we've also heard about customer service jobs being sent to India.
While outsourcing has captured current attention, it is not a new phenomenon. If the term is defined as jobs operated by U.S. companies in foreign countries, the current total is 10 million positions, or 7 percent of domestic U.S. employment. Further, there's been an upward trend in the number of outsourced jobs since the mid-1990s, when trade barriers were significantly reduced following the signing of the NAFTA and GATT agreements.
What is less well publicized and understood is that "insourcing" also occurs in our economy. Insourcing happens when foreign companies establish jobs in the United States.
The latest statistics show insourcing accounts for over 6.5 million jobs nationwide. Although this is less than the number of outsourced jobs, the gap has actually narrowed in the past quarter century. That is, there's been a recent trend of foreign companies adding jobs in the U.S. faster than U.S companies have increased jobs in foreign countries.
Consider what's happened in heavy manufacturing, which includes the manufacturing of vehicles, computers, electronics and other machinery. Since the mid-1990s, foreign companies have added 400,000 jobs in these industries in the U.S. Over the same time period, U.S. companies moved 300,000 jobs to foreign countries in the same sectors. The insourced jobs in these industries are also high-paying, with average compensation per employee of over $ 65,000.
Insourcing also plays an important role in the North Carolina economy. The most recent data show 240,000 insourced jobs in North Carolina, with 100,000 in manufacturing. And the total number of insourced jobs in North Carolina has risen in recent years.
With an increasingly globalized economy, more and more jobs will be candidates for both outsourcing and insourcing. The jobs most vulnerable for outsourcing are those performing routine tasks, not requiring close supervision, and where lower-cost foreign labor is readily available.
For example, 20 years ago computer programming was a new and cutting-edge job. Today, many programming tasks are straightforward and routine, and millions of workers worldwide have been trained to do them. These are the kind of technical jobs that can go to foreign nations with lower costs.
But as the recent experience with heavy manufacturing indicates, the U.S. is still an attractive location for the siting of plants matching advanced technology and equipment with highly skilled labor and modern research. Foreign companies looking for such ingredients know they can be found in the U.S. and, I might add, in North Carolina.
The scorecard on job outsourcing versus job insourcing has actually moved in the favor of the U.S. in recent decades, and policy-makers must consider both when evaluating the worldwide movement of jobs. Jobs increasingly are up for grabs in a new world without economic borders.
Yet the implication for American workers is the same as my father gave me years ago: to get a good-paying, you must get an education. The updated version is: to get and keep a good-paying job, you must get more and more education.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The updated version is: to get and keep a good-paying job, you must get more and more education. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well said.
xpanda, if you want to deal in economic reality, you must acknowedge that we are now competing in a global economy. In a capitalist environment, the primary purpose of every corporation is to make a profit, whether you consider that a sin or not. Therefore, if a corporation has the opportunity to improve its profitability and long-term net worth, it will invest in overseas inexpensive labor overhead to fulfill its commitment to its shareholders. It will do this irregardless of whether you consider it morally reprehensible. In a free market system, neither the President, nor the Legislature nor the Judiciary can force a profit-making entity from pursuing its ultimate objective.
Well said.
xpanda, if you want to deal in economic reality, you must acknowedge that we are now competing in a global economy. In a capitalist environment, the primary purpose of every corporation is to make a profit, whether you consider that a sin or not. Therefore, if a corporation has the opportunity to improve its profitability and long-term net worth, it will invest in overseas inexpensive labor overhead to fulfill its commitment to its shareholders. It will do this irregardless of whether you consider it morally reprehensible. In a free market system, neither the President, nor the Legislature nor the Judiciary can force a profit-making entity from pursuing its ultimate objective.
Shot,
Good post. Like a lot of others, I've always heard economic theories of efficiencies - X does what X does best, Y does what Y does best and that's a perfect efficient market. Protectionsim leads to inefficiencies which harm overall economy. Thus NAFTA, according to this theory is a good thing.
What I've seen nobody address other than politicking and grandstanding from both left and right is how to deal with the short term pain (relative term) for those people who have lost manufacturing jobs (for the most part) and now service jobs to cheaper labor overseas.
Just like when GM moved out of Flint to Mexico, divorce rates, crime rates, suicide rates and home foreclosures all rose - well documented. Nobody had a plan to deal with that.
Same thing is happening in manufacturing communities throughout the US and farming communities in Mexico today.
I'm more familiar with the Mexico dilemna (just cause I've read about it more - not that it's more important than American manufacturing dilemna). We still subsidize agricutural industry today (don't quote me but it's a few billion dollars). Makes it more and more difficult for Mexican farmers to compete. Increasingly, they turn to illegal immigration to work in the States as laborers where they can make relatively good money and provide for their families by sending money home or they turn to the drug trade where they can really make bigger dollars.
Either way, they have judged that the risks they face are preferable to trying to farm in their rural villages where they are at such a disadvantage to the USA and other countries.
Bottom line is NAFTA has some unintended consequences that need to be addressed in serious discussions, both right and left. And there are no easy answers. And there are seriou repercussions (sp?) if we don't deal with these issues.
Good post. Like a lot of others, I've always heard economic theories of efficiencies - X does what X does best, Y does what Y does best and that's a perfect efficient market. Protectionsim leads to inefficiencies which harm overall economy. Thus NAFTA, according to this theory is a good thing.
What I've seen nobody address other than politicking and grandstanding from both left and right is how to deal with the short term pain (relative term) for those people who have lost manufacturing jobs (for the most part) and now service jobs to cheaper labor overseas.
Just like when GM moved out of Flint to Mexico, divorce rates, crime rates, suicide rates and home foreclosures all rose - well documented. Nobody had a plan to deal with that.
Same thing is happening in manufacturing communities throughout the US and farming communities in Mexico today.
I'm more familiar with the Mexico dilemna (just cause I've read about it more - not that it's more important than American manufacturing dilemna). We still subsidize agricutural industry today (don't quote me but it's a few billion dollars). Makes it more and more difficult for Mexican farmers to compete. Increasingly, they turn to illegal immigration to work in the States as laborers where they can make relatively good money and provide for their families by sending money home or they turn to the drug trade where they can really make bigger dollars.
Either way, they have judged that the risks they face are preferable to trying to farm in their rural villages where they are at such a disadvantage to the USA and other countries.
Bottom line is NAFTA has some unintended consequences that need to be addressed in serious discussions, both right and left. And there are no easy answers. And there are seriou repercussions (sp?) if we don't deal with these issues.
I certainly cannot blame Bush for "outsourcing" - it's a new age and this is just the reality of global economics.
However, a WHOLE LOT of social service jobs (and better yet social help to those in need) could have been created with the 100,000,000,000+ that Bush wasted unjustly attacking and occupying Iraq.
However, a WHOLE LOT of social service jobs (and better yet social help to those in need) could have been created with the 100,000,000,000+ that Bush wasted unjustly attacking and occupying Iraq.
Outsourcing from thedailybrew
In theory, free trade between nations allows increased specialization, permitting all participants to focus on what they do best. This in turn creates efficiency, thereby increasing overall output, and thus the standard of living for all participants. Both the Republicans, and to a lesser extent the Democrats, have more or less bought into the theory. The bet they have placed, upon which our collective economic fate rests, is that the citizens of the United States will ultimately benefit from free trade because we will enjoy the cheap products made in China and sold at Wallmart by outsourcing the low value niches, while we continue to earn high incomes, by dominating the high value niches. Who cares if India and China do all of our low skill manufacturing and call center work? If Americans are doing all the high value design and engineering work, everyone is better off, and America still comes out on top.
There are a few problems with the theory. The obvious flaw is that in some countries, the “competitive advantage” lies in the fact that they are willing to allow their 7 and 8 year olds to work 12 hour shifts in prison-like factories which spew toxins into the worker’s well water. Politically, this flaw hasn’t provided enough resonance to move even a majority of Democrats away from free trade, as Dick Gephardt’s presidential run made clear. Another flaw is that it underestimates the abilities of the Chinese and Indians. Anyone who has done any graduate work in the hard sciences understands that America doesn’t hold a monopoly on scientific talent, and isn’t surprised in the least about the fact that thousands of American programming jobs are moving to India and China. Our third world competitors aren’t stupid, and any long term economic strategy premised on the idea that they are is going to fail. The final flaw is that the high value work we are supposed to dominate, the creative work and the highly technical work, is by far the easiest to steal. The music, film, and software industries are the most publicized victims of this fact, but they are by no means the only ones. From counterfeit blue jeans to counterfeit drugs, it is always cheaper and easier to steal someone else’s technology, designs or trademarks than to come up with them on your own. If you can get away with it.
This last vulnerability produces a delicious irony. At the same time that Microsoft is bitching about the Chinese making illegal copies of its operating system, it is hiring the Chinese to program the next version of the software. And within that irony may lie a policy solution that could level the playing field somewhat for beleaguered American workers who are watching their jobs run off to distant lands. With Lou Dobbs flogging the issue every night on CNN, an enterprising Democratic politician might consider floating the idea, since the lame proposal they are now pushing requiring companies to give “15 days notice before your paycheck goes to China” ain’t cutting the mustard.
The idea is simple. Instead of threatening our trading "partners" with tariffs and sanctions, threaten the multinational corporations who are setting up shop in countries that allow the wholesale theft of American intellectual property. If IBM wants to move a million programming jobs to India, that’s fine. But if India doesn’t respect the intellectual property rights of our imports, then why should the US respect the intellectual property rights of companies who use Indian labor to produce goods for export? You want to program your software in India? Fine. The price for doing so is that your copyrights, patents, and trademarks become unenforceable in the US. Anything IBM makes in India can be copied for free, and if IBM doesn’t like it, they can damn well program the code somewhere else. If China wants to turn a blind eye to manufactures who produce counterfeit goods, so be it. But if Levi Strauss wants to set up a blue jeans factory there, then the Levi trademark falls into the public domain. Were this to become US policy, the outsourcing of US jobs to nations that steal US intellectual property would dry up faster than you can say “Most Favored Nation Status.”
Of course, none of this will come to pass. The big multinationals who are outsourcing our jobs also control our media, and in turn our political system. But the issue is definitely hot right now, and is destined to stay that way through the fall’s elections. So if someone is running for Congress somewhere where a bunch of good paying jobs have gotten up and walked away, they might want to think about getting some play with it.
I admit I haven’t thought it all the way through, but at first blush it does seem to me that it is pretty immune from criticism. It isn’t protectionist in the traditional sense. Nobody is paying fines or tarriffs or having their goods embargoed. It also vilifies China and India where they don’t have a ready response. They can hardly claim a right to steal. And since the punishment isn’t being applied to a nation or its governemt, but rather to US based multinationals, they aren’t in a very good position to squeak about issues of national sovereignty. The multinationals are also put in a box. They can’t really complain that they have a right to all of the benefits of free trade but none of the responsibilities. But like I said, most of this is just me thinking out loud. If any of you have any thoughts, or see any weaknesses I am missing, I would be interested in hearing from you, either on the comment board or over the email.
In theory, free trade between nations allows increased specialization, permitting all participants to focus on what they do best. This in turn creates efficiency, thereby increasing overall output, and thus the standard of living for all participants. Both the Republicans, and to a lesser extent the Democrats, have more or less bought into the theory. The bet they have placed, upon which our collective economic fate rests, is that the citizens of the United States will ultimately benefit from free trade because we will enjoy the cheap products made in China and sold at Wallmart by outsourcing the low value niches, while we continue to earn high incomes, by dominating the high value niches. Who cares if India and China do all of our low skill manufacturing and call center work? If Americans are doing all the high value design and engineering work, everyone is better off, and America still comes out on top.
There are a few problems with the theory. The obvious flaw is that in some countries, the “competitive advantage” lies in the fact that they are willing to allow their 7 and 8 year olds to work 12 hour shifts in prison-like factories which spew toxins into the worker’s well water. Politically, this flaw hasn’t provided enough resonance to move even a majority of Democrats away from free trade, as Dick Gephardt’s presidential run made clear. Another flaw is that it underestimates the abilities of the Chinese and Indians. Anyone who has done any graduate work in the hard sciences understands that America doesn’t hold a monopoly on scientific talent, and isn’t surprised in the least about the fact that thousands of American programming jobs are moving to India and China. Our third world competitors aren’t stupid, and any long term economic strategy premised on the idea that they are is going to fail. The final flaw is that the high value work we are supposed to dominate, the creative work and the highly technical work, is by far the easiest to steal. The music, film, and software industries are the most publicized victims of this fact, but they are by no means the only ones. From counterfeit blue jeans to counterfeit drugs, it is always cheaper and easier to steal someone else’s technology, designs or trademarks than to come up with them on your own. If you can get away with it.
This last vulnerability produces a delicious irony. At the same time that Microsoft is bitching about the Chinese making illegal copies of its operating system, it is hiring the Chinese to program the next version of the software. And within that irony may lie a policy solution that could level the playing field somewhat for beleaguered American workers who are watching their jobs run off to distant lands. With Lou Dobbs flogging the issue every night on CNN, an enterprising Democratic politician might consider floating the idea, since the lame proposal they are now pushing requiring companies to give “15 days notice before your paycheck goes to China” ain’t cutting the mustard.
The idea is simple. Instead of threatening our trading "partners" with tariffs and sanctions, threaten the multinational corporations who are setting up shop in countries that allow the wholesale theft of American intellectual property. If IBM wants to move a million programming jobs to India, that’s fine. But if India doesn’t respect the intellectual property rights of our imports, then why should the US respect the intellectual property rights of companies who use Indian labor to produce goods for export? You want to program your software in India? Fine. The price for doing so is that your copyrights, patents, and trademarks become unenforceable in the US. Anything IBM makes in India can be copied for free, and if IBM doesn’t like it, they can damn well program the code somewhere else. If China wants to turn a blind eye to manufactures who produce counterfeit goods, so be it. But if Levi Strauss wants to set up a blue jeans factory there, then the Levi trademark falls into the public domain. Were this to become US policy, the outsourcing of US jobs to nations that steal US intellectual property would dry up faster than you can say “Most Favored Nation Status.”
Of course, none of this will come to pass. The big multinationals who are outsourcing our jobs also control our media, and in turn our political system. But the issue is definitely hot right now, and is destined to stay that way through the fall’s elections. So if someone is running for Congress somewhere where a bunch of good paying jobs have gotten up and walked away, they might want to think about getting some play with it.
I admit I haven’t thought it all the way through, but at first blush it does seem to me that it is pretty immune from criticism. It isn’t protectionist in the traditional sense. Nobody is paying fines or tarriffs or having their goods embargoed. It also vilifies China and India where they don’t have a ready response. They can hardly claim a right to steal. And since the punishment isn’t being applied to a nation or its governemt, but rather to US based multinationals, they aren’t in a very good position to squeak about issues of national sovereignty. The multinationals are also put in a box. They can’t really complain that they have a right to all of the benefits of free trade but none of the responsibilities. But like I said, most of this is just me thinking out loud. If any of you have any thoughts, or see any weaknesses I am missing, I would be interested in hearing from you, either on the comment board or over the email.
If American companies are not allowed to move some jobs offshore but the rest of the world is, how long will it be before the rest of the world blows our companies away? That is the biggest hole in your theory, the cost advantages are not just about profits all the time, in many cases they are the difference between being able to make products and not make products. If a company has to make a product that costs three times as much with American factories, why would they even bother to do it? The only way you could "protect" this is to then close the borders and say no foreign competition either. While you are at it, are you saying because a British company uses a Cambodia factory for their products, their copyrights are no longer valid in the US? Yeah, that one will go over really well.
This sort of idealism comes up every time an election is on the line. **** Perot tried to make the same points in 92 with NAFTA. If he just points to the specific data that backs up his argument sure he can say I told you so. But the economy of the US and the world is far more complicated than that. A lost job is easy to spot; a job created thanks to extra productivity caused by trade isn't so easy to spot. If our incomes were really falling drastically and our economy was taking a beating maybe these politicians would get a little more respect. Problem is they have no good proof other than the small targeted items they choose. They seem to think that China with its strong growth over the last 10 years is the result of free trade, but they conveniently overlook the fact that since World War I, China basically underperformed its full economic potential by incredibly drastic proportions. To a degree that even 50 years of strong growth still won't bring its economy up to its full potential. China is just benefitting from a strong catching up period, one that resulted for disastrous wars and a horrendous regime run by Mao that for much of the Cultural Revolution generated -5% annual GDPs. China, with over 1 billion people, clearly has the potential to be far stronger and in its race to do that it is bound to have startling growth spurts.
This sort of idealism comes up every time an election is on the line. **** Perot tried to make the same points in 92 with NAFTA. If he just points to the specific data that backs up his argument sure he can say I told you so. But the economy of the US and the world is far more complicated than that. A lost job is easy to spot; a job created thanks to extra productivity caused by trade isn't so easy to spot. If our incomes were really falling drastically and our economy was taking a beating maybe these politicians would get a little more respect. Problem is they have no good proof other than the small targeted items they choose. They seem to think that China with its strong growth over the last 10 years is the result of free trade, but they conveniently overlook the fact that since World War I, China basically underperformed its full economic potential by incredibly drastic proportions. To a degree that even 50 years of strong growth still won't bring its economy up to its full potential. China is just benefitting from a strong catching up period, one that resulted for disastrous wars and a horrendous regime run by Mao that for much of the Cultural Revolution generated -5% annual GDPs. China, with over 1 billion people, clearly has the potential to be far stronger and in its race to do that it is bound to have startling growth spurts.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kwalder:
xpanda, if you want to deal in economic reality, you must acknowedge that we are now competing in a global economy. In a capitalist environment, the primary purpose of every corporation is to make a profit, whether you consider that a sin or not. Therefore, if a corporation has the opportunity to improve its profitability and long-term net worth, it will invest in overseas inexpensive labor overhead to fulfill its commitment to its shareholders. It will do this irregardless of whether you consider it morally reprehensible. In a free market system, neither the President, nor the Legislature nor the Judiciary can force a profit-making entity from pursuing its ultimate objective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem with the typical defense of globalisation is that it is not operating in a 'free market' system at all. There is interference all over the place, as the Group of 77 will tell you, with Western interests in mind.
I understand that globalisation is the wave of the future and I applaud the opportunity to expose developing nations to our wealth. It just seems to me that there are many entities out there ensuring that globalisation benefits only a few, while simultaneously dangling the wealth carrot in front of many faces.
xpanda, if you want to deal in economic reality, you must acknowedge that we are now competing in a global economy. In a capitalist environment, the primary purpose of every corporation is to make a profit, whether you consider that a sin or not. Therefore, if a corporation has the opportunity to improve its profitability and long-term net worth, it will invest in overseas inexpensive labor overhead to fulfill its commitment to its shareholders. It will do this irregardless of whether you consider it morally reprehensible. In a free market system, neither the President, nor the Legislature nor the Judiciary can force a profit-making entity from pursuing its ultimate objective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem with the typical defense of globalisation is that it is not operating in a 'free market' system at all. There is interference all over the place, as the Group of 77 will tell you, with Western interests in mind.
I understand that globalisation is the wave of the future and I applaud the opportunity to expose developing nations to our wealth. It just seems to me that there are many entities out there ensuring that globalisation benefits only a few, while simultaneously dangling the wealth carrot in front of many faces.
