If the super-wealthy elite in America takes a hit, that wouldn't be so bad. However, it is the poor and the lower-middle class who got hit the hardest. The majority of workers in China still live in slavery conditions, while the elite in China are becoming multi-millionaires and billionaires. Until China and other "developing nations" improve their slave working condition, some kind of protectionism is not unwarranted. By the way, I do not support unions. The unions are partly to blame in the jobs shifting overseas in the first place. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-rise-of-the-new-global-elite/8343/
Perhaps it would be easier if you imagined globalization as a social phenomenon rather than viewing it through purely economic eyes. Both can be observed and to some degree both can be measured, but predicting social phenomena is a worthless task. It is quite possible that industry will migrate to US shores sometime in the future,but it will not be because it returns ... it will be because US has moved on and therefore the conditions have changed ... most likely robots and AI will be responsible for bringing production closer to the markets but they will not improve employment ... that must be brought about by other set of changing conditions. Globalization is occurring because of an imbalance on our little planet. Consumption should equal production [give or take a little fluctuation in inventory] On a country by country basis, this balance has been rationalized away by elected people whose priorities clearly lie in maintaining self interest. There appears to be no chance of any change to this direction and current US thinking is a clear indication of this. Despite the biggest peace time shake-up to the economy in eighty years, there is no change to the policies that lead the US into such a disgraceful mess. The same mind set applies to EU, UK, Aust, China, Japan, ME and many other countries. Therefore it is entirely reasonable to assume that the optimum unit for establishing balance cannot have a political base and as such it cannot be a country. That then leaves us with our little planet being the smallest optimum unit that can achieve balance. This entirely rational conclusion naturally brings us to globalization and eventual balance ... one currency is an essential cornerstone of this balance. No ...It is not economics that propels this move ... it is quite simply that the weakness of human self interest is blinding too many people to their own stupidity.
"one currency is an essential cornerstone of this balance." lack of competition and government intervention is the root of most economic problems. the last thing you want is one currency which will be constantly debased. "Globalization is occurring because of an imbalance on our little planet." globalization is a natural economic phenomena which brings about the best allocation of economic resources. what imbalance are you referring to. truthfully your whole post sounds like a litany of hogwash slogans created by anti growth college kids who are clueless to how the world works.
Quite possibly, but stupidity has got us this far and I imagine that stupidity will continue to be our guide. There is no long term plan, just a series of self serving steps based purely upon reactions to reactions. Enjoy the ride, because nothing has changed.
Registered: Apr 2009 Posts: 5335 01-26-11 11:31 AM Quote from Ash1972: On the contrary, wealth redistribution is largely CAPITALIST, not socialist. The market has been dynamically transferring wealth from those with inferior business models and ideas to those with superior ones since time immemorial. Scataphagos Disagree. Yours sounds like a Leftist/biased view. Isn't your definition of "redistribution of wealth" nothing more than "The big and strong get bigger and stronger while the weaker die off and perish"? That's not "redistribution of wealth, is it? Isn't it merely capitalism? ----------------------------------- I have not read other posts by Ash 1972. he is exactly correct on this one. wealth redistribution is a capitalist phenomena not a socialist one. In true capitalism you have what is call shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in 3 generations. under socialism the rich stay rich forever as they form partnerships with the government and economic mobility is limited by gov't edict.
Well you could try trading Futs forex for a start ... try to stay beyond borders as much as possible.
What's logical is having a country to help defend one's wealth. Enough people don't like it, things will change that's how it works.