I can't believe you said that. That's so fucking stupid, I can't even quantify it. I've always thought you smarter than that... guess I was wrong. If you're going to spew Leftist/Communist bilge, I ain't gonna listen! UP YOURS... ON IGNORE!!
Globalization is logical- if we're competing with Mars. We expect our government to look out for preserving our wealth as I am part of that wealth. That's logical. Running trade deficits, unemployment, and huge foreign debts are evidence it needs to be tempered.
we don't need to temper it. Let the market do it's thing. For now that means globalization. Globalization is logical. If you don't see it then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Well in my case they're both in the crapper. Finite resources might be the problem with that. A zillion cars in China and seems they have a taste for steak now too.
I meant it within America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
I cannot object to the Chinese, or anyone for that matter, wanting abundance. I am not claiming that a Janitor at Goldman Sachs is entitled to 100x the abundance that a Janitor in a sweatshop in China gets. I am concerned that our contrived, convoluted system of innovation is fragile. For example, drug manufacturing. The whole world benefits from new drugs being introduced, but research and development is expensive. Without putting too fine a point on it, alot of money is wasted, but alot of money also makes it to real research and development. US consumers pay much more for the resulting drugs than most other countries. This is not do to reverse-duties. This is exploitation. Pharmaceutical companies know that American's have lots of money. American's protect themselves with Health Insurance, and get themselves double exploited since the Pharmaceutical company is still getting its money. The US taxpayer then also contributes through taxes to support the academic side, and the US consumer contributes to charities funding research. Perhaps I am wrong, and Chinese workers are stead-fast tithers for the March of Dimes, and I don't realize it. I can see an economist saying, "It doesn't matter if manufacturing has been moved. Research and development don't need to change." Three problems, R&D proximity, collective decision making breakdown, and the fact that the employee is also a customer. Research and development does best when faced with the practical issues of delivery. (How many software core enterprise libraries have been quietly ignored; because, it was impossible to get changes made before the deadline?) Once the manufacturing process has moved, isn't the management for the manufacturing process remote and responsible for products by several companies? The board room which previously held sales managers demanding features from R&D and manufacturing managers demanding support from R&D is then replaced with funding generator sales, funding consumer R&D, and on the speaker phone, a contractor who does all of the real work and isn't very dependent upon the success of the company. Anyone else see any that this isn't going to play-out very well in the companies future? Lastly, just as with the pharmaceutical industry, all of those American workers who were displaced are now consumers who can't afford to consume. (No job = no health insurance.) Human history has many periods of little or no known innovation. The Dark Ages in Europe is an example. There are also examples of great setbacks in scientific knowledge. The crusaders war on the Islamic word is an example. I like living in a technologically advanced world, and would like to see even greater advancement for all people. I only see, however, that the rotten fruit is being devoured.