In a way, Wal-Mart kind of pulls a capitalist coup. Their workers are subsidized by welfare. They jumped the shark when it was found out that all their "made in USA" advertising was bogus however, lost my respect for sure. I can't see Wal-Mart as a big vector in the shrinkage of the middle class, that is thought to be a result of socialism. Women work to pay the tax bill for the typical family in the US, the Governments are particularly inefficient so she loses out on that deal. Maybe the US can just overthrow the internal socialism so effectively that our middle class can make a comeback and afford to shop at a little higher classed place than Wal-Mart?
Hydroblunt Writes 05-31-05 05:29 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from libertad: The real question is..... Is Globalization good...if so..for whom ??? Who pays...who gains...??? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you have to ask, then go back to the basics before you try to provide commentary. ............................................................................................. Hydroblunt...Globalization being good...bad etc...is acted upon by governments of several countries without them knowing what the benefits would truly be...This is like playing with social dynamite in some countries because a very high percentage of the government revenue comes from all sorts of protective taxes... Countries are trying to do all sorts of things in order to try to squeeze more revenue out of what they have to work with... ie Latin America ...they are trying dollarization...for some it works...for some it doesn't work ie. Equador....Now the idea of CAFTA is coming up....nobody has spelled out the benefits..but yet the countries are voting on them....In some cases..the US demands it via IMF packages which is supposedly a world not US program... Some are trying different forms of collective bargaining...etc.. But when a mistake is made...it is paid for in spades in things like the changing of taxes ..and the rates of taxes...etc... But when the question is asked to the heads of state ...what are the benefits of their country participating in some form of globalization...the bottomline is that they do not know...or rather they know because their big daddy IMF is telling them to act because theory says so ...or the US wants it done for some reason... ........................................................................... The fact is that some countries have very few if any comparative advantages...Is it the proper thing to do to further erode a bad situation hoping that in a generation or two..that country's people will live up to whatever it is that will make them better off ? .............................................................................. On the other hand who do you think is better off: family one: House debt....$160000...House value $200,000 Credit card debt: $11,000 Savings: $16,000 Saves: 2% income Income: $55,000 Auto payment/ins: $400 Health Ins: $350 Self sufficient: no family two: House debt: none No credit cards Savings: saves 30% income Auto: 0 Ins: 0 Self sufficient: yes The family one scenario is the US... The family two scenario is a third world family... Ok..who is stronger .........in a real sense...??? ................................................................................ The US wants CAFTA...NAFTA...EU....and worldwide belief in CAPITALISM....Hey if your labor is qualified and is cheaper and will add to the stock value...you should be doing it...Hey if you want this IMF loan...you need to agree with what we think...this is big money politics...and yeah it is not going to stop until something bigger stops it...Greed does not stop unless it is forced to stop...
Ok well that all I needed to read. Now I know for a fact that you have little understanding of how it really works, although the textbook definitions & descriptions are somewhat entertaining. Here is some insight, "globalization" is just a more advanced form of "imperialism" & "mercantilism". A little more relevant to the latter, but essentially the same type of game that has been played for centuries. In a very simple summary, since the onset of "globalization", the poor have gotten poorer, the rich have grown richer, the middle class got smaller and the rip between the rich and the poor grew wider. "In 1960, the 20% of the world's people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% -- in 1997, 74 times as much" 1999 Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme You need to refresh you definition of self-sufficiency as well. That example you brought up is pure nonsense, besides being erroneous, it completely omits the facts behind living in a real third world country.
Excellent Commentary...Hydroblunt Wrote.. Ok well that all I needed to read. Now I know for a fact that you have little understanding of how it really works, although the textbook definitions & descriptions are somewhat entertaining. Here is some insight, "globalization" is just a more advanced form of "imperialism" & "mercantilism". A little more relevant to the latter, but essentially the same type of game that has been played for centuries. In a very simple summary, since the onset of "globalization", the poor have gotten poorer, the rich have grown richer, the middle class got smaller and the rip between the rich and the poor grew wider. "In 1960, the 20% of the world's people in the richest countries had 30 times the income of the poorest 20% -- in 1997, 74 times as much" 1999 Human Development Report, United Nations Development Programme You need to refresh you definition of self-sufficiency as well. That example you brought up is pure nonsense, besides being erroneous, it completely omits the facts behind living in a real third world country. .............................................................................................. Noting wealth... self sufficiency etc... Self sufficiency to some countries means that for the country: the country produces most of its basics...food...medicines...wood...cement...telephone...etc...real basic stuff...they will not be the most advanced nor the cheapest...but they are producing and their people can buy it...and the people that are buying it are producing it for the most part... Self sufficiency for families means that they produce most of their food needs...and when they have some money they construct their wood or block houses...but they do not go into debt for it... Some countries are where the US was more than 75 years ago...most of the population survives by small agriculture... Ok so you have a poor family...hey..but they do not have house payments...and they do not pay much for food etc... For some countries the economic balance is very delicate....and not a lot of money can make big changes for them... ..................................................................................... No doubt about it... CAPITALISM has the highest potential paper driven rewards for the few who are capable of chasing them...Is it a good thing...sure...if you have the right paper...and a bunch of it.....
There is much truth to what is said here. I was not doing well physically about 10 years back and started researching nutrition which eventually led to a look at how food is made and distributed in the US and how much nitrition is actually gotten by the consumer. Faggetaboutit.... the guy in the jungle turning over rocks and eating grubs is healthier. I saw some tv about a tribe that had an annual 100 mile race, old guys with white hair were taking off and running 100 miles!! That old guy's problem is that the neighboring tribe is trying to kill him all the time, otherwise no health woriies probably. A lot of American prosperity is illusion. We live to a good age but we are sick for a lot of those years and few are really healthy, I personally know of one person that might finish a 100 mile race and she's a 48 year old from, guess where, Central America!!
The whole deal about the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer unprovable crap. statistics to the U.N. are like crayons to a five year old. With respect to the divide in the U.S. again, almost unverifiable. And plenty of studies have called B.S. The poverty line is completely arbitrary. Compare a poor person in the 1960s with a poor person today. zero comparison. Poor people today have goods and luxuries rich people did not have in the 60s. For every stat you show saying americans have a bigger divide I can show you things which indicate todays poor live much better than yesterdays. And that there are proportionately much fewer of them. Talk to your grand parents about being dirt poor living in a city. Back when the immigrants safety net were other immigrants and they were living two familys to two bedrooms. In truth I do not know who is better and who is worse off. But I tend to think the Swedish professors who stated that 40% of the people in sweden would be charaterized as below poverty level in the U.S. See the elite trader thread on this study. So when someone tells me that Capitislims is causing problems I say prove it. I am not saying it does not, I am just saying proving lets see the studies and lets see the research.
Yeah, they are usually biased toward the nations that support it, like the 1st world superpowers. Kinda contradicts your point. Someone obviously has not ventured outside white affluent suburbia.