Socialism or Globalization?

[Bill O'Olberman]

name one! More on point: there are not enough of them.

The job of balancing an economy is not the job of simply supporting industries over which you can kick ass it is the job of making sure that there are enough industries in your nation to secure full employment, that your trade deficits are as low as possible, that your exports are robust.....

And most importantly that you can afford to produce the products that promote defense.

Off shoring to the cheapest bidder undermines all of that. And weakens America by the day.

We are NOT just an economy, we are a NATION!

The needs of the economy and the economic players are not at all the same as the needs of the nation.

So who do you serve? The USA or the bottom line of corporations that have no loyalty to the USA?

So you want people to spend more to buy only american products and to have less material wealth so we can prop up american industries that cannot compete? So as Americans we should be happy to pay double what the rest of the world pays for sugar and support import quotas so a handful farmers in the U.S. dont have to compete against the rest of the world?

As far as who I serve, I serve myself, my interests, and my wallet.

that's pathetic.

Youre arguments are pathetic and your only buy american brand of altruism is laughable, consumers should be able to buy what ever products they want and statist measures such as tarriffs or quotas should be used scarcely.

Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values. - Ayn Rand

 

[shintao]

I concur. I could accept pay as you go entitlements based upon democratic support. But people who feel entitled give me the creeps.

LOL! So you buy into people actually feel entitled? Where are they? Why are they so quiet? Did you hide them under the rug?

LOL!So you don't believe they exist?
There are a few in my own family living off of child support, unemployment, and food stamps. I don't know the last time she applied for a job.
"Why? Then I'd lose my assistance."

I can't imagine anyone on welfare thinking they are entitled. I think they are living month to month in fear of being cut off due to some regulation or another. At that poverty level you know your at the end of the line. And many employers are up front saying they will not hire people coming off welfare.

Maybe someone who doesn't understand the system, say some Mexican laborer might be saying that, pointing to some legal jargon and saying I get this in America. Having a job does not mean you get cut off welfare. At least from what I see. They call it workfare, and here in ca it comes with perks. They gave some of these folks cars to commute to work in. Others were able to start small businesses. The internet access is nothing compared to other things they already get.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

2010 seems to be the year that Socialism, or rather social democracy's entitlement programs proved economically untenable.

So obvious is that point that it needs little explanation. Google "PIIGS" and "liabilities shortfall" if you aren't up to speed yet.

But is this common wisdom and apparent intuitive point of fact actually a half truth? Or something less?

The dominant economic model that developed nations with robust social programs rely on says that the costs of tomorrow's social programs will be born by a continually expanding economy and more specifically a continually expanding workforce.

What that model ignores is that the dominant economic paradigm of our time is Globalization, a force that will forcefully promote the migration of industry to the location of whatever workforce is least burdened by overhead like existing pension plans and esp the burden of existing social entitlement programs.

In fact the failure of state economies that feature robust entitlements is occurring exactly while industry is migrating en masse toward the workforces of the undeveloped world.

These are two tectonic economic forces squarely at odds with one another. And the failure of socialism does indeed appear to be the success of globalization.

The success of globalization is in fact the force destroying social entitlements along with the economies of developed nations across the globe.

It isn't, and can't be determined to be, one event without the other because they are both intertwined and occurring in unison. In fact they are two sides of the same event.

Capiche?

You could say globalization (which in itself is not necessarily bad) is the economic side of the ongoing equation...the breaking down of economic barriers of nations.....and socialism is the social side of the equation.....the breaking down of social orders....i.e., nationalism...

....the development of both being done by the "elites" to establish the New World Order....a world run by them with no boundaries...economic or social...

We The People are being seduced step-by-step...and with BO we are being forcefully shoved into it....however we can stop this insidious march by defending our nationalism....our sovereignty....our Constitution....our freedoms....I have no desire to be a "citizen of the world".....I much prefer to be an American....

We must deal with both... the socialists and the corporate manipulators...

 

[shintao]

I concur. I could accept pay as you go entitlements based upon democratic support. But people who feel entitled give me the creeps.

LOL! So you buy into people actually feel entitled? Where are they? Why are they so quiet? Did you hide them under the rug?

I meet them all the time, they are employees of the state of CA and they resist even having their workweek and pay reduced temporarily while the state struggles to balance the budget. They somehow came to believe that because the state hired them it has no right to fire them or reduce their employment even when it is broke.

They feel entitled to a job and benefits for life.

Yes they feel entitled, just like you do to a paycheck that you count on to fit your budget and purchases on credits. They do their part of the contract, let the state do its part.

 

[editec]

In the U.S. we will have to rely on things like innovation, education, hard work, etc in order to grow and maintain a position of prominence. Developing countries are much more attractive for some industries since they have cheap, unskilled labor and a relatively large pool of undereducated workers to do those jobs. I will agree that our entitlement programs are unsustainable no matter how innovative we are in the US.

As a consumer, globalization isnt a bad thing. If I can get the same quality product for a lesser price since it was made somewhere else, why wouldnt I?

You want to know why depending on "innovation" and research won't work and has not been working for the last 40 years?

Because no sooner does some American innovate or find some new technology than the MONEY BOYS take that industry and do ALL THE WORK offshore.

You want to solve some of our problem?

END FREE TRADE.

That's WHY this nation going down, ya know.

 

[shintao]

2010 seems to be the year that Socialism, or rather social democracy's entitlement programs proved economically untenable.

So obvious is that point that it needs little explanation. Google "PIIGS" and "liabilities shortfall" if you aren't up to speed yet.

But is this common wisdom and apparent intuitive point of fact actually a half truth? Or something less?

The dominant economic model that developed nations with robust social programs rely on says that the costs of tomorrow's social programs will be born by a continually expanding economy and more specifically a continually expanding workforce.

What that model ignores is that the dominant economic paradigm of our time is Globalization, a force that will forcefully promote the migration of industry to the location of whatever workforce is least burdened by overhead like existing pension plans and esp the burden of existing social entitlement programs.

In fact the failure of state economies that feature robust entitlements is occurring exactly while industry is migrating en masse toward the workforces of the undeveloped world.

These are two tectonic economic forces squarely at odds with one another. And the failure of socialism does indeed appear to be the success of globalization.

The success of globalization is in fact the force destroying social entitlements along with the economies of developed nations across the globe.

It isn't, and can't be determined to be, one event without the other because they are both intertwined and occurring in unison. In fact they are two sides of the same event.

Capiche?

You could say globalization (which in itself is not necessarily bad) is the economic side of the ongoing equation...the breaking down of economic barriers of nations.....and socialism is the social side of the equation.....the breaking down of social orders....i.e., nationalism...

....the development of both being done by the "elites" to establish the New World Order....a world run by them with no boundaries...economic or social...

We The People are being seduced step-by-step...and with BO we are being forcefully shoved into it....however we can stop this insidious march by defending our nationalism....our sovereignty....our Constitution....our freedoms....I have no desire to be a "citizen of the world".....I much prefer to be an American....

We must deal with both... the socialists and the corporate manipulators...

And what will you do with the facists we deal with? Hmm? The ME isn't a socialist war and forced occupation.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

2010 seems to be the year that Socialism, or rather social democracy's entitlement programs proved economically untenable.

So obvious is that point that it needs little explanation. Google "PIIGS" and "liabilities shortfall" if you aren't up to speed yet.

But is this common wisdom and apparent intuitive point of fact actually a half truth? Or something less?

The dominant economic model that developed nations with robust social programs rely on says that the costs of tomorrow's social programs will be born by a continually expanding economy and more specifically a continually expanding workforce.

What that model ignores is that the dominant economic paradigm of our time is Globalization, a force that will forcefully promote the migration of industry to the location of whatever workforce is least burdened by overhead like existing pension plans and esp the burden of existing social entitlement programs.

In fact the failure of state economies that feature robust entitlements is occurring exactly while industry is migrating en masse toward the workforces of the undeveloped world.

These are two tectonic economic forces squarely at odds with one another. And the failure of socialism does indeed appear to be the success of globalization.

The success of globalization is in fact the force destroying social entitlements along with the economies of developed nations across the globe.

It isn't, and can't be determined to be, one event without the other because they are both intertwined and occurring in unison. In fact they are two sides of the same event.

Capiche?

You could say globalization (which in itself is not necessarily bad) is the economic side of the ongoing equation...the breaking down of economic barriers of nations.....and socialism is the social side of the equation.....the breaking down of social orders....i.e., nationalism...

....the development of both being done by the "elites" to establish the New World Order....a world run by them with no boundaries...economic or social...

We The People are being seduced step-by-step...and with BO we are being forcefully shoved into it....however we can stop this insidious march by defending our nationalism....our sovereignty....our Constitution....our freedoms....I have no desire to be a "citizen of the world".....I much prefer to be an American....

We must deal with both... the socialists and the corporate manipulators...

And what will you do with the facists we deal with? Hmm? The ME isn't a socialist war and forced occupation.

what has that got to do with the price of tea in China...?

 

[loosecannon]

So you want people to spend more to buy only american products and to have less material wealth so we can prop up american industries that cannot compete? So as Americans we should be happy to pay double what the rest of the world pays for sugar and support import quotas so a handful farmers in the U.S. dont have to compete against the rest of the world?

As far as who I serve, I serve myself, my interests, and my wallet.

that's pathetic.

Youre arguments are pathetic and your only buy american brand of altruism is laughable, consumers should be able to buy what ever products they want and statist measures such as tarriffs or quotas should be used scarcely.

Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values. - Ayn Rand

People like Ayn Rand can generate dogma that elevates selfishness to a virtue, but it's still a bunch of crap.

 

[loosecannon]

Socialism or Globalization?

Globalization describes a process by which regional economies, societies, and cultures have become integrated through a global network of communication, transportation, and trade.

So Globalization is not inherently socialistic. Globalization can be accomplish by Capitalistic means.

.

Economic globalization refers to increasing economic interdependence of national economies across the world through a rapid increase in cross-border movement of goods, service, technology and capital.[1] It is the process of increasing economic integration between countries, leading to the emergence of a global marketplace or a single world market[2]. Depending on the paradigm, globalization can be viewed as either a positive or a negative phenomenon.

Economic globalization comprises the globalization of production, markets, competition, technology, and corporations and industries.[1] Whilst economic globalization has been occurring for the last several hundred years (since the emergence of trans-national trade), it has begun to occur at an increased rate over the last 20–30 years[3]. This recent boom has been largely accounted by developed economies integrating with less developed economies, by means of foreign direct investment, the reduction of trade barriers, and the modernization of these developing cultures.

Economic globalization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[loosecannon]

LOL! So you buy into people actually feel entitled? Where are they? Why are they so quiet? Did you hide them under the rug?

I meet them all the time, they are employees of the state of CA and they resist even having their workweek and pay reduced temporarily while the state struggles to balance the budget. They somehow came to believe that because the state hired them it has no right to fire them or reduce their employment even when it is broke.

They feel entitled to a job and benefits for life.

Yes they feel entitled, just like you do to a paycheck that you count on to fit your budget and purchases on credits. They do their part of the contract, let the state do its part.

when the state runs dry it doesn't owe them a living if it doesn't choose to retain their services, there is no reason why state employees can't have their hours reduced to balance a budget.

 

[BlindBoo]

Libertarians warned America before they passed NAFTA that is was not about free trade so much as maximisizing profits for corporations by reducing the workers pay and benefits and then selling those products that use to be made here for the same price as before.

Socialist reforms force upon the corporations in the early 20th century are being shed by the globalization movement.

 

[Contumacious]

Libertarians warned America before they passed NAFTA that is was not about free trade so much as maximisizing profits for corporations by reducing the workers pay and benefits and then selling those products that use to be made here for the same price as before.

Socialist reforms force upon the corporations in the early 20th century are being shed by the globalization movement.

That is correct:

"Despite the inclusion of "free trade" in the agreement's name, Nafta had nothing to do with liberty. It was about malting North America safe for Greenpeace, Archer-Daniels-Midland, Citibank, and social democracy. As a result, the continent is now a more dangerous place for taxpayers, small business, and American particularism.

.

 

[Bob Roberts]

Using public assets to uphold a protectionist agenda ultimately crowds-out private investment and eventually diminishes economic growth. More specific to this thread, subsidizing US corporations to produce American goods produced only by Americans is not an efficient means to allocate resources. The topic of Globalization, Socialism, and Capitalism is complicated, interesting, and worth debating/discussing.

Specific to the original posters comments, I believe upholding free trade is necessary to maintain long-term GDP growth. However, I also recognize the recent damage resulting from the reckless and myopic pursuit of profits by US corporations. This damage is well-documented over the past several years, whether it be employment loss or loss of personal wealth.

I advocate free trade, coupled with a strong federal commitment to worker retraining and basic education programs. Additionally, I believe the best way to address the conflicting interests between US labor and US corporations, where corporations exploit cheap labor, is through consumer boycott and corporate responsibility. The fact that both US corporations and US consumers (collectively) do not recognize the lapse in moral equivalency between allowing labor to be exploited in developing countries, while prohibiting similar exploitation in the US, is reprehensible. US corporations need to be more responsible and recognize that the pursuit of profits does not justify labor exploitation. Additionally, US consumers should take the lead and not purchase products produced by exploited labor.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

that's pathetic.

Youre arguments are pathetic and your only buy american brand of altruism is laughable, consumers should be able to buy what ever products they want and statist measures such as tarriffs or quotas should be used scarcely.

Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values. - Ayn Rand

People like Ayn Rand can generate dogma that elevates selfishness to a virtue, but it's still a bunch of crap.

"The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word 'selfishness' is not merely wrong:
it represents a devastating intellectual 'package-deal,' which is responsible, more than
any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind." --Ayn Rand

 

[editec]

Libertarians warned America before they passed NAFTA that is was not about free trade so much as maximisizing profits for corporations by reducing the workers pay and benefits and then selling those products that use to be made here for the same price as before.

Socialist reforms force upon the corporations in the early 20th century are being shed by the globalization movement.

Libertarians warned us of this?

Are you fucking nuts?

Libertarianism supports FREE TRADE.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You could say globalization (which in itself is not necessarily bad) is the economic side of the ongoing equation...the breaking down of economic barriers of nations.....and socialism is the social side of the equation.....the breaking down of social orders....i.e., nationalism...

....the development of both being done by the "elites" to establish the New World Order....a world run by them with no boundaries...economic or social...

We The People are being seduced step-by-step...and with BO we are being forcefully shoved into it....however we can stop this insidious march by defending our nationalism....our sovereignty....our Constitution....our freedoms....I have no desire to be a "citizen of the world".....I much prefer to be an American....

We must deal with both... the socialists and the corporate manipulators...

And what will you do with the facists we deal with? Hmm? The ME isn't a socialist war and forced occupation.

what has that got to do with the price of tea in China...?

hmm...i was actually curious about your answer...but maybe it was too flip of a question....however your being an anti-war socialist....i could see the quandry that answering it might put you in...

...if fascism does not affect prices/power in a free world then your "war for oil" claim is bogus...

...if fascism does affect prices/power in a free world then the war is for good reason....

 

[loosecannon]

Using public assets to uphold a protectionist agenda ultimately crowds-out private investment and eventually diminishes economic growth. More specific to this thread, subsidizing US corporations to produce American goods produced only by Americans is not an efficient means to allocate resources. The topic of Globalization, Socialism, and Capitalism is complicated, interesting, and worth debating/discussing.

Specific to the original posters comments, I believe upholding free trade is necessary to maintain long-term GDP growth. However, I also recognize the recent damage resulting from the reckless and myopic pursuit of profits by US corporations. This damage is well-documented over the past several years, whether it be employment loss or loss of personal wealth.

I advocate free trade, coupled with a strong federal commitment to worker retraining and basic education programs. Additionally, I believe the best way to address the conflicting interests between US labor and US corporations, where corporations exploit cheap labor, is through consumer boycott and corporate responsibility. The fact that both US corporations and US consumers (collectively) do not recognize the lapse in moral equivalency between allowing labor to be exploited in developing countries, while prohibiting similar exploitation in the US, is reprehensible. US corporations need to be more responsible and recognize that the pursuit of profits does not justify labor exploitation. Additionally, US consumers should take the lead and not purchase products produced by exploited labor.

I share the same opinion.

Advocating Free trade is a funny choice of words tho. There is no free trade anywhere. I advocate health and wealth and charity and unselfish dedication to human progress. But all that amounts to nothing.

 

[loosecannon]

Youre arguments are pathetic and your only buy american brand of altruism is laughable, consumers should be able to buy what ever products they want and statist measures such as tarriffs or quotas should be used scarcely.

Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values. - Ayn Rand

People like Ayn Rand can generate dogma that elevates selfishness to a virtue, but it's still a bunch of crap.

"The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word 'selfishness' is not merely wrong:
it represents a devastating intellectual 'package-deal,' which is responsible, more than
any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind." --Ayn Rand

Like I said, her legacy is that of characterizing brutal self service as a virtue behind a smokescreen of pretty words and clever mendacity.

AR is the Patron Saint of Immorality.

 

[BlindBoo]

Libertarians warned America before they passed NAFTA that is was not about free trade so much as maximisizing profits for corporations by reducing the workers pay and benefits and then selling those products that use to be made here for the same price as before.

Socialist reforms force upon the corporations in the early 20th century are being shed by the globalization movement.

Libertarians warned us of this?

Are you fucking nuts?

Libertarianism supports FREE TRADE.

Libertarianism covers a wide array of political spectrum.

NAFTA has been used to move our manufacturing base to foriegn countries because the companies that moved them knew there would be no restriction on selling the product back in the USA. Cheap labor + Free trade. Great deal for the corporations, not so great for the former US factory workers.

 

[KissMy]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3ooMrgXido&feature=player_embedded"]President Bill Clinton - Remarks on the Signing of NAFTA [/ame]