× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



Joe,

From what I know, by spending money in India, the US is making more than
they spend. This would mean that while some of the wealth shifts there, more of it comes back.

And, even if this is not 100% true, the part about "destroying the standard of living of Americans" can not be blamed on globalization. The argument about the divide between rich and poor might be a more relevant debate - and yes, this applies all over the world.

Trevor

----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Pluta" Subject: RE: [CPF0000] The globalization of COMMON,or is this the right direction?


Trevor, yes it is simple.  Because it has nothing to do with competition.
It has to do with standard of living and population growth.  The reason
emerging countries can compete with American labor is because they have a
lower cost based on their lower standard of living.  There are only two
options: create artificial barriers to equalize the costs, or else bring the
entire global economy to parity.

Because Americans share the wealth of the United States among only 300
million or so people means we have a much higher standard of living than,
say, India, which shares far fewer resources among four times the population (a disparity that only grows as India's population explodes). The only way
to have global parity is to spread America's wealth to those billions of
impoverished people.

This will raise the standard of living of those billions a little bit, while
destroying the standard of living of Americans.

Which is exactly what the global economy is about.  Think about it.  If
Americans make roughly $50,000 per capita (remember you have to include all
non-working people as well, so this number is probably high except perhaps
in Hollywood and Washington D.C.), then sharing that with the 6 billion
people on the planet means everyone's share is about $2500 a year.  While
that's great for the poorest parts of the world, my bet is that you won't
want to live on that, will you?  And you can bet the corporate moguls and
bureaucratic mouthpieces that spout this stuff will find loopholes for
themselves as well.  So what this REALLY means is taking the wealth from
America's middle class and divvying it up among the rest of the world, while
carving out a big chunk for the corporate middlemen.  The result?  The
destruction of the American working class.

Note that the other option is for parts of the world that are already
impoverished to LOWER their population growth.  This of course is never
discussed.  Instead, we'll simply take it from the Americans.  But if you
kill that particular golden goose, boy, you are going to have one sorry mess
on your hands.

And hey, maybe I'm wrong on this whole thing. But it sure makes sense that
the planet's resources are finite and thus a zero sum game.  And it's just
common sense that what supports 300 million people is unlikely to be able to
support 6 billion (and counting) to anywhere near that level.  So any talk
of a global economy without reducing the global population means a global
demise.

Joe


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.