Re: [CPF0000] The globalization of COMMON, or is this the right direction?

Joe,

From what I know, by spending money in India, the US is making more than

Trevor

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