Constructive gadfly

The old cry that communism equally degrades everyone to little above serfdom could conceivably be apropos to the current economic strategy of corporations in search of minimal labor costs abroad. Conservatives and Clinton Democrats as well argue that it is logical to continue relentlessly free trade since they claim it creates jobs here, too. What they don’t tell you is what kind of jobs are created here. Free trade generates flea markets, dollar store, auto foreign parts outlets, Wal-Marts and other discount stores and naturally they need retail, maintenance, construction, longshoreman, and trucker employment. At the same time in the nation, textile, shopping malls, supermarkets, domestic autos,  electronic, steel, other metals industries and retail outlets suffer.


Americans must eventually make an important decision as to whether to continue being consumers most responsible for impeding Asian, African, Middle East, and Latin American nations to join the advanced industrial nations in realizing an enriched living style above their current condition, regardless of the phenomenal job creation but kept at harsh, low level rates. Even here, the Bush position on the illegal 12 million or so immigrants is designed to insure depressed wages spreading across the country. The U.S. citizen is unwittingly unraveling the struggles of the past to forge a comfortable, widespread middle class with a sustainable future.


 


Aside from the many pockets of small town and major cities victimized by outsourcing, the majority is still doing well and capitalizing on environmental violations and labor of the near slave wages of these developing nations — but at what moral price? Or does the current majority of the unaffected accept it as an amoral issue?


Is it not time to rethink WTO and NAFTA? Underdeveloped nations should not be in the export business by producing products not indigenous: there are far too many needs of their own. Investments in other countries should be in the development of  education and infrastructure in order to uplift their lives so that they can begin to import advanced technology and products for their own needs. Until this direction is taken — Mexico as an example — the underground railroad to a better life will thrive and the nation overrun with immigrants willing to work below minimum wage and gnawing away our hard-earned lifestyle.


It is unconscionable that a nation that fought a horrendous Civil War to end slavery should once more revise this blight on our history.

 


Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: February 22, 2004.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 24, 2004
"one of the strengths of capitalism is that competition forces the prices of a commodity down. here is one quality that american capitalism is loosing all the time."

That I agree with. How to solve it is something that will have to be worked out within the capitalistic model, though. Discarding it for a more socialistic one just further prevents competition and turns the economy into one big corporation.
on Feb 24, 2004
BakerSt: "I think that self reliance is a basic need. Globalization isn't bad in theory, but any time you are reliant on others with different values, different goals, and who are at the most basic in direct competition with you, you have a fragile system. " Right on!
Jeff: great line:"I would like to see us pull in the economic tentacles, even if it means paying a bit more for some items. China doesn't make cheaper stuff because they are better at it, they make cheaper stuff because they mistreat their people." Your the first to admit that it wouldn't hurt to pay a little more in order to work toward fair trade.
CG: Good point: "of course, in the end... people in fat cats market can't afford widgets... because they don't have jobs."
and the direction where heading.
on Feb 24, 2004
bakerstreet:
no one is talking about abondoning capitalism. and this is the slogan neo-conservatives like to advertise (not refering to you specifically here). but we need to set rules for engagement in our markets. but this is exactly what those who control monopolies would have us exterminate... government regulation!

for example, bill gates is of course all for the removal of government regulation. look at the anti trust suites!

no, no... conservatives always take socialist ideas to their extreme in order to sabotage the point. we keep capitalism... we regulate it to benefit all americans!
on Feb 24, 2004
i never mentioned anything about socialism. in fact to put socialism against capitalism is a typical move of conservatives. you make it as if it's impossible to criticise capitalism without praising socialism, i never hinted at any such thing. nor did i say anything about handing it over to corrupt governement. the probelm with capitalism is that it has no conscience, on a global market it runs out of control to the detriment of real people.

the role of gov't is to act as a checks and balances to the inherent rage of capitalism, just as in democracy itself in the form of multiple parties. where does capitalism lead with nothing to oppose it's infinite drive? and if you're really all about free markets, then what is nafta, wto, etc.? the idealistic notion of capitalism may be good in theory, but that is not the reality we live in. same can be said of socialism, and i am no proponent of socialism so please don't try to paint it this way.
on Feb 24, 2004
the form of capitalism in practice today is closer to legalized exploitation. it is so far from anything resembling free markets we really shouldn't be referring to it as capitalism. it is all set up and protected by laws and regulations and these generally written in the interest of themselves and against that of the consumer. so let's not pretend to use a dictionary definitaion as something having much to do with reality.
on Feb 24, 2004

cgarrett: I don't think you would like to stand and balance the amount of 'government regulation!' we already have on your head. There has to be a line between 'regulation' and 'control'. Cross the line and people don't bother.

Are you going to make it illegal for the owners of a company to liquidate it?  What does 'own' mean?  If you need government approval to start a business, millions of pages of regulations on how to run it, and government oversight when you go out of business, do you really own it?  Is it "yours", or are you just overseeing it in the public interest? Socialism is the government ownership and control of the property and means of production in an economy.  Where do you draw the line?

If you squeeze them hard enough owners pass that squeeze on to consumers and workers.  Period.  They are in this for profit, not charity.  Why do businesses lay people off? Because they decide there isn't enough room for everyone? Nah, it is because they don't think the business is profitable enough to warrant the extra labor. So your solution is to create a higher costs for the businesses, so that the business will be less profitable, and... people will lose jobs?

Should we be trying to hand these benefits out, or trying to keep people from needing them to begin with?

on Feb 24, 2004

one of the strengths of capitalism is that competition forces the prices of a commodity down. here is one quality that american capitalism is loosing all the time.


Wal-Mart seems to have that quality still. In fact, isn't that one of the many reasons people hate them? Because their prices are so low that it crushes the competition?


 

on Feb 24, 2004
no, because it pushes the commodity down, ie the person growing the coffee beans or making the widget, low wages. and when they are not low enough here in the US, they go overseas
on Feb 24, 2004
the main problem i see with capitalism as it is, is that it puts profits over people, it doesn't seem to recognize that its own employees are also the consumer, just the shareholder or ceo.
on Feb 24, 2004
That does seem to be the big problem with capitalism for sure. Profits are all well and good, but there eventually comes a point when this is self-defeating. We reached it during the Dust bowl when the Okies went to California, and they ended up as virtual slaves to the farmers.

Cheers
on Feb 24, 2004
This isn't this hard. People work for profit. When costs go up, prices go up to keep the profits high. When you can no longer raise the prices high enough to profit, you cut back, laying off employees or closing the business entirely. That means less tax money coming in, so they have to raise taxes to pay for all these social services and unemployment benefits, thus increasing the costs to businesses. Viscous cycle.

If you accept that the wealthy are greedy, then you have to accept that they won't invest in American business unless there is reasonable profit. The more you cut into those profits, they less prosperity you are gonna have. They are *gonna* profit, and they'll just pass all the added costs on to consumers or their workers by offering them less.

Instead, why not give businesses incentive to employ people *here*, to assemble their products *here*, thus creating more prosperity, more tax revenues, and more money for social programs. The wealthy are the ones that start these large businesses. They don't do it out of charity. Make it hard on them and they can just liquidate and spend the summer somewhere sunny.
on Feb 24, 2004
so would you support dropping nafta & the likes to help bring those jobs home?
on Feb 24, 2004
No, because the problem isn't really Mexico as much as it is China and other nations willing to give businesses carte blanche in terms of taxes and regulation. Heck, I know companies that have moved operations to China. They greet you as if you were a king, and make sure through 'party' channels that things go smoothly for you, up to and including installing an official in your business to handle the unruly workers for you.

No, I think we could proactively encourage business here by rewarding companies that decide to do their business here, and exact more fees from companies who import from nations that use uncompetitive practices. I think NAFTA is much more about bringing North America up to a standard, instead of profiting from lower standards in Mexico. It is a policy that will take time, though, and the losses to China and their ilk just make that time more painful.
on Feb 24, 2004
But, de facto, doesn't nafta proactively encourage business to move for cheap labor? i don't disagree with you regarding helping central/ south america and the problems with china. so why admit china to wto and give them most favored nation status?
on Feb 27, 2004
EightG: I agree, free trade is definitely encouraging business to move out of the states. It's the sme old story not unlike the industrial north moving to the southern states to avoid union employees.
Right, BakerSt. China dwarfs the NAFTA problem. Walmart is practically a province in China! 
2 Pages1 2