Globalism? It is as insane as folks talking about any other people besides Earth People. Are there any other kind of people?
All you endless proponents of the virtues of free market, this is for you, and you know who you are...
When I listen to a certain candidate promise that he would punish U.S. companies who shift manufacturing jobs overseas. I was curious as to how he would do that.
The free market people always say that minimum wage and such always interfere with the free-market, which is the best mechanism to determine price and value, right?
So when I looked into the Nabisco case of the company sending over 600 jobs to Mexico from Chicago's South Side claiming to save 46 million in the process, I asked, what would Trump do to stop this and how would this interfere with the 'natural rhythm' of the free market?
Background TV news story:
The American unionized jobs paid workers about $25.00/hour. The average wage in Mexico for such labor is about $2.40/hour. To ask Nabisco to not take advantage of these savings is like expecting water to run uphill. Look at the reduction of regulations and infrastructure that American workers take for granted. That has to be worth money in the bank to Nabisco, as well.
What penalty does Trump proposed to levy on Nabisco that could possible counteract the advantage of the savings the company will achieve in its move to Mexico? (46 Million).
The company determined that upgrading the plant and modernizing would require worker retraining and that the expense was not justified.
While I am not a Nobel Prize earning economist, I have taken Econ 101 and there are some basic truths that cannot be ignored. If I understand correctly, we have a trade deficit with Mexico. We buy more of their products than they buy of ours. Punitive tariffs on Mexico would invite retribution in kind to our products reaching them, raising the price of our products for Mexican consumers, making it less likely that they would purchase them. Would that not have the effect of hurting American business and jobs?
Can Nabisco be punished under the tax code, denial of deductions and such? But the savings are so great, they may well accept the penalty as the cost of doing business.
So, CONSERVATIVES, your free market determination of the price and value of labor for services desired by Nabisco is $2.40/hour? Regardless of what you think about minimum wages, such levels of compensation are impossible in the American economy. So, what now?
There are no more Fred Flinstones or Ralph Kramdens, we have to look forward rather than backward, what do we do?
So, CONSERVATIVES, this is Globalism, raw and in your face, what are you and Donald Trump going to do to stop the world from spinning on its axis?
Donald Trump has not ameliorated the influence of globalism in regard to how he conducts his own business, why is he going to be any better for yours? See the article attached.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/08/news/ec … ump-trade/
So, how do you answer, what are your opinions and rebuttals? (If you please)
Rational conservatives see globalism as a natural result of capitalism and the growth of efficient markets.
Far right "conservatives" simply oppose any and all progress.
Sorry, I don't want to classify YOU with THEM..
So, do you see globalism as unavoidable and a byproduct of capitalism as it works in the world today?
"So, do you see globalism as unavoidable and a byproduct of capitalism as it works in the world today?"
Yes, it is inevitable. We are a materialistic society, always chasing the almighty dollar and what it can buy - coupled with the world's capitalism and cheaper transportation costs it has brought us to this point.
Going back perhaps 50 years or so, we sacrificed quality to buy cheap imports, getting more "stuff" for our dollar. Then we sacrificed our neighbor's job, getting more "stuff" by exporting our jobs. Now we are sacrificing our children's future by borrowing to make up for the loss of jobs via welfare to those we refuse to pay to produce what we want.
Until the American consumer figures out that this is an unworkable plan it will do nothing but continue - we will continue to demand the cheapest thing available while pretending that it is good for us and the country. Until the rest of the world catches up to our standard of living (not in our lifetimes or that of our children) we will buy cheaper labor from overseas rather than cutting back on what we can buy or own. We've started something that none of us will accept ending because it would mean a fall in our own living standards.
Not until we're bankrupt, anyway, and have sold our soul to other countries. Oh, we can delay it somewhat with tariffs, more social engineering via the tax code and other short range (and destructive) plans, but it is we the consumer that has done the damage and will continue to do so. Corporations are no more to blame than we are; if we refuse to buy products from American labor because they are too expensive (and we do), companies either use foreign labor or die. The savings for Nabisco isn't going to simply go into corporate coffers (although some does as Nabisco owners want more for their buck, just as consumers do) - it goes into the cheaper prices that consumers demand.
Wilderness, I was thinking about you when these sorts of questions came up for me.
The boom, was just a flash in the pan, a period after WWII when we were the only game in town. We dominated the world in production of consumer goods. Nabisco was the one and only manufacturer of the renown Oreo cookie. It is as you always tell me about artificial constructs placed on the value of labor. It worked in America until we had serious foreign competition. But when the goods and services from abroad came, they were not just cheaper, but were as good and better in quality in many cases. Look at the autos, how many American made models are on the road relative to foreign makes?
But isn't the very nature of capitalism for the corporate and the consumer to get more bang for the buck? Unless you are overwhelmingly wealthy, price has to be a consideration when goods and services are acquired.
American life is built around 'stuff'. Look at the difference of the cost of labor between Mexico and the U.S. The savings for the corporations are quite evident, but you are still going to pay what you have been paying for your cookies. So where is the difference going? This is nothing new, your can check with Nike footwear for a similar paradyme. I pay $100.00 for a pair of tennies that are made in China for pennies on the dollar. Why would Nike or anyone else not take advantage of this?
Do you think that a mindset of reducing consumption from the consumer standpoint is a possible solution? How do you do that in America? Everybody want plentiful and inexpensive goods, it is a human condition. How do you really circumvent that?
There again is that massive chasm between 2.40/hour and 25.00/hour, sounds pretty bleak. If it goes in the direction that you elude to, large swaths of American labor will be out of a job.
Well, I don't see the chasm as quite that large, although still big. There IS transportation, after all, and extra supervisory costs from upper management whenever owning foreign factories. And if American companies don't own them, there is an extra profit margin, another "middle man" to figure in.
But no, I don't see any real solution except take small steps, costing the American consumer relatively small amounts, through tariffs and such, always hoping we won't start a tariff war. Because you're absolutely right - both company owners AND the consumer want more than they can buy with American labor. Thus we already see large swaths of American either unemployed or underemployed.
Of course, I also see a part of the problem being the disdain we have towards blue collar work. That has to change as well, and it will require a large change in American social structure to do so.
As far as cutting back the American desire for consumption; if we can convince the public that "assault weapon" means a non-military gun with a folding stock, or that socialism is desirable and won't destroy initiative, we can convince them of anything. If we can convince them that raising wages 50% in a company with a 5% profit margin won't cause inflationary price increases, we can convince them consumerism is a bad thing.
Credence. no apology is necessary. I didn't take it the wrong way. I think by now THEY don't see me as part of THEM either.
Absolutely, yes to your question. Jobs move overseas because they are cheaper elsewhere as long as increased transportation costs don't eat up the difference. Free trade via globalism (and regionalism) also allows cheaper and quicker access to natural resources.
Those needs drive down prices here, which keeps inflation in check. But it also dampens wages. That's capitalism for you.
Obama confuses capitalism with corrupt corporatism when he said, “So often in the past there has been a division between left and right, between capitalists and communists or socialists, and especially in the Americas, that’s been a big debate. Those are interesting intellectual arguments, but I think for your generation, you should be practical and just choose from what works. You don’t have to worry about whether it really fits into socialist theory or capitalist theory. You should just decide what works,”
There is a big difference between Communism (socialism) and ethical Capitalism, but little difference with Communism (socialism) and corporatism. Obama would do great in Communist China, etc. as a leader.
The Trilateral Commission has only deepened their sense of Globalism.
From your standpoint, what do you consider to be ethical capitalism? This may well be a contradiction in terms.
Just ethical period. Corporatism has abuse this hugely.
Coal power plants that produce clean affordable energy for Americans. Its funny that as the USA shuts down coal operations and good paying jobs that China and Japan are building and operating many, many affordable coal powered plants with slave labor.
For the most part I at least agree with you most of the time but you are way off here, The move to globalism is equally to blame on both parties. Clinton pushed NAFTA on us and Obama is pushing hard for the TPP and other trade agreements in Europe. The liberal elites have bought into this trend hook line and sinker. The greed is distributed equally among these political slimebags.
I am with you. I know that there is plenty of blame to go around from both sides, Trump and his gang just wants to double down on it.
So that so many will not continue to watch their standard of living erode in the face of this reality, (globalism) what do you think we should do? Short of a radical departure, I don't think the neo-liberal mindset (Clinton) is up to the magnitude of the problem before us.
Globalism is Hitler's dream that has actually come true. Slavery on earth is greater now than any other time in human history. We have been Hypnotize to believe our financial needs and our natural environment has taking care of. Like a huge Mafia family, We will take of you, just worship you God father. Hay right.
Corporatism is unethical on many so many levels. Capitalism is normal and better with a degree of socialism.
How do we go back to the nation-state mentality of the past, ignoring a key point of globalism, international markets? Outsourcing and technology is goint to have us all working for peanuts as the world shows us what the value of your labor is really worth.
Rational Tariffs Lower Irrational Trade Deficits
Rational Tariffs? That was an interesting article. What does the rest of the panel here think about it?
Would consumers really pay the higher costs for imported goods and services, and are we prepared to retaliation from the countries on whom we impose the tariff?
It is just that the gulf between economies of developing nations and our own is so vast that any proposal like that presented in the article seems to fall far short of the magnitude of the problem.
How is corporatism working for the average man. Ever since the 70s we have been working longer and far deeper in debt. Even if you think your not in debt, study and think again.
Unskilled labor, and more occupations are becoming such due to technology and outsourcing options, simply has less value.
In the face of the reality that is globalism, we need a radically different approach to maintain our economy and standard of living.
They used to tell me 50 years ago that the future would entail less working hours for the typical employee. Well, not so, the savings reaped by technological efficiency has found itself in the corporate pockets with people working harder so that those on the top become richer than ever before.
I disagree. It hasn't all gone into corporate pockets.
Just consider the price, in terms of hours worked to buy it, of a car from the 50's or 60's to one now. And then compare what that car can do, how long it lasts, what it costs to operate it, and the "goody" package (power everything, CD players, AC, built in GPS, etc.). Or look at typical houses in the same light - they have doubled in size but not cost. Most of the savings are returned to the consumer, not corporate profits.
In the 70s a CEO made 25% higher than the average persons wage. Today a CEO nearly make 400 times greater. Don't pull my leg and tell me corporation are not in it for the profit. Plus their product are far more toxic and they pollute the earth far greater than all other people combined.
I can never cry for Corporatism or Globalist not when poverty is the number 1 killer on this planet, except .for bureau-croc tears
The terrorist never stop thinking of new ways of harming our country and the people, and neither do we.
Globalism is the largest by far Criminal organization in the world.
Socialists don't seem to know what Capitalism is. Corporatism is the opposite of free market Capitalism, because Corporatism depends on collusion between well connected large corporations and the state. Socialists call for government to impose more regulations on big corporations, but big corporations actually lobby for more government regulations...because they can afford the costs. Smaller medium size companies cannot afford the cost, so they are forced out of business.
Government regulations helps big corporations strangle smaller company competitors. Corporatism also insures that big corporations are immune to many of the the regulations as they get wavers from corrupt governments.
Capitalism is about the free exchange for goods and services. A competitive market creates quality because businesses fail if they do not please the consumer.
Corporatism is about creating artificial monopolies, drive up prices, and punish the consumer. Capitalism isn't the problem.
Corporatism is the problem, it is toxic to a healthy society because it punished success and rewards failure.
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." ~ Winston Churchill
Socialism extorts money from the successful and gives it to the lazy. Being able to buy nice cars, computers, and IPhones was all created by Capitalism. We'd all be a lot happier and wealthier of it wasn't for government socialists and corporatists trying to curtail free market.
Look at the Capitalist miracle in China. In the past 3 decades China accounts for 100% reduction of people in the world living in poverty. More people out of extreme poverty than the rest of the world combined. 680 million people in China are now out of poverty, thanks to Capitalism. Its a similar situation in India.
Look at the standard of living in countries that reject Capitalism. Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, yet its Socialist government struggles to provide its people with milk, flour and toilet paper.
I could go on, but its really a drag chatting about this stuff. Hope you are having a good day.
by GA Anderson2 years ago
The gist of the new Congressional Budget Office, (CBO), report on the effects of Obamacare on the U.S. economy is that it will cause a reduction in works hours equivalent to about 2 million jobs by 2017.Here is just one...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
enterprise- capitalist system while many CONSERVATIVES do?
by Credence26 days ago
Most interesting: seems to be a fundamental difference in how men and women see things.http://www.salon.com/2016/10/12/repealt … men-voted/Seems like the real differential for party or political preference is...
by Credence23 years ago
Somewhere within the tapestry of recent history a determination was made that fully automatic sub machine guns like the Thompson could not be obtained by the private citizen for self defense. These were the weapons of...
by Kathryn L Hill2 years ago
For instance,1. Over-regulation of businesses preventing entrepreneurship.2. Confiscatory and overburdensome taxation causing businesses to flee.3. State control over utilities.4. Government control over the...
by My Esoteric2 years ago
To cement the fact that since the 1980s, the rich have been getting richer because the middle class is shrinking and the poor are getting poorer was the recent announcement that the American Middle Class, the bulwark of...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.