Globalization and the Death of America

[Mayberry]

Globalization will cause America as we know it to cease to exist. Already it has caused the wealth gap to widen tremendously. American workers lose ground every day, and eventually our economy will collapse from the inside out.

Since the 1970s, wages (http://www.tcf.org/Publications/EconomicsInequality/wasow_nowhere.pdf) have plateaued for the American worker while consumer prices continue to climb. Compounded by the massive loss of manufacturing we've experienced recently, it is a recipe for disaster. America was once the manufacturing center of the world, and the leader in technological innovation. Our reign has come to an end due to the exodus. What effect does this have on us directly? It is causing us to become increasingly dependent on other countries for even the basic necessities of life, making us unnecessarily vulnerable. To compound the loss of jobs further, more and more American companies are merging with, or being taken over by foreign entities, funneling billions (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/top/dst/current/deficit.html) of American dollars to other countries.

All of this has caused the largest shift in the distribution of wealth (http://www.faireconomy.org/estatetax/ETWealth.html) our country has seen in modern times. The net effect is that the average working American is left with less disposable income to apply toward ever increasing costs of living. For example, the price of housing has increased substantially since 1970, while wages have remained relatively flat. The net effect is substantially less money making it's way into the economy. All businesses suffer, as well as various government entities, including schools.

Another aspect is the rise in dual income families, a direct result of the loss of jobs and loss of purchasing power caused by globalization. Because both parents are required to work to provide the basic necessities of life, children's educations are left almost entirely to the school system, which is severely restricted due to overbearing government regulation and dwindling funds. The result is a sharp rise in violent juvenile offenders (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/juvoff/careers.html) that correlates to the rise in globalization of America.

Patriotism and national pride is almost non-evident in young people today. While nearly impossible to relate in any meaningful way, this is surely an effect of the globalized America. Pride comes from self reliance, which is no longer a priority of this country, which makes it difficult to instill pride of country in the younger generation. Lack of national pride will ultimately lead to our demise.

We need to take a long, hard look at ourselves and determine what is really important in our lives before all is lost. It seems that the almighty dollar reigns supreme and all else falls by the wayside. This is the legacy we leave our children.
Â*Â*

[Labrocca]

Good read but I don't see much in the articles about how to stop this. While I can agree that Globalization will have negative effects it can easily be argued that there will be positive ones as well.

Do you feel America is a better place if we cut ourselves off from the world and become self reliant? That seems to be the lesson of your article.

[Nathan Brazil]

I'm sorry, and I hope this isn't taken as a petty complaint, but if these "editorials" are going to be looked upon as a showpiece of the quality of this forum, can we get some spell checking and basic editing in place before publication?

Since accurate use of words is essential for accurate communications, some effort should be expended to ensure the words employed convey the intended meaning.

Example:

"American workers loose ground every day"

"Loose", when used as a verb, means to set free, as in "Homer, loose the dogs and let's find where the escapees have gone to".Â*Â*

Now, since I'm sure the author didn't intend that Americans created landslides every day then he must have intended to use the word "lose".

Now I'll go back and read the essay carefully and provide comment on content.

2) Would it be possible to make the forum default link underlined so they're more visible?

[Nathan Brazil]

Some points in response, mostly without pulled quotes in reference:

1)Globalization is inevitable. It's in the nature of man to merger tribes at tribal boundaries and to eventually dissolve the differences between the two tribes. How long it would take to create a global community is uncertain, of course, and there's huge cultural differences that have to be smoothed over, but in the long term it's unstoppable. Concerns over short-term impact are valid, though.

2) As for the "wealth gap", as the wealth of a society grows, naturally the span between the poorest, who have zero, and the wealthiest, will grow. The only way to stop this is to have zero or negative growth. No one wants that. An expanding "wealth gap" is a good thing for everyone, when done right.

What is important is if people remain in poverty for significant times, and who are they and why are they poor. Are they making poor choices with their money? Are they being discriminated against in law, ie, Jim Crow? Or is it that an entire class of people is being exploited?

Certainly this last isn't the case in America, nor is there any discrimination. The poorest people not only don't pay taxes, they're often the beneficiaries of food, rent, medical, and educational subsidies in an effort to get them moving up.

3) The link to wages is misleading. Wages aren't the real issue. The real issue is "take home pay" vs "living expenses". The expense side of the ledger wasn't addressed at all, not in terms of the inflationary effect of deficit spending, or in terms of the additional costs imposed by regulation and by minimum wage laws allegedly intended to assist the poor.



4) There's a couple ways of looking at the export of some manufacturing jobs from the US.

I recall reading a sob story about a zipper installer laid off from a trouser factory in Georgia. She'd never bothered to learn another skill, and now the whole assembly process had been moved to Mauritania or some such. The rest of America benefits by getting cheaper clothes, the stadard of living in Mauretania is rising, since now there are sweatshop jobs where there used to be no jobs at all, and the cost of labor in the US has declined because there's more unskilled and semi-skilled people in the labor pool. That may not be good for them, but they did have access to taxpayer funded education at one time, they chose to make the least of it.

Another way to look at it is that the government doesn't own the factories. The people that do own the factories are citizens like the rest of us, and they're supposed to have the freedom to decide how their money is spent just like everyone else. Since this isn't supposed to be a fascist country, it's not supposed to dictate to those people who to hire and what to pay them.

And there's the added complication of companies moving off shore to save tax expenses. What's wrong with that? It's not the government's money, it's not your money, it's the stockholder's money, and if it's possible to save that money by moving offshore, it's what the company has a fiduciary responsibility to do.

5) What's a "fair economy"? I don't recall living in the land of the fair. It's supposed to be the land of the free. If fairness is the issue, then the government should stop subsidizing big business with tax dollars, an stop interfering in the marketplace with regulations.

But "fair" can't be defined as any form of leveling of income, not if the strong arm force of government is the tool used to cut the peaks off the mountains and fill the swamps.

The link labeled "wealth" above is an argument for the continuance of the policy of stealing from the survivors of the deceased money that's already been fully taxed by the departed, and is in effect a double taxation in which the government isn't trying to get a second bite of the apple so much as trying to take the apple tree. Totally immoral.

Housing costs are affected by a number of factors.

There's more people in the country, but God hasn't given us any more land.

There's a major tax exemption for homes, but the money received for selling home must be rolled over into a new home promptly, or the government steals it. This helps to grossly inflate the cost of housing.

There's a huge movement among the lefties to limit land development...which limits the number of homes and drives the prices of existing homes up through the roof. So-called "rent control" does the same thing.

And, well, crap, the people living in Manhattan Beach, CA, discovered that they all have to pay a $50,000 assessment on their homes because their city council decided those ugly overhead wires could be buried and the city prettified. The courts have ruled that they have to pay it. That, naturally enough, is going to have a huge impact on the cost of housing locally.

Summary? Cost of housing isn't driven solely or even principally by natural market forces, but by government interference.

6) Patriotism are going to decline when the school system financed by the public echoes the marxist globalism of the left, in which "dead white guys" are villified, combined with an incessant pro-socialist media campaign targetted at the thirty and under sucker crowd. Also, since the government really is out to screw us, there's not many people wanting to cheer Uncle Sam.

What is important isn't the dollar, but who controls someone's freedom. Complaining that someone is spending their dollar overseas and then seeking to prevent them doing so is as bad for identity of THIS nation as letting the UN re-write our Constititution.

[Mayberry]

Thanks for the comments. I don't think we should cut ourselves off, but I do think we need to concentrate on taking care of our own. Keeping "home grown" jobs, companies, etc... is good for everyone. The argument that moving overseas or selling out is the responsible thing to do is callous profiteering, no more. I think our industry should find ways to improve here at home rather than running off for a quick buck. In 20 years China will be full swing into their industrial revolution (maybe sooner) and the Chinese will experience all that we have. Where will their corporations flee to in search of cheap labor? Granted, China has a nearly limitless supply as of now. But as these people become skilled and educated, they will demand higher wages, just as we have. As far as globalization being inevitable, I strongly disagree. There will always be a segment of the population here that remains fiercely patriotic and loyal. Myself included. I may not like the direction we're currently headed, but I'll take this over being part of some homogenized "New World Order" any day. Oh, and I lost the "loose". Sorry, I forgot to spell check, but all is well now.

[Nathan Brazil]

Thanks for the comments. I don't think we should cut ourselves off, but I do think we need to concentrate on taking care of our own. Keeping "home grown" jobs, companies, etc... is good for everyone. The argument that moving overseas or selling out is the responsible thing to do is callous profiteering, no more. I think our industry should find ways to improve here at home rather than running off for a quick buck. In 20 years China will be full swing into their industrial revolution (maybe sooner) and the Chinese will experience all that we have. Where will their corporations flee to in search of cheap labor? Granted, China has a nearly limitless supply as of now. But as these people become skilled and educated, they will demand higher wages, just as we have. As far as globalization being inevitable, I strongly disagree. There will always be a segment of the population here that remains fiercely patriotic and loyal. Myself included. I may not like the direction we're currently headed, but I'll take this over being part of some homogenized "New World Order" any day. Oh, and I lost the "loose". Sorry, I forgot to spell check, but all is well now.


There's a point past which it's no longer possible to keep a company in business. When expenses get too high, one either finds a way to cut expenses, or one folds the business.

Take my example of the zipper installer. The company moved because it wasn't profitable to keep it in Georgia. One could suppose that an automated zipper sewing machine could be developed, and there's a point past which it's cheaper to invest in the machine than to keep the people doing the job. ATM's and the "self-checkout" lanes in stores show this. And there's a point where it's just better to move the operation away where the resources are cheaper.

The company owners are faced between losing their investment or re-locating. Business isn't charity. Relocation is what happens. That's the breaks, and buggy-whip manufacture is now a specialty art.

[Churchel]

To look at Globilization from a purely capatalistic standpoint is a gamble. During the merchantile economies the governments went to war, then the great war was a turning point where the whole society went to war. In the napoleanistic era the france and prussa might have been at war but trade continued. This has changed.

The fact is america has an addictive dependance for resources that we cannot control. The best way to predict our future is to develop it internally, instad of relying on external forces.

When a few hundred millionars have more combined wealth then 2.5 billion of the poorest people something has to give, either we increase their standards of living or they will decrease ours.

I can see a future with technology that drives world change, as long as progress forgoes profit.

We need to start by fixing energy.

[Nathan Brazil]

The best way to raise the standard of living of the world's billions is to introduce them to real capitalism. They've tried everything but that, and naturally, since everything else is anti-freedom, it hasn't worked.

Fixing energy? Is it broken? We don't seem to be running short, what's the problem?

[Churchel]

Fixing energy? Is it broken? We don't seem to be running short, what's the problem?


Do you drive?

[Nathan Brazil]

Do you drive?

All the time.Â*Â*I drive a big honking chevy one-ton cargo van with a nice fat 350 V8 engine with all the horsepower I could want.Â*Â*Has the full towing package to, so if I wanted my house could be a mobile home, even.

Funny thing.Â*Â*Everytime I go to the gas station, they've got gas. No matter how much I want, they've got it. My Suburban drinks it like water, too. But the fuel replenishment stations are always there for me.Â*Â*That's just farking amazing, ain't it? I just love capitalism.Â*Â*And yet I hear all these people complaining that their energy is broke.Â*Â*

I think maybe they need to legalize amphetamines.

[Nathan Brazil]

Hint:

"Energy" isn't broken. You're just cheap.

[Churchel]

Hint:

"Energy" isn't broken. You're just cheap.


Energy is for certain broken. Do you call retirees recieving 1000 dollars on SSI "cheap"? If our energy was at a 0 cost, it would free up trillions of dollars. It might not be 0 tomarrow, but it needs to get there.

If you consider your energy bill as a part of your social status feel free. I consider it a burden that technology needs to solve.

[Nathan Brazil]

Hint:

"Energy" isn't broken.Â*Â*You're just cheap.


Energy is for certain broken.Â*Â*Do you call retirees recieving 1000 dollars on SSI "cheap"?Â*Â*If our energy was at a 0 cost, it would free up trillions of dollars.Â*Â*It might not be 0 tomarrow, but it needs to get there.

If you consider your energy bill as a part of your social status feel free.Â*Â*I consider it a burden that technology needs to solve.


Actually I consider a person living on just the $1000 SSI handout a parasite, incompetent, and a bad investor. Why should I care if they can't afford gasoline? I'm sure that a nice vote-buying politician will figure out a way to make me pay for it, just like always.

And it's pretty darn ignorant to figure that the cost of energy should be zero. It's a commodity. By definition, commodities have a price, and that price varies according to the market.

[Churchel]

Hint:

"Energy" isn't broken. You're just cheap.


Energy is for certain broken. Do you call retirees recieving 1000 dollars on SSI "cheap"? If our energy was at a 0 cost, it would free up trillions of dollars. It might not be 0 tomarrow, but it needs to get there.

If you consider your energy bill as a part of your social status feel free. I consider it a burden that technology needs to solve.


Actually I consider a person living on just the $1000 SSI handout a parasite, incompetent, and a bad investor. Why should I care if they can't afford gasoline? I'm sure that a nice vote-buying politician will figure out a way to make me pay for it, just like always.

And it's pretty darn ignorant to figure that the cost of energy should be zero. It's a commodity. By definition, commodities have a price, and that price varies according to the market.


Then we find a way past that. The theory is plain and simple. We see things two different ways.

I live in a state where if I put up solar collectors and windmills on the property, I get paid the market killowat hour price if I roll my meter backward. Hybrids are getting larger electric-only ranges. Hopefully in the next 5 years we will be able to purchase a car that can make 80 or 90 miles, with a nightly recharge. If samsungs battery technology is implemented, recharges are in 3 minutes.

So do we spend billions on the balancing act of the middle east, or spend billions on financing technology for renewable energy and elimination of fossil fuels? Brazil is energy independant after 30 years of development. The united states can do this in 15 years, with a long term goal of "$0" in 30.

The money then moves to other markets. It really is capitalism at its best. If we are losing at a game we can keep playing or invent a new game. Its time to start a new game.

[Mayberry]

Well Nathan, it sounds like you make a lot of money. I don't have a problem with that, hell I'm happy for you. But I don't make a lot of money working for the state. I love my job and wouldn't change it for the world, but at $3 a gallon, I and many other folks I know can no longer afford to do the things we used to do. I can't run my offshore boat, because those TWIN fat 350 chevys suck down 20 gallons per HOUR. When gas was a buck and a half NOT SO LONG AGO it was no problem. But now it costs $360 to fill the boat up for ONE DAY and I can't do it. We also like to go camping, and to do so in Texas usually requires at least a 4 hour drive to go somewhere different. So that's a whole tank of gas for one weekend. 70 bucks. Used to fill the Tahoe up for $35. The other $35 paid for the camping fees. Now the camping fees go in the tank and there's nothing left over. So get a smaller car you say? Try going camping with a family of 4 in a Cherokee or something similar. We did, that's why we bought the Tahoe in '02 when gas was $1.40. But we can't trade the Tahoe off now even if we wanted to, because everyone else has, so it no longer has any trade in value because the market is flooded with them. Besides, the smaller SUVs don't get much better fuel economy than out Tahoe anyway so the point is moot. Why bother trading for something that gets 25 MPG when we get 21 now, with a lot more room and comfort to boot? Anyway the point of all this is that the higher gas prices are affecting a lot more people than you think in a lot of ways you might not have thought of. If I had a dollar for every boat and RV that is rotting in someone's driveway this summer.......:(

[Mayberry]

Hopefully in the next 5 years we will be able to purchase a car that can make 80 or 90 miles, with a nightly recharge. If samsungs battery technology is implemented, recharges are in 3 minutes.
That ain't the answer. Electricity has gone up just as much as gas. I just got a bill for $280 for 1800 kwh. This month last year it was $215 for 2000 kwh. You're just shifting one high priced form of energy to another. Unless of course you happen to have those solar panels and windmills. Unfortunately my electric and gasoline bills eat up any money I might have been able to put towards installing such things. Which would be great here in south Texas, we have an abundance of sun AND wind!

[Nathan Brazil]

I've got a boat.Â*Â*I've never been bothered by the price of gas, and in fact, if the high price of gas keeps people off the water, I'll be quite happy.Â*Â*My boat uses maybe thirty gallons of gas in a year.Â*Â*It's solar powered, after all.

I KNOW!Â*Â*If you're concerned about the market's effect on the price of gasoline and thus your lifestyle, how about if you and a bunch of people like you, invest in a private company doing research on alternative fuels?

That's what capitalism is for.Â*Â*If you succeed, you might get rich, if you don't, you lose a few bucks.Â*Â*But that's how it's supposed to work in what's supposed to be a free country.

But whatever. Don't expect the taxpayers to bail you out when you can't afford to keep up your lifestyle. That sounds like a personal problem to me.

[Nathan Brazil]

So do we spend billions on the balancing act of the middle east, or spend billions on financing technology for renewable energy and elimination of fossil fuels?Â*Â*Brazil is energy independant after 30 years of development.Â*Â*The united states can do this in 15 years, with a long term goal of "$0" in 30.

"We" do nothing, if by "we" you mean spend taxpayer dollars.

YOU may invest in private research, though. What's stopping you?

[Nathan Brazil]

Unless of course you happen to have those solar panels and windmills.

Ya can't forget to amortize the cost of the solar collecting panels and the windmills, and the wiring and power inverters, and their upkeep, in the cost of electricity.

[Churchel]

Unless of course you happen to have those solar panels and windmills.

Ya can't forget to amortize the cost of the solar collecting panels and the windmills, and the wiring and power inverters, and their upkeep, in the cost of electricity.


Correct on all accounts. My father has a geothermal heat pump that both cools and heats for 100 dollars a month. The maximum he spends is in electricity is 250 during one winter with sub 0 tempreatures for 2 weeks straight and highs in the 20's the other two weeks. His is warrantied for 15 years and he spend 7000 dollars on the unit.

It replaced a coal furnace, and the house did not have central AC prior.

I am guessing this heat pump should be fine for the next 20 years, it is built on A/C technology. I have a 20 year old refrigerator that operates fine.

How this all wraps into globilisation is that we need to make ways for people to live our lifestyle here for the equivellant of 500 dollars a month.

Our corporate envioroment is one of profit, not welfare. The government should invest in our country's welfare by making it as cheap to live as possible. Our government already hands off research to corporations who profit, why not return that directly to us through our taxes paid?

I look at america as how we can live, not necessarily how much money we need to make.

[Athena]

This is an excellent discussion.Â*Â*What you are speaking of was a concern when we were engaged in the second world war.Â*Â*If there is an interest in the concern when we were engaged in the war, I will provide quotes.Â*Â*

Something that was not considered in past concerns was the exhaustion of mineral resources.Â*Â*The US was the world's supply of almost everything, because it and the what was the USSR, were the most mineral rich nations in the world.Â*Â*Industrial wealth is dependent on the natural resources a nation can exploit, and this why some countries are rich and others are poor.Â*Â*If all a country has for wealth is human labor, it will be as poor as US citizens who have nothing to offer but their labor.

At one time, exports of oil gave the US almost as much revenue as all other exports combined, and that money went into banks and was loaned out multiplying that wealth.Â*Â*The US is no longer backed by gold, but by oil.Â*Â*This is better understood with a graph, and I am sorry I don't know how to post the graph, and haven't been able to find one on-line.Â*Â*But if you can find copies of books by geologist such as "Mineral Wealth and the Destiny of Nations" you will gain a perspective on the rise and fall of nations that will is invaluable.Â*Â*We can understand the history of the world through the eyes of geologist.Â*Â*

The US will never again gain wealth through mineral resources.Â*Â*Understand Texas has been a wealthy state, and therefore, a powerful stateÂ*Â*putting into office Eisenhower, Reagan and the Bush father and son, because of its oil revenues.Â*Â*Texas could pay for its schools and other public works through its oil revenues, and didn't need to tax the people, just as the mid east countries can now please their publics with oil money and not tax the people, but the shit will the fan when the oil is gone and all that is left is military build up.

But this is not the whole picture.Â*Â*What made the US a leader of nations was the concept of democracy and education to manifest a highly moral society.Â*Â*Up to WWII the US didn't have the technology to produce the affluence we assume is natural today.Â*Â*Those who fought in WWII were not materialistic people, but valued family above money.Â*Â*Not just their own family, but family as the basic structure of society.Â*Â*This was a completely different value system, and social order, than what we have today.
This culture aspect of a nation comes through education.Â*Â*Until the 20th century it was religion that educated the masses, then England’s public schools educated for character, and US public schools educated for democracy, and German schools educated for technology for military and industrial purpose and left moral training to the church.Â*Â*The US replaced its education for citizenship with Germany’s education for technology, completely changing national values and social structure.Â*Â*

Toady many in the US think all the good of the culture of the US came through Christianity, because public education is not longer serving this purpose.Â*Â* However, I came to God and an understanding of morality through old text books.Â*Â*I could not accept the biblical God and bible stories as more than myth, and this is so for those who argue there is no God.Â*Â*But I can accept the Athenian understanding of a God of reason and so did the Deist who played an essential role in establishing the US democracy.Â*Â*I strongly object to Christians saying I don't know God and morals.Â*Â*This isÂ*Â*practice is tearing our country apart, and has perverted the meaning being an American.Â*Â* Only highly moral people can have liberty and if we don’t remember that real fast, and return to educating for that morality, our liberty and freedom will be lost.Â*Â*

Jefferson was a Deist, and all mention of "God" that Christians like to quote to prove the US was always meant to be Christian nation, are not speaking of today's Jewish, Christian, Muslim understanding of the biblical God of Abraham, but they speak of the Athenian God of reason.Â*Â*So our old text could speak of God and morality while maintaining the separation of church and state, and I believe this is essential to the future our children and their children.Â*Â*We need to return to education for democracy or our future will be as ugly as the fall of Rome, because we have exhausted our mineral resources, essential to industry, and like Japan must important essential resources to keep our industry going.Â*Â*This is why our military is now used to protect our economic interest and our fore fathers would be horrified if the look at our tax system and how we are spending this money.Â*Â* Besides what happens to liberty when there is not a shared morality.Â*Â* If we stay with today’s amorality, and extremely materialistic values,Â*Â*when we loose our affluence, the shit will hit the fan!

[Nathan Brazil]

Industrial wealth is dependent on the natural resources a nation can exploit, and this why some countries are rich and others are poor.

Japan?Â*Â*One of the wealthiest countries in the world, and no domestic resources to speak of?

The wealth of nations is dependent on the will of the people and the freedom they possess to exercise that will.Â*Â*South Korea is wealthy enough, North Korea is not.Â*Â*Essentially the same people, diametrically opposed governments.

The Soviet Union had far more resources than the US.Â*Â*The US had freedom, and was wealthy beyond dreams, the USSR had no freedom, and went bankrupt.

I say the key is the people.


And I'm going to apologize for not yet reading your entire post. I dropped in for a quick peek, found your first paragraphs interesting, but I have to go. I promise to read the rest soon. Later.