Reducing Most of Us to The Lowest Common Denominator

from JoeUser Forums

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.

politics
10,960 views 30 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you don't like the job you're in, find a new job or start a new business. It only looks like a conspiracy when you remove responsibility from the individual. The trend is mental, not economic.

~Dan
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't recall saying anything about not liking a job, but rather keeping it.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
You must have, because part of liking a job is job security. The inability to keep it falls under the catagory of liking your job.

~Dan
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
WooHoo stevendedalus!!! It is time for America to wake up!

Dan Kaschel- Did you and I read the same article?
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
WiseFawn, I'm with you on this: Dan must be thinking of an other article.
I agree that it's time to alert citizens to what's going on, perhaps--and despite Nader--they will stay awake come November.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dan, I finally got it: you are referring to "Compromising..." blog. Still, you're taking the comment on teaching too literally. Most teachers by nature wish to teach his/her major subject but compromises by teaching students, rather than subject and all for the better. It's like blogging;you cna keep it private or opt, and hope for an audience.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good thoughts Steve,although the print was tuff,Fact is no other country in the world would put up with what we do,and when their forced to,America steps in.My question would be where do the people go when America itself becomes a third world country.What good will it be when the few rich live on the mountian and see nothing but garbage in the vally.I wont be here then but I shed a tear at the thought.-----charlie poore
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, Charles, it will be reduced to the valley of tears. It's absolutely awful what we are doing to so many now and worse, our kids in the future.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
jeff allison:

"Capitalism is the Devil's wet dream" Ani DiFranco

As opposed to socialism, where the nation is one huge corporation owned by our 'leaders'? Look up the word capitalism, folks:

"Main Entry: cap·i·tal·ism
Function: noun
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market "

Call it evil if you like, but turning everything over to an inevitably corrupt government isn't any better, and at least with capitalism you have the option to make changes.

**

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. 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.

I think trade with any such nation should be scaled back, and substantial government incentive given to capitalists who help the nation become more self-sufficient, making sure that our system doesn't rely on the sins of other nations. They couldn't care less about us anyway.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


A capitalist can't sustain it's self in a sealed environment. Industrial nations have to be able to sell to non-industrial nations and non-industrial nations have to sell resources to industrialized one. Otherwise the system breaks down.

Cheers
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
In don't think anyone is suggesting a 'sealed' environment. I think, though, nations who refuse to accept balanced trade with us, and who are far, far worse than Hitler's Germany are nations we can decide not to trade with. The slack can be taken up at home.

Free trade is great, but only if we have the self respect to refuse the kind of trade deficits and abuses we receive from nations like China. They export massive amounts to us, and only begrudgingly accept our trade in return. I'm not saying we need to be a closed nation, but we can certainly do better than rewarding such behavior.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
there is continuous talk of "capitalism" while rarely mentioning is quality. the same goes for democracy. one could easily argue that a democracy with two choices isn't much better than a democracy with one choice... which i guess is communism. these topics are conveniently avoided by those who tell us what to think.
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. most "competitors" in big industries are not competing at all! they have their supply chains and there cut of the market set in stone. they are able to force out any smaller competition with the brush of the hand.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
there is also a great deal of talk about globalization without any real facts about how it is suppose to help our economy...

i suggest that the real scenario is this:
you are a fat cat who got into the widget market and made a killing. now you have a widget factory! you may have some competition but you have a bought supply chain and the ability to force anyone smaller than yourself out of the game at any time. you participate in an widget industry association which lets you communicate with your "competitors" regarding you slice of the pie or what the maximum people will pay for widgets is... and thats what you and your competitors decide to charge.

so everything is going nicely. the money is rolling in at a constant rate. but what about growth?! as it turns out, your market can only sell so many widgets a year! people don't consume more than that many widgets. time to cut costs!
now if fat cat sets up his factory in china... finally there is a growth in profits!

of course, in the end... people in fat cats market can't afford widgets... because they don't have jobs.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
"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.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
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!
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

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?

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

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?


 

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
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
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
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