The Rich Are Different from You and Me 2
And they aim to keep it that way.
I do not agree with Thom’s statement that “we need to end globalization.” I don’t think that that’s possible.
Globalization is not fueled by policy; it’s fueled by technology (by which I don’t mean just computers–I mean communication, transportation, the whole ball of wax).
It may be possible and necessary to shape globalization into a less pernicious form (think “no more workers burning to death in clothing factories”) through policy, but end it? No.
November 11, 2013 at 3:56 pm
Hey, here’s what American national policy and its economy did, at all levels:
http://dickdestiny.com/blog1/?p=16682
That’s an order of magnitude x 3 times difference in cost, the latter item — an electric guitar originally a southern California icon, sent back across the Pacific in a container ship. The travesty of this is easy to grasp. What once was a good idea, or could have stayed an at least tolerable idea, is now twisted well into the bad. I see no way to reverse it other than the unlikely institution of a global minimum wage, mandated elevation of US wages, or imposition of tariffs on things like entry of container ships into US ports, tariffs to be paid as dividends to taxpayers, like oil or geologic asset revenue sharing. The latter would be reasonable under the thinking that it was the conditions in post wwII America that allowed for the creation and development of goods, desired around the world, that were domestically produced and then moved overseas. In all these cases more money must be put into the hands of everyone but the top tier types.
November 11, 2013 at 5:23 pm
Your suggestions make economic sense, though they may be political pie-in-the-sky. At the heart of globalization, as it is currently practiced, is obtaining a labor from the poor for a pittance to sell the product of that labor to the not-quite-so-poor, with the markup going to the new robber barons. It’s colonialism without the occupying armies.
What a deal! The colonies occupy themselves!
What troubled me about Thom’s little speech was the foray into protectionist rhetoric. After all, Smoot-Hawley worked out so well.