|
Edited on Wed Oct-14-09 09:27 PM by RandomThoughts
In the views of profit, the American peasant is no different then a foreign peasant.
Then you add to it that many in decision making positions like the state control of places like China and many third world countries with less freedom.
In other words, some corporations hate us for our freedom.
That is not a slight on CEOs. It is there job to make profit, and they are trapped into many things by that goal. Many are really good people, however the lack of a regulatory structure or a lack of society actually setting what is acceptable, makes them race to the bottom for profit.
When Bush said it would be easier if he was a dictator, he was not joking. Saudi Arabia is a monarch, one of the biggest allies of the monopoly capitalism system. And most of the governments that are corporate supported lean to authoritarianism
It is unfortunate that people actually think that leaders of many sectors, private and public, in America think about America first. Also it should be noted that trade is a big cash cow for Big Oil since those tankers all run on oil.
I do agree we need to help to bring the rest of the world up to a better standard of living, and that is a rational for trade. But in monopoly capitalism the goal is to bring other countries down to there standard of living.
Free trade creates the race to the bottom, the country that treats the environment, its citizens, and things like product safety the worst, are most profitable. So free trade makes things worse and worse, and as things get worse, the need for less freedoms and a security state goes up, which is why they like dictatorships. It is all connected.
Protectionism where countries have import taxes when they do not have at least a minimal standards of a living wages and safety for workers and environment is the race to the top. If selling your product includes it having to be made within a method that most of society approves of, even if less profitable, then the pressure from production and consumption does not race down, but it races up.
Here is a question, if we do not have jobs because of lack of demand for goods. Which can also be stated as production capability higher then demand. Then why don't we accept a small loss in productivity that increases need for jobs while also protecting the environment and using alternate forms of energy, and that uses workforces with more benefits and higher wages?
Answer, because in race to the bottom free trade, someone else will make the goods cheaper by not doing those things, so by assigning protectionism for societal goals, you solve two problems, you hamper race to the bottom, and you create jobs.
|