Does American Success in the World matter?

[BrentWil]

We live in a globalized world. Each state in our world is in a competition to attract the best minds, the hardest workers and investment capital. Certain policies will help a state in doing this. States that decide on business friendly practices, enforcement of the rule of law, low taxes, and sane immigration policies will be at a huge competitive advantage.

In other words, the future is about the individual, not any nation. Capital and people will flow to the most advantageous place. If America does not take up the mantle of economic and personal liberty, another county will. In this sort of world, the advancement of progress is unstoppable in the long term. In the world as a whole, life will get better and mankind will make progress rather America is the primary force behind it or not.

So besides for pride, does the success of the United States really matter, in the long term?

The economic and political long term advantages of classical liberal thought are evident in the modern world. States that refuse this reality will have problems and states that embrace will come out on top. The future is competition for minds and capital.

Where am I wrong?

[RandomThoughts]

1. Is economic success societal success? n/t

[BrentWil]

2. It is if you are in the bottom third of states..

look at India. In 1991, it started to follow policies that worked and helped with economic growth and development. Its success brought over 300 million people out of absolute poverty. That is the population of the United States. And that is real, won't be able to eat poverty.

[RandomThoughts]

4. If economic growth is meant to help society then that can be correct.

It also depends what is produced. If people are in jobs that do not add to society, then how would that growth help society?

For people to be out of poverty, then someone must manufacture food, health care, electricity, housing, and other items that actually help society. Much of what is called economic growth has nothing to do with that.

The profit motive does not steer production for society good, and can even do so for reasons of scarcity when there is to much consolidation or monopoly situations. Central planning from profit fails on many levels, hence why if their is planing it should be decentralized by representative democracy.

There should be some controls on sectors that do not produce anything but just skim, yet are called economic growth. Also many sectors create demand where it is not needed, instead of many places that can help society.

In a representative democracy, there should be some steering of motive away from just profit, to helping society produce items that help society.

[BrentWil]

8. What is the means to do that?

Besides government taking over all production? And if they do, will things like investment capital go elsewhere?

[OJones]

21. This discussion reminds me

of Muhammad Yunus's Nobel Prize winning work in developing "social" businesses.

From his website:

"-Business objective will be to overcome poverty, or one or more problems (such as education, health, technology access, and environment) which threaten people and society; not profit maximization

-Investors get back their investment amount only. No dividend is given beyond investment money

-When investment amount is paid back, company profit stays with the company for expansion and improvement"

I only mean to point out one other way of creating socially conscious business. That still leaves the question of who will invest, and why.

[BrentWil]

34. Explain why I would invest?

I have money in international markets right now. Why would I invest in a company that isn't going to give anything back.

[RandomThoughts]

61. Explain why society should allow you to control investment capital.

If you only use it for reasons of your own prosperity?

[BrentWil]

67. Well, if they don't

It will be well out of their control before they can stop it. That is my point.

And allowing my capital to be used, allows for it to flow into countries that are in need of it for development. The vast majority of it is in international funds.

I guess the other reason I should be "allowed to use" my capital is because my investment are the money I saved from two tours in Iraq. Frankly, it is my money that I have earned and I am letting other use at a risk to it. If there is no reward, I am out of the system.

[RandomThoughts]

70. But if your decision on where that capital goes is about your prosperity.

Then if it helps some country that needs development that is an incidental side effect that may or may not happen, and if that effect was not to happen, it would not matter in your thought process, if that thought process is about maximizing personal profit.

So you can not claim helping a developing nation as an intent when you make the statement that your intent is your own profit.

And I would go as far as to say that there are better effects, since a persons own profit first, does not help other people but gets them to work for that individuals prosperity not their own.

Your point that it is your money is without any concept of how you would choose to use it. You can have that concept, but don't make claims it is about helping developing nations if you would not do that for less profit also.

For example, if you use the money to hire someone to hurt someone, you would be arrested and the money taken, since that is illegal, couldn't it also be said that if you used your money to hurt society, then society should make the claim that your use of the money makes your claim of ownership invalid?

I am not saying you would use it to hurt someone, I am saying by your statement that it must profit you, and that being the first criteria, if it did hurt someone to make you more profit that would not bother you nor effect your decision.

Hence why a base line and regulation of how capital is invested is needed, so that those in profit motive do not commit crimes of hurting people when in profit motive first thought, hence the base line, the same base line that says you can not use your money to overtly hurt people in many forms that already have laws about those actions.

You could make money by hiring a few people to raid and pillage a town, but that would be illegal, so you do not do it, that is how laws can protect people that are in profit motive first thinking. In the same way if you choose to invest in ways that hurt people, their should be laws to curb that profit, or even criminalize some of those actions to protect you from your own actions.

There are some people that would not hurt people, if in that state they would not break those laws, but sometimes laws are needed, and enforcement of those laws, to help those that do not mind hurting people if it is profitable from doing that. Hence regulation, and even some control over where capital goes.

It is only your money if the use also matches what society accepts as reasonable. And even your earning it in tours really was being paid by society, so it was their money first. So to some extent you owe them back part of it in your choices of spending it, and if you can not make the choices by that thought, then base line regulation can help you from spending it against society.

Note this is not saying you would spend it to hurt people, only that by your comment about need of maximized profit first, by definition makes hurting people not a concern in your statement. It is possible that the effects of your spending would take many motives into account and you might invest in a more modest profit also thinking on where and what the investment is used for.

[BrentWil]

71. What I invest in are

giving jobs to people. Of course if I put my money up, I want a chance of a profit. I am taking a risk of a loss, and I will of course expect the chance of profit.

We have governments and rules to ensure that cooperations do not violate the rights of others. I am in full support of that. Moreover, if I thought a cooperation I was invested in was involved in activities that did violate rights, I would not invest. However, in the bigger picture, my investment are helping move people forward. While a side effect, it is a pleasant one.

[RandomThoughts]

87. I am glad you find joy, and also glad you think

about where you invest with many thoughts on things.

Have a great day :)

And skills like being able to invest and those challenges can be happiness like any other type of accomplishment. :)

[BrentWil]

92. Thanks..

Have a good day

[RandomThoughts]

60. Government does not have to take over production.

It can have some say over the creation of capital by credit, an example is a stimulus versus bail out.

The stimulus tries to fund programs that create jobs, but those jobs then work within private sector, but the getting of those contracts depends on some demand for development in sectors that also have good effects for society.

while the bailout that gave banking the decision where to spend the money, they according to news reports, only spent it in a way to make profit, as an example by getting 0% loan, then loaning back at interest to the same thing that gave it the bail out to the banks. Also race to the bottom is the moving of capital to the worst of social systems, so the control over capital should be regulated by base lines.

The profit motive had no desire to capitalize investments in items for social development, but just profit, so it did nothing but make profit, regardless of social good.

Also reducing the size of corporations adds competition, and transparency, since backroom deals are more difficult with many units, and competition can keep a few units from ignoring fees or penalties in monopoly fashion by action or lobbying.

If there was a tax on Lobbying for example, then using money in a profit system to try and set laws for a profit system could be curbed, that would not require taking over production, just setting what spending of money is less approved of by society.

As far as investment capital going elsewhere that assumes ownership of all that investment capital or the ability for those with that capital to make the decision of where the money goes. I would say some of that capital was given to them by a system, not by being earned, so it can be taken as tax and used to stimulate demand for the private sector production by investment for social good.

In the same way their are examples of where taxation for areas that create unneeded demand is higher then better demand, either through fines or higher tax. For example taxation or fines on polluters shifts the demand from just profit to also protecting environment.

The profit motive can operate within a regulated effect to keep it from only being about its motive of making profit.

Your biggest question is how to stop investment capital going elsewhere, that is a flaw of consolidation where that capital is in places that can make those decisions, and a flaw of thinking that those that have that capital earned control over all of it. And honestly it is things like Nafta that make limits on trade more difficult, because with the free trade concepts, it is more difficult for a society to hold its capital and direct its effect by limiting some trade that is an effect of worse forms of capitalization. Also free trade leads to less decentralized production and more consolidation of production. But it does use lots of oil for shipping, and moves production to the society that treats its environment and people the worst.

So regulation of private sector to point production instead of private sector profit first, less consolidation in industry, and less monopoly means, and fines and taxes to move demand. Also the ability for a penalization on capital moved to systems in race to the bottom mode, like systems without democracy, or with worse environmental or social conditions, to put a back pressure on capital going to those places.

[BrentWil]

64. Well a few points

I disagree with both the stimulus and the bailout. WHile I agree that a stimulus was needed, there was many inefficiencies in the way it was done. The capital was not put to the best use and much of it was wasted. I certainly disagree with the bailout too, but you are looking at the stimulus with rose colored glasses.

Reduction of the size of cooperation is not needed, except in the most extreme cases. The world is not static. For example, what used to be the biggest software company, Microsoft, is no longer the biggest as it has been passed by Apple today. Hundreds of companies that were not around in the 1990s are now huge parts of our economy. (Google, ebay, amazon, etc.) What is needed is not breaking up companies, it is an end to cooperations being able to use the government to block out the little man. Smaller companies cannot compete with bigger companies because laws make it almost impossible in most cases. For one example, look at the beer industry. The distribution system of beer is so complex, it is nearly impossible for a smaller brewery to compete with an the bigger players. Getting beer distributed nationwide is almost impossible unless you are one of the big three players, and this is a product of laws that are strongly supported by the big three to keep the little guy from being able to compete. This is something that goes on in industry after industry. We need to take our focus off of breaking up cooperations. It isn't their size that makes it hard for the little guy. It is their about to pass laws that block the little guy.

This brings me to the next point. While I said all of this, a tax on lobbying would be unconstitutional. People are given the right to redress their government for grievances in our constitution.

As far as stopping capital from flowing to where ever it has the most advantage, you are living in a fantasy world if you believe that it can be stopped without closing our society completely, like North Korea. The fact is, the world is a small place. If we start to seize capital, the rest will flow very quickly out of the United States. Nor will any flow into it. That will destroy the US economy and hurt alot of people. It will also require a huge reduction in liberty in order to enforce. The world is what it is. The question is not changing it. The question is making due with the world like it is and helping as many people as you can.

[RandomThoughts]

72. We think differently.

Inefficiencies is only an issue in race to the bottom, and not in a situation where production is higher then demand, our current system.

Wallmart blocks out the little guy, not government. Smaller companies can not compete because of economies of scale, and government can add restrictions on larger corporations to counter balance that. If government is adding restriction on small business, then the problem is not government but what it is doing. So move the restrictions from small business to big business, which is regulation making bigger business less efficient and using the profit motive to break up large corporations.

I do not disagree that laws have been slanted for corporations, but where you may suggest getting rid of laws, I suggest changing them to help protect society. Getting rid of government laws really just moves them to money. Although I agree there has been a problem with money setting social laws, laws that could do as you suggest, I say the problem is not the existence of government, but its use to support money. It is not a fix to get rid of government, but to remove the money influence on it, and make it an advocate for society. In the case you mention you see government as the problem, I would say government supporting big corporations, by the influence of big money is the problem in your example. And I agree laws passed to help corporations should not be passed, unless part of accelerated downward spiral and an effect of their own action.

People are given the right to redress their grievance, but by money being allowed to do that, not individual thought or speech, then their is a removal of that ability to petition for grievance for those without money. Your comment says that money should decide who can have a say, it is not a new idea, but it has bad consequences, I would say by allowing money, you remove the ability for society to speak to government.

The Constitution does not say ability to petition government by money, and that is what you defend in your statement. It says by people, and money is used to actually try and block that effect.

You are in money thought I think.

Your comment on unilateral action is an important point, it should be more global, as far as making the US like North Korea, that is a bad comparison for many reasons including totalitarianism, although some like that thought in many places in US, that is not where we would have to be.

Note Capital as credit has been created from nothing for a long time for profit motive of a few, so limited capital is partially an illusion, although there can be issues with money value, and inflation. So concepts of Capital leaving is only theoretically possible if you do not regulate the creation of that capital.

If the USA does not have enough capital to maintain its structures, then those issues need to be addressed, counting on notion of capital from outside is part of the problem created from capital from outside. The spending on sectors that do not add to the US, or any countries own citizens growth creates the problem that the US is in, where it needs outside capital.

Your worry about losing outside capital is part of the symptom of the larger cyclical problem of unregulated markets, it is a feed back loop or a spiral. So if it is fixed now, or made worse what is better? Maintaining an unsustainable system just makes it worse eventually, and 'when' does not matter, so it should be fixed now. Although part of the capitalization of US from outside is to buy its military usage and to buy the effects of where it spends, hence also why those lines need to be broken. It is a form of centralized control by money.

But the point is the US and other nations should rely more on decentralized production to supply needs, not trade with race to the bottom motives. As far as the US getting hurt, that happened over the last decades, it has been pummeled by people promoting things like non production economies, and not maintaining concepts of production also inside the USA for the USA. Profit motive moved production outside, and with limited demand partially by scarcity systems, production inside US went down, and so systems that create money got bigger to compensate, basically creating money out of nothing and giving it to themselves, and that replaced actual work being done making things.

So the USA has many years of creating nothing but illusion of wealth for profit motive of a few. So the concept of USA having problems is about where we are and how to fix it, by moving production and creation of demand back to sectors that create things that help society, not that are bought for war or for profit for illusionary sectors that do nothing to help society.

The world is not what it is, that is a flawed thought, the world is what we make it, you presume to not have choice in what it can be, and by that give up your choice and only go along with a system regardless of if you think it is better or worse, and by doing that the system captures your energy to continue on what you agree is not a best path.

I do agree helping as many people as you can is important, although that needs to be part of the motive for that to happen. It is not part of profit motive systems, but can be part of motives of people in those systems.



(For humor, When you say cooperations are you making a few statements, or just a support of monopoly and consolidation in using in part corporate methods? Your use of that word seems to be in contrast with its meaning, unless you speak of coup as in take over without justice, or coup as in chicken coup :) Some are scared I will agree with that. )

[BrentWil]

84. I guess the basic question for me is why you would want to stop and change something that has helped

millions of people. For example, China


From the UN.

http://www.undp.org.cn/modules.php?op=modload&name=News...

rapid economic development in the past two decades has generated the most rapid decline in absolute poverty ever witnessed.
Both national and international indicators show that China has already achieved the goal of halving the number of people in extreme poverty by 2015 set by the UN as one of eight Millennium Development Goals.

http://www.undp.org.cn/downloads/nhdr2008/NHDR2008_en.p...

population is wealthier, better educated and healthier than it has ever been. The population en- joys unprecedented mobility within the country, and access to travel, work and study in the out- side world. And opportunities to develop one’s human capacity to the fullest are vastly greater than ever before. The benefits of the economic growth in the past 30 years have reached the whole society, including the poorest groups in the population. By any measure—whether the official national poverty line or the global US $1 per day line—several hundred million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty in less than half a lifetime, truly an historic achievement.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Feb/56694.htm


World Bank

number of persons living in poverty in China was reduced from 250 million at the start of its reform process in 1978, to 80 million by the end of 1993 and to 29.27 million in 2001.

There might be reasons to change it a little, such as global warming. But to suggest changing the whole system because its "motives" aren't what you want, seems self defeating. Look at the RESULTS. And when I say results, I mean the bigger pictures results.

[izquierdista]

3. I'll tell you

People are not capital. They don't flit from here to there looking for the best deal. Most people stay where they are born, speak the language their parents taught them, and feel at home in that culture. It takes a pretty shitty situation for people to up and leave, and those that do are usually young and want to find someplace better to settle down. They may make that move once, and only a slim percentage of those end up making a second move. Once they get married and have kids, they can't be lured to the Cayman Islands and live in a PO Box like a corporation can.

Most of the other people in the world don't care much what happens with America. How the national soccer team is doing is probably more of a concern to them. They will, however, watch the movies and listen to the music that America exports. I came to this realization after living abroad for several years. Being an American in a far away place where there aren't any is sort of a novelty on first meeting people, and they cut you some slack if you mangle their language, but they don't sit there in awe that someone from 'The Greatest Country in the World!' has deigned to visit. They pretty much are proud of who they are and won't discuss the faults of their country with outsiders. That would be airing dirty laundry in public and it's just not done.

[BrentWil]

7. First...

Capital a a reference to resources. In other words, resources will flow into states that set certain policies in a globalized world. Second, despite what you said, the point I was making is that people now have a greater opportunity to move. Modern technology gives labor the ability to move in greater numbers then ever before in the history of mankind. While most still do not, many more then the past are moving. We live in a mobile society, even within our states. People have the ability to use a vast amount of tools to find better jobs anywhere. Even in America, how many go back to their home town? In America, the local community is dead. It is only a place that Americans pass though in their life. Soon, that will be the case with nations.

It isn't about America "being the greatest" It is about the irrelevancy of that.

[izquierdista]

9. You're right, local community is dead

Such is not the case once you leave the U.S. People want to stay where they grew up because that is where their family is. The U.S. has broken that down by sending kids off to see the world, either in college or the military. And after that, there are jobs. People who want a career, not just a job that pays the bills, have to be ready to relocate anywhere in the nation.

You're wrong about it being the case with nations. The reason people can move from state to state is that English is the common language. People who speak Spanish can easily travel and move around in Spanish speaking countries, and the same is true of Arabic speakers in the Middle East. But there are many, many more nationalities which have a culture and language that is unique to their homeland: Poles, Greeks, Lithuanians, Vietnamese, Thai, Japanese, etc. Language is a huge barrier, especially for those who barely get educated in their native language. The only job for them is where everyone speaks their language.

You also overestimate how mobile a society can, and should be. Americans spend more on transportation than they do on food (17% vs. 16% was what I saw in a recent article). That is pretty wasteful of both time and energy, and in poorer countries people are not going to do that. I really don't see any way people in rural African villages are ever going to develop the transportation infrastructure so that they can flit around the continent like Americans do. For them, local community is very much alive.

[BrentWil]

10. Your thoughts are very 1910ish

People moving in numbers that has never been seen before. Talk to a Turk in Germany. Look at the Data on movement to cities. Look at China for example. Movement of people is the future. There may be places where the local community is still of alive. But the overall process is clear. The local community is either dead or dying.

As far as development of a modern infrastructure.... I bet you are the type of person that would have used India as an example before 1991 and the liberal economic reforms they made. Frankly, I find your remarks concerning Africa to be racist. Of course they can!

[RandomThoughts]

73. Capital was about resources.

What resource is created by the reported GNP growth from financial institutions. Institutions that did not add to society.

[BrentWil]

85. It provides stored worth

Money is a means of storing value. These institutions manage that. This value can be used to as investment to help grow and create.

[county worker]

5. You are describing the fantasy you have in your mind.

You think the only thing that exists is competition. A zero sum game. If they win we lose. If we win they lose. The people of the world if they are going to exist at all need to learn how to cooperate in making the earth a home for all of us to succeed. We need win win solutions not what you describe because the inescapable truth is completion will lead us to the point were we destroy ourselves.

[BrentWil]

6. Competition in terms of production and reward.

Not in terms of outcome. I think that is clear by using very meaning measures. Look at average caloric intake in third world countries for example.

[county worker]

62. Just in case you didn't get it the first time.

inescapable truth is completion will lead us to the point were we destroy ourselves.

We are destroying the earth, species, the air, water. We are willing to nuke another country for oil or religious beliefs. We are willing to destroy the very things we need to sustain life for competitive reasons.

You can talk all you want on the micro level but when the species that becomes extinct is us it really doesn't matter.

As the natural resources of the earth become scarce because of competition to produce more, survival depends on winning competitive wars which in our case would end in nuclear annihilation. So we end it all in war or by destroying the means to live on the planet. (The fool hardy competitive types think we could move to another planet when this one become inhabitable. Only problem with working toward that is that the other planets are already inhabitable.) Either way we destroy ourselves.

Basically you can never win because the other guy wants to win to. It is a cyclic struggle that escalates and ultimately ends when we destroy ourselves.

Only buy living in cooperation on a macro level can we sustain life. That has been known in Eastern philosophy for thousands of years. Our Western culture that you so highly praise is relatively new but has the power to destroy all that man has learned since the beginning of time by the prideful ignorant belief that we can win a completion.


What I find funny is that we could destroy the world today in a nuclear war and the fundies would never get their rapture! It almost happened in 1963.

Back in the sixties there was an underground magazine called "horse shit." One issue had a cartoon showing a guy with a plunger used to set off explosions. He had pushed the plunger down and a nuclear mushroom cloud was coming out of the top of his head which was only a skull. The caption read, "Man demonstrating his superiority over nature."

[BrentWil]

68. Classical liberal Economics...

Provide a solution to the problems of scarcity because it allows for human intelligence to meet need. As far as war,capitalism has a negative relationship with it. This is something that is shown in academic studies. I would direct you to "The Capitalist Peace" by Erik Gartzke out of Colombia. Link Below.

http://dss.ucsd.edu/~egartzke/publications/gartzke_ajps_07.pdf

[county worker]

81. I have to wait until tonight to read it but these words in the intro got my interest.

Capitalist development, free markets, and similar interstate interests all anticipate a lessening of militarized disputes or wars. This
“capitalist peace”

First of all, this seems to assume cooperation as I talked about.

You can see how greed and competition led to our world economic catastrophe of the past 3 years.
Unregulated free markets and competition allow institutions to make decisions based solely on profit. Thus the destruction of environment. See the Golf oil crisis of today and the fight of the global warming deniers.

Similar interstate interests are limited to the parties with similar interests which leave others with different and usually opposing interests to enter into competition to crush their opposition.

See the war on terrorism.

It will be interesting to read the article but the intro doesn't change anything I said.


I don't know your opinion on man made global warming but I believe that unless we do something to change the way live, global warming will kill our species The profit motive and competition drive the global warming deniers. At the rate we are going, even if capitalist peace were a possible outcome, there wouldn't be time for it to happen.

[BrentWil]

83. Please read it and comment..

but my opinion on global warming is that it is a huge problem and the only solution is a carbon tax that is agreed upon by the World. You have to make carbon energy more expensive to allow for the development of what would then be cheaper alternatives. It is a solution that will hurt the poor, but it is the only choice. The bad thing is that every state has to agree to it, or it won't work. It is a huge problem.

[county worker]

86. Well I have to go to sleep but I am 1/2 way through the essay.

I agree with most of what I have read so far, even though Emmanuel Kant is my guy! To me it seems to support what I said. Cooperation is needed if we are to survive on this planet.

Russia, China and the US were at each others throats most of my life time, I was born in 1946. The tension was over what type of system should dominate the world, Capitalism or Communism.

Though Russia and China had territorial conflicts. We created an arms race that was not sustainable and if we used our nuclear weapons, the other country would retaliate. MAD mutual assured destruction.

We learned that war was not worth to us what it would cost us. So now we cooperate. China exports to us and we consume and borrow from them. China has let some capitalism exist in the country. China is also taking all the water from the Mekong river, leaving the countries down river dry. Its capitalism is going to start wars for water if it does not compromise.

So countries can be at peace with each other because of needing each other to play the rolls they do. They do not compete. But this is in the short term. As the US continues to destroy it's middle class, China will lose it's consumers. As the US continues to borrow, China will gain a superior position over US. In the long term what we have now, peace because we need each other to further our capitalistic goals, it is not sustainable. Capitalism depends on using up resources. It consumes them, even people. In the end it will destroy itself because resources are limited. Capitalism feeds off itself, it consumes itself. Capitalism like desire can never be satisfied. Only by losing desire can a person stop the suffering it causes. Only by losing capitalism will the people of this planet live in peace.

So what I read so far I agree with. It supports my idea that cooperation is needed for survival. And capitalism can lead to peace but only for the short term.

I will read on. Thanks for pointing me to it.

[BrentWil]

88. That isn't the point of it. It is the capitalism leads to peace

The means it does it because it makes more between nations very costly. If the United States and China go to war, that disrupts trade and will have a huge economic effect on each state. Each state requires each other to produce many products and more importantly components of products. A war would cause a major economic impact as the economies restructure. In other worlds, trade brings states together. It does not cause war, because interests are now more in common. From the conclusion of the article:

"This study offers evidence suggesting that capitalism, and not democracy, leads to peace. "

[county worker]

90. That's what I said. The US and China now work together and at are at peace.

I was pointing out things I've lived through that support what the essay was saying. I'm only adding my 2 bits which is that the thing that causes the peace is not sustainable over the long term.

[The2ndWheel]

11. How is that future about the individual?

From what I'm reading in your post, the future is about the globalized system, with states having to conform to it, and people being interchangeable parts of that greater machine. The future is about placelessness. The future is about a lack of any sort of individual identity. You're only worth what you can bring to the job, which is all that matters, and can ultimately be done by anyone, anywhere.

[Romulox]

13. A child could tell you that corporations, not individuals, have filled the vacuum gov'ts have left.

The author wants to pronounce governments dead, but conveniently omits mention of our new overlords.

Convenient, to say the least.

[BrentWil]

20. The overlord will be...

YOU!

[Romulox]

22. Truly, we are in the presence of greatness. nt

[BrentWil]

24. Just an argument about the World as I see it...

It is about you, your knowledge in your head, and if you are willing to take that knowledge wherever it gives you the most profit. Don't get all pissy.

[Romulox]

26. Right, but you're "turtling" such that you ignore all contrary evidence.

Better to run away than stick one's fingers in one's ears; the facts on the ground don't match your thesis. Better to revise your thesis than continue pounding the square peg into the round hole. :hi:

[BrentWil]

36. What am I ignoring?

And is it really me that is ignoring? Give me some facts and tell me why I am wrong. I think I have presented arguments... you haven't really presented much, frankly.

[BrentWil]

19. Who said interchangeable parts?

The individual is gaining the ability to access any job opportunity around the world. Work is becoming much more specialized not "interchangeable" Globalization is a great benefit to an indiviual because your labor has more competition to get it. All you may have to do is move.

[The2ndWheel]

31. Well not any job opportunity, with work becoming more specialized

The ability to access the opportunity is becoming more generalized, but the work is more specialized. So it's still an uphill battle. I also didn't say that work is becoming interchangeable, but rather the individual is. If you can't do the job, which is all that you're good for, you're easily replaced. The quicker you're replaced, the better, as the job needed to be done last week. Time being money and all that.

Although I guess if there comes a point where every person is so specialized in their particular job, that they couldn't do another person's job, and no other person could do their job, then we'll all be set as individuals. But then the individual ability to access any job opportunity around the world would be gone, as the opportunity wouldn't exist, and you would be stuck doing whatever you're doing in a globalized world.

[BrentWil]

37. You can be replaced..

But you also now always have the ability to seek better opportunity. That is my point. If you are willing to move to wherever and gain unique skills, the future is open to you. If you which to stay in areas that are dying (California, Detroit, Cleveland, etc), the future isn't there for you. You have to be mobile.

It is, admittedly, ruthless. However, the larger term benefits of it in places like China and India are undeniable.

[The2ndWheel]

56. And China and India have 1/3 of the human population between them

Do they really need you?

"If you are willing to move to wherever and gain unique skills"

You probably have to gain those unique skills before you can move to wherever though.

It's interesting how you phrase it. Moving to wherever is very general. Unique skills is very specific. That leaves no room for any individual choice, other than within a very narrow set of criteria. It's a very totalizing world system. What if you wanted to move to a unique place, and bring your general skills? What if you want nothing to do with such a system in the first place? Is the future closed off? Who voted to make that the standard for the future?

[BrentWil]

57. No, not at all.

It means, that if you want a better lifestyle, as defined in terms of more resources to support your family, you have to go to where the best opportunity is for you and your family. If you want to define a better lifestyle in terms of other means, you are certainly welcome to drop out of the system. The Amish, for example do that. However, self sustainment is a very hard thing to do and will shorten the amount of free time you have and your life span.

[Romulox]

12. You ask the wrong question. What stake do Americans have in your corporatist utopia?

From where I'm sitting, the US consumer and taxpayer remains the lynchpin of your faux "free market" neo-liberal fantasy. Did you forget the recent multi-trillion dollar bail-out of the global banking industry c/o the American taxpayer, for example?

Which means that our acquiescence is required well before we pass into obscurity as a group--my guess is that you'll find our cooperation harder and harder to secure as you try to take more and more away. :hi:

[BrentWil]

18. Rather the bail out works or doesn't

Has little relevancy to my argument. If it doesn't and our society fails, states such as India and Brazil will become the place where people want to go. As I said, the success of America is not relevant in the long term.

[Romulox]

23. "Irrelevant!" is the argument of a man who has exhausted his rhetoric...

You'll find that there are very few things in this modern world that are truly "irrelevant" to one another, least of which is the recent multi-trillion handout to international bankers and the gov't and taxpayers which cut the check!

If it doesn't and our society fails, states such as India and Brazil will become the place where people want to go.

What makes you think that India or Brazil would escape unscathed from "society fail(ing)"? Their putative prosperity seems quite a bit more fragile than our own, after all.

C-. You need to put some more thought into before turning in the final draft.

[BrentWil]

38. Because capital will flow where it can profit the most...

If it isn't in the United States, it may be in places that are our competition. In other words, the bailout may turn out good and it may not. I don't know. Rather it does or doesn't, will not stop the forces of global capital and labour flow.

The United States is not relevant to my argument. Its policies will either work or they want. If they don't, the world will turn and another states will become the places that gains more of the benefits from the current world environment.

[Romulox]

74. Is English a second language for you? You've said "rather" where you mean "whether"

a couple times on this thread. :hi:

[BrentWil]

77. You are correct...

You're right. "Rather" is an adverb, meaning with preference for one of two things, or more willingly. "Whether" is a conjunction with several meanings, but the two words are not synonyms. I hope you will overlook that and look at my arguments instead.

[Romulox]

89. Your arguments are vapid; I was trying to initiate some *useful* conversation with you.

But, just for a minute, let's look at the context here:

A person for whom English is a second language, posting here, on a US based political left-leaning board, that the future belongs to "extra-ordinary individuals" (Who is John Galt?) with no allegiance to country.

Well, you're not subtly making the point that you consider yourself one of these ubermensch (Really! Who is John Galt?) in this Brave New World. So that's a point immediately against (i.e. it brings your objectivity in question, since you're obviously emotionally invested in the question.) But more to the point, your theory is lacking in any context whatever--the present, and therefore presumably the future, belongs to multi-national corporations and their patrons in governments. You say the bail-outs are "irrelevant" to your theory? The near collapse of Greece? Also "irrelevant", presumably. China's recently announced support for the EU's Euro bail-out plan? Also "irrelevant". You can't just ignore all of this, put your rhetorical shoulder down, and press on! You have to revise your thesis to account for actual data. It's how scholarship works.

Like I hinted above, it's apparent that you are still young--probably a student. There's still time, if you endeavor to learn before you teach... :hi:

[BrentWil]

91. Well, not really that young...

Those events are relevant to the people in those countries, no question. They are not relevant in terms that the type of cooperation based capitalism that they represent is doomed to fail, IMHO. In a Globalized Word, whoever designs a system that words the best for people will get the best people and more resources. That is all I am saying.

No one is trying to "teach". I have my thoughts on how to help people. I am here to discuss.

[Echo In Light]

14. Which conservative sock puppet is this?

[BrentWil]

17. Not conservative..

I think to be competitive, and get the best minds you will have to provide a certain amount of security (health Care, Education, etc). That is what the Democratic party does. However, on the flip side, I in no way see them as anti business.

[Romulox]

28. Not "conservative"--just a social darwinist who heralds the era of the corporation-state!

I think I once heard George Bush say that you had to be "compassionate" to be a conservative. :silly:

[BrentWil]

39. ahhhh... name calling... you are such a good debater..

And no, not at all. As I said, the right balance is that the state provides a safety net of good education, health care, and some basic help with other basic needs. Social security is important. You just have to find a balance that works in a globalized world in which states will be in competition for investment capital and labor.

[leftstreet]

65. You only need a 'safety net' when you're making people walk high wires n/t

[BrentWil]

69. Call it what you want..

I am interested in a system that provides a path that ends poverty and provides a good life for as many people as possible.

[Trillo]

15. Those two items are mutually exclusive

"business friendly practices" and "enforcement of the rule of law"

[BrentWil]

16. Business cannot work without the rule of law..

Contract law, for example, is key for any business to work. People have to know that they can agree things between each other and those agreements can be enforced.

[Trillo]

25. After the U.S. government corruption we just witnessed

at MMS, in the Executive Branch, you still hold to that ridiculous idea?

"Rule of law", in practice and reality as opposed to theories of how it should be, is to keep the large mass of humans down; at the end of a baton, tazer, or firearm; while business is granted special exemptions to the same laws.

[BrentWil]

29. You are absolutely right

The type of corporatism that is happening in America is not helpful. Large business is using the power of government in ways that are unfair. A good movie on this is Beer Wars, by the way.

That is not my argument however. The little guy and the large guy have to be on the same playing field for the system to work. WHen they are not, I think that area will be at a disadvantage globally and that system will fail.

On the other hand, there have been great advances in places in China since 1980s and India since 1991. Millions of people have escaped absolute poverty in these states because they have adopted liberal economic policies. You are right, I cannot ignore corporate abuses. However, you can not ignore these facts. Reality is best looked at as a whole.

[proudohioan]

40. I wonder about your use of the term 'absolute poverty'....

on more than one post.

What exactly do you mean by 'absolute poverty'? Does escaping it simply mean that they are one or two steps above? If so, do you consider this a good thing?

Just wondering.

[BrentWil]

46. Okay

Absolute poverty is the absence of enough resources (such as money) to secure basic life necessities. And yes, people being able to eat and feed their families is a good thing. Many, in places like India, have escaped it far above "two steps". However, I see helping people as a good thing, whatever the amount.

[proudohioan]

47. OK, thanks....

It just seemed to me a curious term. Glad to know that some have escaped far above two steps, hopefully, it's most of them.

[geardaddy]

42. Seriously? You're using China as an example?

There are more people in poverty there now that liberal economic policies have been adopted. The people in the countryside have left the countryside to be subjected to outright slavery in the cities.

[BrentWil]

44. Read much history...

Do you know about the millions that died during the great leap forward and the cultural revolution.

Go to China. Ask the older people. They are in simply amazement of the great strides its nation has made since Deng Xiaoping took them down this road. China has problems, certainly, but as far as the vast majority of the people being better off economically, there is no question that is true.

[geardaddy]

45. Have you been there?

I have and I've seen what the poverty is now compared to what it was 20 years ago.

The death during the Cultural Revolution had nothing to do with poverty. They were pogroms.

I was a Chinese history major.

[BrentWil]

48. I have..

It is an amazing country that has came though a lot sense the eighteen hundreds. European intervention, the Taiping Rebellion, the Boxer Rebellion, the Communist Revolution, Invasion of Japan, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, etc... China is a nation that has overcame alot and I think Deng Xiaoping is one of the greatest people in history for aidding his people in such a massive way.

[BrentWil]

59. Also, just to point out...

Saying I have a degree does not bring much credence to your argument. Only facts do that. And I understand what the culture revolution was and what it was about. The point being, it sucked and Deng Xiaoping brought a long period of suffering, which the cultural revolution was simply part of, to an end.

[pampango]

53. "China’s rapid economic development...has generated the most rapid decline in absolute poverty ever

witnessed in human history.

Both national and international indicators show that China has already achieved the goal of halving the number of people in extreme poverty by 2015 set by the UN as one of eight Millennium Development Goals.

http://www.undp.org.cn/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&catid=10&sid=10

"Since the start of far-reaching economic reforms in the late 1970s, the growth fueled a remarkable increase in per capita income and a decline in the poverty rate from 64% at the beginning of reform to 10% in 2004."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China

I haven't seen the figures you referenced by saying "There are more people in poverty there now that liberal economic policies have been adopted."

[BrentWil]

55. Agreed.. the facts are rather amazing...

From the UN.

http://www.undp.org.cn/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&catid=10&sid=10

China’s rapid economic development in the past two decades has generated the most rapid decline in absolute poverty ever witnessed.
Both national and international indicators show that China has already achieved the goal of halving the number of people in extreme poverty by 2015 set by the UN as one of eight Millennium Development Goals.

http://www.undp.org.cn/downloads/nhdr2008/NHDR2008_en.pdf

China’s population is wealthier, better educated and healthier than it has ever been. The population en- joys unprecedented mobility within the country, and access to travel, work and study in the out- side world. And opportunities to develop one’s human capacity to the fullest are vastly greater than ever before. The benefits of the economic growth in the past 30 years have reached the whole society, including the poorest groups in the population. By any measure—whether the official national poverty line or the global US $1 per day line—several hundred million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty in less than half a lifetime, truly an historic achievement.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Feb/56694.htm


World Bank

The number of persons living in poverty in China was reduced from 250 million at the start of its reform process in 1978, to 80 million by the end of 1993 and to 29.27 million in 2001.

[treestar]

27. I guess there is some argument that if we go down others will too

And that if we succeed others can, since we managed to get ourselves to become central and the sole remaining superpower - we've gotten into a state where we are so involved, that our success is best for the rest of the world. Since it's not a zero sum game - everyone can win - it's not a bad thing.

[BrentWil]

52. I agree..

That is what I am saying. The World will be okay without the US.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. I smell a libertarian. -nt

[BrentWil]

32. No

Not really. That doesn't really work. People like stability (good schools, health care, etc). I am not sure of the right balance. All I know is whoever gets it right will become better off, in a globalized world.

[hunter]

33. The USA has been too "successful" in too many endeavors, most of them wretched.

If success means more "consumers," more cars, more trash, more unsustainable suburban blight, more stressful working conditions... well then, screw that. It's not worth it.

If success means we can brutalize and murder people in other nations, screw that too.

If success means we have the biggest baddest military machine, and military bases in places where people don't want us, and we kill people who stand in the way of our "success," screw that.

Our "success" as a nation destroys the earth's natural environment, destroys people, so screw it.

Let's not desire that kind of "success."

The USA we have today is a death machine. Let it fail, let it fall by the wayside as we build a better society that is free, sustainable, and just.

[BrentWil]

43. Rather interesting but..

..Will you deny "success" to the 300 million indians that are out of poverty now.

[hunter]

63. Climate change and peak oil are going to clobber India and China.

On the other hand, they may become giants in the field of carbon free power and transportation systems, especially nuclear power.

Both nations have the engineering talent to do spectacular things.

[BrentWil]

66. Climate Change..

Is a pressing problem. The only real way out of it is a carbon tax. That will hurt the poor the most, but it is the only way to create a higher price on carbon producing fuels in order to spur real development of alternatives. The real kicker is that it will have to be agreed upon by everyone and if a state holds out, they will have an economic advantage over other states.

It is a crazy situation, that is going to be hard to fix. The problem very much worries me.

[Blue-Jay]

35. I see what you did there.

It's nice how you inserted "immigration policies" in an OP that's not about immigration.

/buddy-listed

[BrentWil]

41. No not at all..

it was supposed to be there. Hard working people and intelligent people coming to any state is a great thing. States that block that and force an underground labor market are at a disadvantage.

[Blue-Jay]

50. OK.

Nice to meetcha, buddy.

[marmar]

49. Hello Ayn !!!!

[BrentWil]

51. hahahaha....

Did you fail to mention my support for education, health care, and a safety net for people?

Funny times. Just because I see one fact, doesn't mean I don't see others.

[geardaddy]

54. +1

[BrentWil]

58. What are you saying with the +1

I am Rand or you agree with me?

[Spike89]

75. missing a key element and a few false assumptions

The element you miss is that the competition for capital is mostly a low-level economy game. In other words, commodity labor is really what moves a certain segment of business around. This has a pretty significant effect on the poorest countries and even in the richer countries, it can affect the very poor. It doesn't truly move up the economic ladder. For instance, a shoe manufacturer such as Nike may contract with a factory in India that offers your "business-friendly" environment...they pay $2/day and the local people are better off than they were. Along comes China and they have a factory that will work for $1.50/day...India's poor suffer, China's do a little better than they were. Big effects for lots of people.

However, Nike keeps its advertising, marketing, design, and administrative jobs where? In the U.S. where they have advanced infrastructure, access to lots and lots of college educators workers. In this scenario, how exactly is the U.S. hurt? What jobs do we want to grow here? What are the kinds of jobs that will continue to provide living wages for families?

For the moment, the U.S. still leads the world in production (in dollar value produced) but we don't do it by using cheap labor doing robotic assembly. We produce mostly high-end, complex systems and devices (did you know we provide more engines for high-speed rail in Europe than anyone else?) Those are good jobs. There are future jobs (and current ones too) that the US can compete for and regularly wins. Despite everything wrong with our healthcare system, we do produce an awful lot of the world's medical research, devices, and medicine. PHds and creative people are both highly employable and in demand here and worldwide. You create both of those type people with worker-friendly environments, moderate to high taxes, great social services...oh, and liberal immigration policies.

[BrentWil]

79. There is certainly a mix that will make as more competitive in the global market..

However, your comments on China and India show little respect for the huge advances that those states have made and the amount of difference those advances have made in people's lives.

[Spike89]

80. India and China are catching up, no disrespect

The point I'm making is that the basic model you put forth only allows for "catching up" and the next step--a sustainable, decent standard of living requires a shift from the low-labor, low tax, pro-business model to a more worker-friendly, knowlege-and-craft friendly model.

Unskilled and even semi-skilled labor will always be poorly valued and transient. Not that autoworkers are unskilled, but the fact is that today's factories can produce more and better cars with fewer workers than they could 20 years ago. That trend is not going to turn around. It is true for most any manufacturing job. The history of the industrial revolution is not finished. It quickly made the profession of farmer a shrinking trade, but opened the doors of factories building tractors, combines, etc. For decades now, accelerated by advances in computers/robotics, factories have become less and less labor intensive. The new employment doors aren't fully apparent, but I'm guessing more knowlege work, more crafts, more service.

Chasing after the factory job lost to developing countries where the populace is currently willing to undercut (barely) the cost of a robotic facility is not good strategy. Selling out our standards of living to maintain a "business-friendly" environment is just wrong. We need to look to the future where uniquely human abilities are valued--that is almost the opposite of your description of a globally competitive state.

[BrentWil]

82. Not really...

I think in the end, what you will see is even diffusion among states of resources. It isn't catching up as much as it will be competition among states to find the policies that work the best and make people want to stay there and capital to flow in. The rule of law, stability, an educated and healthy population will all be important. I disagree that we will be selling out anything. Instead it will be a path to lifting people up.

You speak for the industrial revolution and farming. That is certainly true. However, those jobs were eliminated and it allowed more labor to work on other things. The fact is, the industrial revolution has vastly increased agriculture output and ensured that it requires less labor. Having a green revolution is one of the key pieces that is missing in many states. Freeing up labor from a task is not a bad thing, in that it allows for the labor to be used for other things that continue to improve the basic standard of living. A key book I would suggest on this is Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of Africa by Robert Paarlber. I would argue farm welfare is one of the key things that we are doing to destroy the ability of poorer states have green revolutions.

In many ways, the future you want is here. Labor has never been more empowered then it is today and will be more empowered tomorrow. Rather it is skilled labor or unskilled, the future will allow that labor to find and move to places where it can maximize its profit. The days of company towns are over, at least in the United States. Hopefully they will be over in the World sooner rather then later.

[Ardent15]

76. Which America? There are two.

The wealthy, ruling class minority, or the majority of people who struggle to get by?

[BrentWil]

78. As much as I want to poor to do better...

I have seen real and complete poverty. That is a struggle for survival.

I would reword your statement a little because in my opinion it demeans the complete poverty one sees in other states and tries to make to make it comparable to US poverty.