Re: Excellent Article
- From: "Phil Scott" <philscott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 03:38:23 -0700
"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mrqsd193b6v4vtjm3j3d520sv56cm50nre@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:52:11 GMT, Wendy Chatley Green
> <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>For some inexplicable reasons, Josh Hill
>><usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> quoted
>>some uncredited writer who wrote the following:
>>
>>:" American producers are generally free - and even
>>encouraged by
>>:Washington - to shift production to low-wage locations."
>>
>> Are you saying that the rest of the world's producers don't
>>shift production to lower-wage locations?
>>
>> I'm a producer. The main downward pressure on prices is
>>caused by cheap completed unit imported from India and
>>China--I can't
>>sell an alternator for $100 when the competition imports the
>>same
>>model for $40 and resells it for $80. Either I match that
>>price
>>(losing $20 in profits) or I lose the sale (and all the
>>profits.)
>>
>> These units are not produced by American companies, but by
>>locally owned companies who want to join the manufacturing
>>community.
>>(IMO, good for them.)
>
> Did you read the entire article? One of the points the
> fellow who
> wrote it made was that other countries have managed to avoid
> this
> pitfall:
>
> "But on the crucial question of how policy makers define
> 'national
> interest,' Washington stands alone. Western Europe, whatever
> its
> problems, manages economic policy to maintain modest trade
> surpluses.
> Japan manages to insure far larger surpluses in recessions
> (its export
> income subsidizes inefficient domestic employers). China
> strives to
> acquire a larger, more advanced industrial base at the
> expense of
> worker incomes and bank profits. Germany and Japan, despite
> vast
> differences, both manage to keep advanced manufacturing
> sectors
> anchored at home and to defend domestic wage levels and
> social
> guarantees. When they do disperse production and jobs
> overseas, as
> they must, they do so strategically.
>
> "By contrast, Washington defines 'national interest'
> primarily in
> terms of advancing the global reach of our multinational
> enterprises."
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/opinion/18greider.html?incamp=article_popular&pagewanted=all
>
> It seems to me that the issues here aren't simple.
> Protectionism can
> have a harmful effect on world trade, and can damage a local
> economy
> by in effect subsidizing uncompetitive businesses or driving
> up the
> cost of the components and raw materials they use. European
> countries
> that have adopted protectionist policies appear in many
> cases to have
> sacrificed growth to maintain high wages.
>
> But I think the author's point is that, with our net foreign
> indebtedness now at 25% of our gross domestic product and
> slated to
> reach 50% in the next few years, with our factories moving
> overseas,
> and with real wages for the poor and middle class stagnant
> for 30
> years now, the status quo is unsustainable and harmful to
> the American
> worker.
>
>>:""INDEED, the cumulative effects of retarding labor incomes
>>worldwide
>>:repeatedly threatens stagnation or worse for the entire
>>system.
>>:Workers, to put it crudely, cannot buy what the world can
>>make. Too
>>:much capital leads to the speculative "bubbles" that bounce
>>around the
>>:world, visiting financial crisis on rich and poor alike."
>>
>> You haven't done much research, have you? (rhetoric
>>question--I know that you haven't or you'd know that wages
>>tend to
>>rise in such areas.)
>
> You seem to be confused about what the author is saying,
> which is
> this:
>
> 1. Labor is a commodity, and for that reason, wages respond
> to the
> laws of supply and demand. Introduce a surplus of unskilled
> laborers
> by reducing tariffs, as we have done, and the wages earned
> by
> unskilled laborers at home will, all other things being
> equal,
> decrease. (Or, in a more intuitive formulation, if you make
> $10 an
> hour for mowing a lawn and someone opens the border to
> people in
> Mexico who get $1 an hour, you aren't going to be making $10
> for very
> long.)
>
> 2. When wages are pushed down, workers have less money to
> buy goods.
> This leads to low demand and a sluggish economy.
>
> 4. National banks attempt to compensate for the sluggish
> demand by
> making loans essentially free -- reducing the prime rate to
> near zero,
> or its equivalent.
>
> 5. The ready availability of nearly free money leads to
> speculative
> bubbles, e.g., the current American housing boom.
>
>>"Information technology workers in India reported
>>double-digit salary
>>growth in 2003, according to recent research, while pay for
>>similar
>>work within US borders has been relatively stagnant if not
>>declining.
>>Although India's salaries generally remain significantly
>>lower than US
>>averages, the narrowing wage gap and other unforeseen
>>factors are
>>leading at least some American companies to reassess the
>>cost savings
>>to be had by sending work offshore."
>>
>><http://insight.zdnet.co.uk/specials/outsourcing/0,39026381,39150917,00.htm>
>
> Right, these things tend towards equilibrium. Unfortunately,
> that
> equilibrium may not favor the American worker. Also, as
> things now
> stand, we're moving away from equilibrium rather than
> towards it.
> There's always another low-wage third world country to which
> we can
> export jobs -- there are, after all, billions of them, and
> only 300
> million of us. And our policies have encouraged a trade
> deficit. We'e
> allowed China, for example, to keep the Yuan artificially
> low against
> the dollar. The Chinese are willing to dump their products
> and lend us
> money to buy them if that's what it takes to get our
> factories and
> know-how.
>
> --
> Josh
We have in the US a management and behind the scenes moneyed
class that can afford to do without services by various means
temporarily...that leverage is used to offer progressively
lower compensation to producers...driving wages continuously
south.
These do this... not from evil intent, but to compete with
each other out of greed, to beat the bottom line and expand
the business. About the same as most cancers do in any
living organism.
Those cells living as part of the cancer are themselves
malignant.
One has personal choices in those regards. Maybe thats one of
our greatest opportunities as humans... to be, or not to
be..part of that sort of thing.
SBC bell, DSL service went from 59 dollars to 14 dollars a
month over a 3 year period.. as the dollar lost 30% of its
value...SBC will be driven down to marginal profit levels by
corporate competitors... all involved will do that by
cutting costs, and by gaining efficiency.. and those all tend
to drive down the need for *human labor and skill sets, as
functions are automated etc...this drives down wages...and
renders humanity a disposable commondity.
Sort of like a cancer in a human body renders its host
disposable and wasteable to service the needs of the
cancer...and this goes on..until the cancer sucks all the life
from the body.
Thats the nature of a corporation. Thats its structure and
its charter. to survive. Period. End of charter. No
requirement what so ever to aid humanity. An alien concept to
an inhuman entity of course. the corporation is simply not
human. Not its fault at all. Just a fact.
Mankind as created its own Alien...devouring itself from
within by means of the corporation.
as the wages are driven down ....then all costs must be driven
down in order not to be repressive...but thats not the case...
food, fuel and medicine and real estate are rising at 15% or
for the last 5 years...and wages are stagnant or down.
If you exagerate both trends grossly... you can see where it
ends in various countries around the world, under various
systems of govt. Pure capitalist systems and pure socialist
systems can polarize to the gross detriment of the middle
class.
The upper and lower classes go to extremes. the net result
is that the productive middle class is decimated, that loss of
production decimates govt income, national solvency, and its
military.. . then the nation goes into collapse, looses its
ability to muscle its way around in the world and becomes a
poorer, second rate nation.
Thats the pattern apparently as either reaches its extremes.
Exceptions are govts that do not fund much of a military, and
direct all energy to production, and social welfare...they end
up with a bloated govt at worst... but the lack of waste on a
military allows the nation reasonable prosperity... The
Netherlands are a reasonable example of that today, NZ, and
Australlia and to an increasing extent, China. the socialist
structure sucks enough blood from its corporations to feed the
people. Such a nation does not then enable the super
corporation.
The United States is home to the worlds super corporations.
The USA and Russia are examples of nations decimated by a
rapacious military, attempts to dominate (to secure oil
interests for instance)... The Russians fell first... the US
will fall next. As the Chinese and Indians rise to power. the
super corporations will straddle both worlds.
Since Russia fell first, it is beginning on its recovery phase
as the US declines...we see now Russia aligning with China.
this along with US error and a rapacious military, bloated
govt etc...and a tax rate that has resulted in a baby bust,
and US corporations eating its young, canibalizing themselves
and the US citiznry....will all factor into rough times ahead
for those it feeds on... the producive working class. the
body politic. the body of the nation thus afflicted.
Will this lead to total collapse as some predict? Probably
not. Our agriculture, and energy infrastructure and ability
to build nuclear power plants fast etc..and our geographic
isolation from enemies all mitigate against total collapse.
But a down cycle lasting 50 to 100 years at this point imo is
unavoidable...corporate rapacity will not make it anymore
pleasant.
How will that affect everyone? The lower classes will eat a
little less well and die a little sooner than the upper
classes.. whats left of the middle class will slide by... the
rich will get richer...and progressively less human as they
are coopted by the corporate cancer..these become cancer
cells.. physically healthy... but the disease itself.
For most people the issue will be how to get into or stay in
the middle class. (answer: keep pushing the skills
envelope, or take a mind and spirit destroying civil service
job, or become an entrepreneur and be good at it.).
it will be tough for the US lower classes imho...about half as
bad as the Russians had it. There is a series over the last
month, 3 parts by a Russian journalist on the comparisions at
www.fromthewilderness.com (subscription but the summaries
are free, and in 30 days those go off subscription... accurate
to a very large degree, unnerving...but also imo a bit
exagerated.. and not mentioning as I have here the nature of
corporations as cancerous).
Eventual relief? The next pandemic, routine over world
history. Those take out 25 to 40% of the world population.
The next will leave a wonderland of prosperity...
property values will drop dramatically because of reduced
demand...goods will be cheap because of less demand but
production capacity will still be high because its automated.
How long with that last? Quite a while.
so what is a good plan for a living person?
relax, enjoy, don't worry, stay healthy...dont bleed your guts
for government or any corporation or other interest.
dont get greedy because that ruins you from the inside...let
it roll. You will die sure as hell regardless.
Rich or poor we are all just a micro second away from death on
geological time scales.
If you burn out or turn to stone from being greedy and vicious
in the fight ...you gain nothing, and your immune system will
be weak...(if you are well off and live extra clean your
immune system will also be weak)....
If you relax.. and dont die of old age, and are here for the
next pandemic, and survive...life will be good for you... the
middle and lower classes will tend to survive the next
pandemic to a greater degree than some rich and all very poor
people who are malnurished.
How long will the good times last as far as you are concerned?
A micro second in geogical time.. so enjoy. Because if you do
not enjoy, because you are reacting to some white knuckled
greedy boss, or your own greed, or irritation at an insane
culture...you have lost it all anyway...
Which leaves us what is the purpose of all this? To eat more
than ones neighbor? One can get to 800 lbs that way... a
total victory?
Not hardly.
How about one becomes a super intelligent rapacious corporate
attorney able to devise ways of eviscerating the money and
life from everything in the vicinity? The perfect cancer.
Well fine. Except I've seen such men...the one I met today
looked like an alien with his head clean groomed and jaws like
a grasshopper...somehow that left me revolted to the core.
I know better men...relaxed...in love... kind, decent...
poor...and not so poor... some wise, some not. ..their women
loved them.. some soar on the wind even now...
So what is there then.
well maybe just humble grace..thats not such a bad end game...
or maybe grace and wisdom...an utter pleasure but more than
that beyond words.
It may be that such crosses the threashold of death as well
and does not turn to stone.
The corporate attorney though, at least the one I noticed
today...a strategist with legs like tooth picks, and hunched
over from pouring over documents his entire life.... its not
going to end that way for him.
There is nothing there now, there will be nothing there
later.. except maybe a head like alien... trim looking
though...a grasshopper head, and a 200 dollar haircut ...that
was impressive..
Phil Scott
.
- References:
- Re: Excellent Article
- From: Wendy Chatley Green
- Re: Excellent Article
- From: Josh Hill
- Re: Excellent Article
- Prev by Date: Re: Karl Rove, Guilt or Innocence?
- Next by Date: The Corporation Man
- Previous by thread: Re: Excellent Article
- Next by thread: Re: Excellent Article
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
