WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush distanced himself Wednesday from White House predictions that the economy will add 2.6 million jobs this year, the second embarrassing economic retreat in a week and new fuel for Democratic criticism.

"Now they're already walking backwards on their own predictions," Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry said in Ohio, where unemployment has risen from 3.9 percent to 6 percent since Bush took office.


Jobs are a sensitive political issue for Bush as he fights to keep his own job in a second term. The economy has lost 2.2 million payroll jobs since Bush took office, the worst job-creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover. (Full Text Here) (http://www.channelone.com/news/2004/02/19/ap_jobs/)

Time's ticking for Bush. The economy's spiraling downwards. The door of hope is closing rapidly on Bush before he can get to it. One thing that wouldn't surprise me is Osama getting captured. And if Bush's ratings do up just because of that, I pretty much lost faith in the American people. Catching that one guy isn't going to change anything. It isn't going gain America anything, when you weigh it on to what America has lost.

Osama's dead. Let's just hope there isn't another taste of the terror south Asia is experiiencing in America again. That would be the Busheviks best means to keeping power.

Longer term, the US trade and fiscal deficits, and the rise of the Euro are going to result in a serious downturn in the US economy, and who ever is in power when it happens, I think within the next decade, will pay the political penalty. In a few years, the present US economy will seem rosy in retrospect.

"We are interested in reality," presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said.So ... what, then, was that report from your boss and his economic council?

And how will the Democrats bring back those jobs? I only hear about what Bush is doing wrong but never anything about how the Democrats will fix anything. Any solutions out there from Democratic candidates or only pointing fingers??

Easy, by doing the opposite of Bush’s strategy. Since his strategy is designed to make his rich supporters richer at the expense of everyone else, doing the opposite will make his rich supporters poorer (but still amply wealthy) at the benefit of everyone else. All the next Democrat has to do is follow Clinton’s lead; his strategy obviously worked great. Repeal tax cuts, get out of Iraq, be optimistic rather than a big downer, drop plans to drill in Alaska & quadruple logging, re-instantiate environmental laws that were rolled back, court international relations instead of trample on them, etc. Upon seeing those positive actions business will immediately predict an uptick in the economy and will start hiring in anticipation to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any Democrat will naturally do many or all of these actions, because they are beholden to the general public rather than the elite.

Strange that the demos candidates aren't saying that. If they repeal the logging laws then there will be fewer jobs not more. So Democratic candidates don't help their rich backers? I'd say they are helping the rich in their party as much as the Republicans help their backers so that's not much to talk about to help the Democrats. So Clintons strategy worked great, is that why less than 1 year after Bush took office we were bombed by the terrorist Osama Bin Laden that Clinton didn't go after and bring to justice when Clinton was president? Also the economy can't be totally blamed on Bush because it went downhill right after 9/11 if you recall. As of now it is on the rebound if you will look at unemployment rates, housing starts and the stock market. All of those areas are looking very good.

Strange that the demos candidates aren't saying that.

All candidates have to say what best increases their odds of getting elected. They aren’t going to talk about all their plans. Generally the less said the better given Americans’ penchant for sound bites.


If they repeal the logging laws then there will be fewer jobs not more.

Nope, more. I suppose if we killed all the bears, wolves, mountain lions, elk etc. (whose habitat was cut down anyway) and replaced those useless national parks with productive farms, that would create more jobs too, right? Think about it.


So Democratic candidates don't help their rich backers? I'd say they are helping the rich in their party as much as the Republicans help their backers so that's not much to talk about to help the Democrats.

They help their rich backers in a long-term way, by strengthening the economy as a whole. The Republicans help their rich backers by trashing the economy; a short-term solution.


So Clintons strategy worked great, is that why less than 1 year after Bush took office we were bombed by the terrorist Osama Bin Laden that Clinton didn't go after and bring to justice when Clinton was president?

Clinton did go after him. He couldn’t have done much more considering that bin Laden hadn’t yet done 9/11; he was properly prioritized given that the future was unknown. Bush likewise did little about bin Laden until 9/11.


Also the economy can't be totally blamed on Bush because it went downhill right after 9/11 if you recall.

No, it started its downhill slide the day it became apparent he might actually win the election. The peak of the market was Election Day 2000. The smart money knew he would trash the economy to enrich his supporters. Between Election Day 2000 and 9/10/2001 the stock market dropped 24%!


As of now it is on the rebound if you will look at unemployment rates, housing starts and the stock market. All of those areas are looking very good.

It’s on the rebound after being methodically trashed and the rebound is funded by a massive increase in debt that must be paid back with interest. Please, look at the whole picture.

The simple fact is the US is in terminal economic decline. No matter what the US does it will not be able to remain #1. Let's say that the US keeps up the process of Globalization the US will have to lose jobs, and have to give up economic power. The US will eventually look like Japan (but at least in Japan they have industry), the single greatest threat to the US imo is deflation that is when the US sticks it's foot in the grave. Already the US has the other three D's:

i) Debt- exploding from $5 trillion in 2001 to $7 trillion today, and if Bush gets another 4 it could go up another $5 trillion. If the world abandons the US dollar for the Euro (which is not out of contention), the US is seriously f***ed.
ii) Budget deficit- the US went from a budget surplus in 2001 of around $ 200 billion, to a $500 billion deficit today. That is $700 billion spent, 9.11 is not the cause of that. The huge and unnecessary permanent tax cuts have eaten away at the base, and other large expenditures.
iii) Trade deficit- states with trade deficits are never in good economic situations. The US is in about $ 800 billion trade deficit with the world, with 1/8 of that being from China alone. Consider this the Chinese in 1990 were net importers from the US ($ 8 billion imports, $5 billion exports), and today the Chinese are net exporters ($116 billion exports, and $28 billion imports). That is expected to boom to about $ 300 billion in 2005, that is China alone.

Likely outcome:

iv) With the loss of jobs to cheap overseas labour, and the almost inevitable lower costs, of things and lower wages deflation will eventually hit the US imo. The world in globalization will balance itself out, where inflation exists in the 3rd world and deflation in the 1st to reach a synthesis.

With the US dollar going who knows where, and the strength of the Euro, OPEC seriously considering using Euros and the Chinese and Japanese openly expressing interest in Euro currency who will buy America? It may be that the US is a slave to exchange rates of the almighty Euro. Possible, but we will have to wait and see. But the US will not keep her position for much longer. So any growth in the US (imo) will be largely jobless, and the symptom of Globalization. Welcome to pseudo-growth.

That outcome may indeed be likely. You still want a Democrat in the White House to make the outcome as best as possible. Globalization may lower the average American’s standard of living in the short term. In the long term (a century or more) the US will be much better off having embraced that route. If population can be reduced the equalized world could be a paradise relative to what we have today.

Globalization may lower the average American’s standard of living in the short term.

What would you characterize as "short term"? The US decline may last up to 20 years if not even more.

In the long term (a century or more) the US will be much better off having embraced that route.

IMO only if man has begun to colonize other planets, it is estimated to bring all of the world's ppl to out current western standard of living there has to be two other earths. If Globalization runs its course, there will be no such thing as the US, and other nation-states. I fear globalization due to the fact that it will eventually collapse if left to it's own devices, mergers, and chronically lower wages, until you have a capitalist dictatorship which employs all. Imagine Wal-Mart being the ruler of the world? I mean it sounds idiotic at first, I am the first to concede that fact, but without nation states, who regulates capitalism?

If population can be reduced the equalized world could be a paradise relative to what we have today.

The big problem is that "if".

Undecided, your kind of a pessimist aren't you? (joke)
If The American dollar does start to deflate American goods become cheaper to other countries, then they buy more American and the dollar goes back up. If the Euro becomes worth a lot more than the US dollar Americans can't afford to buy european goods and their economy drops. If every American jobs goes to Asia, Americans will not have jobs and not be able to buy the goods American companies make in Asia. If the US economy crashes so will the rest of the worlds.
The problem since Dubya took office, has been American companies not spending on anything, the Fed raised interest rates to high and companies quit investing, then Dubya's economic policies and 911. Getting a Democrat in office will hopefully give the companies a good warm feeling and make them start spending again, not to mention better economic policies.

Undecided, your kind of a pessimist aren't you? (joke)

No I am an optimist for the world economy...

If The American dollar does start to deflate American goods become cheaper to other countries,

The American dollar has already been in major deflationary pressures, and the Fed to the best of my knowledge likes that, like you said it increases the viability of American made goods overseas. But the problem is that China is not budging on her Reninimbi and is frozen at I think around 8 for the dollar, making Chinese goods extra ordinarily cheap on the international markets, which is the new reality in the NWO. The US is angry that the Chinese are playing the game. So really American exports aren't really getting much of a boost if the Chinese goods are still that much cheaper.

then they buy more American and the dollar goes back up.

A country like China and Japan are already looking else where to invest their billions. The US needs $1.5 billion a day to feed her appetite, this is unsustainable. The country is living beyond her means in almost every faucet from importation of capital, to importation of goods, and even oil. You are dependants as us as we are you.

If the Euro becomes worth a lot more than the US dollar Americans can't afford to buy european goods and their economy drops. If every American jobs goes to Asia, Americans will not have jobs and not be able to buy the goods American companies make in Asia. If the US economy crashes so will the rest of the worlds.

Maybe right now and maybe in the next 10 years, but the whole basis of Globalization is to make new markets. You must understand the money getting out of the US is not money that simply disappears, no rather three things happen:

- Wealth is concentrated at the top.
- More workers in the 3rd world are employed making a new market.
- The US will simply go into deflationary mode like Europe and Japan.

This will essentially mean the there will be bigger and more exploitable markets overseas. Most Americans soon will not be able to consume anymore they are in debt to their eyeballs, and when interest rates goes up who is going to pay all that extra debt? That is a very serious issue.

The problem since Dubya took office, has been American companies not spending on anything, the Fed raised interest rates to high and companies quit investing,

Watch your tongue; the US companies are not investing in the US. Be holistic please...

Getting a Democrat in office will hopefully give the companies a good warm feeling and make them start spending again, not to mention better economic policies.

That is a hope, but I don't think it's much of a reality.

What would you characterize as "short term"? The US decline may last up to 20 years if not even more.

That’s short term in this context for me.


IMO only if man has begun to colonize other planets, it is estimated to bring all of the world's ppl to out current western standard of living there has to be two other earths.

No question that resources do not support the western standard of living being adopted by all of the current population. I mean that US will be much better off having embraced globalization than if it embraced the alternative.


If Globalization runs its course, there will be no such thing as the US, and other nation-states.

True, they will be nominalized.


I fear globalization due to the fact that it will eventually collapse if left to it's own devices, mergers, and chronically lower wages, until you have a capitalist dictatorship which employs all.

No reason it has to be a dictatorship. I consider that unlikely. The global average wage is increasing.


Imagine Wal-Mart being the ruler of the world? I mean it sounds idiotic at first, I am the first to concede that fact, but without nation states, who regulates capitalism?

The global democracy.


The big problem is that "if".

It’s doubtful that population will exist at its maximum for long. It’s now above the maximum that is sustainable long term. People will wisen up or die miserably. I’m confident they’ll make the best choice. A globalized world will make the choice easier to implement. I think all things considered we’re entering a golden era for the greatest number of people.

That’s short term in this context for me.

Ok, whatever floats ur boat.

I mean that US will be much better off having embraced globalization than if it embraced the alternative.

I think Americans won't live like they live now. I think Americans will have a generally lower living standard then today. It is impossible for the earth to maintain the current level of US standards for the next 100 years, and still develop other nations around the world. I think that America will live well, but not as good as today.

No reason it has to be a dictatorship. I consider that unlikely. The global average wage is increasing.

I don't see the difference btwn communism, and capitalism at the end of the day. They both are either anarchical in nature, or authoritarian. If you look at the mergers, and acquisitions they are increasing (although I think the last year was not a good one). The overall trend is bigger and bigger and bigger, without governmental power to curb monopolies I think we are in for big trouble. Soviet Capitalism...

The global democracy.

I think this is true, but only for shareholders, not for the ppl of the world.

A globalized world will make the choice easier to implement. I think all things considered we’re entering a golden era for the greatest number of people.

Very utilitarian indeed, but the question is what is that standard for the world? I mean consider this, the US GDP per capita is $37,000 in 2002. The average world GDP / capita is $7,500 in 2002. If Globalization is to reach it's entelechy the US would (let's use today's dollars) decrease by $30,000! Is this really feasible?

I find something quite disturbing from the democrats; they are being very reactionary with Free Trade and jobs. Yes it does damage to the US economy, and ppl (and of course presidents should avoid that) but the question is will this decade become protectionist after two decades of neo-liberalist reforms?

I think that America will live well, but not as good as today.

“Good” is debatable. In terms of GDP/capita, agreed, until population subsides. In terms of quality of life I think America will be better off. For example Spain has a lower GDP/capita than the US but to even the untrained eye their quality of life in many ways surpasses the US’s. People actually talk to strangers there! And take long vacations. Too much money has made the average American fearful, isolated & wanting more more more. As the GDP/capita decreases people will demand a higher quality of life in return. They won’t be so quick to blow away kids in other countries to raid their resources, in a quest for ever more money & things that ultimately bring less satisfaction than, say, playing a board game with the neighbors.


If you look at the mergers, and acquisitions they are increasing (although I think the last year was not a good one). The overall trend is bigger and bigger and bigger, without governmental power to curb monopolies I think we are in for big trouble. Soviet Capitalism...

The democratic power to curb monopolies is still exercised in the US. There are exceptions like Microsoft but it’s mostly done well. Mergers and acquisitions can be good for the consumer too. When 20,000 redundant people get laid off that’s good in the long run.


I think this is true, but only for shareholders, not for the ppl of the world.

It’s always up to the people to protect their power. If a minority of shareholders has the reins that is because the majority gave it to them. Such is the case now in the US.


Very utilitarian indeed, but the question is what is that standard for the world? I mean consider this, the US GDP per capita is $37,000 in 2002. The average world GDP / capita is $7,500 in 2002. If Globalization is to reach it's entelechy the US would (let's use today's dollars) decrease by $30,000! Is this really feasible?

Or the world GDP/capita could become $15,000 while the US GDP/capita becomes $15,000.


I find something quite disturbing from the democrats; they are being very reactionary with Free Trade and jobs. Yes it does damage to the US economy, and ppl (and of course presidents should avoid that) but the question is will this decade become protectionist after two decades of neo-liberalist reforms?

Doubtful. I think they’re just saying what it takes to win (required to compete against lies from the other side). The cat’s out of the bag; protectionism won’t fly again except on small scales. A Democrat likely would manage globalization for the US better than would a Republican.

The door of hope is closing rapidly on Bush before he can get to it.

True, I saw the poll with either Kerry or Edwards beating Bush by double digits. But that doesn't mean anything right now. There's no truly accurate way to judge how the American people feel about this president or how strongly until election day. I think that Bush will win, but I hope that he won't. I wouldn't be surprised if another major terrorist attack is thrown at us near the end of his term, especially if he's doing poorly in the polls. Whoever winds up being the frontrunner for the democrat nominee (still up for grabs, first tuesday in march will pretty much decide the victor however) may have to worry about an assassination--they killed Wellstone and Hatfield, why not Kerry?

If I were the democratic nominee, I would pull the same stunt that Bush did. Campaign on moderation, then do whatever the hell I want when I'm elected. It worked for Bush...


In a few years, the present US economy will seem rosy in retrospect.

Nothing is definite. You can predict what'll happen with as many numbers and quotes as you want but you can never say definitively that we'll live to see the day when the United States of America has truly lost its hegemony.


And how will the Democrats bring back those jobs? I only hear about what Bush is doing wrong but never anything about how the Democrats will fix anything. Any solutions out there from Democratic candidates or only pointing fingers??

It's not just about Democrats. I wish a Republican, like McCain, would try for it again, give "that fucker Bush" a run for his money. I hate to say that all it comes down to is anyone but Bush. Anyone can do a better job than him. You, me, anybody.


Let's say that the US keeps up the process of Globalization the US will have to lose jobs, and have to give up economic power.

I fail to see the logic here. We were gaining jobs under Clinton, we were out a' globalizin' just as much, if not more, than we are now. What's the difference? All that matters is that you've got a smart cookie at the helm. We, unfortunately, do not--all we have are clueless balding graying men who were born into their majesties. Globalization does not necessarily equal job loss.

Perhaps Europe will take back its hegemony, perhaps not. You cannot definitively say that we will lose our power because these poor conditions our country is experiencing are reversible. Why? Because, until the twilight days of Clinton's reign, they did not exist. Different man at the helm equals different condition.


Getting a Democrat in office will hopefully give the companies a good warm feeling and make them start spending again, not to mention better economic policies.

Yes, exactly. Somehow, taxing and regulating companies the liberal way makes them and their customers wealthier.

We were gaining jobs under Clinton, we were out a' globalizin' just as much, if not more, than we are now.

During the Clinton era you had a economic growth spurt true, but do you really think that jobs did not leave the US? In the 90's you had merely the begining of true Globalization, and the US was benfiting from good fiscal policy, and confidence. But as new markets opened for instance in China, NAFTA, and free trade agreements with other states, you would notice that the luster of the American economy was lost. The Clinton era created what? 30 million jobs, but now those jobs are threatened by open job markets, and more lax governments overseas.

Globalization does not necessarily equal job loss.

Globalization means that living standards go down, good paying jobs will not exist like they do now. It is generally accepted that wages have gone down, that productivity is up, and you know why? Productivity is going up because of the fact that those jobs are overseas. The company is saving money, and it looks as if productivity has gone up, but it really hasn't. Rather the way it works is that company X exports 2 jobs, it takes 10 ppl to make a computer let's say, so in the US it now looks like 8 ppl are doing the job of 10, but they really aren't. What does that mean? Less jobs.

You cannot definitively say that we will lose our power because these poor conditions our country is experiencing are reversible.

I very highly doubt the US can reverse now.

Why? Because, until the twilight days of Clinton's reign, they did not exist. Different man at the helm equals different condition.

Not nessecarily the president really can only do so much in a capitalistic economy. Clinton was the instagator, and Bush only continued the process. Globalization is free of whose in power, fiscal policy isn't don'y confuse the two.

The Clinton era created what? 30 million jobs, but now those jobs are threatened by open job markets, and more lax governments overseas.

I'm not aware as to the definite numbers but I think 30 million jobs is a bit much, if you're talking about just the United States, which has a population of 280 million. You're talking about one in nine Americans getting a job under Clinton...it just doesn't add up.


The Clinton era created what? 30 million jobs, but now those jobs are threatened by open job markets, and more lax governments overseas.

This just depends on the leader you've got at the moment. Our president favors whoever has or can make the most money, so he could care less about our jobs going off to India or China. If I were President, ideally, I would give breaks to large multinational corporations that worked in the US instead of abroad. However, this would not be at the center of my strategy for holding corporations accountable. I would work toward an era where governments everywhere have to be held to the standard of work environment that we have established in the United States, which, in comparison to places like India and China, is heavenly. Through whatever means. There is no reason for the people behind of different borders to be subject to draconian labor laws.


Globalization means that living standards go down

Oh come on. I doubt there has been any noticeable change in standard of living in this country. I hate to say it but standard of living has likely increased in hells like India because of the money, however minimal, our corporations are putting there.


good paying jobs will not exist like they do now.

I disagree. We give them the jobs that don't require the skill or education that comes with being an American citizen. Well paying jobs remain here until people start going to India to get their educations instead of the United States.


I very highly doubt the US can reverse now.

That's hyperbole. Odd how it switched itself from the golden years under Clinton to the apocalypse under Bush almost overnight. That leads me to believe that we can return to an era where our president (like Clinton) still kind of sucks but at least knows how to do a few things right--unlike our own, who has either on purpose or through bumbling yokel idiocy crumbled the spires of the gleaming American citadel upon the hill. Heh...I love metaphors....


Not nessecarily the president really can only do so much in a capitalistic economy.

It's odd how, since Reagan's coronation, we've only had poor economies under Republican president's. The rich fatten their legs while the poor flee with theirs. Under the last democratic president, this was still true, but to a lesser extent. Apparently it can be concluded that the president does have some power in the economy when this pattern is examined. I'm not sure if we could ever know for sure, but if a democrat wins the presidency, and if the economy improves under him, we will only have more evidence to prove the point.

It's odd how, since Reagan's coronation, we've only had poor economies under Republican president's. The rich fatten their legs while the poor flee with theirs. Under the last democratic president, this was still true, but to a lesser extent. Apparently it can be concluded that the president does have some power in the economy when this pattern is examined. I'm not sure if we could ever know for sure, but if a democrat wins the presidency, and if the economy improves under him, we will only have more evidence to prove the point.

Sorry, I'm just popping my head in for a minute. That statement, what you wrote Pollux, is wrong. I couldn't help myself from posting this. The economy, for those of us who remember, started to go south during the year 2000 with the fall of the Dot Com's. This all happend under Clinton's administration. Not to mention the fact that we tend to go into a recession every ten years or so. It's normal. Completely normal.

And here, let me give you something: Washington Post - Registration Required (Give a fake email if you want, I did). (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56170-2004Feb19.html)

I'm not aware as to the definite numbers but I think 30 million jobs is a bit much,


"We have created nearly 21 million new jobs nationwide since 1992,

March 8, 2000, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Richard Fisher


it just doesn't add up.

Read above

This just depends on the leader you've got at the moment.

Leaders whether be democrat or republican are slaves to public interest groups, no matter how much rhetoric Kerry may say about this issue of special interests, American politics are held hostage by these interests. The leader of the moment is swayed by capitalism as are all American presidents. I don't think American presidents are going to want to have inflation so high that ppl can't buy goods that is what would happen if trade and exportation of jobs are stopped.

Our president favors whoever has or can make the most money, so he could care less about our jobs going off to India or China.

Nether did Clinton, don't fool yourself, and don't get caught up in the rhetoric's that politicians speak. More jobs were exported during the Clinton era then in the Bush era, by far 2000 was the biggest year of that with FDI levels reaching over $200 billion.

If I were President, ideally, I would give breaks to large multinational corporations that worked in the US instead of abroad.

Most major American corps. work abroad what you are doing is essentially telling these (http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/popups/exporting.america/content.html) companies to move offshore. They will if they have too, you are dealing with a HUGE segment of American business here. This is will be stopped most likely in the republican senate and congress.

I would work toward an era where governments everywhere have to be held to the standard of work environment that we have established in the United States, which, in comparison to places like India and China, is heavenly.

This negates the whole purpose of globalization, firstly companies export jobs in the first place b/c of low wages, we benefit because we have cheaper goods, secondly their wages are increasing, and hundreds of millions of ppl are being lifted out of poverty what you are advocating is the stop of that growth, and increasing prices, and decreasing wages.

Through whatever means. There is no reason for the people behind of different borders to be subject to draconian labor laws.

$$$ is the reason...

Oh come on. I doubt there has been any noticeable change in standard of living in this country.

Just because it is not noticeable at first doesn't mean it doesn't exist. PPP in the US has decreased from $15/hr in 1975 to around $9/hr today, meaning that in order for Americans to buy for things they need low cost goods, which cheap labour markets overseas give them. Also from that point onward, debt has boomed, a consequence. America is living in a fake economy, a economy built on debt.

I hate to say it but standard of living has likely increased in hells like India because of the money, however minimal, our corporations are putting there.

Firstly India is not hell, sorry but please let's avoid your Amero-centrism please it almost made me want to barf. Secondly in India today they have homegrown industries and employ more hi-tech employees then Silicon Valley in the US. A huge middle class erupted in India, so please what are you saying?

We give them the jobs that don't require the skill or education that comes with being an American citizen. Well paying jobs remain here until people start going to India to get their educations instead of the United States.

LMFAO! No comment, seriously.That's hyperbole.


Odd how it switched itself from the golden years under Clinton to the apocalypse under Bush almost overnight.

Under Clinton actually the net fain of jobs decreased by millions due to trade believe it or not.

That leads me to believe that we can return to an era where our president (like Clinton) still kind of sucks but at least knows how to do a few things right--unlike our own, who has either on purpose or through bumbling yokel idiocy crumbled the spires of the gleaming American citadel upon the hill. Heh...I love metaphors....


You don't seem to understand that in terms of trade Clinton was just as bad as Bush. The boom was due to other factors.


but if a democrat wins the presidency, and if the economy improves under him, we will only have more evidence to prove the point

The weird thing is that presidents usually inherit their economic problems from their predecessors.

I disagree. We give them the jobs that don't require the skill or education that comes with being an American citizen. Well paying jobs remain here until people start going to India to get their educations instead of the United States.

Methinks you don’t give the Indians enough credit. I’ve worked with many East Indians; they are highly skilled and will work for 50% pay. The average education there might be worse than America’s, but they still have millions of people whose intelligence runs circles around the average American. Microsoft is building a huge software development center there. No doubt other companies are following suit. Other countries are just as smart, they just need better English.

In terms of educaitonal infrastructure, China, India, obviously the asian tigers, and a few others are catching up with the west. Some in the Americas might only have an elite go to university, but its enough to make sure that they pose a threat to the wests pre-eminence. So, as the balance swings away from Europe and the USA, what are we going to do about it?
All you need to do is consider the fact that a lot of Boeings aircraft, such as the wings, are built in China.

Consider that many of the best and brightest in the US universities are Chinese and Indian. I believe in China the government pays for you to go and come back and invest ur emmense intellectual capital back into the system. The US is providing for her own hi-tech collapse. It is really sad for the US, in 1998 the US had a huge hi-tech surplus with the rest of the world, the US was in the new revolution. But now the US has a huge hi-tech deficit. Things are not looking good at all...

Methinks you don’t give the Indians enough credit. I’ve worked with many East Indians; they are highly skilled and will work for 50% pay. The average education there might be worse than America’s, but they still have millions of people whose intelligence runs circles around the average American. Microsoft is building a huge software development center there. No doubt other companies are following suit. Other countries are just as smart, they just need better English.

I'm not saying they're stupid, nor am I saying that they don't deserve jobs. They're only getting jobs from our companies because our companies can pay them half as much, which is wrong. If they do the same work that Americans do there is absolutely no reason for them to be paid a cent less. If that were the case I wouldn't care about the job loss in America. If we'd want a job, we could move to India, that's where the jobs are.


Read above

I don't believe it. How could we have created that many jobs if that many people weren't even unemployed? Explain.


Leaders whether be democrat or republican are slaves to public interest groups, no matter how much rhetoric Kerry may say about this issue of special interests, American politics are held hostage by these interests.

Some factions are better than others, apparently.


More jobs were exported during the Clinton era then in the Bush era, by far 2000 was the biggest year of that with FDI levels reaching over $200 billion.

Source? If we were losing more jobs back then why wasn't it an issue?


Most major American corps. work abroad what you are doing is essentially telling these companies to move offshore.

No, I'm telling them that it's more beneficial to stay here. They get breaks here, and they can't get cheaper labor anywhere else.


This negates the whole purpose of globalization, firstly companies export jobs in the first place b/c of low wages, we benefit because we have cheaper goods, secondly their wages are increasing, and hundreds of millions of ppl are being lifted out of poverty what you are advocating is the stop of that growth, and increasing prices, and decreasing wages.

I'd be willing to pay an extra ten cents for my coffee if it paid the people that made it abroad as much as people that make it in the US. Their wages are not increasing on their own. Wages never increase on their own. It takes labor movements and strikes.


$$$ is the reason...

That's no justification.


Just because it is not noticeable at first doesn't mean it doesn't exist. PPP in the US has decreased from $15/hr in 1975 to around $9/hr today, meaning that in order for Americans to buy for things they need low cost goods, which cheap labour markets overseas give them. Also from that point onward, debt has boomed, a consequence. America is living in a fake economy, a economy built on debt.


The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $37,600

Regardless, according to the CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html) our "fake economy" is the best in the world.


Firstly India is not hell, sorry but please let's avoid your Amero-centrism please it almost made me want to barf.

Oh, okay, go move to India Nico. I'm sure they'd love you there.


Overpopulation severely handicaps the economy and about a quarter of the population is too poor to be able to afford an adequate diet.


India's Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 63.62 years
male: 62.92 years
female: 64.37 years (2003 est.)
as compared to the US's Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 77.14 years
female: 80.05 years (2003 est.)
male: 74.37 years

Pretty substantial difference I think.

$2,600 GDP per capita as opposed to our $37,600. Sure, things must be just dandy there, Nico.


so please what are you saying?

Living in India sucks.


LMFAO! No comment, seriously.That's hyperbole.

Back it up.


Under Clinton actually the net fain of jobs decreased by millions due to trade believe it or not.

I don't believe it. The CIA World Factbook said otherwise. Source.


You don't seem to understand that in terms of trade Clinton was just as bad as Bush. The boom was due to other factors.

I looked at a pattern. He was president, economy did well. Bushes were president, reagan was president, economy did bad.


The weird thing is that presidents usually inherit their economic problems from their predecessors.

Sometimes. It happened to Carter.


The economy, for those of us who remember, started to go south during the year 2000 with the fall of the Dot Com's. This all happend under Clinton's administration.

When exactly did it happen? Clinton had eight years as president. I acknowledged earlier that the recession did begin under him, but only at the very very end of his last term, maybe even after Bush was elected but before he was inaugurated. And these patterns do not change every ten years or so. The economy was total crap way back before Carter, into Reagan's entire president, Bush's presidency, early Clinton. Then it got better. Now it sucks again. It's not just a decayear cycle. It has to be more complicated than that.

I don't believe it.

I don't care what you believe or not, that is irrelevant the US economy generated 21 million jobs. How? Well have you ever thought of these factors:

i) Unemployed from Bush years got employed
ii) Population reaching working age, thus increasing # of workers.
iii) Immigration

Last time I checked Pollux the US population has grown quite significantly since 1992.

How could we have created that many jobs if that many people weren't even unemployed? Explain.

How do you know this? Show me the math please. Enough on the rhectoric's.

Some factions are better than others, apparently.

Sure some cater to oil and gas and others to big unions.

Source? If we were losing more jobs back then why wasn't it an issue?

Because jobs were being created back then, jobs being lost was not an issue. Thus no one cared and no one noticed, thus companies flooded out.

No, I'm telling them that it's more beneficial to stay here. They get breaks here, and they can't get cheaper labor anywhere else.

Those breaks are not going to be sufficent enough to compell them to stay here. They would be forced into accepting high paid workers, and they have no choice. With that goes profit margins, and the economy. The companies will most likely downsize creating more unemployment, prices go up and the economy falters. This has already happened in the past:

UK, and Argentina good examples.

I'd be willing to pay an extra ten cents for my coffee if it paid the people that made it abroad as much as people that make it in the US.

You are one person out of millions of consumers who look for low prices. If they can coffee for $2.50, instead of $2.70 they will get the former. That is the whole premise of capitalism, and globalization. Americans simply cannot afford to live in a country that has no importations of cheap goods.

Their wages are not increasing on their own. Wages never increase on their own. It takes labor movements and strikes.

Wages have gone down adjusted for inflation, a full $6.

That's no justification.

To you no...but you are irrelevant.

Regardless, according to the CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html) our "fake economy" is the best in the world.

No actually the US is not the "best" in the world, if we go to real economic progress right now China is the best in the world, and will usurp the US very soon. And of course it is fake, everything is built on debt. Argentina had the "best" economy in latin america in the 90's too mein friend.

Oh, okay, go move to India Nico. I'm sure they'd love you there.

Would love to visit why not? But India is not a hell hole, it has high literacy, increasing innovation, and employing more hi-tech employees then Silicon Valley in Banglalore. You are too young to see ur overt centrism.

Pretty substantial difference I think.

$2,600 GDP per capita as opposed to our $37,600. Sure, things must be just dandy there, Nico.

Oh poor Pollux you let these numbers fool you. Firstly goods in India cost much less then they do in the US, one dollar there can get u more things. The Indians obviously live in worse conditions, or less then Americans. But the US will be forced to go down, as prices go down, as will wages (as they have), and synthesis will eventually be reached.

Living in India sucks.

You know this through? Empirical obversation I assume? Don't talk smack please it is not becoming of you.

Back it up.


Of these, “850,000 jobs will migrate from North America, while 730,000 … from Europe. … Asian countries will also lose about 400,000 jobs…” As for India, her dominance “in the offshore market is likely to continue for several years …

Do enjoy....

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_581121,00030007.htm

I don't believe it. The CIA World Factbook said otherwise. Source.

The CIA said nothing about jobs Pollux what are you talking about?

There have been 20.7 million jobs created in the domestic economy since 1992. In the last column of the table, these jobs are allocated in proportion to the change in real output in each sector. These estimates show that, while rising exports created about 4.1 million jobs, rising imports lost 7.3 million, for a net effect of 3.2 million jobs lost due to trade.


http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib139

Do enjoy...

I looked at a pattern. He was president, economy did well. Bushes were president, reagan was president, economy did bad.


Under Reagan the economy boomed, what are you talking about?

Sometimes. It happened to Carter.

It usually happens, the seeds of economic discontent are usually found in the predecessor.

And Pollux you want to know the difference that really matters btwn India and the US?

India:
Labor force:406 million (1999)
Labor force:
141.8 million (includes unemployed) (2001)

Labour costs per hour (USD)
India: .66
United States: 20.87

So let's say all of India's labour force was employed at that rate of .66, per hour wages would amount to $267 million.
Let's say the same for the US, you would have to spend $295 million for 1.4 the workers, doing much less work.

That's the only difference that really matters.

I don't care what you believe or not, that is irrelevant the US economy generated 21 million jobs. How? Well have you ever thought of these factors...

I'll concede the point. But doesn't this work against your argument? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we seem to still be gaining here.


Because jobs were being created back then, jobs being lost was not an issue. Thus no one cared and no one noticed, thus companies flooded out.

Provide a source to prove that we were losing jobs to other countries.


The companies will most likely downsize creating more unemployment, prices go up and the economy falters.

If they all downsize then how are any of them supposed to make money? If everyone stops employing, the unemployed spend as little as possible. Prices would not go up because there would be no one to buy anything.


UK, and Argentina good examples.

I don't know about the UK, but Argentina is in the position that it's in because it borrows too much of its money, that's all. Goddamn world banks charge too much interest. There needs to be an organization that helps countries get out of debt, any country, whether it's the US or Brazil. We have plenty of organizations like that for individual people, why not individual nations?


You are one person out of millions of consumers who look for low prices. If they can coffee for $2.50, instead of $2.70 they will get the former. That is the whole premise of capitalism, and globalization. Americans simply cannot afford to live in a country that has no importations of cheap goods.

I'd buy the $2.70 if I knew that the company was fairly paying its workers relative to current United States labor laws.


Wages have gone down adjusted for inflation, a full $6.

Source?


To you no...but you are irrelevant.

Being an American who will be able to vote in two years I'd say that I am more relevant than you nico, as I believe you are Canadian?


No actually the US is not the "best" in the world, if we go to real economic progress right now China is the best in the world, and will usurp the US very soon.

Yes, sure it will. Everything is written in stone. Utah's going to be the capital of God's Kingdom, too.


Argentina had the "best" economy in latin america in the 90's too mein friend.

Costa Rica has the best economy in Latin America, buddy boy.


Would love to visit why not?

Not visit, stay.


You are too young to see ur overt centrism.

Yes nico ur so much older and more maturer than me. I was conceded this point.


The Indians obviously live in worse conditions, or less then Americans.

If it's so obvious nico I'm curious as to why you aren't conceding?


But the US will be forced to go down, as prices go down, as will wages (as they have), and synthesis will eventually be reached.

Just because you say they will, oh prophet nico.


Living in India sucks.

You know this through? Empirical obversation I assume? Don't talk smack please it is not becoming of you.

You just agreed with me!


Under Reagan the economy boomed, what are you talking about?

There was rampant poverty in the United States under Reagan, inflation was out of control, as I recall the FCC was trying to pull as much money out of circulation as they could by raising their rates to 20%. The deficit was higher than it is now.

It’s on the rebound after being methodically trashed and the rebound is funded by a massive increase in debt that must be paid back with interest. Please, look at the whole picture.

"Methodically trashed"? By what?

The rebound is funded by a massive tax cut. The budget deficit has more to do with an idiotic Medicare handout bill than the tax cuts.

[/B]I'll concede the point.

You'll be saying that a lot more...

But doesn't this work against your argument? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we seem to still be gaining here.

WAS gaining jobs, yes. The US was going through a economic boom during the roaring 90's. But the US was doing that in the 20's too, and in the 20's the US debt exploded, as it did in the 90's...hmmmmmm....interesting. American companies are employing less workers because:

i) Technology has made the worker much more productive, thus jobs are redundant and thustly eliminated.
ii) Cheap overseas labour.

Provide a source to prove that we were losing jobs to other countries.

Firstly turn on your TV at 6:00 pm est, on CNN. You'll see if you are ADD enough here:

http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

Read and watch exporting America Very interesting.

If they all downsize then how are any of them supposed to make money?

OH GOD here I have to teach again... ok Pollux the world is not the United States concede? Ok, now since jobs are going to China for instance they are creating markets in China. Which has a larger market then the US non? Ok so the money going to China is employing more workers, and thus creating more markets, and with wages rising and inflation nearly 0 in China you get a market. Last year car sales in China boomed 13%, in the US did it even grow? The US is an exploited market, India, and China aren't. It is in the best interests of TNC's to increase wages in China and employ more ppl then fewer high paid workers in the US.

Prices would not go up because there would be no one to buy anything.

You aren't making any sense now Pollux. You said that you will stop the exportation of jobs, which essentially means closing the US to imports, which will create a shortage of goods, and thus an increase in prices for goods that are rare. Your economic plan is laughable at best.

I don't know about the UK,

Yet you still talk?

but Argentina is in the position that it's in because it borrows too much of its money, that's all. Goddamn world banks charge too much interest. There needs to be an organization that helps countries get out of debt, any country, whether it's the US or Brazil. We have plenty of organizations like that for individual people, why not individual nations?

I am talking Argentina 80's not 90's, but let's use 90's sure why not. The US is no different then Argentina, you owe the world $3 trillion. Yes banks and other nations charge too much interest but interest is the whole reason why ppl lend money, and Argentina knew what it was getting itself into. Amnesty should be made to the billions inherited from the dictators, but that won't happen. Your idealism is something that I am forced to respect, but it is nothing more then mere idealism.

I'd buy the $2.70 if I knew that the company was fairly paying its workers relative to current United States labor laws.

I assume then Pollux you are every single American citizen?

Source?

JPS showed me, and good ole Lou Dobbs.

Being an American who will be able to vote in two years I'd say that I am more relevant than you nico, as I believe you are Canadian?

I am undecided; if you continue to use nico your posts will be deleted. Secondly I can vote and I can make a difference, but I resign to the fate that Globalization is here to stay. You cannot do anything that is actually meaningful unless of course you have a lobby in Washington.

Yes, sure it will. Everything is written in stone. Utah's going to be the capital of God's Kingdom, too.

If you say so, but since that was a surrender as big as the French in 1940. I'll take it you agree with me.

Costa Rica has the best economy in Latin America, buddy boy.

LOL, your undeserved condescension is seriously killing me. Argentina was considered the poster boy for neo-liberalist reforms in the 90's the model for the rest of Latin America. But of course since it seems you have ADD you missed this:


Argentina had the "best" economy in latin america in the 90's too mein friend.

Not visit, stay.

Sure, if I have an American job that pays well.

Yes nico ur so much older and more maturer than me. I was conceded this point.

I am, and it's evident, and the last portion of ur sentence makes no sense.

If it's so obvious nico I'm curious as to why you aren't conceding?

But you are asserting it is a hell hole, not moi. There is nothing to concede.

Just because you say they will, oh prophet nico.

Thank you for agreeing with me, surrender #2.

You just agreed with me!

Right... obviously you don't know what the sentence means.

There was rampant poverty in the United States under Reagan, inflation was out of control, as I recall the FCC was trying to pull as much money out of circulation as they could by raising their rates to 20%. The deficit was higher than it is now

When ignorance abounds my friend, when ignorance abounds. Reagan had to go through these reforms early in his term to transform the US economy from a Keynesian model to a neo-liberalist one. By 1983-84 the US economy was red hot; this was common in the UK in the early 80's as well. It was the painful transition. Reagan's term lasted longer then 2 years Pollux.

I'm not saying they're stupid, nor am I saying that they don't deserve jobs. They're only getting jobs from our companies because our companies can pay them half as much, which is wrong. If they do the same work that Americans do there is absolutely no reason for them to be paid a cent less.

Why is it wrong? If they can’t hire the cheapest labor, why should you be allowed to buy a product from the cheapest source? Who would decide how much is the right amount to pay for a job?

"Methodically trashed"? By what?

I think I already covered that earlier in this thread. By tax cuts, rollbacks on environmental regs, silencing his scientific advisers, being a huge pessimist, spending hundreds of billions and killing thousands of civilians to hand Iraq to Bush Oil, increasing logging, ignoring the Constitution, supporting religious issues, trying to un-preserve a preserve to give even more oil to Bush Oil, spreading fear with useless colored alerts, giving allies the finger, initiating a Mars project that will rain a fintillion dillion dollars in taxpayer money on his corporate sponsors just so humans can pick up the same rocks that machines are examining now, & on & on.


The rebound is funded by a massive tax cut. The budget deficit has more to do with an idiotic Medicare handout bill than the tax cuts.

We can always debate about what caused what. The bottom line is that Bush’s net economic performance is horrible. A moderate rebound is not a gold star when it is preceded by a giant plunge in value. Three years is enough time for a president to take full ownership of the economy. Bush is responsible for taking the country downward.

Reagan had to go through these reforms early in his term to transform the US economy from a Keynesian model to a neo-liberalist one. By 1983-84 the US economy was red hot; this was common in the UK in the early 80's as well.

My economy would be red hot too if the banks let me borrow a few trillion dollars. Reagan gets negative points for his performance. The economy wasn’t hot enough to justify the huge increase in debt for which people decades from now will still be liable.

My economy would be red hot too if the banks let me borrow a few trillion dollars. Reagan gets negative points for his performance. The economy wasn’t hot enough to justify the huge increase in debt for which people decades from now will still be liable.

I totally agree, that is why I call American economic growth since Reagan as faux.

I think I already covered that earlier in this thread. By tax cuts, rollbacks on environmental regs, silencing his scientific advisers, being a huge pessimist, spending hundreds of billions and killing thousands of civilians to hand Iraq to Bush Oil, increasing logging, ignoring the Constitution, supporting religious issues, trying to un-preserve a preserve to give even more oil to Bush Oil, spreading fear with useless colored alerts, giving allies the finger, initiating a Mars project that will rain a fintillion dillion dollars in taxpayer money on his corporate sponsors just so humans can pick up the same rocks that machines are examining now, & on & on.[

We can always debate about what caused what. The bottom line is that Bush’s net economic performance is horrible. A moderate rebound is not a gold star when it is preceded by a giant plunge in value. Three years is enough time for a president to take full ownership of the economy. Bush is responsible for taking the country downward.

Three years? zanket, you must be joking. Three years are short-term effects and as we all know from short term effects they evaporate and leave the country with bigger problems. However most people will take 400 dollars now, instead of 10 dollars every month of their life.
The economy is going to be restructured and I guarantee you, the next term no matter what president will have a booming economy.
Every economic boom was preceded with economic restructuring.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=5&u=/ap/20040227/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy_24

The economy is going to be restructured and I guarantee you, the next term no matter what president will have a booming economy.


For who? The worker or the Corps?

The economy is going to be restructured and I guarantee you, the next term no matter what president will have a booming economy.


For who? The worker or the Corps?

The corps? The corporations?

I really don't need to go into just how good corporations have been for the United States and the American worker, do I? Do I?

Historically yes you have a point, but what happened in 1920 has no bearing on us today. Corps. today are exporting jobs galore, and they don't even tell their employees until it's too late. Remember Corps. did not increase the standards of their employees if it wasn't for Unions and if it wasn't for government intervention. This is shown in nations like China, and India. If the corps. could get away with it they would. Most of the jobs in the US are those of small business, not corps. they are flooding out.

Hey, just thought I'd mention that the UK economy wasnt hot in the early 1980's, was very hot around london in 1987, then cooled down somewhat. It didnt actually get anywhere until the 90's.
I personally dont think the politicians have that much effect on the economy, especially when you consider that the Clinton through to bush money policy seems to have been under GReenspans control, and both pretty much have tinkered with the total set up. yes, I know adding to the deficit isnt quite tinkering, but you know what i mean.

"I really don't need to go into just how good corporations have been for the United States and the American worker, do I? Do I?"
They have been good and bad. Obviously i dont need to mention the trusts. Or perhaps the sclerosis and waste in the 60's and 70's. Or perhaps the way that actual purchasing power of the average wage has decreased over the past 20 years, obviously that has nothing to do with the corporations either.
(OK, I'll admit they've been useful at various times as well, but you have to see both sides.)

Historically yes you have a point, but what happened in 1920 has no bearing on us today. Corps. today are exporting jobs galore, and they don't even tell their employees until it's too late. Remember Corps. did not increase the standards of their employees if it wasn't for Unions and if it wasn't for government intervention. This is shown in nations like China, and India. If the corps. could get away with it they would. Most of the jobs in the US are those of small business, not corps. they are flooding out.

Boohoo. Exporting those jobs to India and China is keeping my family's health insurance premiums down, along with a lot of other bills that would be a lot higher if the corporations had to pay what they would to American workers.

Its a free country. The corporations can hire workers wherever they want.

You do know the goverment control in India and China is far bigger same goes for the unionazation of workers. I don't thing it is because of that that workers got better living standards. Hell I work I get above standard required treatment and above avarage pay. Why would they do that? Maybe because they want to attract good employees?

Hey I agree with you, I am just being a devils advocate. I am a globalist as well, but I recognize that Globalization and democracy are a dangerous combo.

However most people will take 400 dollars now, instead of 10 dollars every month of their life.

The people didn’t get $400. They lost money all things considered. The $400 came from debt the people have to pay back with interest.


The economy is going to be restructured and I guarantee you, the next term no matter what president will have a booming economy.

Only if he dismantles what Bush did. If Bush wins, we’ll have a longer recession. The uptick now is paid for with massive debt; such uptick can’t be sustained. Bush is trying to buy his re-election on the backs of future generations.


Every economic boom was preceded with economic restructuring.

Yes, like Clinton did.

Hey I agree with you, I am just being a devils advocate. I am a globalist as well, but I recognize that Globalization and democracy are a dangerous combo.

Why is globalization and democracy a dangerous combo?

Yeah, why? I think of them as compensating for each other.

The will of companies vs the will of the people (who aren't bought).

Why is globalization and democracy a dangerous combo?


Simple, they are compete ting with each other. In a democracy the population is represented in a utilitarian perspective. In which everyone is made happy/rich, as much as possible. Globalization destroys this matrix, what it does is it makes one group very rich. Democracy works under the tutelage of a generally equitable country. The disparity btwn poor and rich now is simply disgusting, and it's not getting better. The masses in a democracy thankfully hold the power. They seem to believe that they are poorer (because the rich are getting so rich so fast) that they will blame it on the economic system being employed. Globalization is just that system. Look at the premise of John Edwards campaign, anti-globalization. There is a groundswell of anti-globalization in the US. Why? Because jobs are leaving, Americans are making less, corruption, and the American economy is in terminal decline. In advanced economies Globalization is a friend and a foe, but is largely being perceived as a foe. That is what matters, perception. We can argue all the good Globalization does for us and the world, but we will not change the perception. As long as good paying jobs are leaving, you have jobless growth, and an economy that is directionless. You are going to have a population that will revolt.

Obviously Bush doesn't look at history for a guide. Louis the XIV of France to appease the upper crust of French society gave then tax cuts to the point where they paid nothing. The burden well on the "third estate", and they had to pay for the grandeur that was the French court. In France they went to war with other states, and the deficit and debt exploded until the point where France never recovered her once high and mighty position.

The Parallels with the US are obvious, what resulted from Louis economic situation? Let's just say the storming of the Bastille. This is a VERY serious economic faux paux that the US is doing. I am worried on how it is going to work out. History teaches us lesson, but sadly we never pay attention.

You seem to be mixing two issues. Globalization increases efficiency that in turn maximizes the average standard of living. If the people limit it, they adversely affect their long-term future. If a country’s standard of living decreases as a result of globalization, it would have decreased even further without it.

Revolts can happen when the majority will is thwarted, whether real or just perceived. Bush, like Louis the XIV of France, is really hurting the average person with tax cuts & other inane actions, but not with globalization per se; that’s just a perceived thwarting. Any president should embrace globalization for the good of the people.

The backlash against globalization is based in NIMBY--Not in My Backyard. Just like everyone chooses prisons but nobody wants to live near one, everyone chooses greater value (higher quality/price) but nobody wants to lose their job in the cost-cutting.

Globalization increases efficiency that in turn maximizes the average standard of living. If the people limit it, they adversely affect their long-term future.

I agree totally with this summation, but as I have stated in my former post the public has now seen Globalization and free trade in a negative light. You even agreed with me that in order for Globalization to work the west has to have a deflationary state of living and costs. Do ppl want that in these countries? Obviously not, even if that will do long term good for them. This is why I have a great distaste for democracy, because really good ideas are usually destroyed by populist political economics.

Revolts can happen when the majority will is thwarted, whether real or just perceived. Bush, like Louis the XIV of France, is really hurting the average person with tax cuts & other inane actions, but not with globalization per se;

The Bush tax cuts are of course a faulty populist economist measure.

that’s just a perceived thwarting. Any president should embrace globalization for the good of the people.

But in an absolutist measure? Is that really politically proper?

The backlash against globalization is based in NIMBY--Not in My Backyard. Just like everyone chooses prisons but nobody wants to live near one, everyone chooses greater value (higher quality/price) but nobody wants to lose their job in the cost-cutting.

Yes indeed...

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushchart.jpg

Has anybody thaught about the level of debt that america is in, it runs such a huge deficit that it could probibly quite happily fund the UK entire military need for a year. And thats a lot of money. its been doing this for years, what happens when the poeple lending money to the americans stop? and wan't their money back? surely running at a deficit is a truly awful plan for the long term?

what happens when the poeple lending money to the americans stop?

Very important question, most Americans are rather arrogant when it comes to the rest of the world. They naively believe that they don't need the world, but the opposite is sadly true for them. Who is financing the US' massive deficit? The Japanese, Taiwanese, Chinese, Koreans,etc. The US needs to import $1.5 billion worth of capital a day to keep afloat, and that is only to increase. Nations overseas simply would not be able to buy anymore American bonds. Then the tea leaves shall begin their nasty tides of uncertainty. The US needs us very, very much. I mean really who the hell do you think financed the war in Iraq?