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. 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. Yes, like Clinton did.
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).
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...
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?
