From the WSJ: Let's Have a Real Debate on Globalization
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
From the WSJ: Let's Have a Real Debate on Globalization
Given our Upcoming Presidential Elections and the recent UAW/GM activities; I though this might be worth a read...
Synopsis
Full article:
Let's Have a Real Debate on Globalization
By MATTHEW J. SLAUGHTER; September 26, 2007
Tonight America's eyes will turn to my hometown of Hanover for the next debate among the Democratic presidential candidates. Given the central role New Hampshire plays in presidential politics, this location makes sense. But I am hoping the conversation is not too local. In particular, I would love to hear a question put to all the candidates about two other places: one 665 driving miles from Hanover -- Detroit -- and the other about 7,500 miles away -- China.
On Monday the United Automobile Workers union went on strike against General Motors. About 73,000 GM employees walked out of more than 80 production facilities in the United States. Many are viewing this strike, and the ongoing struggles of the Big Three more generally, as Exhibit A for how globalization damages America, and for why the U.S. needs new policies to limit our engagement with China, India and the overall global economy.
The struggles of the Big Three workers and other stakeholders are very real. The livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of UAW workers, retirees and their families have been under pressure for many years. But there is a critical, bigger picture that we must not lose sight of: America overall is stronger today because of, not in spite of, the globalization of the U.S. automobile industry.
Start with the Big Three. For decades the competitive pressures of international trade and investment have forced the Big Three to innovate and boost productivity, starting with gains in fuel efficiency after Japanese car imports surged with the oil-price shocks of the 1970s. In 1998 GM averaged about 46 hours to produce a vehicle in North America. By 2005 that was down to just 35 hours. On many dimensions, it is foreign-headquartered companies like Mercedes, Honda and Toyota that establish and push global best practices -- a lead the Big Three have been compelled to pursue and thereby improve performance.
Now look at the U.S. auto industry overall. The argument that America can no longer produce cars because of foreign competition flies in the face of one word: insourcing. In 2005, foreign-headquartered multinationals in motor vehicles and parts employed 334,900 Americans -- at an average annual compensation of $68,125, fully 34% above the private-sector average. Over the decades that the Big Three have struggled with their American operations, foreign auto companies have rapidly established and expanded U.S. production through foreign direct investment.
Broaden the view even more, to all American consumers, who have benefited greatly from the global engagement of the U.S. auto industry. The easiest way to see this is to visit any parking lot. The tally this morning outside my office? Five Big Three vehicles and 10 foreign-company vehicles. At the national level, in 1980 the Big Three had 73% of the U.S. automobile market. In recent months this share has slipped below half.
Thanks to all the competition among the Big Three and foreign companies, consumers have enjoyed massive innovation, new variety -- and lower prices. From 1990 through 2006, the overall U.S. consumer price index rose 53%. The rise in the autos CPI component? Just 13.4%.
Finally, broaden the view to the entire world. In 2005 GM lost $12.9 billion in its global operations in motor vehicles. Which company had the highest market share that year in China, earning $327 million in net income there? GM. The biggest growth opportunities for the Big Three are all outside the U.S. China today is already the world's second-largest passenger-vehicle market. Limiting the ability of the Big Three to expand abroad will only further their overall difficulties back at home.
America's automobile industry is Exhibit A for the aggregate gains generated by the dynamic and interrelated forces of trade, investment and technological change. Global engagement has generated, and has the potential to continue generating, very large gains for the U.S. overall. Living standards are upwards of $1 trillion higher per year in total than they would have been absent decades of trade and investment liberalization. Looking ahead, annual U.S. income could be upwards of $500 billion higher with a move to global free trade and investment in both merchandise and services.
And yet, as the UAW-GM strike demonstrates so starkly, these gains do not flow to every single worker, family and community. This, then, is perhaps the paramount policy challenge facing America today. How can we continue to realize the aggregate gains of globalization and also address its distribution pressures? Concerns about distribution are not best addressed through trade barriers. Barriers are unlikely to stop the competitive pressures. They also impose large economy-wide costs and can trigger barriers abroad.
The preferred course is to complement open borders with a mix of domestic policies to help those that are hurt. But is this what we hear being discussed on the campaign trail? No. It is about fair trade, not free trade. It is about pulling back on previous trade agreements. It is about new laws to hit "currency manipulators" with new trade barriers.
Bring all this back to tonight's presidential debate. My dream question for the candidates would be the following: "Many regard the current UAW-GM strike in Detroit as a wake-up call to stiffen American policies against countries like China. Do you agree with this? How will you craft an American economic policy that both allows greater globalization and also spreads its gains as widely as possible?" If such a question is asked, we all should listen intently to the answers.
Mr. Slaughter is a professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. From 2005 to 2007 he was a member of the Council of Economic Advisers.
Synopsis
Matthew J. Slaughter, a professor at Dartmouth, writes in today's Wall Street Journal that our presidential candidates need to engage in a real debate on globalization.
While the struggles of the Big Three workers and other stakeholders are very real, there is a critical, bigger picture that we must not lose sight of: America overall is stronger today because of, not in spite of, the globalization of the U.S. automobile industry.
The argument that America can no longer produce cars because of foreign competition flies in the face of one word: insourcing. In 2005, foreign-headquartered multinationals in motor vehicles and parts employed 334,900 Americans -- at an average annual compensation of $68,125, fully 34% above the private-sector average.
Broaden the view even more, to all American consumers, who have benefited greatly from the global engagement of the U.S. auto industry. Thanks to all the competition among the Big Three and foreign companies, consumers have enjoyed massive innovation, new variety, and lower prices. From 1990 through 2006, the overall U.S. consumer price index rose 53%. The rise in the autos CPI component? Just 13.4%.
While the struggles of the Big Three workers and other stakeholders are very real, there is a critical, bigger picture that we must not lose sight of: America overall is stronger today because of, not in spite of, the globalization of the U.S. automobile industry.
The argument that America can no longer produce cars because of foreign competition flies in the face of one word: insourcing. In 2005, foreign-headquartered multinationals in motor vehicles and parts employed 334,900 Americans -- at an average annual compensation of $68,125, fully 34% above the private-sector average.
Broaden the view even more, to all American consumers, who have benefited greatly from the global engagement of the U.S. auto industry. Thanks to all the competition among the Big Three and foreign companies, consumers have enjoyed massive innovation, new variety, and lower prices. From 1990 through 2006, the overall U.S. consumer price index rose 53%. The rise in the autos CPI component? Just 13.4%.
Originally Posted by The Wall Street Journal
Let's Have a Real Debate on Globalization
By MATTHEW J. SLAUGHTER; September 26, 2007
Tonight America's eyes will turn to my hometown of Hanover for the next debate among the Democratic presidential candidates. Given the central role New Hampshire plays in presidential politics, this location makes sense. But I am hoping the conversation is not too local. In particular, I would love to hear a question put to all the candidates about two other places: one 665 driving miles from Hanover -- Detroit -- and the other about 7,500 miles away -- China.
On Monday the United Automobile Workers union went on strike against General Motors. About 73,000 GM employees walked out of more than 80 production facilities in the United States. Many are viewing this strike, and the ongoing struggles of the Big Three more generally, as Exhibit A for how globalization damages America, and for why the U.S. needs new policies to limit our engagement with China, India and the overall global economy.
The struggles of the Big Three workers and other stakeholders are very real. The livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of UAW workers, retirees and their families have been under pressure for many years. But there is a critical, bigger picture that we must not lose sight of: America overall is stronger today because of, not in spite of, the globalization of the U.S. automobile industry.
Start with the Big Three. For decades the competitive pressures of international trade and investment have forced the Big Three to innovate and boost productivity, starting with gains in fuel efficiency after Japanese car imports surged with the oil-price shocks of the 1970s. In 1998 GM averaged about 46 hours to produce a vehicle in North America. By 2005 that was down to just 35 hours. On many dimensions, it is foreign-headquartered companies like Mercedes, Honda and Toyota that establish and push global best practices -- a lead the Big Three have been compelled to pursue and thereby improve performance.
Now look at the U.S. auto industry overall. The argument that America can no longer produce cars because of foreign competition flies in the face of one word: insourcing. In 2005, foreign-headquartered multinationals in motor vehicles and parts employed 334,900 Americans -- at an average annual compensation of $68,125, fully 34% above the private-sector average. Over the decades that the Big Three have struggled with their American operations, foreign auto companies have rapidly established and expanded U.S. production through foreign direct investment.
Broaden the view even more, to all American consumers, who have benefited greatly from the global engagement of the U.S. auto industry. The easiest way to see this is to visit any parking lot. The tally this morning outside my office? Five Big Three vehicles and 10 foreign-company vehicles. At the national level, in 1980 the Big Three had 73% of the U.S. automobile market. In recent months this share has slipped below half.
Thanks to all the competition among the Big Three and foreign companies, consumers have enjoyed massive innovation, new variety -- and lower prices. From 1990 through 2006, the overall U.S. consumer price index rose 53%. The rise in the autos CPI component? Just 13.4%.
Finally, broaden the view to the entire world. In 2005 GM lost $12.9 billion in its global operations in motor vehicles. Which company had the highest market share that year in China, earning $327 million in net income there? GM. The biggest growth opportunities for the Big Three are all outside the U.S. China today is already the world's second-largest passenger-vehicle market. Limiting the ability of the Big Three to expand abroad will only further their overall difficulties back at home.
America's automobile industry is Exhibit A for the aggregate gains generated by the dynamic and interrelated forces of trade, investment and technological change. Global engagement has generated, and has the potential to continue generating, very large gains for the U.S. overall. Living standards are upwards of $1 trillion higher per year in total than they would have been absent decades of trade and investment liberalization. Looking ahead, annual U.S. income could be upwards of $500 billion higher with a move to global free trade and investment in both merchandise and services.
And yet, as the UAW-GM strike demonstrates so starkly, these gains do not flow to every single worker, family and community. This, then, is perhaps the paramount policy challenge facing America today. How can we continue to realize the aggregate gains of globalization and also address its distribution pressures? Concerns about distribution are not best addressed through trade barriers. Barriers are unlikely to stop the competitive pressures. They also impose large economy-wide costs and can trigger barriers abroad.
The preferred course is to complement open borders with a mix of domestic policies to help those that are hurt. But is this what we hear being discussed on the campaign trail? No. It is about fair trade, not free trade. It is about pulling back on previous trade agreements. It is about new laws to hit "currency manipulators" with new trade barriers.
Bring all this back to tonight's presidential debate. My dream question for the candidates would be the following: "Many regard the current UAW-GM strike in Detroit as a wake-up call to stiffen American policies against countries like China. Do you agree with this? How will you craft an American economic policy that both allows greater globalization and also spreads its gains as widely as possible?" If such a question is asked, we all should listen intently to the answers.
Mr. Slaughter is a professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth, a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. From 2005 to 2007 he was a member of the Council of Economic Advisers.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
China owns too much US debt and no one here wants the dollar to collapse on their watch.
China: Buy our crap and give us your jobs or we will push you into another great depression.
USA: Yes Sir
China: Buy our crap and give us your jobs or we will push you into another great depression.
USA: Yes Sir
Last edited by Z28x; Sep 26, 2007 at 02:59 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,802
From: Annapolis MD
I think globalization is great. Its saving GM RWD with Holden. China being where Buick dominates its really good. BUT sometimes I think "Globalization" has become a marketing term. When the Japanese started building appliances more efficently than GE. GE turned to services and sold some companies like its heating and airconditioning to TRANE. Services were a great alternative at the time. Look at todays situation and lets be honest about the southern border. Its not terroism its over immigration and loosing jobs to people who will do the same for pennies on the dollar. Mexican illegals (some) work 6 or 7 days a week for less than min wage. They build houses and now Mexico even wants to bring their trucks to the US. Trucking is some southerners livelyhood.
Ive discussed Globalization recently with my brother who is an accountant about the mexican trucking comming to america and jobs being outsourced to the Chineese and all he says is its the "Global economy." Its a buzz word now that theyve named it but hasnt it always been a global economy to some extent? George washington considered himself and englishman yet was upset when the English products he bought from across the Atlantic were sub par. The English saw the colonist as second class citizens when the colonist saw themselves as Englishmen. It was one of the straws that broke the camels back in Washingtons eyes. Countries have always traded with eachother.
To simply dismiss everything as a "Global Economy" without careful regaurd or forethought of what you are trading dismisses the fact that there are very different seperate political governments, and only one is yours. Yes you can have your entire workforce in China shipped to the US and offloaded to Mexican trucks but all that money is leaving the country. Conversly US car manufacturers can try to sell their products in a Japanese market that again is a seperate soverign NON-US Govt. But that ignores that the Japanese govt makes it very difficult for non *** vehicles to sell in their market. My brothers arguement was if youre upset about the Mexican illegals taking your job at McDonalds get an education. My arguement is theyre also working on trucking, China with production, India with EDUCATED tech support and dont tell me you cant outsource accountants... You might guess his responce was "Ill adjust, its a global economy" and that was the end of the argument.
My point is Im a republican who beileves in Capitalism and I dont care for Unions. At the same time the US govt. is not a global entity and I would not like to see other countries in a financial situation where they basically own us. I would like the US govt to go to the *** govt and work with them to get our vehicles and such more allowed into their markets. I would like to see limited protectionism where maybe 30-40% of a corporations workforce has to be here and maybe some other ideas smarter people can come up with.
Ive discussed Globalization recently with my brother who is an accountant about the mexican trucking comming to america and jobs being outsourced to the Chineese and all he says is its the "Global economy." Its a buzz word now that theyve named it but hasnt it always been a global economy to some extent? George washington considered himself and englishman yet was upset when the English products he bought from across the Atlantic were sub par. The English saw the colonist as second class citizens when the colonist saw themselves as Englishmen. It was one of the straws that broke the camels back in Washingtons eyes. Countries have always traded with eachother.
To simply dismiss everything as a "Global Economy" without careful regaurd or forethought of what you are trading dismisses the fact that there are very different seperate political governments, and only one is yours. Yes you can have your entire workforce in China shipped to the US and offloaded to Mexican trucks but all that money is leaving the country. Conversly US car manufacturers can try to sell their products in a Japanese market that again is a seperate soverign NON-US Govt. But that ignores that the Japanese govt makes it very difficult for non *** vehicles to sell in their market. My brothers arguement was if youre upset about the Mexican illegals taking your job at McDonalds get an education. My arguement is theyre also working on trucking, China with production, India with EDUCATED tech support and dont tell me you cant outsource accountants... You might guess his responce was "Ill adjust, its a global economy" and that was the end of the argument.
My point is Im a republican who beileves in Capitalism and I dont care for Unions. At the same time the US govt. is not a global entity and I would not like to see other countries in a financial situation where they basically own us. I would like the US govt to go to the *** govt and work with them to get our vehicles and such more allowed into their markets. I would like to see limited protectionism where maybe 30-40% of a corporations workforce has to be here and maybe some other ideas smarter people can come up with.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,748
From: New England
QFTFT!!!
Utter, BS, where i see it on this wonderful "global economy" More like sellout and what 5thgen69camaro just stated just saved me about 10 min of typing. A true WORKING global economy is one where its a 50/50 split of influx of goods and services and an export of the same equal amount of goods and services. Do we see that in the U.S.??? Nope! Were on the downward end of this wonderful G.E. people are trying to say is happening. Japan? They are not either. But they are doing just the opposite. Why?? He who holds the reigns of this G.E. ride the horse.
Last time I checked our dollar is falling faster than Bush's popularity numbers. Our economy is artificially inflated. Reflections of that is the job market is starting to stress and crack from these oversights in business practices. Immigration and operations that cost this country billions and nothing done. Outsourcing, moving and relocating to fill the pockets of the rich, drive this country now. Take a drive to Detroit or any large manufacturing, textile or industrial city in the U.S. and see how wonderful this G.E. is treating our own citizens. How a juggernaut of the world is now a pale comparison of itself. How we turn a blind eye to threats like Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Kia and Hyundai, Subaru (using cars as an example since this is a car site but it goes much deeper than just autos) setting up shop here in the U.S. and that's "OK" It helps our economy out? Does it? Depends on who's greased pocket you ask. Couple hundred thousands of jobs created in the name of a foreign company setting up shop here in a small suburban farm town in the mid west..thats good right? Well, tell that to the large city that has turned into a pit of despair where it not long ago hummed along to the beat of the U.S. economy creating MILLIONS of jobs and a workforce that offered the U.S. citizen the benefits of the American dream. Can't say that now since that new Toyota thats built in the U.S. is on the lot and just helped close that plant in your town and in effect dominoed the whole cities local economy. A once well to do worker is now asking "you want fries with that?" Yea Great American economy . You want to sit and tell me how foreign companies can come in here and its good for us? thousands of new jobs for millions of lost jobs..does not add up..sorry..I would love to know cus I am sure there are many companies that if not greased by that pocket were forced out of this same country just to compete. Is it Toyotas fault? Nope were just letting the doors wide open for the slaughter. Like I have said before and will say again. We are doing it to ourselves. Is a G.E. good for us? SURE if we are in control of our country. Not strung up by the likes of import companies that ship in and produce products for our consumption. Should we not be doing that? Should we not be defending our home goods and products? Our brands and our freedoms? Nope instead were asking when the next Wal Mart is going up to import all this crap from China..Looking for that Honda Civic cus the U.S. "Just does not make a car like they do"
I ask you this. If the way we are doing things is the right way...THEN WHY IS JAPAN DOING THE OPPOSITE?? Why is China hoodwinking everyone? Why is India now our customer service department? Why is the power structure that was once held in the Northern Atlantic now shifting to the South Pacific??? I can tell you not for any good reason I can see on these shores. Sure many of you can sit there and say hey I got a good job and a nice house with a nice truck and a nice car but really is it selfishness thats getting us to this low? What do we need to do to get the pride back in our slice of this global pie? How do we say no!, we will support our home grown products we will be strong from within! We will hold those reigns of this global economy.
The thing is we cant. Were not like Japan. We are not focused. We are selfish and lost site of the true American dream. The focus we had is now what Japan, China and India hold as ideals and thrive off of and we are letting that go for the all mighty dollar. In return another puppet string is thrown back at us so that when the time comes. All we are is nothing more than puppets in the future global economy. And you can thank the greased pockets of all who are involved. Everyone that made it possible.
I think globalization is great. Its saving GM RWD with Holden. China being where Buick dominates its really good. BUT sometimes I think "Globalization" has become a marketing term. When the Japanese started building appliances more efficently than GE. GE turned to services and sold some companies like its heating and airconditioning to TRANE. Services were a great alternative at the time. Look at todays situation and lets be honest about the southern border. Its not terroism its over immigration and loosing jobs to people who will do the same for pennies on the dollar. Mexican illegals (some) work 6 or 7 days a week for less than min wage. They build houses and now Mexico even wants to bring their trucks to the US. Trucking is some southerners livelyhood.
Ive discussed Globalization recently with my brother who is an accountant about the mexican trucking comming to america and jobs being outsourced to the Chineese and all he says is its the "Global economy." Its a buzz word now that theyve named it but hasnt it always been a global economy to some extent? George washington considered himself and englishman yet was upset when the English products he bought from across the Atlantic were sub par. The English saw the colonist as second class citizens when the colonist saw themselves as Englishmen. It was one of the straws that broke the camels back in Washingtons eyes. Countries have always traded with eachother.
To simply dismiss everything as a "Global Economy" without careful regaurd or forethought of what you are trading dismisses the fact that there are very different seperate political governments, and only one is yours. Yes you can have your entire workforce in China shipped to the US and offloaded to Mexican trucks but all that money is leaving the country. Conversly US car manufacturers can try to sell their products in a Japanese market that again is a seperate soverign NON-US Govt. But that ignores that the Japanese govt makes it very difficult for non *** vehicles to sell in their market. My brothers arguement was if youre upset about the Mexican illegals taking your job at McDonalds get an education. My arguement is theyre also working on trucking, China with production, India with EDUCATED tech support and dont tell me you cant outsource accountants... You might guess his responce was "Ill adjust, its a global economy" and that was the end of the argument.
My point is Im a republican who beileves in Capitalism and I dont care for Unions. At the same time the US govt. is not a global entity and I would not like to see other countries in a financial situation where they basically own us. I would like the US govt to go to the *** govt and work with them to get our vehicles and such more allowed into their markets. I would like to see limited protectionism where maybe 30-40% of a corporations workforce has to be here and maybe some other ideas smarter people can come up with.
Ive discussed Globalization recently with my brother who is an accountant about the mexican trucking comming to america and jobs being outsourced to the Chineese and all he says is its the "Global economy." Its a buzz word now that theyve named it but hasnt it always been a global economy to some extent? George washington considered himself and englishman yet was upset when the English products he bought from across the Atlantic were sub par. The English saw the colonist as second class citizens when the colonist saw themselves as Englishmen. It was one of the straws that broke the camels back in Washingtons eyes. Countries have always traded with eachother.
To simply dismiss everything as a "Global Economy" without careful regaurd or forethought of what you are trading dismisses the fact that there are very different seperate political governments, and only one is yours. Yes you can have your entire workforce in China shipped to the US and offloaded to Mexican trucks but all that money is leaving the country. Conversly US car manufacturers can try to sell their products in a Japanese market that again is a seperate soverign NON-US Govt. But that ignores that the Japanese govt makes it very difficult for non *** vehicles to sell in their market. My brothers arguement was if youre upset about the Mexican illegals taking your job at McDonalds get an education. My arguement is theyre also working on trucking, China with production, India with EDUCATED tech support and dont tell me you cant outsource accountants... You might guess his responce was "Ill adjust, its a global economy" and that was the end of the argument.
My point is Im a republican who beileves in Capitalism and I dont care for Unions. At the same time the US govt. is not a global entity and I would not like to see other countries in a financial situation where they basically own us. I would like the US govt to go to the *** govt and work with them to get our vehicles and such more allowed into their markets. I would like to see limited protectionism where maybe 30-40% of a corporations workforce has to be here and maybe some other ideas smarter people can come up with.
Last time I checked our dollar is falling faster than Bush's popularity numbers. Our economy is artificially inflated. Reflections of that is the job market is starting to stress and crack from these oversights in business practices. Immigration and operations that cost this country billions and nothing done. Outsourcing, moving and relocating to fill the pockets of the rich, drive this country now. Take a drive to Detroit or any large manufacturing, textile or industrial city in the U.S. and see how wonderful this G.E. is treating our own citizens. How a juggernaut of the world is now a pale comparison of itself. How we turn a blind eye to threats like Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Kia and Hyundai, Subaru (using cars as an example since this is a car site but it goes much deeper than just autos) setting up shop here in the U.S. and that's "OK" It helps our economy out? Does it? Depends on who's greased pocket you ask. Couple hundred thousands of jobs created in the name of a foreign company setting up shop here in a small suburban farm town in the mid west..thats good right? Well, tell that to the large city that has turned into a pit of despair where it not long ago hummed along to the beat of the U.S. economy creating MILLIONS of jobs and a workforce that offered the U.S. citizen the benefits of the American dream. Can't say that now since that new Toyota thats built in the U.S. is on the lot and just helped close that plant in your town and in effect dominoed the whole cities local economy. A once well to do worker is now asking "you want fries with that?" Yea Great American economy . You want to sit and tell me how foreign companies can come in here and its good for us? thousands of new jobs for millions of lost jobs..does not add up..sorry..I would love to know cus I am sure there are many companies that if not greased by that pocket were forced out of this same country just to compete. Is it Toyotas fault? Nope were just letting the doors wide open for the slaughter. Like I have said before and will say again. We are doing it to ourselves. Is a G.E. good for us? SURE if we are in control of our country. Not strung up by the likes of import companies that ship in and produce products for our consumption. Should we not be doing that? Should we not be defending our home goods and products? Our brands and our freedoms? Nope instead were asking when the next Wal Mart is going up to import all this crap from China..Looking for that Honda Civic cus the U.S. "Just does not make a car like they do"
I ask you this. If the way we are doing things is the right way...THEN WHY IS JAPAN DOING THE OPPOSITE?? Why is China hoodwinking everyone? Why is India now our customer service department? Why is the power structure that was once held in the Northern Atlantic now shifting to the South Pacific??? I can tell you not for any good reason I can see on these shores. Sure many of you can sit there and say hey I got a good job and a nice house with a nice truck and a nice car but really is it selfishness thats getting us to this low? What do we need to do to get the pride back in our slice of this global pie? How do we say no!, we will support our home grown products we will be strong from within! We will hold those reigns of this global economy.
The thing is we cant. Were not like Japan. We are not focused. We are selfish and lost site of the true American dream. The focus we had is now what Japan, China and India hold as ideals and thrive off of and we are letting that go for the all mighty dollar. In return another puppet string is thrown back at us so that when the time comes. All we are is nothing more than puppets in the future global economy. And you can thank the greased pockets of all who are involved. Everyone that made it possible.
Last edited by Caps94ZODG; Sep 26, 2007 at 11:35 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
QFTFT!!!
Utter, BS, where i see it on this wonderful "global economy" More like sellout and what 5thgen69camaro just stated just saved me about 10 min of typing. A true WORKING global economy is one where its a 50/50 split of influx of goods and services and an export of the same equal amount of goods and services. Do we see that in the U.S.??? Nope!
Utter, BS, where i see it on this wonderful "global economy" More like sellout and what 5thgen69camaro just stated just saved me about 10 min of typing. A true WORKING global economy is one where its a 50/50 split of influx of goods and services and an export of the same equal amount of goods and services. Do we see that in the U.S.??? Nope!
It will also be very interesting to see how global peak oil effects this global economy in the next decade. We just might get a little bit of manufacturing back in the USA.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,947
From: Springfield,OH. U.S.A.
My opposition to the Globalization "Train" is NOT to stand in the way of Global trading, and get ran over.
But to hopefully make it switch tracks to more level ground, so it steam-rolls over less, hard-working, lower classed Americans.
We need to stop this race to the lowest-common denominator...and build up our "consumers", to keep the economic engine running smoothly.
But to hopefully make it switch tracks to more level ground, so it steam-rolls over less, hard-working, lower classed Americans.
We need to stop this race to the lowest-common denominator...and build up our "consumers", to keep the economic engine running smoothly.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
Shorter Wall Street Journal:
Sorry for the snarkiness, but this whole article reeks of sloppy journalism.
We're OK with anything that displaces union jobs, and will be happy to cite partial statistics to support this position.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CARiD
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
Sep 7, 2015 08:21 AM
