Globalisation backlash in rich nations

INstead of punishing successful people why not try focusing on the problem. All the proposals (for lack of a better word) in the article punish or llimit the ability for people to accumulate wealth and then transfer a lot of money to the government. (which is generally a bad Idea, since the only thing that keeps us free is the Government's limited ability to keep track and monitor us).

If you really wanted to help, the poor, aleviate the fears of globalisation, and limit the potential for corporations to make "obscene" profits, then just require the corporations to pay the prevailing wage for (insert name of your country here) for ALL workers that make products shipped to "your country"!
First, it makes keeping the production plants at home more attractive, second, it alloows better control of pollution since developing countries don't have to abide by environmental laws; third, it would create vast numbers of middle class around the world.

 

The problem with that approach, DA, is that instead of creating a larger middle class, it will shift the class boundaries. Requiring those types of pay hikes for wages would dramatically increase the cost of parts around the world, and in the end increase the cost of goods but such a huge amount that the current middle class couldn't afford them and they would become luxury items for the rich. Just about every good you buy now a days is made using cheap labor somewhere. if you double or triple (or more) the cost of that labor through artificially imposed means, the price of that good will increase as well. Overall, you would see a huge amount of worldwide inflation as people in more privileged countries demand more money to keep up with inflation, which in turn increases not only their salary base, but the salaries of everyone else in the world, which increases prices higher in a never ending circle of inflation.

In short, it won't increase the size of the middle class, it'll just dramatically raise the bar to get into the middle class tax bracket.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jul 24 2007, 02:04 PM) [snapback]484216[/snapback]</div>

Old argument, sounds logical, but in the end just more hot air.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 24 2007, 12:19 PM) [snapback]484162[/snapback]</div>

From todays news - a link for you
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...270083115591444

and a quick little snippet:

"Those who see the world "worse off" because of globalization must explain why, as global trade has surged over the last 30 years or so, the rate of poverty around the world has plunged.

As Surjit Bhalla, an economist affiliated with the Institute for International Economics, recently wrote: "World poverty fell from 44% of the global population in 1980 to 13% in 2000, its fastest decline in history. Global income inequality has dropped over this period and is at its lowest level since 1910."

Next....

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Jul 24 2007, 01:11 PM) [snapback]484219[/snapback]</div>

Care to explain how it's not valid? increasing costs leads to increasing price, which in turn leads to a demand for higher wages to keep up with the price increases... I really don't see the flaw in it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 24 2007, 09:19 AM) [snapback]484162[/snapback]</div>

According to the graphics . . . since when is 30% in the US and not quite 50% in Germany - regarding "pay caps" - a "large majority"? :huh:
Oh yeah . . . when the writer wants a "popular backlash" by "large majorities of people" "sweeping all rich countries."
[B.S. flag is rising.]

In lieu of the above . . . where's the graphics on those who "want higher taxation for the rich"????
I wonder if those graphics would also "show" a "popular backlash" by "large majorities of people." :lol: :lol: :lol:
WHERE'S THE BEEF? :huh:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jul 24 2007, 12:29 PM) [snapback]484197[/snapback]</div>

I don't have a problem with making money per se. I have a problem with some of the methods used. When they are unethical or dishonest, then I have a problem. For instance, arranging a short of energy or gasoline by arranging for links to shut down or refineries to close, thus creating a faux shortage and short supply. Then raising the cost because the demand is greater than the supply. It's been done with sugar, coffee, electricity and gas.

Already discussed here is the CEO's and boards voting themselves huge raises and bonuses while laying off workers to cut costs.

I don't think either of these is a justification for free reign accumulation of wealth. Centuries ago those that had felt an obligation to those that didn't. It was called Noblesse oblige. It was an unspoken obligation to provide charity to those in need. But somewhere along the way greed got in the way.

Sorry, but I think there should be a cap on certain salaries and scrutiny of profits.

Companies that continue to pollute because paying the fines is cheaper than fixing the problem. Or moving the business to a country that allows them to pollute as much as they want with no restrictions.

How many times has it been said here that, for instance, those that can afford to buy an SUV and gas no matter what the price is will continue to do so no matter the consequences to the environment....simply because they want it and they can afford it. That is the problem.

 

The problem with Eagles counter argument is that it assumes (apparently) that only increased prices due to increased labor costs would be passed on to the consumer. ALL increased costs to any business is passed on to the consumer, period. The only time government interference lowers costs to the consumer is (generally) de-regulation (wait that is less government involvement) and two anti-trust regulation. Other than that government interference (good or bad) costs the consumer money. (with the side benefit in some cases of course that the consumer may have a safer product).

At least with my plan it is the market place and the consumer that red0stributes the wealth by choosing to spend money on products which would most likely still be made in this country (due to the loss of the ability to pay for super cheap labor overseas) as opposed to a tax which would go to the government to re-distribute.

The U.S. government has spent nearly $11,000,000,000,000.00 in the war on paverty in the last 50 years and there are still poor. Money isn't the answer. Opportunity is! Another government tax and cap will not create opportunity but serve to stifle those who do create opportunities for others by removing the incentive to struggle to create those opportunities.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jul 24 2007, 05:43 PM) [snapback]484379[/snapback]</div>

Agreed.

A job done well, no matter how humble, is noble.

Work is a good thing, and it's good to be proud of whatever it is we do.

-----

I don't agree that deregulation naturally leads to lower prices, certainly not in the long term.

I think that market forces are what ultimately set prices; finding a buyer is the only way to see what something is really worth.

Deregulation levels the playing field, which might lower prices initially. But whether they actually stay lower --or not-- really depends on things like supply and demand, energy prices, etc., doesn't it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jul 24 2007, 12:29 PM) [snapback]484197[/snapback]</div>

Here's an example of allowing people to accumulate wealth with no restrictions. Or should I say....corporations.

Gas flaring in Nigeria.

Being discussed here.

 

And here is an example of what happens when government controls...

http://countrystudies.us/russia/25.htm

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Jul 24 2007, 12:04 PM) [snapback]484216[/snapback]</div>

No. If you look at the effect sweatshop labor in foreign nations has had on global wages, you'll see, statistically, that it contributes to a growing gap between the rich and poor, and a shrinking middle class.

In the 1960's, beyond a few anecdotal examples, you basically didn't have offshoring at all. You also had CEO pay at an average of 40x the average employee salary (vs. 419x in 1998), the minimum wage was the equivalent of $15/hr vs. just over $7 today, we're working longer hours, middle-class incomes stagnated since the 1970's, and though we're a much more productive society, the elite are the ones reaping most of the benefits.

We can and have lived comfortable lives without any offshoring at all.

That, of course, is a very selfish conclusion, however, because this issue isn't just about our own comfort, but justice for the world's poor. In America's Progressive Era, we as a society decided that adverse working conditions and penny wages were grossly immoral (even if immigrants wanted to move here from around the world to work in such conditions) so we passed laws to prevent the abuses.

In today's world, we still have labor abuses and hunger-wages paid by American companies in foreign nations and I'd argue that it is every bit as immoral as what happened in Industrial Age America.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 24 2007, 08:45 PM) [snapback]484498[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jul 25 2007, 11:53 AM) [snapback]484842[/snapback]</div>

IMHO, these are both examples of Plutocracy run amok. In Nigeria, the oil companies have the money, make money for people in power, and are allowed to run free. In Russia. the state is directly serving as a tool for a minority who are pooling as much of the power and resources as possible in the hands of a few. So, be it by lack of government controls or by excess of government controls, we have the same end result - horrible consequences and a grotesque profit level lining a few pockets.

As a developed nation and/or "The Last Superpower ™" should we, through the US goverment, attempt to find those places where some government controls could offset this sort of thing? Is it really unreasonable to tax the current profits of the oil companies?

Okay, Mr. Exxon / Mobil corporation, we're going to limit you to a gross profit of $ 1.25 per share instead of $1.65, and we'll use the proceeds to build LNG capturing and distribution at your various producing oil fields, to stop your flaring otherwise useful gas. Oh, you can sell it. We'll even give you the LNG infrastructure and facilities, increaseing your profits. Nyah nyah, bad oil company.

Corporations, despite recent court cases where they are declared persons, are engines with one and only one purpose - the highest possible profit. I humbly submit that there must be some controls imposed on them, and only government can do it.