[mike777]

I am also against Globalization. Stephen Hawking and many others have for years preached that the best hope for mankind is too get off the globe and spread out into the universe. I think Globalization hurts the middle class in the long run as well as the short run. Best chance of survival is to get off this globe, fast. I am for Universalization. THINK BIG NOT GLOBAL.

Race is certainly the "third rail" of issues. Touch it and you die fast and painfully.
With all this interrace sex and baby makin going on for thousands of years I just wonder who is who and what is what.

[DrTodd13]

How many years of affirmative action have we had? If blacks are not attaining equal outcomes with whites now then what is the reason? Continued racism? To some small degree that is probably true but I don't think that accounts for the current situation. I don't believe that culture is something inherent to a race or reflects on that race's qualities. I think most of the black population had a positive attitude prior to Johnson's Great Society. I lament the condition of much of black culture today and also much of white culture but the secondary effects of the Great Society had more of an effect on the black culture because percentage wise they were still poorer than whites at that time. The Great Society punished marriage and rewarded single motherhood so surprise surprise we got more single-motherhood and this was focused on the poorer segments of the population. Study after study has shown poverty being associated with single parenthood. Like it or not, a lot of people on these programs just languished there. What effect would it have on kids to see their parents not work and yet sit back and collect others' money? That can't install the work ethic that is necessary to succeed.

Look at the statistics on the link I provided. I won't claim to know all the answers for why these results are as they are but they are facts. Again, I lament that this is the condition they are in but we've all seen stories of people who raised their families from poverty to the upper class in one or two generations. I believe that _everyone_ is capable of working their ass off and improving their situation. In my opinion, if they choose not to do this then they are happy with where they are at or they are too lazy to do what is necessary to change their situation. If someone is going to refute this and claim that the reason for the blacks' current lower socioeconomic position is a racial trait then that person is the racist, not me.

Census statistics on race

[DrTodd13]

Here are a couple of articles by Walter Williams about trade and globalization.

Trade deficits
Globalization

I don't see a problem with people willingly trading with one another. Borders should be irrelevant. Why should we restrict others' right to buy goods from whomever they choose? To limit purchases from other countries only panders to nationalism which is a form of racism (the "American race").

[whereagles]

I know... it's funny the US keep talking about lifting borders when the US themselves are the biggest protectionist state out there.

[mike777]

Yep we are as I type this on my chinese computer, watching my Japanese tv, or driving my Korean car. Wine, furniture, clothes all made outside of USA, check.
Wood for house from Canada, check....iron and steel from India, check. Add a few things from Mexico, check. German beer, check. Irish sweater, check.

Oil from....non usa source, check...Gas for heating house, check outside of usa. English bridge books..check.

[Winstonm]

Japan ranks right near the top in protectionist countries - try to sell Japan non-Japanese rice and see who far you get.

[Winstonm]

DrTodd13, on Apr 1 2007, 02:48 PM, said:

Here are a couple of articles by Walter Williams about trade and globalization.

Trade deficits
Globalization

I don't see a problem with people willingly trading with one another.  Borders should be irrelevant.  Why should we restrict others' right to buy goods from whomever they choose?  To limit purchases from other countries only panders to nationalism which is a form of racism (the "American race").

Dr. Todd, I believe the crux of the debate is for whom is free trade good. On the dissenting side, when you allow competition from cheap labor the benefits are to the corporation and to the cheap labor. The corporation increases its profits, its stock rises, and its shareholders benefit - all geared to benefit the top 10%. The cheap labor countries get jobs that otherwise were not there.

On the other hand, the loser is the hourly worker whose job has been outsourced and now instead of a $16 an hour manufacturing job must take an $8 an hour service industry job - and often another part-time job along with it just to come close to what he was making before.

One would think globalization would produce lower prices, but it seems to have only created greater corporate profites at the expense of the blue-collar worker.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Apr 1 2007, 07:56 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Apr 1 2007, 02:48 PM, said:

Here are a couple of articles by Walter Williams about trade and globalization.

Trade deficits
Globalization

I don't see a problem with people willingly trading with one another.  Borders should be irrelevant.  Why should we restrict others' right to buy goods from whomever they choose?  To limit purchases from other countries only panders to nationalism which is a form of racism (the "American race").

Dr. Todd, I believe the crux of the debate is for whom is free trade good. On the dissenting side, when you allow competition from cheap labor the benefits are to the corporation and to the cheap labor. The corporation increases its profits, its stock rises, and its shareholders benefit - all geared to benefit the top 10%. The cheap labor countries get jobs that otherwise were not there.

On the other hand, the loser is the hourly worker whose job has been outsourced and now instead of a $16 an hour manufacturing job must take an $8 an hour service industry job - and often another part-time job along with it just to come close to what he was making before.

One would think globalization would produce lower prices, but it seems to have only created greater corporate profites at the expense of the blue-collar worker.

What makes the "blue collar worker" any more important than the cheap laborer in the other country? Luck of the draw to be born on the correct side of an imaginary line? It is dispicable to rank human beings in that way because of where they live, as though somehow the needs of Americans are more important than the needs of others.

[mike777]

So what are you suggesting Winston? What problem are you trying to solve and how do you want to solve it? I have no idea exactly what the problem is that you are trying to solve or how you are trying to solve it? Sure some people are poor who were rich 5 years ago and some people are rich who were poor 5 years ago. Is that a problem? Are you saying the middle class or rich should never be allowed to be poor?

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Apr 1 2007, 08:20 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 1 2007, 07:56 PM, said:

DrTodd13, on Apr 1 2007, 02:48 PM, said:

Here are a couple of articles by Walter Williams about trade and globalization.

Trade deficits
Globalization

I don't see a problem with people willingly trading with one another.  Borders should be irrelevant.  Why should we restrict others' right to buy goods from whomever they choose?  To limit purchases from other countries only panders to nationalism which is a form of racism (the "American race").

Dr. Todd, I believe the crux of the debate is for whom is free trade good. On the dissenting side, when you allow competition from cheap labor the benefits are to the corporation and to the cheap labor. The corporation increases its profits, its stock rises, and its shareholders benefit - all geared to benefit the top 10%. The cheap labor countries get jobs that otherwise were not there.

On the other hand, the loser is the hourly worker whose job has been outsourced and now instead of a $16 an hour manufacturing job must take an $8 an hour service industry job - and often another part-time job along with it just to come close to what he was making before.

One would think globalization would produce lower prices, but it seems to have only created greater corporate profites at the expense of the blue-collar worker.

What makes the "blue collar worker" any more important than the cheap laborer in the other country? Luck of the draw to be born on the correct side of an imaginary line? It is dispicable to rank human beings in that way because of where they live, as though somehow the needs of Americans are more important than the needs of others.

Absolutely nothing. If the reason is to benefit the cheap labor, that is good. But what if the benefit is only to increase corporate profits at the expense of the worker at home? Is that still good?

[mike777]

Ok so lets pass a law thats says you cannot only increase profits as the only benefit. Is that ok? Private Property owners must do something else besides only having increased profits as a benefit?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Apr 1 2007, 08:24 PM, said:

So what are you suggesting Winston?  What problem are you trying to solve and how do you want to solve it? I have no idea exactly what the problem is that you are trying to solve or how you are trying to solve it?  Sure some people are poor who were rich 5 years ago and some people are rich who were poor 5 years ago. Is that a problem? Are you saying the middle class or rich should never be allowed to be poor?

The concern is a polarization into a two-class civilization, the elimination of the middle class. Or would you simply "Let them eat cake."?

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Apr 1 2007, 09:16 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 1 2007, 08:24 PM, said:

So what are you suggesting Winston?  What problem are you trying to solve and how do you want to solve it? I have no idea exactly what the problem is that you are trying to solve or how you are trying to solve it?  Sure some people are poor who were rich 5 years ago and some people are rich who were poor 5 years ago. Is that a problem? Are you saying the middle class or rich should never be allowed to be poor?

The concern is a polarization into a two-class civilization, the elimination of the middle class. Or would you simply "Let them eat cake."?

So what do you want to do? You seem to be saying what I wrote, if not what?

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Apr 1 2007, 09:17 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 1 2007, 09:16 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 1 2007, 08:24 PM, said:

So what are you suggesting Winston?  What problem are you trying to solve and how do you want to solve it? I have no idea exactly what the problem is that you are trying to solve or how you are trying to solve it?  Sure some people are poor who were rich 5 years ago and some people are rich who were poor 5 years ago. Is that a problem? Are you saying the middle class or rich should never be allowed to be poor?

The concern is a polarization into a two-class civilization, the elimination of the middle class. Or would you simply "Let them eat cake."?

So what do you want to do? You seem to be saying what I wrote, if not what?

I don't have an answer. That's the reason for posing the two questions. Is this a real risk (dual class society)? If so, is there something that can or should be done about it?

You're the guy with the degree from Chicago - I'm just a poor working shmuck - you tell me the answers

[mike777]

If a Mom is willing to come from the Philipines and do your nursing job at 75% of the pay, should she get the job or you? As the owner, I should keep you and let her family starve? That sounds like a dual class to me? Winston this is a real life everyday example that hits close to home for everyone.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Apr 1 2007, 09:32 PM, said:

If a Mom is willing to come from the Philipines and do your nursing job at 75% of the pay, should she get the job or you? As the owner, I should keep you and let her family starve? That sounds like a dual class to  me?

So you are suggesting socialism as the answer, then? We'll simply let the government divide the spoils?

Or is it pure capitalism you are suggesting, law of the jungle, Darwinian survival of the fittest?

Seems extreme either way.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Apr 1 2007, 09:38 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 1 2007, 09:32 PM, said:

If a Mom is willing to come from the Philipines and do your nursing job at 75% of the pay, should she get the job or you? As the owner, I should keep you and let her family starve? That sounds like a dual class to  me?

So you are suggesting socialism as the answer, then? We'll simply let the government divide the spoils?

Or is it pure capitalism you are suggesting, law of the jungle, Darwinian survival of the fittest?

Seems extreme either way.

extreme, well I think it is fair it call it "destructive."

[pbleighton]

DrTodd:

Since the subject of the post was:

"The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high, millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line and the gulf between the nation's "haves" and "have-nots" continues to widen."

why did you immediately start talking about the supposedly inferior black culture (which BTW you display total igorance of), when a substantial majority of those below the poverty line aren't black, and most of those above but close to the poverty line aren't black?

Why did you immediately see this in racial terms? I believe your rant:

"Somehow the black culture has lost its way. 50 years ago there was a desire to integrate and succeed but this has been replaced with a disdain for intellectualism and laud for the dream of an athletic career."

gives you away.

Peter

[DrTodd13]

jdonn, on Apr 1 2007, 05:20 PM, said:

What makes the "blue collar worker" any more important than the cheap laborer in the other country? Luck of the draw to be born on the correct side of an imaginary line? It is dispicable to rank human beings in that way because of where they live, as though somehow the needs of Americans are more important than the needs of others.

Amen Josh! People here seem to think they are entitled to a cushy lifestyle far above the average standard of living around the world just because they live in the US or some other already industrialized country. Why should that be? This is total nationalistic indoctrination. Winston asked why goods aren't cheaper in the US thanks to outsourcing. Hello?!?!? Have you heard of Walmart? What good would it be if your income was twice as high but everything cost twice as much?

As for me, I am suggesting pure capitalism because I believe in total freedom. I do have pity on those who are seriously incapable of working, widows, orphans, etc. I don't have any sympathy for people who could work but don't. Charities can and will take care of those who seriously need help.

[Winstonm]

DrTodd13, on Apr 1 2007, 10:05 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 1 2007, 05:20 PM, said:

What makes the "blue collar worker" any more important than the cheap laborer in the other country? Luck of the draw to be born on the correct side of an imaginary line? It is dispicable to rank human beings in that way because of where they live, as though somehow the needs of Americans are more important than the needs of others.

Amen Josh! People here seem to think they are entitled to a cushy lifestyle far above the average standard of living around the world just because they live in the US or some other already industrialized country. Why should that be? This is total nationalistic indoctrination. Winston asked why goods aren't cheaper in the US thanks to outsourcing. Hello?!?!? Have you heard of Walmart? What good would it be if your income was twice as high but everything cost twice as much?

As for me, I am suggesting pure capitalism because I believe in total freedom. I do have pity on those who are seriously incapable of working, widows, orphans, etc. I don't have any sympathy for people who could work but don't. Charities can and will take care of those who seriously need help.

Unfortunately, Dr. Todd, I believe it fantasy to believe in "pure" anything, as the human element always corrupts. Pure capitalism gives way to usary, 16 hour workdays 7 days a week, 50-year life expectancies, and on and on. Don't get me wrong - socialism is no better. There cannot be a "pure" form of anything.

And I believe you are wrong in your assessment of WalMart - the question would not be whether it would be a benefit to make twice as much and pay twice as much; the question should be could the corporations live with 50% less profit margin - from what source comes those incredible increases in corporate profits, stock options, and CEO payments?