The global economy according to...

[ChrisT]

 

Any comments?

[barjor]

Post deleted by barjor

Edited June 3, 2005 by barjor

[mec]

Another mindless copy and paste. Atleast state your own opinion or tell us why this article is worth reading.

 

Most of the posts on this site are mindless, included yours...

[ChrisT]

yes it's mindless but I thought it was interesting and not everyone is a member so just a link would not work so go to hell.

[knelson]

yes it's mindless but I thought it was interesting and not everyone is a member so just a link would not work so go to hell.

 

 

Guess I'm in hell since links work just fine when I'm not signed in - just like a nonmember.

 

-kurt

[j_b]

other countries are no more ready to deal with outsourcing and globalization. unless you consider converting your workforce into minimum wage earners without benefits a "race to the top"

[PaulB]

On a related note, here's how David Dodge, Canada's version of Alan Greenspan, sees things.

[barjor]

I lived in Sweden before I moved to Portland and I remember the debate about Sweden joining the EU or not. I was against but the election determent that Sweden would join. I always prefer the solution where the power is as close to the voter as possible. And stuff is manufactured as close to the customer as possible. Right now the population want to have a vote about accepting the expansion of EU authority. The political powers are against this when it is clear that Sweden would vote just as France did.

 

If the global economy keeps blackmailing countries the way they do now there will be countries competing for corporations just like corporations compete for customers. Not sure I like that idea

 

What do you think ChrisT?

 

Hey it is 2:00. my week of slavery is over, mountains here I come..Soo long suckers

[ChrisT]

What I found most interesting is the aging population of Europe (combined with low birth rates) versus the youthful, eager population of India and the points Friedman made about Europeans wanting to preserve a 35 hour work week when Indians will work a 35 hour day. How long can Europeans support the envious benefits of their workers and still stay competitive in a global marketplace? And where does the US fall in all this, currently struggling to hold onto some hard won worker benefits when health care and pensions are disappearing rapidly. Those are some of the issues the piece stirred in me.

[j_b]

Elite Protectionists

[Dave_Schuldt]

Another mindless copy and paste. Atleast state your own opinion or tell us why this article is worth reading.

 

Most of the posts on this site are mindless, included yours...

 

That's the whole point of Spray.

[j_b]

here are some comments on Friedman's fairy tale:

French-Fried Friedman, Nouvelle Globalizer

[JayB]

"Fear and Loathing in the First World

Robert J. Shiller

 

Within the last few years, people throughout the world's most advanced economies have become acutely worried about the economic prowess of China, India, and other emerging countries with large low-wage populations. They fear for their own jobs and for their children's future in a world where they must compete alongside the world's poorest. Those fears are testing political leaders in the world's richest countries.

 

Newspaper stories are an indicator of this rising concern. I searched the Lexis-Nexis database of English-language newspaper stories around the world that contained all three of the words "outsourcing," "jobs," and "India." In 1999, Lexis-Nexis produced only 39 stories; by 2003, there were 749 stories. In the first six months of 2004, there were already 1208 stories. The results were much the same when I searched "outsourcing," "jobs", and "China."

 

I found similar growth in the use of these three terms together when I searched in French, German, Italian, and Spanish: 90% of the stories were in 2003 and 2004.

 

Why this explosion of concern? After all, advanced countries have been losing manufacturing jobs to less developed countries for more than fifty years.

 

One reason is that the expanding development and use of new information technology, notably cell phones and the Internet, shrinks the world and makes competition from abroad more plausible. In fact, new technologies are probably the most important reason why globalization is advancing at a rapid pace. Cell phones and the Internet link the minds of many people in different countries effortlessly and efficiently, encouraging trade in intellectual creations.

 

At the same time, the new information technology makes us more aware that the kinds of jobs that are migrating to India and China are high-quality jobs, the jobs for educated and skilled people. Over the last fifty years, people in advanced countries have increasingly sought university education and specialized training to protect them from an unforgiving labor market. Now First-Worlders are uncertain whether even this will protect their economic status.

 

Increased fear of competition from emerging countries is also a natural consequence of the collapse of the speculative bubble in equities in 2000; stock markets in some countries fell to less than half their peak value. Once we saw our exaggerated hopes for our investments failing, we began to consider our other sources of income and wealth, only to confront the worldwide economic slowdown that began in 2001. Increased economic anxiety has, unsurprisingly, fueled increasing unease about foreign competition.

 

Earlier this year, I surveyed people who recently bought homes in four American cities. My questionnaire asked: "Do you worry that your (or your household's) ability to earn as much income in future years as you expect might be in danger because of changes in the economy (someone in China competing for your job, a computer replacing your job, etc.)?" Of 442 respondents, 11% answered, "Yes, I worry a lot," 36% replied, "Yes, I worry a little," and 52% said, "No, I don't worry at all." Thus, while most respondents said they were not worried, nearly half expressed some worry.

 

I asked this question of recent homebuyers on the theory that fear of job loss might help explain the remarkable boom in home prices in the US (as well as many other advanced countries). After all, people who fear losing their jobs may seek greater economic security by investing in real property in their own wealthy country, bidding up prices in the process.

 

My survey's results lend some support to this theory. Although 81% of the respondents said fear of job loss had no effect on their decision to buy a house, of those who said it did, the number who said it encouraged home purchase outnumbered those who said it discouraged home purchase by a margin of two to one.

 

Growing fear of foreign competition ought to explain a lot of things in the future. People used to feel insulated from economic problems that occurred beyond their country's borders. No more. Fear of competition from abroad is now fundamental, and will change the political process in advanced and relatively advanced emerging countries throughout the world. It helps explain the rise of protectionism, and the failure of the WTO trade talks in Cancun last September to improve emerging countries' access to advanced-country markets.

 

As a professor, I find that my students often ask me for career advice with a different tone than in the past. What I hear is a fundamental lack of confidence that they will do well in any chosen career. They want to figure out how they can compete with Chinese or Indian workers who have the same, or better, education. Despite bravado about American superiority, the students themselves do not seem to feel superior, and wonder if they will be living emerging-country lives of their own in coming years.

 

This sudden fear of emerging countries presents a major dilemma. The fear is real and visceral, and politicians ignore it at their peril. Its further increase could lead to counterproductive protectionist measures. We must not let this happen. The emerging countries are doing nothing more blameworthy than working towards their place as equals alongside advanced countries. It is morally and practically vital that they succeed.

 

 

Robert J. Shiller is Professor of Economics at Yale University, and author of Irrational Exuberance and The New Financial Order: Risk in the 21st Century."

[ChrisT]

Friedman is at it again.

 

Thanks for the progressive POV, j_b

[willstrickland]

Jay_B, you were discussing the housing bubble issue earlier, and I see you quoted Schiller above. You might look into his recent writings on the housing bubble if you've yet to do so. He is firmly in the unsustainable bubble camp.

 

And Friedman sucks. Worst mixed up metaphors ever. Here's Friedman's style: First talk about yourself, toss in some anecdotes, reveal your brilliant conclusion in a strained metaphor without realizing that the brilliant conclusion is a "no shit sherlock" to everyone else. Let me try to imitate:

 

Last year my wife and I visited Alaska where we met my good friend the famous scholar Dr. Eskie Mo. Over king crab legs and halibut at his 7,000 sq ft log home, Dr. Mo said to me "Thomas, everything is changing. The arctic is warming and it's heat-sink abilities are diminishing rapidly and threatening native subsistence lifestyles." Then it hit me, my god he's telling me that our arctic is an overflowing kitchen sink, with too much heat! My next book, titled "Drano and the Eskimo" examines this revelation in depth.

[ChrisT]

That's perfect Will. Personally I prefer Krugman but he's on vacation

[bunglehead]

...Friedman sucks. Worst mixed up metaphors ever...

..Last year my wife and I visited Alaska where we met my good friend the famous scholar Dr. Eskie Mo. Over king crab legs and halibut at his 7,000 sq ft log home, Dr. Mo said to me "Thomas, everything is changing. The arctic is warming and it's heat-sink abilities are diminishing rapidly and threatening native subsistence lifestyles." Then it hit me, my god he's telling me that our arctic is an overflowing kitchen sink, with too much heat! My next book, titled "Drano and the Eskimo" examines this revelation in depth...

 

That's pretty accurate. The example is spot on.

I also hate David Brooks. I'd like to take some of those broad over generalizations he makes, roll them into a thick stick, and shove them up his fucking ass. Fucking goatfucker. I actually made the mistake of buying a book he wrote: "On Paradise Drive". What a fucking waste of paper. Pure drivel. Maybe he should go out and talk to other humans once in a while. Sheesh.