The natural progression of Capitalism and Globalization is outsourcing and economic struggle

[rainy]

I keep seeing outrage over the outsourcing of jobs as if it can be stopped. This is what globalization is all about. To level the field of labor wages the waters will rise in some areas and lover in others. Only the ones who control the process and or the large "corporate empires" will be super rich. We are experiencing the leveling off of world labor costs. It will be years before we are all evenly paid but by then we will have destroyed the planet and wasted all of its finite natural resources.

Capitalism is a beast that will in the end eat itself. Just look at how the auto industries are allowed to fail because capitalism allowed some to profit off the destruction of the auto industries.

We need to wake up and get off this train. I was listening to Thom Hartmann the other day and a woman named Kerri from a women's forum was saying that corporations should have the "FREEDOM" to hire and fire at will for any reason. If some are so concerned about absolute "FREEDOM" for the corporation then I think I'll pitch a tent and live on the beach, find a patch of ground and grow my own food, make my clothes out of found materials etc... After all, this should by my right to the same freedom we allow the corporations. They steal our natural resources for profit and give nothing back to us. So, I'll start practicing my own freedoms. I didn't ask to be born into a world that allows a monetary system to control the rate of employment then denies those without work basic rights. Capitalism can't function at 100% employment. Imagine the workers making the corporations beg for them to work there. In the larger scheme of things jobs should be a right or else all should be given land and the means to food, clothing and shelter.

[opihimoimoi]

1. Corp power misused should be a CRIME...Period....look at the damage / evidence

[RDANGELO]

2. Exploitation.

Capitalism is the best means to provide goods and services to a society, but the governments have to be there to make sure people aren't exploited. That's not happening on the international level.

[Oregone]

8. Why is it the best means?

Capitalism isn't actually concerned with the quantity and quality of production, but rather, the profit from the sale of production. In capitalism, only as many goods and services will be produced and sold as is most profitable to do so at a particular price point (and further, they will only be produced at the most profitable quality level). There is no moral or philosophical component to capitalism that suggests all people in a society should be provided with an opportunity to buy any one good. The main driving tenant in capitalism is that shareholders of a company (those who inherit capital to buy ownership or "earn" capital from the profits of a previous ownership) should profit from the labor of the workers, since they own the means of production.

A very clear example of this is healthcare. There is no conceivable way that capitalism in America is the best means to provide that service to the society. It is merely the best means for the ownership class to profit from providing that service.

[MellowDem]

3. There is nothing "natural" about it

Capitalism is an economic system that can be regulated and used in very deliberate ways. We have a mixed economy here where we regulate capitalism and use it to very great effect on many things. But it all depends on how we use capitalism, not capitalism itself.

The western European countries that so many here admire all have capitalism and mixed economies, in fact, they wouldn't have the wealth and standard of living their people do without capitalism. It's just the way they regulate and control the market that makes the difference.

Your example of the auto industries is terrible. For one, the auto industry hasn't been allowed to fail, it has been getting bailouts for a while now, and a lot of those first came in the form of protectionism. And for another thing, according to this logic, you must be happy that the banks were bailed out instead of being allowed to fail "for the profit of others". Indeed, the government protectionism of the auto industry in many ways led to its downfall, meanwhile there was litle government regulation of the auto industry, despite all the protections the government was giving them, and hence you got progressively shittier cars with progessively shittier gas mileage since the auto companies didn't have to face the consequences of the market until now.

So what do you propose to be an alternate economic system? It seems that you still haven't identified the problem correctly nor come up with any solution.

[FredStembottom]

4. Thanks Mellowdem.

Capitalism isn't the problem any more than fire is the problem.

Harnessed, directed, cooled and regulated fire is the most wonderful and beneficial thing in the world.

Uncontrolled, uncontained fire is the problem.

Capitalism is very similar.

We just need to get past this bizarre era and out of the hands of this cult group that thinks kicking over kerosene lanterns in hay lofts is capitalism.

[rainy]

5. The problem is that corporations are using up all the natural

resources and destroying the planet for GROWTH. Capitalism is based on growth and the planet cannot sustain it. If our economic system, capitalism, demands growth to be successful then we are headed toward destruction. There are other ideas for economic systems that sustain the natural health of the planet and are not based on profit above all else. One idea is called the Venus project. Google it and in the mean time I'll try to leave a link to it.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

[Aragorn]

7. right on!

Constant need for growth fueled by base instinct of greed. Many people are greedy at a lizard-brain level, and in their actions no matter what they say they want. So either we change our system to change this problem or we get less people.

As George Carlin said, the earth doesn't need saving. The people do.

[MellowDem]

10. As far as I can tell...

the Venus Project is advocating a sort of Communist society (even though it lists it as one of the evils of the old world). How else would you be able to equitably distribute goods in an entirely resource-based society with no money?

Either way, capitalism is not based on growth. There is nothing inherent about capitalism that says there must be constant growth in all sectors. And obviously growth can mean a lot of things, but in your case, I'm guessing you mean growth in terms of the use of natural resources. But think of this. Growth in other technologies in a capitalist system has led to the decrease of usage of many natural resources. As natural resources become scarce or are more heavily regulated, economies adjust based on the free market. In fact, the whole "cap and trade" program uses the forces of the market to decrease pollution and increase investments in alternative energy that actually make sense in a mixed economy.

[blindpig]

6. How can it be natural?

Just looking at it from an environmental standpoint it is utterly unsustainable, it requires, demands, constant growth, a physical impossibility on a finite planet.It is capitalism, not population, which is despoiling the Amazon, the Congo Basin, the forest of, well, everywhere.

Regulation has never worked over the long term. TR did it and failed and it is apparent that the New Deal has failed to, for here we are again. As long as they got the money and the will they will slip the leash.

K&R

[MellowDem]

11. Prove to me

that capitalism inherently means "constant growth".

There are a lot of factors that go into the usage of resources. To blame pollution on capitalism is hitting the wrong target. Part of the problem is that natural resources and the process of extraction that can lead to all sorts of nasty environmental side effects are looked at as things with no inherent value or cost, which is definitely not "capitalist". In fact, you could say that certain companies are working outside the capitalist system when they don't "own" the costs of their own pollution. Part of the problem has always been finding a value for such intangible things, but it's possible to at least attribute some sort of cost (ie cap and trade).

And of course regulation can work over the long term, it's pretty much got to. No matter what system you are working with, you're going to be depending on regulation, so I guess I don't understand your point?

[blindpig]

14. Tell me this

Why is it that growth of the GDP is made so much of? Why is the small business person told that they must grow their business or it will die? It is because capitalism is dependent upon ever increasing profits, both for the stockholders and to keep up with the competition, if your competitor gets too big he will ground you down or take over your company. Capitalists must compete for market share because productive capability far outstrips market. That, btw, is why there is advertising and why we are constantly bombarded with so much useless shit. Monopoly is the end game of capitalism, and that has been the trend over the last thirty years.

Commodification air and water, the capitalist answer to pollution, gets us nowhere, it is a shell game. Only by having our industrial processes planned in a rational manner, solely for the benefit of the people, which would take into account all of the benefits which our environment presents to us, can we get a handle on this.

There is no sterile, ideal capitalism. Capitalism is about the accumulation of profits by any means necessary.

[anigbrowl]

21. Who gets to do the planning?

Suppose I invent a device which does some kind of task faster with less waste, but the planners don't want to give up their control of the planning apparatus and won't allocate any production facilities or resources to it? Happens all the time. the Soviets had a fully planned economic system and it really didn't work that well, they were always running into problems of shortages and surpluses.

So what's different about your vision of the planned economy/ How are you going to avoid making the mistakes that have taken place in every other planned economy (and I include the internal structure of numerous corporations in this)?

[blindpig]

24. It's a learning process

The Soviet Union was the first attempt at this in history, and operated under great duress throughout it's history. To be sure, mistakes were made and lessons have been learned. This process is now occurring in Cuba and both the process and the great attention to sustainability can be seen.

Your scenario is surreal, what would your invention have to do the planners? If it was feasible within the constraints of the overall system I see no reason why it would not be adopted. One of the goals of socialism is to reduce the workday and less waste would also benefit the people.

[anigbrowl]

27. The scenario is boringly familiar

I have seen numerous episodes of people objecting to innovation for quite irrational reasons. In fact, right now I have a boss who insists on receiving all my output on either USB key, CD or via email attachments, because he simply refuses to wrap his head around the idea of downloading it from a secure web page (whereas email is one of the most unsecure methods of exchanging data imaginable). I waste almost 1 day a week indulging his technophobia because he's simply unwilling to put any effort into learning a new tool, even though it's simpler, safer and faster than what he uses now.

I could go on all day with examples of people in positions of responsibility who reject ideas because they didn't think o it themselves or because they simply don't understand it. It happens within corporations as well, which is why many startups are set up by people who got frustrated working for a market leading company and left so they could have more freedom to innovate. Indeed, these are the kind of people who benefit the most from capitalism, because there are investors who are willing to explore ideas outside the mainstream and back up their personal enthusiasm with the cash needed to get the idea off the ground and let people eat while they're working on their first product.

[MellowDem]

28. Actually, there is nothing wrong...

with not growing your business and earning enough profit to maintain it and just keep chugging along. There are a lot of businesses that do just this and no one is coming to shut them down. However, you can always find ways to cut costs and improve efficiency (while maintaining quality) that increases wealth, even if you don't move beyond your one store. Advances in technology and upgrading your existing capital are ways of "growing" your business, and that will always be a constant process since innovation never stops. But you aren't necessarily "growing" physically, in fact, you are probably shrinking in many ways as you increase efficiency and use raw materials more effectively.

[Romulox]

9. Your post simply ignores the inconvenient fact that globalism is a race to the bottom

There is no magic savings involved in globalism; rather, all the saving inherent in globalism owe to exploitation of cheap labor. There is no way to regulate this basic premise of global capitalism away--it is part of the basic logic of the process.

Moreover, your example of the auto industry as an industry as one subject to "protectionism" and "litle (sic) government regulation" is so off point as to invalidate any larger point you're trying to make.

[MellowDem]

12. Globalization

has lead to the uplifiting of huge numbers of people from poverty and the highest standards of living ever. Indeed, you could say that money is flowing to those parts of the globe "at the bottom". But what eventually happens is that over time this lifts these communities up and the money then flows to the next cheap labor source. But as it does this it is slowly raising the standard of living overall.

It's just part of the process of industrialization and the growing pains for many countries that have been economically isolated. At first it's pretty dirty and unethical, but it leads to better things through the uplifting of wages and standards of living which eventually leads to better education (!) and power for the common person.

Globalization is simultaneously leveling the wealth of the world while overall increasing it, something that Communism was aimed at doing but could never actually accomplish. It's a dirty process, but I can't imagine it happening any other way. Hell, without globalization, the world would be a lot shittier, especially for those in the "third world".

As for the auto industry, how are my claims of it being one of the most protected industries of the last couple decades and one that has been subject to relatively little government regulation off base? Maybe the auto industries attempts to block such horrible innovations like air bags, seat belts, etc. by spending millions on Congress have something to do with it. And don't forget all those tariffs that were imposed on foriegn vehicles to "protect American jobs". Hmm, doesn't seem like the best policy anymore, does it?

[rainy]

13. You seem to think that capiltalism is the one and only way to run

people. Poverty was created by capitalism. Indigenous people living far away from pollution were very healthy and happy. Their water clean and lots of local plants to eat. American Indians the same. Now we have polluted waterways, air that makes us sick, toxins that are killing us, blight in our cities, homelessness, depressed, drugged out sick people all the results of capitlism. Thinking that we as HUMANS cannot imagine a better way will keep us stuck and keep the theifs in the leadership roles controling our destiny.

We use war, killing people, to make sure people are working and getting paid. Our economy is based on war machines. Is this the best we can do as humans?

Capitalism insists that not all can work but all must pay to live. That my friend does not equate as a just system.

[redqueen]

15. "not all can work but all must pay to live"

There's the catch. And this situation is only getting worse.

[anigbrowl]

19. It's a basic fact

Whether or not you are able to work, you still need food and water and the other necessities of life, and the supply of these is somewhat limited in many places. That's not capitalism, it's simple reality.

[redqueen]

20. It's also reality that there are more people than jobs.

And as I said, that situation will only get worse, as the population grows and more and more jobs are made obsolete or automated.

[anigbrowl]

22. There were no web designers 20 years ago

Nor, for that matter, were there a lot of jobs in manufacturing cellphones or inkjet printers. technology makes some jobs obsolete and creates new and different ones.

[rainy]

23. You are saying that nature is imperfect and cannot provide for all of the earth's

inhabitants. I say that man is imperfect and can not use what the good earth gives him/her for their basic needs.

[anigbrowl]

26. No, I'm not saying that at all.

[MellowDem]

29. Capitalism...

has nothing to do with the things you are blaming it on.

Poverty has always existed, it wasn't created by capitalism. Every society there ever was has had poverty.

And indigenous people living far away from pollution were not necessarily happy nor healthy. War was widespread before the introduction of industrialized society, as was suffering, and I can't say that the life expectancy of people back then was all too long either. There was no Garden of Eve paradise or "noble savage". That stuff is made up. Industrialization, which itself has nothing inherently to do with capitalism, has brought new troubles, but really they are all the same old troubles that the human condition brings in a new setting.

I personally agree with you that there are a lot of problems in the world and that it is not just, but that has always been the case and the introduction of capitalism didn't introduce or cause these troubles.

And we do live in a mixed economy with social safety nets, so it's not like we've ever lived in just a pure capitalist society either.

[Romulox]

31. Think of how many people we could feed this winter if we simply distribute all our seed corn!

You admit yourself that each new exploited low cost worker is being used only until a cheaper alternative may not be found. After this, they're cast on the same rubbish heap as American workers. Moreover, you don't attempt to explain why Americans and their "representative" Democracy should accede to allowing their standard of living to be decimated for the profit of private equity. But the largest point you attempt to ignore is that this process is simply unsustainable.

Your claims about the auto industry are undeveloped and internally contradictory. They speak for themselves.

"And don't forget all those tariffs that were imposed on foriegn vehicles to "protect American jobs"."

All WHICH tariffs? :shrug:

[MellowDem]

32. Think of it this way...

The rest of the world is developing and industrializing and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Oh sure, we can put up trade protections for certain industries, but then those industries will eventually fail as they won't be able to compete with cheap labor alternatives that cost a lot less from overseas. And the American consumer (and other related American industries) are also hurt by protecting those certain American industries.

Basically, protectionism will not save our standard of living, but the quicker we help develop the rest of the world and raise their standard of living, the quicker our own standard of living will stop slowly dropping and make a reverse. In fact, developing other nations leads to new customers and new opportunities that raise our standard of living. Just think of all the new customers in China that the US has now. Hundreds of millions of people have been raised to a level of wealth that allows them to buy our products. Wealth creation is advancing at a rapid pace and that's a good thing in many ways. It brings a lot of challenges, but protectionism is simply counterproductive.

As for the tariffs, the US has had tariffs on foriegn car imports for a long time now, though the rate has been changing. Since the 1930s (when it was around 10 percent) to today (when it is at about 3%). And quotas were introduced for Japanese cars as well, which has a similar effect to a tariff.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yFsKsVCILSMC&pg=RA1-PA27&lpg=RA1-PA27&dq=Automobile+tariffs+in+US+history&source=bl&ots=ETAiWw4b2o&sig=dtHG5MSP1xfseORL7NjkMgal-S0&hl=en&ei=tNsVSsz8NIyc8gT9iK3HAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PRA1-PA27,M1

[Romulox]

33. Your response reads more like a religious tract than a political response.

"The rest of the world is developing and industrializing and there is nothing we can do to stop it."

Right off the bat, you pose a false dichotomy. Who wants to stop the rest of the world from developing?

"the quicker we help develop the rest of the world and raise their standard of living, the quicker our own standard of living will stop slowly dropping and make a reverse. "

The world's population is set to double in the next 50 years. You stand alone in predicting that "our own standard of living will...make a reverse" any time in the foreseeable future. Sounds like a faith-based argument to me. :hi:

[MellowDem]

35. It's more a theory than a religious belief

But there are those who want to stop the pace of development and industrialization that is happening all over the world. It is contributing to a lot of problems, especially pollution and overpopulation. No false dichotomy. Of course, I'm not claiming that you think this, I'm just saying that even for those who think the solution would be to stop industrialization, you might as well look for something else since it isn't going to be stopping.

As for the world's population doubling, guess where the biggest growth will be happening? Undeveloped and underdeveloped nations. Those population estimations are always so innaccurate in my opinion. Remember the constant mantra that by 2050, whites in the US will no longer comprise over 50% of the population? Well, they've had to revise and push back that number because not only has immigration dropped but the fertility rates of minorities are dropping as well. As populations become educated and enriched, their fertility rates always go downward. Those population estimations are just taken from a certain snapshot in time and then it is assumed that the growth rate will remain the same thereafter for 50 years, when obviously 50 years is a long time anymore. Just think how much the standard of living has gone up in nations across the globe from 1950 to 2000.

And this is just another good reason to push for developing other nations as fast as possible. The sooner they're developed, the sooner their fertility rates go down and the sooner they can begin affording green technology.

[Captain Hilts]

16. Communism did the same thing with a global division of labor. Some countries are still

recovering from that.

[anigbrowl]

17. " Imagine the workers making the corporations beg for them to work there."

What do you think a 'help wanted' sign is? Back in the 90s people were offering all sorts of incentives to potential employees, at least in the sector I worked in. When the economy is humming then it's relatively easy to get a good pay deal. If you don't like the first offer you get, ask for more, or even just get up and get ready to leave, which will often cause people to raise the offer (assuming, of course, that you're applying for some job needing skills).

[leftofthedial]

18. followed by global repression, poverty

and then the death of our species on the planet.

[kjackson227]

25. Some people think this is the beginning of the NWO...

If they are correct, then our country will NEVER be the same again. There will be two classes of people... the haves and the have nots. No middle-class, upper middle-class, etc. The "have nots" will be subjected to corporate slavery and classism.

[Vidar]

30. Unregulated capitalism is merely economic feudalism.

[Cresent City Kid]

34. Global capitalism needs global regulation

Trans-national corporations have trumped the nation-state. Workers will be hired where they demand the lowest wages, and taxes are "paid" in low or no tax havens. Regulating capitalism in the US is like playing whack-a-mole. National borders are hardly a speed bump to the corporations.

For capitalism to be regulated, it would have to be done on a global scale. I don't expect this in my lifetime, if ever, but it would be the only way to truly limit excesses at the top and poverty at the bottom.

Nations will fight to keep their sovereignty, even though they have already lost power to the corporations. Nostalgia for the days of the powerful nation-state will keep us locked into our current situation for a very long time.