by JH 7 Replies latest jw friends
Since many years now, we hear alot about globalization. I know that many jobs went to China and India because they work at small wages compared to here.
Personally, I don't like globalization and free trade. I t think that many jobs were lost because of it. I think that every country should be self sufficient and this would create more jobs here and keep them here.
What's your opinion on this?
I'm with you! Keep jobs here.
But obviously the trade-off is paying a higher price for services.
Kwin
I read a funny analogy years ago on this topic.
It goes, "An angry consumer is one who sits down at his desk from Brazil, on a chair made in China, picks up his pen made in Germany, and some stationary made in Indonesia, after taking a prescription for his nerves from Pakistan and writes an angry letter to his congressman complaining about all the jobs that have left the country, which he drives to the post office in his Japanese car."
People are not willing to pay the prices that would be charged for these things made in America, and that is why the manufacturing jobs have fled the country...
J
every country should be self sufficient
no possible, specially when developed countries refuse to make available technologies to acomplish such a "goal" (?)
The whole world is tied to hydrocarbons (mainly oil) , controlled by you know who, did i say irak?
when there is no need for being so dependent on such a thing,
the technology to acomphish independence from hydrocarbons is being put on hold for many decades already. It is a geopolitical power struggle, nothing else
ITS GOOD. TRADE IS GOOD. The division of labour is good. Self sufficiency is not possible for smaller populated countries like Australia. They have to specialise and then trade to get other goods. Trade with other countries also results in cheaper goods for industrial countries. That means more money in the pocket of the consumer to direct in more efficient areas and create more jobs. ITS BAD when rich countries are able to use their superior bargaining position to basically force poorer people to work for very unfair wages. They are faced with a stark choice of either starve or work for a crappy wage with crappy conditions. In end it is both GOOD AND BAD. It idea of trade is a very good democratic idea, and should be pursued, but it can have big problems that need sorting out. Its a complex issue.
The real problems with this issue start when governments start to subsidise their own business and penalise other countries. (US).
I am so sad that no government will subsidise free trade in flint knives.
Only bombs guns and sterile seeds for third world farmers who could do without Mo*****o.
HB
I would like free and fair trade but politics and self interest always rear their ugly heads. As long as Americans whine about paying ridiculously cheap prices 9compared to othercountries) for a gallon of gas - it will drive politics and global trade - just think if America did not have to import 60% of its energy needs
Personally, I think, based on the evidence, that globalization is inevitable. It's already here. Having said that, "free trade" seems to me to be the wrong thing to shoot for. I think it would be better for all to pursue FAIR trade. The reason that I say this is because this would help make certain nations accountable who love to export and expect low foreign tarriffs yet who like to restrict imports from said country with high tarriffs and lots of red tape. For example, if the Japaneese were held to their own import standards, you may likely see a new asian war. Same with China. Yet, here in the US, these two countries seem to be supplying huge ammounts of goods for pennies on the dollar.
Fair trade seems to be the way to go.
JMO, of course...
Ern
