Skip to main content

We hear about Globalization every day. We are mesmerized into willing submission by the corporate, government and media indoctrination of the wonderful future we will share in the "New World Order", as proposed by George H. W. Bush.

There are practically no voices railing against this tyranny. Whoever speaks up is shouted down by the crowd as a Protectionist.

Globalization in History

Globalization started when the first trader ventured away from his country to seek goods and slaves in foreign lands. Once a market was found, the king and his corporations quickly set up shop, invested the military, and expanded ruthlessly until competition or nature mounted stronger pressures.

A brief synopsis includes Rome, the Silk Road, Marco Polo, the Spanish search for western gold, Columbus, the British East India Company, the Opium Wars, African colonization, colonization of the Americas, and American multi-national corporation imperialism.

Proponents of globalization attribute the growth of civilization to these practices.

Opponents ask "where are these countries now?" Rome, Spain, Portugal, France, Great Britain - they grew quickly with their world-wide pursuits, but were inevitably brought down by an inability to hold onto their acquisitions. The reach is greater than the grasp.

Civilization grows during long periods of self-sustenance. The two-hundred year isolation of America led to the greatest industrialized and strongest empire on Earth. Creativity needs security and nurture.

Investment in imperial fleets and war tend to drain the coffers. American world trade has increased explosively since the 1960's. Free Trade Authorities have been enacted to "level the playing field" for global trade. Immigration law has been intentionally laxed to provide the cheap labor to remain competitive with foreign countries who do not share our human rights, social welfare, and environmental achievements. Each new treaty includes a swap of American industries for more foreign workers. The results of these treaties can now be articulated.

Globalization Now

The trials and tribulations of the World Trade Organization and the World Bank are fairly well known. Less known are a couple offices of the US Treasury that play this world game with your tax dollars by the hundreds of $billions.

The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (how do you like that name for a US Treasury department?) puts up $billions per year for American industries to pack up shop and move to China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, wherever. These incentives are provided by our government because no commercial interest would risk this type of treason and potential loss. ENRON lost $4 billion of your money in these rip-offs. Go to and download the latest annual report. Note OPICs balance sheet has been reduced 50% 2007-2008. I expect OPIC to be insolvent now and guess who will bail them out?

Ever heard of Export-Import Bank (EX-IM)? Click the link and take notice of where your money has been going all these years. In 2008, most of the $8 billion went to Boeing to build aircraft overseas.

Globalization of the US Auto Industry

Now that GM and Chrysler have gone bankrupt, look at where they invest:

Detroit Bailout

Chrysler Bailout

Ford has the same story.

Globalization of Finance

CitiGroup Bailout

CitiGroup was the largest bank receiver of OPIC and EXIM funds, and still is.

The Trade Balance (?)

As of December 2008 (pdf), the US carries a $700 billion trade deficit in goods and services. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that every $1 billion in net trade deficits destroys between 11,000 and 20,000 jobs.

12,000,000 American Jobs Destroyed in 2008 due to trade deficit.


China is now the world's largest exporter.

Now that Globalization has brought down the economies of the world, you would think that Congress, the Administration and the media would have learned their lesson.

No, FTAs are still pending, "Free Trade" is still the darling, our industries are being bought up by foreign nationals, Americans are losing jobs by the millions, and Globalization is the hope for a brighter future.

My next story will be on The Unraveling of America - Part III - Immigration.

Originally posted to danarothrock on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:41 PM PDT.


How do you assess GLOBALIZATION?

6%5 votes
10%8 votes
1%1 votes
5%4 votes
76%57 votes

| 75 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well done. I am no fan of globalization. (5+ / 0-)

    As a matter of fact I think america needs a astrong dose of isolation, so we can learn how to take care of ourselves again.

    'If we lift our voice as one, there's nothing that can't be done' MJ

    by publicv on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:44:15 PM PDT

  •  The Unraveling of America - Xenophobia n/t (3+ / 0-)
    •  Opposition to globalization has nothing to do (11+ / 0-)


      It has everything to do with accepting that there is intrinsic value in not trashing domestic labor so that owners can make a bigger profit by exploiting cheaper labor and more lax regulations overseas.

      It has resulted in a nearly complete dismantling of our once proud industrial base. We now have an economy that is almost exclusively based on moving money around -- read: transferring money from the middle class to the wealthiest few.

      I'd be a great fan of globalization if the rules were pretty much the same everywhere, and the playing field was reasonably level. Meaning, that some foreign corporations actually manufactured here. (We have seen that to a very limited extent in the auto industry, but that's a notable exception.) The playing field is not level, and it probably never will be. And if we continue along this path, we will have no middle class at all, because the middle class has always been build on on labor and our industrial base.

      Leveling charges of xenophobia in the context of a discussion about globalization and outsourcing is a convenient canard, most often hurled by those who benefit the most by the transfer of wealth. It's a bit surprising to see it here.

      And by the way, globalization often works very poorly, as Boeing has learned from having outsourced 60% of the production of its new 787 "Dreamliner", which has turned into a nightmare.

      This is really an important topic, one which, as suggested by the diarist, has received far too little attention. It is complex and poorly understood, which means that we will likely never deal with it at all.

      "But there is so much more to do." - Barack Obama, Nov. 4, 2008

      by flitedocnm on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 03:01:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Companies don't outsource... (0+ / 0-)

        because they care about providing jobs for a variety of ethnic groups.  They outsource because they want workers with a lower standard of living.  Not spoiled "uppity" America workers that are always forming unions and talking about their rights.

        I'm telling you, if things don't change, we are all going to wake-up a few decades for now and wonder how the US of A turned into a frickin' third world country.

        "Only now with the advent of potato day has tyranny come to our shores." - Jon Stewart

        by methinshaw on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 01:49:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  No it isn't. (4+ / 0-)

      Not least because "globalization" - more accurately, global imperialism - has indeed lead to the dismantling of America and other nations. The situation today in terms of production and basic economic infrastructure per capita, relatively speaking, is worse than it was at the nadir of the Great Depression in 1933. This is the inevitable result of the intrinsically imperial doctrines of "free trade" and globalization.

      Now, under a protectionist (not a dirty word) policy, nations erect a firewall between the population and international financial speculation. When you take the international hot-money flows out of the equation, it enables nations to use the income from tariffs and the credit-emitting abilities of a sovereign government to finance the development of infrastructure and domestic production. In other words, the benefits of development and social services accrue to the general public, and we have an economic policy which encourages domestic production.

      However, under free trade and globalization, the opposite occurs. The benefits of investments in the general welfare of the public are made available to international finance capital. This means that international finance is free to come into a country, take all that it can grab of such investments, and then leave. It's dine-and-dash economics. To make matters worse, when nations eliminate revenue tariffs, not only do they remove the protective firewall between the population and international speculators, they force the entire tax burden onto domestic production. In other words, it's an economic policy which gives preferential treatment to imports, and discourages production. If this is copied by all nations of the world, the long-term result is inevitably the lowering of living standards to the subsistence level.

      So, opposition to globalization has got nothing to do with xenophobia, and everything to do with the desire to develop all nations by allowing them to produce for themselves. Or, more simply, it's about fairness and elementary justice.

      If you're not talking about Medicare for All, you're not serious about health care reform.

      by New Deal Dem on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 04:40:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Also, I would point out that (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hooper, ilex, publicv, Azazello

      the arguments of the free trade crowd are as bankrupt as the Wall Street banks in which they're so often employed. I'm happy to point out why their arguments don't work even theoretically, but that's not necessary. All that's necessary to debunk the sophistry of "free trade" is to state this simple fact: there has never been, in all of human history, a single instance of a nation developing itself without protectionist policies.

      If you're not talking about Medicare for All, you're not serious about health care reform.

      by New Deal Dem on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 04:45:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am of mixed opinion about this. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler, bubbanomics

    I feel that globalization will, in the end, be a net benefit to the people of the world as a group.  It is also the death knell of the concept of nation and nationalism, which may not necessariy be bad in the end, but goodbye American dominance of the planet.  Manufacturing flows to where labor is cheapest, gradually (over many decades) decreasing poverty and raising standards of living.  Raising living standards means all sorts of good things for a society, especially education levels, which leads to increased human/women's rights, which leads to lower birth rates  which leads to increased quality of life, etc.  Globalization over the next century will cause a great equalization of living standards, which is not so good for America but very good for humanity.  This distresses me a little because I am in fact a proud and patriotic American...

    No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...

    by jarhead5536 on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:56:53 PM PDT

    •  This may prove to be a utopian dream. (4+ / 0-)

      In nations where there is not an ethical framework that protects workers and prevents exploitation, and where there are little environmental protections, globalization may not raise living standards at all. It may, however, vastly increase exploitation, cause mass demographic shifts to urban areas that contain sustain the exploding populations, dramatically exacerbate pollution, and massively displace family farmers who cannot compete with subsidized agricultural imports. Just look at NAFTA -- it devastated family farms all across Mexico. And then we rail against Mexican immigration!

      If we had the gumption to only execute free trade agreements that truly protected workers' rights, that did not ruin small farmers and small businesses,  and had strict environmental regulations with mechanisms in place for enforcement, then the utopian dream might come to pass. It's true that many in India have become much more prosperous.But at what cost? Has it been a good tradeoff, even from a global perspective? Are there other ways to arrive at the same place, without destroying our economy, workers, and small farmers in the process?

      "But there is so much more to do." - Barack Obama, Nov. 4, 2008

      by flitedocnm on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 03:09:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ...I believe there are [other ways]... (0+ / 0-)

        They just haven't been tried on a grand scale before now.  

        The globalization push was to find cheaper labor for the benefit of short-term profits and that set things all akilter.

        If the push were to create a balanced, sustainable system, that improves the quality of life around the world.... I truly believe it is possible that globalization could be a win-win.  Not without a push, though.  Not without a very big push.

    •  There is the problem of how the benefits are (4+ / 0-)

      distributed among nations, and the problem of how globalization puts ever more power into the hands of transnational elites.

      There is no way to solve or reduce the first problem without effectively addressing the second.  The US business and political elite is doing everything it can to keep us from addressing it; that will not change as long as corporate accomodationists rule the Democratic party.

    •  excellent comment (3+ / 0-)

      You've described it very well. Globalization has an equalizing effect. That ratio of 4% of the world's population using 25% of the world's resources will gradually change and become more balanced.

      East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet ... Kipling

      by truong son traveler on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 03:22:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, 100% of the people will use 2000% of the (0+ / 0-)


        Globalization is about maximizing consumption and trashing the environment....apples from New Zealand shipped to Cortland, NY, for example.  

        It benefits only the big corps that can afford to ship & market overseas, and sacrifices local industry and agriculture.

        Plus every country is insulated from experiencing the direct effects on its environment.  When I buy a Chinese TV, the pollution happens in China and in the shipping lanes, not in my home state.

        •  This comes across as meaning (0+ / 0-)

          that we in the West have ours, screw you folks in the rest of the world.

          As someone living in the developing world I can see many improvements over the past two decades. There are many more products available to choose from and many more opportunities in the workplace with cleaner and safer working conditions.

          It looks like some people in the developed countries would be happier if we spent our days bent over in the paddies and in the fields so they can visit on vacation and feel the contentment upon seeing such idyllic life styles.

          East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet ... Kipling

          by truong son traveler on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 05:00:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  "Globalization" (8+ / 0-)

    is really nothing more than the British Empire becoming the Anglo-American Empire, becoming a global dictatorship of finance capital. Labor is being crushed, national sovereignty is being destroyed, industrial capital is being looted, even commercial capital is being squeezed, for under "globalization," everyone and everything - including national governments - are subordinated to the international bankers. The goal is to strip sufficient wealth out of the real incomes of labor and essential social services, and out of the capital of industry itself, to allow the banksters to roll over some of their bankrupt debt holdings.

    It's a swindle, in other words.

    If you're not talking about Medicare for All, you're not serious about health care reform.

    by New Deal Dem on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 02:59:35 PM PDT

  •  Globalisation do indeed suck (4+ / 0-)

    And yes you can convincingly say that Globalisation especially under things like NAFTA is destroying America but as a non American can I just add while it may be destroying America it is destroying the rest of the world a lot more.

    Also my only critique of the piece is the inclusion of the "New World Order" term. I don't think that The New World Order exists.

    Even if you take the term to mean "The American Empire" or the US-EU axis they are hardly secure in as a force in the world.

    You have Russia - China - other SCO countries that are clear in there goals for a multipolar world with multiple power centres.

    You also have the so call Pink Tide in South America of leftist Anti Globalisation forces.

    If the New World Order was to exist it more than likely wouldn't be a worldwide order just the North American and EU continent which is hardly world domination. Hell the US can't even invade and win against a small third world country like Afghanistan. Doubtful that they can place Russia and China in a position of submission for any agenda.

    "You show me a capitalist, and I'll show you a bloodsucker." - Malcolm X

    by Dr Marcos on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 03:12:47 PM PDT

  •  You make the following claim: (2+ / 0-)

    Immigration law has been intentionally laxed to provide the cheap labor to remain competitive with foreign countries who do not share our human rights, social welfare, and environmental achievements. Each new treaty includes a swap of American industries for more foreign workers.

    As an experienced U.S. immigration lawyer, I believe that is false.

    I'm sure your next diary in this series will be a humdinger of nativism.

    Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.--Man in Black (Westley), The Princess Bride (1987)

    by Timaeus on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 03:16:17 PM PDT

    •  I am sure you will enjoy (2+ / 0-)

      I will add a special section for immigration lawyers.

    •  Are you saying that (0+ / 0-)

      immigration law is not the easiest?

      It's mostly just filling out forms and charging a small fortune for doing so.

      •  Just filling out forms? (0+ / 0-)

        Being an "IT professional," of course, is mainly just learning how one particular application program works.

        I'm the top expert on a difficult kind of administrative appeal. My cases are very complex. And for what it's worth, I never represent corporations. I fired all of my corporate clients years ago.  I only represent families.

        I've taken your measure before. You see the entire world through the prism of your individual job difficulties. And you're nasty in insulting anybody who bothers to point out your constant inflammatory errors.

        You may claim to be a Democrat, but you sure don't act like one when it comes to immigration policy. It is a towering contradiction.

        Oh, and fuck off with your cheap little insult. You'd never be able to do what I do professionally, but I could easily do what you do. I taught myself to program in several computer languages and I designed a blindingly fast recursive Internet-based database application from scratch back in 1996, as a hobby on the side while also doing my law practice.

        And as for the "filling out forms" part of immigration law, I could explain why your understanding is incredibly shallow. But why bother?

        Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.--Man in Black (Westley), The Princess Bride (1987)

        by Timaeus on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 04:12:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll have you know that (0+ / 0-)

          I successfully filed immigration papers for my family members, two adult siblings and retired parents WITHOUT a lawyer.  It involved forms and fees, nothing else.  It was not complicated at all.

          So Yes, I CAN do what you do professionally!

          By the way, when you resort to profanity and ranting, you look like a fool!

          •  But that's not what I do professionally. (0+ / 0-)

            You can't read.

            And here you are, the great opponent of immigration, who is himself a hotbed of family immigration. Rich irony.

            I see cases every week where people get arrested, deported, and otherwise horribly inconvenienced because they made boneheaded mistakes on immigration forms. Just because you got lucky on some simply family cases doesn't mean shit. It really doesn't.

            Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.--Man in Black (Westley), The Princess Bride (1987)

            by Timaeus on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 08:35:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is a difference between (0+ / 0-)

              making a mistake on a form and perpetrating immigration fraud by lying.

              I doubt that a "mistake" on a simple form would get someone arrested.  You are not fooling anyone. It's no wonder people hate lawyers so much.

              Some lawyers get rapists out of jail and feel good about it.

              •  You're just silly. (0+ / 0-)

                You don't know what you don't know.

                You think a "mistake" on a "simple" form can't get anybody arrested. Oh, you are such a total fool. It can indeed get the cuffs thrown on at the interview, followed by a strip search, imprisonment, terrible mistreatment, forcible deportation in chains from the United States, and a PERMANENT bar on re-entry, if they conclude you have attempted a misrepresentation to gain an immigration benefit.

                That happens ALL THE TIME, which is why immigration is slowing, since the United States has basically become a police state. For instance, the question on the I-485 about the J-1 foreign residence requirement. I suppose you think you know all about that. Fool!

                In some cities, such as Atlanta, that happens ALL THE TIME.

                But you're such a fool, you don't want to know reality, you just want to grind your little ax.

                And since you're obviously a foreigner who is immigrating family members to the United States, your diatribes against foreigners have a very foul stink.

                Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.--Man in Black (Westley), The Princess Bride (1987)

                by Timaeus on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 06:34:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't believe you.. (0+ / 0-)

                  Are you the immigration attorney for drug dealers and child molesters trying to scam the system or bring in child brides for prostitution by lying on the forms?  

                  I DO NOT BELIEVE that a simple typo can causes "...cuffs thrown on at the interview, followed by a strip search, imprisonment, terrible mistreatment, forcible deportation in chains from the United States, and a PERMANENT bar on re-entry."

                  You would have to provide proof of this.  Immigration Officers are trained to separate lies, inconsistencies and false documentations and false marriages from typos and are just doing their jobs.

                  Remember, I have seen these forms and they CLEARLY state that you can be imprisoned for providing false information.  Some people believe that if you get an attorney to fill out the form, for a few thousand dollars, you are then exempt from the truth requirement.  

                  I know the scam Tim. One attorney wanted to charge $10,000 to do what I did myself.

                  I have nothing against orderly family immigration.  My sibling's visa took over thirteen years if I remember correctly and we did not complain or try to cheat the line.

                  Employment based visa programs, on the other hand, are exploitive and is a totally different matter, and is very bad for the country because of the near master/slave relationship the visa confers and the resulting displacement of U.S. workerforce.

                  There is absolutely no inconsistency in my position.

          •  Hey twerp, (0+ / 0-)

            fuck off with the troll rating after I responded to a guy who said I was a crook making money "off the backs of immigrants."

            If you need an answer to your job troubles, look in the mirror instead of blaming others.

            Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.--Man in Black (Westley), The Princess Bride (1987)

            by Timaeus on Sun Sep 06, 2009 at 08:38:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Not in your poll (4+ / 0-)

    Globalization is great for those who earn their money off money, off the instantaneous flows of capital on the global wire.  It sucks for those who live in one place trying to make ends meet, and sucks even worse for the estimated 400 million people who have been uprooted and turned into virtual economic nomads following the chance of whatever precarious employment they may find in yet another place on yet another day.

    "99% of the battles and skirmishes that we fought in Afghanistan were won by our side." ~ Marshall Akhromeyev

    by ActivistGuy on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 03:28:15 PM PDT

  •  Fire Ron Kirk! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happy camper, New Deal Dem

    Although there was speculation that Kirk would be appointed Secretary of Transportation by President Barack Obama, he was given the position of Trade Representative.[5] As a supporter of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), his selection has drawn criticism from advocates of protectionist trade policies.[6] His nomination ran into further controversy when it was revealed that he owed $9,975 in back taxes.[7] As compensation for speeches he gave from 2004 to the present, he had $37,750 of payments made directly to a scholarship fund at Austin College.[8] Kirk should have included the $37,750 payments with his gross income and then claimed a charitable deduction for the same amount.[8] Kirk also claimed deductions for three years of season tickets to the Dallas Mavericks as qualifying entertainment expenses....

    He is now a partner with the Houston-based law firm Vinson and Elkins, where, according to Texans for Public Justice, he was, as of March 2007, one of the four highest paid lobbyists for Energy Future Holdings Corporation, the group created by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, TPG Capital and Goldman Sachs to acquire TXU

  •  Only 15% of the goods we use are produced in U.S (0+ / 0-)

    What has saved us so far is out food,meat and agribusiness exports and our export of weapons-tanks,planes,.
    Globalization(using sweatshops and child labor abroad) will stop when computerized factories can make good more efficiently than  human labor. We will probably be down the tubes economically by then.

  •  I am generally pro-trade. (0+ / 0-)

    But, I do see the downside for the unskilled.

    Our current post secondary education system is so strong that I do not think we should be afraid of trade (or of China.) I know that Americans can compete. I see it every day.

    But, I do think more thought needs to be given to those that are displaced by trade.

    Both young and older workers are impacted by trade.

    I know that re-training is not a silver bullet, but think it can be utilized more than it is.

    In the US we need to get over the idea that education is something you do when you are young.

    In the 21st century, we all need to be lifelong learners -- I think our education system should be reoriented toward this reality.

    •  Anti-free trade does not mean anti-trade. (0+ / 0-)

      Nations should trade their best, highest-technology products with each other; that is trade which works to the benefit of all. Under "free trade" though, the winner of the game stops being the firms who produce best. Instead, it becomes only who pays the least. It's therefore no surprise that the quality of most products has declined considerably in my lifetime.

      What has happened is that American workers have been made to compete against those living in abject poverty, which means that wages and the labor content of products has run down, which means quality has declined (you know the "hand made" thing - labor content is generally synonymous with quality), which in turn means that the whole economy of the United States has been running down. Consumers pay less upfront, sure - but on the other side of the equation, they're not only getting paid less as workers in real terms, they're buying lower quality products which don't last nearly as long, so they're getting screwed both ways.

      So, let's stop pretending that we all have to kiss the feet of Adam Smith and pay hommage at the altar of free trade, whilst cursing the supposed evils of protectionism. The culprit of the destruction of living standards is not inadequate or poor education, it's free trade (and monetarism more generally), and we ought to say so.

      If you're not talking about Medicare for All, you're not serious about health care reform.

      by New Deal Dem on Sat Sep 05, 2009 at 10:41:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We don't need no education (0+ / 0-)

      The primary problem is jobs.

      The education system is outdated and inadequate for providing relevant skills.  Regardless, graduates far exceed the number of jobs available.

      The US economy has been ravaged by wars, oil speculation, deregulation of anti-trust measures, self-destructive trade policies, and explosive immigration - mostly illegal.

      All of these scourges lie within the realm of government control.  We have recently learned, again, that market forces are not the guiding "invisible hand" of moderation.  Unethical conduct by one player requires unethical conduct by the remaining players in order to compete and survive.  Without enforcement of laws, lawlessness will prevail.

      Globalization, deregulation, and the corporatization of Congress has destroyed the major economies of the world.

      Will we learn from this?

    •  For the unskilled? (0+ / 0-)

      The trade deficit has brought this country to its knees.  Are bankers unskilled? - the only reason anyone in financials still has a job is government subsidies.  Are tech workers unskilled?

      Just what the *?/??#@ skill do you have buddy?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site