Globalisation backlash in rich nations

The ideology that the wealthy are interfering with the success of others because of their wealth is a liberal view point.

 

This issue is very serious, including in these United States. Here is an interesting article on this issue that I read while flying to Atlanta last week. I have problems with the the authors' solutions but globalization has had repercussions that need to be addressed in some manner to better spread the benefits of free trade to avoid a backlash that could damage free trade among nations:

www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86403/kenneth-f-scheve-matthew-j-slaughter/a-new-deal-for-globalization.html?mode=print

 

More liberal junk.

From the article:

Summary: Globalization has brought huge overall benefits, but earnings for most U.S. workers -- even those with college degrees -- have been falling recently; inequality is greater now than at any other time in the last 70 years. Whatever the cause, the result has been a surge in protectionism. To save globalization, policymakers must spread its gains more widely. The best way to do that is by redistributing income.

 

I don't need to listen to them to know that redistributing wealth is not the answer to the problem. See you assume I disagree with the problem being suggested here. Because you failed to ask. The truth is alot of what I have seen poncho post has some validity to it. But to move from these errors straight into communism which is what is being suggested in the article Ken posted is a bigger mistake. And such ideologies are not conservative. But I do see alot of ronnies words being parroted here every day.

 

As I said, Timmy, I don't like the authors' solutions but to stick your head in the sand or throw around epithets is unwise. People are beginning to turn their backs on free trade and may become willing to throw out the baby with the bath water if steps are not taken to give ordinary folks more of a stake in the success of the spreading of free trade.

 

I agree. But I think you would be well served to actually read the article. The statistics are very interesting. The authors don't talk about their solution until toward the end. You can skip that part if you so desire.

 

Sounds like more leftist rich man/poor man propaganda to me.

Take from the "rich" (whoever they are) and redistribute to anyone poorer than the "rich"(whoever they are).

This is not new. It's been around for a while.

Connecting it to "globalization" is the new part. The goal is the same.

 

The summary is at the begining of the article. Maybe you should read it.

 

Have you ever thought about going beyond the surface of issues and getting into the meat of them?

 

Then it is propaganda that those of us who support the idea of free trade had best learn how to answer successfully to the average Joe/Jane in these United States and the rest of the world.

 

Maybe you should go back and read what I posted befiore you respond to me on this further. Really.

 

An excellent point. In 1965 major company CEOs earned 24 times more than an average worker in these United States. In 2005 major company CEOs earned 262 times more than an average worker in these United States.

Which means that in 2005 major company CEOs earned more in one day than an average worker earned in one year.

 

You said that you read the summary. You did not say that you read the article.

So what's your point, Timmy?

 

The goal is still further redistribution of income, another step down the socialist path leftists always seek.

The problem is still who decides what rich is and who decides what poor is and who decides how much to steal from one to support the other.

Who decides? Can you define rich and poor in dollars and cents for me?

 

Are you envious?

Jealous?

Do you not make enough to get by?

Many on a lower economic strata than you are might say you are grossly overpaid for what you do. Would you agree?

 

I understand, carpro. But it will take more than ideological arguments to stem the growing opposition to free trade. I think you understand that.

By the way, based on my 29 years in the workforce I am pretty much at the median salary in these United States for that length of service. I am an average Joe.