This barely touches on foreign affairs so if it is too OT we can move it elsewhere.
I agree. But until FL decides otherwise perhaps we can keep this going for one or two more posts.
In the short run American production may go down as the resources cannot be transferred quickly to another industry, but the short run pain for America is less then the long run gain (even if it is not for all of the workers at the old plant in PA).
This is the point that's always made here, Tim, but, to take another example, the agriculture business. I do this because I just read the Times article on the Mexican corn growers because of cheap corn imports from the US. I assume we send cheap corn imports to Mexico not because family farmers in Iowa are doing so well but because those smaller farms are now owned by large agribusiness corps.
Now those large agribusiness types have now displaced two sets of family farmers, Mexican and US Midwesterners.
The American consumer has cheaper corn than might otherwise be the case, the agribusiness types are making a great deal more money than before, not to speak of whatever they get from US govt crop subsidies (actually I don't know that as fact, just suspicion) and the small farmers are out. Bang. Gone. Get another life.
I see nothing wrong with a more humane process, one in which the rich don't get richer and the poor poorer but one in which some of those riches go to those who just got poorer. That could mean a process by which those large corporations don't get quite the profits they hoped. I don't see a problem with that. Given top level corporate salaries these days.
I know, I know, the objection here is that I need to take that concern to another planet. Well, I think that sort of concern needs to be stated and restated so we see what gets lost as we do things without assessing human costs.
Many changes can disrupt this social matrix, but if we prevent change from trade,. . .
Whoops, let me stop you right there. That's a slippery slop. I see no reason why the top getting a wee bit less so the bottom is not so ravaged by changes they have no control over is "stopping change." By making it more humane that doesn't stop it. You could as easily argue that corporate leaders who refuse to make such changes because some of the top might not get quite as much are blocking progress.
. . . from businesses relocating (not just from PA to Thailand, but maybe from PA to Arkansas), from changes in consumer preferences, from new technologies, or repeal of laws that created protected monopolies or whatever, then overall people will become poorer because the available resources will be used less efficiently and also because the lower return on invested capital will cause less capital to get invested.
This slippery slope gets steeper all the time. Just because corporate execs have to cut down on their gains a bit to make the process more humane (I know I'm repeating myself), the world will stop?? I don't think so. But, of course, I've got no more evidence for my position than it looks like is in these sentences.
Furthermore even a fair and relatively low level of compensation would still discourage change and this would lead to more economic stagnation.
I guess we'll just have to do the LindyBill thing and agree to disagree. Tim, I could not disagree more with that comment. I take it you are against minimum wage laws. Because they discourage change? Lead to more economic stagnation?
John |
