Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The New Economy and its Winners -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: craig crawford who wrote (7847)	7/9/2001 12:49:24 AM
From: ~digs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57684

Well said Craig. <eom>

To: craig crawford who wrote (7847)	7/9/2001 12:47:02 PM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57684

Craig, You don't know what I believe unless I've said it here, so get off the sociology soap box. The more prosperous each of the world's human beings becomes, the more prosperity for all of us. It's not a them-and-us anymore. That's what globalization is. If some resource-rich country feels cornered by "Western Economic Imperialism" and trys to corner a market we'll see what luck it has. Pending any great revolutions (my fear has been Saudi Aribia, not the most people-friendly regime) I'll stay long.

To: craig crawford who wrote (7847)	7/9/2001 4:35:35 PM
From: Extra Pale	Respond to of 57684

craig, i think you are right on target with your macro view. other resources that we americans take for granted, such as clean water and air are becoming serious issues in the developing world. unless we find a way to share the wealth, i fear that over the long-term (20-50years) we are apt to find ourselves isolated from the global community and dealing with internal disarray from economic and social upheaval.

To: craig crawford who wrote (7847)	7/9/2001 7:36:08 PM
From: John Curtis	Respond to of 57684

Craig, et.al.: I think you need to read what may well be the first new economic/political idea of the 21st Century. Well, it's not THAT new for us here in the affluent west, but still, it's creating a fire-storm everywhere else, especially in parts of Asia. It's a book entitled "Empire," co-authored by Michael Hardt. It's not Empire in the classical sense. It's empire in the sense that the world is becoming more "world" oriented (no pun intended, heh). That is, all nation-states of this globe are increasingly shifting towards a world government that is democratically steeped and regionally competitive. In this world it's not so much that the rich western countries will suddenly suffer under the competitive aggressiveness of the new arrivals as it will become a case of wealth, production and economic/individual opportunity becoming more properly "smoothed" across the planet. More or less a macro of what's happened here in the U.S.. Yes there'll still be regions of relative affluence. Yes there'll be regions of poverty. But more and more the entire planet is marching in lock-step, or partnership. The West will have to adjust to this, just as the East will have to learn to modify their wants. To quote one big, purple Dinosaur, "We're all one BIG happy family!!" And we'll all have to get use to it. ;-) John~

To: craig crawford who wrote (7847)	7/9/2001 8:25:14 PM
From: robnhood	Respond to of 57684

Whata you think "Right Wing Paramilitary Groups" are for? Ho ho ho

To: craig crawford who wrote (7847)	7/10/2001 5:05:50 AM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57684

Craig - ...as capitalism and what goes along with it (freedom; enlightenment; opportunity) becomes pervasive, people in underdeveloped natural resource rich countries are going to wake up to the notion that america's been living the high life at their expense. chinese and indonesians have been working 80 hour work weeks for mere pittance over the last 20 years so you can enjoy low prices for all that you consume. well they are catching on to the fact that there's more to life than working in a textile factory. they don't want to work 16 hours a day in a factory for 10 cents an hour so you can drive a big SUV and chat on the internet all day.... While your overall post has a good deal of correct and useful comments, this passage shows clear indications of having fallen for anti-capitalist propaganda. First of all, the idea that workers in third world countries are being unconscionably exploited whenever a first world company builds a factory to employ a relatively large number of workers at wage rates that appear to be preposterously low by developed world standards is simply at odds with reality. If the workers are filling out job applications in droves, and actually appearing for work every day, how can they be said to be exploited unless they are being drafted to work at the point of a bayonet? Wages are determined by productivity, and productivity above the barest subsistence level requires the infusion of capital and capital equipment employed in a division-of-labor economy. It is the factory that makes the wages of even the equivalent of 10 cents an hour possible. In its absence, the alternatives are far worse. To talk about a 10 cents per hour wage rate is deliberately misleading. To a high degree of probability, the workers never see US currency, but instead are paid in a local currency that can only be said to have an equivalency to US currency because of speculators and government manipulation. What is important is what can be purchased locally with whatever wages are received, in whatever form. It should be clear from the desire of the workers to obtain and keep the factory jobs that the wages paid are sufficient to make purchases that provide an increased standard of living, however low on an absolute scale, than would otherwise be possible. The key point of concern is whether overall progress over time is made, rather than having just an isolated factory or two subject to the vagaries of the world economy. To accomplish this, there must exist a local capitalist economy and a government that respects and defends private property rights. The idea that the US standard of living depends in a significant way on the existence of low labor cost factories in the third world is also wrong. The factories exist because they provide the promise of a profit to someone. The flexibility of a free market economy will rapidly adjust to whatever the circumstances are, and while the loss of the factories may well change the mix of products available at particular prices, the overall end effect on the economy will be minimal. When the masses of low cost labor are not available, more capital will be added to multiply the productivity of a much smaller number of workers. The masses of low cost labor are used because they exist, not because they are necessary. Regards, Don