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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oblomov who wrote (6305)	7/26/2001 8:19:34 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 74559

Hi Oblomov, <<Wouldn't "global income equalization" appear (in the developed world) as deflation?>> Yes, absolutely, Deflation could/should hit the developed world as a result of globalization, and even there, hits differently by geography and sector. But, of course, the globalist would say that given the overall rise of global income as a result of absolutely free trade, the Hawaii condo will maintain its value even as the Shanghai suburb sharply increases in value. I am of two minds on all this ... "Behind Door #1, we have globalization and its consequences of income equalization. Reduction of prices on certain goods, services and property and increase of prices on certain other goodies, depending on geography, sector, economic class and other less identifiable target markers. The overall effect should be a rise in overall global GDP, unless the social disruption is so large that the whole matter's cost/benefit will be a wash, or in the worst case, negative" and "Behind Door #2, we have heighten protectionism, reduced trade, and as we are on the precipice of an economic and financial free-fall resulting from a bubble exploding, we could be further blown to bits in a depression given this mentioned deflation" Do not get me wrong. I do think the world would be better off if income is more evenly distributed (as usual, I will just hold on to my chunk of goodies), but I think what the authorities have failed to consider is that their push for globalization will, all by itself, trigger new momentum for protectionism. And so, I suspect, if not navigated properly, Door #1 and #2 lead to the same dungeon. Politicians' ability to navigate is too ... how should I say? ... well, I just do not know and so I will just watch for a while. Chugs, Jay P.S. Hong Kong is a strange place. We are very developed in many ways (income, education, physical, financial and legal infrastructure ...) and less developed in others (culture, sense of history, ...), and we are smack in the middle of the developing world. Our wealth is dependent on small government, proximity to markets and cheap labour, and free trade. Keeping our wealth is only dependent on personal skill (as opposed to FDIC) and luck.

To: Oblomov who wrote (6305)	7/26/2001 9:01:49 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Respond to of 74559

Oblomov - Wouldn't "global income equalization" appear (in the developed world) as deflation? In the unlikely case that it could be attempted, it would result in a worldwide super-depression as developed world wages would have to be capped and capital removed from the production process. Private sector jobs voluntarily held by non-slaves can only exist to the extent that they contribute to a process that at least has a possibility of projected profits. The employee income is limited on the upside by his productivity, either unaided or capital-aided, and established on the downside by the size and quality of the local labor market. Productivity increases normally require the addition of capital and this will tend to reduce the employment level as a given end product market approaches saturation as production increases. Minimum wage laws are really minimum productivity laws which either limit employment for the many to the benefit of the few or eliminate employment entirely. Regards, Don