Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Tango3, Mar 16, 2008.
meeting held last Monday:
New World Order with a large side helping of Corporate Oligarchy, yummy.
I'm having a mental problem with the concept of "productivity" improving everybody's welfare across the planet. What that deteriorates to is the continued production of currently manufactured "stuff" that is obsolescent nearly as soon as it is invented. What we need is continued improvement, meaning more research and development. R&D is what made the US great, not turning out plastic gadgets. JIT works in (at least) the automotive manufacturing but does nothing like CERN for advancing knowledge, and does just exactly squat for the bakers. Bring back inventories that can be drawn from, even if it ties up capital.
Yeah I know, I'm mixing apples and oranges, but there is a kernel there, even if I can't express it well.
Who's welfare, U.S. wages have gone down for the last thirty years, China's wages are cheap and in some proven cases, free(slavery). Mexico cannot create and maintain a Middle Class, so I guess that leaves the wefare of the Elite
Yup, improved productivity=The status quo on steroids...more for the elite,More mandatory weekends for the masses because I find it hard to believe increases in productivity would sweep evenly across the manufacturing spectrum.
I.E. even if the entire factory improves its production , transportation(shipping) will have to work more hours to keep up until equal efficiency improvements can be realized. They surely won't hire more people (cuts into the new proft). "Thankyou for calling wang tree technical support, Your call is important to us; but not important enough to hire more technicians..."
I liked this part:
Before the meeting began, concerns were raised informally by participants worried that the Ohio Democratic Party primary had prompted both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to talk of renegotiating NAFTA.
Participants at the State Department meeting pointed out U.S. political candidates could be expected to argue "protectionist themes opposed to global economic integration" as a tactic, without necessarily being committed to taking aggressive steps once in office.
Separate names with a comma.