Posted on 01/12/2010 5:01:31 AM PST by QF129
Decades ago, people had to work hard for making products for living and for fun. Outsourcing and globalization have changed it at all. If 100 million guys in China, India or Vietnam can make goods for the world, what should other guys do?
One way is to limit the globolization process so that more guys are in work because the productivity is reduced; otherwise people may accept this and just do exactly nothing. Before we achieve another techonological breakthrough like nuclear power or the Internet, we must find a way to deal with the high productivity that is making troubles. If people do not need achievement to satisfy themselves, the thing is much easier.
Another concern is that globolization may enlarge the a poverty gap in developed countries because labour forces is worth less and capital is worth more products.
Oh, that’s a great solution—let’s limit productivity and make the whole world poorer!
Welcome newbie. Do you think that the 100 million people are going to pay all the taxes for the other 5 billion deadbeats?
Limiting productivity is a lousy idea. As always, we will have to be more innovative.
SnakeDoc
The rest of us can do things like manage the logistics of shipping those goods around the world, managing and maintaining the infrastructure that makes the manufacture of those goods possible, manage the data infrastructure that makes that “global economy” viable, and run the businesses that make and sell those goods. Beyond that, there are many many more jobs possible in the field of investing in those businesses to make them more successful etc etc.
Where’d you learn economics? From a gumball machine?
Post inane crap on FR, I guess?
You should take an on line writing class.
ML/NJ
If 100 million guys can make all, what do other do?....
Hang around the town and protest in the streets daily, just like in the Muslim Countries.
The idea that the ability to produce basically an unlimited supply of goods was proposed as a cause for the Great Depression after it truly got underway. Those advocating this idea that industrial science in the 20s got too far ahead of the public’s ability to purchase enough of the goods that were being produced leading to business failure and the depression.
Once upon a time, the big problem was dirty, noisy dangerous factories. The Left was really opposed to that! Then factory owners moved toward automation and freed workers to get jobs that weren't so dirty, noisy or dangerous. Hey, guess what? The Left was really opposed to that!
I think in the ideal Leftist world, the Political Elite would all live in castles on the hill and live a sex positive lifestyle. This would all be supported by a core group of slaves who would labor in the fields producing massive amounts of goods through highly productive labor.
But we've tried feudalism before, and most of us have moved past it.
Nuclear power was a bad example, because it actually raised the human cost of producing power, while lowering the material cost. (it takes more people to run a nuclear plant than a coal-fired plant).
Theoretically, if 1 person could do the work of 10, that one person would earn 10 times as much money as the 10, but it would be useless because the other 9 would be broke and couldn’t buy anything.
So the market would adjust, continuing to employ the 10 people, but each working 1/10th of the time. Everybody ends up with the same amount of money as before, and all have money to spend.
Except what you really expect to happen is that the cost of the goods drops to 1/10th, the 1 person makes the same money as he did before, but the other 9 are broke and can’t buy anything.
But the other 9, not being lazy democrats, will go out and find a way to make something else. And the 1 guy with money will want to buy those other things, and that will employ the 9 other people, and there will be 10 times as many things.
So long as the growth in productivity is slow, and we have enough room in our houses, or we can think up enough new really cool and expensive toys, everything will be fine.
However, the downside of a consumer-pleasure-driven economy is that it is pretty easy for people to go without when things are tough. Which means downturns can be much more severe.
I don’t see any major economists talking about this, but during the great depression, we were still a pretty serious “needs” economy, and people have needs (food, clothing, shelter) even if they don’t have money, so they will do whatever it takes to get it.
But how many people need a big-screen TV, or a satellite dish, or a $50,000 car, or a trip to the Bahamas, or a $2000 stereo, or a $3000 chair that gives you back massages?
but that is what drives out market these days. In fact, what you suggest is already what happened. It used to take a significant portion of our population just to grow enough food for everybody. But as we got much more efficient at growing food, all those unemployed farmers left the farm and built entire industries of products and services.
Could this title be Harry Reid approved?
I’ll serve the beer! I can do that.
highlight the part where it says to use vanity tags
My recollection is that when one has a screen name such as yours, the longstanding rules require you to post a picture on your FR "about page" so all may determine your qualifications.
ML/NJ
IBTZ!
Is it too early to submit nominations for Stupidest Post of the Year?
<iwe must find a way to deal with the high productivity that is making troubles. If people do not need achievement to satisfy themselves, the thing is much easier./ip
Obama’s people are working on that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.