« India: An economy unshackled | Main | China vs India: who is better paid? »

Monday, June 26, 2006

Comments

Tapsearcher

First of all, workers have no voice in the process of Globalization and Free Trade.

Secondly, the terms Free Trade and Trade do not mean the same as they did in the past. Moving production and factories from place to place is not trade. Making workers the main commodities in the process is not trade.
Chopping up local value added economies and shipping the pieces round the world is not trade.
Free Trade has been a forced march by elite groupings for the sake of money and greed. Adam Smith said labor is sacred and that it is the core of any society.
Free Trade has created a working poor class in the more prosperous consumer nations and an impoverished class in nations where the factories have been moved.
It is nonsense to use terms that say onething but represent something quite different in the process of Globalization. For more information see http://tapsearch.com/tapartnews and view The Clinton Years and The American Dream is buring artwork by Ray Tapajna at http://tapsearch.com/id12.html or rss feed http://arklineart.fotopages.com/index.rss

Lafayette
Free Trade has been a forced march by elite groupings for the sake of money and greed. Adam Smith said labor is sacred and that it is the core of any society.

At the beginning of the 19th century hatters in London petitioned the Crown to prohibit the importation of top hats from the United States claiming that it was "unfair trade". The US prices were cheaper than the same hats manufactured in the UK (from pelts imported from the US/Canada).

Free trade and the intent to stop it have been around for centuries. No business likes competition; however consumers do, which is why economic policy should be promote it.

Your argument fails to recognize the fact that labor, like any other factor input, is priced within a global market by the same conditions of supply and demand as other factor inputs. And the global supply of labor has doubled over the past twenty years, bringing to market labor from both the East European countries as well as the Far East, lowering substantially average world production costs in some but not all types of manufacturing.

You would therefore have us believe that the newcomers to the market, beneficiaries of dislocated operations, do not have the right to work at their local salary levels? That argument doesn't hold water.

Or, would you have us rather think that companies, in order to survive, shouldn't have the right to dislocate manufacturing operations that are too costly with regard to market competition? They should therefore sacrifice local operations to foreign competitors with cheaper costs? Do you realize that means closing down ALL operations, thereby making redundant the non-manufacturing employment as well?

In fact, the arguments against globalization remind one of those proposed in favor or mercantilism, which is based upon the economic theory that trade generates wealth, which a government should encourage by means of protectionism in favor of national producers.

The emphasis must be placed (in the US and Europe) to retrain unskilled and semi-skilled labor, forcing them to climb the value-added ladder to better jobs that provide durable employment - or expand the services sector that produces work that is localized.

Nobody is going to Shanghai for a haircut any time soon. Or to seek a handyman. Trade schools have quite a challenge to assume, and quickly. The world has enough MBAs for the moment.

Frank

Like any other factor input, is priced within a global market by the same conditions of supply and demand as other factor inputs. And the global supply of labor has doubled over the past 20 yrs. shouldn't have the right to dislocate manufacturing operations that are too costly with regard to market competition?

Stroller Travel System

The comments to this entry are closed.

Information




  • TEST


  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Economist Weblogs

Categories

Disclaimer


  • This is a personal web site, produced in my own time and solely reflecting my personal opinions. Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of my employer, past or present, or any other organisation with which I may be affiliated. The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only, and are not investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities.