NationStates Jolt Archive

This was the comments of somebody I know and he really believes it.

It started with:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4935924.stm

The he followed up with an email.

So how does the elimination of the "middle-class" improve the world as a whole?

-----------------------------------
There are actually 2 things here:

1. The want more power, hence the ability to force countries through policies into certain directions.

2. The want to include more member to give more voices to other nations of the world instead of few western countries making all the decision for their own benefits.

It may come shock to you but I am a strong proponent of Globalization and Market Economy. I think it's the only way to bring 3rd world countries up to speed. I look at it as what benefits the poor people of this world will benefits everyone in the long run...

Democracy, Autocracy or Bureaucracy is all BS. Resource Management is the only way of the future. Who so ever does the best job in resource management will have the upper hand in the world affairs.

Poor countries as well the Western countries need a strong leadership that is answerable to someone other than their own people. This is where WB and IMF come in. However, in the past it has been dominated by certain western nations who forced and corrupted third world countries to their benefits. During the Cold war era most 3rd world nations were forced to pick sides the ones that were on "Wrong Side" were simply annihilated in to poverty and civil wars. Ones that did pick the "Right Side" were made in to puppet regimes that basically borrowed money form IMF and WB and entered all of it in to their personnel bank accounts rather than Nation building. Well informed Western masters looked the other direction because they were using them as ponds in their ideology War with the Communist USSR.

The Cold War has long ended and there are no more clear enemies and as such ideally "Globalization and Market Economy" should flourished through out the world in the coming century. In particular, developing countries such as China, India and Brazil will have stronger influence among their local neighbors and in the global decision making, which should benefit third world regions.

I know, this will introduce new masters and new "Global Club" but look at the end results. From financial point of view, poverty as a plague will be eliminated once in for all. This will no doubt have a temporary negative effect on the economies in the West. There will be a period of decline from smaller growth to even negative growth. The middle class will almost cease to exist, and the gap between rich and poor will grow. No doubt, there will be all kinds of temporary set backs to re adjust to the ever evolving global world.

On the other hand, this will also drive the world economies to compete against each other and be more productive. A world with work force that will be more competitive and more driven to help improve not only the bottom line but the Quality of life for all of her citizens. Those who choose to embrace such a world will no doubt benefit form its success and those who choose to sit on the sidelines and complain will no doubt be left out.

A best thing we can do for our future generation is to teach them to learn to adopt and compete in a global sense and to promote equal opportunity for all. This would obviously require global laws and regulations and a formulation of a global curriculum to level the playing field for all of the citizens. No doubt, this will enable the world to emerge as a true global village, a place to compete and succeed without a limit.

Overwhelming change will no doubt have initial inertia and a possible long term resistance, but it could be overcome through its success stories. There will arise many new challenges form such a world transformation: moral degradation, spread of diseases (mainly of the heart) and moral break downs in some societies. Counter measures such as to promotes peace, equality and freedom of religion for all could help minimize such degradation.

Bottom line, people like being rewarded and those who work hard should be rewarded. As such, abolishing of taxes and government bureaucracy to bare minimum will help encourage people to work hard and sustain a positive level of growth. We spend trillions of dollars every year as AID to poor and developing nations. If these people could help them selves, we could use that capitol to help our selves.

Sorry.. I wrote too much. I can go on and on about this subject perhaps some after hour discussion...
-------------------------------------

This was the comments of somebody I know and he really believes it.

It started with:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4935924.stm

The he followed up with an email.

So how does the elimination of the "middle-class" improve the world as a whole?

-----------------------------------
There are actually 2 things here:

1. The want more power, hence the ability to force countries through policies into certain directions.

2. The want to include more member to give more voices to other nations of the world instead of few western countries making all the decision for their own benefits.

It may come shock to you but I am a strong proponent of Globalization and Market Economy. I think it's the only way to bring 3rd world countries up to speed. I look at it as what benefits the poor people of this world will benefits everyone in the long run...

Democracy, Autocracy or Bureaucracy is all BS. Resource Management is the only way of the future. Who so ever does the best job in resource management will have the upper hand in the world affairs.

Poor countries as well the Western countries need a strong leadership that is answerable to someone other than their own people. This is where WB and IMF come in. However, in the past it has been dominated by certain western nations who forced and corrupted third world countries to their benefits. During the Cold war era most 3rd world nations were forced to pick sides the ones that were on "Wrong Side" were simply annihilated in to poverty and civil wars. Ones that did pick the "Right Side" were made in to puppet regimes that basically borrowed money form IMF and WB and entered all of it in to their personnel bank accounts rather than Nation building. Well informed Western masters looked the other direction because they were using them as ponds in their ideology War with the Communist USSR.

The Cold War has long ended and there are no more clear enemies and as such ideally "Globalization and Market Economy" should flourished through out the world in the coming century. In particular, developing countries such as China, India and Brazil will have stronger influence among their local neighbors and in the global decision making, which should benefit third world regions.

I know, this will introduce new masters and new "Global Club" but look at the end results. From financial point of view, poverty as a plague will be eliminated once in for all. This will no doubt have a temporary negative effect on the economies in the West. There will be a period of decline from smaller growth to even negative growth. The middle class will almost cease to exist, and the gap between rich and poor will grow. No doubt, there will be all kinds of temporary set backs to re adjust to the ever evolving global world.

On the other hand, this will also drive the world economies to compete against each other and be more productive. A world with work force that will be more competitive and more driven to help improve not only the bottom line but the Quality of life for all of her citizens. Those who choose to embrace such a world will no doubt benefit form its success and those who choose to sit on the sidelines and complain will no doubt be left out.

A best thing we can do for our future generation is to teach them to learn to adopt and compete in a global sense and to promote equal opportunity for all. This would obviously require global laws and regulations and a formulation of a global curriculum to level the playing field for all of the citizens. No doubt, this will enable the world to emerge as a true global village, a place to compete and succeed without a limit.

Overwhelming change will no doubt have initial inertia and a possible long term resistance, but it could be overcome through its success stories. There will arise many new challenges form such a world transformation: moral degradation, spread of diseases (mainly of the heart) and moral break downs in some societies. Counter measures such as to promotes peace, equality and freedom of religion for all could help minimize such degradation.

Bottom line, people like being rewarded and those who work hard should be rewarded. As such, abolishing of taxes and government bureaucracy to bare minimum will help encourage people to work hard and sustain a positive level of growth. We spend trillions of dollars every year as AID to poor and developing nations. If these people could help them selves, we could use that capitol to help our selves.

Sorry.. I wrote too much. I can go on and on about this subject perhaps some after hour discussion...
-------------------------------------
i doubt it

<snip>Eh...
I...
Wh... Jeez. I didn't think anyone actually believed in it to that extent.

Eh...
I...
Wh... Jeez. I didn't think anyone actually believed in it to that extent.
Why not? This kind of mentality is the corner of every religion (or so it appears) - this guy inparticular just had a different focus and priority.

Global economy might possibly eliminate poverty of nations, but even rich nations have poor people. So it's doubtfull poverty will be entirely eliminated. Almost certainly it won't as long as the focus is on economic growth, unless we find a way to profit from making poor people less poor.

The right sort of global economy might eliminate poverty, certainly.

Global economy might possibly eliminate poverty of nations, but even rich nations have poor people. So it's doubtfull poverty will be entirely eliminated. Almost certainly it won't as long as the focus is on economic growth, unless we find a way to profit from making poor people less poor.
They very well could profit from making the poor less poor. Just it takes only a hand full of greedy CEOs' to muck everything up.

Corruption is a major contributor to world Poverty!
End Corruption now!

Corruption is a major contributor to world Poverty!
End Corruption now!
What the hell is with the link in your sig?

Why not? This kind of mentality is the corner of every religion (or so it appears) - this guy inparticular just had a different focus and priority.
Yeah, I suppose. I still find that kind of belief in the face of all the evidence weird.

Global economy might possibly eliminate poverty of nations, but even rich nations have poor people. So it's doubtfull poverty will be entirely eliminated. Almost certainly it won't as long as the focus is on economic growth, unless we find a way to profit from making poor people less poor.
Comparative wealth (poor people) will never be eliminated unless someone masters communism (Like a race of robots). However poverty can be eliminated easily enough, with clever economic management. While it is true that some rich countries have povert (in fact, America has the highest rate thereof in the first-world), not all of them do.

Corruption is a major contributor to world Poverty!
End Corruption now!
Corruption is the only contributor to world poverty! Well, actually it is 'bad governance', but corruption is included under that.

Yeah, I suppose. I still find that kind of belief in the face of all the evidence weird.
..and dangerous...and disappointing...and perplexing...
but mostly dangerous.

Corruption is the only contributor to world poverty! Well, actually it is 'bad governance', but corruption is included under that.
Bad is an understatement, it is evil.

Yeah, I suppose. I still find that kind of belief in the face of all the evidence weird.
Beleif that globalisation will usher in a glorious new era of prosperity for the human race? I don't 'believe' it. I know it, so do you,. Look around. Any country that has embraced globalisation and free-market economics (provided they meet the initial requirements of 'good governance') is either sitting on top of the world, or on their way there. At no other point in history has 'the common man' had it so good. However, I am not a weird religious-type who cannot listen to reason. As such, I am curious about this evidence opposing globalisation/free-marketism, please enlighten me.

Beleif that globalisation will usher in a glorious new era of prosperity for the human race? I don't 'believe' it. I know it, so do you,. Look around. Any country that has embraced globalisation and free-market economics (provided they meet the initial requirements of 'good governance') is either sitting on top of the world, or on their way there. At no other point in history has 'the common man' had it so good. However, I am not a weird religious-type who cannot listen to reason. As such, I am curious about this evidence opposing globalisation/free-marketism, please enlighten me.
Look at the world before the Great Depression. Economies where alot freer than they are now and look at how the fluctuated.

I think it is a bad idea, it will only encourage China and China really doesn't need any help spreading its BS products around the world.
There Stainless Steel Rusts!
I mean actually rusts, rusts like Steel.

I think it is a bad idea, it will only encourage China and China really doesn't need any help spreading its BS products around the world.
There Stainless Steel Rusts!
I mean actually rusts, rusts like Steel.

Yeah, and that stuff that Japan produced in the 50's and 60's was really crap.

Wait a minute. Do you think that China might actually follow a similar path to Japan and start producing more higher quality products in the future?

And I have to say that the plastic toys that come out of China now look a lot better than the toys I had when I was a kid. All my action figures looked mutated.

This was the comments of somebody I know and he really believes it.

It started with:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4935924.stm

The he followed up with an email.

So how does the elimination of the "middle-class" improve the world as a whole?

-----------------------------------
There are actually 2 things here:

1. The want more power, hence the ability to force countries through policies into certain directions.

2. The want to include more member to give more voices to other nations of the world instead of few western countries making all the decision for their own benefits.

It may come shock to you but I am a strong proponent of Globalization and Market Economy. I think it's the only way to bring 3rd world countries up to speed. I look at it as what benefits the poor people of this world will benefits everyone in the long run...

Democracy, Autocracy or Bureaucracy is all BS. Resource Management is the only way of the future. Who so ever does the best job in resource management will have the upper hand in the world affairs.

Poor countries as well the Western countries need a strong leadership that is answerable to someone other than their own people. This is where WB and IMF come in. However, in the past it has been dominated by certain western nations who forced and corrupted third world countries to their benefits. During the Cold war era most 3rd world nations were forced to pick sides the ones that were on "Wrong Side" were simply annihilated in to poverty and civil wars. Ones that did pick the "Right Side" were made in to puppet regimes that basically borrowed money form IMF and WB and entered all of it in to their personnel bank accounts rather than Nation building. Well informed Western masters looked the other direction because they were using them as ponds in their ideology War with the Communist USSR.

The Cold War has long ended and there are no more clear enemies and as such ideally "Globalization and Market Economy" should flourished through out the world in the coming century. In particular, developing countries such as China, India and Brazil will have stronger influence among their local neighbors and in the global decision making, which should benefit third world regions.

I know, this will introduce new masters and new "Global Club" but look at the end results. From financial point of view, poverty as a plague will be eliminated once in for all. This will no doubt have a temporary negative effect on the economies in the West. There will be a period of decline from smaller growth to even negative growth. The middle class will almost cease to exist, and the gap between rich and poor will grow. No doubt, there will be all kinds of temporary set backs to re adjust to the ever evolving global world.

On the other hand, this will also drive the world economies to compete against each other and be more productive. A world with work force that will be more competitive and more driven to help improve not only the bottom line but the Quality of life for all of her citizens. Those who choose to embrace such a world will no doubt benefit form its success and those who choose to sit on the sidelines and complain will no doubt be left out.

A best thing we can do for our future generation is to teach them to learn to adopt and compete in a global sense and to promote equal opportunity for all. This would obviously require global laws and regulations and a formulation of a global curriculum to level the playing field for all of the citizens. No doubt, this will enable the world to emerge as a true global village, a place to compete and succeed without a limit.

Overwhelming change will no doubt have initial inertia and a possible long term resistance, but it could be overcome through its success stories. There will arise many new challenges form such a world transformation: moral degradation, spread of diseases (mainly of the heart) and moral break downs in some societies. Counter measures such as to promotes peace, equality and freedom of religion for all could help minimize such degradation.

Bottom line, people like being rewarded and those who work hard should be rewarded. As such, abolishing of taxes and government bureaucracy to bare minimum will help encourage people to work hard and sustain a positive level of growth. We spend trillions of dollars every year as AID to poor and developing nations. If these people could help them selves, we could use that capitol to help our selves.

Sorry.. I wrote too much. I can go on and on about this subject perhaps some after hour discussion...
-------------------------------------
That's not true, 'cause capitalism needs poor people, never mind outside or inside the country. Your economy idea it's tipically american. The goverments of the worlds must work to redistribute richness, less gov is not the answer. Of course, it bring new own problems, but the "invisible hand" is very, very old fashioned.
And your "hard work and equal oportunity" is a BIG LIE, just see the public education sistem in USA. SO the rich's sons had more equal oportunity than the rest of the world, even although some poor people can rise their own condition.

That's not true, 'cause capitalism needs poor people, never mind outside or inside the country. Your economy idea it's tipically american. The goverments of the worlds must work to redistribute richness, less gov is not the answer. Of course, it bring new own problems, but the "invisible hand" is very, very old fashioned.
And your "hard work and equal oportunity" is a BIG LIE, just see the public education sistem in USA. SO the rich's sons had more equal oportunity than the rest of the world, even although some poor people can rise their own condition.
It's not his idea, but an aquaintance of his.

*snip*
Democracy, Autocracy or Bureaucracy is all BS. Resource Management is the only way of the future. Who so ever does the best job in resource management will have the upper hand in the world affairs.
The interesting thing about the free-market and capitalism is that it effectively enforces public interest. Whilst a country does not have to a democracy if it is capitalist, the people in this always boast property rights, and usually decent civil rights. This is the nature of money-power. So property rights are guaranteed (as they are part of the foundation of a workable capitalist economy). Seeing as the people have rights to their wealth, they then colloectively hold whatever government there is by the balls.
Poor countries as well the Western countries need a strong leadership that is answerable to someone other than their own people. This is where WB and IMF come in. This is an ok idea, however the egyptian pharoah system works almost as well, without the 'who watches the watchmen' predicament. Basically, the egyptian pharoah was in charge for as long as he kept the gods happy. If Egypt received a stint of exceptionally low crop yields, or it didn't rain enough, of some kind of natural disaster struck; then the Pharoah would be ousted for angering the gods. Swap the pharoah for your respective government, and swap angrering the gods with poor economic management.
*snippedy-snip*
I know, this will introduce new masters and new "Global Club" but look at the end results. From financial point of view, poverty as a plague will be eliminated once in for all. This will no doubt have a temporary negative effect on the economies in the West. There will be a period of decline from smaller growth to even negative growth. The middle class will almost cease to exist, and the gap between rich and poor will grow.
Really?! You think so? I would anticipate a world-wide expansion of the middle class. Only Knob-jockey American economic management would result in such a gap in the rich and the poor. This polarisation of wealth isn't an inevitable feature of capitalist wealth in a free market, it is a result of ultra-right economic mismanagement. After all, if there is no middle-class where will the money come from?

A best thing we can do for our future generation is to teach them to learn to adopt and compete in a global sense and to promote equal opportunity for all. This would obviously require global laws and regulations and a formulation of a global curriculum to level the playing field for all of the citizens. No doubt, this will enable the world to emerge as a true global village, a place to compete and succeed without a limit.
I don't even think that this would be neccesary. Globalisation is just logical. Actually, having seen the way misguided types desperately cling to their ideas in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (The bible?! I mean WTF?!) we probably should educate the kids...
Overwhelming change will no doubt have initial inertia and a possible long term resistance, but it could be overcome through its success stories. There will arise many new challenges form such a world transformation: moral degradation, spread of diseases (mainly of the heart) and moral break downs in some societies. Counter measures such as to promotes peace, equality and freedom of religion for all could help minimize such degradation.I don't see why this would increase beyond what it already is, if not reduce. Mind you, I don't beleive in 'moral degradation' as morality is just a BS way of looking at human behavior.
Bottom line, people like being rewarded and those who work hard should be rewarded. As such, abolishing of taxes and government bureaucracy to bare minimum will help encourage people to work hard and sustain a positive level of growth. This I don't agree with. Governments have a very useful place as a 'citizens union'. To take to laissez faire economics is to release the pikes upon the minnows. We would have the same system, only far more ruthless. Whilst it makes a cool setting for a cyber-punk fantasy, it does not sound like a great place to live (unless you are a pike).
We spend trillions of dollars every year as AID to poor and developing nations. If these people could help them selves, we could use that capitol to help our selves. This I have to second. Foreign aid is great. It is really nice, and it stops people from dying, and shows our compassionate side. However, it does not fix anything. To make an analogy, it is mopping up the water, but not turning off the tap.

Look at the world before the Great Depression. Economies where alot freer than they are now and look at how the fluctuated.
That was the kick-off of large-scale nationalised capitalism (actually the first kick off was in the 19th century, but as the great depression demonstated, we stumbled a little). The post-depression boom is an example of how the key to economic growth lies in 3 simple things, propert rights, private enterprise, and least (but definately not least) good governance. Globalisation isn't the way to make the little countries big (well it contributes, but it wont do it alone), globalism is just going to blow this money fiesta into proportions we couldn't possibly acheive otherwise. Good example with the post-depression boom; consider this boom if involved the population of the whole world. My mouth is watering...

We spend trillions of dollars every year as AID to poor and developing nations.

That's a neat trick considering that the entire U.S. budget is less than two and a half trillion.

I think the U.S. spends about 0.26 percent of GDP on aid and most of that is in millitary aid so probably something like less than 0.1% of American tax money actually goes to helping the poor people in developing nations.

That's a neat trick considering that the entire U.S. budget is less than two and a half trillion.

I think the U.S. spends about 0.26 percent of GDP on aid and most of that is in millitary aid so probably something like less than 0.1% of American tax money actually goes to helping the poor people in developing nations.
How else could tey get such a huge debt?:rolleyes:

I think it is a bad idea, it will only encourage China and China really doesn't need any help spreading its BS products around the world.
There Stainless Steel Rusts!
I mean actually rusts, rusts like Steel.
In the 70's everything Japan made was a peice of shit, in the 80's everything Korea made was a piece of shit, in the 90's everything China made was a piece of shit. As with the two former examples, the latter shall follow suit. Think about it, these countries relied on manufacturing shit good for shit money, they accumulated some capital, and their economies grew, now all of the best manufactured goods come from on of these places. China is right in the middle of this transformation. Soon Chinese steel will be as good as Japanese steel, and you will be bitching about african steel.

How else could tey get such a huge debt?

I always thought it was the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, their huge military and a general slow down in productivity through the 70's and 80's. But I suppose it could have been that anti malaria program in Africa that did it.

That's not true, 'cause capitalism needs poor people, never mind outside or inside the country. Your economy idea it's tipically american. The goverments of the worlds must work to redistribute richness, less gov is not the answer. Of course, it bring new own problems, but the "invisible hand" is very, very old fashioned.
And your "hard work and equal oportunity" is a BIG LIE, just see the public education sistem in USA. SO the rich's sons had more equal oportunity than the rest of the world, even although some poor people can rise their own condition.
Okay. Capitalism doesn't need 'poor people', but it is based on economic inequality. This is not to say you can't have rich people, and even richer people. I do agree on your point vs. the invisible hand, governments should exist in reasonable power so as to protect the interests of the people (like a citizens union). A second nod of concurrence of you point on the myth of the self-made man.

How else could tey get such a huge debt?:rolleyes:
Over many years, owing to many countries.

"Elimination of the middle class"

Wtf? There are only two classes. The buisness owners and non-buisness owners.

If the global economy was nationalised you could get rid of them and the profits used for advancement and reducing prices.

Best way for it to work would be a marxist paradise where people work in the economy not for profits or surplus but directly for the people.

"Elimination of the middle class"

Wtf? There are only two classes. The buisness owners and non-buisness owners.

If the global economy was nationalised you could get rid of them and the profits used for advancement and reducing prices.

Best way for it to work would be a marxist paradise where people work in the economy not for profits or surplus but directly for the people.
I agree, no we must draw the blueprints for the race of superhuman robots capable of this. Make sure that the blue prints are on blue paper too!

Wtf? There are only two classes. The buisness owners and non-buisness owners.

So what class would someone be who owned part of a business but also worked for a salery?

So what class would someone be who owned part of a business but also worked for a salery?
Are they rich? I yes; they are Bourgois scum whose money belongs to the workers, or more specifically, me. If no; they are a comrade, exploited by by the businesses they partially own. They should topple the Capitalist regime and share the loot with me..uh-ahem, I mean the people.

Are they rich? I yes; they are Bourgois scum whose money belongs to the workers, or more specifically, me. If no; they are a comrade, exploited by by the businesses they partially own. They should topple the Capitalist regime and share the loot with me..uh-ahem, I mean the people.

Okay, I'll topple the Capitalit regime as soon as I have the house paid off.

Okay, I'll topple the Capitalit regime as soon as I have the house paid off.
And then redistribute the house to me?

And then redistribute the house to me?One brick at a time ;)

One brick at a time ;)
Hahahahahahahahaha I love you! Hehheeeheee

In the long run, absolutely. Easier and larger scale international trade and finance will bring about economic growth due to the innate nature of trade; through comparative advantage, the countries that trade shift their production possibilities curves outward, resulting in more economic growth and gains in employment, income, and selection and competition of goods for consumers.

It is unfair trade and dumping (in other words, subsidizing businesses to undercut competitiors unfairly) along with tariffs and quotas that cause the destruction of jobs and the erosion of wages and benefits. Comparative advantage will eliminate some jobs, but it always balances out but with stronger economic growth and more stability than existed prior to trading.

Free trade ultimately balances out in terms of employment, economic growth, and balance of trade. However, there are still problems because most nations still have barriers to trade in some form that need to be removed for trade to reach equlibrium. Strict pursuit of international trade laws and removal of barriers is necessary for this to occur. Protectionism failed before, and it will fail again if that nonsense ideology (there sure as hell isn't economics behind it) is pursued by policymakers.

It may all turn out nice and dandy in the long run. On the short term however habhazard free economizing means we'll loose a lot of jobs here in the west to cheaper workers elsewehere. Untill such time when wages across the planet balance out a bit and location and costs are less correlated.

It may all turn out nice and dandy in the long run. On the short term however habhazard free economizing means we'll loose a lot of jobs here in the west to cheaper workers elsewehere. Untill such time when wages across the planet balance out a bit and location and costs are less correlated.
Jobs will only be lost in industries that other nations have a comparative advantage in. The idea is that countries should specialise in areas in which they have a comparative advantage. So if you lose your job, change industries into something that your country kicks arse in.
Also, the wages in developing countries will never rise if the rich western nations decide to enact economic protectionism. Think about it, developing countries can get rich real quick by exploiting their comparative advantages in industries like textiles, manufacturings, or agriculure (depending ong the country). If the people with money refuse to buy these things, then they will have to do it the slow, slow, slow way.
Another example to ponder on is this. Imagine if instead of aid for african countries, we just lifted all the tariffs of their products. They would be rich in less than half a decade. Jobs would be lost in the West, but then the human resources in the west could then be diverted to their stronger industries (luxury goods, IT, Insurance, superior manufacturing, fashion, transport, genetic farming, or whatever). Then the western country could (and do) capitalise from the growng demand for these goods in the developing nations even more competitively from their expanded industries.

Jobs will only be lost in industries that other nations have a comparative advantage in. The idea is that countries should specialise in areas in which they have a comparative advantage. So if you lose your job, change industries into something that your country kicks arse in. But what if for the next 10-20 years, they can do everything, just as well, and cheaper. Countries like India now have a large workpool that is just as highly educated as anything you can get here, but still much cheaper. And China is coming up fast as well.
I don't see a reason why they couldn't get a comparative advantage in most areas for a few decades. Which would leave us short for a while. (I suppose I could always move to India, wages may be less, but living expenses are cheaper too)

In the 70's everything Japan made was a peice of shit, in the 80's everything Korea made was a piece of shit, in the 90's everything China made was a piece of shit. As with the two former examples, the latter shall follow suit. Think about it, these countries relied on manufacturing shit good for shit money, they accumulated some capital, and their economies grew, now all of the best manufactured goods come from on of these places. China is right in the middle of this transformation. Soon Chinese steel will be as good as Japanese steel, and you will be bitching about african steel.
I disagree.
China is getting Austrailan Steel and turning it into shit.
Africa can bloody well get a new CEO and Board of Directors for all i care.

China is getting Austrailan Steel and turning it into shit.

Actually they are getting Australian iron ore and coal. They pay the same for it as everyone else so I figure they can do what they want with it after that.

Why doesn't Australia have any steel mills? I don't know. You would think it would make sense to make steel in Australia and save on transport costs but between high capital costs in Australia and apparent overproduction in the rest of the world it seems it's not that profitable to build new steel mills here.

Look at the world before the Great Depression. Economies where alot freer than they are now and look at how the fluctuated.
On your tombstone someone ought to put "Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc".

But what if for the next 10-20 years, they can do everything, just as well, and cheaper. Countries like India now have a large workpool that is just as highly educated as anything you can get here, but still much cheaper. And China is coming up fast as well.
I don't see a reason why they couldn't get a comparative advantage in most areas for a few decades. Which would leave us short for a while. (I suppose I could always move to India, wages may be less, but living expenses are cheaper too)
You're forgetting to factor in desperation versus contentedness, or whatever that word is. Even if some of our jobs leave, we'll have lower costs of living to match it, which will make it affordable to take lower wages here and bring some jobs back.

This was the comments of somebody I know and he really believes it.

It started with:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4935924.stm

The he followed up with an email.

So how does the elimination of the "middle-class" improve the world as a whole?

-----------------------------------
There are actually 2 things here:

1. The want more power, hence the ability to force countries through policies into certain directions.

2. The want to include more member to give more voices to other nations of the world instead of few western countries making all the decision for their own benefits.

It may come shock to you but I am a strong proponent of Globalization and Market Economy. I think it's the only way to bring 3rd world countries up to speed. I look at it as what benefits the poor people of this world will benefits everyone in the long run...

Democracy, Autocracy or Bureaucracy is all BS. Resource Management is the only way of the future. Who so ever does the best job in resource management will have the upper hand in the world affairs.

Poor countries as well the Western countries need a strong leadership that is answerable to someone other than their own people. This is where WB and IMF come in. However, in the past it has been dominated by certain western nations who forced and corrupted third world countries to their benefits. During the Cold war era most 3rd world nations were forced to pick sides the ones that were on "Wrong Side" were simply annihilated in to poverty and civil wars. Ones that did pick the "Right Side" were made in to puppet regimes that basically borrowed money form IMF and WB and entered all of it in to their personnel bank accounts rather than Nation building. Well informed Western masters looked the other direction because they were using them as ponds in their ideology War with the Communist USSR.

The Cold War has long ended and there are no more clear enemies and as such ideally "Globalization and Market Economy" should flourished through out the world in the coming century. In particular, developing countries such as China, India and Brazil will have stronger influence among their local neighbors and in the global decision making, which should benefit third world regions.

I know, this will introduce new masters and new "Global Club" but look at the end results. From financial point of view, poverty as a plague will be eliminated once in for all. This will no doubt have a temporary negative effect on the economies in the West. There will be a period of decline from smaller growth to even negative growth. The middle class will almost cease to exist, and the gap between rich and poor will grow. No doubt, there will be all kinds of temporary set backs to re adjust to the ever evolving global world.

On the other hand, this will also drive the world economies to compete against each other and be more productive. A world with work force that will be more competitive and more driven to help improve not only the bottom line but the Quality of life for all of her citizens. Those who choose to embrace such a world will no doubt benefit form its success and those who choose to sit on the sidelines and complain will no doubt be left out.

A best thing we can do for our future generation is to teach them to learn to adopt and compete in a global sense and to promote equal opportunity for all. This would obviously require global laws and regulations and a formulation of a global curriculum to level the playing field for all of the citizens. No doubt, this will enable the world to emerge as a true global village, a place to compete and succeed without a limit.

Overwhelming change will no doubt have initial inertia and a possible long term resistance, but it could be overcome through its success stories. There will arise many new challenges form such a world transformation: moral degradation, spread of diseases (mainly of the heart) and moral break downs in some societies. Counter measures such as to promotes peace, equality and freedom of religion for all could help minimize such degradation.

Bottom line, people like being rewarded and those who work hard should be rewarded. As such, abolishing of taxes and government bureaucracy to bare minimum will help encourage people to work hard and sustain a positive level of growth. We spend trillions of dollars every year as AID to poor and developing nations. If these people could help them selves, we could use that capitol to help our selves.

Sorry.. I wrote too much. I can go on and on about this subject perhaps some after hour discussion...
-------------------------------------


All I can say is thank you.

Look at the world before the Great Depression. Economies where alot freer than they are now and look at how the fluctuated.
Economies were also developing and changing. The process of development and changing is naturally going to be unstable, but once it finishes, it works very nicely.

Beyond that, the depression was caused by the massive destruction brought about during the first world war, not by the fluctuations of the market. The great powers of Europe literally ground themselves into bits, killed millions of their youngest, brightest citizens and tossed vast sums of money and resouces into armaments. That's what caused the great depression, ruined the economic development of the west for nearly thirty years and caused the second world war. The actions of governments, not the actions of the market.