Collapse.

[dre]

And how is that a bad thing?

For Chrissakes. If someone invented a way to fuel a car with water, how many jobs would we lose in the petroleum sector? And dre, you would see this is as a bad thing, the same way that you view jobs as "offshorable".

And yet if someone figured out how to fuel a car with water, such a discovery would be good for the world economy. And Canada.

I wasnt making a judgement on whether its good or bad. Its good for some people bad for others.

[August1991]

I wasnt making a judgement on whether its good or bad. Its good for some people bad for others.

Well, you do make a judgment. You make it seem as if world trade makes 1000 people win and 3 billion people lose.

In fact, world trade like new technology makes the world a better place overall. It gives each of us more choices.

Edited October 24, 2011 by August1991

[dre]

Well, you do make a judgment. You make it seem as if world trade makes 1000 people win and 3 billion people lose.

In fact, world trade like new technology makes the world a better place overall. It gives each of us more choices.

Well, you do make a judgment. You make it seem as if world trade makes 1000 people win and 3 billion people lose.

I never said anything like that. Like I said there will be winners and losers. People in the west are going to see a reduction in their standard of life, and a decline in inflation adjusted wages if you calculate inflation in any reasonable way (we currently dont). We are already seeing the effect on wages and unemployment, and in the shrinking middle class.

It really depends on your perspective. For me personally its a great thing. It also depends on how fast you do it. If you move too much production too fast from the developed world to the developing world then youll crash western economies and it will hurt everyone.

The other thing you have to realize is that the impact of globalism on the west has been reduced, because countries like China just take all the money they make with the production we have moved there, and give it back to us. We use that money to shore up our standard of life and to project the articial illusion of sustainability. It will be interesting to see what happens when that stops.

[Rocky Road]

I don't claim for one minute that "I know it all"

I am just trying to paint a picture that we are in a "dodgey" situation with all these major issues floating about.

Inflation IS rampant, oil is limited...what happens when you project the next 100 years ? then what?

I think there are many reasons to be concerned about the direction of the economy and policy.

Ladies and gentlemen, have a good night.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't claim for one minute that "I know it all"

I am just trying to paint a picture that we are in a "dodgey" situation with all these major issues floating about.

Inflation IS rampant, oil is limited...what happens when you project the next 100 years ? then what?

I think there are many reasons to be concerned about the direction of the economy and policy.

Have no fear.....do you think for one moment that we are in worst shape than those who have gone before us, with real, documented calamity on a scale we can only imagine, with fat bellies?

[Rocky Road]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/berlusconi-government-on-verge-of-collapse-over-eu-economic-reforms/article2212779/

[August1991]

People in the west are going to see a reduction in their standard of life, and a decline in inflation adjusted wages if you calculate inflation in any reasonable way (we currently dont). We are already seeing the effect on wages and unemployment, and in the shrinking middle class.

How does new technology reduce the "standard of life" of people in the west? Are you saying that iPads shrink the middle class?

It also depends on how fast you do it. If you move too much production too fast from the developed world to the developing world then youll crash western economies and it will hurt everyone.

So you think that it is better to delay a new technology that may mean saving people's lives - because it protects some jobs.

The other thing you have to realize is that the impact of globalism on the west has been reduced, because countries like China just take all the money they make with the production we have moved there, and give it back to us. We use that money to shore up our standard of life and to project the articial illusion of sustainability. It will be interesting to see what happens when that stops.

Money? You just lost the argument.

When it comes to trade and technology, we are in the long term world of real "stuff". In such a world, relative prices may matter but money certainly doesn't.

Edited October 25, 2011 by August1991

[dre]

How does new technology reduce the "standard of life" of people in the west? Are you saying that iPads shrink the middle class?

So you think that it is better to delay a new technology that may mean saving people's lives - because it protects some jobs.

Money? You just lost the argument.

When it comes to trade and technology, we are in the long term world of real "stuff". In such a world, relative prices may matter but money certainly doesn't.

How does new technology reduce the "standard of life" of people in the west? Are you saying that iPads shrink the middle class

Declining inflation adjusted wages will reduce the standard of life in the west. If the basket of goods and services used to measure inflation only had staples in it then you would see wages are already dropping fast. Despite your universal belief that all trade is good, this is not going to go well for workers in the west and it already isnt. There are not enough service jobs to maintain our lifestyle.

That doesnt mean globalism is bad. It just means that as with anything else there's winners and losers.

When it comes to trade and technology, we are in the long term world of real "stuff". In such a world, relative prices may matter but money certainly doesn't.

Good! You can tell that to the folks at the gas station, or at your local electric utility, or at the grocery store.

[August1991]

Dre, anyone who travels knows that prices change from country to country depending on currencies. Once you figure out the exchange rate, money doesn't matter.

What matters is the relative price - the price of gasoline, say, in terms of a haircut. You inadvertently note this when talking about "inflation adjusted wages". I'm saying that the issue is broader than simply wages: it concerns all future relative prices.

In general though, the future will have more stuff - and that strikes me as the key point.

In a sense, all our children will travel to a country (the future) where the exchange rate makes every thing seem cheaper in general, but some things more than others. Indeed in this other country, there will be things that we cannot buy now.

If North Korea were to open to South Korea tomorrow, within 10 years or so, everyone would be a winner - including even Kim Jong-Il.

dre, I simply don't understand the logic of people like you. According to your logic, Newton should have delayed his discovery of differential calculus because of possible winners/losers. It seems to me that if we discover something that improves life, as many people as possible should have access to this discovery as soon as possible.

When the world discovered cell phones, who were the winners and losers? It's water under the bridge now.

That doesnt mean globalism is bad. It just means that as with anything else there's winners and losers.

Once again, you imply that this is a zero-sum game. It's not.

Free trade, new technology, better human capital, people living/working longer - all these mean more real stuff. It's possible that this more real stuff will be unfairly shared but based on past evidence, I don't see why that would mean that ordinary people in North America will get less than they do now.

Edited October 25, 2011 by August1991

[Wild Bill]

Dre, anyone who travels knows that prices change from country to country depending on currencies. Once you figure out the exchange rate, money doesn't matter.

What matters is the relative price - the price of gasoline, say, in terms of a haircut. You inadvertently note this when talking about "inflation adjusted wages". I'm saying that the issue is broader than simply wages: it concerns all future relative prices.

In general though, the future will have more stuff - and that strikes me as the key point.

In a sense, all our children will travel to a country (the future) where the exchange rate makes every thing seem cheaper in general, but some things more than others. Indeed in this other country, there will be things that we cannot buy now.

If North Korea were to open to South Korea tomorrow, within 10 years or so, everyone would be a winner - including even Kim Jong-Il.

dre, I simply don't understand the logic of people like you. According to your logic, Newton should have delayed his discovery of differential calculus because of possible winners/losers. It seems to me that if we discover something that improves life, as many people as possible should have access to this discovery as soon as possible.

When the world discovered cell phones, who were the winners and losers? It's water under the bridge now.

Once again, you imply that this is a zero-sum game. It's not.

Free trade, new technology, better human capital, people living/working longer - all these mean more real stuff. It's possible that this more real stuff will be unfairly shared but based on past evidence, I don't see why that would mean that ordinary people in North America will get less than they do now.

August, you and the good Dr. Dre are at odds because each of you is right in a different context! You are talking about the effects and benefits on our society in general. Dre is relating to the effects on us as individuals.

The problem is not so much that our wealth-creating activities are changing, as with the usual example of service jobs replacing manufacturing employment. True, service jobs tend to pay a LOT less, which means a decline in living standard but that's not the major factor in any living standard decline.

No, the major factor is that these changes tend to displace workers in older and specialized categories, where the chance of getting a similar paying job or even ANY job is poor, even after re-training!

The factors affecting us today are unique in our history. The Digital Revolution is transforming the world far faster than anything that happened in Henry Ford's time. The rate of change has simply become too fast for many workers to be able to adapt. Even decades after Ford brought us cars we still had horses delivering milk to peoples' houses. We all saw typewriters and adding machines almost completely disappear in less than 10 years! Hell, engineers abandoned their slide rules en masse in less than 5 years after HP introduced the pocket calculator!

The median age at car factories and steel works has been going up for several decades now, mostly because these businesses have been contracting and not expanding their workforce during that time. Since these are virtually always union environments the new workers are let go first. Keep doing this long enough and your workforce becomes top heavy with older workers,

If a 52 year old man who has banged bumpers on minivans for a lifetime is let go, odds are very strong that no one will want to hire him. Certainly not at anything like his former rate of pay. There are often government programs for retraining but they really don't do much besides extending EI benefits for an extra year or two. Sooner or later that worker will have to go for a job interview. He may have fresh papers to show he's a certified welder or air-conditioning technician but as soon as the interviewer sees his face the resume goes to the bottom of the pile.

You see, unemployment has not been truly low for decades now! Modern technology has reduced the number of workers needed at most firms. The steady decline in demand adds to that. The steel company here in Hamilton employed nearly 20,000 workers back in the 1970's. Now the number is down closer to 900!

In the early 70's EVERYBODY was hiring! You may not have been able to get that super job you specifically wanted but certainly getting something to pay the bills was easy! As a young man back then I held a number of jobs. With virtually all of them I was hired on the first interview, that same day. At one place that I worked the boss literally pulled a man from the lineup to apply and immediately put him to work! The poor fellow was so rattled it was a few hours before he worked up the nerve to tell us he had left his girlfriend out in his car!

So in most areas it is a hirer's market, not a worker's one. That interviewer looking to add a welder or an air-conditioning technician would prefer a young man, not an older one. True, age discrimination is illegal but so what? Enacting such legislation makes for a good photo-op for a politician but in the real world it's useless. No interviewer would ever ADMIT to age discrimination! He had a choice between someone fresh out of school with his certificate and an older worker with the same one. How could you prove he discriminated by hiring the younger one?

So instead of unemployed older factory workers we end up with older, unemployed factory workers with re-training certificates! Doesn't help pay the bills any better!

So you may be quite correct when you say that technological change brings new jobs to replace old ones. If we don't need people to build buggy whips anymore it's not a problem to the overall picture if we have a new demand for workers to build Model T Fords. However, that's not an accurate picture of the world today. We need less people to build Fords than we did for the buggy whips! And the buggy whip workers tend to be in their 50's or older!

Dre's POV targets individuals, you are talking about overall trends. Young folks starting out can choose the new type of jobs. This doesn't necessarily and automatically help older displaced labourers.

I've been following the talking media heads and personally living through these trends since the late 70's, August. If you were writing a textbook describing these times a hundred years from now, I think your text would be very accurate as an overall summation of the changes in our time on our national economy.

If you personally were an older displaced autoworker you would have a very different perspective! I'm not arguing that we should try to stem the flow of advancement, just that we should recognize that different times bring different problems that we should try to solve, rather than just refuse to acknowledge their existence.

[dre]

dre, I simply don't understand the logic of people like you. According to your logic, Newton should have delayed his discovery of differential calculus because of possible winners/losers. It seems to me that if we discover something that improves life, as many people as possible should have access to this discovery as soon as possible.

Thats because you fabricate my position and respond to things I didnt actually say. If youd stop doing this youd understand my logic pretty fast because its really pretty simple.

Free trade, new technology, better human capital, people living/working longer - all these mean more real stuff. It's possible that this more real stuff will be unfairly shared but based on past evidence, I don't see why that would mean that ordinary people in North America will get less than they do now.

Because as globalization drives down our inflation adjusted wages (along with SOME prices), the prices of some of the most important things are going up.

Its true that your paycheck can buy more nondurable consumer goods, consumer electronics etc. But...

Your paycheck cant buy as much gas as it could have a few years ago.

Your paycheck cant buy as much college tuition as it could have a few years ago.

Your paycheck cant buy as much medical care as it could have a few years ago.

Your paycheck cant buy as much food as it could have a few years ago.

Your paycheck cant buy as much electricy as it could have a few years ago.

Your paycheck cant buy as much propane as it could have a few years ago.

Your paycheck cant buy as much natural gas as it could have a few years ago.

Your utopian conclusion that everything will be great because theres more stuff, but the problem is, that the things that you really NEED... the things you cant LIVE without are not getting cheaper. They are getting more expensive. Thats the problem with the whole "So what if inflation adjusted wages are down! A dvd player only costs 10 bux!" mentality.

Like I said... Thats not a condemnation of the global economy, and billions of people ARE going to see increases in their standard of life. If you insist on trying to cast me as some sort of anti-globalist G8 protester thats your problem. Given the fact that I make a living setting up foreign shops, its kind of ironic.

[August1991]

No, the major factor is that these changes tend to displace workers in older and specialized categories, where the chance of getting a similar paying job or even ANY job is poor, even after re-training!

IOW, women in the typing pool have lost their jobs - and I guess men who rivet have lost their jobs too. Nowadays, computers type and robots rivet.

August, you and the good Dr. Dre are at odds because each of you is right in a different context! You are talking about the effects and benefits on our society in general. Dre is relating to the effects on us as individuals.

....

No, the major factor is that these changes tend to displace workers in older and specialized categories, where the chance of getting a similar paying job or even ANY job is poor, even after re-training!

WB, your long story is interesting but I think you miss my point.

So here's an other attempt. Someone, about 800 years ago, invented eyeglasses. IOW, people with bad vision could see.

dre would have us believe that this invention made naturally good-sighted people with 20/20 vision into "losers" because they had lost their sighted advantage. (The "winners"? According to dre, the winners were the eyeglass makers, and near/far sighted people at the time.)

IMV (I wear glasses now) but using common sense, the invention of eyeglasses made the world a better place. We were all winners.

----

IME, people like dre are wedded to zero-sum thinking because it offers a simple, reassuring way to understand the world. They are calculators who are bad at math.

Edited October 25, 2011 by August1991

[Wild Bill]

WB, your long story is interesting but I think you miss my point.

So here's an other attempt. Someone, about 800 years ago, invented eyeglasses. IOW, people with bad vision could see.

dre would have us believe that this invention made naturally good-sighted people with 20/20 vision into "losers" because they had lost their sighted advantage. (The "winners"? According to dre, the winners were the eyeglass makers, and near/far sighted people at the time.)

IMV, using common sense, the invention of eyeglasses made the world a better place. We were all winners.

----

IME, people like dre are wedded to zero-sum thinking because it offers a simple, reassuring way to understand the world. They are calculators who are bad at math.

No August, I think it is YOU that is missing the point! I agree that with a long-term perspective inventions tend to make us better off. What you seem to be ignoring is that in the short-term large numbers of people suffer damage - without any way to mitigate it!

You are arguing from an academic standpoint and Dr. Dre is describing the "real world".

Nobody is trying to claim that curing cancer is an attack on employment for doctors, August! It is YOU who seems to be implying such criticisms of your premise! You're moving the goal posts.

As I said, a hundred years from now you may look correct in expressing an overview of today's times. Even today, anyone who has a reasonably secure job would likely agree with you. However, your POV offers NOTHING for that older displaced worker! It offers NOTHING for those who's innate talent level or lack of opportunity from birth leaves them ill-equipped to be a lawyer, teacher or accountant!

As I also said, you use previous times of technological change as examples, when today's times have many radically different factors.

To be fair August, you're in good company. So far it seems that NO ONE, especially those in positions of authority, sees the growing problem of displaced workers and a lack of jobs for those less capable, more suited to general labour. Those people will NEVER be re-trained to be a physicist! What are we going to do with them?

Henry Ford created HUGE numbers of new jobs with his new automobiles! Every buggy whip worker who wanted to could be hired at Ford and thousands of others besides! That bubble carried us for about 3/4 of a century but in the late 70's and early 80's it burst. Your model fails totally when the number of available jobs keeps shrinking, not growing!

At least, it fails for a lot of us as individuals. Again, I'll grant you that people a century from now will be better off! A lot of us today get bubkiss!

[August1991]

No August, I think it is YOU that is missing the point! I agree that with a long-term perspective inventions tend to make us better off. What you seem to be ignoring is that in the short-term large numbers of people suffer damage - without any way to mitigate it!

You are arguing from an academic standpoint and Dr. Dre is describing the "real world".

Long term perspective? (Yuk, yuk.)

So, according to you, people with bad vision should slowly have access to glasses. WB, in all seriousness, how can you say that eyeglasses are bad?

According to your logic, we should force everyone to remove their glasses so that people with good eyesight (20/20 vision) have a benefit.

----

Let me try this again. Your "long term perspective" means that people with good vision can benefit more while people with bad vision pay for it. Meanwhile, the world is a poorer place. And you think that this is fair.

WB and dre, you would make the world overall a poorer place to maintain fairness, the status quo, or something.

You would have people remove eyeglasses and make young people place weights on their legs (so that they walked slowly like old people). WB and dre, you want us all to be equal.

As I say, I don't understand your logic. You strike me as zero-sum thinkers, or calculators who are bad at math. (Every family has one.)

Edited October 25, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

Nobody is trying to claim that curing cancer is an attack on employment for doctors, August!

But that precisely is the argument of you and dre. Winners and losers. You would have doctors keep their jobs while people died of cancer.

My argument is more nuanced. IMHO, if we cure cancer, doctors will continue to work and do something else with their time.

Imagine what doctors could do if they didn't "waste" their time on cancer cases.

And imagine what we all could do if some of us saw better.

Edited October 25, 2011 by August1991

[Wild Bill]

But that precisely is the argument of you and dre. Winners and losers. You would have doctors keep their jobs while people died of cancer.

My argument is more nuanced. IMHO, if we cure cancer, doctors will continue to work and do something else with their time.

Imagine what doctors could do if they didn't "waste" their time on cancer cases.

And imagine what we all could do if some of us saw better.

August, YOU shifted the model to one about eyeglasses and doctors! I didn't and I didn't see Dre do it either.

You don't need to keep harping about "zero sum". I've believed in laissez-faire since I was a kid. I saved my coffee money every day for a month to buy Bill Gairdner's book "The Trouble With Canada" when it first came out.

You're the only one talking about "zero sum". Nobody's arguing with you! As a generalization it's true! As an academic viewpoint it's true! As a philosophy for economics it's true, for a population in general.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the rapid rise of new technologies that REDUCE THE NUMBER OF JOBS IN CERTAIN LARGE SECTORS has had a very negative effect on those people!

Effects that the people often can't mitigate for themselves. You can't get laid off from making buggy whips and land a job making cars if the factory is highly automated and employs very few people!

August, there is a Japanese car company plant here in Southern Ontario that consists of a HUGE warehouse the size of several football fields. Shelves after shelves after shelves of parts. They have ONE employee! The ENTIRE warehouse is automated! They even have machines that can break down shipping pallets of bar-coded boxes.

Just how many 'greeters' do you think WalMart can hire, August?

Along with our technological advances we have not only reduced the number of jobs but we have exported a large portion of what remained to other countries.

I have this mental picture of some guy 55 years old, standing in a lineup of several hundred guys just like him, laid off from Ford or GM with a mortgage not yet paid off and 2 kids in University.

The poor guy is feeling so much financial stress he's considering suicide if he can make it look like an accident so the insurance will be paid to his family.

As he's standing there August1991 walks by! He looks at the man's face and exclaims "Why so sad, my man? It's not a zero sum game, you know! At least you've got eyeglasses!

[August1991]

August, YOU shifted the model to one about eyeglasses and doctors! I didn't and I didn't see Dre do it either.

But that's where the argument is.

Trade with China, or new technology, or simply a pair of eyeglasses means that some people can see better, live better. And you and Dre seem to think that better vision for some is a bad thing for all.

If some guy in this world, your neighbour maybe, figures out a better way to get home through the rush hour traffic - how does that hurt you?

If people in China figure out a better way to organize their lives, how does that hurt you?

And if I meet a wonderful person and fall in love, how does that hurt you?

----

WB and dre, I think you fundamentally miss the point of this discussion.

I have this mental picture of some guy 55 years old, standing in a lineup of several hundred guys just like him, laid off from Ford or GM with a mortgage not yet paid off and 2 kids in University.

Huh?

WB, fairness is not the issue.

Edited October 25, 2011 by August1991

[Wild Bill]

WB and dre, I think you fundamentally miss the point of this discussion.

Huh?

WB, fairness is not the issue.

I think YOU are missing a fundamental point, August! As I had said previously, I'm NOT clamouring to stop change and innovation! I spent my career riding the hightech wave, starting by selling the world's first computer chips. As a techie, I love seeing new inventions! Yet I keep talking about effects of what I see are mistakes in approaches and you keep seeing this as some kind of Luddite attitude! You just don't seem to want to acknowledge any negative effects at all! You MUST have a secure government job!

All I'm saying is that like so many others, you seem to be so impressed by the gee whiz factor that you are totally blase about how technological advancements have caused some major sociological problems.

What do you think all those buggy whip makers who have lost their jobs are going to do, August? Do you think they will quietly sit back and just die off, so as not to be any trouble to anyone?

Sooner or later they are going to discover the magnitude of their numbers. When that happens they will become a political force and some politicians are going to cater to them. There are going to be effects, possibly violent at times!

My point is that perhaps with better social and political planning much of these negative effects could have been mitigated. Capitalism doesn't have to mean that vast numbers of people can lose their incomes for the rest of their lives. Certainly, any businessman who believes that is a fool! Even ignoring the thought of riots and vandalism, possibly at the businessman's own operations, how can there be a strong market for products when too many people are on social relief? What do you do when you have aystem based on (hopefully!) increasing consumption when so many consumers don't have any money?

I'm just saying that capitalism doesn't work in a vacuum. There are many factors that cannot simply be ignored or they WILL come back and bite you in the profits!

With a little common sense and vision, things could work out better for all! I'm predicting that in the next decade we shall see the problem of a society too poor to buy enough products to keep our economy healthy grow into something obvious to all!

Edited October 26, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Battletoads]

I do think the spa trip is over for the developed world for now. New generations will have to give up the 35-40hr work week dream, while the Chinese are working 12hr days for 7 days a week.

Can you cons make the 80 hour work week a campaign pledge for the next election?

[jacee]

I hear people denigrating the middle class for living above their means, on credit.

I hear people denigrating the middle class for wage/benefit demands, the reason corporations are moving to other countries.

And I hear some promoting consumption as the solution.

Which is it to be? Gross consumerism on credit that banks and corporations love?

Or living within our (reduced) means with minimal credit?

Which will resolve our current economic crisis?

I don't think 'consumer confidence' is coming back this time.

We're burned out on credit that provides mega profits for banks.

And as someone said, the babyboomers were the consumers who fuelled economic growth for decades, but they've done their big buying and are now saving for retirement.

It will never be as it was.

The babyboom population bulge was an anomaly, not 'normal'.

The economy won't 'come back'.

Big banks and big businesses waiting/hoping for a return to a 'normal' that never was the norm will collapse. Some aspects of life as we knew it will change.

The housing market will tank because we'll havea glut of big suburban family homes as babyboomers downsize, so at least the next generations will be housed.

Some will be split into multi-unit housing and some will have to be turned into neighbourhood stores because next generations won't be car-bound.

And the corporate and banking sectors, the glitz and glamour hangover from the '80's, will be vilified as the obscenity it was and is, and the banks and megacorps along with it.

It's not coming 'back'.

Can't have it both ways.

Edited October 26, 2011 by jacee

[Rocky Road]

It certainly makes one worry when you consider all the variables involved.

[August1991]

I think YOU are missing a fundamental point, August! As I had said previously, I'm NOT clamouring to stop change and innovation! I spent my career riding the hightech wave, starting by selling the world's first computer chips. As a techie, I love seeing new inventions! Yet I keep talking about effects of what I see are mistakes in approaches and you keep seeing this as some kind of Luddite attitude! You just don't seem to want to acknowledge any negative effects at all! You MUST have a secure government job!

I'll try again.

WB, do you ever remember when a girlfriend told you that she wanted to go out with another guy? She had found a new love?

I understand what you are saying. There are effects.

But any fool can see that forcing the girl to stay with you would just cause more misery in the future.

-----

Let me put this into international trade terms. I used to buy my car from a producer in Ontario (like your girlfriend liked you). Then, I discovered a Japanese car (like your girl discovered a new boyfriend).

What did the Beatles say? All you need is love?

[Bonam]

Silly analogy is silly.

[dre]

The problem is that youre assuming that the phenomenon known as "globalism" is some kind of permanent sea change, but really what we have is a simple trade imbalance that will correct itself before long. The only reason that so much production is being outsourced to china is because they are manipulating their currency to be artificially low.

You claim that we just need to "get used to it". But the reality is that all those jobs WILL come back as the value of currencies in the west drops in relation to these nations we are able to use as sweat shops right now. Then ONLY reason it has been able to go on THIS long is because China takes most of the profit it makes doing business with western countries and just gives it back to us. If they stopped doing that the game would be up.

So the problem with the idea of retooling our society around the offshoring of production or the "service based economy" myth/lie/fraud is that its impossible. There WILL be a balance of trade. Anyone that tells you we can run large trade defecits perpetually is ignoring fundamental economics.

So really what some people think of as "globalism" is just a trade imbalance that will naturally fix itself no matter what we do, because the value of our dollar is backed by production. The longer we produce less than we consume the less our money is worth, and harder it is to afford imported stuff.

I saw an estimate that if China did intentionally manipulate the value of their currency the yen would be worth 2.5 as much as it is now. Suddenly that 30 dollar DVD player would cost us 85 bux, and we would be thinking twice about giving up some of these industries.

[Rocky Road]