Bea Arthur, Dom Deluise, Chuck Daly, David Carradine, Ed Mcmahon, Farrah Fawcett, Michael Jackson, Fred Travolena, Karl Malden, Steve McNair, Oscar Mayer III, Walter Cronkite, Gidget (the Taco Bell dog), the health care bill, Corazon Aquino, John Hughes, Eunice Kennedy, Ted Kennedy and Patrick Swayze; who’s next- Wilfred Brimley . . . Alan Thicke? There was even the internet-reported death of Jeff Goldblum. Personally, my family was also touched by death. Unfortunately, for those whose summer thesis is the economic subjection of the middle class and whose source material is my contribution, this bloga lives! Long before we heard anything about death panels, celebrities began dropping like tears from my daughter’s eyes when her brother takes her blankie away. Perhaps these celebrities aren't really gone and have rather had their careers sent overseas. How will we know for sure?
The death of reason: I’ve seen this one coming from a number of areas- on Facebook, FoxNews and from an editorial in the Star Tribune- from September 8, 2009 (A8) “In the 1930s, the German government indoctrinated the school-children with their white supremacy and socialist culture. Our U.S. government has now sent the first “education” package to our schools. When do our children receive their Obama arm bands?” Mr. letter writer sir, how is it that a message from the president of the United States about social responsibility can be an indoctrination into hero worship and a march toward fascism? I know I'm a little late on this one, and actually wrote this in early September, that is how busy the second half of the summer has been. Also, how is it that a sitting president, who has occupied the position and has barely any more experience on the world stage than anyone in the Sasquatch community can win the nobel peace prize? Handy Manny and the Wiggles may have done more for international relations.
The death of the health care debate: The debate goes on, but I’m not sure it could be less effective, in terms of our actually getting a bill passed, than if congress approved a measure requiring that all congressmen nickname their own pudendum.
Death of globalization: One thing that may never die is globalization, though at least two men will tell you how unreal the threat is, and how natural and unthreatening is its existence in our daily lives, citing historical precedent. Not a lot of consistency there. I just used the Emerson quotation about “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” in part 50. Being consistent has the inherent benefit of not confusing the hell out of people. Is the present iteration of globalization completely unreal, less so than the expected world wide spread of the swine flu this fall, or is it something with which Americans have had to contend since Columbus? Pick one.
GLOBALIZATION
Originalism: There is no constitutional amendment in the offing that would protect the continued flow of jobs away from American workers, to the delight of Constitutional originalists who could justify about any right their little hearts desire. I heard an originalist justify his holding a neighbor at gunpoint, forcing the latter to put together a recently purchased computer desk because he couldn’t follow the directions. The lunatic mentioned- “I do have the right to assembly.”
Ghosts: I imagine the jobs and the American workers who currently have them as so many ghosts about to be absent from the company for which I work. Thankfully, as evidenced by this headline- help is on the way: “Obama Speeds Projects to Create, Save 600,000 Jobs” Reuters, June 8, 2009. I wasn’t this enthralled when Mr. Incredible was in the process of destroying that first massive, tentacled-robot created to eradicate superheroes. Unfortunately, many in the middle class would benefit only indirectly. The jobs our fair presidential hero would create or save by expediting the work are those that cannot be outsourced,*- construction on new waste and water systems, airport maintenance and construction jobs, and funding for 135,000 education jobs, etc. All noble endeavors meant to kick start the economy, but that won’t protect the millions of potential lost jobs safe from people who think like these two slackers** . . .
Don’t judge a book by its cover: Bruce C. Greenwald and Judd Kahn have written a book about the outsourcing of millions of jobs overseas- “globalization” with this subtitle “the irrational fear that someone in China will take your job” (2009, 170 pages.) Having read the whole thing, I wonder really what these two would know about being in the work force, how a number of my co-workers have actually trained people to take our jobs. The actual subtitle of the book should be “the reality that someone from India will come here to take your job.” Why would I think this? Because I am a professor who apparently has never worked in a job that is a candidate for being exported, who pontificates from the secure confines of my office, teaching thousands of guppies whose wet dreams consist of making their professors proud?*** Nah, because I have seen workers from India come here to be trained on the work that I am presently doing, that is a candidate to be moved overseas in phase two of my company’s surrogacy of our nation’s economic heroes- (i.e. of people who are not Americans- who will not need to be paid health care, unemployment, or, at best, half as much as they are paying me in salary). If Obama wants to save jobs he should find a way to stop them from migrating to the eastern world, but I’m not sure how he is going to do that, as he apparently cannot do the seemingly unprecedented thing of delivering a message to children that they should stay in school and not do drugs. Very very worthy of a soccer mom’s hysteria, hysteria usually spent at getting their disinterested eight year olds more playing time in a sport they despise, rather than combating the second coming of [insert the name of your favorite historically famous for his sadism world leader here]. Yes, if Obama cannot speak to children about the benefits of education, caution them against being the type of educators like Greenwald and Kahn, then there is no hope for a law that would prevent corporations from giving their own employees a hall pass to the unemployment line. Can you imagine what the free-trade-or-death conservatives would say then? I would rather have a ménage a trois with a couple of nectarines with torn ACLs who have declared a fatwah against people who bring reading material into the water closet than swallow the findings of two professors who are more annoying than C-3PO after a romantic weekend spent in the company of the tin man from The Wizard of Oz where the former just goes on and on about how unlikely it is that one of them could become impregnated . . . For the record, 750 million to 1.
Deconstructing globalization: The two authors, Bruce C. Greenwald (B.S. and Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and an M.PA. and an M.S. from Princeton) and Judd Kahn (B.A. from Harvard and a Ph.D. from the University of California) take a look at the historical trends of globalization from many angles; however, very few of their views are taken from the right angles. The two**** begin their narrative by dispelling the rumors of the past and present and reducing everyone else’s work in the area of global economic speculation to hack status. The intimidating inclusion of tables of facts- percentages and averages is flummoxing and I imagine are always included in order to support their overall theory- that they don’t know crap about what someone who is working at a job knows about how real globalization is. Together, these two hold more degrees than a thermometer. Unfortunately, the last time it was determined by a critical reader that their contributions to a company were deemed subpar (as measured against an employee half a world away to whom they can pay a fifth of the salary and none of the medical benefits), and their job was a candidate for overnight shipment to China or invasion from India was . . . ? Well, now actually. As the manager of complete bullshit 3.0, I’ve decided to outsource total unadulterated mystification in the content area of globalization to more qualified individuals- like those who are sentenced to jail for six months for yawning- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-jailed-for-yawning-10-aug10,0,3679452.story. Below, I provide their deeply-biased perspective and offer a competing view.
Introduction
Blame game: (pg. xv) Critics blame globalization “for everything from mass poverty in Africa and Latin America to the falling living standards for workers in Europe and North America.”
My comment: The number of studies, surveys, factual information and labor statistics at my disposal that would prove that in fact, the loss of ten thousand jobs in America to the same number of workers performing the same tasks in India can be directly linked to lower pay for those who keep their jobs in America is overwhelming and something some people’s pets that were put to sleep two summers ago would be able to comprehend. Two guys with a combined- five advanced degrees can’t grasp that? Later, I’ll get to the pro-globalization camp’s insistence that unchecked free-trade and unregulated globalization can cure the world of cancer, illuminate the dark without electricity, put food on the table of the unemployed and allow a one-legged cricket to negotiate someone’s over-fertilized back yard without swearing.
Distractions: (pg. xvii) In the book, Greenwald and Kahn distract the reader by referring to things like imports, exports, recovering European economies, the pronounced fear in the 1980s of the Japanese buying American companies and a number of things that aren’t always directly related to job loss to competitors in other countries via outsourcing. If a Ford plant closes in Michigan, that isn’t outsourcing or globalization if Ford refuses to make safer or more fuel efficient cars. No one could argue with that. I’m interested in jobs that can be directly tied to globalization, to the infiltration of cheap labor from other countries into the United States in the manufacturing area, that costs an American their job. The latter is not an example of globalization either, and I’ve never maintained that the focus on job loss should be either foreign or domestic, it should be both, as both negatively impact the middle class’ economic prospects, in addition to the poor’s. Obviously, the millions of illegals threatens us domestically and simplistically threatens the poor economically, while foreign workers, particularly in the area of internet technology and call center services, among other areas are by and large threatening the middle class economically. My point is that Greenwald and Kahn have incorrectly assessed the reality of job loss as a facade and have brought up negative indicators or distracting ancillary points that don’t directly address the job loss. Unfortunately, as I'll demonstrate next time, they have plenty of company.
Case in point: The authors write that “The third glaring weakness with globalization debate is that it largely ignores the information that is essential to understanding what is really going on. There are readily available data on occupation and employment, [which the authors have largely ignored, which I will show] on the composition of national output and trade, on economic development and growth, on business profitability, and on the balance of payments and debt levels.” (pg. xxiii) The economy can grow as a measure of production and for a number of other reasons, despite massive job losses and businesses can surely become even more profitable than they already are, because of job losses. Having read the book I would not be surprised if the two authors could not find the fault in this logic: The average median income of Americans has risen 4% in the last year. Let’s look at this simplistically. What they won’t mention, despite the number of tables is this- if one white collar worker gets a 6% raise and another worker gets a 2% raise, the numbers can be very deceptive and be not at all indicative of what is actually going on with the AVERAGE American worker, the one whose job is a candidate to be handed to someone overseas (the reality of globalization), or one that’s salary increases can be minimized across his lifetime by the fact that qualified workers reside elsewhere (the threat of globalization).
Chapters (my worthless comments against those that justify corporatism appear in parenthesis)-
1- It May Be News, But It Isn’t New: A Brief History Of Globalization- (it is brief because it is new)- (1-21)
2- Countries Control Their Fates: How Little Globalization Explains- (until you realize that the voter cannot control their representatives)- (23-53)
3- Employment Trends for Globalization 3.0: Are All the Good Jobs Going Away?- (inconceivable!)- (55-77)
4- Can We Make Any Money? What Globalization Does to Profits (centralizes them)- (70-110)
5- International Finance in a Global World: Home Field Advantage (and the home team is used to playing in the dark, so won’t really know its opponent until it bites them in the ass)- (111-133)
6- A Genuine Global Economic Problem: Replacing the Consumer of Last Resort (even after you’ve replaced all the workers)- (135-160)
7- Conclusion: Beyond Economics (was beyond me)- (161-170)
Chapter 1- It May Be News, But It Isn’t New: A Brief History Of Globalization
“It May Be News, But It Isn’t New” is a chapter devoted to informing the reader how historically and economically attractive is using another country’s workforce, usually via immigration. See parts 22-27 of my blog (or recall them from your photographic memory if need be), or do some searching around the word “immigration.” Eventually you will see how frustrated, 21st century Americans were with congress’ failed attempt to fix that major issue. Sometimes I think congress is happy the recession came along to fix the problem of immigration- almost like infecting a family of uakari with colitis to distract them from their quadriplegia.
Globalization measured against history: (pgs. 3-4) “Globalization, whether measured by trade, movements of capital, or emigration, peaked between 1910 and 1920, and then declined steadily for the next 30 to 40 years.”
My comment: I am well aware of how anxiously natives to this country, from American Indians to the descendants of English settlers whose toil and hardships drastically shortened their lives, looked upon immigrants who came to our country for a better life. And the resolution, which came long after it should have, were labor and wage laws and unions which protected the workers. Any chance of that being the case in this instance is a pipe dream. This is not your grandfather’s globalization.
Manufactures v. service: (pg. 9) “. . . as incomes have risen, consumers have been increasing the share they spend on services and shrinking the share going to manufactures.” The authors also point out that the cost of manufactures, like furniture and clothing have decreased, and that the amount of money consumers spend on service-oriented commodities, (medical care and business and educational services) has increased.
My comment: The reason the former items have become more affordable is that many of them are not manufactured here, those jobs have long since migrated out of the country. Two other key points- incomes have not really risen because they have not risen against inflation, a better indicator of individual or class economic health, and- who exactly will be able to afford furniture, shelter or clothing if they do not have a job to purchase those goods? Never mind you Luddites, the desire to process a rhetorical question has been outsourced.
We don’t make it: (pg. 10) “Manufactures have historically been easier to trade than services, which, in the great majority of cases, are produced and consumed locally.”
My comment: What are the major examples of a good that is produced and manufactured in the U.S. which the rest of the world is clamoring to purchase, which has apparently healed the massive U.S. trade deficit about which even inanimate objects are aware? People who write books should realize that all readers won't believe things such as 50 is the new 40 or that international trade laws only apply to women who can pee standing up. (Note: A trade deficit is a negative balance of trade imports exceed imports.)
Soylent Green moment: In a rather dated sci-fi movie from the early 70s, Charlton Heston cries out that Soylent Green, a substance the overpopulated citizens of New York have been consuming, is people. Our unwillingness to regulate any endeavor when it comes to free trade, globalization, immigration, outsourcing or free trade agreements ensures that I will be able to stretch this metaphor into anything, even if it only means a metaphorical allusion to our indirect cannibalization of the American workforce. The authors show that Americans are spending an increasing percentage of their income on services rather than on goods, that things such as furniture, clothes and shelter are being replaced by things like “medical care and business, social, and educational services.” (pg. 10) So, when someone who works in the field of providing a business service, tells you he is in danger of losing his job, he can’t expect to remain employed by disguising himself as a guy who looks like he can assemble an easy chair. Trust me, electronic business service jobs are moving overseas. I would know because I am in that field. I’ve read often that Americans are more productive, but I’m not entirely sure I believe that. From a Wells Fargo LLC article by Mark Vitner- quite a measure of productivity- we cut hours or jobs and remained productive- “Nonfarm productivity surged at a 6.4 percent pace in the second quarter, as hours worked fell much more than output.” (http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/economic-indicators/us-productivity-growth-surged-on-cost-cutting/2009-08-11.html) Sometimes, I feel like the kicker in his bye week on my company's fantasy football roster- I am expendable. One good example of how difficult we have it from the free trade perspective is the issue about the tire imports- whether Obama should have “safeguard[ed] American jobs from Chinese tire imports” or allowed the current disadvantageous trade agreements to remain. (The issue is more complicated than that, but that is just the appetizer; for the full course, see "Obama's Trade Test” Wall Street Journal [WSJ.com] August 4, 2009.)
Shelter built locally: (pg. 11) “The largest single area of consumer demand is shelter, including housing and related services and products. By its very nature, housing itself must be supplied locally. Unless Americans, Europeans, or Japanese live in India or China, they will not be offshoring their housing needs.”
My comment: A non-citizen of the United States has never been brought into the country to perform a task more inexpensively than an illegal immigrant. Just as they miscalculated below in their critique of a Ross Perot line from the 1992 presidential election, they fail here as well. People from other countries can, and have, come here to work in rather large numbers, which costs Americans jobs. I’m more frustrated with these guys than I was with my son after he locked himself and his sister and me in the bedroom with no key to be found, no phone in the room and no one else expected home for 11 hours; and I’m just getting started.
Service functions: (pg. 17) “Government services such as police, fire, road maintenance, parks, welfare, licensing, other administrative functions and homeland security will continue to be provided locally with rare exceptions.”
My comment: Read Dobbs’ Independents Day or the passages I quote from his book in parts 48 and 50. Only the unwitting would assume that the management of our roads and bridges must be handled in house. After all, didn’t the United States oversee the Panama Canal until 1999?
Chapter 2- Countries Control Their Fates: How Little Globalization Explains
Local rather than global effects: (pg. 26) “. . . the implication is that local conditions dominate common, global influences. The evidence is strongly on the side of local circumstances. Throughout the course of economic history, countries have repeatedly experienced markedly different degrees of prosperity in the face of the trends in globalization . . . Local disturbances at the edges of the pond, such as the sudden emergence of China and India as economic players of consequence, have been far more powerful than any global forces affecting the pond as a whole. Ironically, the present concern over what globalization may do to jobs, profits and even national economies has been sparked by changes in these two countries that are local in origin. Evidence both past and present suggests that countries will respond differently to the challenges flowing in China and India . . . There will be little that is universal—global—as their countries adjust to the rise of these and other new economic powers.”
My comment: While the causes may appear to be local in origin (development, productivity, improvement that drives growth, original physical location of the business), the effects are felt globally- quite an important distinction and one that two apparent experts in the field of the lack of global effects felt on the economy, or the individual caught in the economic cesspool, fail to acknowledge repeatedly. Dust particles falling on my flat screen television are aware of this.
Labor force: (pg. 33) “. . . a country’s labor force is locally produced.” My comment: But when they are shipped to other countries, in massive numbers, they have a global result. To wit-
Cause of migrating jobs: (pg. 34) “. . . its [America’s] investment in research and development has fallen behind that of other developed countries. Critics have long predicted that the low quality of the labor force in the United States will lead to the migration of jobs, especially to Asia, where better employees with more modern capital equipment work harder for less money.”
My comment: Would that not be a major factor in globalization? Wouldn’t that be an incentive for corporations, unchecked by the government in any way, to forsake millions of their employees for cheaper labor; would that not be a reason for some rational fear? These professors could admit to standing in the bathroom in front of a mirror, but assume the reflection was someone else’s. Vampires.
Corporate profits: (pg. 34) “The profits of U.S. corporations have been at historic highs, measured as a fraction of total output. Productivity growth in the United States has surpassed that of its major industrial competitors in Japan, Canada, and Europe.”
My comment: So why import millions of locusts for something millions of fleas are already accomplishing? Again, the acknowledged answer is to save money on wages, prospective unemployment and health care costs. How much is enough for these people. I thought those in favor of world domination were dictators from the past or fictional characters from sci-fi movies who wanted to control the galaxy’s water supply. Greedy bastards would be the title of one of my chapters.
Education and training: (pg. 35) the reason for countries becoming more productive- “ . . . does not depend on the arrival of cohorts of highly educated new workers, although minimum levels of education are essential, but on the accumulation of on-the-job learning by existing workers.”
My comment: Good, so we can tell a few hundred thousand foreign workers to go back to their countries so that they might impact the phenomenon of globalization locally? I was going to not include a question mark, and state this as a rhetorical question, but the professors might dispute the veracity of all rhetorical questions. I realize the AMERICAN workforce is aging and we need a certain percentage of foreign workers with some talent to assume those job roles, but didn't our friends Greenwald and Kahn just indicate that the accumulation of on-the-job skills was possible. Get 'er done.
Productivity growth: (pg. 36) “By its very nature, this ingredient of productivity growth depends on local circumstances; it is found on the shop floor, in the back office, and at the loading dock. What happens globally is largely irrelevant.”
My comment: I think that is what the Wizard of Oz tried to tell Toto when the little pup pulled back the curtain. So, what the companies who are raking in all the profits are allowed to do in order to ensure their greed quotient is continually met, is to make sure that global success occurs locally by continuing to import ever more job seekers from elsewhere or allow them to stay where they are and exporting the work? Yes, and my best friend is a toad that hibernates in the summer, and enjoys discussing the history of the transportation of toxic gasses.
China’s economic improvement: (pgs. 39-40) They make a point about the educational improvement of China not being responsible for improved productivity, but rather attribute China’s economic improvement to the relaxing of Marxist policies in about 1980.
My comment: A point for Greenwald and Kahn. Unfortunately, they have the metaphoric equivalent of the number of electoral votes Mondale and Ferraro got in the 1984 presidential election. That would be 10. I won’t speculate on which of them I think most resembles Ferraro; that would be wrong.
Examples of management’s attention to detail: (pg. 42) “Consistent management attention is essential to operational efficiency, which suffers when that attention is diverted elsewhere.”
My comment: How much more diverted could management’s attention be than halfway around the world?
Management’s role: (pg. 44) “The leading role that managerial interventions play in productivity growth limits the impact of globalization as a force. Management is local, not global, and its performance depends on conditions that are themselves overwhelmingly local—the stability of the national economy, the extent to which attention is diverted to dealing with government regulation, the presence of effective competition and incentive structures, adequate infrastructure development, and other local institutional arrangements. It is no wonder that even in a global world, local factors dominate in determining economic results.”
My comment: When managers are the ones making the decisions about how many workers to employ that live a half a world away, this is not a local factor. How ca n I poss i bly w rite a n y s l o o o o o o w e r? I’ve seen very little improvement concerning the qualities of managers in my place of employment in the past 13 years and I’ve been paying attention, apparently not as much as a couple of professors who choose to ignore any findings that contradict they’re overall thesis, but they wouldn’t have been able to write a book without that level of deliberate inattentiveness.
Global v. Local: (pg. 45) “Global trends may aid or hinder local progress to a limited extent, but the overwhelming evidence is that global forces cannot prevent well-functioning local economies from developing rapidly.”
My comment: Perhaps if they wrote that same thought in pig Latin it would ring more true- the roblempay is ocallay not lobalgay. Seriously though, what they write above is true, especially if you either throw half of the evidence away, forget it, or hire a bunch of people from another country to work locally in yours. Clearly that is not globalization. With respect, their point is one I agree with, that management can influence the strength of a company economically, but global forces can and do, overwhelm local ones. Apparently these chaps aren’t scientists and have never heard of the butterfly effect, or conditions off of one coast or in one ocean being transported to another continent’s coasts, or more simplistically have never seen, read, thought about or imagined the effects of science or nature. The world is not made up of independent events that have no impact on each other. They could read their own book looking for evidence of that.
Competition v. Regulation: (pg. 47) “The ability of management to pursue operating efficiency free from overly intrusive governmental or social control also seems important. Competition seems to have been one stimulant for economic growth. A stable economic environment with low inflation also minimizes distracting demands on management attention.”
My comment: Two things I know- freedom to compete is good; rules to ensure that competition is fair, is better. Keeping people employed despite our adherence to those first two principles is better still. And I am a capitalist. Speaking up against carte blanche greed is not socialism. These two guys are so effective at using smoke and mirrors that they would tell someone who lost a lot of money on a business deal that never had a chance for success that a shortfall is just a largely unrecognized season that occurs between an unseasonably cool summer and an early winter.
Social obligation: (pg. 50) “Financial reforms in favor of competition and public markets may well undermine these institutional structures to the detriment of overall economic performance.”
“Extensive social welfare systems work well in Europe, Asia, and Canada because social norms restrain people from excessive consumption of these resources. Identical systems may work far less well in countries like the United States, where those social constraints are much weaker (as a nation of immigrants and their progeny, Americans may have been self-selected to put individual advancement above social solidarity).”
My comment: Meaning, we are impervious to shame- immune, if you will. In a perfect world, we could all sit in our offices, drinking lattes, coming up with lesson plans and book ideas about how to ignore facts and abdicate responsibility. That is the mantra, by the way, of people who don't want any regulations on the financial markets, or their common business practices. While we're at it, why don't we remove the bars from the gorilla cage?
Under the heading- “What About Free Trade?”
(pg. 51) “. . . under more realistic assumptions, the model acknowledges that free trade may benefit some countries only at the expense of others.”
My comment: No shit? To demonstrate this, I would have Mssrs. Greenwald and Kahn sit on each end of a teeter-totter and let them figure it out.
How much job loss?: These guys may have written about how many jobs have NOT been lost to globalization through the years, but the book was too painful to read the first time and I haven’t noted the page to consult which would confirm their inadequacy in this area. So, I would contend that while Greenwald and Kahn are making terrible professors of globology, they would make even worse ornithologists (the study of birds), particularly in the area of migration patterns. They might see a few dozen flocks of birds flying south, or maybe even east, and insist they are just going on vacation, rather than becoming seasonal residents of a particular locale, say, as far east as Manilla. Greenwald and Kahn could conclude that the birds were searching for the ghost of Ferdinand Marcos. If the birds were reported to have become employed by an Internet Technology corporation in Manila, they would still consider it unrelated to anything having to do with outsourcing. Even the fact that ostriches were capable of being employed by an IT company wouldn't surprise them. In fact, our two fair authors would have trouble tracking an ostrich's migration patterns. (Note: ostriches are flightless birds.) The jobs Americans are losing overseas are not all little James Bondses, that dress in tuxedos and scuba gear and climb out of a lake near some villa in the Philipines in such a way that we'll not realize the jobs are gone.
And it is insulting that two guys who clearly don't know what they're talking about could attempt to make people think otherwise.
Economy balloon: Imagine a balloon in the hallway attached to a five foot line of string that’s end is within a bedroom of an average home. The balloon is somewhat held at bay from rising to the ceiling as its density is about the same as the air outside of it. Sometimes it seems ready to dip two feet and at other times, it could rise three feet dependent on the current of air that may come into contact with it. Consider the balloon itself as a symbol, as being representative of the potential economic success of each American; their proximity to the balloon determines their financial success, and their distance signals their failure. Imagine now, that the balloon’s steady rise, consistently predicted by experts with more knowledge than the average onlooker is beginning to come to fruition. As all begin to rejoice in unison at the prospect and reality of their economic success, for their relation to the balloon is quite close, 10% of the people, who are all standing in the hall, much closer to the balloon, combine to close the door upon those within the bedroom.
This causes the relationship of those trapped in the room with the balloon to be at an end as they are not as close to it as formerly, given the impediment. Those caught within the bedroom share the failures of those in the hall, but not the successes. Such is the state of our free market society.***** May those who are unable to see this, choke on their own ignorance. The free market balloon is in dire need of being popped.
I'll be ending the next post with this very applicable quotation and may start next post with it as well: “It ain’t so much what we know that gets us into trouble. It’s what we know that just ain’t so.” -Mark Twain
_________________________________________________
* Though, I wouldn’t put it past this country to insource foreign workers as some part of quota-hiring of illegals to fill the need of workers performing these tasks in order for the democrats to gain the vote of Mexicans in the next election. Thinking that only American workers would fill the reported 600,000 created or saved jobs mentioned above is an assumption that only two professors with a combined five degrees would contend. People convinced of what Greenwald and Kahn have written would be more difficult to deal with than a woman who had a hyphenated name before you married her.
** Sorry, I would have used a more high-brow word like moron or ignoramus, and stopped myself from offending easy-going people everywhere from being lumped in with two guys who apparently have not experienced the awful possibility that their job may be removed from their self-righteous, but deceptively simple-minded hands.
*** I don’t begrudge just anyone the right to feel as they do despite the lack of experience they may have when balanced against their opinions. I don’t know that someone needs to be devout to have an opinion on god, need to be parents in order to speculate on disciplining children, or need to be NFL head coaches to know how to manage the clock with one timeout in a close game with less than two minutes left. That is, I don’t begrudge them their opinion if it seems like they know what they’re talking about. I think that men should have no opinion on what happens to a woman psychologically while they are pregnant and after they have delivered a child, that civilians should have no opinion on how difficult it is to be a soldier making decisions in combat, and that writers who have never had their job outsourced should never write such an irresponsible book as Greenwald and Kahn.
**** It didn’t actually take two people to write the book. It only took one. The other person’s role was deciding not to disagree with anything the other proposed to include.
***** No one needs to point out to me that anyone with a retirement account or who has played the stock market has benefited from financial institution's success in bringing money to the accounts of those who hold a global company's stock. But where is all of this money they were supposed to have accumulated? I would rather befriend a robin that has been indicted on transporting a stink bug with a tattoo of a gang sign on its buttocks across state lines than tolerate someone telling me I don't have enough information about the reality of globalization or the benefits to all people, maybe even the deceased, of unregulated free trade and virtually unregulated financial markets.
