Workers in countries with higher standards of living cannot compete with workers living in other countries with lower standards of living. The wealthy people in the countries with higher standards of living keep the land price and land rents higher. It is common for this land to be left vacant and unused by the wealthy owners if there does not exist enough profit to be made from selling or renting that land. Even if the standards of living for most of the people in the developed countries fall to levels similar to those for the poor countries, the people in the developed countries will not be able to compete because of the much higher cost of land. As an example, farmland sat vacant and unused during the Depression of the 1930's, even while other people went hungry. Why did prices not fall by the same ratio as average wages fell? Because the wealthy owned capital, and as the prices fell below a certain level, the low profit margins to be made by allowing their capital to be used did not seem to be worth the trouble to them. The whole "specialization of labor" concept of the economy fails to take into account that good quality land and natural resources are also required for people to be economically productive. The owners of these resources only want a limited ammount of the labor services of the non-owners, so there will only ever be limited incentives to make productive use of these resources. In a country where there exists much inequality in the ownership of natural resources, the people will be reliant on their jobs serving the land owners. Allowing the land owners to utilize cheaper labor abroad will reduce the people's economic access to these natural resources. If a country maintains a trade defecit, the citizens of that country are slowly going to lose ownership over their land and businesses which they own. All the rents and profits from that land and businesses will no longer go to the people of in that country. The "theory of comparative advantage" does not take into account that often a country's main comparative advantage is its capital or its limited natural resources, rather than a renewable product or service. Once a country begins to lose ownership of its capital, or deplete its non-renewable natural resources, its standard of living will decrease. The USA has is running a huge trade deficit with China. What is, and what will, China be getting in return? Americans will have to be taxed to pay back all their debt with interest. China is busy buying up international companies formerly owned by corporations in the USA. China is also buying up land in the USA, both directly, and through bank mortgages. All the interest payments on those mortgages, and the land rent, will go to the Chinese instead of Americans. All the profits Americans once got from all their foreign-based companies will now go to China. Many of these companies are natural resource-based companies, that own forests, ore mines, and oil fields. These are limited resources that Americans will not have access to in the future. Other countries have much lower levels of envirormental protections, all these globalization is causing high levels of water pollution, soil degredation, and air-pollutant emissions. Developed countries with environmental protections impose higher costs and constraints on their businesses. These businesses have trouble competing with businesses in other countries that are not subject to the same restrictions. One might argue that the developed countries care about the environment in their own country more, and are exporting their pollution to other countries, were the people, because of their lower standards of living, are more willing to forfeit a clean environment for economic opportunities. But this does not take into account extraneous costs. If the goal is to reduce CO2 emissions, exporting pollution hardly makes any sense. Indeed, developed countries actually tend to be more energy inefficient than developing countries. Producing a product in China, for example, is likely to burn much more coal than producing the same product in the USA. The rapid industrialization in developing countries is also destroying forests and waters of lower-income people, who are not benefitting much from the economic opportunities created by globalization. In many cases, industrialization in poorer countries is hurting the masses of poor much more than it is benefiting the smaller numbers of industrialists and factory workers. It is hard to quantify in economic terms the loss to the people of their forests and fishing grounds when these natural resources are not privately owned. Many people would much rather live a stone-age existence in nature than have to slave away under terrible working conditions in the city. But an economic analysis will not take into account these losses to the people.
Economic liberalism is a radical ideology that basically says that everything should be privitised and people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their property. This ideology is clearly appealing to the wealthy and international corporations. But the controversy is whether the benefits to everyone else exceed the problems. Economic liberals say more efficiency grows the economy and creates more opportunity for everyone else. Protectionists say that that free trade just sends the scarce jobs away to people in other countries willing to work for lower wages and under poor working conditions. The real questions are: Will lower prices make up for all the jobs that have been outsourced, and the lower wages due to competition? If prices fall, will the wealthy spend all the money they will able to save on new products and services that will create jobs in the developed countries? Since the benefits of globalization are not equally distributed, will the poor be at a disadvantage if the wealthy corporate owners are able to out-bid them and buy up all the land?
They ARE equally distributed. Among the educated and the adaptable. The ignorant, the dumb, the less motivated among us are not capable of existing in a fast paced globalized world. That is a fact of life. It hasn't changed. Even Lincoln said it: What is stopping some enterprising poor person from going to a Chinese Discount Website, and purchasing 1000 teddy bears at ten cents a piece and then selling them on the street for fifty? Nothing at all. Except Government Regulation and Taxation! That is the benefit of Globalization. Any idiot off the street can find a product in China and for a small investment, purchase that product and sell it at a decent markup and make a profit. Educational Institutions should be teaching this kind of thinking. This kind of "do it yourself" capitalism again.
"If any continue through life in the condition of the hired laborer, it is not the fault of the system, but because of either a dependent nature which prefers it, or improvidence, folly, or singular misfortune." Try telling this quote to a black person (using modern-day easy-to-understand language) Most of them will think you are racist. Do not believe me? Are there any African Americans reading this post? SiliconMagician just said that if you are stuck in a low paying job, working for a boss, that IT IS YOUR OWN FAULT because of your "dependent nature" or laziness. If you cannot find a decent job it is because you are "ignorant, the dumb, and less motivated". Please feel free to give SiliconMagician a piece of your mind... Lincoln lived during a time when there was plenty of frontier land and natural resources available. Things have changed. There is no longer a frontier, and the economy is not rapidly expanding. Really? What are the chances someone is going to able to earn enough money to buy a house by doing this? You said it exactly- the educated are much more likely to benefit from globalisation. Meanwhile, the three fouths of people who are not educated will suffer. And increasing education will not help. It is all about competition, if everyone is more educated, the required educational qualifications to get decent jobs will just go up.
So what's your solution huh? Paying 3-4 times the necessary amount for a product as an act of charity to the American worker? Am I supposed to pay 20 bucks for a happy meal for the kid, just so the guy who assembles the sandwich in the back can buy a house?
Tax the value of land and natural resources. Then use this money to give every citizen an allowance. This allowance is to compensate them for not being able to use the privitised land. Everyone should have an equal right to the land, but actually dividing up ownership of the land would not be practical. This is the "Geolibertarian" ideology. In this way, all the people will have a source of money in addition to their wages. "When the 'sacredness of property' is talked of, it should always be remembered, that any such sacredness dos not belong in the same degree to landed property. No man made the land. It is the orginal inheritance of the whole species.. It is no hardship to any one to be excluded from what others have produced ... But it is some hardship to be born into the world and to find all nature's gifts previously engrossed, and no place left for the new-comer ... To me it seems almost an axiom that property in land should be interpreted strictly, and that the balance in all cases of doubt should incline against the properitor." John Stuart Mill "Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." Thomas Jefferson "In my opinion, the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument." Milton Friedman "A tax upon ground-rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground-rent." Adam Smith Also, pollution should be taxed according to how much damage it does. If Chinese products are to be imported to the USA, there should be import taxes according to the pollution that such products likely created. The whole "Cap and trade" is completely unfair, it corrupts the original intent of the system
Property taxes are a state/local function and the Federal Government doesn't have any right to impose another property tax. I don't get your thinking. We are no longer an agrarian society and therefore the ownership of land is not requisite to wealth building.
Although there is plenty of open land in the USA, most of this land is indirectly owned by wealthy people in the cities, through ownership in agriculture corporations, or bank mortgages. In order to buy the land, one needs to work for the wealthy, who live in the cities. Unfortunately, the price of rent and housing is frequently unaffordable in these cities. There is only a limited area of land within commuting distance of the economic centers in the country. One would have to work and save for several decades living in the city before they would be able to buy less expensive land further away. Land ownership is still very relevant to the current economic system.
Granny says, "Dat's right - dat's why dem Chinamens is eatin' our lunch... U.S. Merchandise Trade Deficit With China in October: $31,109,100,000 December 6, 2016 | The United States ran a $31,109,100,000 merchandise trade deficit with the Peoples Republic of China in October, according to data released today by the Census Bureau.
