Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Baraka_Guru · 09-30-2010, 04:29 PM

This whole drive for lower taxes, smaller government, etc., and the resistance to the redistribution of wealth needs to be placed into context with the reality of current global economics.

It's still usual for people to think in terms of the nation state, but the multinational (not to be confused with international) corporate structure of today is widely apathetic towards the nationalism of individuals. Multinational corporations aren't preoccupied with "the American way of life" in the way individuals are. They're preoccupied with capital flows and market opportunities around the world.

So what you get are incredibly wealthy entities that may or may not be considered "American," who are interested in maximizing revenues and minimizing costs. What happens to a large degree is you get a more or less "American" entity owned by Americans and others alike who don't give a damn whether they employ American workers, just as long as the employee costs (i.e. compensation and benefits) are kept low with respect to required skill sets. If these skills can be had in Asia for cheaper, then that's where they will be bought.

Capital, then, flows from the American wealthy to virtually anywhere in the world and back again. American workers can be cut out of the loop if they demand too much compensation, even if it's modest in terms of the local market in which they live. They can't compete with China and India, but they do anyway. So essentially, there is a downward pressure on American income levels because of globalization, fuelled in large part by neoliberal practices of free markets and free trade. These same neoliberal practices don't consider fairness or the relative value of labour. They look at labour value in absolutes, in terms of bottom lines.

In America, holders and users of capital not only maintain their quality of life, they improve it. Those on the bottom rungs of the ladder, who struggle just to keep competitive in the labour market (i.e. they go into debt just to get educated), are lucky to break even. Considering that it's unfeasible to rely on government pension money, one must have access to capital to fund their own retirement, let alone a quality lifestyle. But with real wages in the U.S. flipping between erosion and being stagnant, this is becoming increasingly difficult.

So the Tea Party wants smaller government and lower taxes and no universal health care. They want government to have less control over how global trade affects those without capital. They want those who hold capital to be able to hold a lot more of it. They want less tax revenue to help pay for what the poor cannot hope to afford.

This is all just fine. America's poor will have to deal with their slide toward a Third World reality. Just don't be surprised if they acquire an increasing interest in socialism. You know, that thing that does a great job keeping economies stable.

09-30-2010, 04:29 PM	#276 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	This whole drive for lower taxes, smaller government, etc., and the resistance to the redistribution of wealth needs to be placed into context with the reality of current global economics. It's still usual for people to think in terms of the nation state, but the multinational (not to be confused with international) corporate structure of today is widely apathetic towards the nationalism of individuals. Multinational corporations aren't preoccupied with "the American way of life" in the way individuals are. They're preoccupied with capital flows and market opportunities around the world. So what you get are incredibly wealthy entities that may or may not be considered "American," who are interested in maximizing revenues and minimizing costs. What happens to a large degree is you get a more or less "American" entity owned by Americans and others alike who don't give a damn whether they employ American workers, just as long as the employee costs (i.e. compensation and benefits) are kept low with respect to required skill sets. If these skills can be had in Asia for cheaper, then that's where they will be bought. Capital, then, flows from the American wealthy to virtually anywhere in the world and back again. American workers can be cut out of the loop if they demand too much compensation, even if it's modest in terms of the local market in which they live. They can't compete with China and India, but they do anyway. So essentially, there is a downward pressure on American income levels because of globalization, fuelled in large part by neoliberal practices of free markets and free trade. These same neoliberal practices don't consider fairness or the relative value of labour. They look at labour value in absolutes, in terms of bottom lines. In America, holders and users of capital not only maintain their quality of life, they improve it. Those on the bottom rungs of the ladder, who struggle just to keep competitive in the labour market (i.e. they go into debt just to get educated), are lucky to break even. Considering that it's unfeasible to rely on government pension money, one must have access to capital to fund their own retirement, let alone a quality lifestyle. But with real wages in the U.S. flipping between erosion and being stagnant, this is becoming increasingly difficult. So the Tea Party wants smaller government and lower taxes and no universal health care. They want government to have less control over how global trade affects those without capital. They want those who hold capital to be able to hold a lot more of it. They want less tax revenue to help pay for what the poor cannot hope to afford. This is all just fine. America's poor will have to deal with their slide toward a Third World reality. Just don't be surprised if they acquire an increasing interest in socialism. You know, that thing that does a great job keeping economies stable. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 09-30-2010 at 04:31 PM..