I am extremely excited to see that the New Hampshire Union Leader has endorsed John McCain in the upcoming primary. Like everyone else in America I don't agree with everything the candidate I've chosen to support believes in, but overall John McCain is correct on the issues that will keep America competitive economically for the coming years. There are obviously other issues but economic health is the macro issue from which many aspects of society are derived. Most importantly he is correct about free trade. This is one reason I could not vote for a Democrat. People who don't support international free trade don't understand the way the world really works and are taking the short term view over the long term benefits that trade brings and will bring. The trade imbalance is a problem right now but it is a natural step in the path to increased wealth per capita for the entire world. It is cheaper to buy goods from overseas because labor is relatively less expensive. As they provide us with goods, they will become more wealthy, healthy and educated. When this occurs they will increasingly demand the higher quality and more technologically advanced goods that we create. Wealth can be created, it is not a zero sum game where capital is shifted around creating only winners and losers. Not supporting free trade will cause the price of goods in America to rise unnecessarily but more importantly will deprive developing countries the opportunity to better themselves. Many on the left argue that factories and long work days are not beneficial to the beautiful pastoral societies that existed before capitalism moved in, they stubbornly refuse to see that when a society becomes richer that it means better schools, better hospitals and longer lives, which is better for us and them. America went through an industrial revolution with the same pains and consequences. Why deny others the chance?
Here is a McCain endorsement by thoughtful moderate David Brooks. I will provide more justification for my support later or as demanded...
Sunday, December 2, 2007
I Couldn't Agree More
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
As always, Thomas has made several characterizations of "the left" that are not entirely accurate. It is true that people on the left side of economic policies tend to believe that the new Global economy is at minimum a many edged sword. In the claim that starry eyed lefties are pining for a China with Samurai, fresh clean air, and masses of ignorant, uneducated and poorly fed children is first of all incorrect and second of all a dangerously simplified endorsement of the global economy as it stands right now. (almost like the plot of a jackie chan kung fu movie?: China for the Chinese! Get those Goddamn artifacts back from the westerners)
Although there are many examples of a rising economic tide increasing opportunities, there are just as many examples where this simply has not been the case. Free trade with the oil rich countries in Africa has not resulted in such benefits for the average person. Perhaps Thomas only wants to talk about manufactured goods, and only really wants to talk about India and China. While it is true that China has benefited greatly from free trade with the United States, and the percentage of people in China living modernized lifestyles has risen, there is also no denying that the business practices of American companies in China often have at least flirted with the unethical. The existence of the global economy does not require that the United States take no responsibility for the working conditions of people overseas. Thomas probably would call the idea that American companies overseas should be required to provide commensurate compensation for labor a "protectionist" policy. If it cost more to make things in China, then, maybe, things would still get built in the United States. Thomas would argue that under such a "protectionist" policy, the inequalities of the current global market are perpetuated, which in the long term is bad (and he is not completely without having a point). But I might argue that in fact, the deregulated business model of economics and trade (which Thomas thinks is going to slowly but surely bring about economic equality) is the real protectionist policy. Deregulation protects the corporate profits of American companies at the expense of the American worker, while lending what could only be called a modest quality of life gain to the foreign worker.
joe, ill ignore the first paragraph for your benefit. the problems with oil rich african countries is not the fault of globalisation, its the fault of the corrupt regimes that rule in those countries. please give me some examples of the companies unethical activities. obviously mnc's should not be required to pay american wages to chinese workers. and you are right that americans can take as much responsibility for the working conditions of third world workers, you can do it by boycotting products that you feel are made unfairly. this is a good way to exercise your morality. an american worker who refuses to work for a competitive wage or adapt to the changes that globalization brings to our economy isnt getting screwed by anyone but himself. you want to make everyone the victim why is that? and as far as the benefits of globalization, the per capita income in china in 2000 according to the world bank was $930, in 2006 it was $2,010. that is over double. here are some other stats you may find surprising, http://devdata.worldbank.org/external/CPProfile.asp?PTYPE=CP&CCODE=CHN
I suppose it is impossible to believe that the company that provides the equipment and knowledge to tap the resources under the soil is somehow responsible for the wealth it creates and what is done with that wealth? Without outside expertise many of the corrupt regimes you refer to would be poorly funded corrupt regimes unable to purchase tons of military equipment.
There was no reason to ignore the first paragraph of my response "for my benefit". That is absurd. In your original post you tried to claim that lefties would rather have poor, culturally authentic populations in developing countries: "Many on the left argue that factories and long work days are not beneficial to the beautiful pastoral societies that existed before capitalism moved in, they stubbornly refuse to see that when a society becomes richer that it means better schools, better hospitals and longer lives, which is better for us and them."
This kind of accusation is: 1. incorrect, 2. purely inflammatory. and 3. based upon no fact or research that you can point to. So yeah, I had to address it. Your refusal to acknowledge that lets me know that you concede the point.
"and you are right that americans can take as much responsibility for the working conditions of third world workers, you can do it by boycotting products that you feel are made unfairly. this is a good way to exercise your morality."
Lots of liberals are all about this way of living, you are right. "I run my car on bio-diesel, see how good I am to the world?" Sometimes the goal of liberalism appears to try to live a blameless life in the context of a society where the blood is on all of our hands, but this is not a personal goal of mine. I recognize that I am a direct beneficiary of the oil deals made in Africa, and the factories in China as well: To pretend that this makes me uncomfortable when I still drive a car, use electricity and buy cheap socks would be disingenuous in the extreme. I have never really been a fan of Walden Pond. I engage in society we have, but that does not prevent me from examining that society with a critical eye towards what can be made better.
I do not wish to "make everyone the victim" of the global economy. There are plenty of people whose life has been improved by it. At the same time, I also wish to recognize that THERE REALLY ARE people who have been hurt by the global economy and we should not pretend that they do not exist or do not matter. Of course, a simple jump in the per capita income of a country is a notoriously bad indicator of improvement in the quality of life for citizens of that country. (There are many ways for me to give an average of 50 dollars to ten people.)
i volunteer to take one of the $50 dollars that you are handing out to 10 people! thanks.
too bad you couldn't have volunteered a better joke!
seriously, bigbucks, i've been hurt by the global economy -- i used to be unemployed, and now i have a job that i don't want
Post a Comment