Posted on 07/18/2015 3:31:04 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Excellent post, and I would agree....and add that there’s no logic behind the idea that certain jobs are more sacrosanct than others. Why is manufacturing a low tech low skill item more of a deserving job than all of the jobs in import/export trades....which includes the very blue collar and very (over) well paid longshoremen. There is no logic there.
Really? You agree with this?
“Of course race baiting is essential to the ideology, and there was plenty of that.”
Have I ever called you any of those things?
Good comment, let me try to break it down so you understand where I'm coming from.
First: Yes, I do believe there are "evil ones", some here, mostly abroad, who desire some form of global political authority. They are not, mostly, businessmen.
Second, I am aware that some, perhaps most, of global economic integration has arisen spontaneously in response to the unprecedented long pause in global war and to innovative communication technologies.
Third, I believe that it is ahistorical and therefore unlikely for the global economic activity to continue at its present level without an attempt by a state or group of states to "capture" increasing advantage. In historical terms, this usually means battle fleets and large armies, but technology may have changed this, to some degree.
Fourth, I believe that other nations, especially China and Russia, but also the lesser ones like Brazil and India are raising their young with acute national consciousness while we are not. Most of the world will never be Singapore, or Hong Kong.
Fifth, I believe that as a result of 1-4 the standard of living and future prospects of many of our people is in decline, and that measures to reverse the decline are warranted.
While I do not regard America as a single celled organism, like an amoeba, I do not accept the view that we are an arbitrarily defined herd of 300 million unrelated individuals who for historical reasons live within certain GPS coordinates of no particular significance, and whose future prospects are rightly determined by competition from foreigners - no matter how much wealth is thereby generated.
Probably not....and that’s why I didn’t accuse you of it specifically....I was giving you the background on why I might react with a tad of passion on this particular issue. I don’t pay that much attention to screen names frankly, tho good for you for using your real name....
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I do not agree that points 1+2+3+4= point 5. It’s not that linear, but thanks for thoughtful response.
What you say is primarily about business, but also “Globalization”. Politics and economy work in tandem.
Broadly, there are 4 elements I can think of right now in relation to aspects of your post:
1. Capability/Production/Operation
2. Cost (then, Price)
3. Opportunity
4. Dependency
In business terms, the U.S. is a huge market within itself.
But the U.S. is also very much dependent on opportunities outside the USA. Otherwise, the U.S. today, on the world stage, would be what it was pre-WW2 — politically, economically and socially.
>>>”Fourth, I believe that other nations, especially China and Russia, but also the lesser ones like Brazil and India are raising their young with acute national consciousness while we are not. Most of the world will never be Singapore, or Hong Kong.”<<<
The U.S. has already had a head-start decades ago, and penetrated many markets; whether it was due to nationalistic sentiments I don’t know.
Though the U.S. will increasingly get competition, in the business arena at least - the countries you’ve cited have learned from the U.S.
Regarding your last paragraph:
The U.S. is not “a single celled organism” .. or, “an arbitrarily defined herd of 300 million unrelated individuals who for historical reasons live within certain GPS coordinates of no particular significance, and whose future prospects are rightly determined by competition from foreigners.”
But, the U.S. is dependent on foreign, hence, a Global ‘network’ to be able to do business outside USA. Politics is an inherent part of that process.
“otherwise, the U.S. today, on the world stage, would be what it was pre-WW2 — politically, economically and socially.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
I say that as a fact.
Yes, of course it's a fact. There are lots of facts.
The question is, would the US be better off, or worse off, if the nation were more like we were in 1940 than like we are today.
Which of those is correct cannot be reduced to fact.
Overkill, gratuitous nastiness, and self-satisfied stylistic flourishes are only going to increase Trump’s appeal.
"The question is, would the US be better off, or worse off, if the nation were more like we were in 1940 than like we are today."
Indeed. I look forward to seeing Trump's views & practical contributions; the latter as it may come to fruition!
“How do you like being called hoi polloi?”
I wonder if that makes Jeffrey Tucker something of a libertarian elitist?
I’ve been wondering the same thing.
..it looks to me like maybe Jim Noble has read more Adam Smith than you...
The love of our own country seems not to be derived from the love of mankind. The former sentiment is altogether independent of the latter, and seems sometimes even to dispose us to act inconsistently with it. France may contain, perhaps, near three times the number of inhabitants which Great Britain contains.
In the great society of mankind, therefore, the prosperity of France should appear to be an object of much greater importance than that of Great Britain. The British subject, however, who upon that account, should prefer upon all occasions the prosperity of the former to that of the latter country, would not be thought a good citizen of Great Britain.
We do not love our country merely as part of the great society of mankind: we love it for its own sake, and independently of any such consideration.
That wisdom which contrived the system of human affections, as well as that of every other part of nature, seems to have judged that the interest of the great society of mankind would be best promoted by directing the principle attention of each individual to that particular portion of it, which was most within the sphere both of his abilities and his understanding."
Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, pg 231
not at all......not even close.....not even a nice try....and not in context.
If you asked Adam Smith if it was a good idea for American manufacturing companies to close down their factories give/lease their machinery to a Communist Country and have their coolies build their companies product and have it shipped back into the American market with no tariffs he would have thought you daffy at the least and a traitor at the most.
Adam Smith was a believer in the invisible hand of everyone acting in liberty and in their own self interests, not in central Virginia’s man love of this magical wizard who could make it all right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.