[quebecois]

"the problem is the export of jobs in huge numbers"

And the underlying cause of this is a world oversupply of labor. Fact is, there are billions of people in the third world who are willing to work for dirt-low wages. As long as this is true, companies will find ways to exploit this and cut production costs. As much as I dislike this, I'm not sure I see any solution.

In the long run, we may see the reverse problem: a worldwide undersupply of labor. As the third world develops and their birthrates collapse (as has happened in the West and the Pacific Rim), there will be a global upsurge in labor costs. But this may take decades. In the meantime, those who rely on the sale of their labor (as opposed to those who live off of the earnings of capital investments) will see their standard of living plunge as they compete with Chinese coolies and Latin American peasants in a glutted labor market.

[staytrue]

Chinese coolies and Latin American peasants

I'm assuming there is a reason for you to say this instead of "Chinese and Latin American peasants" or "Chinese coolies and Latin American spics"

Your English teacher would frown on your original construction.

[biffalobull]

And the underlying cause of this is a world oversupply of labor.

I would bet there are about 40/50% of the employed people in America, who are one way or the other on the Govt. payroll.

I have no idea what the cost of maintaining the military is.

Is there an economic upside to such a huge military. What do the Govt. employees do for the economy?.

I believe the govt. has become so unwieldly, there is no way it can ever be made to function in a sensible, cost accountable manner.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Fact is, there are billions of people in the third world who are willing to work for dirt-low wages.

They can afford to work for low wages. The cost of living, even frugally, in the USA is high. People have to eat and have shelter.

[Cronos]

That's a very insightful point. I think the developing countries in Asia would be developed at least by 2030 (Singapore, Korea are considered developed, correct? And they took a few decades). The problem would not be with these societies. China and India won't go against the US because it's their biggest market. The real problem will be with the failed countries like in the Mid east and Africa.

I think Bush is doing the right thing by going into Africa. And I don't think he'll be a one-term Pres, no matter what the 'rats on this board think. BUSH for 2003