On 16 Jun 2008 06:51:48 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (McKown, John) wrote: >I am somewhat confused by this as well. But I'll admit that I'm not an >economist. I'm a computer techie. But as more things are done "far >away", that reduces the average and median income in the local economy. >Which reduces the ability to make money in that economy. Eventually, it >seems to me, the local economy will no longer be able to support itself >and will collapse. I what the "big boys" hope to do is syphon off money >in the interim and so don't care about the long term. That is one >"problem" with globalization, in my ignorant view. And, of course, "long >term" today implies "beyond this fiscal cycle". Unlike the "3 year" and >"5 year" plans of my misspent youth.
On the other hand, the economy of New England didn't collapse when the textile industry moved to the South, and the economy of the South didn't collapse when the textile industry moved overseas. And if the poor countries remain poor, quite a few adverse consequences are likely to happen, varying from cutting down the rainforests, to over-fishing, to epidemics, to war. (Leaving out any ethical or moral parts of this analysis). I do agree that one of the big problems with this generation is a devaluation of "the long term". Societies that believe in long term investment grow wealthy, while societies that don't believe in long term investment lag behind. When IBM sells computers and software around the world, the world demands to sell back. They have to, as goods and services are how we pay for goods and services - money is just a convenient way of handling that. We can't sell without buying. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
