[ale] Bad business

[matty91 at bellsouth.net]

On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Ricardo Davis wrote:

> At 10:56 PM -0500 1/31/03, Geoffrey wrote:
> >Robert Heaven wrote:
> >>
> >>The problem is, you're looking at the long view... The greedy corporate
> >>executives can't see that far ahead. The only thing they are concerned
> >>about is the short term impacts on their balance sheets. (aka, their
> >>stock options)
> >
> >Actually, it's the longer view that is needed, if we can hold off
> >till then.  Once things equalize, and they will, folks in the
> >states, India and China will see pay equality.  Folks in the states
> >will lose as their income either goes away, or drops substantially.
> >The overseas folks will begin to see the light, and start demanding
> >more pay, as they now are the only game, since the stateside folks
> >have gone the way of the union worker.
> >
>
> Geoffrey, I think you're being a bit simplistic regarding
> equalization.  You must take into consideration the current
> governmental frameworks of these nations, taxing structure (and
> compliance), etc.  Here's how I see the current trends playing out.
>
> Scenario 1:  economic parity will be achieved through transition from
> individual sovereignty of nations to a global system of governance.
> Anyone who is familiar with the workings of the United Nations knows
> that this is one of their primary objectives.  The European Union,
> NAFTA, etc. are regional frameworks of governance that are simply
> transitional in purpose.  Unfortunately, a number of leaders in the
> multinational corporations subscribe to this vision.  If the current
> trends continue, this could be a reality within our children's
> lifetime.

I do not foresee the United State letting go of their sovereignty. We
are pushing for globalization, but only to better the cash cows in
MNCs. The internation court of justice was supposedly going to provide
an unbiased (hahaha) court system, but the United States wanted nothing
to do with it. Of the hundreds of treaties that have been proposed, the
US government has only signed three, yes three, and all three bettered
the US. In the past, anything that impeded on states sovereignty was nixed
because it violated our constitutional rights. I think the
global government position can be argued from both sides, but I
personally don't see it coming to be.

- Ryan

>
> Scenario 2:  the nations now benefiting from transfer of capital
> invest in further building their education and R&D capability.  They
> also keep the cost of doing business low by resisting over-regulation
> and burdensome taxation.  They resist the new world order crowd and
> keep deep globalization at bay.  American politicians (and the web of
> interests that keep them in place) continue as if nothing is
> happening...until the average family is spending over 75% of their
> income in paying various taxes (federal, state and local).  Then the
> revolution begins ... and the Department of Homeland Security kicks
> into high gear.  :(
>
>
> -Ricardo
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale