> This is not going to gain me any friends but no one is > putting a gun to their heads and saying they have to work for > WalMart (or USPS or anyone else). Having marketable skills > is always an advantage. So the idea is to get those skills. > > If these people did not work for WalMart, not only would they > have no benefits, they would have no income as well.
The situation - and problem - is that Wal-Mart is permitted to deal with Chinese factories almost as though they were located within our borders and operating under the same rules, market forces and tax constraints, which of course isn't the case. I'm for equilibrium and the natural movement towards a world economy (the shrinking world), but there are two different approaches to dealing with it, one right and one wrong. The right approach is long term, strategic planning for the gradual and eventual 'smoothing' of the world economy. The wrong approach is to be led by classic 'five year plans' that dig the most profits from deals in the short term at the expense of the long term. Such is the Wal Mart example, where that company rakes in profits based on the different economies without regard to the long term consequences, most notably the affect on local manufacturing and employment. With the mfg base moved overseas to take advantage of short term cheap labor, the consequences at home are broad, far-reaching and long lasting. We were on the road to coming to terms with this effect when Japan loomed mightily on the horizon some years ago. That Japan's economy took the hit before we absorbed the lesson was a function of several factors, but not this basic difference in strategic planning. With Japan knocked out of the ring, the 5-year planners went back to work, unphased. This is a classic example of the role of gov't as it should be versus as it is. With election cycles and 5-year-plan Wall Street marketing forces making the decisions and driving the economy, the focus is heavily biased towards the short term - not to mention that current gov't is more obsessed with the (illusionary) instruments of power here and abroad then long term economic stability. Tools the gov't has available for our reps (gov't) to deal with the shrinking world include tariffs and - better - trade agreements that smooth the transition to a world economy, but instead what's happened is that Wal Mart was given carte blanche to cherry pick the most favorable deals for itself at the expense of our economy as a whole. Bill > HALinNY _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
