Is the dollar REALLY in this much trouble?

[Shikarnov]

Well, the globalization train has already left the station, and I don't see some variety of xenophobic protectionism being practical--or possible. We must adapt to the changing times; clinging to an outmoded economic model will simply hasten the decline.

I fear you're probably right.

 

[Botany Bay]

I like the US Dollar at the moment if currency trading is your thing (especially against the overvalued Aussie).

As reality bites this massively overdone share market rally, money will flock back to those US bonds, and the US dollar will shoot up.

Isn't it funny how every time the world gets the wobbles, the money flies back to the USA - the source of the whole mess in the first place!

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Yeah, trying to return to the glory days of the US economy being based on heavy industry and manufacturing is pure fantasy. Further, Asia (particularly China) has a vested interest in not seeing the dollar tank (which it hasn't done, yet, anyway).

I think it's time to realize that globalization was wrong-headed. The West did quite nicely for a long time until we decided to compete "equally" with countries and people what work for slave wages. Instead of building up the world, we broke ourselves by exporting jobs as well as money. It was nice for a while, as companies made fortunes on the backs of $0.25/day workers, and we bought cheap warez in the stores, but those days are done. It's not about the unions, it's about taking back what's ours -- if we can.

We should leave the Russians and the Chinese and the Indians to their own devices. Let them build their own damned economies.

Well, the globalization train has already left the station, and I don't see some variety of xenophobic protectionism being practical--or possible. We must adapt to the changing times; clinging to an outmoded economic model will simply hasten the decline.

Then you condem the US to Third World status, with no manufacturing, and increasingly no "information economy" jobs which were supposed to take their place. You cannot base a national economy on landscapers and Starbucks barristas and other McJobs.

 

[Tim]

I think it's time to realize that globalization was wrong-headed. The West did quite nicely for a long time until we decided to compete "equally" with countries and people what work for slave wages. Instead of building up the world, we broke ourselves by exporting jobs as well as money. It was nice for a while, as companies made fortunes on the backs of $0.25/day workers, and we bought cheap warez in the stores, but those days are done. It's not about the unions, it's about taking back what's ours -- if we can.

We should leave the Russians and the Chinese and the Indians to their own devices. Let them build their own damned economies.

Well, the globalization train has already left the station, and I don't see some variety of xenophobic protectionism being practical--or possible. We must adapt to the changing times; clinging to an outmoded economic model will simply hasten the decline.

Then you condem the US to Third World status, with no manufacturing, and increasingly no "information economy" jobs which were supposed to take their place. You cannot base a national economy on landscapers and Starbucks barristas and other McJobs.

You seem to have forgotten/ignored pharmaceuticals, engineering, medical technology, higher education, energy, and a host of other decidedly non-McJob industries at which the United States excels. Nay, trying to focus on heavy industry and manufacturing when the US simply is no longer competitive is the perfect way of condemning the US to Third-World status.

 

[miraclefan]

Yeah, trying to return to the glory days of the US economy being based on heavy industry and manufacturing is pure fantasy. Further, Asia (particularly China) has a vested interest in not seeing the dollar tank (which it hasn't done, yet, anyway).

I think it's time to realize that globalization was wrong-headed. The West did quite nicely for a long time until we decided to compete "equally" with countries and people what work for slave wages. Instead of building up the world, we broke ourselves by exporting jobs as well as money. It was nice for a while, as companies made fortunes on the backs of $0.25/day workers, and we bought cheap warez in the stores, but those days are done. It's not about the unions, it's about taking back what's ours -- if we can.

We should leave the Russians and the Chinese and the Indians to their own devices. Let them build their own damned economies.

Well, the globalization train has already left the station, and I don't see some variety of xenophobic protectionism being practical--or possible. We must adapt to the changing times; clinging to an outmoded economic model will simply hasten the decline.

I'm nether ''xenophobic'' or ''protectionist'' but I agree with what ''shik'' said, but agree with you ''Tim'' that the ''globalization'' train has left the station.

 

[miraclefan]

You seem to have forgotten/ignored pharmaceuticals, engineering, medical technology, higher education, energy, and a host of other decidedly non-McJob industries at which the United States excels. Nay, trying to focus on heavy industry and manufacturing when the US simply is no longer competitive is the perfect way of condemning the US to Third-World status.

What's keeping these companies in the U.S.of A from one day leaving?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

You seem to have forgotten/ignored pharmaceuticals, engineering, medical technology, higher education, energy, and a host of other decidedly non-McJob industries at which the United States excels.

And where is the growth in them to bring back the millions of good-paying jobs that we've "outsourced"?

Nay, trying to focus on heavy industry and manufacturing when the US simply is no longer competitive is the perfect way of condemning the US to Third-World status.

The only reason we are "uncompetitive" is because international labor standards are so poor that the "playing table" is tilted towards the Third World nations.

We need to stop exporting our factories and start exporting our wage and labor standards and unions.

 

[Tim]

You seem to have forgotten/ignored pharmaceuticals, engineering, medical technology, higher education, energy, and a host of other decidedly non-McJob industries at which the United States excels. Nay, trying to focus on heavy industry and manufacturing when the US simply is no longer competitive is the perfect way of condemning the US to Third-World status.

What's keeping these companies in the U.S.of A from one day leaving?

That's the big question, isn't it? The fact that such industries require highly skilled/educated workers will prevent outsourcing for the time being, but the government can't rely on that situation remaining stable forever. Many, many intelligent people from Asia and Southeast Asia become educated at American universities and return to their native countries with the knowledge attained.

You seem to have forgotten/ignored pharmaceuticals, engineering, medical technology, higher education, energy, and a host of other decidedly non-McJob industries at which the United States excels.

And where is the growth in them to bring back the millions of good-paying jobs that we've "outsourced"?

Personally, I think the US has shifted to more highly-skilled labor, so the workforce must adapt. Either present workers must acquire additional skills/education, or the generation poised to enter the working world must obtain those qualities.

Nay, trying to focus on heavy industry and manufacturing when the US simply is no longer competitive is the perfect way of condemning the US to Third-World status.

The only reason we are "uncompetitive" is because international labor standards are so poor that the "playing table" is tilted towards the Third World nations.

We need to stop exporting our factories and start exporting our wage and labor standards and unions.

That would be the ultimate solution, but the pragmatist in me doesn't see that happening for another generation or two. In the meantime, the US simply can't sit on its haunches waiting for rest-of-world working standards to catch up with ours--especially in the present economic climate.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^Sooner or later, you are going to run out of places to "hide" from outsourcing. Technology is rendering an ever increasing number of people "surplus to requirements" in the First World.

Unfettered capitalism makes peons of us all. It's time for PEOPLE to tell PROFITS what to do rather than the reverse.

 

[Holdfast]

I like the US Dollar at the moment if currency trading is your thing (especially against the overvalued Aussie).

As reality bites this massively overdone share market rally, money will flock back to those US bonds, and the US dollar will shoot up.

Isn't it funny how every time the world gets the wobbles, the money flies back to the USA - the source of the whole mess in the first place!

Well, it's the case of a country that's "too big to fail".

I have an entire set of Zimbabwean curreny from 5 million up through 100 trillion. Its 15 separate bills, so I've been a millionaire, billionaire, and a trillionaire. Of course, can't really buy anything with it. Of course it is a great conversation piece.

Awesome.

Actually, most people argue that the economy is improving, just that unemployment will lag behind for some time.

Yeah, unemployment will always be a lagging indicator.

^Sooner or later, you are going to run out of places to "hide" from outsourcing. Technology is rendering an ever increasing number of people "surplus to requirements" in the First World.

The ultimate endpoint is a LONG time from now, but is essentially a world where there isn't a First or Third World, but a single globalised economy where if you have unique skills you will do well in whatever country you're in and if you have no unique skills you will earn a poor wage in whatever country you're in.

Personally, I don't think that's such a bad future and a more stable economy than either past models, or the current system, and why I support a gradual but very consistent reduction in barriers to world trade, but it certainly runs contrary to the usual national protectionist instincts.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^Sooner or later, you are going to run out of places to "hide" from outsourcing. Technology is rendering an ever increasing number of people "surplus to requirements" in the First World.

The ultimate endpoint is a LONG time from now, but is essentially a world where there isn't a First or Third World, but a single globalised economy where if you have unique skills you will do well in whatever country you're in and if you have no unique skills you will earn a poor wage in whatever country you're in.

In other words: corporate feudalism.

Personally, I don't think that's such a bad future and a more stable economy than either past models, or the current system, and why I support a gradual but very consistent reduction in barriers to world trade, but it certainly runs contrary to the usual national protectionist instincts.

I think it's a TERRIBLE model, because there is NOT an infinite demand for "specialized skills".

There is not, and there will NEVER be enough job slots open in "spec skills" industries/professions to suitably employ 6+ billion people.

You are condemning 95+% of them to living in permanent deprivation.

 

[Scout101]

I'm now incredibly proud of myself. I am the proud owner of 1 quadrillion, 360 trillion dollars... in Zimbabwean dollars. Or, all said and done, a fraction of the money I paid to get it

How many OTHER Quadrillionaires are there on the board, though? I thought so

 

[miraclefan]

I'm now incredibly proud of myself. I am the proud owner of 1 quadrillion, 360 trillion dollars... in Zimbabwean dollars. Or, all said and done, a fraction of the money I paid to get it

How many OTHER Quadrillionaires are there on the board, though? I thought so

Hey, buddy why don't you don't you SPREAD THE WEALTH a little bit!

 

[Scout101]

That's why I didn't want to say anything. As soon as they find out you're rich, they all want to be your friend

 

[wew]

I have a quadrillion dollars also, but I've already shared my fortune with three others, so now I'm only a trillionaire.

 

[Holdfast]

Personally, I don't think that's such a bad future and a more stable economy than either past models, or the current system, and why I support a gradual but very consistent reduction in barriers to world trade, but it certainly runs contrary to the usual national protectionist instincts.

I think it's a TERRIBLE model, because there is NOT an infinite demand for "specialized skills".

There is not, and there will NEVER be enough job slots open in "spec skills" industries/professions to suitably employ 6+ billion people.

You are condemning 95+% of them to living in permanent deprivation.

No, not deprivation, just in relative poverty. And I'd pitch the figure as probably closer to between 80-90%.

Deprivation would be absolute poverty, and the percentage of the population in absolute poverty worldwide would be a LOT lower than currently. The main extra difference would be that the distribution of socioeconomic stratification would be a lot more even worldwide, rather than very unevenly distributed as at present. So, yeah, I think it's a better future than the present.

Bottom line, full globalisation would lead to several consequences: a) a reduction in global absolute poverty; b) a relative levelling of the differences between First and Third Worlds; c) as a result of a & b, a relative expansion of the working & lower middle classes.

For current First World countries, that will mean a relative increase in those in relative poverty (or maybe just remaining static) whereas for those in Third World countries a massive reduction of those in relative poverty, with the global redistribution being more meritocratic than presently.

For the planet's economy as a whole, that's a pretty good outcome, and certainly in terms of a pure numbers game worldwide, more people will be better off than presently.

Those with higher skill levels will also see a relative increase in their value, due to greater ability to sell their services worldwide without current barriers to trade.

*shrug* we're a century or two off this sort of lifting of trade barrier restriction, and a lot can happen in that time. But as an outcome I think it has net benefit and is probably the "least worst" economic outcome for the most number of people around the world, since there isn't actually any existing economic model that provides for a very high standard of living for everyone. That would take something major like a lifting of energy restrictions on the growth of an economy (eg through widespread cheap/commercial fusion power for instance).

I'm now incredibly proud of myself. I am the proud owner of 1 quadrillion, 360 trillion dollars... in Zimbabwean dollars. Or, all said and done, a fraction of the money I paid to get it

Congratulations!

 

[darkwing_duck1]

No, not deprivation, just in relative poverty. And I'd pitch the figure as probably closer to between 80-90%.

Deprivation would be absolute poverty, and the percentage of the population in absolute poverty worldwide would be a LOT lower than currently. The main extra difference would be that the distribution of socioeconomic stratification would be a lot more even worldwide, rather than very unevenly distributed as at present. So, yeah, I think it's a better future than the present.

If you're in the 2nd or 3rd World.

Bottom line, full globalisation would lead to several consequences: a) a reduction in global absolute poverty; b) a relative levelling of the differences between First and Third Worlds; c) as a result of a & b, a relative expansion of the working & lower middle classes.

Why should the workers of the first world be brought low just to raise up the workers of the 2nd and 3rd? Let them be raised up by their OWN nations instead of stealing from us.

For current First World countries, that will mean a relative increase in those in relative poverty (or maybe just remaining static) whereas for those in Third World countries a massive reduction of those in relative poverty, with the global redistribution being more meritocratic than presently.

In otherwords America and the First World must be made to suffer for your "meritocratic" distribution to occur.

For the planet's economy as a whole, that's a pretty good outcome, and certainly in terms of a pure numbers game worldwide, more people will be better off than presently.

Speaking as a member of those being asked to give up even my current low standard of living...piss off! Let them build up THEIR countries instead of tearing ours down!

Those with higher skill levels will also see a relative increase in their value, due to greater ability to sell their services worldwide without current barriers to trade.

And those without access to high skill jobs can just go live in hovels, right?

*shrug* we're a century or two off this sort of lifting of trade barrier restriction, and a lot can happen in that time. But as an outcome I think it has net benefit and is probably the "least worst" economic outcome for the most number of people around the world, since there isn't actually any existing economic model that provides for a very high standard of living for everyone. That would take something major like a lifting of energy restrictions on the growth of an economy (eg through widespread cheap/commercial fusion power for instance).

Then let us work on such things, instead of pitting good honest, hard-working God fearing US citizens against the destitute masses of other countries in a struggle for jobs they cannot win with a biased playing field.

 

[Tim]

^ I think if you remove the jingoism that clouds our judgement you might appreciate Holdfast's view under a more objective light. It is, in essence, a final, stable economic equilibrium state.

Attempting to maintain the status quo would surely doom those in second and third world countries to stay there, as they would be too far behind the curve to have any hope of catching up with the first world (which does include countries other than the US).

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^ I think if you remove the jingoism that clouds our judgement you might appreciate Holdfast's view under a more objective light. It is, in essence, a final, stable economic equilibrium state.

Attempting to maintain the status quo would surely doom those in second and third world countries to stay there, as they would be too far behind the curve to have any hope of catching up with the first world (which does include countries other than the US).

Nope, still a terrible idea. They need to build their economies for themselves not tear ours down.

 

[Mr Awe]

No they aren't. Not by a long shot.

When we stop bleeding jobs to China and India THEN things will be "looking up."

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Mr Awe