Comments on: AirMILES!!!!

By: john s

john s — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 22:29:59 +0000

Come on Sandriana. Do you really believe US wages are generally no better than subsistence level?

By: Sandriana

Sandriana — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 21:23:16 +0000

John S: You say “…drive wages to subsistence levels and you won’t be able to sell a thing.” Of course it’s possible, why do you think personal indebtedness has risen so astronomically?

By: Jeremy Osner

Jeremy Osner — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:41:23 +0000

John S—One potential solution to this dilemma is Wal-Martization; if merchandise becomes continually shoddier and less expensive, I reckon quality of life could fall more slowly than wages. (I do not mean to suggest that wages or quality of life in the US are currently falling. Just putting it out there as a plausible scenario.) This could it seems to me have a similar effect to gradually increasing the heat under the pot of water that the frog is sitting in; that no-one notices the decline until the bottom has actually fallen out.

By: john s

john s — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 08:44:34 +0000

lynne, generally speaking, the ex-communist countries all became capitalist about 14 years ago, yet capital flows across borders have increasingly been between rich, developed countries. China is communist yet still gets loads of foreign investment. Think too about the consequences of what you suggest is going to happen to capital flows: that it will flow to the countries with the lowest wages. Well, for starters, the lowest wage countries have few cars because few can afford them. If US wages dropped to Bangladeshi levels it would be goodbye Detroit. Similarly, airlines, IKEA furniture shops, etc. You may think it’s entirely logical to assume that capitalism is driven to seek the cheapest production site; actually, that’s too simplistic. Capitalism also needs to have demand to be able to sell things. It’s capitalism’s dilemma – drive wages to subsistence levels and you won’t be able to sell a thing.

By: adi

adi — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 08:18:49 +0000

sorry if my post doesnt make any sense…. i’m still learning how to organize my thoughts more effectively

By: adi

adi — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 08:16:05 +0000

umm as they say … long time lurker first time poster. Having been an Indian bachelors student in the USA for 3 years now and highly involved in student activities , i have to say that there are far fewer international students coming in to the country than there used to be. i happened to start college a week before the 9/11 tragedy and was devastated by it and also the response to it. the subsequent patriot act and restriction on visas greatly reduced the number of my compatriots coming over here to study. now they have to either pursue more expensive (read european) or slightly less recognized (australasian ) education programmes.

By: Lynne

Lynne — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 04:46:21 +0000

Capital didn;t flow to those parts of the world because they were unavailable for investment due to a communist type government. I am saying now that they are availale for investment, will Marx’s theory come true?

By: Zizka

Zizka — Fri, 02 Apr 2004 04:37:31 +0000

Unfortunately, I think that Friedman is a Democrat. The good thing about Friedman is that he’s not a Likudnik. He doesn’t egg the Israelis on the way so many conservatives and neoliberals do. My favorite pieces of his: “Give War A Chance” (self-explanatory), and an early-nineties piece saying that: Reagan busted air traffic controllers—> that freed up investment capital at labor’s expense—> led to enormous tech innovation—> led to unprecedented military power—> saved the world. Thank you Ron!

By: John S

John S — Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:54:31 +0000

lynne, “…capital would always flow to the lowest wage country, so living standards would never increase that much and we would be locked into dog eat dog competition all the time? Isn’t this what is happening now?” No. About 80% of foreign investment flows go from one developed country to another. If anything, the trend has been for that ratio to get bigger. And US living standards are much the same as Bangladeshi ones are they?

By: John S

John S — Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:47:49 +0000

matthew, “Incidentally I just read that the second biggest source of foreign investment to Mexico was… money sent back to the homeland by those who emigrated to richer western countries. I think this sums up the success of schemes like NAFTA.” er, so?

By: John S

John S — Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:42:45 +0000

dd, it’s extraordinary a pedant like you can misrepresent an argument so outrageously when it’s posed by someone you don’t like. You paraphrase Friedman as saying about Mexico “…what a shame it is that they aren’t able to impose it (neo-liberalism) from above like the Chinese!” Read the article again. He writes quite clearly: “The old autocratic Mexico could have ordered these reforms from above. That’s how China still does it, giving Beijing an advantage now that it will pay for later.” That’s right, “… it will pay for later.” Doesn’t sound like the uncritical admirer of totalitarianism you make him out to be.

By: belaborer

belaborer — Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:30:26 +0000

When the FriedMan speaks of globalization, he’s a big, mustachioed dolt. When he does his neocon schtick he is absolutely unbearable. He’s perhaps dangerous enough to warrant strangulation. For the children.

By: Elaine Supkis

Elaine Supkis — Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:28:21 +0000

Friedman is a Republican and all Republicans want dictators. Bush said himself, it would be easier if he were a dictator, heheheh.

By: ogged

ogged — Thu, 01 Apr 2004 20:12:07 +0000

Mario, according to this graph, India was around 600 million in 1976. What are you, a shut-in?

By: Brey

Brey — Thu, 01 Apr 2004 20:11:28 +0000

I keep waiting for the Friedman article on how the continual shift to new labor markets creates downward pressure on the US standard of living. Not because I’m necessarily believe our standard of living should be off the table. But, because it’s the glaring omission that renders most of his commentary inane.