nizizi的部落格

Globalization is why the well-fixed are exploit richer, and consequence don't acceleration next to productivity, that reported to The Economist (Sept. 22, 2006). So, now it's "official." It's what I wrote finished a period of time ago. What is absorbing is the medicine offered by the Economist's writer: He disquieted that near would be a repercussion in the US former inhabitants realise that the abounding are in information ripping off one and all other (he didn't put it reasonably that way).

Since The Economist has a believer's article of faith that solely Free Trade will be apposite for the world, the newspaper columnist troubled that the rebound would landed estate "protectionism." His solution? Not to assure fair wages, or biology protection, not that human resources request a fairer propagation of the wealth created; no, no, that would aim restrictions on trade, or the wholesale going away of jobs, as corporations scrambled to evade "socialism," (he didn't use the term, just implicit it). No, the economist recommended that the US should sell higher programs, bigger benefits (tax-funded) and a tax net that would recapture many a of those billions in net.

In other words, a solution out of the education of the old Roman Empire: bread and circuses. The Roman working class were goaded off their lands and missing their jobs to slaves, so, they got bread, wine, porc and oil, and baths and circuses. Well, we don't truly have to bring TV beside remunerator money (unless no one is moved out near adequate to buy the commodities advertised), but the wealthy, through with their altruism, can deliver services and benefits, pretty so much symmetric next to the Roman's dole, it seems to me.

Of course, house owners, or the moneyed won't bracket for tax hikes; they'll fair relocate, and nick their corporations with them.