Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Globalization Is Killing the Globe: Return to Local Economies
Globalization is killing Europe, just as it's already wiped out much of the American middle class.
Spain and Greece are facing immediate crises that many other European nations see on the near horizon: aging boomer workers are retiring with healthy benefit packages, but the younger workers who are paying for those benefits aren't making anything close to the income (or, therefore, paying the taxes) that their parents did.
Globalists/corporatists/conservative "free market" and "flat earth" advocates say this is a great opportunity to cut benefits for the old folks (and for the young folks in the future), thus bringing the countries budgets back into balance, and this story is the main corporate media storyline.
But it overlooks the real issue (and the real solution): how globalization is killing these nations' economies and what can be done about it.
From the days of Adam Smith, classical economics pointed out that manufacturing and extraction are the only two ways to "create wealth."
"Wealth" is different from "income." Wealth is value, which endures at least for some time. Income is simply compensation for work. If you wash my car for $10 and I mow your lawn for $10, we have a GDP of $20 and it looks like we both have income and economic activity. But no wealth has been created, just income.
On the other hand, if I build your car, I'm creating something of value. And if you turn my lawn into a small farm that produces food we can all eat, you're creating something of value. Not only do we have an "economy" with a "GDP," we also have created wealth.
A stick on the ground has no commercial value, but if you add labor to it by carving it into an axe handle -- a thing of commercial value -- you have "created wealth." Similarly, metals in the ground have no commercial value, but when you add labor to them by extracting, refining, and forming them into products, you "create wealth." Even turning seeds and dirt and cows into hamburgers is a form of manufacturing and creates wealth.
This is the "Wealth of Nations" that titled Adam Smith's famous 1776 book.
On the other hand, when a trader at Goldman Sachs makes a "profit" trading stocks, bonds, or currencies, no wealth whatsoever is created. In fact, to the extent that that trader takes millions in commissions, pay, and bonuses, he's actually depleting the wealth of the nation (particularly to the extent that he moves his money offshore to save or invest, as many do).
To use the United States as an example, in the late 1940s and early 1950s manufacturing accounted for a high of 28 percent of our total gross domestic product (and much of the rest of the economy like agriculture that, in a classical sense is "manufacturing" wasn't even included in those numbers), and when Reagan came into office it was at a strong 20 percent. Today it's about ten percent of our GDP.
What this means is that we're creating less wealth here, because we're not making much anymore. (And the biggest growth in American manufacturing has been in the military sector, where goods are made that are then destroyed when they explode over foreign cities, causing even more of our wealth to vanish.)
The main effect of the globalism fad of the past 30 yearrs -- lowering the protective barriers to trade that countries for centuries have used to make sure their own local economies are self-sufficient -- has been to ship manufacturing (the creation of wealth) from developed nations to developing nations. Transnational corporations love this, because in countries with lower labor costs and few environmental and safety regulations, it's more profitable to manufacture products. They then sell those products in the "mature" countries -- the places that used to manufacture -- and people burn through the wealth they'd accumulated in the earlier manufacturing days (home equity, principally, along with savings and lines of credit) to buy these foreign-manufactured goods.
At first, it looks like a good deal to consumers in developed nations. Goods are cheaper! But over a decade or two or three, as the creation of real wealth is reduced and the residue of the old wealth is spent, the developed nations become progressively poorer and poorer. At the same time, the "developing" nations become wealthier -- because those are the places that are producing real wealth.
Which brings us to Spain and Greece -- and the problem of all developed nations including the USA. So long as globalism continues apace, the transnational corporations and their CEOs will continue to become fabulously wealthy. But, more importantly, they also acquire the political power that comes with that control of economies.
So they tell us that instead of putting back into place tariffs, domestic content laws, and other "protectionist" policies that built America from the time the were first proposed by Alexander Hamilton in 1791 (and largely adopted by Congress in 1793) until they were dismantled by Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush, we should instead simple "accept the reality" that we're "living beyond our means" and we have to "cut back our wages and social programs."
In other words, they get richer, our nations become poorer, and national sovereignty is reduced.
Nations -- and in large countries like the USA, even states -- must again rebuild their manufacturing base and become locally self-sufficient, so their own consumers are buying products manufactured by their own workers.
"But won't that make Wal-Mart's stuff more expensive?" whine the flat-earthers.
Yes, it will. But most Americans (and Greeks and Spaniards) would gladly pay 10 percent more for the goods in their stores if their paychecks were 20 percent higher. And manufacturing paychecks have always been higher, because manufacturing is where "true wealth" is generated (thus the basis for most union movements, which further guarantee healthy worker income and benefits).
The transnational corporations benefiting from globalization are also, in most cases, the transnational corporations that own our media, so even the word globalization is rarely heard in reports on economic crises around the world.
But globalization is the villain here, and one that needs to be taken in hand and brought under control quickly if we don't want to see virtually the nations of the world end up subservient to corporate control, a new form of an ancient economic system known as feudalism.
- Posted in
62 Comments so far
Show Alland just look at the front page of Common Dreams..... "Obama starts new push on free trade deals"......
and of course one of the countries we are now enamoured with is Columbia..... where we are building 7 military bases and where if you are a union organizer you face kidnapping, torture and murder at the highest rates in the world.
thanks obomba!
Both the U.S. and Colombia governments have publicly stated that the military agreement (for use of the seven bases) refers only to counternarcotics and counterterrorism operations within Colombian territory.
But a memo, let's call it Colombia's "Downing Street Memo", was leaked.
It reveals the real reason the U.S. is in Colombia:
(to provide) "…an opportunity for conducting full spectrum operations throughout South America…”
Boil this down and it's clear the U.S. has taken station in Colombia to threaten the leftist government of Hugo Chavez.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23924.htm
One can imagine a kind of globalization that benefits everyone, but what passes as globalization now is bringing more misery, poverty, and slavery to the world.
One thing that globalization of physical products requires is cheap oil so the plastic pumpkins made in China can be cheaply shipped to the good old USofA. This will all come to an end someday because of Peak Oil.
Peak Oil is something I have been following for several years now. It is hard to say for sure but world oil production may have peaked around 2005. The recession makes it hard to know for sure, but within 10 years we will have a good idea if it has.
Once world oil production does peak, and it will someday, prices for gas and diesel will skyrocket and globalization will come crashing down. Things will once again have to be grown and made closer to where they are consumed.
At some point in the future, maybe sooner than we think, these trade deals of Obama's will seem as quaint and irrelevant as some say the Geneva Convention is now.
A link here on the subject for those who are interested in learning more about it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/feb/07/branson-warns-peak-oil-close
Peak oil. Greenhouse gases. Pollution. Climate change. Water shortages and drought. Take your pick. Manufacturing and agriculture are going to face a number of serious challenges considering both are dependent on oil. All the globalization will come crashing down without the plentiful(?) supply of oil. Manufacturing and agriculture are going to have to make significant advances and changes quite rapidly just to maintain some semblance of an economy ... locally ... nevermind globally.
Globalism is RELIGION to the moneyed-elite.
Globalism is their GOD.
Watch CNBC for 20 minutes and witness the hosts bite the head off any guest who dares challenge the sanctity of the new economy.
What remains to be seen is if the European Union swallows the "free trade" & "globalization" Kool Aide. Considering that EU countries have a higher mien educational level, union membership, & voter participation rates than the USA, it will be a harder sell for the trans-national corporations (though not impossible). In regards to the debt crisis of Greece and Spain, plus the other PIG's (Portugal, Ireland, the U.K., & Iceland), what the two main economic engines of the EU (France & Germany) decide to do about is the key to what happens from here on in.
Nate,
Here's an excellent article about the global depression risks involved with regard to the debt-cancer spreading through the Euro zone: ..... http://baselinescenario.com/2010/02/07/europe-risks-another-global-depression/#more-6309....
That blog has a definite anti-deficits slant, plus it actually thinks that Geithner is more than a suit for Wall Street.
Meanwhile, the putative writer of the piece which we are loosely commenting upon, Thom Hartmann, has continued speaking about this with his usual pro-Federalist Papers economic policy spiel. What has gone unmentioned is that both Greece and Spain have historically never had robust manufacturing sectors. Greece is now tanking because they lied about their long-term obligations when they entered the Euro zone (it should be mentioned that the others knew the Greeks were fibbing, but that's another story); as for Spain, they are in the meirda because they let real estate speculation get out of hand a la the USA. What is different there is that EU citizens are even more unwilling to pay for the profligacy of others (i.e., the recent demonstrations in Iceland).
Most, if not all the european countries have VAT (value added taxes) which is protectionism and helps maintain their manufacturing sectors. They caught the chinese dumping steel and immediately slapped big tariffs on their steel imports, in the US they are too slow and basically ignorant to do the same.
from the article:
"A stick on the ground has no commercial value, but if you add labor to it by carving it into an axe handle -- a thing of commercial value -- you have "created wealth." Similarly, metals in the ground have no commercial value, but when you add labor to them by extracting, refining, and forming them into products, you "create wealth." Even turning seeds and dirt and cows into hamburgers is a form of manufacturing and creates wealth."
if anyone wonders how the earth is being destroyed, this paragraph explains it pretty simply...
it sounds so...GOOD...but, it isn't...
Right. The key for me is his use of "commercial" when talking about value. If the tree from which the "stick" came did not exist there never would be an axe handle made and sold. The origin of value is nature. That nature is not valued except as a commodity within capitalist economics tells us volumes about where we are today with pollution, mass extinction and global warming to name but a few.
These are excellent comments. They form the basis for a discussion on a sustainable economic system. Some companies in the Timber industry in the South work to replenish the source of their production through planting and seeding activities projected 40 years into the future. This practice can be used as a model for creating wealth and sustaining value.
Local economies can be built around growing produce and value added production to "create wealth from "value" on a sustainable basis. There are ways and there are means. Man has proven himself a responsible steward in many ways; we must find ways to lift that stewardship to policy levels.
Apparently 70% of the US GDP is based on retail sales. It seems remarkable that this is even possible, until you consider that the profits from these wholesale retail chains are based on marks ups of 90% or higher.
We then subsidize big agriculture and monopoly seeking corporations like Monsanto so that we can marginalize poor countries agriculture by dumping our excess grains on their markets further reinforcing their move to the squatter settlements where they form the cheap labor pools to invigorate this system.
Neoliberalism becomes the rationale to keep this exploitive system in place that brings us cheap products and even our jobs at least in the sector based on retail sales.
Much of the transfer of wealth to the First World is based on intellectual property. Consider the AIDs epidemic in Africa and the patents of Big Pharma. This wealth and wealth of many other Corporations like Apple, IBM, Microsoft, etc. accrue to them even though their wealth is intellectual property rather than things.
I think the conjecture that we are spending 'old wealth' from the manufacturing days to buy other countries goods thus using up our ‘real wealth’ does not account for the ‘knowledge based’ economy that we have moved to. Also to the extent that poorer countries are making products for us to consume seems to abdicate the concept that they are also entitled to the fruits of their labor.
But isn't intellectual property a form of manufacturing, of extraction and refining of data? It was unknown in Adam Smith's time, and current economic theory doesn't seem to cover it, but I suspect it IS a form of wealth. Let's hope so -- otherwise we are in deep trouble indeed.
Gary
“If I were to wish for anything, I should not wish for wealth and power, but for the passionate sense of potential -- for the eye which, ever young and ardent, sees the possible. Pleasure disappoints; possibility never.”
-- Soren Kierkegaard
This is actually an old request. E.F. Schumacher wrote "Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered". It was a cult classic during the 60s ... that beautiful era of the Hippie. How I miss it.
Thank you, at least on person here gets it.
The voices of liberalism will be snuffed out when the clamping down causes the boiling over of an enraged populace, necessitating Martial Law.
Nice ta have known ya, Mr. Hartmann.
If we don't do something about this, who will? It is not about posting comments on Common Dreams or elsewhere, although that can certainly help. It is about working to support and grow union power. It is about influencing union leadership. They too need to change. It is about talking about these critical issues in the neighborhoods, in the churches, in PTA meetings, school board meetings, in city council meetings, in local Democratic party meetings, across backyard fences, on the college campuses, among Move-On.org, The World Can't Wait, Code Pink, ACCLU, Amnesty International members and all the rest.
We have to get out more. If we don't we all lose, even the heads of the giant corporations, the American government, Obama and the planet itself.
from the article:
"To use the United States as an example, in the late 1940s and early 1950s manufacturing accounted for a high of 28 percent of our total gross domestic product (and much of the rest of the economy like agriculture that, in a classical sense is "manufacturing" wasn't even included in those numbers), and when Reagan came into office it was at a strong 20 percent. Today it's about ten percent of our GDP."
Why has our manufacturing disappeared? Pollution...
What has manufacturing brought to other countries? Pollution...
What will return to our country if we restart manufacturing? Pollution...
Manufacturing is pollution...work is environmental death...
Profit can be prioritized ahead of pollution, but only temporarily...
Pollution, and death, will triumph, in the end...
Great post. Modern Industrial Civilization is the origin of most of the world's problems. Hardly anybody wants to talk about it (besides Derrick Jensen) because to admit this is to realize we are all complicit in the destruction and poisoning of this earth.
I love my computer... but whose land base was destroyed and how much pollution was emitted to allow me to be typing these words on CD?
Good points, dubet and markpaddles. Environment cannot be an afterthought. Not anymore.
One of the elements of the sustainable, local economy that we are working to build to displace the elite's Great Carnival of Plunder is the recognition that the machines that are the fruit of the Western Industrial Revolution are most certainly sustainable, but only when the volume of production is below a sustainable level and performed in a sustainable way, in consideration of FULL COSTS. The elites instantly recognize this as the death knell for their "economic growth at all cost" mega-racket, where they must build ever more machines with ever shorter lifecycles, to plunder the true sources of wealth at an ever-accelerating rate, so they suppress the idea of limits from the mass media, then they resume drilling blindly to their doom at the center of the Earth. If the people do not recognize the value in marking a sustainable limit on production, it's because they're drunk on DAS KAPITAL KOOLAID!!!! So everyone should start thinking about limits on our usage of machines. I used my last computer for 13 years. My new one was 6 years old when I bought it and will keep it for at least another 10 years until the power efficiency of the new ones justifies its replacement. Then I will demand that the manufacturer disassemble it and recycle all of its parts in a "closed cycle".
What I would like to know is why Common Dream readers spend so much time attacking our own. Why go on and on about Obama or Congress or even the Supreme Court? If we must, we must, I guess, but what about all of the super villains out there who go unnoticed? Look at Rupert Murdoch, John Mackey and so many, many others. We hardly know anything about them. Murdoch is the tabloid king who rose to power selling tabloids and continues to do so to this very day. Look at Fox News. Nothing but a tabloid. The Wall Street Journal was bad to begin with but now, since Murdoch bought the paper, it loaded with tabloid like news. People read this garbage and quote it all the time. Murdoch is responsible for incredible pain and suffering. And so are many, many others as well. But we don't even know who they are or what they are doing. Why not?
Notice that now The Heritage Foundation, The Hoover Institute, The Cato Institute, and others appear regularly on PBS. Members of the these think tanks are given attention all the time. They enjoy high status. They are considered to be authorities. But they exist to do virtually nothing more than advance the agendas of the huge corporations. They use all kinds of tricks to do so, just like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, but they enjoy high status billing. Their sponsors throw all kinds of money at their campaigns. So where is the investigative reporting needed to expose these high priced gun slingers? Who is studying their strategies, techniques, gimmicks, sleight of hand and tricks of the trade? And who is paying for it? What else do we know about the sponsors. Let's find out. What we need are some good old fashioned muckrakers. But they get free passes each and every day and they go on and on and on with their diabolical plans and deeds.
(I watched Glenn Beck for the first time last week. He is a master at his trade. But it is all gimmicks. Phony, too bit tricks. Who is explaining all of this and teaching people how and when to call his hand?)
It is time that we stop fighting among ourselves seeing if we can outdo each other im criticizing Obama or whoever. Sure he is a disappointment or worse. But are we going to just bitch and bellyache from now to 2012?
Come on. Let's collect some ammunition and use it on all of those wizards out there behind the curtains. We don't want to take this all lying down (or sitting at computer terminals writing responses to articles like this one). Let's evaluate what works and pass the word on and then improve on it some more.
Another thought. This ship is coming down, that is almost certain. We can depend upon the masses to listen and respond somewhere along the line as the damage grows. Exhibit number 1: the tea baggers. There will be a lot more of those around real soon. The sleeping giant is awakening. THIS is our time.
Let's get rolling.
You got moxy kid, I like that.
Seriously though, it is time to get started and I'm working with a group that already has. We are working to start a pragmatic, non-partisan political party. The focus of our party is restoring integrity to the democratic process and the philosophical underpinnings are basically populist. We are calling ourselves Voters United for America. So far we are mostly lefties but we are trying to make the movement broad enough to include at least moderate conservatives. I'm running for congress as a write-in candidate. We've been at this for only a short period of time. We don't even have a website yet- we need a web designer.
You can find my contact info at: http://sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/ read the Jan 9th post.
People like us need to make contact with each other. We have to start establishing a network of people who give a shit and are willing to put their money where their mouth is.
Keep it Going!!!
What do you call it when no matter how much more cheaply goods can be made and sold they still become ever more unanaffordable because wages fall even more? You call it deflation-- and that is what globalization is bringing us now with more to come shortly. Barack, the free trader will go down defending it because in his mind deflation is not a consequence of globalization. In the crowd he runs with globalization has made him and his friends richer-- therefore it must be good for all of us. We can't change that mind set and the mind set of most of his cronies which include practically all the Senate and most of the House. The best we can do is vote them out of office, or if that doesn't work----
Globalization has been forced on the world for the transference of power/wealth. In order to get Americans to 'go along' their standard of living had to be lowered to be more in line with the rest of the world. Hence, high paying jobs for the majority had to be stripped. This done in the guise of keeping prices to the consumer down. One can only imagine how expensive those $300 Nikes would cost if manufactured in the US would be.
A major problem not planned was the fact that in the past Americans have been the consumer of the world, because they had wealth and could afford to purchase, but that has come to a drastic halt. This may be a major reason CEOs and top executives have recently gone to extracting obscene bonuses - America is rapidly approaching Third World status - hence these top officials are grabbing while they can.
Unfortunately, there will be no turning back, those in the 'play' are busily scrambling for the power, the majority be damned.
I'm not sure Thom's (or Adam Smith's) definition of wealth is one I can accept: Wealth is value that endures for some time. Value, one might suppose, is something someone would trade for. But what about, say, the wealth that resides in a clean environment? Nobody creates anything there--in fact, they purposefully do nothing. What about the value that resides in civil discourse, in learning something new, in creating an amateur work of art? For the most part, these things have no value--they can't be traded for money, but they are forms of wealth. We need to revalue the things around us, emphasizing the value of the things that provide for human happiness and well-being.
"For the most part, these things have no value--they can't be traded for money, but they are forms of wealth."
Actually, more correctly, those things may not have a PRICE, but they do have VALUE.
They certainly do have a price. The peace and tranquility that has been glimpsed here fleetingly came at great cost of investment by our earlier generations. Our laws, universal suffrage, equal rights, electrification from coast to coast, the transportation infrastructure, have given us a good life, made this a destination of choice. None of it was cheap, either in monetary terms, or in real populist struggle.
Don't bother to scold me about all the flaws in those things, the point is.
I love Thom's analysis, but kudos to drosera for upping the ante to a higher level... thinking of the book, The Real Economy.
Was Thom Hartmann born yesterday? Globalization is not just 30 years old. Ever heard of the East India company? What is globalization anyway? For the American worker, globalization means that big multinational corporations move manufacturing to a second or third world country, with little or no organized labor or environmental protections where they can pay their workers a small fraction of what the American worker was paid. Then they ship the finished product back to America with a massive profit margin. This process is simply the main tenet of capitalism in action: maximize profits! Capitalism is a global system. You can't undo globalization without undoing capitalism itself. But Thom Hartmann would never advocate that.
The term "globalization" gets used various ways.
Hartman appears to mean trade without tariffs. In practice, nations place tariffs and remove tariffs where decisionmaking elites find convenient, regardless of whatever Friedmanite or other pablum they borrow for speeches or boardroom chatter.
Elites of powerful countries historically levied tariffs to boost their local industries because they could. Elites of colonial and postcolonial countries dropped tariffs under some combination of threat and bribery from larger countries. Therefore, the tariff policies of such countries not only do not favor the poor of the countries, they do not favor most of the business class.
The American colonies were still able to revolt because of the difficulty of transit from Europe and because of the differences in perceived self-interest between the English, French, and Spanish crowns. Later revolutions have been pushed into greater problems by progressively more effective intervention by larger powers.
Now, "Globalized" industry perceives less self-interest in many national tariffs because it leaves more and more of its money and more and more of its business offshore.
Consequently, a reduction of both wages and business in general in the United States can now be providential to "American interests" as perceived by global internationals nominally housed in the USA, but primarily benefiting from capital that may never enter that part of the world economy called "American."
This allows a more aggressive use of global markets to break American labor, including the service industries and the so-called public sector.
This condition is new, though the principles in which it operates are old.
All true. But my point is that Hartmann's "Return to Local Economies" is naive advice in relation to how capitalism actually works. But Hartmann supports capitalism, so he can't look at that reality and so offers this palliative.
And your solution is.....?
There's lots of solutions if you start looking for them. But I suspect your post was rhetorical and not actually seeking an answer. Most liberals recognize the problem (like Hartmann) but will go so far and no further. This is because they believe in T.I.N.A. or "There Is No Alternative" (to capitalism). To find a solution one must look at the system itself - not one of its symptoms - like globalization. Globalization is not the system, it is a consequence of the system. The solution lies in "going to the root" of the problem: the capitalist economic system. In other words, the solution lies within the realm of Radical thought, and that's why Hartmann won't go there.
If you are interested in a Radical perspective, here's two works by people who are willing to go the distance:
"The Enemy of Nature" by Joel Kovel
"The Ecological Revolution" by John Bellamy Foster
Capitalism has meant many things down through the ages including the present. It changes all the time. Capitalism in Europe is very different than capitalism in the US. Hartman has talked at great length about capitalism in the early days of the United States. He is well aware of globalization then and now. Phone him and he'll be glad to explain.
The point is do we modify globalization or capitalism for ourselves or for a few corporations and their particular bent? Even corporations define each according to their own advantage, depending upon whatever they wish to achieve. Nothing is written in cement here. This is not some law of the universe.
It is much like the free market. Market participants must operate under given restraints or everyone suffers in the long run. Shall we permit anyone to run a red light who wants to do so? Ultimately we have to ask ourselves whether we wish to assert our interests or let someone do it for us? As things stand today, others will do it for us and we are given virtually no opportunity for input, especially now following the "Citizens United" decision.
Wow, you should write for NPR!
Unhappily, NPR has become more and more interested in hearing from "think tanks", which I see as promoting large corporate agendas (aka minda control). Mind you I was a stock broker for 14 years and involved in the markets for about 32 years (still am). I have noticed that the drive towards monopoly is not only very bad for the populace, it is very bad for business - even big business. When I started in the business in the 1970s the FTC would stop the vast majority of mergers and acquisitions. That changed in the 1980s big time and has continued ever since. Consequently you see mostly monopolies today. Not good for us. Not good for business in general. Ultimately you will see collapse. Few people know that the richest man in America in the 1930s died penniless.
You'll notice that today small businesses are in big trouble. Can't get money. Why? Money is being hoarded by the major banks for the most part. Check money supply growth. Has not been happening for years. Why? No circulation.
Want to go into business for yourself? Try it. You'll find that you are up against tremendous odds due to favoritism for the large corporations. My father was in business for himself virtually his entire life. Consequently he learned quickly that big business was no friend of his. Now if you want to run a chain restaurant, big business will definitely be interested in having you work as the owner of one of their stores. Of course, to do well, you'll have to run a number of the restaurants, let's say a minimum of three. But hey, that is okay. They are good for hiring teenagers and college students. Not a whole lot else that you can do at this stage of the game as a small business man, and not a whole lot else that teenagers or college students can do to get jobs. But don't take my word for it. Ask around.
Incidentally who hires most of the workers in America? Small business. Right? Have you been watching those unemployment numbers? Looks to me like their is a high correlation between unemployment and the demise of small business.
Thom Hartman has started and sold lots of small businesses. You can get some ideas from him. Just give him a call.
NPR ceased to be a source for my understanding of the world in the mid-1980's. Your post reminded me of the uncritical, a-historical, de-contextualized and vacuous pablum of NPR. I apologize for the smart-ass remark but not for the content. That you were a stock broker explains a lot on your world view. As far as I am concerned Thom Hartmann is a Democratic Party apologist attempting to stay relevant and keep "progressives" from straying too far from Party control.
This is getting more interesting all the time.
What does help in terms of expanding one's understanding of the world today? I don't know, perhaps my understanding is "de-contextualized and vacuous pablum". Best make some changes if so. Any recommendations?
You are absolutely right about Wall Street impacting my world view. However, all of my other jobs seemed to do the same. I taught kids for 9 years, mostly junior high school, both parochial and public school. Having worked in the securities business I also taught a finance class for 6 years to graduate students, many from other parts of the world, with the greatest number coming from Asia. I was also a probation officer off and on for 18 years. Worked with kids from inner cities part of the time, kids from wealthy homes part of the time, and kids from middle class neighborhoods part of the time. Yes, I worked with murderers and very troubled teenagers. Drugs were omnipresent. But kids from golden ghettos were equally challenging. Speaking of challenging, teaching was the most challenging job ever. Kept me away at night. Imagine trying to motivate and teach troubled kids in junior high school. Not so easy. To do so, for me meant working with those parents. Knocked myself out trying to involve the parents and make learning interesting and effective. Could talk for days about that challenge.
What else have I done? Worked for United Airlines. Worked for a reading company, a tutoring company, worked in retail sales, warehouses, and a Kaiser Permanente warehouse in college. I also had my own "detail" business back before anyone used the word to describe meticulous work cleaning cars. And some other incidentals.
But I am still interested in learning. After all I have a kid in college. Who knows maybe I can throw things his way that can help. And I have 3 grandkids after that. So lay it on me.
You know I thought about Hartman being an apologist for the Democratic Party too. Hey, everyone has to eat. Best pay attention to whoever can help pay the bills. Right? But he does seem more genuine than most, and the guy is very well read, not to mention very experienced. Hey, I have not lived in different parts of the world for any period of time as he has. I consider myself lucky to have lived in the Midwest, the Northwest, and California. Been to Canada, Hawaii, and Mexico; been to most states west of Illinois, lived in New York City for a month, visited the Northeast and Florida, but that is it.
So go ahead, tell me. Where do I start? Oh, if you don't mind, give me some ideas that I can share with my friends out of work. See I am retired and do not need the money as much as they do. Oh, and I have some friends who are working but barely getting by. If you would keep them in mind too, I would appreciate it. Also I took a pay cut in retiring and am still looking to make it back. I am thinking of developing a business or two, and I expect the market to pay its share. What is the expression, "payback is fair play"?
If I can do anything in return for you, please let me know.
Thanks.
Well, I am going to do injustice to your question and give you a short answer. Recall the definition of the word paradigm: "a set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality." You have a lot of varied life experiences, but you understand those experiences through the paradigmatic lens of the dominant culture. Imagine seeing the same world through the eyes of a native American or a homeless person, or someone from a non-Western background. What does "America" look like through the eyes of Emma Goldman or Eugene Debs. There is a rich and unbroken tradition of Radical thought throughout US history.
If you listen to Thom Hartmann, listen to Democracy Now! as well. If you read CD, go to Znet as well. There's all kinds of things that mainstream pundits don't have to do, like question assumptions or critique memes. Radical thinkers have to do their homework. Compare the differences.
There is no substitute for reading books. Youv'e had both professional and blue collar jobs. How 'bout a working class history of the labor movement? Check out Sharon Smith's "Subterranean Fire". Or, how the Democratic Party functions as the "graveyard of social movements"? Check out Lance Selfa's "The Democratic Party: A Critical History." There's another whole world out there.
Sounds good. Will have a look.
This is some beginning:
http://www.zcommunications.org/jeremy-rifkin-s-the-empathic-civilization-and-p-w-singer-s-wired-for-war-by-gary-olson
Hope to see your comments in the future. Will be attending a public gathering here in our area soon for some tea baggers. Very eager to talk with them.
Be well.
Nolan Olhausen
It's a good thing local is coming back. Maybe now people will stop turning to cheapos from overseas and get back to repairing what they got. I hate losing customers to overseas cheap stuff.
You hit the nail on the head. When we go local, we take back the control of our money which leads to strong local economies, good jobs, cleaner environments, and fewer booms and busts. Admittedly, it is far easier for the city council to deal with one large corporation than it is 300 small businesses, but where is the greatest risk in the long run? Where is the greatest satisfaction? Where is greatest opportunity? Where is the greatest pride and promise for our children? Check the numbers and you'll learn that over the long haul, the larger corporations also costs the community more, not less. We love those low priced items, but we don't factor in all of the true costs. When we do, we sometimes learn that big businesses are terribly expensive. Not really cheap at all.
I am searching for all kinds of stories about going local. Would love to hear from anyone who can expand upon this topic. Thanks.
It was the leader of the Democratic party, the party of the working classes, namely Bill aka Slick Willie Clinton with the help and advice of George H W Bush who gave us "The New World Order". One world government, and Globalization.
With the loss of some eight Million good paying jobs for the working classes, Bubba Clinton is hauling in Millions of Dollars everyday for his Arkansa museum in his honor, money that is not accounted for. The American Media is strangely silent on this issue as are our fearless leadership in Congress. The two party system has been breeding "Yes Men" for decades and we have no representation. Sen Dodd has been blaming lobbyists and Bankers for not helping him create regulations for the Banking industry, a clear example of the
poor, sellout leadership in Congress. Dodd should be impeached before his retirement and stripped of retirement benefits.
"If you wash my car for $10 and I mow your lawn for $10, we have a GDP of $20 and it looks like we both have income and economic activity. But no wealth has been created, just income."
Moving the bar a little higher, car washing and lawn mowing are obstructions to wealth.