Quote:
|
Quote by: RVonse Ok, the world simply changes. But then you do have to agree the changes haven't been so good for us, right? |
#1.... So? We lost in the 70's and 80's when we continued thinking our economy, based on consumer manufacturing of shoddy, built-in obsolescence, could continue to compete in a global economy newly risen from the ashes of WWII.
#2.... says who? The world economy changed dramatically during the 90's and we benefited greatly from it when we gave up our smokestack economy and led the way in technology.
We lose when we make assumptions that the world somehow owes us global dominance and cling to old competitive ways. We win when we inovate and move forward.
For example, we could be leading the way right now into a new energy economy, if we didn't have the fossil-fuel industry running the White House.
Quote:
|
Quote by: RVonse I pray that I am wrong but the only evolution that I can forsee is that: (1) Either 3rd world economies are going to have to "come up" to the US standard of living or (2)The US is going to have to adjust its standard of living downward to theirs. And I sincerely hope that it is the former and not the later. |
Likely a combination of the two. Bare in mind that America's economic dominance is relatively recent and, in a sense, artificial. Coming out of WWII, America, untouched by the war, had turned into an industrial giant while the rest of the world would spend the next 20 years digging itself out of the debris. Here, labor could get pretty much anything it wanted because we were a manufacturing monopoly. However, once competition began developing, our workforce had priced itself out of the market. Hence the collapse of labor as an economic force.
Again, the world doesn't owe us the highest standard of living in the world, and unless we can continue providing something no one else can, we're going to have to accept some leveling of the playing field.... yes, both a rise in others and a lowering of ours to a more competitive level.
.