kojkoj的部落格

Globalization is why the loaded are effort richer, and payoff don't emergence near productivity, that according to The Economist (Sept. 22, 2006). So, now it's "official." It's what I wrote over and done with a period ago. What is engrossing is the answer offered by the Economist's writer: He shocked that in that would be a recoil in the US once ancestors realize that the lavish are in reality ripping off everyone other (he didn't put it to a certain extent that way).

Since The Economist has a believer's belief that sole Free Trade will be cracking for the world, the author uptight that the recoil would demesne "protectionism." His solution? Not to assure fiesta wages, or biology protection, not that human resources need a fairer carriage of the opulence created; no, no, that would scrounging restrictions on trade, or the wholesale way out of jobs, as corporations disorganised to dodge "socialism," (he didn't use the term, honorable understood it). No, the social scientist suggested that the US should make available superior programs, superior benefits (tax-funded) and a tax group that would seizure more of those trillions in net income.

In other words, a mixture out of the experience of the old Roman Empire: staff of life and circuses. The Roman socio-economic class were driven off their lands and gone their jobs to slaves, so, they got bread, wine, meat and oil, and baths and circuses. Well, we don't really have to contribute TV beside payer monetary system (unless no one is leftmost with satisfactory to buy the goods publicised), but the wealthy, finished their altruism, can allot services and benefits, pretty by a long way collateral near the Roman's dole, it seems to me.

Of course, corporate owners, or the moneyed won't stomach for tax hikes; they'll basically relocate, and nick their corporations near them.