[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

It's quite difficult to address this without making trade worthless for both sides. Goods will follow demand and pricing, be it abroad or domestic.
Globalisation has it's good and bad sides, one of which is that it's very hard for governments to control where domestic goods go, and any controls can be legally fought through free trade laws and common markets.
Example - there's plenty of food grown here that gets exported, and we eat vegetable flown from Cyprus. Most consumers will follow prices rather than nationalities, and it's almost impossible to effectively switch demand without artificially messing with prices, or changing the quality of the product.

I am crtitical of totally unrgulated trade. Also, there is no thing like unregulated trqade in the modern time. Unreguölated, liberal trade leads to an economy that acts without any national o social responsibility. I accepts national aide ti get it raised, then turns to international focus, and feels no longer bound to the nation that once raised and nursed it. Being an international corporation then, it can avoid a lot of legal regulations affecting its business in an unwanted way, and can choose to no longer feed back to it's further nurse by prioviding it with taxes. Globvalisation has massively speeded up this process. One example from the EU: yester, nokia in Germany announced to shut down a huge fatcory over here, 2500 jobs are lost. but in the past years it enjoyed financial aide and subsidies from the german tax payer in the range of high two digit millions - profit for them, loss for us. It now can expect to get even more german subsidies for it's shifting of production to romania or the Czech Republic - ion form of EU subsidies that pay for companies shifting their producion locations: german tax payers come up for a total of one quarter of the complete EU budget. So, we pay for our jobs getting lost, and loosing tax income that with the leaviong of the company no longer is produced for our budget. Nice. It is not the first time it went like this.

Obviously, a controlled economy like they had in the Warsaw Pact states also does not work well.

Fact is we need both: as little regulation as possible, but as much as needed to make sure that corporations do not become political actors of themselves and do not avoid the social responsibilty towards those who originally have raised and supported them. Of course, investement fonds do not like this. and I do not like investment fonds. The whole system imo borders to the realm of economic crime. The negative sides of globalisation imo by far outshines the positive gains. And even many former adviocates for glpobalisation - have fallen silent in the past three or four years now that the massive blowback to western societies has become evident. Fact is that the states who had a solid currency and a more or less functioning economy - are the loosers of it. the biggest ,loosers are germany and america. Germany for having lost the parade example of a solid, trusted currency: the D-Mark, and america for having suffered a massive loss of fulltime jobs to foreign countries, that it miserably tries to compensate for by inferior part-time and mini-jobs. such jobs that often do not secure the existence of those doing them, and minimize the tax income for the state, form the lion's share of the "job miracle" in the US. In other words: it is a self-deception. The situation is slightly difrferent in Germany, but follows this trend from America: although specialised workers are being sought, the lion's share of the jobs being created in the past 24 months are again no healthy fulltime jobs, but minijobs, payed with wages that often get subsidised by the state, means: by the German tax payers. This is no self-supporting a system, of course. Also, more and mor eoften new companies get build, like the german oprivate mail "PIN", that from the very beginning calculate with insufficien wages at the extreme and insufficient minimum of the scale, in ordert to come up with an economical scheme by which they want to survive. But I think to build a new company that needs unhealthy cost calculations and systematical abuse of the weakness of unemployed crowds, should not be built at all. It is cynical, at best. It means for employees to live just from one day to the next, withoiut any chance for build reserves to secure their high age, or support raising families.

There is this cliche especially in america of the europpean and german nanny state that shoves milk and honey into people's butts all for nothing. Haha, you guys do not know what really goes on here. These are exceptions form the rule. The harsh reality for the majority of families is a very more grim one. and almost all statistical markers indicating a worrying raise of social-related trends towards the unwanted extremes and a threatening worstening of the social situation of many people - are climbing, fast. Children, old ones and pensioneers, working class, increasingly middle class, and families with children are the ones being affected the most.

You better don't raise a family, and you better do not wish to become old anymnore these days. Statistically, in Germany, having children is the - by far - greastest risk to suffer existential economical collpapse and become poor and dependant. What this means for the future chances of a national community you probably can imagine. This index category of having a family outclasses any other risk index - in rich Germany!

Da steckt der Wurm drin, ganz ganz tief innen drin, und er nagt und frisst und hört nicht auf.