Re^10: You have a point... :-)

[polettix]

Sorry I don't have the references you urge to have - but I maybe don't need them, because we're not saying things that are at opposite sided. Moreover, I note that you tend to ask for references without giving ones, which does not seem fair this second time.

I've tried to be clear that the regulation should encourage higher life standards, and not only lower costs for corporations.

those factories often have higher standards than the alternative work places overseas

Often means not always, which is a pity. Regulation should strive to impose that products that are produced overseas with something resembling the standards one has at home, otherwise we're closing our eyes. Moreover, they can be higher than the other native work places (which is something that I would like to see evidence of), but my point was subtly different. What I want to say is that going overseas is a way to avoid to adhere to the standards one is imposed to follow at home, and this goes at the expense of workers overseas.

the consensus among economists seems to be that this is part of the only ladder to prosperity that has worked, historically. We in the West climbed something similar in the 19th century.

This is probably what you're looking for contradiction pointers from me. But the fact is that I don't want to contradict this. This might be what worked for the west in the 19th century, but I would also remember you that workers had to fight hard to reach what they have today (and that they are sadly losing). I also think that today the conditions are quite different with respect the 19th century, and I'm quite skeptical about the same path being followed in the third and fourth world. There is a precise interest in keeping them as they are.

As I said, all this is not intended to be an arid complaining. I agree that there are win-win opportunities overseas for companies. What I don't agree is that there is not balance, and the weaker side gains something resembling a Pirro victory. Given the fact that our governments are so keen to spread freedom all over the world, I was wondering if it could be done in manners that were not only intended to give benefits to the army industry and the oil market.

[BerntB]

How about this for a reference? Krugman says more or less exactly what I've seen most economists claim. He isn't right wing, either. Again, why is that wrong?

workers had to fight hard to reach what they have today (and that they are sadly losing).

Yeah, and the rest of the world will have to fight hard, too. I don't know if that regulation thing works between countries. To me, it sounds like politicians trying to make another impossible-to-implement question into a career.

If there shows up lots of educated people willing to work for a fraction of the previous cost, there will be friction... and renegotiation of old deals. It will even out, over time, when the new workers get more money.

Points:

• Yes, it sucks to be us -- getting caught in the middle
• The only ones I've seen with your arguments are left wing. It is hard to take the Swedish left wing seriously. E.g. Israel-bashing and never criticising dictatorships that are factors of ten worse. Etc, etc. Italian lefties might look less like an European variant of Bush's religion?
• I just hope that there won't be too much damage to the economic system from all these fast changes.