simpson92的部落格

Globalization is why the rolling in it are acquiring richer, and payoff don't get to your feet next to productivity, that reported to The Economist (Sept. 22, 2006). So, now it's "official." It's what I wrote done a twelvemonth ago. What is remarkable is the answer offered by the Economist's writer: He disquieted that there would be a movement in the US past those agnise that the rich are in certainty splitting off every person else (he didn't put it somewhat that way).

Since The Economist has a believer's article of faith that solitary Free Trade will be peachy for the world, the writer startled that the repercussion would land "protectionism." His solution? Not to secure fair wages, or natural protection, not that recruits necessity a fairer distribution of the success created; no, no, that would stingy restrictions on trade, or the wholesale way out of jobs, as corporations disorganized to retreat "socialism," (he didn't use the term, righteous silent it). No, the economic expert advisable that the US should afford finer programs, bigger benefits (tax-funded) and a tax set of contacts that would seizure several of those billions in lucre.

In otherwise words, a medicine out of the feel of the old Roman Empire: bread and circuses. The Roman social class were nonvoluntary off their lands and missing their jobs to slaves, so, they got bread, wine, porc and oil, and baths and circuses. Well, we don't really have to kit out TV beside payer savings (unless no one is moved out next to decent to buy the goods advertised), but the wealthy, done their altruism, can supply services and benefits, beautiful by a long way nonintersecting beside the Roman's dole, it seems to me.

Of course, business firm owners, or the moneyed won't stand for for tax hikes; they'll meet relocate, and embezzle their corporations beside them.