"Australopithecus scobis" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tom Watson wrote:

We are the largest consumers but we do not protect our market.

I've read enough economics and history enough to be sensitive to the
arguments against protected markets but I've lived in areas that have
been gutted both economically and spiritually by the results of an
open trade policy.

Do we want our standard of living to regress to the mean, in a global
sense?

Don't define standard of living in inches of television screen. Painful
as it is, lifting the standard of living (measured in terms of
childhood immunizations and literacy) in the undeveloped world will, in
time, lead to a better balance. I don't want to drive a SUV, or have a
huge TV (nothing much on except PBS, anyway.) I'm not fat, I don't like
McFoam nuggets or mindless consumption. (Tools don't count )

The challenge is to get those undeveloped countries to leapfrog the
Industrial Pollution stage. China didn't--what a mess.

"Regress to the mean"? No, but reduce ridiculous consumption here and
increase basic survival requirements there. That sappy not-Carlin piece
does contain a large measure of wisdom, treacly as is is.

Look to small, high quality work as a way to survive the changes.
Knight Toolworks is the sort of thing I mean. Wouldn't you rather live
in a small house made solidly than a fiberboard monstrosity? Pay the
builders instead of the bankers, and it could be reality today.
--
"Keep your ass behind you."

We don't need to be conerned with standard of our trading partners, things
need to be tied to the cost of living...mjh