Protectionism 2

Isn't it ironic that the same folks that tend to engage in class warfare in the U.S., demanding that the rich "pay their fair share", confine their view to the nation and not the world? It would seem that the only "fair" solution is to keep poorer people from competing for jobs while taking money from those more wealthy through the tax code. All roads leading to a single set of pockets.

At least the fair traders are consistent, if short sighted, in their arguments. They say they want fair trade, which is to say, they want foreign nations to respect certain labor standards before the U.S. opens its markets to their goods. The government under such policies can then say that it is "leveling the playing field" for all parties.

Aside from the arrogance that the rest of the world ought to follow our labor policies, tax codes, and regulations, this doesn't seem realistic at all. In 20 years, China is going to be an economic superpower. They won't have gotten there by meeting U.S. labor standards. Come to think of it, has any rich nation gotten where it is by applying such standards? No, because such regulations, as important as they are, are a luxury that only a highly capitalized economy can afford. Demanding the same of developing nations is to demand they not develop.

And really, as a humanist, can we say it is a bad bargain to lift 2 billion people out of abject poverty for the price of 30 to 40 years of economic development that does not meet our evolved labor standards? I say humanity will prosper in unimaginable ways by elevating so many people from survival-living to active contributors in the modern economy.

I'll make a prediction, if the economic development of India and China continues without being stifled by nervous rich nations, the damage done to the environment and to people in sweatshopts, etc. will be far, far, far outweighed by the benefits. Consider the inventions that will come from providing education and a free market with capital to 2 billion people.

These developments will raise the standard of living far more than a government regulation about hours worked. They will do more for the environment than a government regulation on green house gas emissions. The vastness of human treasure that is being unlocked is simply not balanced by any other consideration.

Protectionism

I get bothered when I hear people complain about how China is going to take over the world, or that our jobs are all going overseas to places where people will work for a few dollars per hour. I submit there are two possibilities for why the rich nations of the world are rich:

Either, the people of the rich nations have earned it, in which case I see no reason why there should be any sense of entitlement to future wealth, since that ought to be earned as well, or, the people of the rich nations have stolen it, in which case I see no justifiable reason to maintain the status quo (that being most people held in poverty while global elites live the good life).

And if it be a combination of the two, then both of my conclusions would apply in appropriate measure. Being born in America, that is to say winning the geographical or parental lottery, does not bestow an entitlement to wealth at the expense of others who rolled snake eyes (being born in Bangladesh, for example).

I don't take the phrase "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" to apply only to those holding an American passport. I believe that for the most part the rich nations have earned their wealth and power, through the embrace of both economic and political freedoms.

I don't think there ought to be an orchestrated redistribution of global wealth. But, I do think that such a redistribution of wealth is inevitable as more and more people, previously locked away from the modern world, emerge into it. Such a redistribution would also have the effect of calming global envies.

And, whether the rich nations embrace such an opening of opportunities to others or not, I think the redistribution will take place. We are now determining how bloody and costly it will be when it finally happens. Things are out of equilibrium, which is a fragile and unnatural state.

I just don't see why we can't let a person from China or India compete with someone from the U.S. The work is worth what it is worth, may the best worker win.

A More Reasonable Hour

As I have mentioned on countless occasions before, direct employment is for suckers. After all, benefits can be found on the open market, taxes can be better managed, and you can get paid for every hour as a contractor.

Yet, I am very soon to be a direct employee for EA. Why did I change my mind? Cowardice? Convenience?

Yes. In order to continue my employment with EA as a contractor, legal threats, legal risks, more bothersome governmental regulation, and just the inherent difficulty of doing something differently all had to be contended with. Our world is thoroughly institutionalized. It may be a nice ideal to be my own man, apart from the crowd, standing on my own, independent, free, and in control, but in reality it amounts to constantly fighting the status quo, which is exhausting and frustrating to others. Why grate?

So, while I build up another burst of idealistic enthusiasm, I'll just cruise downstream for a while and enjoy the trip.

Two Things

First, I just finished reading my naval history of WW1 "Castles of Steel" and really enjoyed it. This book is actually credible, and I learned some new stuff, which is always fun.

Second, I've taken a "permanent" position with EA on the NASCAR team. All of you out there worrying that I might starve (more than usual) or something can now put your fears to rest. I've committed to at least a year. At a more reasonable hour, I'll explain how it was that I completely flip-flopped on modes of employment. (I am so fickle.)