4 ms·
Right now the U.S. still has the best universities in the world, which is the heart of the non-manufacturing IP economy. If the U.S. cuts off their universitie
by mozumder 9y ago
Right now the U.S. still has the best universities in the world, which is the heart of the non-manufacturing IP economy.
If the U.S. cuts off their universities by following the lead of the anti-knowledge conservatives, and if Asian countries decide to develop their universities to compete fully - not just in tech (which they are doing), but in things like the arts and business - the U.S. is completely fucked over the long-term.
Another comparative advantage that the U.S. has is that the U.S. still attracts migrants. During the 90's economic boom, immigration was wide open, bringing in millions of people. Each immigrant drives demand. For example, they need a place to live, which causes someone else to sell their house to them for a nice profit, leading to further economic activity.
If the U.S. follows the lead of the dumb working-class Trump/Bernie voter that incorrectly thinks migrants are a bad thing, and therefore reduces immigration, then that turns into another massive economic loss.
A good way to be poor is to close your borders.
- rrggrr 9y agoNone of this is what the article is about. The article, as it relates to your comment, is about imbalances in GDP growth between the developed and almost-developed world, and how the expected upside for the developed world hasn't materialized. the non-manufacturing IP economy, as you put it, hasn't generated enough well paying jobs or enough domestic product, to offset massive export of domestic wealth, capacity and assets. If your argument is that an influx of unskilled immigrant labor and an army of college professors can correct this imbalance then I'm speechless.
- mozumder 9y ago> If your argument is that an influx of unskilled immigrant labor and an army of college professors can correct this imbalance then I'm speechless. Then try harder to formulate a response, because that's the proper argument for globalization: an influx of unskilled immigrant labor and an army of college professors is what will save the world. The article itself describes how globalization has benefitted the world, in particular, the massive reduction in of poverty in China, Korea, India, Poland, Indonesia, and Thailand after they opened up for globalization. It even says China went from 2% to 20% of the world's share of manufacturing, in line with it's share of world population. How is that a bad thing? Did you think the world was supposed to be static? That the third-world was supposed to be poor and suffering forever?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]