Had enough of obamanomics?

[Openmind]

I'm sure I could find a similar article from CATO.



Well, 6 quarters is not two years, but yes, it does come close.



More Heritage:

In 2000, the top 60 percent of taxpayers paid 100 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent collectively paid no income taxes. Lawmakers writing the 2001 tax cuts faced quite a challenge in giving the bulk of the income tax savings to a population that was already paying no income taxes.

Rather than exclude these Americans, lawmakers used the tax code to subsidize them. (Some economists would say this made that group's collective tax burden negative.)First, lawmakers lowered the initial tax brackets from 15 percent to 10 percent and then expanded the refundable child tax credit, which, along with the refundable earned income tax credit (EITC), reduced the typical low-income tax burden to well below zero. As a result, the U.S. Treasury now mails tax "refunds" to a large proportion of these Americans that exceed the amounts of tax that they actually paid. All in all, the number of tax filers with zero or negative income tax liability rose from 30 million to 40 million, or about 30 percent of all tax filers. The remaining 70 percent of tax filers received lower income tax rates, lower investment taxes, and lower estate taxes from the 2001 legislation.

Consequently, from 2000 to 2004, the share of all individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40 percent dropped from zero percent to –4 percent, meaning that the average family in those quintiles received a subsidy from the IRS. By contrast, the share paid by the top quintile of households (by income) increased from 81 percent to 85 percent.

Expanding the data to include all federal taxes, the share paid by the top quintile edged up from 66.6 percent in 2000 to 67.1 percent in 2004, while the bottom 40 percent's share dipped from 5.9 percent to 5.4 percent.



Are you claiming that the Bush Tax cuts caused the financial collapse?

The Bush tax cuts associated with his huge expenses (not budgeted!) on the war in Iraq and his deregulation for everyone of his friends certainly were a BIG part of the financial collapse! And the problem is that those decisions made under BUSH are STILL continuing to cost us a bundle today!

I know the bottom 40% don't pay tax (at least not Federal taxes!). Once again, you can't squeeze juice out of a dry turnip!. . .And. . . have you ever thought that, a large percentage of elderly, disabled AND veterans are a big part of those 40%? What do you want those people, living at or close to the poverty line to give up? Their morning cup of coffee? Their once a week meal at a fast food?

If you make $5 millions a year, what do you care if you pay 1.5 or 2 millions in tax? Would that keep you from taking your family to a nice restaurant or from going on vacation?

Well, even $40 a month less would be a catastrophy for people living in the bottom 40% of our population.

Would you rather not pay tax, even get a tiny bit of money back, and live with $15000 a year, or would you rather make $1 million a year and pay $300,000 in tax?

Guess what my choice is!

 

[BigRob]

The Bush tax cuts associated with his huge expenses (not budgeted!) on the war in Iraq and his deregulation for everyone of his friends certainly were a BIG part of the financial collapse! And the problem is that those decisions made under BUSH are STILL continuing to cost us a bundle today!

What specific deregulation are you talking about here?

I know the bottom 40% don't pay tax (at least not Federal taxes!). Once again, you can't squeeze juice out of a dry turnip!. . .And. . . have you ever thought that, a large percentage of elderly, disabled AND veterans are a big part of those 40%? What do you want those people, living at or close to the poverty line to give up? Their morning cup of coffee? Their once a week meal at a fast food?

I don't want them to give up anything..in fact, I want them to keep more of their money...same as I want to keep more of mine.

I want to dramatically reduce spending, and enact business friendly policies.

If you make $5 millions a year, what do you care if you pay 1.5 or 2 millions in tax? Would that keep you from taking your family to a nice restaurant or from going on vacation?

Well, even $40 a month less would be a catastrophy for people living in the bottom 40% of our population.

Sounds to me like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I don't see a problem with enacting a flat tax..and if you want to make something like veterans benefits not count towards income, then I can get behind that.

Would you rather not pay tax, even get a tiny bit of money back, and live with $15000 a year, or would you rather make $1 million a year and pay $300,000 in tax?

Guess what my choice is!

It is a false choice...I would rather make $1 million a year and pay $0 in tax...I would additionally rather make $1 million and year and pay $100,000 in tax, etc etc.

 

[Openmind]

What specific deregulation are you talking about here?



I don't want them to give up anything..in fact, I want them to keep more of their money...same as I want to keep more of mine.

I want to dramatically reduce spending, and enact business friendly policies.



Sounds to me like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I don't see a problem with enacting a flat tax..and if you want to make something like veterans benefits not count towards income, then I can get behind that.



It is a false choice...I would rather make $1 million a year and pay $0 in tax...I would additionally rather make $1 million and year and pay $100,000 in tax, etc etc.

Wouldn't it be great if taxes disappeared entirely?

But so would the roads, and the airports, and the dams, and the national parks, and education. . .
And people who cannot make a living, would just die. It's simple. . .let's just look at many of the African countries. . .so much money in that country, and yet, so much poverty. . .

Yep. . .you want a climate that is favorable to business? I do know you realize that modern, updated infrastructure, airports and roads are extremely important to business.

Someone has to pay taxes, and yes, it should be proportional to one's ability to pay.
If you do agree with that, maybe it's time to stop belly-aching about the two lowest quintiles? As I said before, a good portion of the lowest quintile is where most disabled people (including disabled kids), elderlies and some veterans cluster!

 

[Hobo1]

It seems to me, after reading all the facts and opinions expressed here, that the federal debt is the result of a multitude of expectations from the government with no one balancing the checkbook. Plus in our personal lives there has been an unwillingness for anybody to say "I have an ethical responsibility to my country just like I do to my family."

We are all partly responsible in our own ways. I think of myself, a retired businessman. I wanted a favorable and stable business environment - which meant being able to take advantage of the stock market climb and yet taking advantages of loopholes in the tax code. I complained about the illegal aliens who cross the border to pick our fruits and vegetables, yet I allowed a Mexican to live in my garage if he would do work around the house. That list of hypocrisies is a long one. Yet, in the past, I passed it off as "everybody does it" or you've got to be clever to get ahead in the United States.

I am sure every elected official can look back and see where he did favors for special interest groups so he could get money for his re-election. And every loan officer had to recognize a problem with giving a mortgage to someone who had a low credit rating; and then re-selling that mortgage in the form of a mysterious derivative to other banks in North America and Europe. How quickly we put aside our breaches of ethics when we are making big money.

No other country has a huge army, navy and air force spread out around the globe. Nobody else is fighting multiple foreign wars. But in America, who can put a price on keeping our country secure? That's pure sophistry. Yet few of us cared enough to "fight city hall" when nothing is directly hurting us. Our life is good. I can voice strong opinions over a Saturday barbecue with friends, but I am not going to march at some rally for the cause.

I am guessing that is the way all Representative Republics function. Only when the pendulum of government spending and public expectations swings so far to one side that the ball must suddenly swing back the other direction - and everyone will gets hurt.

The Federal debt does not have one defined cause. It was caused by our desire for the government to make our lives easier; while expecting that someone else would pay the bill. Everyone had the good life: from the banker to the union worker on the assembly line. Yet no one wanted to look too deep to see that the country was steadily going bankrupt.

And now we all hate the people we elected to run our government. Kind of reminds me of Rome who, after 400 years of democracy, turn to Caesar to run the country. We live at a time when dramatic turbulence could change our fundamental way if life. Certainly many great countries have ended an epoch of greatness with revolution and chaos. Look at the British empire after WWII. Or Russia with the fall of Communism.

This day of Armageddon could be avoided if we would all put our shoulder to the wheel and worked harder and asked less of the government. It is time we put aside our ideological differences and recognize we need to restart our economic engine. Everybody must bear their share of the pain - learn to do with less and contribute more to shore up our nation. That goes for the proverbial grandmother who always needs a hip replacement to the stockbroker who needs to give up his company car.

We must change our attitude to "Ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for the country". As long as we regard this debt crisis as a political game of don't gore my ox, I fear we will loose everything this country claims to represent: the land of liberty where every boy can become President or a second Bill Gates.

 

[Openmind]

It seems to me, after reading all the facts and opinions expressed here, that the federal debt is the result of a multitude of expectations from the government with no one balancing the checkbook. Plus in our personal lives there has been an unwillingness for anybody to say "I have an ethical responsibility to my country just like I do to my family."

We are all partly responsible in our own ways. I think of myself, a retired businessman. I wanted a favorable and stable business environment - which meant being able to take advantage of the stock market climb and yet taking advantages of loopholes in the tax code. I complained about the illegal aliens who cross the border to pick our fruits and vegetables, yet I allowed a Mexican to live in my garage if he would do work around the house. That list of hypocrisies is a long one. Yet, in the past, I passed it off as "everybody does it" or you've got to be clever to get ahead in the United States.

I am sure every elected official can look back and see where he did favors for special interest groups so he could get money for his re-election. And every loan officer had to recognize a problem with giving a mortgage to someone who had a low credit rating; and then re-selling that mortgage in the form of a mysterious derivative to other banks in North America and Europe. How quickly we put aside our breaches of ethics when we are making big money.

No other country has a huge army, navy and air force spread out around the globe. Nobody else is fighting multiple foreign wars. But in America, who can put a price on keeping our country secure? That's pure sophistry. Yet few of us cared enough to "fight city hall" when nothing is directly hurting us. Our life is good. I can voice strong opinions over a Saturday barbecue with friends, but I am not going to march at some rally for the cause.

I am guessing that is the way all Representative Republics function. Only when the pendulum of government spending and public expectations swings so far to one side that the ball must suddenly swing back the other direction - and everyone will gets hurt.

The Federal debt does not have one defined cause. It was caused by our desire for the government to make our lives easier; while expecting that someone else would pay the bill. Everyone had the good life: from the banker to the union worker on the assembly line. Yet no one wanted to look too deep to see that the country was steadily going bankrupt.

And now we all hate the people we elected to run our government. Kind of reminds me of Rome who, after 400 years of democracy, turn to Caesar to run the country. We live at a time when dramatic turbulence could change our fundamental way if life. Certainly many great countries have ended an epoch of greatness with revolution and chaos. Look at the British empire after WWII. Or Russia with the fall of Communism.

This day of Armageddon could be avoided if we would all put our shoulder to the wheel and worked harder and asked less of the government. It is time we put aside our ideological differences and recognize we need to restart our economic engine. Everybody must bear their share of the pain - learn to do with less and contribute more to shore up our nation. That goes for the proverbial grandmother who always needs a hip replacement to the stockbroker who needs to give up his company car.

We must change our attitude to "Ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for the country". As long as we regard this debt crisis as a political game of don't gore my ox, I fear we will loose everything this country claims to represent: the land of liberty where every boy can become President or a second Bill Gates.

Thank you for an excellent, honest, and balanced post!

You know? . . . . You KNOW!

 

[Lagboltz]

It seems to me, ...........
........We must change our attitude to "Ask not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for the country". As long as we regard this debt crisis as a political game of don't gore my ox, I fear we will loose everything this country claims to represent: the land of liberty where every boy can become President or a second Bill Gates.

I second that. A great post.

A major problem of the US is that the government, the corporations, and the citizens all sacrifice long term prosperity for short term gains.

 

[OldTrapper]

I second that. A great post.

A major problem of the US is that the government, the corporations, and the citizens all sacrifice long term prosperity for short term gains.

I don't think that the government, or the corporations, have sacrificed anything. It was those two entities that created the mess we are now in, and for many I think it was done by design. Since long before Roosevelt there has been a drive for a globalist society, and the schools have teaching such a philosophy since the 60's.

The only ones who have lost out in this amtter have been the people. They have seen their freedoms lost to government regulations, they have seen their opportunities lost to the corporate structure. They have lost their homes, their jobs, their pensions, their 401K's, or their wealth in general. And all of this which has been lost has been grabbed up by the top 2%, or maybe 20%, who are the ones who controlled the wealth, and were able to take advantage of the crisis once they had created it.

Corporations are betting on a global system for their survival no matter who comes out on top. To them it matters not if the Chinese, or the Indians, or the UN, takes control. To them they have the wealth, and the power, to survive. Patriotism is now considered to be a "mental defect", or lack of education, since it implies allegiance to anything other then the globalist system.

Washington argued that the US should be an independent nation neutral in foreign affairs. Jefferson warned of the aristocracy of the banks, and the corporations, and he desired to crsuh them in their infancy. He also advised for the country to manufacture its own needs, and to export only the surplus, and import only what we could not manufacture. All of this has been ignored as more power shifted from the people to the government, and to the corporation.

If one could figure out how to return to the foundations, and the intent, of the Founders, this country could once again become great. However, until that can be accomplished we are bound to the road being traveled which will bring about the demise of the country, and the enslavement of the people.

It cannot be said we don't have the natural resources to regain control of our own destiny. It can only be said we lack the courage to do so.

 

[Openmind]

I don't think that the government, or the corporations, have sacrificed anything. It was those two entities that created the mess we are now in, and for many I think it was done by design. Since long before Roosevelt there has been a drive for a globalist society, and the schools have teaching such a philosophy since the 60's.

The only ones who have lost out in this amtter have been the people. They have seen their freedoms lost to government regulations, they have seen their opportunities lost to the corporate structure. They have lost their homes, their jobs, their pensions, their 401K's, or their wealth in general. And all of this which has been lost has been grabbed up by the top 2%, or maybe 20%, who are the ones who controlled the wealth, and were able to take advantage of the crisis once they had created it.

Corporations are betting on a global system for their survival no matter who comes out on top. To them it matters not if the Chinese, or the Indians, or the UN, takes control. To them they have the wealth, and the power, to survive. Patriotism is now considered to be a "mental defect", or lack of education, since it implies allegiance to anything other then the globalist system.

Washington argued that the US should be an independent nation neutral in foreign affairs. Jefferson warned of the aristocracy of the banks, and the corporations, and he desired to crsuh them in their infancy. He also advised for the country to manufacture its own needs, and to export only the surplus, and import only what we could not manufacture. All of this has been ignored as more power shifted from the people to the government, and to the corporation.

If one could figure out how to return to the foundations, and the intent, of the Founders, this country could once again become great. However, until that can be accomplished we are bound to the road being traveled which will bring about the demise of the country, and the enslavement of the people.

It cannot be said we don't have the natural resources to regain control of our own destiny. It can only be said we lack the courage to do so.

I mostly agree with you. The place where I would disagree (I think, if I understand your stand correctly. . . if I don't, I apologize) is re: globalization. Not that I don't believe that the world is on the path to globalization (and already well engaged), but I disagree that globalization has to be a negative thing for the world and/or for America.

I believe that it all depends how much power people retain to make decisions, and how much the big corporation just put in place "straw men" to direct the people in directions that only they, the few mega corporations of the world, will allow them to go.

And, I'm sorry to say this, but organized religion is one of the "mega corporation" or at least is totally complicit with mega corporation to drug the mass into accepting anything that mega corporation will want the masses to believe.

But, globalization in itself could be very positive, if interests of the masses, rather than the top 1% or even the top .1 %, are considered and respected.

You see, I see the world comprised of countries who are like fairly (and increasingly) permeable cells. Most people have at some point study the phenomenon of "osmosis," where cells that are side by side but are inequal in "wealth" (or humidity, consistency, etc. . ) will eventually go through the phenomenon of osmoses, where the two cells will equalize through transfer of materias though the permeable cells walls. The more permeable the cells walls, the faster the equalization occurs.

The world, until about 1 century ago, was fairly isolated in large countries where the "cell walls" were not really permeable. . . so the process of osmoses was ALMOST non-existant, although civilisations did "bleed" on each others through travels across large oceans.

Today, because of the ease and the speed of transportation from one side of the world to the other, added to the ease and the speed of communication across the world, each country's "cell wall" is highly permeable. . .and you cannot reverse this.

So, the natural process of osmosis is speeded up. It is up to us to assure that this phenomena doesn't result in the killing of one cell by the other, or the replacement of one healthy cell's chemistry by the an unhealty cell's chemistry.

Today, the mega corporations and the big government are "in charge" of that globalization phenomena. PEOPLE are either unconsciencious of that phenomena as unavoidable and are resistant to it, or they are trusting of the mega corporation good will in "making it all for the best. . .since it means more money for the top!"

The only way people can participate in this phenomena and influence HOW it develops, is to look at it with open eyes, to request accountability, and to stop putting their weight in the same basket as the mega corporation!

Yes, this is just an opinion. You can beat me up for it, but I have a right to express it.

 

[Hobo1]

I believe that it all depends how much power people retain to make decisions, and how much the big corporation just put in place "straw men" to direct the people in directions that only they, the few mega corporations of the world, will allow them to go.

.....

The only way people can participate in this phenomena and influence HOW it develops, is to look at it with open eyes, to request accountability, and to stop putting their weight in the same basket as the mega corporation!

Yes, this is just an opinion. You can beat me up for it, but I have a right to express it.

I have recently been traveling throughout Southeast Asia and have seen the effects of globalization. Being retired, I remember the mega-corporations that were king in the US. Today they are either dead or continue to be king because they remember the customer is just as important as making profits.

A great example is McDonalds. I grew up in Chicago and remember the early McDonalds - which only had a few restaurants in the Chicago area. In the course of 40 years, they have developed an organizational structure that is almost impossibly complex. McD restaurants can be found EVERYWHERE. Not just in tourist areas catering to the tourists, but in neighborhoods serving the local population. I traveled to places far, far off the beaten tourist trail and would still find a McD filled with local people eating the basic hamburger menu - but modified to match local tastes (like rice as an option instead of french fries).

I am sure McD has restaurants in outer Mongolia - all franchised out of Chicago and held to the highest standards of quality, cleanliness, reasonable salaries and local prices. Yet, they also participate in local charities, like McDonald's house. Ronald McD visits kids in a local hospital or orphanage. They train their employees to speak properly in both the local language and in English (now the world's universal language). Here is Ronald McDonald greeting customers in the traditional Thailand style.

Companies like this - and there are many from the US - grow and profit by treating the community with respect and dignity. Plus, they are smart enough to adapt to the local culture. Contrast that with American car companies that are just now starting to recognize that the steering wheel must be on the right side. The number of American cars on the road are few and far between. Yet Toyota and Honda have partnered with local companies to manufacture cars which have new, local name but still use the same basic design from the primary car company.

Fundamental business practice says you cannot screw people who are potential new customers. These days the big banks operate in a very unfriendly atmosphere. Yes, they make money because everyone requires a bank - but nobody is a happy customer and that must be hurting business.

Good business ethics is good business. When a business forgets that, it looses business and has a dim future.

 

[Openmind]

I have recently been traveling throughout Southeast Asia and have seen the effects of globalization. Being retired, I remember the mega-corporations that were king in the US. Today they are either dead or continue to be king because they remember the customer is just as important as making profits.

A great example is McDonalds. I grew up in Chicago and remember the early McDonalds - which only had a few restaurants in the Chicago area. In the course of 40 years, they have developed an organizational structure that is almost impossibly complex. McD restaurants can be found EVERYWHERE. Not just in tourist areas catering to the tourists, but in neighborhoods serving the local population. I traveled to places far, far off the beaten tourist trail and would still find a McD filled with local people eating the basic hamburger menu - but modified to match local tastes (like rice as an option instead of french fries).

I am sure McD has restaurants in outer Mongolia - all franchised out of Chicago and held to the highest standards of quality, cleanliness, reasonable salaries and local prices. Yet, they also participate in local charities, like McDonald's house. Ronald McD visits kids in a local hospital or orphanage. They train their employees to speak properly in both the local language and in English (now the world's universal language). Here is Ronald McDonald greeting customers in the traditional Thailand style.

Companies like this - and there are many from the US - grow and profit by treating the community with respect and dignity. Plus, they are smart enough to adapt to the local culture. Contrast that with American car companies that are just now starting to recognize that the steering wheel must be on the right side. The number of American cars on the road are few and far between. Yet Toyota and Honda have partnered with local companies to manufacture cars which have new, local name but still use the same basic design from the primary car company.

Fundamental business practice says you cannot screw people who are potential new customers. These days the big banks operate in a very unfriendly atmosphere. Yes, they make money because everyone requires a bank - but nobody is a happy customer and that must be hurting business.

Good business ethics is good business. When a business forgets that, it looses business and has a dim future.

I don't disagree with you about this either. I just do not trust that all mega corporations are well intended. Murdoch is certainly not a good exemple for sound or ethical business practices, and neither are many of the Oil companies.

But above all, the huge Defense industry could just as easily be called the "war industry," and its only means of survival is exactly that: war. In fact, I remember reading that the Iraqui war WAS needed to preserve the war industry who had been in decline since the fall of the communiste block. ..and that, basically, Bush (although in my mind, Cheney was the real leader, and Bush just the strawman) had been driven to attacking Iraq not only by the Oil industry, but mostly by the "defense" industry.

 

[Lagboltz]

I don't think that the government, or the corporations, have sacrificed anything.....

There might have been some ambiguity in the simple statement I made:

A major problem of the US is that the government, the corporations, and the citizens all sacrifice long term prosperity for short term gains.

The government has spent future money that we don't have for short term "gains" of war, Medicare, etc. Long term prosperity at this point is quite compromised. How are our children going to handle our debt?

Corporations try for short term gains by maximizing the values of today's stock and put themselves in a situation of financial risk and questionable prosperity, like Enron. And yes Madoff tried for short term gains.

Citizens sacrifice long term prosperity for short term gains by overrunning their credit cards, and not saving for retirement like they should.

 

[OldTrapper]

There might have been some ambiguity in the simple statement I made:


The government has spent future money that we don't have for short term "gains" of war, Medicare, etc. Long term prosperity at this point is quite compromised. How are our children going to handle our debt?

Corporations try for short term gains by maximizing the values of today's stock and put themselves in a situation of financial risk and questionable prosperity, like Enron. And yes Madoff tried for short term gains.

Citizens sacrifice long term prosperity for short term gains by overrunning their credit cards, and not saving for retirement like they should.

IMO, globalization has had no benefit to the American people, nor to the world. In China, slave labor is continued due to the corporate influence, and to American welath being transferred there. In Africa, American corporations ignore, and take advantage of, human trafficking in child slave labor for the sake of profit.

The American corporation is not dead as you assert. It simply has changed its face, and shown little concern for this nation as a whole. This globalization has caused the need for more government interference in matters, and has produced a debtor nation with some 40% of the population now dependent on the services that government provides. And people will always vote for their interests.

Until the time comes that Americans follow the advice of the Founders, and provides for its own needs before that of the world, it will continue on its decline.

 

[Openmind]

IMO, globalization has had no benefit to the American people, nor to the world. In China, slave labor is continued due to the corporate influence, and to American welath being transferred there. In Africa, American corporations ignore, and take advantage of, human trafficking in child slave labor for the sake of profit.

The American corporation is not dead as you assert. It simply has changed its face, and shown little concern for this nation as a whole. This globalization has caused the need for more government interference in matters, and has produced a debtor nation with some 40% of the population now dependent on the services that government provides. And people will always vote for their interests.

Until the time comes that Americans follow the advice of the Founders, and provides for its own needs before that of the world, it will continue on its decline.

I partially agree. I agree that the American government should provide for the need of his own people before the need of the rest of the world, but I make a BIG difference between our government spending money across the world on WARS and on Human assistance (as in catastrophic relieve, and humanitarian development). The problem is. . .seeing through the "propaganda" of the war corporation to why they advocate intervention!

 

[Hobo1]

IMO, globalization has had no benefit to the American people, nor to the world. In China, slave labor is continued due to the corporate influence, and to American wealth being transferred there. In Africa, American corporations ignore, and take advantage of, human trafficking in child slave labor for the sake of profit.

Let's be clear on some facts. The wages paid to factory workers in China are higher than wages paid to workers throughout the rest of China. Most Chinese still eek out a living as a farmer. The Chinese worker migrates from the interior to work in factories along the coast because of higher wages. The wages of all Central and SE Asia are typically less than $200 per month. That holds true for waitress or maid. A huge number of Chinese who work in management positions are dramatically improving their stand of living. A $1000 per month salary goes a long way in China.

Human trafficking is a humanitarian problem where people are sold into slavery to work as prostitutes, etc. It is not a significant factor in the economics of any country. In Africa the problem is corrupt governments, terrible business environment and lazy workers that keep that continent at poverty levels. Again, human trafficking is not an economic factor.

The American corporation is not dead as you assert. It simply has changed its face, and shown little concern for this nation as a whole. This globalization has caused the need for more government interference in matters, and has produced a debtor nation with some 40% of the population now dependent on the services that government provides. And people will always vote for their interests.

American corporations face numerous obstacles not found in other countries. They are forced to meet high water and air environmental standards; must abide by local, state and federal regulations -from local zoning limitations to worker safety standards. Plus the high standard of living in the US requires that workers be paid a higher salary than most non-Western countries.

Many US companies have benefited greatly because of globalization. If you travel the world you will see that even in very poor countries, companies like McDonalds, 7-11, and Caterpillar are thriving. Plus, in the stores, products from companies like Proctor & Gamble, Johnson and Johnson, Coca-cola, Levis, plus many more are found everywhere in the most remote corners of the world.

 

[ProudLefty]

It is not a zero-sum game. When another country's standard of living rises that does not mean America notches down a bit. When one country does well, all countries do well.

Globalization really means that the demand for goods rises and therefore we are all better off.