Fareed Zakaria:Education & World War Heals Economy

[NoMoreLunacy]

Reaganomics would be a good starting point, although Zakaria makes no effort to address that conservative argument. He instead credits the economic growth of the 80's and 90's to government investing in education and infrastructure.

We all know that uneducated people without any infrastructure are always the highest drivers of growth. Consider Afghanistan, for example. That country is booming.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< Either one is unable to read adequately or is just purposely ignoring the whole story..and since I don't believe it is the reading comprehension that is the problem, I have to think more the latter. >>>

...so which part are you advocating despite opposition? and why?

[NoMoreLunacy]

I think he may be advocating investing in education and infrastructure. He would be so wrong.

[hello fromWarsaw]

According to the last PHD History class I took- this is hopefully a Post-Historical world- no more major wars. So I believe Zakaria's point is the answer is education, like the Germans are doing. When will pubs realize the world economy for the USA means a highly educated country, with lots of engineering and science, no longer in screwing over the working class in manufacturing... ;D

[deziloooooo]

Jun 18, 2011 11:57:28 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

This is certainly not a dismissal of conservatism, but neither is it a full embrace of conservatism. A friend of conservatism might have more authority to criticize today's movement than someone like Zakaria who keeps a safe distance.

I agree. You are either with us or against us.


--------------------------------------------

Black or white..no grey to the matter?mmmmmmm

Sorry , disagree. I vote there is a lot of grey on these matters..not just black or white.

[NoMoreLunacy]

You disagree because you have a lot of gray matter in your brain. I prefer President's Bush's approach which prompted Iran to speed up its nuclear program.

[deziloooooo]

Jun 18, 2011 12:33:33 GMT -5 NoMoreLunacy said:

I think he may be advocating investing in education and infrastructure. He would be so wrong.

That is always good, but more investment , pump priming research and developement the industries of the 21st century that those other countrys are doing as I type, in the tune of Billions....

He even gave a way to finance them...and did offer cuts in our spending...he did this over a year ago..articles, special programs on CNN, whole article , front page in Time.., Round table with some of the most successful, as it is measured by, industialist in the Country, a few from off shore, to get their feelings, this is not something he just came up with.

When I posted here back then , the interest here..squat, LOL...and did it again a bit later...reaction here, double squat, squared ... ;D

[NoMoreLunacy]

Why can't we just be like Afghanistan and not like Germany?

[deziloooooo]

Jun 18, 2011 11:40:35 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

Some serious facts we must address. First is we in all countries are fast facing a major liability of over population. The worlds resources is a bank just like the one where you go to withdraw your money. There are just so many resources that the world can provide. We are at the point where the bank balance is getting short.
So we turn to increased tecnologies to solve our problem. Yet technology is a two edged sword. The more technology we have the less people are required to supply our needs from jobs to food. Medical tecnologies let us live longer but that just makes the over population problem worse. The question I have is the current economic problems a sign that the way we measure things becoming obsolete.
The real challange is how do we solve these issues and get off this merry-go round? Just cutting expenditures or raising taxes is not going to get it. The problems with the world economy is already way beyound that solution.

Well we could always pass a law, no more internal combustion engines , say except for emergency vehickles, ok weapons of war, have to keep up our defenses , but for everday life..no more...back to the Horse and buggy, raising food, say late 19th century..bet we get full employment...just a quick thought.

What say??

Ok, Ok, we'll keep NASCAR...[geez]

[NoMoreLunacy]

Can we keep the rights of the rich to have everything they want, though? I am all for rolling back the times for the poor and the middle class.

[marshabar1]

Thanks again for ignore feature. Suddenly the are gone and reigns.

[deziloooooo]

"Suddenly the "B's " are gone and"...not me I hope..

[safeharbor37]

Gadfly

[deziloooooo]

Jun 18, 2011 15:43:15 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

Gadfly

ahh yes "Gad fly ", thanks safe.. ;D

[marshabar1]

Jun 18, 2011 15:43:15 GMT -5 safeharbor37 said:

Gadfly

BADfly.

[marshabar1]

Fareed Zakaria, now the highly influential editor of Newsweek International, author of The Post-American World, and host of Fareed Zakaria GPS, constructed a landmark of unintended irony when he regally pronounced that “the downtrodden beg to differ” with protesters of corporate globalization (Foreign Affairs, 12/13/99).

Those who demonstrated against the World Trade Organization at the famous “battle of Seattle” in 1999, he asserted, were displaying the hubris of the “rich and privileged,” who were delivering “a familiar plea for the downtrodden of the world” by challenging the WTO’s promotion of sweatshops and environmental degradation in the impoverished Third World.

In other words, Zakaria denounced the arrogance of those who presume to advocate for the world’s poor—while appointing himself, the son of a prominent Indian attorney and politician, as the poor’s spokesperson. “There’s just one problem: The downtrodden beg to differ,” Zakaria declared.

In his eyes, the Third World’s poor eagerly welcome Western investment on any terms as a vast improvement over their current misery. Microscopic wages, long hours and heartless management in sweatshops, along with befouled air and water, might seem horrific to wealthy Westerners, but are gratefully welcomed by the desperate people of nations like Mexico, China and India. “In fact, if the demonstrators’ demands were met, the effect would be to crush the hopes of much poorer Third World workers,” he declared (12/13/99).

However, Zakaria’s immodest assertion of what the world’s poor believe turns out to be not only hypocritical, but dead wrong. His version of the poor’s desires merely repeats the conventional wisdom among top pundits, politicians and corporate CEOs. But he enjoys enormous prestige and influence as a former Foreign Affairs editor and now as Newsweek’s top foreign affairs editor, the author of a heavily-promoted book, host of a CNN show (and formerly a PBS host) and frequent guest on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show.

www.fair.org/index.php?page=3593

[deziloooooo]

Can't be right on all things Marsha..over all, his analysist of problems, ideas put forward, questioning of the real movers and shakers and respect from all sides of the political spectrum seem to me that the man is some one to be familier with, read his offerings and to at least consider his ideas.

It doesn't mean to just follow blindly, some of his ideas, in the world of political reality, as I said previously else where, he is not a politician so doesn't have to consider those truths, though I know he does take them into consideration, he mentions realitys all the time.

I will continue to follow him, in fact will post a web site here for anyone who is interested , to possible put it where it can be gotten to easily, my link is on the desk top..always easy to accss. Usually at least once every few weeks if not sooner.

globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/

[NoMoreLunacy]

In his eyes, the Third World’s poor eagerly welcome Western investment on any terms as a vast improvement over their current misery. Microscopic wages, long hours and heartless management in sweatshops, along with befouled air and water, might seem horrific to wealthy Westerners, but are gratefully welcomed by the desperate people of nations like Mexico, China and India. “In fact, if the demonstrators’ demands were met, the effect would be to crush the hopes of much poorer Third World workers,” he declared (12/13/99).

This is actually spot on, at least for India. I have met at length with Indian sweatshop workers in social settings. They all are very thankful for the Western companies coming and drastically increasing the standard of living in India in general, and for them in particular. This of course is nothing new. Free trade is always welcomed by the poorer countries and hated by the richer countries, as wage rates stabilize. The one in the poorer countries go up, and while for a long time it still remains low, the growth is always there, so the people's standard of living are in a continuous state of improvement, which is much appreciated. On the other hand, the workers in the rich countries see an inexorable downward pressure in their wage rates. They want to "level the playing field" by requiring same pay and working conditions in poorer countries as well. But poorer countries loath that, as that gives away their competitive advantage.

[safeharbor37]

I have to agree with NML on this on with one caveat, "...,as that gives away their competitive advantage." should read "..., as that gives away their relative competitive advantage." What it actually does is provide an "even playing field" which is the hallmark of a competitive capitalistic system. The "poorer countries" would love to be more highly compensated and will, once their "relative disadvantage," that is; their low skill level and the inability to charge more for their services, is alleviated. The problem is that the higher wage countries want to retain their earning advantage while giving lip service to "equality" and concern for workers in lesser developed nations.

[NoMoreLunacy]

It is really this simple. Say you have a job today where you don't have to work hard and get paid a lot. You are rich, fat, and happy. Now all of a sudden a poor, hungry rival comes and offers to do the same job with equal or better quality, but at 1/10th the wage, and double the number of hours. What do you think is going to happen? You can complain as much as you want that it is unfair, but it is actually completely fair from a capitalist standpoint.