Whine & Cheese

Whether Western levels of material affluence are possible for all in the absence of exploiting the labor and natural resources of poorer nations remains to be seen. I hope it is and the optimist in me believes it is.But I don't see what this hope for the future has to do with the facts of competition in the here and now.

Sure. Which still leaves the sort of issues Phat is talking about in the here and now. Competing in the here and now seems to currently involve a race to the bottom rather than the long hard slog to the top that we both hope is achievable in the long run. With increasing population, increasing globalisation and a global freemarket economy wage and labor competition is very arguably greater than it has been. Call it "standard of living" or "wages and conditions of employment" or whatever else you feel makes most sense. On the contrary - The here and now is by definition always with us.

That should surely be the aim. No? In a perfect world obviously not. But nobody is suggesting that we live in a perfect world. The question is whether capitalism is the best method of unleashing human creativity and innovation to achieve prosperity for all through technology progress etc.My own view is that we haven't developed a better economic system for doing that but that to make capitalism work for the benefit of all requires hard work and constant checks and balances. Freemarket fundamentalism, the formation of runaway economic elites etc. undermines the very reasons we have chosen capitalism over other economic models. I understand that you think the American middle class (do you have anything called a "working class" in America - If so who qualifies?) in particular is getting a raw deal and that you feel a rather strong sense of entitlement and injustice.But in global standard of living terms I suspect you and I are very much still amongst the richest.

I think you are right to be concerned. But I don't think kicking the ladder away as those behind you scramble up is the answer. Not only is it wrong in a moral sense I don't think it will actually solve your problem.At the moment there seems to be race to the bottom for the majority as a tiny section of the world reap an ever greater portion of the world's collective wealth in the name of "economic freedom" and the right to exploit whoever is least able to stop themselves from being exploited.The way things are going the very concept of things like retirement are going the way of the dodo. On their present trajectory I doubt those "youngsters" you are worried about competing with will ever even have the notion of having "earned" such rights. They will work until they just physically cannot.What is the answer? I dunno. I would like to think that the present course is unsustainable and that things like the occupy movement are the beginning of something bigger. But the pessimist in me is less confident that we won't end up blaming those even poorer than ourselves for our ills whilst the richest race ever further into the distance.Workers of the world unite........(**Straggler raises fist in defiant salute of the forthcoming revolution before going off to pack his bag for work tomorrow at the multi-billion dollar multi-national he works for in his day job**)

I am far from an expert in US economics but I am pretty sure that your "facts" are not quite as you are interpreting them. As I understand the numbers the US government currently borrows about 40 cents of every dollar it spends. That is what the deficit is. Is that what you meant?I think everyone agrees that the deficit needs to be reduced. But many, including I, would argue that taking extreme austerity measures to do so in the midst of a recession (or near recession) is counterproductive. I think this is a conflation of deficit with debt. With some very rough figures - Personal income in the US is about 13 Trillion per year. The budget deficit is about 1.3 Trillion. The national debt is about 14 Trillion.So if you taxed everyone 100% for a year (ignoring the other consequences of that) you wouldn't clear the overall debt. Is that what you meant?In general national debt should be looked at more like a long term mortgage than something that needs immediate payment. You wouldn't worry that you cannot pay a 140,000 dollar mortgage with a 130,000 dollar yearly income would you?I don't think the facts you cite are as scary as they first seem.

In a technical US specific legal sense you are no doubt correct. But the reason the US has a budget deficit is ultimately the same reason any other nation can be said to have a budget deficit. Namely because the government is spending more than it is taking in.Whether one believes that austerity (i.e. reducing expenditure) or the more Keynesian approach of promoting growth (and thus increasing revenue) is the best long term solution to this - Depends. But I think most economists agree that the US deficit needs to come down eventually if the economy is to be sustainable.

A moral example to us all. Especially your government. The phrase "moral high ground" was invented for you guys. Steve Carrell is indeed physically, morally and dramatically superior to Ricky Gervais. He's probably paid more too. And he has better teeth. Ahhhh yes. The American dream. Where anyone can aspire to be as wealthy as Mitt Romney except the poor people. They can't. Obviously. Because then there wouldn't be anyone to do the work that makes those living the dream so rich. The application of the American dream on a global scale. This is what makes your nation so loved around the world.

It's "lose weight"."Loose" is what your clothes are after the weight loss.What is it with you Yanks and spelling......

What is truly scary is that the harder Oni plays the parody card the more avidly you agree with him.