International Economics and Domestic Worker

International capitalism is both good and bad. It's good for China and India; it's good for business; and it's good for the consumer. It is terrible for the domestic worker.

The proceeds from global economy are such that the domestic worker can and should be compensated. There are three ways to do so. One is retraining them for jobs that are in demand; another is welfare; and the third is hiring them on to do government projects.

Of course there are many who would say that Americans want freedom in the way of having a small government. What these people do not realize is that government is far from the only entity that is capable of oppression. Communities are capable of oppression. Religions are capable of oppression. Families are capable of oppression. So are corrupt networks in law and medicine. And unlike the government, these entities are not subject to constitution or checks and balances; which gives them unlimited power to do wrong.

What entity is better: One subject to constitution and checks and balances, or one not subject to such things? I for one would take the Obama government over Pat Robertson or the mafia any day. There are many entities that are capable of oppression; and freedom means not only freedom from excessive government interference, but also freedom from these entities.

A quotation falsely attributed to Thomas Jefferson says, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away from you everything you have.” This is not only true of the government. The same is the case with market economics. It is free to produce vast prosperity. It is also free to throw people out on the street.

As a former software developer, I've been on both the winning and the losing side of capitalism. I've seen how much prosperity it can generate; I've also seen how it can flounder and how it can throw people away. I want to see people have the benefits of capitalism while also having some kind of security; and that means – making the most of both capitalist economics and government action.

Many Republicans are hearkening back to 1950s as the time when everything was right. In 1950s, the tax on the highest incomes was 92%. In 1950s, the unions had a strong presence, and manufacturing was in America rather than Mexico or China. In 1950s, neither the doctors nor the educational institutions gouged their consumers as they do now. And all this happened under a Republican president.

Most people who are out of work are willing to work; they just cannot find jobs. How can an American worker compete against someone in China who can do the same job for $2000 a year? Both the businessman and the consumer benefit from this state of affairs; which means that there is enough money being generated to compensate all the people who are being displaced.

I hope that this becomes a topic in this election, and that there is vigorous and honest debate on the subject. The American worker deserves nothing less.