personally, I think a regional approach would be more beneficial. ive explained how it is better a million times but it falls on deaf, dumb and/or greedy ears.
a pro to global integration would perhaps be access to natural resources abroad, americans are heavy consumers of those you know. increased specialization would also be a pro and would contribute to lower prices for consumers. another pro would be the preservation of peace through the installment of trade dependences. cons to the far-reaching trade dependences would include unsustainability due to reliance on non-renewable energy sources as well as higher energy costs that would ensue as an effect of increased long-distance traffic. another con would be higher domestic unemployment and lower real wages as a result of exploitation abroad which, in effect, would negate the lower prices realized through the increased trade and specialization. lastly, increased global consumption is likely to result in more pollution, the depletion of nonrenewable resources and higher prices.
regional integration is more sustainable, less pollutive, depletive, wasteful, is more likely to result in higher levels of employment, reduce dependence and poverty. the only way global integration would be better is if the foreigners were producing something that we cant produce or are more efficient at producing. what advocates of globalization want is to capitalize on cheaper foreign labor abroad and the higher prices paid domestically. this is bad for domestic economies in that it will result in higher unemployment, reduce demand and hurt local business because they cant supply products at the same low price nor do they have a consumer anymore. but who cares, whatever, the world is going to end and I am going to heaven soon. alleluia. amen. lets just hope it is before Traitor George and his allies conquer America
Comments
personally, I think a regional approach would be more beneficial. ive explained how it is better a million times but it falls on deaf, dumb and/or greedy ears.
a pro to global integration would perhaps be access to natural resources abroad, americans are heavy consumers of those you know. increased specialization would also be a pro and would contribute to lower prices for consumers. another pro would be the preservation of peace through the installment of trade dependences. cons to the far-reaching trade dependences would include unsustainability due to reliance on non-renewable energy sources as well as higher energy costs that would ensue as an effect of increased long-distance traffic. another con would be higher domestic unemployment and lower real wages as a result of exploitation abroad which, in effect, would negate the lower prices realized through the increased trade and specialization. lastly, increased global consumption is likely to result in more pollution, the depletion of nonrenewable resources and higher prices.
regional integration is more sustainable, less pollutive, depletive, wasteful, is more likely to result in higher levels of employment, reduce dependence and poverty. the only way global integration would be better is if the foreigners were producing something that we cant produce or are more efficient at producing. what advocates of globalization want is to capitalize on cheaper foreign labor abroad and the higher prices paid domestically. this is bad for domestic economies in that it will result in higher unemployment, reduce demand and hurt local business because they cant supply products at the same low price nor do they have a consumer anymore. but who cares, whatever, the world is going to end and I am going to heaven soon. alleluia. amen. lets just hope it is before Traitor George and his allies conquer America