NVR Logo
The rise of the Third World
Friday, August 15, 2008
Save and Share Share
Fareed Zakaria, one of the most insightful and interesting writers on issues of general political importance to Americans, has recently written a follow up book to his last one, "The Future of Freedom.” The new book is called, "The Post American World.” Both books are outstanding and I would recommend them to anyone.

"The Post American World" is not so much about how America is diminishing as much as about how much the rest of the world is growing, and how that new growth and resultant power will affect Americans. Power is shifting from America as the unipolar power in the world towards a number of other countries becoming powers in their own right. Power is becoming shared, as opposed to predominately America-centered.
Zakaria points out that, in the last several decades, we have seen tremendous economic growth in the third world, and discusses some implications for the American economy and political reality.

Everyone by now is familiar with China, with the fact that all the pollution created there has not been for naught, as 400 million people have been brought out of poverty. Due to this new found wealth, China is now heading into a position where it has the ability to clean up its environment, and indeed is heading on a path to do so.
But the rest of the third world is growing too, in the last several years 124 countries grew at a rate of 4 percent a year or more, including 30 in Africa. In 1981 over 40 percent of the world’s people lived on $1 or less per day, and that is now down to 18 percent. In the next seven years it is expected to drop another third, to 12 percent. The fact is that the poor throughout most of the world are slowly being absorbed into a growing middle class.

The implications are mind boggling. We are beginning to see the possibility of one of the oldest dreams of humanity realized ... the worldwide end of poverty.
This has implications for everyone, including us here in Napa. What impact will this have on our economy, our job base, our population growth, immigration, even land use planning? That is where my mind turns as I read about this.

Here are some of my thoughts about what this portends.

One obvious implication is huge new markets will open for American products, wine in Napa’s case , with so many new consumers with the money to afford it. American products have a worldwide reputation as among the best and are highly desired. In China the most popular car is the Buick, and Napa wine is highly sought after.

It also means education and skills will increase in foreign working populations, and the ability to manufacture products will increase. This will put pressure on American businesses whose products can be outsourced to another country, a big expansion of what we have already seen.

Napa stands in an excellent position because the wine industry depends on a sense of place — where you grow the grapes is the most important marketing consideration in wine. The resulting tourism can’t be moved offshore, so  Napa is well positioned to compete in the emerging global marketplace.

The United States needs to be flexible to change with the times, as some industries that we have had in the past will most likely go away. By focusing on what we do uniquely and well, we will have a much larger market in those areas.

Politically we will continue to diminish in influence, and it will require us to work to form alliances with like-minded countries to accomplish our goals. If other countries are not dependent on us for their economies, they will be much less likely to accede to our political goals. Diplomacy will become even more key, and the bullying tactics of Bush/Cheney will result in ever diminishing returns.

Obama is striking what will prove to be a far more effective note by encouraging diplomacy and reaching out to others to work together. The Bush/McCain approach of macho tough talk is not going to get us there. Sharing power and working in alliances of shared interests will magnify powerful effects far beyond what the U.S acting on its own could ever do. The fact that no one country will carry the load will force everyone to work harder to cooperate, not just the U.S.

That is actually a good thing, because for too long we have carried the weight of the world on our shoulders, and now we are going to see the world carrying more of its own weight.

Zakaria also notes the actual long term trend of the Muslim world is moving away from support for terrorism. They want to modernize, and are gradually taking steps to do so.

Many of the Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and more are booming economically, despite the Iraq war in their center. Al-Qaida, losing power, has turned to more localized attacks which has alienated the populations that may have otherwise supported them, like the Sunni’s in Iraq. As badly bungled by Bush as the Iraq war was, it is leading to a turning away from terrorism.

Power is starting to gravitate away from the American center and to spread around throughout the world, like it or not. If we keep our heads up and remain flexible, and move beyond trying to go back to an old world and old way of doing things, if we embrace the future it can be a fantastic one for both Napa and America.

Michael Haley is president of the Napa Valley Taxpayers Alliance. He writes a weekly blog/column for napavalleyregister.com. He can be reached at napaeagle@hughes.net.
37 comment(s)

a teacher wrote on Aug 15, 2008 4:42 PM:

" Mike, you sound so optimistic. Cool.

I was thinking about Thomas Friedman's book, "The World is Flat" and a Paul Krugman piece about the Georgia situation and the global economy.

Friedman echoes Zakaria, but adds a few things about the USA having to come to terms with situation or losing out.

Krugman points out that the world as in a similar place just prior to the first world war. It can all come crashing down with the rise of nationalism. "

napablogger wrote on Aug 15, 2008 10:27 PM:

" thanks teacher, and while I am writing you I want to mention that one of the reasons I sometimes dont write back is that I can't find the article anymore.

Nationalism is an interesting issue because it has two sides. We know the negative side. Nationalism is increasing in the world, but in one sense it means that people are becoming more proud of themselves, are standing up for themselves more.

Sometimes we celebrate it, like with Kosovo or other countries declaring independence which we have supported.

A kind of nationalism is taking place within countries as well, as different ethnic or other groups want their say more. Ossettia is one of them, ethnic Russian, which is another subtle factor in Russia going to support them against Georgia.

At any rate, yes we know and repeatedly hear all the bad things about China, but there is so much positive there too, so many good changes that I want to talk about that. I think that China is the hope of the world, and that the emerging freedom there is going to change the world even more than their growing economy. So I want to write about that more because almost no one is.

I can see that in spite of all the troubles we know about, the world is going to save itself and that we are heading to a world wide golden age that is going to truly astound people, like the invention of the airplane only even more. It is going to take awhile, but little hints are starting to emerge. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Aug 16, 2008 9:15 AM:

" This was a thought-provoking piece, NB, a manifold of possibilities for discussion. I think the attitude of hopefulness you've taken here reflects my underlying frame of mind about future possibilities. All my cynicism aside, I'm most encouraged when I hear people of influence speak about the need for diplomacy and reaching out vs. macho tough talk. Thanks. "

kevin wrote on Aug 16, 2008 9:30 AM:

" NB said: "Diplomacy will become even more key, and the bullying tactics of Bush/Cheney will result in ever diminishing returns."

Yeah right. Bullying has seemed to work well for Russia... "

Bill wrote on Aug 16, 2008 10:37 AM:

" These two books are much more insightful and informative than Thomas Friedman's tomes representing globalization in cryptic terms.

Zakaria presents a world as it is view that many will find difficult to deny without appearing the over the top advocate of the brave new world.

China as the hope of the world? uh? "

vocal-de-local wrote on Aug 16, 2008 2:33 PM:

" "The implications are mind boggling!"

Yep, they sure are. I might support nationalism if the "Growth" machine sweeping across the world could be controlled.

What concerns me most about expanding levels of consumerism is the impact on the environment as people are driven toward "more". Can the entire world be brought up to par with our standard of living and still not impact our environment? Doubt it. That's ok. We've come to a crossroad where we will need to share. We cannot all continue rising indefinitely. Think of a glass filling up with water. It can only hold so much without spilling over.

As one country rises, other's will sink. It's our own fault because we were so ambitious about spreading "consumerism". We cannot approach this with blinders on, though. The impact will not be in our favor. As the playing field is leveled, the lifestyle we once had will be history. We need to be extra vigilant about our own increasing population at this time because we probably will not have the capacity to support everyone in this country. "

a teacher wrote on Aug 16, 2008 5:00 PM:

" Over all, I'm optimistic, but I feel that we're walking the knives edge here. Reading Krugman got me to thinking about WW1. There are a lot similarities between the Victorian era and the current one. WW1 was an accidental war, no one wanted what they got. Picture want would happen should a more nationalistic regime in China decide that it was time to deal with it's Taiwan problem, or is Russia decides to retake the countries that were lost when the USSR broke up.

Ultimately, I think that most of the world's nations have concluded that a more "muscular" foreign policy is counter productive. The world prospers more when it is at peace and cooperating. The Russians are going to find out that the bullying that they got away with in Georgia is only good in the short term. It hasn't worked out too well for us in the middle east. "

napablogger wrote on Aug 16, 2008 5:06 PM:

" Bill, yes I have come to think of China that way. They have voluntarily decided to move away from communism and allow free markets, and now they are focusing on human values which include environmentalism. They are turning away from oppression voluntarily. When has a major totalitarian state ever done that?

I actually saw a glimmer of that from Tiannaman Square, where ultimately it was many many people demanding freedom. They want a better life and a better country and they are working hard to make it happen. Look at the Olympics, I heard many people say (myself included) that they watched them again for the first time in many years. It was because of China, I believe, and the sense that they are a leading edge of new freedom in the world, among other things.

They are alone one sixth of the worlds population, and if they can find freedom and prosperity the implications are enormous.

Today I read that the trade balance between us and China was rebalancing for the first time in decades. That means we are exporting more there, which means that consumers there have more money to buy our goods. It is a small movement at present, relatively, but it is heading in the right direction. "

napablogger wrote on Aug 16, 2008 11:39 PM:

" Kevin, I agree with teacher that bullying is not working for Russia. Just because they are invading and getting away with it for the moment, they are turning the whole world against them for their overreaction.

They are making a point---about NATO and their own backyard. And if we go too far in opposing them we will get the same negative results from bullying ourselves.

The world is complicated, and more so all the time. Go in and shoot is less and less effective, for us and for others as well. "

napablogger wrote on Aug 16, 2008 11:42 PM:

" teacher, I agree with you, the world is fraught with danger and it is going to stay that way. Yet, the positive is there and I dont think it gets talked about enough, and I do think in the long term that is the trend.

China still is afflicted with nationalism of a negative kind, especially with Japan, their main enemy. And it is an outgrowth of what Japan inflicted on them in WWII. So that comes right back around to the point about going into a shooting war, and all the damage that does. China still isn't over it. "

napablogger wrote on Aug 16, 2008 11:47 PM:

" dellasumbrella, I thought about what you are saying tonight watching McCain and Obama at Saddleback church. McCain gave direct, specific answers to a lot of questions and I found myself generally agreeing with him. And Obama's approach could seem wishy washy to some--on abortion, not answering the question at first but saying, it depends on your view of religion, depends on your view of science--something like that.

But maybe sometimes it is better to be more thoughtful and recognize that too often it is easier politically to just give a specific answer, when in fact life is full of uncertainties and doubts and new situations arise all the time. Maybe it is better to be more thoughtful, and have a little self doubt.

That is why I didn't like McCain's line about "we are all Georgians", as if this conflict were comparable to 9/11. That is the Republican tactic, black and white, right or wrong, and the world is a lot more complicated than that. Its easier, clearer, but not all that accurate. "

Bill wrote on Aug 17, 2008 12:00 AM:

" I'm gonna keep quiet right now, but I think you are wrong for a number of reasons. lets leave it at I'm Eyore on this and your Tigger.

Except for China, which I see as a facist corporate state of little redeeming social value, this is a pretty good piece and I would also recomend those books. "

Raven wrote on Aug 17, 2008 9:15 AM:

" re the abortion answer...to many people it does depends upon your religion, your view of science....it isn't as cut and dried a subject as many would wish it to be... "

napablogger wrote on Aug 17, 2008 10:52 AM:

" Raven, exactly, and on most questions confronting us. What to do in Georgia is a perfect example, or what we were arguing about on whether to drill or not.

I have to say McCain is giving many people what they want, his policies can be explained in one or two words, bomb, drill, cut spending. That isn't always the best, however.

The problem with Obama is that he is more thoughtful, but what exactly is he going to do? We know some things, but some remains a bit fuzzy. On both of them, it will come down to trusting them to make decisions as they go, leadership in other words.

I am reading all the analysis of the Saddleback interviews last night and I do think they are both good if not great candidates. I think that format was great and if we could get to campaigns that looked like that maybe we could practice more diplomacy and less war between each other. "

Bill wrote on Aug 17, 2008 1:42 PM:

" Dogone it! Why are you making things so difficult for me. McCain's line was way over the top and the whole situation in that part of the world shows how impotent threats do more harm than good.

In the first few pages of Zakarias book he pulls out that 400 million people lifted out of poverty bussiness but i find his statistics and percentages rather suspect. He does make good arguing points but leaves, let's say, 600 million or more in abject poverty under the greueling heel of absolute authority.

I wonder at the faith I see in the ability of corporate thugs to genuinely foster democracy while lining their oligarchical pockets.

It is rather reminicent of that other historical tome of recent memory "The End of Histroy." scholarly but not necessarily accurate. "

freeport56 wrote on Aug 17, 2008 4:45 PM:

" " Bill, yes I have come to think of China that way. They have voluntarily decided to move away from communism and allow free markets, and now they are focusing on human values which include environmentalism."

These comments might be abit premature. China maintains a strong communist ideology while adopting a free market structure. The communist model of economics has and will never work. China plays both sides ofr the fence. I believe they are supplying weapons to the conflict in the middle east. Most of Irans rockets are Chinese made as are a great deal of the AK-47, 74's, and Dragonov rifles being used.

As to their pollution efforts...have you watched any of the Olympics? They are not asignatory to Kyoto and have no plans to be. Additionally, you will note that most of their disease outbreaks all come from the same region of China. Some lab must be leaking. "

napablogger wrote on Aug 18, 2008 9:15 AM:

" Bill and freeport, yes these things are all true, more or less anyway, but the remarkable thing is the progress. Bringing 400 million, and even if it is only 300 million, people out of poverty over 30 years is an historical first. And yes there are 600 million or more to go.

Their communism is gradually reducing, Chinese people have a great deal more freedom than ever. The biggest problem the central government has is maintaining control, which they have gradually given more and more up.

And a lot of that has come from the people demanding it. Tiannamen Square is where it all traces back to, and even though the commies put it down violently, the point had been made and the younger generations of leaders came along and started to grant a lot of the freedom that people were then demanding. "

Bill wrote on Aug 20, 2008 8:48 AM:

" NB, I hope everyone is out reading those books and not hooked into Corsi. Do something to stir more comment like some excessive exuberance about globalization.

Zakaria, like many avoids some real issues, while painting a good picture of the world as it appears. Still there is an underlying structure that no one is willing to touch on, at least without sliding sideways into polemics, that of individual and local control juxtaposed against the vast resources of corporations and their ability to legislate around the consent of the governed or the wishes of people from which they are far removed and have no voice in the decisions affecting their lives.

That comment should help you stir the pot. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Aug 20, 2008 11:53 AM:

" My eyes are always bigger than my stomach when it comes to books (I have a house full of books that I barely get started before I go on to the next), but I'm interested in looking at Zakaria's. NB, your comment, "it's better to be more thoughtful and recognize that too often it is easier politically to just give a specific answer, when in fact life is full of uncertainties and doubts and new situations arise all the time" is quite relevant to our current political climate. Since it's always easier for us to cling to our pre-formed cognitive constructs (which are often over-simplified) than to "think outside the box" and assimilate nuance, uncertainty and the unfamiliar into our ongoing assessment of problems and solutions, we are magnets for all-or-nothing, black-or-white, good-or-evil, yes-or-no rhetoric. It seems that's where some of the right/left polarization occurs -- left-leaning thinkers tend to weigh and parse possibilities (which turns off about half of the populace), and right-leaners tend to provide answers in the form of overcooked certainty (which turns off the other half). I can catch myself liking both approaches, depending on the situation or issue. Certainly with marketplace globalization and the rise of third world countries, the possibilities are so vast we have no use for simplistic thinking. We need to be responsive to the complexities and vagaries of cross-cultural dialogue while identifying and clinging to the certainties of those basic human values we all share.

One difficulty is we are shrinking the world economically, yet our only real tool seems to be consumerism and profit. Those aren't necessarily bad, but perhaps we need a more 3-dimensional approach to this refreshed world. "

glenroy wrote on Aug 21, 2008 1:07 PM:

" NB….the critical driving forces behind the global economic growth, which I find the absence in this discussion ironic, was the abandonment of socialist economies… exactly the opposite of what Obama has in mind.

Third world economies that remain committed to top down management continue with stagnate to contracting economies…the very few that have shown net growth, such as Venezuela and Russia, is entirely consequence of high cost energy exports, though both net barrel exports are declining. Without corresponding private sector growth, as the world transitions to optional fuels even these economies will contract or collapse.

Take a look at Obama’s key economic advisors and their long history of attacking American Enterprise….Obama’s rhetoric ‘eliminating poverty around the world’ may ring wonderful tunes for the partisan and ill-informed, but the ultimate consequences is music to the ears of those nations we are going to be forced to compete with for our own economic survival.

I believe, and many others considerably smarter then me, that this will have the opposite effect of your comments of any benefit from Obama‘s policies…presuming that is what you intended to imply….if not, it’s a darn good blog all the same. "

napablogger wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:43 PM:

" Bill, the comment about corporations doesn't really help stir the pot because it is so generic. It's boiler plate liberal corporate bashing, and without any specifics it is hard to respond. I find a lot of your comments that way and that is why I don't write back. You are entitled to your opinion, I don't agree with it, and that is that.

I mean, what is the evil that corporations do? Represent their own interests before the government like the environmentalists and lawyers and unions and consumer advocates and poverty advocates and fair housing and and and...what is so different about them? "

napablogger wrote on Aug 22, 2008 11:55 PM:

" della, I just read about an interesting study that relates I think to what you are talking about re: Dems and GOP cognitive constructs.

They had research subjects in a room telling them the study was to count people passing a basketball back and forth. Instead it was about pre concieved ideas affecting perception. They had a woman dressed in a gorilla suit run out in front of the people passing the balls back and forth and wave her arms for a couple seconds, then move off.

The subjects were then asked if they had noticed anything unusual while they were counting the times the ball was passed. 60% of them did not even notice the gorilla.

My view is that people are comfortable in one position or another and it literally affects their brain function, certainly their perceptions of reality, and when they look they see evil corporations, or they see tax and spend socialists, and don't even see or hear any evidence to the contrary. They literally do not physically see it after a while. That is really the conceptual box that we are stuck in.

I'm not sure what you meant in your last paragraph, the economic world is shrinking? It's growing, isn't it? You mean we are heading into a recession, if not there already? And what is wrong with consumerism? "

napablogger wrote on Aug 23, 2008 12:10 AM:

" Glenroy..abandonment of socialist economies…

That is too black and white, China has a mixed economy with a whole lot of command and control from the government, but they did move in a market direction. India has been a Democracy for 60 years and only in the last ten have they started to pull out of it economically.

Obama wants to raise taxes but that is a pretty mainstream American thing to do. It doesn't qualify him as a socialist in my mind.

So all in all, I would not say that Obama is the opposite of China or India, or anything like that. Or a socialist as some have said. Obama's main advisor is Austen Goolsby, hardly a left wing nutball, he came out of the Chicago school of economics begun by Milton Freidman.

I am concerned about Obama's economic plan in some ways, and I prefer McCain's. At least what we know of them so far, and they are far from definite at this point.

But where I support Obama over McCain is in foreign affairs. I think McCain's comments about the Georgian invasion were so overly militaristic.

Have we learned nothing from Iraq? We have no wherewithal to go into Russia militarily, they know it, and we would be fools to do so anyway. You don't make empty macho threats on the world stage and maintain credibility, which is what McCain did. "

Bill wrote on Aug 23, 2008 10:51 AM:

" Actually NB I don’t expect you to respond, perhaps I am a little too caustic. You are correct the generic boiler plate bash especially by liberals without specifics has become a throwaway term I’m glad you pointed that out.

Of The variety of forms that business uses to organize and structure operations in the market place the corporate form is the most obtrusive upon individual liberty. Sole proprietorship or partnerships etc take on a personal responsibility that the corporate form shrinks from. It is an extremely useful and powerful tool especially when addressing scale and multiple operational responsibilities. When properly accountable I have no problem with it. When that form assumes more rights, privileges, protections, and legal status than individuals I have a big problem with it.

In the history of the 14th amendment it has been invoked more times to protect and uphold the rights of corporations as persons than the freed slaves it was intended to protect. It is my objection to corporations as person’s not legitimate business interests that has become generic. It is a complicated set of legal fictions designed to shield investors from responsibility, which in certain circumstances has its beneficial qualities.

Unfortunately it has been expanded over the centuries to a point where it enjoys a super legal status especially in its multinational expression. Where it is used and regulated for the facilitation of commerce and government it is a potent instrument, where it is used as an extra legal manifestation of power it is a destructive instrument.

This is not a liberal or conservative issue but an issue for all people who see the rights of individuals as above those of legal fictions. The rhetorical question you pose would take another post to answer. "

napablogger wrote on Aug 23, 2008 12:22 PM:

" Bill, ok, I am with you so far. I guess the devil is in the details, to repeat a tired cliche. I think that is one of the reasons we seem to go through cycles of reducing regulations and then increasing them. When we reduce them it helps the economy til someone goes overboard and tanks the economy. When we increase them then it eventually hurts the economy so we reduce them again. And on and on.

There has to be a better balance in there somewhere. "

Bill wrote on Aug 23, 2008 12:36 PM:

" In the proposal of rhetorical questions the questioner assumes certain things. One is, the terms of the question shape the response and frame a defense because the answer must either accept or deny the premise of the question. In this case the evil that corporations do premises must be accepted or rejected in total for an answer, a clever debating technique.

Let me chose to answer by saying that not all corporations do evil. Many are extremely beneficial but it is when their scope is limited and specific. When they are well regulated and open to public scrutiny, where their operations are transparent and where their intent is justified. The evil some corporations do is quite well documented and does not necessarily need to be documented in this response, if you chose to see this as a dodge then a lengthy tit for tat can occur.

It is not representing their interests before government but the manipulation of government that should be the question. In many cases corporations are governments in many places across the globe, the power behind the sham of representation, the façade that official government puts forth. Shell oil is the virtual government of several African nations.

The corporate form, now virtually adopted by the Chinese communist party, i.e. the party chairman as CEO the party itself as a board of trustees and the apparatchiks’ supporting it as investors. Central planning replaced by an all controlling authoritarian corporation, no room here for democracy to flower but plenty of room for a party V.P.s to line their pockets and certainly not the free market envisioned by the Chicago or Austrian schools of economic thought. The ultimate answer appears that if government is the problem then corporate rule is the cure. "

Bill wrote on Aug 23, 2008 1:12 PM:

" Uh, oh… sorry to be such a bore. I’ll get off soon as the original blog is very interesting but I think your challenge deserves an answer and explanation.

The personification of corporations in America allows corporations to essentially buy and sell other corporations a process that individual citizens are prohibited from doing. Even such a Conservative as Teddy Roosevelt warned against this.

Unfortunately in answering the question I am forced to represent the corporate form in its worst light and have not properly addressed the supporting accusations that follow the question. Allow me to point out that governments city, county, municipal districts are incorporated and well defined and limited in scope serving the interests of the public, also that many private organizations are also essentially corporations providing services necessary to all citizens. Many corporate forms are directly beneficial but these are tightly governed and subject to much scrutiny.

Suggesting that unions are on the same playing field is the most egregious sub premise. Unions do not have the same privileges, rights, or legal protections they may be a collection of individuals but are not allowed the same legal personage as corporate legal fiction. They are unable to bring to bear in a court room the same defense that corporations are privileged to. Union operations are subject to search and seizure and not protected as those of an individual person or a corporation, to mention only one counter point.

Clouding the question with assertions of lawyers (which corporations have plenty of) poverty, consumer or fair housing advocates represents more of an attack than a support of the question. These at least are limited concerns with a specific identifiable scope not claiming privilege as a person in efforts to influence government. Thanks for the forum. "

NVGal wrote on Aug 23, 2008 2:17 PM:

" I agree with what Bill is saying, and I don’t believe that it is liberal to say it, as I am no liberal. I think it is incredibly important to understand the role of the corporation in a global market. We have a personal responsibility to keep them accountable, they will push the legal limits whenever possible and have enormous resources in order to do it.

I don’t believe that Napa is global market ready either. Another point of Bill’s that he keeps trying to hammer in, is job diversification. At the bones of the wine industry are localized jobs that are production oriented and hospitality oriented, and that is it. There are too many wineries that are continuing to be bought out by corporations and private equity, they siphon off the funds to go somewhere else, to fund someone else’s portfolio and bank accounts.

There is a great article in the weeks Economist titled “Investing in wine- Buyers and Cellars”, it does discuss the Chinese buying up futures in wine, but this habit of the wealthy purchasing futures has pushed the price of wine up. So in this time of higher consumer prices with wages that don’t match has me thinking, will the people of Napa be forced to drink Gallo because the global market makes Silver Oak completely out of reach? Will we be force to muck out tanks and work in tasting rooms because Napa wasn’t prepared and didn’t understand the impact of globalization?

Globalization is great, but what it can give, it can take away. People have responsibility to understand the impacts to be better prepared and support and vote for candidates that support a stronger American under globalization. "

MyWrites wrote on Aug 24, 2008 2:40 PM:

" Bill well said! Couldn't agree with you more on this. Another problem with American politics is the unfair balance of the individual's vote compared to the influence of lobbyists in Washington (and virtually every state capitol in the union). In 1980 there where roughly 300 registered lobby groups in DC. Today there are over 30,000.

Both conservatives and progressives have been instrumental in allowing the lobbyists to have an unfair influence on the direction of the economy. All Parties seem to continue support of professional lobbyists and the money/perks they provide "our representatives".

Through lobbyists, corporations have had both the economic leverage and political clout to modify the American system of government to their advantage. The next president must deal with "business as usual" in DC.

I can't see John McCain doing that - he is too beholding to the powers that be. Obama is mostly beholding to individual supporters at around $50 a piece. Which candidate do you think will be more inclined to change the way business is done, if possible? "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Aug 24, 2008 9:57 PM:

" NB - As far as I can tell China is still selling the body parts of dissenters... and locking up Falun Gong members.

And the Buicks sold in China are made there and get better fuel economy than the models sold by GM here. Actual American built cars don't pass the fuel economy standards of China.

The rest of the world is on the metric standard and uses those funny sized wrenches and tools, while we continue to put off making the adjustment.

America is having a harder and harder time selling abroad because we don't 'internationalize' our products nearly as well as we could.

The essential problem with America's position in the world is that 'American' corporate management is far too dependent on welfare and bailouts from the US government while they play stock price games to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of America's citizens.

Witness the fact that a Chineses corporation 'Haider' is building refrigerators, washers and dryers in America with American labor and making a profit while Maytag was sold off by 'American' management because they couldn't cut it.

America is standing still and even sliding backward by failing to invest in education and infrastructure while the rest of world has kept going.

The classic recipe for the collapse of an empire.

I know the 'conservatives' like to say that people who make an honest appraisal of America's situation are 'Blame America First' people -- but they miss the mark - we can safely assess blame on corporate elitists who are quite happy to bankrupt the average American to buy another yacht.

~Ruff "

Bill wrote on Aug 25, 2008 9:04 AM:

" MyWrites and NVGal, not many posters find me agreeable. I would hope that the points I tried to make were understandable and convincing. Already they appear to be confused. My rant is not against American business or free enterprise. Lobbyists serve a purpose when properly regulated. The corporate form where well regulated also serves free enterprise and a free people.

Close to a century past major conservative voices (Taft? T.R.?)called for national regulation of corporations and the time may be at hand to renew that call but I have very little expectation that will happen as both major parties are intricately entwined and addicted to the deceptions corporations, especially multinationals, create.

N.B.My apologizes for veering away from the original premise of your blog as I truly was hoping to hear more on Zakaria’s thoughts. In news week last he had an interesting take on the Bush administration. "

napablogger wrote on Aug 25, 2008 10:36 PM:

" Bill, no problem, I bought the Newsweek you mentioned and haven't had time yet to read Zakarias views on what Bush did right.

I dont write back because I run out of time and end up going with the latest article which has already started, as you know. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Aug 26, 2008 10:32 AM:

" I know this stream has probably run its course, but I've been on a weekend in India (not literally, but telephonically, to deal with HP notebook problems). NB, I guess that's what I meant by "shrinking" -- the global economy as "global village", if you will. I no longer go down to my computer guy in Napa; I now get on the phone for hours with technicians in India. The castle-like restaurant inside the train station in Stockholm is now a McDonald's. We are all one big town now, and the economy in Niger will ultimately affect the economy in Silicon Valley. As for consumerism, are you willing to do a separate blog about that? That's a complex issue with social, economic, physiological and emotional impacts, and it deserves its own space.
Bill: I really appreciated your contributions on corporations. I found them fair and informative.
I'd like to add a quote: "There's no doubt that globalization has brought significant benefits to American consumers. It's lowered prices on goods once considered luxuries....It's helped keep inflation in check...and allowed countries like China and India to dramatically reduce poverty, which over the long term makes for a more stable world.
"But there's also no denying that globalization has greatly increased economic instability for millions of ordinary Americans...."
"What's preventing us from shaping that future isn't the absence of good ideas. It's the absence of a national commitment to take the tough steps necessary to make America more competitive--and the absence of a new consensus around the appropriate role of government in the marketplace."
-Barak Obama, from The Audacity of Hope, in which Obama addresses these issues well, as well as the history of gov't regs w/respect to corporations. "

Bill wrote on Aug 26, 2008 3:11 PM:

" Ahem… Della I’m not accustomed to being so civil out here I am generally needling the devil out of N.B. and possibly will in the future. I must sheepishly admit I did not read Obama’s book but some of it sounds like it could come from Zakaria’s book. I read it too fast and went out and got a paperback of his other book.

He said something along the lines that as Americans we are very nationalistic and at the same time want to embrace all that the world puts on our plates. I wish I could remember the exact manner he put it. We desperately want free trade at the same time we want it to be fair, only so many want it fairer for us than any one else. I’m not doing a good job with this thought I will go back and dig it out. Globalization, as a friend of mine said, is the cat that’s out of the bag and there is no way we will put it back.

I may not like many aspects of it especially as it is being practiced but it is not as if it must have free reign or that we are helpless in its path. This is where we come to a real divergence that I was attempting to point out and I am not certain that either candidate will address those issues, in fact I am fairly positive they will not. Which is one reason why I am stuck with ranting about corporate structure and something beyond a New Jersey tort system to make that structure accountable. "

Bill wrote on Aug 26, 2008 3:28 PM:

" I was hoping to see more on this subject not necessarily mine but hoped it would attract others who had actually read this book. It does appear to be an end to bad not enough fire works perhaps. I’m generally over good at that. Maybe if we keep blogging we could attract some really good trolls and snarfs. Or ask Dan if there is a way to keep these things focused so people like me don’t slip off on the easy side of response to some posters. N.B. is pretty good but sometimes he opens himself up so much I can’t resist.

Some times style just drives everyone crazy. I’m going to look for that part of Zakaria’s book and see if I can’t present it better. Maybe that will help push it out where this blog line can be found, or maybe that’s not a good thing. "

freeport56 wrote on Aug 28, 2008 4:00 PM:

" Ruff-

Their cars get better mileage because they have no emission controls. Note the sky from the Olympics.

China and Russia are the two most polluted countries in the world and additional non-signers of Kyoto. Both are still hard core communist countries that are excersing strict control over their people. It was just under twenty years ago that Russia was a briken country. Now, with a brand new military machine fresh from Chechnya, they are again flexing their muscle.

China has been euthanizing first born girls for years to keep the population in check. These tow countries are not to be taken lightly at all.

My real question is, who is going to pay for the rise of these third world countries? "

Bill wrote on Aug 29, 2008 8:15 AM:

" FRPT56,
Its not about picking up the tab. The book's thrust is about the rest of the world gaining an economic foot hold. Try it out it might reinforce or clarify some of your opinions. "

Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
Search:
Advanced searchWeb Search Powered By Yahoo! Search
Copyright © 2008 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy