Our entire perception of our way of life is wrong. The standard it has produced in terms of its expected quality, and the fact that there are those
who are so accustomed to this delusion that they are incapable of the realization that their lives, in terms of the industries, which support their
lascivious lifestyles, are false, clearly reveals the fundamental error of our society.
There will always be some inefficiency as long as national economic policy has the ability to selectively confer upon its citizens payment, which
meets their generally recognized wage expectations, as opposed to the scenario where those citizens are actually subject to the reality of the global
labor market (examine the difference between to the propped up labor market in consumer North America against that of migrant workers in industrial
China). People need purchasing power in a consumer economy, while businesses need maximum producer flexibility (ability to enforce low wages) in
industrial economies, such as China.
Two recent acquisition attempts illustrate this point: CNOOC's, a Chinese oil and gas company, attempted acqusition of Unocal and Dubai Ports
World's attempted takeover of security for a number of eastern and southern ports.
On June 23, 2005, CNOOC announced its attempted acquisition of Unocal, an California-based independent oil and gas company.  The Chinese company's
offer was $18.5 billion, which was roughly $2 billion more than Chevron, the next highest bidder, offered, reflecting a premium of about $1.5 billion
over the value of Chevron's offer.  CNOOC made an all-cash offer of $67 per share compared to Chevron's lower combined cash and stock offer of
Even before the offer was announced, lawmakers in Washington announced that the deal deserved additional scrutiny: "As the world energy landscape
shifts, we believe that it is critical to understand the implications for American interests and most especially, the threat posed by China's
governmental pursuit of world energy resources. The United States increasingly needs to view meeting its energy requirements within the context of our
foreign policy, national security and economic security agenda.''  Even the Secretary of Energy hinted that the deal would receive heightened
There is this gigantic battle between national interest and the inevitable draw toward globalization. Why are we afraid of foreign corporations making
a buck in our country? The problem is potential employees are afraid that they will not be payed according to their generally recognized wage
expectations, as if for some reason North Americans deserve easier access to consumer products and a higher standard for their quality of living...
These two failed takeovers serve to warn foreign companies looking to invest in "sensitive" areas of the U.S. economy that they must consider more
than the economics of the transaction. Even though CNOOC's offer was worth significantly more than the eventual sale price, the delay and the chance
that the merger would be rejected were enough to sway institutional shareholders against approval.  Asked what lessons he had learned from the
failed attempt, CNOOC Chairman Fu Chengyu responded, "We learned we need to be more prudent in terms of public relations and political lobbying when
dealing with such a big deal ... the first things you need to go for are public relations and political lobbying. And then if those work out, you turn
to talk about the deal."  While some have raised concerns that the trouble was stirred up by Chevron in an attempt to scotch the deal , the
numbers don't seem to bear that out. Only slightly over half had received campaign funds from Chevron in the past two years.  Even the letter
writer, Rep. Pombo, had only received $13,500 from Chevron, barely a drip in the bucket.
In the long run, foreign corporations will be forced into being sensitized. Ironically, the failure of the foreign corporations provided in this
article has given them a chance to reexamine their position during attempts at so-called "corporate takeovers".
We're afraid that their businesses will be operated much as our own businesses are currently being operated in their countries, where assembly-line
workers are being payed exceedingly low amounts of money for the harsh nature of their work, only to afford one day's food for one day's labor...
Would this be the case if the U.S. government allowed the utter failures of Ford, GM and Chrysler to be purchased by foreign corporations as opposed
to being "bailed-out" by non-existent money, whose only promise of materialization is that American taxpayers are going to work tomorrow? What if
they don't go to work tomorrow?
These foreign corporations will realize the nature of our citizens wage expectations, and model their operations in the way which maximizes productive
efficiency, while appeasing the citizens of this country in terms of their expectations. BMW has proved its ability to conform to whatever country
they are running business in.
How is the world going to approach economic equilibrium if our workers won't accept lower pay, and if any attempt to do enforce lower pay is seen as
a violation of human rights in the mainstream media? I think we're fundamentally screwed. There is no real basis for economic sustainability in North
America, except for that of the exploitation of the world through rigorous national economic policies, which falsely prop up our own citizens at the
expense of the world around us.
The firms coming back would not solve a thing. There is a reason they are not here in the first place. Our citizens have to realize that wealth should
not be an assured reality for successive generations in North America. If such a realization isn't apparent, then we do have to right to protest
against the irresponsibility of the financial services sector, against lawmaking and against economic policy in general.
This "recession" is simply the materialization of a long overdue shift to globalization. In the end, once we realize all the bailouts in the world
are not going to solve this problem, America will be forced to actually increase competitiveness, instead of printing money and cleverly adjusting
monetary policy. If we don't give in to this natural inevitability that is globalization then we can expect this next century to be one rife with
global military conflict and war.
The nation-state is going to be faced with severe challenges. How do you contain wealth when it's no longer politically possible, what with the
invasive, transnational nature of globalization? Personally, I don't see such a thing as the nation-state existing by the end of my lifetime. So upon
which standard do we decide which citizens get what? If we have no nation, who deserves more wealth over whom? Will liberal democracy flourish in a
society whose political constituents are composed of a massive array of diverse people and cultures? Will the flowering of liberal democracy spell an
end to the exceedingly comfortable lifestyles we enjoy today?
[edit on 1-2-2009 by cognoscente]