The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retired Fools
|Subject: Re: More Shutdown Fallout||Date: 10/20/2013 8:55 PM|
|Author: Howie52||Number: 18691 of 20060|
"There was a reduction of poverty in the 50's and 60's. "
The reduction at that time can be assigned to the Marshall Plan and
rebuild from WW II - The world-wide impact from the Cold War never
seemed to touch the people - with a for-instance Egypt - who had a
build-up of the military - with little else to be seen other than
the power elite. The far-east saw massive poverty among the masses.
There were spots of improvements ----- mainly near military bases
involved in the "less cold" portions of the Cold War.
How much of a reduction in poverty was seen in sub-Saharan Africa
based on the influx of funds from the Soviets or the Western
There was development inside the US - and I agree a fairly good
portion was the result of the military-industrial complex
growth. Certainly we had government funds (read our taxes)
supporting this sector and much of what we see as recent
drivers of economic growth today - highway infrastructure, communication satellites, GPS mapping, laser technology, and a
large part of the healthcare biological and specialty chemical
markets came from that original seed-money source (some may well
argue this list - others will add a bunch more). But this helped
Western powers and the Soviet Block - again not everyone in either
case though more of the people saw growth in the west than in the
east - again this based upon my observations during travels.
The real reduction in poverty world-wide has come from the
end of the Cold War - where a greater stability has allowed
industrial growth to expand into other areas - and where
freer trade has allowed goods - and services to be exchanged
with less risk. More funds flowing into education have
improved the ability of work-forces. Capital availability
has allowed investment into areas which might have been
limited to airfields and weapons only a few decades past.
And the main areas which was developed out of the Cold
War - technology and communications - allowed the
integration of industrial corporations world-wide.
"It's an overall good that countries in southeast Asia and Latin America are finally joining the technology era. Too bad we (0ur masters) can't keep up with them."
That corporations move facilities to locations where they can
obtain the best "value" and minimize costs does require
regions to "market" the positives of their own region such
that business will expand to their areas.
And while you note that many industries have left their
original homes, some areas have seen an influx of manufacturing
jobs - and this includes the US. Why did Mercedes, BMW,
Volkswagon and others build in the southeast rather than the
rust-belt? Land costs were not the driver. Transportation costs
were not the driver - although the ability to export autos into and
outside of the US had an impact in deciding to locate facilities in
the US to begin with. Certainly, the education or basic ability of
the workforce was not the driver. Why could the rust-belt not pull
in - draw those production facilities?
We currently are seeing a return to investments in some of the
older industrial sites - nylon and nylon blends, what were in
past times specialty chemicals but now are more industrial
chemicals. The driver seems to be lower costs based on
greater integration with the end-user supply chain along
with lower energy costs.
In short, there are some real positives in the US - growth
is possible still - but we need to take advantage of the positives.
We seem to be trying to avoid talking about them or analyzing
what are the real positives we have - we seem to try to come up with reasons not to use them or not to advertise them even to ourselves.
I do not understand why this has not caught the attention of the
political wonks or the ever seems to become more than the
standard "talking points". Folks tend to split apart on the
taxes vs subsidies vs government aid/"entitlements" vs government
Tricky thing is to get folks to focus on what can be rather
than on what is different between their views and other's.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|