Fast Talk

The world economy is not growing it is just becoming more global. We continue to "out-source" to other countries and we transfer some of the wealth that used to prop our economy up into the hands of other countries. This wouldn't be so bad if we hadn't outsourced ourselves to a fault. But to answer the question, we are spreading the wealth not growing more money.

I guess it depends on how you define "growing". In demographic and production units terms it is growing, in currency terms it is equalizing in terms of value and inflating in terms of fiat dollars.

How can you quantify the "global economy"? And how do we qualify "growth"? I think Margy is right to ask for an elaboration. Its an interesting question, though, because if you consider publishing, the "publishing economy" -- in the U.S. at least -- is shrinking, but in world markets it is expanding as publications find new niches. So, overall, you might consider this a shift rather than an outright "growth." And again, as the publishing industry comes to terms with the digital tipping point, can we rightly say that transforming to digital information rather than print is "growth"? Not from Boomers' perspectives.

Yes, to both. The world's economy is both growing and having those growth locations move to developing nations. To answer Rip's statement, you would quantify the "global economy" using standard economic practice(s) of measurement. "GDP", gross domestic product. If your nation's "GDP" increases from the current year to the next, that is growth. Hence, global growth would be the majority of this planet's nations, "GDP", increasing one year to the next. Margy, "GDP" ignores currency values and their fluctuations. Please visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product and take the information for what it is worth.

Growth as an acceleration of consumption on a global scale is indeed taking place.

Globalization in general is good....but many are questioning whether it is good for ordinary wage-earning people. Globalization is not working for everyone. Stagnating wages and rising job insecurity in developed countries are creating popular disenchantment with the free movement of goods, capital and people across borders. If unchecked, popular fears could turn into a political backlash that could lead to protectionism. In theory, less-developed countries win from globalization because they get jobs making low-cost products for rich countries. Rich countries win because, in addition to being able to buy inexpensive imports, they also can sell more sophisticated products like machine tools or financial services to emerging economies. Many companies in the U.S. and Europe have been able to squeeze workers' pay increases by threatening to move production abroad. In the past decade, real labor incomes in the U.S. have grown at roughly half the rate of labor productivity. The reason is simple: With the emergence of China, India and countries from the former Soviet bloc, companies from the established economies of North America, Europe and Japan have more choices on where to invest. That puts them in a stronger bargaining position with workers in their home countries. The problem is that workers in the West aren't equipped for today's pace of change, in which jobs come and go and skills can quickly become redundant. Here in Southeastern Michigan the structural changes happening within the automotive industry make unemployed workers think of themselves as the canary in the U.S. mineshaft. Governmental support programs, like retraining workers who lose their jobs, can help people who are suffering from globalization. Source: The Wall Street Journal, January 25, 2007

Globalization in general is good....but many are questioning whether it is good for ordinary wage-earning people. Globalization is not working for everyone. Stagnating wages and rising job insecurity in developed countries are creating popular disenchantment with the free movement of goods, capital and people across borders. If unchecked, popular fears could turn into a political backlash that could lead to protectionism. In theory, less-developed countries win from globalization because they get jobs making low-cost products for rich countries. Rich countries win because, in addition to being able to buy inexpensive imports, they also can sell more sophisticated products like machine tools or financial services to emerging economies. Many companies in the U.S. and Europe have been able to squeeze workers' pay increases by threatening to move production abroad. In the past decade, real labor incomes in the U.S. have grown at roughly half the rate of labor productivity. The reason is simple: With the emergence of China, India and countries from the former Soviet bloc, companies from the established economies of North America, Europe and Japan have more choices on where to invest. That puts them in a stronger bargaining position with workers in their home countries. The problem is that workers in the West aren't equipped for today's pace of change, in which jobs come and go and skills can quickly become redundant. Here in Southeastern Michigan the structural changes happening within the automotive industry make unemployed workers think of themselves as the canary in the U.S. mineshaft. Governmental support programs, like retraining workers who lose their jobs, can help people who are suffering from globalization. Source: The Wall Street Journal, January 25, 2007

It is divesting. However without morality it will continue to drive down humanity. Wealth without morality leads to suffering.