And they said sustainable development was a radical, hippie notion

Why is it that the most "common sense" ideas are so hard for the so called experts to grasp? Take NAFTA (please) - shipping good paying jobs overseas to do the work cheaper will enable Americans to buy cheaper goods. Well, besides the fact that I don't see that things actually cost less today in spite of knowing that it's costing the companies much less to manufacture - no one ever really answered the question of how Americans would pay for these cheaper goods after their jobs were outsourced.

Americas Economic Dominance Fades As the US Dollar Continues to Slump

American Consumers are Losing their Crown - With the U.S. Dollar Index breaking decisively below its long-term support level, the sun is finally setting on the golden age of American consumption. As America 's economic dominance fades, so too will the faith in the central thesis that has explained its apparent success and has shaped the majority of recent economic theory.

At issue is the belief that a nation can grow and prosper by borrowing from abroad in order to consume imported goods. To consume at the pace that it has, America exchanges income producing assets, such as companies or property, or interest bearing IOUs, such as Treasury notes or mortgage-backed bonds, for foreign made clothes, toys and electronics. Economists call these transactions “growth”. But rather than discovering a new path to prosperity, America has simply stumbled on a short cut to financial ruin.

How can there be any more simple argument for sustainable development? If you take all the profit out of an area to a global headquarters somewhere else, then it's simply going to drain the area of it's wealth, leaving behind a parasitic community that requires the corporate host to feed from.


They just never bothered to mention that "trickle down" economics was the equivalent of getting pissed on...