Arguing about jobs

SO NOW OBAMA AND ROMNEY are arguing about which of them has exported more jobs. barrack as president, or mitt as financier - well, we have to argue about something, don't we?

whatever obama has or hasn't done as president with regard to economic policy is, or should be, easy to see. most of what presidents do tends to be highly visible. its hard to see where he's done anything intentionally to ship jobs out of the united states.

romney is another matter. his actions are a bit hazier, lay a bit deeper, but should still be visible, and probably are.

maybe obama should hire the ex FBI director who recently completed an investigation at penn state. he'd get to the bottom of it. if mitt made decisions he later denied, or shipped american jobs overseas, it should be knowable, and known.

BUT so what? is shipping jobs overseas such a bad thing? shouldn't the american economy be able to replace lost jobs with new ones, and more of them? are we not, ultimately, one big global community, global economy?

let america be the economic job creation engine of the world!   after all, the world seems to need one...

meanwhile, back in poor lil ole job deprived america,  maybe we should start making new jobs. maybe somebody should set up a television factory, or a radio factory, or so forth.

with enough manufacturing, america and the world might close the gap between actual wealth, and all this paper, electronic, imaginary money we seem so fond of creating out of thin air.

maybe we shouldn't worry about whether big corporations look for cheap labor, because we already know they do.  instead, let us concern ourselves with the key question: how to produce and distribute a reasonable and desirable amount of material wealth to everyone, sustainably.

so far, we haven't figured that one out.

Bb

please scroll down for more...