No kidding. I dream of a world economy that has grown such that the median Chinese or Indian citizen can enjoy the lifestyle of the median American or Swede today. I don't think people can conceive of the magic that kind of productive bounty would represent.

genuinely curious here, why would a bigger economy mean a better quality of life for regular citizens? who's to say the wealth wouldn't be all concentrated in one area of society? as far as i've understood it, in free market capitalism, companies increase their profits by cutting their marginal costs (like worker's wages)

The basic tenet of free market economics is that people engage in transactions voluntarily and with good information. GDP is a crude measure of all the transactions that take place in an economy, and from the preceding tenet each transaction makes both parties happier (or why would they take part?). It follows that happiness monotonically increases with economic activity.

In theory.

In practice it works pretty well. The happiness isn't evenly distributed, to be sure, but despite all the stuff you've heard about globalization, Monsanto, the rich getting richer, etc. go look at Hans Rosling's presentations and you'll see that everyone is getting better off as economies grow.

The big gripe about jobs being exported overseas is kind of racist. At bottom it says that an American should get a job instead of a better qualified or cheaper foreigner. Why? Is it not OK to look for the best deal you can get? Now, the fact that capital can cross borders and people can't is the real problem. But the same people who want to keep jobs at home also want to close borders to people.

hmm. i agree about the subtle racism of the job-exporting argument. well not that the argument itself is racist, but that it goes hand in hand with xenophobia.

the core problem though is that free trade has created a race to the bottom where american workers' wages will have to drop to meet those of malaysian / mexican / chinese / taiwanese workers, who have a pretty terrible quality of life. we are competing with countries with ingrained caste systems in their cultures, countries that completely accept treating some people like dirt.

the basic tenet of real life is that people have to get jobs to survive, it's not a voluntary choice. yes, the transaction of paying a sweatshop worker $1/day for stapling fabric to a chair will make that worker happier than he would be with $0, but one party is clearly coming out much better in this scenario. when the best deal you can get is based on exploiting a human being, imo, it is not OK to look for the best deal you can get. not moral, at least. we can have capitalism, a robust economy for business, and treat workers ethically as well.