Global Economy And Strategic Options To States

Salam AL Rabadi

There are no real globalization even the minimum with respect to the labor market. Although the free movement of goods, services, and capital but various obstacles and restrictions put in place to prevent workers from moving freely between countries. Addition to increasing pressure as a result of the difficult challenges for all countries on the deficit in the government budget level.

Also, all the efforts of politicians and economists to find new opportunities and alternatives in all sectors have not achieved the desired results. And higher the level of trade in goods and services across international borders freely in return increasing difficulties. Thus it must be recognized by the fact that free trade is growing away from the labor market. But it leaves a negative impact on this sector. It must be noted the basic problem in the modern world on a level relationship between sustainable development and economic growth are:

The problem of the gap between the rich and the poor. So do we in the era of the economy for the economy and not for the community?

Far from theorizing and according to the statistics and data on the economic gap (If we take into account that the largest percentage of citizens are workers or employees are gainfully employed), we can say that the economy is no longer working for the benefit of the peoples. The facts based on the public interest will remain the primary criterion to evaluate the successful economic policy.

Accordingly, it is obvious that the gap between the leading entrepreneurs and the owners of wealth on the one hand and the salaries of the workers, on the other hand, it will growing doubts about the safety of the community.

So if the Free trade and movement of capital are initiating the growth and wellbeing and if we able to initiate the World Trade Organization goals to cancel quantitative restrictions and the unification of all duties and make the world a free trade area by the year 2020:

Are these policies and objectives will lead to a deepening of the labor market crisis? Or is it will serve as a point of change and positive transformation?

Addition to that the competition between countries (Whether industrial or developing) to cut wages or salary will lead to disastrous results. This will not increase the well-being of communities but will increase the rigidity of the painful social status.

The markdown in wages is reflected in the prices of goods and benefit from it directly to the owner of the high-income consumer who has not lost a bit of his income as a result of reducing the cost of production. In contrast, the middle and lower classes are that you lose part of their income and they are more affected. Based on this we can not ignore the dialectical:

Who Should Bear The Burden: Capital Or Workers?

Governments increase the tax burden on the responsibility of the labor sector.Also, the tax exemptions and facilities provided by governments to transnational corporations resulted a decline in the financial state revenues which compensated it for by increasing taxes on other social classes or by reducing the social services and health care.
In the past: the equation was the more reflective of the widening gap between rich and poor that: The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. But now under the current list facts, this equation is no longer sufficient to clarify the picture. Where it is clear the emergence of a new formula based on the principle:

The rich become richer and the poor are getting poorer and at a faster rate?

There is surprise or shock when we know there is high-speed in the provision of money solve the global financial and economic crisis compared to that there is cautious and stingy when it comes to financing modest programs for the benefit of humanity. For example:  only we need to tens of billions annually to eradicate hunger and malnutrition in the whole world. And the United Nations has endorsed several different programs to achieve this goal. But this programs still on paper only due to lack of availability of the necessary funds???

These tragic facts (away from the ideological dimensions in study and evaluation of the global economy) put us in front of the dialectical next logical question:

Is the problem lies in the strategic priorities and options to states? Or Is it, in fact, the problem of the actual possibilities available to States?