Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The economy: big picture stuff - nobody knows what we're doing

The economy: big picture stuff - nobody knows what we're doing (Page 2)
Thread Tools
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2011, 05:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
It's popular to say things are different now than ever before, it always has been popular. It's the "uncharted territory" trope. Being in "uncharted territory" (or at least seeming so at the time) is actually one of the few properties that all eras share with each other.

Globalization is nothing new. A few years ago it was pointed out (by liberals of course) that the famed Boston Tea Party was protest against globalization (for example). Obviously globalization must have existed if there were such spirited protests against it. The USA somehow managed to make its fortune hundreds of years later, despite globalization or rather, I suspect, because of it. The sky isn't really falling, and if it was globalization is not an appropriate scapegoat for it. My 2¢.

The concept of globalization is not new, but the means in which to do so are, and the emergence of countries like China and India are very real. I think there is more here than just buzzwords, there is plenty of evidence in the amount of non-location specific business that is going on made possible by the maturation of the internet, the obvious growth and urbanization of these areas, etc.

As an example and an aside, 80% if Apple's iPhone sales are in international sales, I think it would surprise people to consider that a cutting edge type product like the iPhone is not really something unique to the US. As the populations of China and India grow even closer to becoming the consumers that we are, there is a *lot* of business to be had in these countries alone.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2011, 05:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I can't think of a single thing they can't do. Some things they wont do like building Nuclear weapons. But to say there is somethings they can't do out side of artificial limits like Government contracts on Military stuff which requires trusted sources, they can pretty much do anything now including flying satellites into orbit (successfully the majority of the time). They even have semi conductor facilities and CPU manufacturing capabilities. Might be a few years behind Intel and AMD but its there. With global access through the Internet and the ability to purchase and dissect anything I honestly can't think of a single thing China isn't equipped to do. Congo and Sudan on the other hand can't do much because of a lack of facilities and technology. China is really a odd ball country because one side of it is super back water primitive while the other side of it is leading the world. China is technically a 2nd world country due to its lack of uniformity across the board.

I can.

The Chinese are not very good at building websites that appeal to Western audiences, for instance, both in terms of the English and design sensibilities. Their sense of branding and marketing is nothing like Apple's, which is what we expect here.

You can also make the argument that their biggest search engine isn't as good as Google's, their phones not as good as the iPhone or Android phones, etc. This isn't to say that they could *not* build a competitive company, but the US (and Canada) is still the powerhouse for many advanced technologies.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2011, 06:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The concept of globalization is not new, but the means in which to do so are, and the emergence of countries like China and India are very real. I think there is more here than just buzzwords, there is plenty of evidence in the amount of non-location specific business that is going on made possible by the maturation of the internet, the obvious growth and urbanization of these areas, etc.

As an example and an aside, 80% if Apple's iPhone sales are in international sales, I think it would surprise people to consider that a cutting edge type product like the iPhone is not really something unique to the US. As the populations of China and India grow even closer to becoming the consumers that we are, there is a *lot* of business to be had in these countries alone.
80% global demand and 100% Chinese Manufactured. Many countries are leaping far ahead of North America in technology. Japan and South Korea are prime examples.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2011, 06:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I can.

The Chinese are not very good at building websites that appeal to Western audiences, for instance, both in terms of the English and design sensibilities. Their sense of branding and marketing is nothing like Apple's, which is what we expect here.

You can also make the argument that their biggest search engine isn't as good as Google's, their phones not as good as the iPhone or Android phones, etc. This isn't to say that they could *not* build a competitive company, but the US (and Canada) is still the powerhouse for many advanced technologies.
Are we talking about technical ability or business ability. I agree that business ability is lacking if you consider the target audience being North America. But North America isnt the entire world now is it. They might simply have no interest in marketing products to us and are more concerned with marketing to other Asian countries which means the style they do things is more accurate to the target audience. On the technical side of things they already manufacture most of the stuff we use now so they are def not lacking in that department. Cheap crappy clones don't hold up to brand name things they manufacture but again who is the target market. Is it producing a knock off for 100 bucks for cheap people and poor people. I think its impressive how quickly they do produce knock offs too. Be hard pressed to do that here.

In research, such as drug research, technical research I think Canada and the US along with Europe and Australia still hold the lead but this lead is slowly evaporating too.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2011, 06:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The concept of globalization is not new, but the means in which to do so are, and the emergence of countries like China and India are very real. I think there is more here than just buzzwords, there is plenty of evidence in the amount of non-location specific business that is going on made possible by the maturation of the internet, the obvious growth and urbanization of these areas, etc.
I don't think any of that is new. There have always been emerging markets. The American colonies themselves were emerging markets.

As an example and an aside, 80% if Apple's iPhone sales are in international sales, I think it would surprise people to consider that a cutting edge type product like the iPhone is not really something unique to the US. As the populations of China and India grow even closer to becoming the consumers that we are, there is a *lot* of business to be had in these countries alone.
Surely you're joking right? The US was never "ahead" in phones. Finns and Japanese have always destroyed us in mobile phone stuff. Similar for high speed internet (example). If anyone ever thought "America **** Yeah" about the information age hardware, they're just dumb, like Jay Leno "street walking" dumb.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2011, 07:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The Chinese are not very good at building websites that appeal to Western audiences, for instance, both in terms of the English and design sensibilities. Their sense of branding and marketing is nothing like Apple's, which is what we expect here.
What do any of those have to do with labor costs and production? Cultural specific idioms, almost by definition, do not participate in a global market. Those are areas that China doesn't have to compete.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2011, 09:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't think any of that is new. There have always been emerging markets. The American colonies themselves were emerging markets.
Is your assertion that books like the Thomas Friedman book: The World Is Flat, 3.0 | Thomas L. Friedman are much to do about nothing? His book was not the inspiration behind this thread, I haven't actually read it, but I'm just trying to figure out where you are going with this. I mean, I thought we all agreed upon the idea that globalization as it exists today is a new thing? There are many books and all sorts of media about modern globalization, nothing weird here, right?

I'm also trying to figure out whether or not you are just playing devil's advocate which is a pretty common game here.

Surely you're joking right? The US was never "ahead" in phones. Finns and Japanese have always destroyed us in mobile phone stuff. Similar for high speed internet (example). If anyone ever thought "America **** Yeah" about the information age hardware, they're just dumb, like Jay Leno "street walking" dumb.

Fair enough, it was just the first example that gambleed into my mind.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2011, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
What do any of those have to do with labor costs and production? Cultural specific idioms, almost by definition, do not participate in a global market. Those are areas that China doesn't have to compete.

They don't, but I was trying to make the point that there are services that China can't provide as adeptly.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2011, 10:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Is your assertion that books like the Thomas Friedman book: The World Is Flat, 3.0 | Thomas L. Friedman are much to do about nothing?
I haven't read it either (thank you for confessing that ), I just skimmed the wikipedia page about it, but given that I would say that while it's not much ado about nothing, it is much ado about a thing that we have lived with for a long long time (an update on it). Even if something isn't brand new it can still be important.

I'm going to steal your analogy for a second, the iphone. It's not a game-changer in the grand scheme of life. It won't turn your life from "bad" to "good." However it is a significant contributor to a gradual, steady increase in our quality of life that has been continually improving (due to similar inventions) for the past 400 years or so. It's not new, because shiny new gadgets that marginally improve our overall existence have been popping up for centuries. It doesn't mean that the "big picture" of how we conduct our lives will need to be re-written from scratch. But that doesn't make it "much ado about nothing" exactly either. It's just part of a continuum. Its importance is quantitative, not qualitative. An incremental move.

Does that make my position any clearer?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2011, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Want to point out in detail what will make our economies competitive with one where $1500 US pays a employee for a entire year..... I hope your not suggesting we start paying people here $1500 a year.
If you had been paying attention, you'd notice that I began with two very simple things we could do immediately to make ourselves more competitive; address our competitors with a more fiscally sane domestic policy that does not perpetuate our debt balance with them (borrowing/spending) and avoid international agreements that place the US at a clear disadvantage.

And your note on Automation to increase productivity, the same Automation can be done in China so why would you pay a handful of people here 50k+ to operate machines which you can do in China for 2k+ per operator.
My employer's operations are entirely dependent on domestic labor. Most companies in the US operate this way as many of them serve local customers with locally-delivered products. One of the first things to do is get more out of the assets you already have. US businesses are not all mega-stores that have the leverage to outsource this much of their operations to China and India. Our economy thrives on small business and again - the US should embrace aggressive, pro-growth US policy. Small businesses are people ordering, lugging, stocking, delivering, and selling their wares in storefronts of numerous, various types. They are creative, enterprising, and at times very shrewd. They will need laborers, but they need to be able to function in an environment that is more economically free. Economic freedom can be measured by considering a country's regulatory environment/size of government, trade freedom, monetary freedom, property rights, investment freedom, and labor freedom. The US is ranked below 7 other nations in economic freedom and declining. There are policies in the US we can employ now to improve our economy because after all; if we cannot sustain our own bad policies, it won't matter how many widgets China is selling.

Your idea of placing a tariff on Chinese imports for example is a simpleton strategy that will only have China manipulate their own import taxes; export tariffs on textiles as was done in 2005. Ultimately, it's just playing tit for tat.

Nowhere have I claimed that the US revert to child/slave/oppressive labor practices in order to compete. Again, had you been paying attention you'd know that I think the concern over competing with China and India is misguided and overstated. This is like wasting your time brain-storming ideas on why that kid is getting an 'A' in the class instead of doing your homework.

What your suggesting is don't tax the company anything, and to drop wages down to the level of what people make i China oh and remove all regulatory tape on protecting the environment in order to stimulate job growth domestically.
Grow up.

The idea of Tax cuts and reduction of red tape comes from Business who want to make more profit and have a easier time doing it. These are not solutions for the economy or the people.
Yes they are among many solutions for the economy and the people. The idea of tax increases and more red tape comes from bureaucrats who think they know better than you while taking a little off the side to break the rules they made for you. At best they'll act to secure a bloated budget that frees them from adding numbers, managing to efficiency, or face accountability for waste, fraud, and abuse.

But it's that evil PROFIT!™ All of a sudden not wanting to give your daughter holding two arms full of Saks Fifth Avenue shopping bags another $1k or so to kick around is a reprehensible notion.
ebuddy
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 3, 2011, 11:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I haven't read it either (thank you for confessing that ), I just skimmed the wikipedia page about it, but given that I would say that while it's not much ado about nothing, it is much ado about a thing that we have lived with for a long long time (an update on it). Even if something isn't brand new it can still be important.

I'm going to steal your analogy for a second, the iphone. It's not a game-changer in the grand scheme of life. It won't turn your life from "bad" to "good." However it is a significant contributor to a gradual, steady increase in our quality of life that has been continually improving (due to similar inventions) for the past 400 years or so. It's not new, because shiny new gadgets that marginally improve our overall existence have been popping up for centuries. It doesn't mean that the "big picture" of how we conduct our lives will need to be re-written from scratch. But that doesn't make it "much ado about nothing" exactly either. It's just part of a continuum. Its importance is quantitative, not qualitative. An incremental move.

Does that make my position any clearer?


I think so... You're basically just saying that my language of expressing this as some incredible paradigm change is a little overblown?

I'm happy to re-characterize all of this, but I still think that at this point we need to think differently about what is going on. Maybe not in a "it's a brand new day" kind of way, but enough to recognize that significant changes are taking place, and we need to adjust.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 02:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
If you had been paying attention, you'd notice that I began with two very simple things we could do immediately to make ourselves more competitive; address our competitors with a more fiscally sane domestic policy that does not perpetuate our debt balance with them (borrowing/spending) and avoid international agreements that place the US at a clear disadvantage.
I flat out reject this idea in the context of the global economic conditions resulting in job loss due to out sourcing. While this does need to be done for the general health of the USofA in general it has no baring on job out sourcing. The government could remove 100% of all business related taxes and still not create a favourable enough condition to compete against super cheap labor.

On the international agreements side of things I believe the US already refuses to sign agreements that would hurt the economic position already (thinks Kyoto as a example of one) with the majority of international agreements the US is apart of, it engineered them to begin with to make things more favourable to US companies. In addition to that the US generally fails to play by the rules anyways resulting in long drawn out legal conflicts (Canadian US softwood lumber dispute) as a example.


My employer's operations are entirely dependent on domestic labor. Most companies in the US operate this way as many of them serve local customers with locally-delivered products. One of the first things to do is get more out of the assets you already have. US businesses are not all mega-stores that have the leverage to outsource this much of their operations to China and India. Our economy thrives on small business and again - the US should embrace aggressive, pro-growth US policy. Small businesses are people ordering, lugging, stocking, delivering, and selling their wares in storefronts of numerous, various types. They are creative, enterprising, and at times very shrewd. They will need laborers, but they need to be able to function in an environment that is more economically free.
Its clear you don't live in a Wal-Mart devastated town. Don't worry sooner or later big box stores will invade your community and help sweep away the small businesses which are vital to the economy, something I did point on in my thread about automation.

Economic freedom can be measured by considering a country's regulatory environment/size of government, trade freedom, monetary freedom, property rights, investment freedom, and labor freedom. The US is ranked below 7 other nations in economic freedom and declining.
What are these 7 other nations, im just curious, I believe you.


There are policies in the US we can employ now to improve our economy because after all; if we cannot sustain our own bad policies, it won't matter how many widgets China is selling.

Your idea of placing a tariff on Chinese imports for example is a simpleton strategy that will only have China manipulate their own import taxes; export tariffs on textiles as was done in 2005. Ultimately, it's just playing tit for tat.
Considering the trade deficit with China currently I don't see any tit for tat retaliatory taxes from China really doing anything. But you are right it can lead to this. I will use the Canadian Softwood lumber dispute as a example of this. The US placed (illegal) tariffs on Canadian softwood for years to protect its own industry. The end result was years of lawsuits with NAFTA to remove it and during this period of time Canadian Mills got shutdown because they could not compete with US sources from the tax. In the end what happened was Canadian Mills got super efficient in response, in fact the entire industry did and now that its a level playing field again with the dispute being over. US counter parts are at a major disadvantage now because they didn't have to retool and invest in efficiencies and currently can't compete with our softwood industry. So trade disputes can definitely lead to undesirable results if handled wrong. But I still see trade taxes with China and other nations of similar super cheap labor status as the only real options because nothing else will compete against the super cheap labor.


Nowhere have I claimed that the US revert to child/slave/oppressive labor practices in order to compete. Again, had you been paying attention you'd know that I think the concern over competing with China and India is misguided and overstated. This is like wasting your time brain-storming ideas on why that kid is getting an 'A' in the class instead of doing your homework.
Thats the problem, your not claiming anything that is useful, just spitting out political rhetoric which applies to everything and anything, "Cut spending, shrink the size of government this will solve all our problems..." You might as well be saying allow child labor and slaves again because at least its a constructive idea even if distasteful.

Grow up.
Guess I was right

Yes they are among many solutions for the economy and the people. The idea of tax increases and more red tape comes from bureaucrats who think they know better than you while taking a little off the side to break the rules they made for you. At best they'll act to secure a bloated budget that frees them from adding numbers, managing to efficiency, or face accountability for waste, fraud, and abuse.

But it's that evil PROFIT!™ All of a sudden not wanting to give your daughter holding two arms full of Saks Fifth Avenue shopping bags another $1k or so to kick around is a reprehensible notion.
If we do as you suggest, removing red tape and basically allowing companies free and total un-inhibitive freedom to make profit, you will end up living in a toxic waste land. The Answer isn't to turn the US into China which has almost total un-inhibitive freedom now to make profit.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 02:39 AM
 
Eesh. New Year, same shit.

I notice one constant in most of these discussions- the conservatives tend to speak from a greater amount of real world experience, and I suspect and in reality more real world success- in their business dealings, and life in general.

Liberals tend to drone on with a whole bunch of theoretical bullshit, most of it older by far then they are, yet they always imagine they just came up with it, and I suspect most aren't even capable of balancing their checkbooks, let alone solving real world economic problems.

Sorry- just my take. It's 2011 already. I for one am sick of bullshit about economics being spewed by people with no freakin' clue about economics.

Personally, I'm only open to economic arguments from people that have their own shit in order, and actually know a thing or two about the subject. Otherwise, stick a fork in it already, it was OLD in 2001. In 2011 it's downright rotten. Go back to complaining about someone else getting to keep more of the money THEY earned and YOU DIDN'T and shut up already.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 03:08 AM
 
Lets look at what works, Bill Clintons government and Jean Chrétien government both where Liberal. Both governments where responsible for reductions in deficits, balanced budgets and economically a great time. Fast forward to the last decade and you replace Clinton and Chrétien with Bush and Harper both conservative governments and national debts increase in both countries to historically highest amounts ever, economy sinks and we are both at war in the middle east. Yup Conservative governments knows best.... (pukes)
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 03:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Lets look at what works, Bill Clintons government and (who gives a F's) government both where Liberal.


Could you post a better example of exactly the same old TIRED, overly-simplified, CLUELESS bullshit that's exactly what I'm talking about being sick of hearing RE-SPEWED for the 10,000,000,000th time if you TRIED?

I guess I'm cranky, but seriously- how about a resolution from the peanut gallery for 2011? You'll stop beating the SAME old, tired, dead horses and find something more interesting to spout off about?

I know, I know, it won't happen. That's cool. I dunno what it is- I think I'm finally realizing I'm just fed up with clueless people that don't know DICK SQUAT about economics and money, spout off about those subjects, and rehash TIRED, old, braindead ideas that were already old and probably OUTDATED when your grandparent's grandparent's came along.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 03:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Who Gives a :censor: idiot View Post


Could you post a better example of exactly the same old TIRED, overly-simplified, CLUELESS bullshit that's exactly what I'm talking about being sick of hearing RE-SPEWED for the 10,000,000,000th time if you TRIED?

I guess I'm cranky, but seriously- how about a resolution from the peanut gallery for 2011? You'll stop beating the SAME old, tired, dead horses and find something more interesting to spout off about?

I know, I know, it won't happen. That's cool. I dunno what it is- I think I'm finally realizing I'm just fed up with clueless people that don't know DICK SQUAT about economics and money, spout off about those subjects, and rehash TIRED, old, braindead ideas that were already old and probably OUTDATED when your grandparent's grandparent's came along.
And what makes you a expert, from my seat your in that boat of people who are clueless and don't know DICK SQUAT about economics and money....
( Last edited by Athens; Jan 4, 2011 at 03:54 AM. )
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 03:42 AM
 
Yes, I can tell you just have it ALL figured out.

The difference between you and me is that I don't pretend to have all the answers to any of this. Get your own life in order, then you'll realize you don't have a clue about anyone else's, anyone else's financial situation, what it takes to run an entire economy, and even less of a clue about all the 'big picture' nonsense that is nothing more to your ilk than strings of words you barely know how to spell.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 03:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Yes, I can tell you just have it ALL figured out.

The difference between you and me is that I don't pretend to have all the answers to any of this. Get your own life in order, then you'll realize you don't have a clue about anyone else's, anyone else's financial situation, what it takes to run an entire economy, and even less of a clue about all the 'big picture' nonsense that is nothing more to your ilk than strings of words you barely know how to spell.
Oh wait, what do we have here. You admit you don't know all and yet your telling others to shut up Dude go spoil a different thread, this one was doing just fine before your sorry ass joined in
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 07:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Lets look at what works, Bill Clintons government and Jean Chrétien government both where Liberal. Both governments where responsible for reductions in deficits, balanced budgets and economically a great time. Fast forward to the last decade and you replace Clinton and Chrétien with Bush and Harper both conservative governments and national debts increase in both countries to historically highest amounts ever, economy sinks and we are both at war in the middle east. Yup Conservative governments knows best.... (pukes)
BZZZT!! Wrong.

Bill Clinton's "government" was not liberal, it was a predominantly Republican Congress. Congress holds the purse strings in the US. Bush's "government" was not conservative as since 2006 was predominantly a Democratic Congress. The answer you're looking for is gridlock between Congress and the President, keeping spending in check. Look for it to occur again between now and 2012. It's as predictable as the coming night to anyone paying attention to reality as opposed to their rose-colored partisan nonsense.
ebuddy
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 07:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Yes, I can tell you just have it ALL figured out.

The difference between you and me is that I don't pretend to have all the answers to any of this. Get your own life in order, then you'll realize you don't have a clue about anyone else's, anyone else's financial situation, what it takes to run an entire economy, and even less of a clue about all the 'big picture' nonsense that is nothing more to your ilk than strings of words you barely know how to spell.
You know what I'm tired of? People like you that spend most of their day crawling the Internet and posting on this site, with no real life of their own.

Last time I checked, the Internet was public, and so is this forum. You don't like the topic, get lost.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 08:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I flat out reject this idea in the context of the global economic conditions resulting in job loss due to out sourcing. While this does need to be done for the general health of the USofA in general it has no baring on job out sourcing. The government could remove 100% of all business related taxes and still not create a favourable enough condition to compete against super cheap labor.
You've missed the point again. In terms of "competing", this is all I care to address. I think the ideal that we need to compete with China and India is misguided and overstated; like worrying about why that kid is getting an 'A' in the class instead of doing your homework.

On the international agreements side of things I believe the US already refuses to sign agreements that would hurt the economic position already (thinks Kyoto as a example of one) with the majority of international agreements the US is apart of, it engineered them to begin with to make things more favourable to US companies. In addition to that the US generally fails to play by the rules anyways resulting in long drawn out legal conflicts (Canadian US softwood lumber dispute) as a example.
I certainly don't advocate breaking the law, but I do appreciate the US using its leverage to garner more favorable international agreements.

Its clear you don't live in a Wal-Mart devastated town. Don't worry sooner or later big box stores will invade your community and help sweep away the small businesses which are vital to the economy, something I did point on in my thread about automation.
My town has Wal-Marts in it, but the community is not devastated. In fact, in a time of economic turmoil, this region has been faring quite well. I'm not as worried about Wal-Mart as you.

What are these 7 other nations, im just curious, I believe you.
Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, and Canada.

Considering the trade deficit with China currently I don't see any tit for tat retaliatory taxes from China really doing anything. But you are right it can lead to this. I will use the Canadian Softwood lumber dispute as a example of this. The US placed (illegal) tariffs on Canadian softwood for years to protect its own industry. The end result was years of lawsuits with NAFTA to remove it and during this period of time Canadian Mills got shutdown because they could not compete with US sources from the tax. In the end what happened was Canadian Mills got super efficient in response, in fact the entire industry did and now that its a level playing field again with the dispute being over. US counter parts are at a major disadvantage now because they didn't have to retool and invest in efficiencies and currently can't compete with our softwood industry. So trade disputes can definitely lead to undesirable results if handled wrong. But I still see trade taxes with China and other nations of similar super cheap labor status as the only real options because nothing else will compete against the super cheap labor.
So... you tell me I'm wrong while giving me an example of why I'm right. You're arguing to argue.

Thats the problem, your not claiming anything that is useful, just spitting out political rhetoric which applies to everything and anything, "Cut spending, shrink the size of government this will solve all our problems..." You might as well be saying allow child labor and slaves again because at least its a constructive idea even if distasteful.
Advocating child/slave labor would not be constructive because first, it would not happen so it would be an unrealistic non-idea much like what you've provided and second it would be destructive because of course child/slave labor is a bad thing. Again because you missed it: There are policies in the US we can employ now to improve our economy because after all; if we cannot sustain our own bad policies, it won't matter how many widgets China is selling.

Guess I was right
No, you were wrong. Again. What you did was employ a strawman. Are you familiar with a strawman argument? It's childish, sophomoric, and illustrates that the one you're discussing issues with is out of ideas and is now just lashing out.

If we do as you suggest, removing red tape and basically allowing companies free and total un-inhibitive freedom to make profit, you will end up living in a toxic waste land. The Answer isn't to turn the US into China which has almost total un-inhibitive freedom now to make profit.
No one is saying this. This is a strawman argument. Grow up.
ebuddy
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
BZZZT!! Wrong.

Bill Clinton's "government" was not liberal, it was a predominantly Republican Congress. Congress holds the purse strings in the US. Bush's "government" was not conservative as since 2006 was predominantly a Democratic Congress. The answer you're looking for is gridlock between Congress and the President, keeping spending in check. Look for it to occur again between now and 2012. It's as predictable as the coming night to anyone paying attention to reality as opposed to their rose-colored partisan nonsense.
Ok if spending was in check during the Clinton years due to a gridlock between Congress and the President, how do you explain the massive amounts of spending during the Bush years, which pretty much started right out of the gates in 2001.....

And your theory does not hold true in Canada which didn't have any gridlocks in government yet the same pattern was the same. Another hole in your Theory is that if Clinton was grid locked from new spending, then current spending should have held steady thus no changes. Is it not true Clinton cut spending in order to make a budget surplus, the first in decades?

I would be more then happy to debate this with you in a new thread if you like because things do not add up. 2 Countries, 2 similar governments, 2 similar outcomes... Thats a little to similar for me to accept a Presidential and Congressional gridlock.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 11:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You've missed the point again. In terms of "competing", this is all I care to address. I think the ideal that we need to compete with China and India is misguided and overstated; like worrying about why that kid is getting an 'A' in the class instead of doing your homework.
Im not trying to be a jerk, im trying to debate you honestly and nicely so I hope you don't see otherwise. Perhaps I am missing your point. Let me ask you then using your analogy, if the kid is doing all his homework and is still only getting a C is it not worth while for that kid to investigate how the other kid is getting a A, perhaps better studying techniques for example?

I certainly don't advocate breaking the law, but I do appreciate the US using its leverage to garner more favorable international agreements.
As do I with regards to my government which since becoming a Conservative run government has been pretty useless on this front lol

My town has Wal-Marts in it, but the community is not devastated. In fact, in a time of economic turmoil, this region has been faring quite well. I'm not as worried about Wal-Mart as you.
Im not worried about Wal-Mart personally either, they don't have the same effect on major cities. I was referring to the small towns which get devastated by their presence.

Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, and Canada.
Your joking right, Canada and Australia having more economic freedom then the US? I would really love to see where you read that.

So... you tell me I'm wrong while giving me an example of why I'm right. You're arguing to argue.
Oh now your being simplistic, I selected my words carefully to avoid such a reply back. I still feel its needed to Tax China's imports. I also believe its something that has to be done carefully because blanket taxes with every one could result in more problems then it solves and only used the softwood lumber issue as a example of it going wrong. Thats not arguing to argue my friend. Thats being truthful, you are both right and wrong at the same time.

Advocating child/slave labor would not be constructive because first, it would not happen so it would be an unrealistic non-idea much like what you've provided and second it would be destructive because of course child/slave labor is a bad thing. Again because you missed it: There are policies in the US we can employ now to improve our economy because after all; if we cannot sustain our own bad policies, it won't matter how many widgets China is selling.
List of a few policies in detail that will improve economy so I can debate you on those specific policies or agree with you on them. Just saying we can employ policies or a very broad statement of cutting spending and reducing government does not leave much to discuss.

No, you were wrong. Again. What you did was employ a strawman. Are you familiar with a strawman argument? It's childish, sophomoric, and illustrates that the one you're discussing issues with is out of ideas and is now just lashing out.
Ha, bull that was not a strawman argument, your reply was Grow up to a valid assertion of what you are arguing for. If anything your reply was childish and illustrated your inability to disagree with the assertions you have been making thus I was correct originally. Unless you want to correct it now, I am content with my assessment of what your seeking.

No one is saying this. This is a strawman argument. Grow up.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly what you have been proposing all along, if not, its what it appears to be. Stop hiding behind the strawman argument, all your doing is demonstrating a weak mind. Its either what you are saying or its not and if its not its your job to clear up the misconceptions creating the illusion that it is what your aiming for. Because from where I stand, what I read from your posts this is exactly how I see it.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 11:43 AM
 
"Cut taxes" doesn't mean "eliminate taxes" it means "reduce taxes." Does that clear things up?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 12:25 PM
 
I've cited a strawman or two from him before - usually after his argument is thoroughly discredited as it has been here. He also accused everyone around him of using strawmans but couldn't cite any when asked.

Originally Posted by athens
List of a few policies in detail that will improve economy so I can debate you on those specific policies or agree with you on them. Just saying we can employ policies or a very broad statement of cutting spending and reducing government does not leave much to discuss.

ebuddy, among others, has outlined in incredibly specific detail policies which would accomplish this. Please, go back and read his posts. You might actually learn something.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 01:12 PM
 
So, what do you guys think about globalization and China and India and stuff? There are many threads for talking about reducing government and the deficit and taxes and all of that.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I've cited a strawman or two from him before - usually after his argument is thoroughly discredited as it has been here. He also accused everyone around him of using strawmans but couldn't cite any when asked.




ebuddy, among others, has outlined in incredibly specific detail policies which would accomplish this. Please, go back and read his posts. You might actually learn something.
No its a very general outline, cut taxes and reduce the size of government. That does not really go into any specifics. I want details. How will cutting taxes further help. Where does the government make up the lost revenue on the cut taxes. How does the government reduce debt in a situation of reduced taxes. Do they make it up with higher personal income tax or a consumption tax. Can enough spending be reduced to match the reduced revenue from the tax cuts and still balance the budget so the debt can be paid down. Its easy to say cut taxes and shrink government but thats just general. And I don't agree that this will help in any way stop the job out sourcing because even if you flat line business taxes to zero dollars its still not enough to make up the lower labor costs.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
*blather*
Shutup.

Go back to whining because *sniffle* someone posted in your thread, or proving you know dick squat about Android, iPads, or whatever else you think proves you have a life.
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 04:22 PM
 
Alright kids, you pay nice or I'm taking your thread away.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So, what do you guys think about globalization and China and India and stuff? There are many threads for talking about reducing government and the deficit and taxes and all of that.
I don't know what you expect to see that hasn't already been said in this thread. We think the way to succeed in the "new world" is the same way you succeed in the "old world," which is to support your own economy instead of just standing around wringing your hands about how much better the other guys' economies are while you strangle yours for tax revenue to support pet projects.. You think the old rules don't apply, for some reason you haven't been able to put into words, even when you backed off of this position when challenged on it. So...
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't know what you expect to see that hasn't already been said in this thread. We think the way to succeed in the "new world" is the same way you succeed in the "old world," which is to support your own economy instead of just standing around wringing your hands about how much better the other guys' economies are while you strangle yours for tax revenue to support pet projects.. You think the old rules don't apply, for some reason you haven't been able to put into words, even when you backed off of this position when challenged on it. So...
The problem with this though, is that people don't have near as much incentive to support their own economy anymore, because capitalists try to maximize profit, that's it. The Internet has made subcontracting and outsourcing a reality even for individual freelancers. This is why the Internet is like a global economic equalizer. It waters everything down and spreads everything out. Well, this could be what is happening... a transition to a global economy. The ones in developing areas that are business savvy are the ones that thrive in this era. I'm sure others will follow them... over time, there'll be many more business savvy people in these areas, after getting used to being outsourced to.

Then you have those save the whale people from here that want to outsource work because they want to do something good for poor people...
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 04:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't know what you expect to see that hasn't already been said in this thread. We think the way to succeed in the "new world" is the same way you succeed in the "old world," which is to support your own economy instead of just standing around wringing your hands about how much better the other guys' economies are while you strangle yours for tax revenue to support pet projects.. You think the old rules don't apply, for some reason you haven't been able to put into words, even when you backed off of this position when challenged on it. So...

The way I see it, the mechanical operation of the economic machine is the same, this is the part that you seem to be addressing here. What I'm interested in is our general strategy, the "where are we going" part of this that supports the machine, gives it something to drive. In the industrial era a big part was manufacturing, in some societies it is agriculture and other stuff.

What I'm saying is that we need to revise policy and/or thinking to accommodate the changes in what is driving our economy, the specifics of what modern jobs are and where they take place, the effect of globalization on business, etc.

Does this make more sense now?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The way I see it, the mechanical operation of the economic machine is the same, this is the part that you seem to be addressing here. What I'm interested in is our general strategy, the "where are we going" part of this that supports the machine, gives it something to drive. In the industrial era a big part was manufacturing, in some societies it is agriculture and other stuff.
Well the most obvious answer is that our "strategy" as been exactly the problem. Because it has been poisoned by people like freudling and Athens who openly declare "profits" to be, in and of themselves, bad. Profits should be a good thing, not something objectionable. Without profits, no "strategy" you come up with is going to support any of us.

What I'm saying is that we need to revise policy and/or thinking to accommodate the changes in what is driving our economy, the specifics of what modern jobs are and where they take place, the effect of globalization on business, etc.

Does this make more sense now?
I think there's a bigger question that needs to be answered first, without which any discussion is nonsense. Does business enable government to function, or does government enable business to function?

Your post makes it sound like businesses can't do anything until government shows them how. (Government "driving the economy," and "policy of what jobs are and where" sounds an awful lot like a command economy; is that what you think our goal should be?) I think the reality is more like government impedes business in its function, in the interest of higher goals such as law enforcement, military, civil rights and all that stuff that governments do. Now these are noble goals, but they don't include making business work in the first place. You can't draw off power from the economy and then inject it back in and expect it to be more than you drew. That would be like powering your sailboat by blowing into the sail. I am open to being shown I'm wrong about this... do you disagree?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't know what you expect to see that hasn't already been said in this thread. We think the way to succeed in the "new world" is the same way you succeed in the "old world," which is to support your own economy instead of just standing around wringing your hands about how much better the other guys' economies are while you strangle yours for tax revenue to support pet projects.. You think the old rules don't apply, for some reason you haven't been able to put into words, even when you backed off of this position when challenged on it. So...
Speak for yourself "We" because not all of us think your way.

To Address the question

Old World methods and rules just don't work in todays world. The Information age requires new solutions to maintain our ways of life while competing against sources of super cheap labor. If we do not adapt through means of import taxes and regulations to level the playing field, our way of life going to be greatly reduced.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 06:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I think there's a bigger question that needs to be answered first, without which any discussion is nonsense. Does business enable government to function, or does government enable business to function?
I kind of think this question is nonsense, no offense.

I think we all agree that business drives this economy and is the thrust and motivator behind all of this, but of course a business cannot easily succeed with poor policy. If it did it would be succeeding despite the policy, not because of it. So, the word "enable" is part of why this question sounds a little nonsensical (although maybe that isn't the right word), but certainly we can agree that good governance is needed for a business to be run *effectively*?

Your post makes it sound like businesses can't do anything until government shows them how. (Government "driving the economy," and "policy of what jobs are and where" sounds an awful lot like a command economy; is that what you think our goal should be?) I think the reality is more like government impedes business in its function, in the interest of higher goals such as law enforcement, military, civil rights and all that stuff that governments do. Now these are noble goals, but they don't include making business work in the first place. You can't draw off power from the economy and then inject it back in and expect it to be more than you drew. That would be like powering your sailboat by blowing into the sail. I am open to being shown I'm wrong about this... do you disagree?
What about my post makes you feel this way?
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by ThinkInsane View Post
Alright kids, you pay nice or I'm taking your thread away.
Ha, I *knew* that the mods could be bribed

-t
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Well the most obvious answer is that our "strategy" as been exactly the problem. Because it has been poisoned by people like freudling and Athens who openly declare "profits" to be, in and of themselves, bad. Profits should be a good thing, not something objectionable. Without profits, no "strategy" you come up with is going to support any of us.
Correction, obscene profits is bad, profits at all costs disregarding people, society, environment is bad. Profits in itself are not bad.

One of Thomas Jefferson's quotes
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."

But the best one that applies to this topic the most
""If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.""

Where does it say this policy also applies to corporations, mindless sol-less artificial entities

From Abraham Lincoln
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.... Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war."

"Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people's masters." --Grover Cleveland, 1888

"We must have complete and effective publicity of corporate affairs, so that the people may know beyond peradventure whether the corporations obey the law and whether their management entitles them to the confidence of the public. It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs." --Theodore Roosevelt; Ossowatomie, Kansas, August 31, 1910

On a different note, does not apply to this discussion, I had to post it anyways because I love these quotes
"In matters of style, swim with the current; In matters of principle, stand like a rock."
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither."


I think there's a bigger question that needs to be answered first, without which any discussion is nonsense. Does business enable government to function, or does government enable business to function?
I would say Business enables government to function, though originally it was the other way around until the 14th amendment was perverted into creating Corporate Personhood. The reason I say that is because the government is by the people for the people and once Business became a Person under the law it to meant the government by the people (business) for the people (business) and no man woman or child can equal the power and wealth of a single corporate entity which is why business now controls government.

Your post makes it sound like businesses can't do anything until government shows them how. (Government "driving the economy," and "policy of what jobs are and where" sounds an awful lot like a command economy; is that what you think our goal should be?)
No, government should have no business in the affairs of business. Government should have a role in protecting people and other business from harm from others but not from itself.

I think the reality is more like government impedes business in its function, in the interest of higher goals such as law enforcement, military, civil rights and all that stuff that governments do. Now these are noble goals, but they don't include making business work in the first place. You can't draw off power from the economy and then inject it back in and expect it to be more than you drew. That would be like powering your sailboat by blowing into the sail. I am open to being shown I'm wrong about this... do you disagree?
You will have to answer this question for me first, is government setup for the people or for the business. If serving the people means not serving the best possible business interests, is this not government doing its job by the people for the people?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 07:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Well the most obvious answer is that our "strategy" as been exactly the problem. Because it has been poisoned by people like freudling and Athens who openly declare "profits" to be, in and of themselves, bad. Profits should be a good thing, not something objectionable. Without profits, no "strategy" you come up with is going to support any of us.


I think there's a bigger question that needs to be answered first, without which any discussion is nonsense. Does business enable government to function, or does government enable business to function?

Your post makes it sound like businesses can't do anything until government shows them how. (Government "driving the economy," and "policy of what jobs are and where" sounds an awful lot like a command economy; is that what you think our goal should be?) I think the reality is more like government impedes business in its function, in the interest of higher goals such as law enforcement, military, civil rights and all that stuff that governments do. Now these are noble goals, but they don't include making business work in the first place. You can't draw off power from the economy and then inject it back in and expect it to be more than you drew. That would be like powering your sailboat by blowing into the sail. I am open to being shown I'm wrong about this... do you disagree?
Business drives government. The only reason we need government is to save ourselves from the 5% of the population who are immoral Psychopaths. The good old escape from the Hobbesian State of Nature.
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 07:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Correction, obscene profits is bad, profits at all costs disregarding people, society, environment is bad. Profits in itself are not bad.
Ya, there is one problem with obscene profits is that society and economies are so skewed that there are very few rich, and many struggling people, even middle-class. But that's what our current system enables. Over time this could change with the Internet watering things down, making freelancers and basement businesses more profitable because they have more reach. I don't think government regulation is the answer. I see progress toward a more equal end and this should come naturally.

But at the same time, ya, it is disgusting when companies like BP lie and say they've spent a bunch of money to prepare for oil spills when the greedy bast*rds never did. Then there was Enron. Madoff. Goodyear Tires annexing people's land in developing countries with private military soldiers because they are essentially stealing the raw ingredients for rubber through mining. On and on. And, sorry, but companies like Apple using cheap Chinese labour and selling at high prices. They have some $50 billion in liquid cash and investors don't get dividends.

It's not just Apple that's greedy, many are. And this is a tired old argument. But our current economic structure does oppress people. I guess if it were cheaper to manufacture in the US they might. I am all for profit. But there's also morals, accountability, hypocrisy...

A shift to a globalized economy may be the best thing for all of us in the long run.

Check up on the UN's human security doctrine: a world without borders...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_security
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 07:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think we all agree that business drives this economy and is the thrust and motivator behind all of this, but of course a business cannot easily succeed with poor policy. If it did it would be succeeding despite the policy, not because of it. So, the word "enable" is part of why this question sounds a little nonsensical (although maybe that isn't the right word), but certainly we can agree that good governance is needed for a business to be run *effectively*?
What I'm trying to get at is the difference between action and inaction (on the part of government). You say "policy" but that could mean a policy of action or a policy of laissez faire (relatively speaking). Do you think that business requires government action to succeed, or rather a "policy" of treading lightly?

By "action" I don't mean the implied duties of government such as enforcing the law and preventing fraud (the type of thing that isn't up for debate anyway), I mean some sort of strategy designed to spur growth (for example punitive tariffs against Chinese manufacturing), which I gather is the type of thing you mean in the first place.


What about my post makes you feel this way?
I already quoted it... Government "driving the economy," and "policy of what jobs are and where" sounds an awful lot like a command economy; is that what you think our goal should be?
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 08:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
What I'm trying to get at is the difference between action and inaction (on the part of government). You say "policy" but that could mean a policy of action or a policy of laissez faire (relatively speaking). Do you think that business requires government action to succeed, or rather a "policy" of treading lightly?

By "action" I don't mean the implied duties of government such as enforcing the law and preventing fraud (the type of thing that isn't up for debate anyway), I mean some sort of strategy designed to spur growth (for example punitive tariffs against Chinese manufacturing), which I gather is the type of thing you mean in the first place.



I already quoted it... Government "driving the economy," and "policy of what jobs are and where" sounds an awful lot like a command economy; is that what you think our goal should be?
In an increasingly globalized economy where governments are trying to increase their employment rates, what other choice does government have but to implement/increase tariffs on imports coming from places like China?

Business does x, government does y to combat their outsourcing. Same old game, right?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 09:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
In an increasingly globalized economy where governments are trying to increase their employment rates, what other choice does government have but to implement/increase tariffs on imports coming from places like China?
Its been said in this thread a couple of times - Stop taxing and regulating the crap out of businesses and make domestic jobs easier to create and maintain.

Business does x, government does y to combat their outsourcing. Same old game, right?
Thats the problem. You don't need Y to solve for X.
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Its been said in this thread a couple of times - Stop taxing and regulating the crap out of businesses and make domestic jobs easier to create and maintain.



Thats the problem. You don't need Y to solve for X.
Right, I understand your point. But tariffs on imported goods is to increase the chance of it being made at home, or somewhere else besides the standard China/Taiwan. None of what you advance lends itself to addressing a shifting global economy. We have to account for how cheap it is to do business in other countries. Any capitalist will do things as cheap and fast as possible, within spec, and there's no way manufacturing in Canada or the US is going to be cheap, and fast, like it is in China.

Like I alluded to before, we could say scr*w the government, and just let things globalize naturally. Actually, with the Internet, the global equalizer, I am not sure there is much anyone can do about it anymore.
( Last edited by freudling; Jan 4, 2011 at 11:22 PM. )
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 11:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Im not trying to be a jerk, im trying to debate you honestly and nicely so I hope you don't see otherwise. Perhaps I am missing your point. Let me ask you then using your analogy, if the kid is doing all his homework and is still only getting a C is it not worth while for that kid to investigate how the other kid is getting a A, perhaps better studying techniques for example?
Of course it's worthwhile. That's why I cited China's economic reforms (that is, the technique they're using to get an 'A' in the class); the ideals I was told were tired, old rightwing ideals that do nothing to create jobs or... address China's growth ironically. We have so many models of failure and success around us that it's astonishing to me that people need to go about looking for these elusive paradigm-shifts.

The thread topic (if settled yet) is jobs numbers in relation to burgeoning economies and/or globalization; how do we compete? My problem with this thought-exercise was the assumption that one was necessarily related to the other; that we have to compete with China and India to create jobs in the US. My point - you can't compete with your lender. We need to quit borrowing from our competitor at unprecedented rates to accommodate wasteful spending. You keep bringing up slave labor stating that we can't compete with it so... quit worrying about competing with China and India and worry about what produces jobs in the US first. More on that in a minute...

As do I with regards to my government which since becoming a Conservative run government has been pretty useless on this front lol
Is this spam?

Im not worried about Wal-Mart personally either, they don't have the same effect on major cities. I was referring to the small towns which get devastated by their presence.
Does this include the small towns that actively seek contracts for new Wal-Mart's to bring more people through their towns? In spite of your fears of automation, a lot of people are necessary to build and maintain a Wal-Mart and in many towns it means immediate opportunity.

Your joking right, Canada and Australia having more economic freedom then the US? I would really love to see where you read that.
2010 Index of Economic Freedom

Oh now your being simplistic, I selected my words carefully to avoid such a reply back. I still feel its needed to Tax China's imports. I also believe its something that has to be done carefully because blanket taxes with every one could result in more problems then it solves and only used the softwood lumber issue as a example of it going wrong. Thats not arguing to argue my friend. Thats being truthful, you are both right and wrong at the same time.
First of all let's get this straight; there's nothing "careful" or "selected" about your words Athens.

The idea to "tax China's imports" too often comes from the same mentality as; "charge the oil companies". You think they're just going to shrug their shoulders, say "ya got me!", and eat the cost? Of course not. They'll manipulate their own exports putting the US consumer at a substantial loss. Pick your poison, but don't claim it's somehow in the interest of the little guy. The little guy's shopping at Wal-Mart!

List of a few policies in detail that will improve economy so I can debate you on those specific policies or agree with you on them. Just saying we can employ policies or a very broad statement of cutting spending and reducing government does not leave much to discuss.
They certainly do in any discussion on jobs. I don't know where you've been, but my points have been as follows:
  • You can't compete with your lender. We need to quit borrowing which means we have to cut spending. This Administration promised to fine-tooth comb the Federal government for waste, fraud and abuse. I'd like to see us start there. I don't think it's necessary to list every redundant Federal program or bureaucracy. (*hint, there are hundreds) Poo-pooed as tired, old rightwing ideals.
  • While I'd like to see a complete tax overhaul, a realistic pro-growth start would be targeted short and long-term tax cuts; targeted toward small and large businesses alike. These could come in the form of reduced marginal income tax rates, lower tax rates on capital gains and dividends, additional R & D tax credits, ending the debate on new tax proposals such as those tied to energy and subsequent regulation to name a few.
  • Regulations: This Administration (every bit as bad as the last) has imposed 25 new regulations on business since having taken office. They need to lay off for a while. Debates such as those on net-neutrality for example, only force potential investors to continue incubating their cash at a time when there's far too much opportunity at stake. The SBA's (Small Business Administration) Office of Advocacy has estimated the annual cost of regulations at approximately $1.75 trillion. The SEC was surfing porn during the economic meltdown, the NHTSA was deaf to careening Toyotas, FHFA was asleep at the wheel during the housing crisis and the list goes on... these are expensive reactionary agencies that need retooled. You want to know the technique of the 'A' student, there's enough here to get us started.

Ha, bull that was not a strawman argument, your reply was Grow up to a valid assertion of what you are arguing for. If anything your reply was childish and illustrated your inability to disagree with the assertions you have been making thus I was correct originally. Unless you want to correct it now, I am content with my assessment of what your seeking.

No one is saying this. This is a strawman argument. Grow up.

This is exactly what you have been proposing all along, if not, its what it appears to be. Stop hiding behind the strawman argument, all your doing is demonstrating a weak mind. Its either what you are saying or its not and if its not its your job to clear up the misconceptions creating the illusion that it is what your aiming for. Because from where I stand, what I read from your posts this is exactly how I see it.
Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Originally Posted by Athens
What your suggesting is don't tax the company anything
Where did I suggest this?
Originally Posted by Athens
and to drop wages down to the level of what people make i China
No one said this.
Originally Posted by Athens
and remove all regulatory tape on protecting the environment in order to stimulate job growth domestically.
No one said this.
Originally Posted by Athens
You might as well be saying allow child labor and slaves again because at least its a constructive idea even if distasteful.
Never even came close to saying this. This is all your fabrication... straw man
Originally Posted by Athens
If we do as you suggest, removing red tape and basically allowing companies free and total un-inhibitive freedom to make profit
No one suggested removing red tape and basically allowing companies free and total un-inhibited freedom to make profit. That's all in your head. It's childish. It's Your straw man.
Originally Posted by Athens
The Answer isn't to turn the US into China which has almost total un-inhibitive freedom now to make profit.
No one said this is the answer. That's all you and your straw man.

Like you said, let's stop hiding behind the straw man arguments.
ebuddy
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 11:37 PM
 
The thread is exemplary of why the economy is in the crappers.

When I read the ideas of our resident socialists or people that apparently even failed Economics 101, I stop to wonder why.

-t
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2011, 11:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The thread is exemplary of why the economy is in the crappers.

When I read the ideas of our resident socialists or people that apparently even failed Economics 101, I stop to wonder why.

-t
Again, this coming from someone who thinks Android runs on RIM devices.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2011, 12:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
Again, this coming from someone who thinks Android runs on RIM devices.
Meh, the petty developer has spoken. And who gives a shit about Android and RIM anyways.
I really can't take anything you say seriously anymore.

-t
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2011, 02:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Its been said in this thread a couple of times - Stop taxing and regulating the crap out of businesses and make domestic jobs easier to create and maintain.



Thats the problem. You don't need Y to solve for X.
And its been said many times i this thread that even if you reduce the tax rate to zero and cut most red tape businesses still can get a better deal over seas with cheaper labor and material costs. So try again....
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2011, 05:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
And its been said many times i this thread that even if you reduce the tax rate to zero and cut most red tape businesses still can get a better deal over seas with cheaper labor and material costs. So try again....
I agree. There are issues no matter what our tax rates and regulation is like.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2011, 05:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
The thread is exemplary of why the economy is in the crappers.

When I read the ideas of our resident socialists or people that apparently even failed Economics 101, I stop to wonder why.

-t

And comments like this that simply attack without making an actual argument is why this forum is often in the crapper.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:47 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,