EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1947
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13937 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On May 11 2015 19:28 Sermokala wrote: if the discussion had no interest you would have felt the need to reply at all. instead you're furiously trying to respond to someone else's post you disagree with despite having yourself said that you don't fully understand the subject past "non monetary transactions" being a thing. Where did I say I didn't fully understand the subject ? There is a serious problem of reading comprehension so I'll try to explain you the point of the discussion - to make everything clear. The initial subject was, back then,on wages in the german pig industry. The discussion started a month ago (14 of april exactly) with this comment (in the european thread) from me, that was answering the idea that labor cost do not matter in european economic competition (a point made by Simberto I believe) : you can have an advantage even if the cost of labor are 1% of the final production costs - in specific situations, 1% can be enough to win a market. Second, if you push wage down, of course wage is not gonna take a lot in the total production costs. Then Jonny came in the discussion saying : You could move an industry that isn't labor intensive to a low labor cost country and save a bit on labor, but the move would likely hurt your other factors which are more significant. Producing cars in Bangladesh would be cheaper from a labor costs perspective, but your capital costs and transport costs would be higher. You would also have longer lead times, difficulty with the local infrastructure (g/l with reliable electricity), difficulty finding skilled labor and being far away from your customer and engineering base can be problematic as well. Really it's rarely worth it, and so you don't see it happening. And this was my answer : that an industry is intensive or not in labor is IRRELEVANT to the point at hand Discussion continued on, with Jonny obviously not understanding that what he was discussing (intensivity of a small fraction of the production of phones) was irrelevant to my point (even in field, or industry, which mean the whole production, where labor cost represent a small % of the overall production, it can still be beneficial to outsource or delocalize). This was my answer in this topic (one month later) to jonny (who furiously - this is a good use of the word - digged out the topic) : I'll just try to give you back on track : the subject back then was the question of intensivity in labor or capital in relation to the desire of delocalisation. You argued that it was because of labor intensivity that firm desired to delocalize, I didn't care about this because I was arguing that intensive or not in labor, firm delocalized to reduce costs. So there you have it, I never intended to discuss the labor intensivity of a small part of the production of apple's iphone (which I believe is a pretty stupid topic). I just took an exemple - the phone industry (labor is a very small part of the overall production cost of phones) to show that even if labor is a very small % of the overall cost, it can still be hugely beneficial for an industry to delocalize (or outsource in a foreign country, which is the same in this regard) - even a very small advantage can be enough to win over a market. Somehow Jonny wants to argue over a detail and refuse to see the whole picture (and still feel resentment a month later lol), why should I care ? you don't fully understand the subject past "non monetary transactions" being a thing. You misunderstood me, which is understandable considering you don't know what's up to discussion. It's a well known fact that firm can delocalize or outsource to reduce transactions costs (I'm not saying it's the main thing, I'm saying it can play a role in decisions). Transactions costs are not always monetary costs : a transaction cost is a cost incurred in making an economic exchange (restated: the cost of participating in a market). From wiki : Transaction costs can be divided into three broad categories: - Search and information costs are costs such as those incurred in determining that the required good is available on the market, which has the lowest price, etc. - Bargaining costs are the costs required to come to an acceptable agreement with the other party to the transaction, drawing up an appropriate contract and so on. In game theory this is analyzed for instance in the game of chicken. On asset markets and in market microstructure, the transaction cost is some function of the distance between the bid and ask. - Policing and enforcement costs are the costs of making sure the other party sticks to the terms of the contract, and taking appropriate action (often through the legal system) if this turns out not to be the case. | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On May 11 2015 18:35 WhiteDog wrote: Are you dumb ? This is a serious question. I really think that a normal - non stupid - person would have understood that I wrote the wrong word. Main issue is everyone identifies this mistake, but it is very difficult to prove you made no other daffodils in the text. There could be others, less easy to point out, but which change greatly the meaning of your post. Therefore, better check your readings to avoid tulips, even when you are in a hurry. On May 11 2015 19:46 WhiteDog wrote: I just took an exemple - the phone industry (labor is a very small part of the overall production cost of phones) to show that even if labor is a very small % of the overall cost, it can still be hugely beneficial for an industry to delocalize (or outsource in a foreign country, which is the same in this regard) - even a very small advantage can be enough to win over a market Up to the point where the expected gain becomes smaller than the expected transport costs to the location where you actually sell. (not sure if many such industries exist ... water supplies probably ?) | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On May 11 2015 20:45 Oshuy wrote: Main issue is everyone identifies this mistake, but it is very difficult to prove you made no other daffodils in the text. There could be others, less easy to point out, but which change greatly the meaning of your post. Therefore, better check your readings to avoid tulips, even when you are in a hurry. Up to the point where the expected gain becomes smaller than the expected transport costs to the location where you actually sell. (not sure if many such industries exist ... water supplies probably ?) Your question, just like Jonny's, is a secondary question in regard to what is/was discussed. I am saying "you can delocalize and just decrease a little your overall costs and still profit heavily from it by winning over a market" and you answer "but if the gain labor cost is lower than the increase in transport costs" ... You see that it's not relevant right ? I never stated that everywhere and always a firm that decrease labor costs would gain from it, I said it can (understand "in specific situation, not always") decrease labor cost, even by a small margin, to win over a market. It is a pretty simple comment on firm strategy, not on firm accounting. | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On May 11 2015 21:14 WhiteDog wrote: Your question, just like Jonny's, is a secondary question in regard to what is/was discussed. I am saying "you can delocalize and just decrease a little your overall costs and still profit heavily from it by winning over a market" and you answer "but if the gain labor cost is lower than the increase in transport costs" ... You see that it's not relevant right ? I never stated that everywhere and always a firm that decrease labor costs would gain from it, I said it can (understand "in specific situation, not always") decrease labor cost, even by a small margin, to win over a market. It is a pretty simple comment on firm strategy, not on firm accounting. The sentence "you can delocalize and just decrease a little your overall costs and still profit heavily from it by winning over a market" is poorly written, because it implies you can always decrease your overall costs by delocalization. The opportunity of reducing labor costs is almost always available and if it is a decrease of overall costs, it can profit heavily through either market share gains or better margins. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On May 11 2015 21:32 Oshuy wrote: The sentence "you can delocalize and just decrease a little your overall costs and still profit heavily from it by winning over a market" is poorly written, because it implies you can always decrease your overall costs by delocalization. The opportunity of reducing labor costs is almost always available and if it is a decrease of overall costs, it can profit heavily through either market share gains or better margins. Saying "you can delocalize and just decrease a little your overall costs and still profit heavily from it" does not imply that everytime you delocalize you decrease your overall costs. "You can drink something and feel hotter" does not mean that everytime you drink you will feel hotter. After that, you just repeat my points. | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On May 11 2015 21:52 WhiteDog wrote: Saying "you can delocalize and just decrease a little your overall costs and still profit heavily from it" does not imply that everytime you delocalize you decrease your overall costs. "You can drink something and feel hotter" does not mean that everytime you drink you will feel hotter. After that, you just repeat my points. Well, that's the main issue with a forum. If you want to avoid misinterpretation, you have to be careful with what you write. If someone comes to you with a drink in hand and says to you "you can drink and feel hotter", you'll be quite surprised he was offering a cold drink. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
Well, that's the main issue with a forum. If you want to avoid misinterpretation, you have to be careful with what you write. I can't be in the head of the person I'm discussing with. It's not my fault if you see more than what the words tell. And I never proposed you a cold drink, nor did I implied costs will always be reduced after a delocalization. I even implied in previous posts that firm could desire to delocalize or outsource part of their production even if it result in an increase of their monetary costs (due to transaction costs). | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On May 11 2015 22:06 WhiteDog wrote: I can't be in the head of the person I'm discussing with. It's not my fault if you see more than what the words tell. And I never proposed you a cold drink, nor did I implied costs will always be reduced after a delocalization. I even implied in previous posts that firm could desire to delocalize or outsource part of their production even if it result in an increase of their monetary costs (due to transaction costs). If you want to be understood, you have to try and be in the head of the person you are discussing with. Agreed, it is not easy. If you are addressing a larger group/community, you have to design your text so that you will avoid those pitfalls. You will spend less time having to justify yourself over and over again about something you did not intend to write. And I hope you did not propose a cold drink. I don't hunderstand how it would have made me feel hotter. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
If you want to be understood, you have to try and be in the head of the person you are discussing with. Difficult task for me if your reading comprehension is deficient. I advice you to fully understand what is posted before answering. | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On May 11 2015 22:44 WhiteDog wrote: Difficult task for me if your reading comprehension is deficient. I advice you to fully understand what is posted before answering. Which is exactly why you will forever be misunderstood. Then again, if you find value in repeating your mistakes, I can understand why you would do it  | ||
|
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
On May 11 2015 16:43 Wegandi wrote: How can you love the way things are? I suppose being a Canadian you don't see the descent into tyranny and Statism the US has leaped into? Serfs got to keep more of their property than US 'citizens' today do, and on top of that, they didn't have the ideological chains of the social contract thrust upon them in the womb and by mere existence in the geographic territories claimed by Governments. Blegh. That's just it, I don't follow the slippery slope down to tyranny and Statism. I frame it as a transaction of payment for services, not confiscation of property. The problem becomes when the mob wants payment for nothing just because inequality and morality(another term that raises my hackles in political discussion). Although, I do sympathize more with your ideological theory then leftist because you seem willing to implement it in limited jurisdiction. The lefties seem to argue that their untested theories need to be implemented on a national or global scale to prevent those fuckers they want to confiscate from leaving or having someone miss out their benevolence because of "geographic lottery". | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On May 12 2015 09:57 Nyxisto wrote: I think most people would be happy to see a little more social democracy on the international level, which is actually very well tested. Not everybody is a radical anarcho-communist. And I would like to see that they do not sell out for a third time. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23238 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration on Monday granted conditional approval to Shell to begin exploratory drilling in the Arctic, which the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said would be "subject to rigorous safety standards.” The approval will allow Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc. to begin drilling this summer in the Chukchi Sea, off the northwest coast of Alaska. Shell's drilling plan proposes up to six wells in an area about 70 miles offshore. "We have taken a thoughtful approach to carefully considering potential exploration in the Chukchi Sea, recognizing the significant environmental, social and ecological resources in the region and establishing high standards for the protection of this critical ecosystem, our Arctic communities, and the subsistence needs and cultural traditions of Alaska Natives," BOEM Director Abigail Ross Hopper said in a statement. BOEM said that the Interior Department's proposed rules for Arctic drilling, announced in February, would further enhance the safety of operations in the region, and that Shell's drilling plan already conforms with many provisions in the proposed rules. Those rules have not yet been finalized and are open for public comment through May 27. Shell has been seeking the Interior Department's approval for Arctic drilling operations since 2009. Source | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
http://www.hrw.org/node/134861 This 126-page report details incidents in which correctional staff have deluged prisoners with painful chemical sprays, shocked them with powerful electric stun weapons, and strapped them for days in restraining chairs or beds. Staff have broken prisoners’ jaws, noses, ribs; left them with lacerations requiring stitches, second-degree burns, deep bruises, and damaged internal organs. In some cases, the force used has led to their death. Prisons can be dangerous places, and staff are authorized to use force to protect safety and security. But under the US constitution and international human rights law, force against any prisoner (with mental disabilities or not) may be used only when—and to the extent—necessary as a last resort, and never as punishment. As detailed in this report, staff at times have responded with violence when prisoners engage in behavior that is symptomatic of their mental health problems, even if it is minor and non-threatening misconduct such as urinating on the floor, using profane language, or banging on a cell door. They have used such force in the absence of any emergency, and without first making serious attempts to secure the inmate’s compliance through other means. Force is also used when there is an immediate security need to control the inmate, but the amount of force used is excessive to the need, or continues after the inmate has been brought under control. When used in these ways, force constitutes abuse that cannot be squared with the fundamental human rights prohibition against torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Unwarranted force also reflects the failure of correctional authorities to accommodate the needs of persons with mental disabilities. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23238 Posts
I'm Shocked! Shocked! That... Oh wait no I'm not... I posted a story about reparations being paid out in relation to a police commander from Chicago who was torturing suspects for years, many to force confessions. It was uncovered 25 years ago, the asshole didn't get fired until almost 2 years (he'd been doing it for decades) after him torturing was uncovered and charges weren't pressed for several more years, and only after intense public pressure. When he finally got taken to trial and convicted it wasn't even for torturing people, it was for lying about it... So in order to convict him they had to prove he tortured people and basically got away with it, and they won... To little avail though, as he only did less than 3 years and is already back out and even after being convicted, the Police board voted for him to keep his pension. No one gave a shit. I doubt anyone bothered to read that much into the story even. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On May 12 2015 17:00 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm Shocked! Shocked! That... Oh wait no I'm not... I posted a story about reparations being paid out in relation to a police commander from Chicago who was torturing suspects for years, many to force confessions. It was uncovered 25 years ago, the asshole didn't get fired until almost 2 years (he'd been doing it for decades) after him torturing was uncovered and charges weren't pressed for several more years, and only after intense public pressure. When he finally got taken to trial and convicted it wasn't even for torturing people, it was for lying about it... So in order to convict him they had to prove he tortured people and basically got away with it, and they won... To little avail though, as he only did less than 3 years and is already back out and even after being convicted, the Police board voted for him to keep his pension. No one gave a shit. I doubt anyone bothered to read that much into the story even. No no you do not understand, those people in Chicago rationally chose to get tortured, it was their own fault all along! Institutional Responses to Rule Breaking The assumption that prisoners make rational choices infuses the culture of corrections. If an inmate refuses to come out of his cell when ordered to do so or swears at an officer, staff are likely to assume he is deliberately breaking the rules. They also are likely to assume that failure to force the inmate to comply or to punish him for doing so would be tantamount to sanctioning defiance, would encourage others to engage in similar misconduct, and would promote a general breakdown in order. They find it difficult to understand—or to accept—the role mental illness can play in prisoners’ ability to follow the rules behind bars. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On May 12 2015 17:00 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm Shocked! Shocked! That... Oh wait no I'm not... I posted a story about reparations being paid out in relation to a police commander from Chicago who was torturing suspects for years, many to force confessions. It was uncovered 25 years ago, the asshole didn't get fired until almost 2 years (he'd been doing it for decades) after him torturing was uncovered and charges weren't pressed for several more years, and only after intense public pressure. When he finally got taken to trial and convicted it wasn't even for torturing people, it was for lying about it... So in order to convict him they had to prove he tortured people and basically got away with it, and they won... To little avail though, as he only did less than 3 years and is already back out and even after being convicted, the Police board voted for him to keep his pension. No one gave a shit. I doubt anyone bothered to read that much into the story even. To be fair, Illinois's last two governors were convicted and imprisoned for crimes committed while in office, so good governance isn't really a thing in that part of the country. There are a lot of freaky things that have come out about the Chicago police that sort of got swept under the rug in favor of the discussion focusing on police and race. | ||
| ||
