|
|
On September 20 2012 01:58 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:52 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2012 01:45 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face. If my outsourcing makes a million dollars a year and puts 15 people out of a job in the USA, then it should be pursued without a doubt. That million in profits is more than those 15 could make in a year (on average, I'm assuming they aren't 6-figure jobs being outsourced). This is better for us. Economics is a zero sum game in the end. Always is, always has been, always will be. Economics is not a zero sum game. If country A has a comparative advantage making computers and country B has a comparative advantage making iron, and both countries need some amount of computers and irons, then both countries benefit from trade. No country is worse off. umm..... lol? You just gave an example of a zero sum transaction to disprove what I said...
*Waits patiently for paralleluniverse to break out a Production Possibilities Curve*
|
On September 20 2012 01:30 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
When Romney uses tap loopholes ad shelters to avoid taxes, its okay because its legal.
When 47% of Americans don't pay taxes because they're legally exempt, they're lazy scumbags.
Real talk. To be fair, it's the same from the reverse side. When 47% of American don't pay taxes because they're exempt, it's because of dire woeful need. When Romney pays his high taxes as he's legally obligated to, he's a capitalist scumbag.
You think 13% is high? Payroll tax is higher, which two thirds of those who paid no income tax do pay.
|
On September 20 2012 01:45 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:43 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face. It goes deeper than just worker efficiency too. The Chinese are EXTREMELY lax about environmental regulations, which is another big reason why it's so cheap to manufacture there. Those lax regulations have a huge impact on not just China's population, but the entire planet as well. There's a whole lot else going on in China that allows for manufacturing to be that cheap over there. To come and tell me that we should be trying to emulate them in order to compete sounds like insanity. I wouldn't suggest emulating the Chinese, but I would suggest Environmentalists get off the necks of the American workforce and try to enforce their ideology across the world, starting in China. Enforcing it here, but not everywhere only hurts Americans.
They're trying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference
This was the most recent result.
Summed up hastily, the Chinese feel that they are being unfairly scrutinized for essentially engaging in the same business practices that Americans engaged in one hundred to two hundred years ago. Their lax regulations are directly related to their economic growth.
In other words, they aren't going to slow down their economic growth to pursue environmental regulations.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i like how when you call someone by the latin form of an insult it won't get modded that harshly.
|
On September 20 2012 01:58 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:52 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2012 01:45 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face. If my outsourcing makes a million dollars a year and puts 15 people out of a job in the USA, then it should be pursued without a doubt. That million in profits is more than those 15 could make in a year (on average, I'm assuming they aren't 6-figure jobs being outsourced). This is better for us. Economics is a zero sum game in the end. Always is, always has been, always will be. Economics is not a zero sum game. If country A has a comparative advantage making computers and country B has a comparative advantage making iron, and both countries need some amount of computers and irons, then both countries benefit from trade. No country is worse off. umm..... lol? You just gave an example of a zero sum transaction to disprove what I said...
No I didn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
For example, if, using machinery, a worker in one country can produce both shoes and shirts at 6 per hour, and a worker in a country with less machinery can produce either 2 shoes or 4 shirts in an hour, each country can gain from trade because their internal trade-offs between shoes and shirts are different. The less-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shirts, so it finds it more efficient to produce shirts and trade them to the more-efficient country for shoes. Without trade, its opportunity cost per shoe was 2 shirts; by trading, its cost per shoe can reduce to as low as 1 shirt depending on how much trade occurs (since the more-efficient country has a 1:1 trade-off). The more-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shoes, so it can gain in efficiency by moving some workers from shirt-production to shoe-production and trading some shoes for shirts. Without trade, its cost to make a shirt was 1 shoe; by trading, its cost per shirt can go as low as 1/2 shoe depending on how much trade occurs.
|
On September 20 2012 02:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:58 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:52 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2012 01:45 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face. If my outsourcing makes a million dollars a year and puts 15 people out of a job in the USA, then it should be pursued without a doubt. That million in profits is more than those 15 could make in a year (on average, I'm assuming they aren't 6-figure jobs being outsourced). This is better for us. Economics is a zero sum game in the end. Always is, always has been, always will be. Economics is not a zero sum game. If country A has a comparative advantage making computers and country B has a comparative advantage making iron, and both countries need some amount of computers and irons, then both countries benefit from trade. No country is worse off. umm..... lol? You just gave an example of a zero sum transaction to disprove what I said... No I didn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantageFor example, if, using machinery, a worker in one country can produce both shoes and shirts at 6 per hour, and a worker in a country with less machinery can produce either 2 shoes or 4 shirts in an hour, each country can gain from trade because their internal trade-offs between shoes and shirts are different. The less-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shirts, so it finds it more efficient to produce shirts and trade them to the more-efficient country for shoes. Without trade, its opportunity cost per shoe was 2 shirts; by trading, its cost per shoe can reduce to as low as 1 shirt depending on how much trade occurs (since the more-efficient country has a 1:1 trade-off). The more-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shoes, so it can gain in efficiency by moving some workers from shirt-production to shoe-production and trading some shoes for shirts. Without trade, its cost to make a shirt was 1 shoe; by trading, its cost per shirt can go as low as 1/2 shoe depending on how much trade occurs.
Sure, in that example it works out. But you're just ignoring all the factors that go into creating that advantage. Every single factor that goes into creating that value can be monetized (theoretically) and it would work out to zero sum (assuming one side isn't getting the better deal).
|
On September 20 2012 02:08 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 02:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2012 01:58 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:52 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2012 01:45 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:
[quote]
Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor.
It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there.
Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face. If my outsourcing makes a million dollars a year and puts 15 people out of a job in the USA, then it should be pursued without a doubt. That million in profits is more than those 15 could make in a year (on average, I'm assuming they aren't 6-figure jobs being outsourced). This is better for us. Economics is a zero sum game in the end. Always is, always has been, always will be. Economics is not a zero sum game. If country A has a comparative advantage making computers and country B has a comparative advantage making iron, and both countries need some amount of computers and irons, then both countries benefit from trade. No country is worse off. umm..... lol? You just gave an example of a zero sum transaction to disprove what I said... No I didn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantageFor example, if, using machinery, a worker in one country can produce both shoes and shirts at 6 per hour, and a worker in a country with less machinery can produce either 2 shoes or 4 shirts in an hour, each country can gain from trade because their internal trade-offs between shoes and shirts are different. The less-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shirts, so it finds it more efficient to produce shirts and trade them to the more-efficient country for shoes. Without trade, its opportunity cost per shoe was 2 shirts; by trading, its cost per shoe can reduce to as low as 1 shirt depending on how much trade occurs (since the more-efficient country has a 1:1 trade-off). The more-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shoes, so it can gain in efficiency by moving some workers from shirt-production to shoe-production and trading some shoes for shirts. Without trade, its cost to make a shirt was 1 shoe; by trading, its cost per shirt can go as low as 1/2 shoe depending on how much trade occurs. Sure, in that example it works out. But you're just ignoring all the factors that go into creating that advantage. Every single factor that goes into creating that value can be monetized (theoretically) and it would work out to zero sum (assuming one side isn't getting the better deal).
Good lord. What kind of republican campaign did you work on? No one who is even remotely conservative on economic issues believes that economics and trade is a zero-sum game.
|
On September 20 2012 02:08 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 02:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2012 01:58 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:52 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2012 01:45 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:
[quote]
Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor.
It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there.
Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face. If my outsourcing makes a million dollars a year and puts 15 people out of a job in the USA, then it should be pursued without a doubt. That million in profits is more than those 15 could make in a year (on average, I'm assuming they aren't 6-figure jobs being outsourced). This is better for us. Economics is a zero sum game in the end. Always is, always has been, always will be. Economics is not a zero sum game. If country A has a comparative advantage making computers and country B has a comparative advantage making iron, and both countries need some amount of computers and irons, then both countries benefit from trade. No country is worse off. umm..... lol? You just gave an example of a zero sum transaction to disprove what I said... No I didn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantageFor example, if, using machinery, a worker in one country can produce both shoes and shirts at 6 per hour, and a worker in a country with less machinery can produce either 2 shoes or 4 shirts in an hour, each country can gain from trade because their internal trade-offs between shoes and shirts are different. The less-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shirts, so it finds it more efficient to produce shirts and trade them to the more-efficient country for shoes. Without trade, its opportunity cost per shoe was 2 shirts; by trading, its cost per shoe can reduce to as low as 1 shirt depending on how much trade occurs (since the more-efficient country has a 1:1 trade-off). The more-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shoes, so it can gain in efficiency by moving some workers from shirt-production to shoe-production and trading some shoes for shirts. Without trade, its cost to make a shirt was 1 shoe; by trading, its cost per shirt can go as low as 1/2 shoe depending on how much trade occurs. Sure, in that example it works out. But you're just ignoring all the factors that go into creating that advantage. Every single factor that goes into creating that value can be monetized (theoretically) and it would work out to zero sum (assuming one side isn't getting the better deal).
No, human factors that can be monetized don't influence the natural distribution of various resources.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
republican campaigner trying to argue with a wiki on comparative advantage??
|
On September 20 2012 02:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 02:08 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 02:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2012 01:58 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:52 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2012 01:45 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]
Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face. If my outsourcing makes a million dollars a year and puts 15 people out of a job in the USA, then it should be pursued without a doubt. That million in profits is more than those 15 could make in a year (on average, I'm assuming they aren't 6-figure jobs being outsourced). This is better for us. Economics is a zero sum game in the end. Always is, always has been, always will be. Economics is not a zero sum game. If country A has a comparative advantage making computers and country B has a comparative advantage making iron, and both countries need some amount of computers and irons, then both countries benefit from trade. No country is worse off. umm..... lol? You just gave an example of a zero sum transaction to disprove what I said... No I didn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantageFor example, if, using machinery, a worker in one country can produce both shoes and shirts at 6 per hour, and a worker in a country with less machinery can produce either 2 shoes or 4 shirts in an hour, each country can gain from trade because their internal trade-offs between shoes and shirts are different. The less-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shirts, so it finds it more efficient to produce shirts and trade them to the more-efficient country for shoes. Without trade, its opportunity cost per shoe was 2 shirts; by trading, its cost per shoe can reduce to as low as 1 shirt depending on how much trade occurs (since the more-efficient country has a 1:1 trade-off). The more-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shoes, so it can gain in efficiency by moving some workers from shirt-production to shoe-production and trading some shoes for shirts. Without trade, its cost to make a shirt was 1 shoe; by trading, its cost per shirt can go as low as 1/2 shoe depending on how much trade occurs. Sure, in that example it works out. But you're just ignoring all the factors that go into creating that advantage. Every single factor that goes into creating that value can be monetized (theoretically) and it would work out to zero sum (assuming one side isn't getting the better deal). Good lord. What kind of republican campaign did you work on? No one who is even remotely conservative on economic issues believes that economics and trade is a zero-sum game.
Not on a practical level. On a theoretical level.
Someone's gain is always another's loss (whether material or lost opportunity). It might be split over all 6 billiion of the people and therefore be imperceptible, but it's still there.
Nations tend to ignore this. They work on short-term models where it very well can benefit two people. Hell, that's the whole theory behind Keynesianism. And it works.
And Daunt, I work for a moderate 
|
On September 20 2012 02:18 oneofthem wrote:
republican campaigner trying to argue with a wiki on comparative advantage??
I'm not arguing with comparative advantage. I'm saying it's irrelevant to what I was arguing.
I fully acknowledge it's application.
|
Canada11367 Posts
On September 20 2012 02:21 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2012 02:08 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 02:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2012 01:58 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:52 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2012 01:45 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:
[quote]
I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right.
Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs.
Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face. If my outsourcing makes a million dollars a year and puts 15 people out of a job in the USA, then it should be pursued without a doubt. That million in profits is more than those 15 could make in a year (on average, I'm assuming they aren't 6-figure jobs being outsourced). This is better for us. Economics is a zero sum game in the end. Always is, always has been, always will be. Economics is not a zero sum game. If country A has a comparative advantage making computers and country B has a comparative advantage making iron, and both countries need some amount of computers and irons, then both countries benefit from trade. No country is worse off. umm..... lol? You just gave an example of a zero sum transaction to disprove what I said... No I didn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantageFor example, if, using machinery, a worker in one country can produce both shoes and shirts at 6 per hour, and a worker in a country with less machinery can produce either 2 shoes or 4 shirts in an hour, each country can gain from trade because their internal trade-offs between shoes and shirts are different. The less-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shirts, so it finds it more efficient to produce shirts and trade them to the more-efficient country for shoes. Without trade, its opportunity cost per shoe was 2 shirts; by trading, its cost per shoe can reduce to as low as 1 shirt depending on how much trade occurs (since the more-efficient country has a 1:1 trade-off). The more-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shoes, so it can gain in efficiency by moving some workers from shirt-production to shoe-production and trading some shoes for shirts. Without trade, its cost to make a shirt was 1 shoe; by trading, its cost per shirt can go as low as 1/2 shoe depending on how much trade occurs. Sure, in that example it works out. But you're just ignoring all the factors that go into creating that advantage. Every single factor that goes into creating that value can be monetized (theoretically) and it would work out to zero sum (assuming one side isn't getting the better deal). Good lord. What kind of republican campaign did you work on? No one who is even remotely conservative on economic issues believes that economics and trade is a zero-sum game. Not on a practical level. On a theoretical level. Someone's gain is always another's loss (whether material or lost opportunity). It might be split over all 6 billiion of the people and therefore be imperceptible, but it's still there. Nations tend to ignore this. They work on short-term models where it very well can benefit two people. Hell, that's the whole theory behind Keynesianism. And it works. And Daunt, I work for a moderate
I don't think that's even Keynesian. That's more like mercantilism.
If one country has a lot of capital, but not much labour and another has a lot of labour, but not much capital, then it is mutually beneficial for the country with capital to invest and employ all those people. Now I'll grant that there can and are abuses to this. Wages can be suppressed. But value is added when you turn sand to silicon and silicon to computer chips. The computer chip is not the same value as though we were exchanging sand back and forth so I'm not sure why trade would be zero sum.
|
On September 20 2012 02:45 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 02:21 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2012 02:08 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 02:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2012 01:58 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:52 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2012 01:45 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Wealth maximization > full employment
The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face. If my outsourcing makes a million dollars a year and puts 15 people out of a job in the USA, then it should be pursued without a doubt. That million in profits is more than those 15 could make in a year (on average, I'm assuming they aren't 6-figure jobs being outsourced). This is better for us. Economics is a zero sum game in the end. Always is, always has been, always will be. Economics is not a zero sum game. If country A has a comparative advantage making computers and country B has a comparative advantage making iron, and both countries need some amount of computers and irons, then both countries benefit from trade. No country is worse off. umm..... lol? You just gave an example of a zero sum transaction to disprove what I said... No I didn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantageFor example, if, using machinery, a worker in one country can produce both shoes and shirts at 6 per hour, and a worker in a country with less machinery can produce either 2 shoes or 4 shirts in an hour, each country can gain from trade because their internal trade-offs between shoes and shirts are different. The less-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shirts, so it finds it more efficient to produce shirts and trade them to the more-efficient country for shoes. Without trade, its opportunity cost per shoe was 2 shirts; by trading, its cost per shoe can reduce to as low as 1 shirt depending on how much trade occurs (since the more-efficient country has a 1:1 trade-off). The more-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shoes, so it can gain in efficiency by moving some workers from shirt-production to shoe-production and trading some shoes for shirts. Without trade, its cost to make a shirt was 1 shoe; by trading, its cost per shirt can go as low as 1/2 shoe depending on how much trade occurs. Sure, in that example it works out. But you're just ignoring all the factors that go into creating that advantage. Every single factor that goes into creating that value can be monetized (theoretically) and it would work out to zero sum (assuming one side isn't getting the better deal). Good lord. What kind of republican campaign did you work on? No one who is even remotely conservative on economic issues believes that economics and trade is a zero-sum game. Not on a practical level. On a theoretical level. Someone's gain is always another's loss (whether material or lost opportunity). It might be split over all 6 billiion of the people and therefore be imperceptible, but it's still there. Nations tend to ignore this. They work on short-term models where it very well can benefit two people. Hell, that's the whole theory behind Keynesianism. And it works. And Daunt, I work for a moderate I don't think that's even Keynesian. That's more like mercantilism. If one country has a lot of capital, but not much labour and another has a lot of labour, but not much capital, then it is mutually beneficial for the country with capital to invest and employ all those people. Now I'll grant that there can and are abuses to this. Wages can be suppressed. But for value is added when you turn sand to silicon and silicon to computer chips. The computer chip is not the same value as exchanging sand back and forth so I'm not sure why it would be zero sum.
So that's value added labor. That's the most common form of wealth creation, and a big reason many people promote production maximization. But your ownership of that sand and your conversion has cost every single person not gaining an opportunity cost, however minor or impractical that may be.
|
On September 20 2012 01:45 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:43 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face. It goes deeper than just worker efficiency too. The Chinese are EXTREMELY lax about environmental regulations, which is another big reason why it's so cheap to manufacture there. Those lax regulations have a huge impact on not just China's population, but the entire planet as well. There's a whole lot else going on in China that allows for manufacturing to be that cheap over there. To come and tell me that we should be trying to emulate them in order to compete sounds like insanity. I wouldn't suggest emulating the Chinese, but I would suggest Environmentalists get off the necks of the American workforce and try to enforce their ideology across the world, starting in China. Enforcing it here, but not everywhere only hurts Americans.
I would say that starting position makes a huge difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita
Yes, there are huge discrepancies, it is older data and it is not completely reliable methods, but with several of the other methods it is not better for US.
The arguments from the poor parts of the world is that the greenhousegas emissions are a lot higher in the developed world and it is therefore almost entirely a job for the developed world to pay for the sins of the past.
The argument from developing markets like China is that it is unfair to completely remove their growth because of the developed worlds previous errors.
The argument from EU is: We will reduce emissions regardless... USA, Canada and Australia are emitting more than twice what EU does, but they do not want to change in fear of their economy taking a hit and they want the rest of the world to do just as much as them percentually. Now that is the environmentalist Obama opinion. The republicans? Well, let us just say that they do not hear anything from beyond gods country and science is not something they respect in general.
Environmentalism is not really part of US politics in a presidential election or in the bible belt. There are grassroots in some states doing a lot for the environment, but the same can be said about China...
|
Canada11367 Posts
On September 20 2012 02:50 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 02:45 Falling wrote:On September 20 2012 02:21 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2012 02:08 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 02:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2012 01:58 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:52 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2012 01:45 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive.
this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face. If my outsourcing makes a million dollars a year and puts 15 people out of a job in the USA, then it should be pursued without a doubt. That million in profits is more than those 15 could make in a year (on average, I'm assuming they aren't 6-figure jobs being outsourced). This is better for us. Economics is a zero sum game in the end. Always is, always has been, always will be. Economics is not a zero sum game. If country A has a comparative advantage making computers and country B has a comparative advantage making iron, and both countries need some amount of computers and irons, then both countries benefit from trade. No country is worse off. umm..... lol? You just gave an example of a zero sum transaction to disprove what I said... No I didn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantageFor example, if, using machinery, a worker in one country can produce both shoes and shirts at 6 per hour, and a worker in a country with less machinery can produce either 2 shoes or 4 shirts in an hour, each country can gain from trade because their internal trade-offs between shoes and shirts are different. The less-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shirts, so it finds it more efficient to produce shirts and trade them to the more-efficient country for shoes. Without trade, its opportunity cost per shoe was 2 shirts; by trading, its cost per shoe can reduce to as low as 1 shirt depending on how much trade occurs (since the more-efficient country has a 1:1 trade-off). The more-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shoes, so it can gain in efficiency by moving some workers from shirt-production to shoe-production and trading some shoes for shirts. Without trade, its cost to make a shirt was 1 shoe; by trading, its cost per shirt can go as low as 1/2 shoe depending on how much trade occurs. Sure, in that example it works out. But you're just ignoring all the factors that go into creating that advantage. Every single factor that goes into creating that value can be monetized (theoretically) and it would work out to zero sum (assuming one side isn't getting the better deal). Good lord. What kind of republican campaign did you work on? No one who is even remotely conservative on economic issues believes that economics and trade is a zero-sum game. Not on a practical level. On a theoretical level. Someone's gain is always another's loss (whether material or lost opportunity). It might be split over all 6 billiion of the people and therefore be imperceptible, but it's still there. Nations tend to ignore this. They work on short-term models where it very well can benefit two people. Hell, that's the whole theory behind Keynesianism. And it works. And Daunt, I work for a moderate I don't think that's even Keynesian. That's more like mercantilism. If one country has a lot of capital, but not much labour and another has a lot of labour, but not much capital, then it is mutually beneficial for the country with capital to invest and employ all those people. Now I'll grant that there can and are abuses to this. Wages can be suppressed. But for value is added when you turn sand to silicon and silicon to computer chips. The computer chip is not the same value as exchanging sand back and forth so I'm not sure why it would be zero sum. So that's value added labor. That's the most common form of wealth creation, and a big reason many people promote production maximization. But your ownership of that sand and your conversion has cost every single person not gaining an opportunity cost, however minor or impractical that may be.
So there's always a cost to doing one thing and not another? But if the opportunity to do the one thing was only minor or impractical and they went with the first which was both major and practical, can't those involved be said to have gained? Why is the opportunity to do an unlikely/unpractical thing given equal weight to the likely/ practical so that it balances out to being zero sum?
I'm just trying to get my head around opportunity cost. Are you saying action 1 is zero sum because it precludes theoretical action 2? Whereas I'm thinking along the lines of action 1 is a gain from inaction. Though perhaps theoretical action 2 could be a gain from inaction. But in both cases I'd be comparing the current state (after action) to the past state and not between hypothetical alternatives. Somehow I feel like I'm getting this wrong.
|
On September 20 2012 01:30 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
When Romney uses tap loopholes ad shelters to avoid taxes, its okay because its legal.
When 47% of Americans don't pay taxes because they're legally exempt, they're lazy scumbags.
Real talk. To be fair, it's the same from the reverse side. When 47% of American don't pay taxes because they're exempt, it's because of dire woeful need. When Romney pays his high taxes as he's legally obligated to, he's a capitalist scumbag.
Yes except Romney actually called those 47% all "victims". On the reverse side he is a scumbag, not for dodging taxation but being a hypocrite and condemning people for a less dodgy action.
On September 20 2012 01:17 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:14 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Not something you want to do if you're then going to turn and ask him for your vote for President. Thankfully for the Republican campaign, a vast majority of the American population is still ignorant of what Globalization (and de-industrialization as well for that matter) is and so they can continue trying to sell the idea that the reason the economy is bad is because Obama ruined it. (Which in my opinion STILL doesn't work because the economy was bad when Obama took office and is even in recovery as we speak, slow recovery, but still recovery.) Were the population truly educated about those economic and social concepts, there's no way that approach would fly. You can't bitch about jobs moving overseas and then go on to say "global economy". If the US can't compete it is within the companies right to leave. Morality has nothing to do with it, Neil Degrasse Tyson has a great speech on this where he argues that the US are just placing band-aids on the problems and not finding any actual solutions and then compkaining when companies leave. You're not understanding my point on morality, perhaps I wasn't clear, so let me rephrase. I'm not saying that it's immoral that companies are moving jobs overseas. It's a global free trade economy they are within their rights to do that. What I'm saying is immoral, is for a business owner to do that. Reap a huge profit, and then come back and tell the American population that if they are jobless as a result of these companies moving overseas, then they are freeloaders and moochers who WANT to be dependent upon government. And oh by the way, vote for me for President. It's as though he's insulting the American labor force because they don't want to be treated the way the Chinese are treated. I understand globalization, I understand why it sucks for the American economy. What isn't ok with me though is for business owners to try and turn our country into China so that we can compete with them. That's not the solution I want.
Ahh yes that clears it up. Personally I think anyone who would vote for Romney needs their head checked but we've seen Bush and Carter... It's not that crazy another awful president could slip in.
|
On September 20 2012 01:43 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face. It goes deeper than just worker efficiency too. The Chinese are EXTREMELY lax about environmental regulations, which is another big reason why it's so cheap to manufacture there. Those lax regulations have a huge impact on not just China's population, but the entire planet as well. There's a whole lot else going on in China that allows for manufacturing to be that cheap over there. To come and tell me that we should be trying to emulate them in order to compete sounds like insanity.
These things give China some advantages, and perhaps have sped up the rate at which production has moved there. But it's futile to try to stop industry from migrating to China / Southeast Asia. China has something like 1.4 billion people and the second largest GDP in the world. That's a HUGE domestic market, and companies want to sell there. At some point, it's easier to simply relocate (or create new) capital in China and manufacture goods there than to build things here or in Europe and ship them to China. As their GDP per capita continues to converge towards that of rich nations, the incentives for companies to produce goods there will only increase.
|
On September 20 2012 03:41 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:43 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 20 2012 01:36 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 01:33 BluePanther wrote:On September 20 2012 01:12 Signet wrote:On September 20 2012 00:58 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Global competition put the American workforce where it is. If companies don't outsource, they lose outright to foreign competition. If an American worker can't do something better than somebody on the other side of the world working for some third world wage, then that American worker needs to find some other way to make himself useful to society. I'm in favor of free trade, free migration, globalization... but Vindicare605 does have a point. Opening our economy has created vast amounts of wealth, some of which has stayed here, but it has also caused employment here to decline as there simply isn't enough demand to support the employment levels of yesteryear when we are also buying from cheap foreign sources. (beyond even this, economic geography plays a big factor and there's not too much we can do about that in the near term) Trying to paint half of the American public as freeloading leeches when the root cause of the changes are business trends he participated in isn't right. Proponents of an open, global economy should be straightforward about the benefits and costs of this vision, and make the case (which I believe is the correct one) that the benefits to humanity far outweigh the costs. Of course, some government commitment to maintaining the safety net programs during the inevitable decline in American employment seems fair... since, under the old system of a less-globalized economy, many of these people would still have jobs. Wealth maximization > full employment The issue is that you need to redistribute it after the fact (or find a different social system than the one we use right now). i don't think outsourcing always leads to efficiency improvements in terms of worker productivity. often lower efficiency processes are chosen because they are less expensive. this is not wealth maximization in the economic sense. you are defending profit seeking at the expense of social welfare, a hard argument to make with a straight face. It goes deeper than just worker efficiency too. The Chinese are EXTREMELY lax about environmental regulations, which is another big reason why it's so cheap to manufacture there. Those lax regulations have a huge impact on not just China's population, but the entire planet as well. There's a whole lot else going on in China that allows for manufacturing to be that cheap over there. To come and tell me that we should be trying to emulate them in order to compete sounds like insanity. These things give China some advantages, and perhaps have sped up the rate at which production has moved there. But it's futile to try to stop industry from migrating to China / Southeast Asia. China has something like 1.4 billion people and the second largest GDP in the world. That's a HUGE domestic market, and companies want to sell there. At some point, it's easier to simply relocate (or create new) capital in China and manufacture goods there than to build things here or in Europe and ship them to China. As their GDP per capita continues to converge towards that of rich nations, the incentives for companies to produce goods there will only increase.
Well seeing as a nice portion of interest runs through China from American debt I doubt the GDP will slow down anytime soon.
|
On September 20 2012 01:17 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:14 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On September 19 2012 23:49 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 19 2012 14:33 Kaitlin wrote:On September 19 2012 14:28 oneofthem wrote:
interesting that romney is turning a rather straightforward phenomenon of globalization (pursuing cheaper labor cost with more mobile capital thus displacing more expensive american workers) which he himself was a participant into a moral drama of the (mormon) biblical variety.
taking bets as to whether he's actually serious because there is actually a chance he believes in all this Is it immoral to employ people from other countries, who are in much more dire living conditions than in the U.S. ? Not necessarily, but I think it is immoral to then turn around and essentially insult the American labor force when the biggest reason why they're in the position they are in is because your business and businesses like it outsourced to another part of the world for cheaper labor. It's like kicking a man when he's down, and you were the one that put him there. Not something you want to do if you're then going to turn and ask him for your vote for President. Thankfully for the Republican campaign, a vast majority of the American population is still ignorant of what Globalization (and de-industrialization as well for that matter) is and so they can continue trying to sell the idea that the reason the economy is bad is because Obama ruined it. (Which in my opinion STILL doesn't work because the economy was bad when Obama took office and is even in recovery as we speak, slow recovery, but still recovery.) Were the population truly educated about those economic and social concepts, there's no way that approach would fly. You can't bitch about jobs moving overseas and then go on to say "global economy". If the US can't compete it is within the companies right to leave. Morality has nothing to do with it, Neil Degrasse Tyson has a great speech on this where he argues that the US are just placing band-aids on the problems and not finding any actual solutions and then compkaining when companies leave. You're not understanding my point on morality, perhaps I wasn't clear, so let me rephrase. I'm not saying that it's immoral that companies are moving jobs overseas. It's a global free trade economy they are within their rights to do that. What I'm saying is immoral, is for a business owner to do that. Reap a huge profit, and then come back and tell the American population that if they are jobless as a result of these companies moving overseas, then they are freeloaders and moochers who WANT to be dependent upon government. And oh by the way, vote for me for President. It's as though he's insulting the American labor force because they don't want to be treated the way the Chinese are treated. I understand globalization, I understand why it sucks for the American economy. What isn't ok with me though is for business owners to try and turn our country into China so that we can compete with them. That's not the solution I want.
The business owners aren't the only ones that benefit from moving jobs overseas though. Consumers benefit from lower prices as well - that's a de facto raise for everybody. More often then not the gains to the business owners from lower input costs are temporary as competition eats away at profit margins while the lower prices to consumers last a long, long time.
|
Yeeeeesssssssss. Dance robot, dance.
Mitt Romney, facing fallout from leaked videos showing him at a May fundraiser saying that 47 percent of Americans are "dependent on government" and view themselves as "victims," attacked President Barack Obama over a 1998 video pushed by the Drudge Report and purportedly showing him favoring "redistribution."
"He [Obama] really believes in what I’ll call a government-centered society. I know there are some who believe that if you simply take from some and give to others then we’ll all be better off. It’s known as redistribution. It’s never been a characteristic of America," Romney said Wednesday at an Atlanta fundraiser. "There’s a tape that came out just a couple of days ago where the president said yes he believes in redistribution. I don’t. I believe the way to lift people and help people have higher incomes is not to take from some and give to others but to create wealth for all."
Obama, in the 1998 clip, said:
What that means then is that as we try to resuscitate this notion that we’re all in this thing together, leave nobody behind, we do have to be innovative and thinking what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live. And my suggestion, I guess would be that the trick, and this is one of the few areas where I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with as opposed to just political issues. I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure everybody’s got a shot.
(Bolded material is quoted in the Romney release.)
In the clip, he also concedes that neither the Chicago Housing Authority or the Chicago public schools had been good models of policymaking, agreeing in part with a conservative critique of the efficacy of government action which he opposed.
I'll let conservative blogger David Frum address this:
That's it? That's what you've got?
That quote may expose Obama as long-winded, but we knew that. But what exactly is he saying here that would be disagreed with by, say, the founders of the land-grant colleges or the authors of Social Security?
That's Romney's build order now. Criticize Obama for saying something 14 years ago that is more or less him agreeing that government housing and schooling could be managed more efficiently, but are nonetheless important, and use it to justify his own insane assertion that 47% of the population are moochers.
Cool story, bro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
