|
|
On October 21 2012 10:09 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 10:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 21 2012 10:04 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, we have a bad state. What's your point? My point is that giving a bad state additional powers is irrational. ok, so let's make a good state then. Why don't you take a little break from your adolescent fantasy of sovereign individual autonomy ex nihilo and think about how one might go about doing that? I would be overjoyed to hear your thoughts on the matter.
A good state is a limited state. My ideal society is one which uses force as a last resort. I don't think that's an adolescent idea, it's very similar to the one leftists advocate when it comes to foreign policy: war as a last resort. Cooperation and diplomacy are always desirable over coercion or violence, and that applies whether we are talking about individual states or individual people. If you show me an issue which is serious enough that it warrants violence, then I will be in agreement. I don't think that "urban geography restructuring" is one of those situations. Sounds more like "let's use the coercion of the state to solve this minor inconvenience." When any society gets in the habit of jumping to violence as a first resort, the society is in serious trouble.
|
ugh, the impending collapse of your entire economic paradigm is not a minor inconvenience
2008 was just the beginning
how can everybody spend all their time talking about how fast the world is changing and then expect the world not to change???
|
On October 21 2012 10:17 sam!zdat wrote:
ugh, the impending collapse of your entire economic paradigm is not a minor inconvenience
2008 was just the beginning
It's not even an economic paradigm. It's a moral philosophy.
|
Yes, that's your mistake. You base your strategy on what you would like the goal to be, without thinking about how the world actually is and how you might actually get to where you want to go in a stable way. "What should things be like?" and "How can I make things like that?" are separate questions. You answer the first and mistake it for the second.
|
Ummm.... let me reread....
|
yes, but you think you can simply implement your goal as a strategy and expect it to work, as if one could impose Utopia on the world by sheer charisma. Like: "In Utopia people should be free!" becomes "Right now in 2012 let people do whatever stupid shit they want to do that fucks everything else up for everybody else!"
Your moral philosophy must inform your political strategy, but your moral philosophy IS NOT a political strategy.
edit: ok I'll let you reread 
|
On October 21 2012 10:31 sam!zdat wrote:
yes, but you think you can simply implement your goal as a strategy and expect it to work, as if one could impose Utopia on the world by sheer charisma. Like: "In Utopia people should be free!" becomes "Right now in 2012 let people do whatever stupid shit they want to do that fucks everything else up for everybody else!"
Your moral philosophy must inform your political strategy, but your moral philosophy IS NOT a political strategy.
edit: you're not parsing my grammar right. There's a goal, and then there's "how to I get to my goal." "How do I get to my goal" is not a goal.
If "freedom" fucks things up for other people then obviously our ideal of freedom is poorly defined or understood. Once the goal is perfected, the implementation does not need to be compromised.
|
On October 21 2012 09:23 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 09:13 oneofthem wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 08:57 oneofthem wrote:
the answer to canadian tar sand is clearly american oil shale. DOUBLE IT jay wilson style The answer to oil being dirty is clearly not to switch to the dirtiest form of oil out there. NIMBY isn't the same as clean. i don't find the lack of standards on the canadian side an argument to do it here. But that is precisely the dynamic of transnational capitalism. Capital forces territorial powers to race to the bottom in order to woo it. edit: play nice now, boys
"race to the bottom" does not exist.
|
Yes! how do you get people to understand what freedom truly is? Now we are asking a useful question!
If everyone understood how to be free, then everyone could be free. You are absolutely right, in fact I love it this thing you say: "then obviously our ideal of freedom is poorly defined or understood." I give you A+ for that sentence.
On October 21 2012 10:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 09:23 sam!zdat wrote:On October 21 2012 09:13 oneofthem wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 08:57 oneofthem wrote:
the answer to canadian tar sand is clearly american oil shale. DOUBLE IT jay wilson style The answer to oil being dirty is clearly not to switch to the dirtiest form of oil out there. NIMBY isn't the same as clean. i don't find the lack of standards on the canadian side an argument to do it here. But that is precisely the dynamic of transnational capitalism. Capital forces territorial powers to race to the bottom in order to woo it. edit: play nice now, boys "race to the bottom" does not exist.
sez who
|
On October 21 2012 10:35 sam!zdat wrote:Yes! how do you get people to understand what freedom truly is? Now we are asking a useful question! If everyone understood how to be free, then everyone could be free. You are absolutely right, in fact I love it this thing you say: "then obviously our ideal of freedom is poorly defined or understood." I give you A+ for that sentence. Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 10:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 09:23 sam!zdat wrote:On October 21 2012 09:13 oneofthem wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 08:57 oneofthem wrote:
the answer to canadian tar sand is clearly american oil shale. DOUBLE IT jay wilson style The answer to oil being dirty is clearly not to switch to the dirtiest form of oil out there. NIMBY isn't the same as clean. i don't find the lack of standards on the canadian side an argument to do it here. But that is precisely the dynamic of transnational capitalism. Capital forces territorial powers to race to the bottom in order to woo it. edit: play nice now, boys "race to the bottom" does not exist. sez who
lol, well then I'll end our conversation on a good note. That's probably the first time you gave me positive feedback for a post.
I'm gonna watch a movie with the wife, be back later.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
|
On October 21 2012 10:35 sam!zdat wrote:Yes! how do you get people to understand what freedom truly is? Now we are asking a useful question! If everyone understood how to be free, then everyone could be free. You are absolutely right, in fact I love it this thing you say: "then obviously our ideal of freedom is poorly defined or understood." I give you A+ for that sentence. Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 10:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 09:23 sam!zdat wrote:On October 21 2012 09:13 oneofthem wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 08:57 oneofthem wrote:
the answer to canadian tar sand is clearly american oil shale. DOUBLE IT jay wilson style The answer to oil being dirty is clearly not to switch to the dirtiest form of oil out there. NIMBY isn't the same as clean. i don't find the lack of standards on the canadian side an argument to do it here. But that is precisely the dynamic of transnational capitalism. Capital forces territorial powers to race to the bottom in order to woo it. edit: play nice now, boys "race to the bottom" does not exist. sez who
sez me!
You may be able to find a few instances here or there but as a whole there is no benefit to racing to the bottom so it just does not happen. The US is not trying to become poor like China a few decades ago. China is trying to become rich like the US. Its a race to the top, or at least parity.
|
Obama has kept up a costly but unrelenting press against his competitor through the summer and fall, pumping nearly $300 million into television ads in the general election so far, according to a Republican source tracking ad buys. Romney — backed by an array of outside groups spending hundreds of millions on his behalf — largely stockpiled his resources and then unleashed an major air barrage beginning this month. He has spent almost $166 million on ads in the general election.
Both candidates saw a surge in donations in September. Obama, along with the Democratic National Committee and two joint fundraising committees, brought in $181 million. Romney and his affiliated committees raised $170 million.
But Obama is raising a larger share of his cash in small donations that go directly to his campaign committee, giving him more flexibility in how to spend it. Obama for America got $96.3 million in contributions in September, while Romney for President raised $41.9 million.
That could explain why the GOP nominee's campaign actually spent slightly less in September than it did in August — $65 million, down from $66 million, according to Federal Election Commission filings. The bulk went to media ads: $37 million, less than half of the $88 million Obama's campaign spent on commercials.
Romney's campaign also paid off $10 million on a $20-million loan it took out in late August. The campaign has a remaining debt of $5 million on the loan.
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 21 2012 10:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 10:35 sam!zdat wrote:Yes! how do you get people to understand what freedom truly is? Now we are asking a useful question! If everyone understood how to be free, then everyone could be free. You are absolutely right, in fact I love it this thing you say: "then obviously our ideal of freedom is poorly defined or understood." I give you A+ for that sentence. On October 21 2012 10:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 09:23 sam!zdat wrote:On October 21 2012 09:13 oneofthem wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 08:57 oneofthem wrote:
the answer to canadian tar sand is clearly american oil shale. DOUBLE IT jay wilson style The answer to oil being dirty is clearly not to switch to the dirtiest form of oil out there. NIMBY isn't the same as clean. i don't find the lack of standards on the canadian side an argument to do it here. But that is precisely the dynamic of transnational capitalism. Capital forces territorial powers to race to the bottom in order to woo it. edit: play nice now, boys "race to the bottom" does not exist. sez who sez me! You may be able to find a few instances here or there but as a whole there is no benefit to racing to the bottom so it just does not happen. The US is not trying to become poor like China a few decades ago. China is trying to become rich like the US. Its a race to the top, or at least parity.
there are two effects. down pressure on the place with the higher standard, be it labor cost, rights or environmental regulation. and up pressure on the new site.
since we are talking about u.s. politics, there's mostly a downward effect here.
one distinct factor here is political rights. you should not expect u.s. workers to compete with the lack of human rights in china, a contributing factor to the low wage levels there. if the amount of money imbibed by the power elites in china is circulated into the economy there, the wage level would be much higher.
|
On October 21 2012 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 10:35 sam!zdat wrote:Yes! how do you get people to understand what freedom truly is? Now we are asking a useful question! If everyone understood how to be free, then everyone could be free. You are absolutely right, in fact I love it this thing you say: "then obviously our ideal of freedom is poorly defined or understood." I give you A+ for that sentence. On October 21 2012 10:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 09:23 sam!zdat wrote:On October 21 2012 09:13 oneofthem wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 08:57 oneofthem wrote:
the answer to canadian tar sand is clearly american oil shale. DOUBLE IT jay wilson style The answer to oil being dirty is clearly not to switch to the dirtiest form of oil out there. NIMBY isn't the same as clean. i don't find the lack of standards on the canadian side an argument to do it here. But that is precisely the dynamic of transnational capitalism. Capital forces territorial powers to race to the bottom in order to woo it. edit: play nice now, boys "race to the bottom" does not exist. sez who lol, well then I'll end our conversation on a good note. That's probably the first time you gave me positive feedback for a post. I'm gonna watch a movie with the wife, be back later.
<3 you my boy JD never forget that
tell her I said hi 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i...i need to take a shower after seeing this lovefest. more hate, not love
|
On October 21 2012 10:55 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 10:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 10:35 sam!zdat wrote:Yes! how do you get people to understand what freedom truly is? Now we are asking a useful question! If everyone understood how to be free, then everyone could be free. You are absolutely right, in fact I love it this thing you say: "then obviously our ideal of freedom is poorly defined or understood." I give you A+ for that sentence. On October 21 2012 10:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 09:23 sam!zdat wrote:On October 21 2012 09:13 oneofthem wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 08:57 oneofthem wrote:
the answer to canadian tar sand is clearly american oil shale. DOUBLE IT jay wilson style The answer to oil being dirty is clearly not to switch to the dirtiest form of oil out there. NIMBY isn't the same as clean. i don't find the lack of standards on the canadian side an argument to do it here. But that is precisely the dynamic of transnational capitalism. Capital forces territorial powers to race to the bottom in order to woo it. edit: play nice now, boys "race to the bottom" does not exist. sez who sez me! You may be able to find a few instances here or there but as a whole there is no benefit to racing to the bottom so it just does not happen. The US is not trying to become poor like China a few decades ago. China is trying to become rich like the US. Its a race to the top, or at least parity. there are two effects. down pressure on the place with the higher standard, be it labor cost, rights or environmental regulation. and up pressure on the new site. since we are talking about u.s. politics, there's mostly a downward effect here. one distinct factor here is political rights. you should not expect u.s. workers to compete with the lack of human rights in china, a contributing factor to the low wage levels there. if the amount of money imbibed by the power elites in china is circulated into the economy there, the wage level would be much higher.
Why would there be a downward effect in the higher wage country? Workers in China and the US generally work vastly different jobs. Even if that was not the case, there still wouldn't necessarily be a downward effect.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 21 2012 11:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 10:55 oneofthem wrote:On October 21 2012 10:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 10:35 sam!zdat wrote:Yes! how do you get people to understand what freedom truly is? Now we are asking a useful question! If everyone understood how to be free, then everyone could be free. You are absolutely right, in fact I love it this thing you say: "then obviously our ideal of freedom is poorly defined or understood." I give you A+ for that sentence. On October 21 2012 10:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 09:23 sam!zdat wrote:On October 21 2012 09:13 oneofthem wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 08:57 oneofthem wrote:
the answer to canadian tar sand is clearly american oil shale. DOUBLE IT jay wilson style The answer to oil being dirty is clearly not to switch to the dirtiest form of oil out there. NIMBY isn't the same as clean. i don't find the lack of standards on the canadian side an argument to do it here. But that is precisely the dynamic of transnational capitalism. Capital forces territorial powers to race to the bottom in order to woo it. edit: play nice now, boys "race to the bottom" does not exist. sez who sez me! You may be able to find a few instances here or there but as a whole there is no benefit to racing to the bottom so it just does not happen. The US is not trying to become poor like China a few decades ago. China is trying to become rich like the US. Its a race to the top, or at least parity. there are two effects. down pressure on the place with the higher standard, be it labor cost, rights or environmental regulation. and up pressure on the new site. since we are talking about u.s. politics, there's mostly a downward effect here. one distinct factor here is political rights. you should not expect u.s. workers to compete with the lack of human rights in china, a contributing factor to the low wage levels there. if the amount of money imbibed by the power elites in china is circulated into the economy there, the wage level would be much higher. Why would there be a downward effect in the higher wage country? Workers in China and the US generally work vastly different jobs. Even if that was not the case, there still wouldn't necessarily be a downward effect.
they will lose those jobs unless demands are lowered. you can see this in every labor negotiation.
of course, most of the time it's just a straight cut without a negotiation. although the remaining jobs may be higher wage, the overall labor share is lower.
|
On October 21 2012 11:07 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 11:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 10:55 oneofthem wrote:On October 21 2012 10:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 10:35 sam!zdat wrote:Yes! how do you get people to understand what freedom truly is? Now we are asking a useful question! If everyone understood how to be free, then everyone could be free. You are absolutely right, in fact I love it this thing you say: "then obviously our ideal of freedom is poorly defined or understood." I give you A+ for that sentence. On October 21 2012 10:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 09:23 sam!zdat wrote:On October 21 2012 09:13 oneofthem wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 08:57 oneofthem wrote:
the answer to canadian tar sand is clearly american oil shale. DOUBLE IT jay wilson style The answer to oil being dirty is clearly not to switch to the dirtiest form of oil out there. NIMBY isn't the same as clean. i don't find the lack of standards on the canadian side an argument to do it here. But that is precisely the dynamic of transnational capitalism. Capital forces territorial powers to race to the bottom in order to woo it. edit: play nice now, boys "race to the bottom" does not exist. sez who sez me! You may be able to find a few instances here or there but as a whole there is no benefit to racing to the bottom so it just does not happen. The US is not trying to become poor like China a few decades ago. China is trying to become rich like the US. Its a race to the top, or at least parity. there are two effects. down pressure on the place with the higher standard, be it labor cost, rights or environmental regulation. and up pressure on the new site. since we are talking about u.s. politics, there's mostly a downward effect here. one distinct factor here is political rights. you should not expect u.s. workers to compete with the lack of human rights in china, a contributing factor to the low wage levels there. if the amount of money imbibed by the power elites in china is circulated into the economy there, the wage level would be much higher. Why would there be a downward effect in the higher wage country? Workers in China and the US generally work vastly different jobs. Even if that was not the case, there still wouldn't necessarily be a downward effect. they will lose those jobs unless demands are lowered. you can see this in every labor negotiation. of course, most of the time it's just a straight cut without a negotiation. although the remaining jobs may be higher wage, the overall labor share is lower.
That's not a race to the bottom though. Its still a race to the top. A few workers either lose their jobs or take a pay cut, but on the whole everyone gets a pay raise out of the deal. Its no different than replacing workers with machines - a few lose their jobs but the whole benefits.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 21 2012 11:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 11:07 oneofthem wrote:On October 21 2012 11:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 10:55 oneofthem wrote:On October 21 2012 10:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 10:35 sam!zdat wrote:Yes! how do you get people to understand what freedom truly is? Now we are asking a useful question! If everyone understood how to be free, then everyone could be free. You are absolutely right, in fact I love it this thing you say: "then obviously our ideal of freedom is poorly defined or understood." I give you A+ for that sentence. On October 21 2012 10:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 09:23 sam!zdat wrote:On October 21 2012 09:13 oneofthem wrote:On October 21 2012 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
The answer to oil being dirty is clearly not to switch to the dirtiest form of oil out there. NIMBY isn't the same as clean. i don't find the lack of standards on the canadian side an argument to do it here. But that is precisely the dynamic of transnational capitalism. Capital forces territorial powers to race to the bottom in order to woo it. edit: play nice now, boys "race to the bottom" does not exist. sez who sez me! You may be able to find a few instances here or there but as a whole there is no benefit to racing to the bottom so it just does not happen. The US is not trying to become poor like China a few decades ago. China is trying to become rich like the US. Its a race to the top, or at least parity. there are two effects. down pressure on the place with the higher standard, be it labor cost, rights or environmental regulation. and up pressure on the new site. since we are talking about u.s. politics, there's mostly a downward effect here. one distinct factor here is political rights. you should not expect u.s. workers to compete with the lack of human rights in china, a contributing factor to the low wage levels there. if the amount of money imbibed by the power elites in china is circulated into the economy there, the wage level would be much higher. Why would there be a downward effect in the higher wage country? Workers in China and the US generally work vastly different jobs. Even if that was not the case, there still wouldn't necessarily be a downward effect. they will lose those jobs unless demands are lowered. you can see this in every labor negotiation. of course, most of the time it's just a straight cut without a negotiation. although the remaining jobs may be higher wage, the overall labor share is lower. That's not a race to the bottom though. Its still a race to the top. A few workers either lose their jobs or take a pay cut, but on the whole everyone gets a pay raise out of the deal. Its no different than replacing workers with machines - a few lose their jobs but the whole benefits.
first of all, there is no guaranteed overall pareto increase if we are talking about a situation in which one place has no political rights, while the other does. no one will accept that it is a good outcome, for example, if workers are displaced by a slave system running next door.
secondly, while i would agree that gains by chinese workers is a positive on equal footing as loss by americans, and this effect is a net positive, it is not the only path. the capital will still flow to lower cost labor, all else being equal, if the labor is cheaper by 100x or by 50%. there's quite a bit of space to extract more value for workers.
in the technology case, we'll have to look at what kind of skill retraining is available for the displaced workers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
