|
|
On October 21 2012 11:17 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 11:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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.
A couple points. You can't just look at wages, you have to look at the cost of things that workers buy as well. If workers take a 50% pay cut but can buy products at 50% of the price than no real wage cut occurred.
Secondly, comparing Chinese workers to US workers is not simply a matter of wages. US workers may have relatively high wages but they are also relatively productive and so often the US worker is cheaper than a foreign worker even when the US worker earns a higher wage.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 21 2012 11:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 11:17 oneofthem wrote:On October 21 2012 11:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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. A couple points. You can't just look at wages, you have to look at the cost of things that workers buy as well. If workers take a 50% pay cut but can buy products at 50% of the price than no real wage cut occurred. Secondly, comparing Chinese workers to US workers is not simply a matter of wages. US workers may have relatively high wages but they are also relatively productive and so often the US worker is cheaper than a foreign worker even when the US worker earns a higher wage.
i think the u.s. wage level is higher than a 'pure market' equilibrium though. because of the various collective bargaining structure. when we are in a closed economy, that does not really harm harm anything except maybe expansion, which is not necessarily that valuable of a thing. yes, cost of goods is higher, but that equilibrium point is more egalitarian and supports higher level of public infrastructure than the alternative of capital having more share.
the decoupling of productivity and real wage level is a most signfiicant fact. it's just the erosion of labor's bargaining power. htis is not taking into account the cost of public infrastructure increasingly burdening labor, beacuse of higher tax paid by labor income as well as privatization of public infrastructure.
|
On October 21 2012 07:45 sam!zdat wrote:
The auto bailouts were in fact executed quite badly. I read Posner's book on it and his analysis was damning, though I'm not enough of an economist to recapitulate the argument or anything.
edit: I still wanna know what kind of jobs people think are gonna get created.
Here you go sam, a plausible future economy dominated by healthcare, education and the arts (not an unhappy sounding place!)
http://www.economist.com/node/21563714
|
Lets imagine where we would be at now with Iran if Romney were in power. Obama understands foreign policy.
|
On October 21 2012 11:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 11:17 oneofthem wrote:On October 21 2012 11:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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. A couple points. You can't just look at wages, you have to look at the cost of things that workers buy as well. If workers take a 50% pay cut but can buy products at 50% of the price than no real wage cut occurred. Secondly, comparing Chinese workers to US workers is not simply a matter of wages. US workers may have relatively high wages but they are also relatively productive and so often the US worker is cheaper than a foreign worker even when the US worker earns a higher wage.
Let's not forget that rising energy costs and a low local demand can neutralize the benefits of moving to "cheap" labor. Mix that with a loyal workforce in comparison to the cheap, but flight risk, labor, and you have stable production capacity
|
On October 21 2012 11:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 07:45 sam!zdat wrote:
The auto bailouts were in fact executed quite badly. I read Posner's book on it and his analysis was damning, though I'm not enough of an economist to recapitulate the argument or anything.
edit: I still wanna know what kind of jobs people think are gonna get created. Here you go sam, a plausible future economy dominated by healthcare, education and the arts (not an unhappy sounding place!) http://www.economist.com/node/21563714
Interesting. Did you read the book? how do the scholars and artists support themselves? Do they have to sell a product on the market? that is detrimental to art and scholarship. What is the intellectual property regime?
(edit: we'll note in passing that scholars and artists are rather less likely than the general population to be fans of capitalism, so if this turns out to be a robust trend and not simply a passing fad or reactionary phenomenon then if you have a economy dominated by these people it will most likely not be a capitalistic one.)
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
The biggest reason Obama needs to win this election is to show Congress that obstructionism will not be tolerated. A victory for Romney will mean that Democrats will retaliate like never before and everything will go down the gutter for another four years. A victory for Obama will hopefully force the Republican Party to take a look within.
|
so, one of the most fringe elements on my facebook posted something about some white house video about the libya attacks which is supposed to be extremely damning, will be the end of obama, etc. etc. etc. i've tried to find it, but haven't been able to-- i assume because its from a non-mainstream site. anyone got anything on that?
|
|
|
I'm "voting" today, Oregon is all mail voting, so about to put this election cycle behind me.
And I completely agree with you Souma, and we are not going to get anywhere. However, if it doesn't end the world, it could cause third parties to be actually in the running(if people get fed up with the partisanship and obstructionism) and more relevant than now in 2016, which I would be excited about though I doubt that will be the case. If Obama wins, and republicans do nothing but the same for next four years, I don't see good things for the republican party.
|
On October 21 2012 13:24 BlueBird. wrote:
I'm "voting" today, Oregon is all mail voting, so about to put this election cycle behind me.
And I completely agree with you Souma, and we are not going to get anywhere. However, if it doesn't end the world, it could cause third parties to be actually in the running(if people get fed up with the partisanship and obstructionism) and more relevant than now in 2016, which I would be excited about though I doubt that will be the case. If Obama wins, and republicans do nothing but the same for next four years, I don't see good things for the republican party.
A third party simply isn't feasible in our system. With the sickening amount of money that is in politics, money is actually required for a party to even get off the ground, let alone survive, so unless some billionare starts donating a lot of money to a legitimate third party, it just won't happen.
|
On October 21 2012 13:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 13:24 BlueBird. wrote:
I'm "voting" today, Oregon is all mail voting, so about to put this election cycle behind me.
And I completely agree with you Souma, and we are not going to get anywhere. However, if it doesn't end the world, it could cause third parties to be actually in the running(if people get fed up with the partisanship and obstructionism) and more relevant than now in 2016, which I would be excited about though I doubt that will be the case. If Obama wins, and republicans do nothing but the same for next four years, I don't see good things for the republican party.
A third party simply isn't feasible in our system. With the sickening amount of money that is in politics, money is actually required for a party to even get off the ground, let alone survive, so unless some billionare starts donating a lot of money to a legitimate third party, it just won't happen.
yes well thats why there would be a call to change the system, i don't want this much money going in to electing someone, could be put to much better use then advertisements.
|
On October 21 2012 12:18 Mohdoo wrote:
Lets imagine where we would be at now with Iran if Romney were in power. Obama understands foreign policy.
Romney's and Obama's position on Iran are about the same.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Wasn't it just two weeks ago that conservatives were calling Obama too soft on Iran? lol.
|
On October 21 2012 12:18 Mohdoo wrote:
Lets imagine where we would be at now with Iran if Romney were in power. Obama understands foreign policy.
Politicians like to talk as if they have different foreign policies, but once they're in power and listening to the same military, intelligence, and foreign policy analysts that advise the President, their actions turn out relatively similar.
On October 21 2012 13:03 Souma wrote:
The biggest reason Obama needs to win this election is to show Congress that obstructionism will not be tolerated. A victory for Romney will mean that Democrats will retaliate like never before and everything will go down the gutter for another four years. A victory for Obama will hopefully force the Republican Party to take a look within.
I doubt that a Romney victory would result in Democratic retaliation. The Democrats have a long history of refusing to play hardball due to some combination of stupidity, naievete, and optimism.
On October 21 2012 13:56 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 13:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 21 2012 13:24 BlueBird. wrote:
I'm "voting" today, Oregon is all mail voting, so about to put this election cycle behind me.
And I completely agree with you Souma, and we are not going to get anywhere. However, if it doesn't end the world, it could cause third parties to be actually in the running(if people get fed up with the partisanship and obstructionism) and more relevant than now in 2016, which I would be excited about though I doubt that will be the case. If Obama wins, and republicans do nothing but the same for next four years, I don't see good things for the republican party.
A third party simply isn't feasible in our system. With the sickening amount of money that is in politics, money is actually required for a party to even get off the ground, let alone survive, so unless some billionare starts donating a lot of money to a legitimate third party, it just won't happen. yes well thats why there would be a call to change the system, i don't want this much money going in to electing someone, could be put to much better use then advertisements.
The reason so much money goes into politics is because it works. The way to fix this problem is to actually educate our citizens in basic critical thinking skills, so that they aren't easily swayed by expensive ad campaigns.
|
That site is really pushing it's luck telling people to call 911 immediately... Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 21 2012 14:07 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 13:03 Souma wrote:
The biggest reason Obama needs to win this election is to show Congress that obstructionism will not be tolerated. A victory for Romney will mean that Democrats will retaliate like never before and everything will go down the gutter for another four years. A victory for Obama will hopefully force the Republican Party to take a look within. I doubt that a Romney victory would result in Democratic retaliation. The Democrats have a long history of refusing to play hardball due to some combination of stupidity, naievete, and optimism.
I was thinking of that possibility too. If that did happen, the Republicans will still gain the knowledge that these tactics do work and will be forgiven by the public and, as such, will employ them the next time another Democrat takes office. Still not a desired outcome imo.
Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 13:56 BlueBird. wrote:On October 21 2012 13:40 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 21 2012 13:24 BlueBird. wrote:
I'm "voting" today, Oregon is all mail voting, so about to put this election cycle behind me.
And I completely agree with you Souma, and we are not going to get anywhere. However, if it doesn't end the world, it could cause third parties to be actually in the running(if people get fed up with the partisanship and obstructionism) and more relevant than now in 2016, which I would be excited about though I doubt that will be the case. If Obama wins, and republicans do nothing but the same for next four years, I don't see good things for the republican party.
A third party simply isn't feasible in our system. With the sickening amount of money that is in politics, money is actually required for a party to even get off the ground, let alone survive, so unless some billionare starts donating a lot of money to a legitimate third party, it just won't happen. yes well thats why there would be a call to change the system, i don't want this much money going in to electing someone, could be put to much better use then advertisements. The reason so much money goes into politics is because it works. The way to fix this problem is to actually educate our citizens in basic critical thinking skills, so that they aren't easily swayed by expensive ad campaigns.
True. Though I don't think we can have sweeping education reform until we get the money out of politics either way.
|
On October 21 2012 14:07 sunprince wrote:
I doubt that a Romney victory would result in Democratic retaliation. The Democrats have a long history of refusing to play hardball due to some combination of stupidity, naievete, and optimism.
Yeah, shame Democrats aren't assholes.
|
On October 21 2012 12:30 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 11:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 21 2012 07:45 sam!zdat wrote:
The auto bailouts were in fact executed quite badly. I read Posner's book on it and his analysis was damning, though I'm not enough of an economist to recapitulate the argument or anything.
edit: I still wanna know what kind of jobs people think are gonna get created. Here you go sam, a plausible future economy dominated by healthcare, education and the arts (not an unhappy sounding place!) http://www.economist.com/node/21563714 Interesting. Did you read the book? how do the scholars and artists support themselves? Do they have to sell a product on the market? that is detrimental to art and scholarship. What is the intellectual property regime? (edit: we'll note in passing that scholars and artists are rather less likely than the general population to be fans of capitalism, so if this turns out to be a robust trend and not simply a passing fad or reactionary phenomenon then if you have a economy dominated by these people it will most likely not be a capitalistic one.)
Oh, I can confirm that. Almost all musicians I know are liberal / social democrats. Without public money, art dies, or becomes so commercial it loses it substance and soul. That's something right winger, and even worse, libertarians miss completely: art is not designed to make money. It will be at loss 99% of the time. If society doesn't believe that art needs to be supported because it is an unvaluable treasure, it dies or loses it soul.
An opera ticket in Paris is already expensive, maybe 35 to 250€ and more. Yet each production costs a million euro, because unless you sell your tickets at a prohibitive price that only an elite can afford, the enormous machine a Strauss or Verdi opera requires will always be too expensive for the box office of an opera hall.
Same for theatre. Same for concerts. Same for Museums. And we do know how important it is to live in a country where anybody can go and listen to a Wagner opera, to see amazing companies giving a Moliere or a Shakespeare, listen to a Beethoven symphony by a top orchestra or enter for almost no money in any museum to admire a picture of Rembrandt, a sculpture of Rodin, or any of the greatest works of our civilisation.
Now there are artist who do a lot of money, without a cent of public funding. Usually they are called Vanessa Mae or Andre Rieu, but they are to a regular concert what Mac Donald's is to a Michelin's guide three stars chef.
And of course, you can argue if it's not sustainable financially, it shouldn't exist. But see, high standart cultural life is what makes the difference between a city like Paris, New York, London or Vienna, and places such as Salt Lake City (sorry for Utah people), or your random urban desert from the middle West. And between their inhabitants, also.
|
On October 21 2012 14:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:That site is really pushing it's luck telling people to call 911 immediately... Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
I think you overestimate people's stupidity. Even a brain damaged monkey would understand it's humoristic.
By the way amazing site, I laughed my ass off. I'll facebook that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
