The 1 percent is gutting America’s middle class

[Chris]

This is Robert Reich, socialist, server in administrations of Ford and Carter, was Secy Labor under Clinton.

He sort of gets it right...

The 1 percent is gutting America’s middle class (http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/robert_reich_the_1_percent_is_gutting_americas_mid dle_class_partner/)


The richest Americans hold more of the nation’s wealth than they have in almost a century. What do they spend it on? As you might expect, personal jets, giant yachts, works of art, and luxury penthouses.

And also on politics....

He goes on to detail just how rich they are. And how the middle class is getting poorer.

But he fails to explain just how the rich are gutting the middle class. It's all setting correlation, no establishing causation.

He hints at it, as above "And also on politics." And again...


...All this money has flowed to Democrats as well as Republicans.

...Their political investments have paid off in the form of lower taxes on themselves and their businesses, subsidies for their corporations, government bailouts, federal prosecutions that end in settlements where companies don’t affirm or deny the facts and where executives don’t go to jail, watered-down regulations, and non-enforcement of antitrust laws.

Since the top .01 began investing big time in politics, corporate profits and the stock market have risen to record levels....

But the bottom 90 percent don’t own many shares of stock. They rely on wages, which have been trending downward....

He comes close with "If you want to know what’s happened to the American economy, follow the money. That will lead you to the richest .01 percent."

Sorry, Robert, but if you follow the money it leads to politicians, Dems and Reps, in DC selling the middle and poor classes out to the rich.

It's politicians gutting the middle class, Robert. But admitting that for someone who loves government and sees the state as the solution is hard to admit.

[PolWatch]

To think, some people laugh when I say 'the best government money can buy'.

[Mac-7]

Most of the wealth increase is coming from the stock market which is being fueled by the Fed.

its paper money not real wealth.

[Chris]

Reich Is Wrong Again (http://cafehayek.com/2014/11/reich-is-wrong-again.html)


...He misleads by writing that “the richest one-hundredth of one percent of Americans now hold more than 11 percent of the nation’s total wealth.” In reality, though, there’s no such thing as the nation’s wealth. Wealth is created by, and belongs to, individuals. And overwhelmingly, the more wealth an individual creates - by producing, in cooperation with others, goods and services valued by consumers - the wealthier that individual becomes. Yet Mr. Reich’s wording suggests that wealth exists independently of individual creativity and initiative, and that it rightly and originally belongs to “the nation” rather than to each of the individual men and women who create it.

His economics is faulty when he describes this wealth as being ‘held,’ as if it sits idly. Yet the great bulk of this wealth is invested in productive enterprises that make consumers and workers better off even as it makes its risk-taking owners better off. This wealth is not in safes or mattresses.

And Mr. Reich fails to connect the dots by complaining that the rich spend more and more of their wealth in the political arena. What else to expect when that arena becomes ever more central to Americans’ daily lives and, simultaneously, becomes ever more crowded with redistribution-mongers (such as Mr. Reich) whose squeals to soak the rich grow louder and harsher?...

[donttread]

This is Robert Reich, socialist, server in administrations of Ford and Carter, was Secy Labor under Clinton.

He sort of gets it right...

The 1 percent is gutting America’s middle class (http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/robert_reich_the_1_percent_is_gutting_americas_mid dle_class_partner/)



He goes on to detail just how rich they are. And how the middle class is getting poorer.

But he fails to explain just how the rich are gutting the middle class. It's all setting correlation, no establishing causation.

He hints at it, as above "And also on politics." And again...



He comes close with "If you want to know what’s happened to the American economy, follow the money. That will lead you to the richest .01 percent."

Sorry, Robert, but if you follow the money it leads to politicians, Dems and Reps, in DC selling the middle and poor classes out to the rich.

It's politicians gutting the middle class, Robert. But admitting that for someone who loves government and sees the state as the solution is hard to admit.

I've long thought that there could be a limit to income and wealth accumulation which would still drive people to succeed but better distribute the money and end the obscene wasteful spending of the superrich. For example if A-ROD could of never made more than say 2 million a year playing baseball and the team owners could only increase their drawings AFTER ticket prices were lowered: Would either A-ROD or the owner have refused to been involved with baseball. ? Would A-Rod choose to sell cars instead for 50 grand a year?

[Chris]

I've long thought that there could be a limit to income and wealth accumulation which would still drive people to succeed but better distribute the money and end the obscene wasteful spending of the superrich. For example if A-ROD could of never made more than say 2 million a year playing baseball and the team owners could only increase their drawings AFTER ticket prices were lowered: Would either A-ROD or the owner have refused to been involved with baseball. ? Would A-Rod choose to sell cars instead for 50 grand a year?

Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain argument goes something like this: Apply any wealth distribution scheme you please, level the playing field if you prefer. But along will come a Wilt Chamberlain whom people will be willing to pay to see play. Over time, more and more wealth will shift from everyone to Wilt. You end up where are are now, before the grand scheme was applied.

Only way to stop it is to take people's freedom to pursue happiness as they see fit away.

[Mac-7]

I've long thought that there could be a limit to income and wealth accumulation which would still drive people to succeed but better distribute the money and end the obscene wasteful spending of the superrich. For example if A-ROD could of never made more than say 2 million a year playing baseball and the team owners could only increase their drawings AFTER ticket prices were lowered: Would either A-ROD or the owner have refused to been involved with baseball. ? Would A-Rod choose to sell cars instead for 50 grand a year?

In your system the guy washing cars would make as much as the guy designing the car.

[Bob]

To think, some people laugh when I say 'the best government money can buy'.

The middle class finally discover they are being replaced by machines.

Nothing much of a mystery about that.

[Bob]

Ask a million Americans to tell you that a man with a net worth of a billion dollars, does not have a billion dollars in their bank and you get scoffed at.

The very wealthy have the bulk of their wealth in paper and it is not currency. Stocks, Bonds and other instruments that contain wealth along with real property account for much of their wealth.

The middle class wealth is not even in cash. The group holding much of their wealth in cash is the poor.

How often do you hear a middle class person say, if I want a new car, i need to take out a loan. Homes take loans. The poor don't qualify.

Much of the wealth however is not in the stuff used by the middle class and poor, hard currency.

The wealthy can buy much of what they need by simply putting an order in with merchants.

[decedent]

The 1 percent is gutting America’s middle class

No, the middle class is gutting the 1 percent. The middle class is dragging down the 1% and limiting America's prosperity.

[Bob]

To think, some people laugh when I say 'the best government money can buy'.

So, as Larken Rose says,Government really is an illusion. Is he correct?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrKKyV6ynAs

[Bob]

Most of the wealth increase is coming from the stock market which is being fueled by the Fed.

its paper money not real wealth.

Actually, to correct the statement above, real wealth is what others accept for something else.

Wealth in the stock market can be swapped out for other goods and services.

Gold is not questioned yet all it amounts to is metal. It can be a hundred feet deep in earth and still get called wealth. Oil at 15,000 feet in depth is called wealth. A piece of paper called a dollar is called wealth. It still is paper.

[Bob]

Had Reich stuck to economics, perhaps he would not hold marxist views. But he is really a fortune teller to tell the Democrat story. Democrats tell a very flawed story and Robert provides them grist for the mill.

[donttread]

Most of the wealth increase is coming from the stock market which is being fueled by the Fed.

its paper money not real wealth.

Not to mention the tax code that forced everyman's retirement into the stock market just before the super rich started getting richer

[Mac-7]

Actually, to correct the statement above, real wealth is what others accept for something else.

Wealth in the stock market can be swapped out for other goods and services.

Gold is not questioned yet all it amounts to is metal. It can be a hundred feet deep in earth and still get called wealth. Oil at 15,000 feet in depth is called wealth. A piece of paper called a dollar is called wealth. It still is paper.

Ok, call it perceived wealth if you prefer.

But I would rather have a acre of land than an equal value of stock.

Even if the so-called experts assured me the stock would always rise and never fall.

[Chris]

So, as Larken Rose says,Government really is an illusion. Is he correct?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrKKyV6ynAs


Yes. More of a delusion.

[Dr. Who]

Reich Is Wrong Again (http://cafehayek.com/2014/11/reich-is-wrong-again.html)
The wealth is invested, but not necessarily where it does the average citizen any good. If it's invested in large global enterprises it may well be funding operations in the third world, not the first world, so that doesn't translate to job creation in America.

[Chris]

The wealth is invested, but not necessarily where it does the average citizen any good. If it's invested in large global enterprises it may well be funding operations in the third world, not the first world, so that doesn't translate to job creation in America.

And then those third world country become rich enough to purchase US goods and services. What goes around comes around.

[Bo-4]

No, the middle class is gutting the 1 percent. The middle class is dragging down the 1% and limiting America's prosperity.

LoL!! Yep, that evil middle class is stomping all over poor Monty Burns!

http://st-listas.20minutos.es/images/2013-08/366914/4133846_249px.jpg?1400838039

[Dr. Who]

And then those third world country become rich enough to purchase US goods and services. What goes around comes around.
Don't hold your breath.

[Chris]

Don't hold your breath.

Find you some videos of Bill Gates talking. You think businessmen like him are investing in Africa out of the goodness of their corporate hearts?

[Dr. Who]

Find you some videos of Bill Gates talking. You think businessmen like him are investing in Africa out of the goodness of their corporate hearts?
Money in Bill Gates' pocket doesn't translate to American employment. It might translate to bigger shareholder dividends, but the vast majority of people don't own stock.

[The Xl]

Find you some videos of Bill Gates talking. You think businessmen like him are investing in Africa out of the goodness of their corporate hearts?

I doubt that anything mr eugenics and depopulation does that doesn't result in a business profit is for anyones good.

[Chris]

I doubt that anything mr eugenics and depopulation does that doesn't result in a business profit is for anyones good.

And yet by the invisible hand it so works out that way. Even Bono agreed.

[Chris]

Money in Bill Gates' pocket doesn't translate to American employment. It might translate to bigger shareholder dividends, but the vast majority of people don't own stock.

Why would he keep it uselessly in his pocket? He'd invest it in capital for companies that would hire people. Same with shareholders, idle money is useless.

[Dr. Who]

Why would he keep it uselessly in his pocket? He'd invest it in capital for companies that would hire people. Same with shareholders, idle money is useless.
He'll invest it in whatever vehicle is making money. That doesn't necessarily mean any people are being hired. Banks for instance increasingly generate big returns on investment, but year over year employ fewer people. Perhaps his investment means a manufacturing plant is built in South America, or somewhere in India. How does that help Americans? Knowing that some day wages will rise in third world places is fine if you can go into stasis for a hundred years, but it really does nothing for the currently unemployed in America.

[Chris]

He'll invest it in whatever vehicle is making money. That doesn't necessarily mean any people are being hired. Banks for instance increasingly generate big returns on investment, but year over year employ fewer people. Perhaps his investment means a manufacturing plant is built in South America, or somewhere in India. How does that help Americans? Knowing that some day wages will rise in third world places is fine if you can go into stasis for a hundred years, but it really does nothing for the currently unemployed in America.



Right, and making money implies producing something, and that means jobs.

Banks make money investing in ventures that mean jobs.

Indians purchase US goods.

I'm tired of saying it, I'll let someone else say it:

Globalization: A Brief Overview (https://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2008/053008.htm)


A core element of globalization is the expansion of world trade through the elimination or reduction of trade barriers, such as import tariffs. Greater imports offer consumers a wider variety of goods at lower prices, while providing strong incentives for domestic industries to remain competitive. Exports, often a source of economic growth for developing nations, stimulate job creation as industries sell beyond their borders. More generally, trade enhances national competitiveness by driving workers to focus on those vocations where they, and their country, have a competitive advantage. Trade promotes economic resilience and flexibility, as higher imports help to offset adverse domestic supply shocks. Greater openness can also stimulate foreign investment, which would be a source of employment for the local workforce and could bring along new technologies—thus promoting higher productivity.

http://i.snag.gy/MXb9M.jpg

Restricting international trade—that is, engaging in protectionism—generates adverse consequences for a country that undertakes such a policy. For example, tariffs raise the prices of imported goods, harming consumers, many of which may be poor. Protectionism also tends to reward concentrated, well-organized and politically-connected groups, at the expense of those whose interests may be more diffuse (such as consumers). It also reduces the variety of goods available and generates inefficiency by reducing competition and encouraging resources to flow into protected sectors.

[Dr. Who]

Right, and making money implies producing something, and that means jobs.

Banks make money investing in ventures that mean jobs.

Indians purchase US goods.

I'm tired of saying it, I'll let someone else say it:

Globalization: A Brief Overview (https://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2008/053008.htm)
Yes, it's really working out well for American, Canadian, German, French and English workers. NOT. Because those new jobs are not being created in the west, they are being created in the third world, which is causing domestic unemployment to sky-rise.

[Peter1469]

Those yachts that the rich buy use to be built in America. Now the rich mainly buy overseas because Bush the Elder added a luxury tax (http://www.wsbradio.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/jun/30/lesson-yacht-tax/) to yachts (and other items). The yacht builders were highly skilled and paid.


The current demonization of jets is eerily similar to the demonization of yacht owners in the early 1990s. Back in 1990, George (read my lips, no new taxes) H. W. Bush passed a budget, which included a “luxury tax” on yachts over $100,000 in addition to jewelry, furs, etc. At the time, the Joint Committee on Taxation believed that in 1991 it would be able to rack up $31 million from these luxury taxes. What was reality? They collected just $16 million. Oops. You see, people changed their behavior in response to new tax laws. Duhhhhhh. And then what do you know! These new taxes had an effect on the economy. George Will explains the economic consequences of this luxury tax: (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will102899.asp)



It is also an example of way static accounting models are often worthless.

[Newpublius]

Don't hold your breath.

Well then why would they sell anything to you and accept dollars?

[Newpublius]

Yes, it's really working out well for American, Canadian, German, French and English workers. NOT. Because those new jobs are not being created in the west, they are being created in the third world, which is causing domestic unemployment to sky-rise.

Jobs are not a commodity. Capital is not fixed and the demand for labor is not set in a finite manner. If you work and produce things, you can trade those things for the fruits produced by others, there's no theoretical limit to those interchanges.

[Dr. Who]

Well then why would they sell anything to you and accept dollars?
What I meant by that comment was that it will take a very long time for the third world to value their citizens sufficiently enough that they pay them accordingly. Until then it's an unequal playing field that rewards the unscrupulous entrepreneurs at the expense of everyone else.

[Newpublius]

He'll invest it in whatever vehicle is making money. That doesn't necessarily mean any people are being hired. Banks for instance increasingly generate big returns on investment, but year over year employ fewer people. Perhaps his investment means a manufacturing plant is built in South America, or somewhere in India. How does that help Americans? Knowing that some day wages will rise in third world places is fine if you can go into stasis for a hundred years, but it really does nothing for the currently unemployed in America.

Well, doesn't the production of others help you? Without it, your inability to specialize would lead to a subsistence mindset, since you'd have nobody to trade with. Of course people do trade and its to their fantastic benefit and that includes trade with foreigners. History is littered with examples of how desperate people are to trade. Roman coins in India, Marco Polo, Columbus, even the Portuguese Empire, the genuine desire to trade with the East. People do this.....because the trade is inherently beneficial.

[Newpublius]

What I meant by that comment was that it will take a very long time for the third world to value their citizens sufficiently enough that they pay them accordingly. Until then it's an unequal playing field that rewards the unscrupulous entrepreneurs at the expense of everyone else.

Rome wasn't built in a day, but still their dollar earnings from exporting to the US will allow them to buy things. You actually notice it when you go to the Bahamas, or Belize....

[Dr. Who]

Jobs are not a commodity. Capital is not fixed and the demand for labor is not set in a finite manner. If you work and produce things, you can trade those things for the fruits produced by others, there's no theoretical limit to those interchanges.
No but labor is treated as a commodity, but it has little value in America when compared with a billion Chinese peasants who will work for pennies. So long as economic theory only looks at numbers rather than people, it will always come up wanting.

[Newpublius]

Labor is a commodity and its value is always relative. For instance, if a new invention commands a premium, you expect pricing to decrease as entrants enter and more suppliers increase production. Consumers win, the very signal attracting entrants dampens and if prices decrease further can reverse and people can exit. The market is telling you NOT to spend your time and effort to produce the 'widget' in questipn because if you do you won't get enough widgets from other people. Note to remedy this perceived defect the other people have to sacrifice THEIR relative wage advantage by forfeiting more widgets for your widgets.

[Dr. Who]

Rome wasn't built in a day, but still their dollar earnings from exporting to the US will allow them to buy things. You actually notice it when you go to the Bahamas, or Belize....
I'm not against trade, I'm against unscrupulous business that sets up in third world places and simply takes advantage of the desperately unemployed, pays them a pittance and ships their products, essentially made from stolen labor, to the west, making it impossible for western business to compete. These ex-pat western businesses and domestic third world enterprises have no problem employing child labor, having dangerous work places and using 18th century tactics to force employees to work inhuman hours. There is a price for western lifestyle and that price is paying sufficiently for products to ensure the health and welfare of all of the people, not just the advantaged few. When western countries (or the business therein) traded with other western countries, there were no major trade deficits and people of the west prospered. When the rules changed, and all trade became good trade, western manufacturing began to suffer, losing out to the places with no labor protections. To me that's the equivalent of blood diamonds - profits and goods obtained at the expense of others. All this will accomplish is a steady deterioration of western wages and a concomitant rise in poverty and crime.

[Paperback Writer]

Well, doesn't the production of others help you? Without it, your inability to specialize would lead to a subsistence mindset, since you'd have nobody to trade with. Of course people do trade and its to their fantastic benefit and that includes trade with foreigners. History is littered with examples of how desperate people are to trade. Roman coins in India, Marco Polo, Columbus, even the Portuguese Empire, the genuine desire to trade with the East. People do this.....because the trade is inherently beneficial.

Yes, yes, the past is quite lovely, but this isn't the past where a man could set out for the wilderness to trap, fish, or hunt and then sell the skins, meat, or antler. People in the projects of urban cities can't sell their excess vegetables to the lads down the block.

The die is cast, so to speak. Millions of people literally are born in urban conditions with no means of growing food, trapping, or hunting to produce excess. Their trade items are usually illegal and come at great social cost. Most of the people living in these areas are average and will always be so. They are dependent upon positions which can be filled by "the average". Those "average" positions are going to average people in nations where the cost of living is much lower than ours.

So while all this is perfectly nice in theory and we can all espouse great philosophy and discuss the Austrian version of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the reality is that there is a great mass of humans who need to eat and if they don't have the ability to buy food they'll ascend like Morlocks and eat your children.

[del]

but, but free trade.....

:rofl:

for something that hasn't been around for a thousand years, if it ever existed at all, people sure seem to think it will solve everythang

[Paperback Writer]

If we were all plopped onto a brand new planet with what we know now, I'm certain that we could establish fair free trade because everyone would have the opportunity to find land. Land allows you the basic ability to fend for yourself in some manner. We don't have that now and therefore this whole concept of free trade just emboldens those who know how to abuse it.

[Dr. Who]

If we were all plopped onto a brand new planet with what we know now, I'm certain that we could establish fair free trade because everyone would have the opportunity to find land. Land allows you the basic ability to fend for yourself in some manner. We don't have that now and therefore this whole concept of free trade just emboldens those who know how to abuse it.
I think that it's time to head out for the stars and pioneer new planets. We have no more new lands to discover on this one.

[Newpublius]

I'm not against trade, I'm against unscrupulous business that sets up in third world places and simply takes advantage of the desperately unemployed, pays them a pittance and ships their products, essentially made from stolen labor, to the west, making it impossible for western business to compete. These ex-pat western businesses and domestic third world enterprises have no problem employing child labor, having dangerous work places and using 18th century tactics to force employees to work inhuman hours. There is a price for western lifestyle and that price is paying sufficiently for products to ensure the health and welfare of all of the people, not just the advantaged few. When western countries (or the business therein) traded with other western countries, there were no major trade deficits and people of the west prospered. When the rules changed, and all trade became good trade, western manufacturing began to suffer, losing out to the places with no labor protections. To me that's the equivalent of blood diamonds - profits and goods obtained at the expense of others. All this will accomplish is a steady deterioration of western wages and a concomitant rise in poverty and crime.

And then somebody else will come along and exploit them for a penny more. If there was a monopsony of employers, ie. Only one employer, you'd have a point, there isn't. The example above is about the inherent gains from trade. If the Chinese undercut the producers of Widget A in the US, the US producers of widget A are hurt, but the producers of widget b, c and d see their relative wages INCREASE. Trade is not a zero sum game

[Peter1469]

I think that it's time to head out for the stars and pioneer new planets. We have no more new lands to discover on this one.

Other than under the ocean. But I agree about space.

[Newpublius]

I think that it's time to head out for the stars and pioneer new planets. We have no more new lands to discover on this one.

When Columbus sailed and landed in the Bahamas, notwithatanding the atrocities, millions followed and the reason was simple, people could fill galleons with gold, silver, tobacco, sugar, furs, timber, etc and sail it back to Europe. The moon could be made of gold and it'd still be unprofitable to mine it today.

Don't get me wrong, it'd still be really cool.....just there's reasons we haven't colonized the moon yet.

[Paperback Writer]

And then somebody else will come along and exploit them for a penny more. If there was a monopsony of employers, ie. Only one employer, you'd have a point, there isn't. The example above is about the inherent gains from trade. If the Chinese undercut the producers of Widget A in the US, the US producers of widget A are hurt, but the producers of widget b, c and d see their relative wages INCREASE. Trade is not a zero sum game

Huzzah! Bloody brilliant in theory which is why China was given permanent trading status. The reality is that once the Chinese or Indonesians undercut the producers of Widget A, the managers of the producers of widget B, C, and D realised they could offshore their work to the Chinese and make some decent quid. That's splendid for them, but now you have scores of American and British "producers" on the dole and not producing whilst the factories are sitting abandoned with "for lease" signs up.

Now, the armchair economist has a plan for that. They'll say that this is a splendid opportunity for the producers to produce something else or retrain or--better yet, trade their excess animal pelts for flat rental. :rollseyes:

[Mac-7]

Right, and making money implies producing something, and that means jobs.

Banks make money investing in ventures that mean jobs.

Indians purchase US goods.

I'm tired of saying it, I'll let someone else say it:



Trade does create jobs.

But trade with India means fewer jobs for Americans and more jobs for the Indians.

Because we buy twice as much from India as India buys from the US.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5330.html

[Dr. Who]

When Columbus sailed and landed in the Bahamas, notwithatanding the atrocities, millions followed and the reason was simple, people could fill galleons with gold, silver, tobacco, sugar, furs, timber, etc and sail it back to Europe. The moon could be made of gold and it'd still be unprofitable to mine it today.

Don't get me wrong, it'd still be really cool.....just there's reasons we haven't colonized the moon yet.
Who is talking about trading from another planet. If a million or so people are relocated to the planet of their choice, they can trade with each other on a level playing field. They wouldn't need earth. No one would have the advantage, unlike the current state of this planet where a few families own the majority of everything outside of China and Russia. What's surprising is that it is tolerated and there hasn't yet been a concerted effort to eliminate them from the face of the earth.

[Peter1469]

When Columbus sailed and landed in the Bahamas, notwithatanding the atrocities, millions followed and the reason was simple, people could fill galleons with gold, silver, tobacco, sugar, furs, timber, etc and sail it back to Europe. The moon could be made of gold and it'd still be unprofitable to mine it today.

Don't get me wrong, it'd still be really cool.....just there's reasons we haven't colonized the moon yet.

How do you see that space mining will be unprofitable? Currently we have very high costs to exit the earth's gravity well. We also have technical issues to work out with human space travel. We are working on them and will get there. Unless we sit on our hands.

[Dr. Who]

And then somebody else will come along and exploit them for a penny more. If there was a monopsony of employers, ie. Only one employer, you'd have a point, there isn't. The example above is about the inherent gains from trade. If the Chinese undercut the producers of Widget A in the US, the US producers of widget A are hurt, but the producers of widget b, c and d see their relative wages INCREASE. Trade is not a zero sum game
Until China or a western ex-pat business starts producing Widgets B, C and D. Lets face it, if there is big money to be made, that enterprise will relocate to the third world to maximize profit and therefore shareholder return on investment. Small to middle size business will persist in the west until the global players find a way to edge out everything but the most meager enterprise.

[Dr. Who]

How do you see that space mining will be unprofitable? Currently we have very high costs to exit the earth's gravity well. We also have technical issues to work out with human space travel. We are working on them and will get there. Unless we sit on our hands.
I don't think we will see space mining until really big business decides to underwrite it. They won't do that until all of the engineering and astrophysics necessary to do so is paid for by governments, although there is still the potential for the likes of Richard Branson or a Japanese consortium to underwrite the R&D.

[Peter1469]

I don't think we will see space mining until really big business decides to underwrite it. They won't do that until all of the engineering and astrophysics necessary to do so is paid for by governments, although there is still the potential for the likes of Richard Branson or a Japanese consortium to underwrite the R&D.

I think that I agree. I have heard that one company wants to give it a go, but it will be a work in progress. But it is certain to happen, unless the SHTF here on earth.

[Newpublius]

Trade does create jobs.

But trade with India means fewer jobs for Americans and more jobs for the Indians.

Because we buy twice as much from India as India buys from the US.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5330.html

That's a neomercantalist mindset and its wrong on so many levels. Most people have a job/occupation/source of income and they 'export' that and get income. With that income they then trade with others, import if you will, from the grocery store, gas station, car dealership.

If you exported less than you imported, it'd be fair to say that you are consuming more than you are producing and in general you'd be expected to be incurring debt.

Likewise the Indian people aren't fools, they fully expect to be compensated for the things that they spend their time, labor and capital on. And when you see something like a trade deficit, just like with an individual, that trade deficit exists because the party running the deficit is incurring a debt to the other. See, for instance the US budget deficit.

[Newpublius]

Huzzah! Bloody brilliant in theory which is why China was given permanent trading status. The reality is that once the Chinese or Indonesians undercut the producers of Widget A, the managers of the producers of widget B, C, and D realised they could offshore their work to the Chinese and make some decent quid. That's splendid for them, but now you have scores of American and British "producers" on the dole and not producing whilst the factories are sitting abandoned with "for lease" signs up.

Now, the armchair economist has a plan for that. They'll say that this is a splendid opportunity for the producers to produce something else or retrain or--better yet, trade their excess animal pelts for flat rental. :rollseyes:

So how is it anybody is producing anything? The Chinese, I suppose just want to export.....for what? For the sake of exporting?

30 years ago it was Japan, now its China.....I love trading with China, because of them MY relative income is higher.

[Newpublius]

Until China or a western ex-pat business starts producing Widgets B, C and D. Lets face it, if there is big money to be made, that enterprise will relocate to the third world to maximize profit and therefore shareholder return on investment. Small to middle size business will persist in the west until the global players find a way to edge out everything but the most meager enterprise.

You could've said the same thing about the American South vis a vis the north post WWI. Why don't they have all the business and the north have none?

[Dr. Who]

That's a neomercantalist mindset and its wrong on so many levels. Most people have a job/occupation/source of income and they 'export' that and get income. With that income they then trade with others, import if you will, from the grocery store, gas station, car dealership.

If you exported less than you imported, it'd be fair to say that you are consuming more than you are producing and in general you'd be expected to be incurring debt.

Likewise the Indian people aren't fools, they fully expect to be compensated for the things that they spend their time, labor and capital on. And when you see something like a trade deficit, just like with an individual, that trade deficit exists because the party running the deficit is incurring a debt to the other. See, for instance the US budget deficit.
DEFINITION OF 'TRADE DEFICIT'An economic measure of a negative balance of trade in which a country's imports exceeds its exports. A trade deficit represents an outflow of domestic currency to foreign markets.
INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'TRADE DEFICIT'Economic theory dictates that a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad situation because it often corrects itself over time. However, a deficit has been reported and growing in the United States for the past few decades, which has some economists worried. This means that large amounts of the U.S. dollar are being held by foreign nations, which may decide to sell at any time. A large increase in dollar sales can drive the value of the currency down, making it more costly to purchase imports. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trade_deficit.asp

Compound the above with the fact that the trade deficit also implies that people who would otherwise be working for those manufacturing concerns that have disappeared may well be unemployed and drawing on society for their survival. This begins to explain the need to continue printing fiat currency to maintain the grand illusion that everything is fine, notwithstanding the bankruptcy of places like Detroit that relied on manufacturing to support their population. The emperor's new clothes were eventually outed by a guileless child just as one day the true economic state of America will be recognized and all the King's horses and all the King's men will be unable to put Humpty together again.

[Dr. Who]

So how is it anybody is producing anything? The Chinese, I suppose just want to export.....for what? For the sake of exporting?

30 years ago it was Japan, now its China.....I love trading with China, because of them MY relative income is higher.
Good for you, but you are not trading in the billion dollar bracket, so you are not taking jobs away from Americans.

[Newpublius]

Eliminating trade deficits is as simple as to stop borrowing from foreigners. Collectively we have made the, I think bad, decision to go into debt to prime the pump of the economy and we've been doing this for basically my entire lifetime. This isn't really a debate about the debt, debt itself is its own subject, in the indivodual example above, that person could buy a house, run a massive deficit, and incur a mortgage which of course needs to be paid..or light up his credit cards on a booze filled trip to Vegas. We respond differently to both instances of course.

[Newpublius]

Good for you, but you are not trading in the billion dollar bracket, so you are not taking jobs away from Americans.

Macroeconomics is the sum of microeconomics. Pennies add up to dollars. Collectivel nobody spends a billion dollars at your local grocery store, and yet there are people working there, stocking shelves, checking out customers, getting the carts from the parking lots, unloading trucks and the like....and there are even industries where we actually spend VERY LITTLE per capita, ie. pencils and that cumulative expenditure adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars and an entire pencil industry.

[Calypso Jones]

I think the so called 1% is trying to make it just like the rest of us. As for who is gutting the middle class, you can look to the ass in the white house.

[Dr. Who]

Eliminating trade deficits is as simple as to stop borrowing from foreigners. Collectively we have made the, I think bad, decision to go into debt to prime the pump of the economy and we've been doing this for basically my entire lifetime. This isn't really a debate about the debt, debt itself is its own subject, in the indivodual example above, that person could buy a house, run a massive deficit, and incur a mortgage which of course needs to be paid..or light up his credit cards on a booze filled trip to Vegas. We respond differently to both instances of course.
Doesn't change the fact that if you import more than you export, you incur a trade deficit by definition. That's not borrowing from foreigners, which of course the US is also doing in order to support a lifestyle that it can no longer afford. The question is why it can no longer afford its lifestyle? One main reason. The government is in the employ of global business interests, so embarks on expensive foreign intrigue to maintain said business access to resources such as oil and sales of arms through gross manipulations and warfare in places like the middle east and financed with borrowed money. Furthermore, it's allowing the destruction of it's own tax base in order to support the interest of these same entities by allowing said entities to profitably manufacture from the third world, thus unemploying its own tax paying public. As to the ridiculous credit crisis, that was also a matter of eliminating useful regulations in order to aid the global banksters in creating worthless credit products that they could flog around the planet and reap major financial rewards, with no thought as to the ramifications to the public and the public purse. This is all a result of an irresponsible electoral system that requires millions of dollars to finance political campaigns, incurring obligations on the part of the candidates to reciprocate if they want to maintain a career in public office. Corruption is the problem and it's entrenched in the system.

[Common]

The lengths the right will go on forums to defend who they are told to defend. Not a single one is one of the 2% or the 10% yet they will say anything to make what all the facts show is wrong right.

You cant win this argument all and I mean ALL the facts prove you wrong. So go right on cheerleading and singing to the choir.

[Codename Section]

So how is it anybody is producing anything? The Chinese, I suppose just want to export.....for what? For the sake of exporting?

30 years ago it was Japan, now its China.....I love trading with China, because of them MY relative income is higher.

You trade with China? Dude, what are you trading and what is China trading back? I thought only individuals trade. Where the hell is Chris, he's gotta hear this shit...

[Dr. Who]

Macroeconomics is the sum of microeconomics. Pennies add up to dollars. Collectivel nobody spends a billion dollars at your local grocery store, and yet there are people working there, stocking shelves, checking out customers, getting the carts from the parking lots, unloading trucks and the like....and there are even industries where we actually spend VERY LITTLE per capita, ie. pencils and that cumulative expenditure adds up to hundreds of millions of dollars and an entire pencil industry.
Sorry, but even a million entrepreneurs such as yourself, doesn't add up to the level of trade that any one global enterprise generates. Small import export companies have always existed, even during the good times and had no deleterious affect on the trade balance. On the other hand, when companies as large as Wal-Mart start importing all of their goods from the third world, it does make an impression on the balance of trade, particularly when enterprises such as Wal-Mart are systematically putting local enterprise that was previously buying locally made products, out of business. It makes an impression when the entire garment trade has moved to the third world. It makes an impression when none of the appliances sold in America are built in America. Ditto with technology like cell phones and computers. Increasingly the steel industry is moving offshore along with the manufacture of tools, dies and machinery. What's left is small business and the food industry which can't generate enough mark up to afford the transportation costs.

/Edit and a struggling auto industry.

[Newpublius]

Yes, it does actually. X% of your consumption is from imports, now multiply by 300mn plus people. Collectively the production is 17tn, the imports a little over 2tn. Yes, it DOES scale to those numbers. Walmart sells to you, Exxon sells to you, Honda sells to you, etc etc.


/Edit and a struggling auto industry.

I'm not an auto expert of course, but obviously am an auto consumer. Back in the 1990s when I was going to law school, I bought a Mercury Mystique (basically a Ford Contour) and with 67K miles, the transmission went in my fourth year (I was in MBA/JD, so that was an extra year, 3 for law school, 2 for Bschool was turned into four years) at a time when that really, really hurt. The warranty was of course 65K

While that was happening, Ford left NJ (closed Ford Mahwah), and of course these things happen with other automakers, but today I buy Kias because, again this isn't a debate about which car is better, but Kia has a 10 year, 100,000 mile warranty and they actually back the car.

So you know what? You can take that piece of shit Ford and stick it up Deroit's ass because I don't care maybe they should eat shit, maybe their wages SHOULD suffer such that the price of the new Ford Focus is 20% less than a Kia Forte to compensate for the fact that I think its a piece of shit.

Not to mention, they don't actually BUY anything from me either.

Let me know when you're willing to protect me and then we'll talk.

[Mac-7]

That's a neomercantalist mindset and its wrong on so many levels. Most people have a job/occupation/source of income and they 'export' that and get income. With that income they then trade with others, import if you will, from the grocery store, gas station, car dealership.

If you exported less than you imported, it'd be fair to say that you are consuming more than you are producing and in general you'd be expected to be incurring debt.

Likewise the Indian people aren't fools, they fully expect to be compensated for the things that they spend their time, labor and capital on. And when you see something like a trade deficit, just like with an individual, that trade deficit exists because the party running the deficit is incurring a debt to the other. See, for instance the US budget deficit.

You are babbling incoherently and it will be difficult to respond to such nonsense.

Otoh, after reading it again there is no way to make sense of that post.

[Newpublius]

You are babbling incoherently and it will be difficult to respond to such nonsense.

Otoh, after reading it again there is no way to make sense of that post.

I have a degree in it actually and you don't. If you put 12 cases of Diet Coke on the table and I put 6 cases of Diet Pepsi, you' say, "Gee, where's the other six cases?" And I'd say, "I'll pay you later" and maybe you trust me to do this but it should be clear that engaging in trade where you put more benefits on the table than the other party isn't really to your advantage.

[Dr. Who]

Yes, it does actually. X% of your consumption is from imports, now multiply by 300mn plus people. Collectively the production is 17tn, the imports a little over 2tn. Yes, it DOES scale to those numbers. Walmart sells to you, Exxon sells to you, Honda sells to you, etc etc.

Let me know when you're willing to protect me and then we'll talk.
You are not part of the population that needs protection. You will find a way to succeed, no matter what. You are not the average man. If I recall correctly, you are both a lawyer and entrepreneur. That's not average. It's the average and below average that are losing the means to support themselves. The ever increasing trade deficit affects the least of us first and ultimately the most.

[Peter1469]

It is like flooding the market with millions of low skilled workers and telling our home grown low skilled workers that they will be just fine. The market will work for you.

Doesn't affect me in the slightest, but I recognize the issue.

[Newpublius]

You are not part of the population that needs protection.

Bullshit, when I wake up at 5:30AM for another starlit journey into NYC, don't have the chutzpah to say my life couldn't be easier. Trust me, I'd rather sleep in. Its favoritism and its not only favoritism in the context of the auto industry, its favoring a party who not only ABANDONED U (Ford left NJ), but SHIT ON US with pollution (See Mann v Ford, a court case AND a movie, you can probably google that and see that), so NO, Ford doesn't get protected. Protectionism = Favoritism.

[Mac-7]

I have a degree in it actually and you don't.

This is the Internet where every blowhard can have as many degrees in any subject they want.

In your case I can tell by your writing that you have only rudimentary knowledge of economics.

and even less practical understanding.

[Dr. Who]

It is like flooding the market with millions of low skilled workers and telling our home grown low skilled workers that they will be just fine. The market will work for you.

Doesn't affect me in the slightest, but I recognize the issue.
Similarly it doesn't directly affect me, but it's hard to ignore the handwriting on the wall. The total number of manufacturing jobs lost in the last 20 to 30 years is in the 10s of millions. Add to that all of the industry that supported those manufacturing concerns, towns that depended on those industries and that translates to much higher numbers of people displaced. That is something to worry about. Add to that the jobs that are increasingly being lost to automation and you are looking at maybe 25 percent of the population that is jobless and rising. I'm at a loss to really articulate how bad that really is. It just means that one out of every 4 children born today will be jobless. If the trend continues will that rise to two out of every four children born? What will that mean for the future?

[Newpublius]

This is the Internet where every blowhard can have as many degrees in as many subjects they want.

In your case I can tell by your writing that you have only rudimentary knowledge of economics.

and even less practical understanding.

My post makes perfect sense, you're inability to comprehend it is what shows that you DIDN'T take enough economics. I simply bring it down to the individual where people can understand what's actually happening with a trade deficit.

[Newpublius]

Similarly it doesn't directly affect me, but it's hard to ignore the handwriting on the wall. The total number of manufacturing jobs lost in the last 20 to 30 years is in the 10s of millions.

And in the previous generation we lost just as many agricultural jobs. In 1900 something like 40% of the workforce was in agriculture. The US manufacturing index is above 2X the 1980=100 level. We're producing more goods with fewer workers and that's actually a good thing.

[Mac-7]

My post makes perfect sense, you're inability to comprehend it is what shows that you DIDN'T take enough economics. I simply bring it down to the individual where people can understand what's actually happening with a trade deficit.

You are incoherent.

[Peter1469]

And in the previous generation we lost just as many agricultural jobs. In 1900 something like 40% of the workforce was in agriculture. The US manufacturing index is above 2X the 1980=100 level. We're producing more goods with fewer workers and that's actually a good thing.

Efficiency is good for business and the bottom line. In Iraq we ditched the heavy equipment for our Iraqi road crews and made them go old school. Sure, not efficient, but it employed lots more people.

[Dr. Who]

Bull$#@!, when I wake up at 5:30AM for another starlit journey into NYC, don't have the chutzpah to say my life couldn't be easier. Trust me, I'd rather sleep in. Its favoritism and its not only favoritism in the context of the auto industry, its favoring a party who not only ABANDONED U (Ford left NJ), but $#@! ON US with pollution (See Mann v Ford, a court case AND a movie, you can probably google that and see that), so NO, Ford doesn't get protected. Protectionism = Favoritism.
I didn't suggest that your life couldn't be easier, only that you have the tools to survive that many don't have. I don't suggest favoritism for it's own sake, but for the sake of employment. If there is way to entice foreign business to manufacture in America, all the better. I don't support bailing out industry that really doesn't need a bailout. It's only about ensuring employment which guarantees a market for goods and creates a tax base for a first world economy and lifestyle. You would make it, even in the third world. You are not the average Joe.

[Dr. Who]

And in the previous generation we lost just as many agricultural jobs. In 1900 something like 40% of the workforce was in agriculture. The US manufacturing index is above 2X the 1980=100 level. We're producing more goods with fewer workers and that's actually a good thing.
But babies are still being born and the population is increasing. If we're producing goods with fewer workers, what do you do with the surplus population that has no work?

[Newpublius]

And in the that situation, you could've used that machinery and sent the labor crews off to paint and beautify Baghdad....or perform any other task more suitable for labor. Don't get me wrong, the military/occupation necessities may have warranted that, that question was entirely up to you and the likes of the military establishment that was occupying Iraq, but from an economic point of view, that was an unwarranted and wasteful substitution of capital for labor that failed to account for the opportunity cost of labor.

[Mister D]

Similarly it doesn't directly affect me, but it's hard to ignore the handwriting on the wall. The total number of manufacturing jobs lost in the last 20 to 30 years is in the 10s of millions. Add to that all of the industry that supported those manufacturing concerns, towns that depended on those industries and that translates to much higher numbers of people displaced. That is something to worry about. Add to that the jobs that are increasingly being lost to automation and you are looking at maybe 25 percent of the population that is jobless and rising. I'm at a loss to really articulate how bad that really is. It just means that one out of every 4 children born today will be jobless. If the trend continues will that rise to two out of every four children born? What will that mean for the future?

This is what I don't get about guys like you, Who. You see what's happening but you still want to be a "citizen of the world" and all it entails.

[Newpublius]

But babies are still being born and the population is increasing. If we're producing goods with fewer workers, what do you do with the surplus population that has no work?

Ultimately, if you can utter, "Earl Grey, hot" at the computer and it just materializes, you can stop celebrating Labor Day and we can start celebrating 'Labor Free Day'

A productive agricultural sector gives rise to an industrial sector, freeing labor for industrialization, better industrial productivity does likewise, freeing more labor for services and in particularly, and most pertinently for the information sector from the internet, to google to advances in medicine,like say research into antiviral medications, or robotics, etc.

If you get to that Star Trek point, scarcity isn't an issue, but until then, you will not run out of things to do. Demand is basically infinite, its SUPPLY that is finite.

[Dr. Who]

And in the that situation, you could've used that machinery and sent the labor crews off to paint and beautify Baghdad....or perform any other task more suitable for labor. Don't get me wrong, the military/occupation necessities may have warranted that, that question was entirely up to you and the likes of the military establishment that was occupying Iraq, but from an economic point of view, that was an unwarranted and wasteful substitution of capital for labor that failed to account for the opportunity cost of labor.
Everything cannot be justified by the bottom line when you are dealing with people. You can make more money and employ less people, but those without a job will eventually have an impact on your ability to do business or live safely in your community. What good is wealth if you are a prisoner in your gated community and don't have the freedom to move about without the worry of kidnapping, armed robbery and murder. Do you want to be a bird in a gilded cage?

[Peter1469]

And in the that situation, you could've used that machinery and sent the labor crews off to paint and beautify Baghdad....or perform any other task more suitable for labor. Don't get me wrong, the military/occupation necessities may have warranted that, that question was entirely up to you and the likes of the military establishment that was occupying Iraq, but from an economic point of view, that was an unwarranted and wasteful substitution of capital for labor that failed to account for the opportunity cost of labor.

We were more worried about unemployed young men turning to the insurgency than a college level exam question on the best use of resources in an economy. Having them use early 20th century technology may have been an economic waste, but it saved lives- my soldiers' lives.

All of this economic theory at some point has to be applied in the real world. We can't lose sight of that.

[Newpublius]

Everything cannot be justified by the bottom line when you are dealing with people. You can make more money and employ less people, but those without a job will eventually have an impact on your ability to do business or live safely in your community. What good is wealth if you are a prisoner in your gated community and don't have the freedom to move about without the worry of kidnapping, armed robbery and murder. Do you want to be a bird in a gilded cage?

That logic can extend to any labor saving tool created at any time in history. Productivity is actually the cornerstone of prosperity.

[Newpublius]

We were more worried about unemployed young men turning to the insurgency

And you could've EMPLOYED them doing ANYTHING else.

[Dr. Who]

This is what I don't get about guys like you, Who. You see what's happening but you still want to be a "citizen of the world" and all it entails.
I'm complicated D. I want everyone to have a nice life. I don't want there to be a third world and don't want to encourage the perpetuation of third world business practices that create an elite class of wealthy people at the expense of others. I see the coming of a New World Order where the business elite controls all nation states and freedom becomes a luxury that most won't have and poverty is the world standard rather than the exception. I hope I'm not alive to see it, but while I'm here I will defend the right of people to live without hunger and deprivation on a planet that has more than enough for all.

[Bob]

John Naismith wrote the book that predicted this.

Mega Trends from 1982

Timeless Look at the Fundamental Changes in U.S. Society (http://www.amazon.com/review/R1IGVCHTAZIWPP/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0446356816&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books)
By Donald Mitchell (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1K1JW1C5CUSUZ/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp) HALL OF FAME (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=cm_cr_dp_bdg_help?ie=UTF8&nodeId=14279681&pop-up=1#hf)TOP 500 REVIEWER (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=cm_cr_dp_bdg_help?ie=UTF8&nodeId=14279681&pop-up=1#tr)VINE VOICE (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=cm_cr_dp_bdg_help?ie=UTF8&nodeId=14279681&pop-up=1#vn) on December 6, 2000
Format: Mass Market PaperbackThis book clearly deserves more than five stars for its power and effectiveness in identifying, explaining, and projecting many important trends in American society over the last 18 years.
I first read this book when it was published in 1982, and decided to reread it recently to understand more about the methods used by testing them with 20-20 hindsight.
The book built from the principle that the "most reliable way to anticipate the future is by understanding the present." Although the book relies a lot on that method (by examining current beginnings that could turn into mighty rivers), its real power comes from the long-term perspective of how an information society will be different from the prior industrial one.
The trends identified were:
(1) Becoming an information society after having been an industrial one
(2) From technology being forced into use, to technology being pulled into use where it is appealing to people
(3) From a predominantly national economy to one in the global marketplace
(4) From short term to long term perspectives
(5) From centralization to decentralization
(6) From getting help through institutions like government to self-help
(7) From representative to participative democracy
(8) From hierarchies to networking
(9) From a northeastern bias to a southwestern one
(10) From seeing things as "either/or" to having more choices.
The detail behind each of the trends is often more rewarding than the overall trend itself. You get specific examples that excite your imagination. "On the producer side [of multiple choices], it means there can be a market for just about anything.Read more › (http://www.amazon.com/Megatrends-Ten-Directions-Transforming-Lives/product-reviews/0446356816/ref=cm_cr_dp_text?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=byRankDescending#R1IGVCHTAZIWPP)

[Bob]

19 of 21 people found the following review helpful[/URL][URL="http://www.amazon.com/review/RW1F1T0DTXDWX/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0446356816&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books"]Worth Consideration (http://www.amazon.com/review/RW1F1T0DTXDWX/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0446356816&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=283155&store=books)
By Dr. W. G. Covington, Jr. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A1BMKEJ61X57EU/ref=cm_cr_dp_pdp) on October 28, 2003
Format: HardcoverNaisbitt looks a long term futuristic trends. He helps one to see the big picture both chronologically and globally. Take for example his opening observation that "While America's new information economy is our most important megatrend, it is only part of the puzzle." He logically argues that "collectively what is going on locally is what is going on in America." The five bellwether states, which set the trends for the rest of the couutry are idenified as; California, Florida, Washington, Colorado, and Connecticut.
A strong case is made in the second chapter for "high touch" (i.e., human involvement) to remain a vital component of the high tech age.
In the third chapter, the global economy is described. The airplane and satellite communication are identified as the technologies that caused the transition from a national to a global economy.
Although an international, global economy exists, surprisingly at the same time decentralization is occurring. He explains in chapter 5 why.
In the following chapter he similarly explains how people are becoming increasinly proactive in their individual futures, and not rely on institutional help.
The proactive theme is carried a step further in chapter seven.
Chapter 8 discusses the phenomenon of networking.
Right up to the end of his book, he makes a solid case for the trends he describes. This is a well-written book, researched so that its essential theme remains accurate although a lot has changed since it originally was published.

[Dr. Who]

That logic can extend to any labor saving tool created at any time in history. Productivity is actually the cornerstone of prosperity.
Productivity is the cornerstone of prosperity only if it translates to income for the general population, who spend their money to the benefit of the overall economy. When that productivity adds nothing to the national bank account, it becomes worthless. For instance, if a business located in America could manufacture with virtually no employees, and there were no business tax, what value would that business provide? It's income would inure to it's owners or a handful of shareholders, but in the overall scheme of things it would add no more value than a foreign exporter. The whole is more than just the sum of its parts. Capitalism only works when there is an interdependency between business and the general population. When that balance changes and business no longer supports the income needs of the burgeoning population national economies will collapse. We are in a much different place than we were at the outset of the industrial revolution. Machinery and automation can replace labor if a business wishes to make the investment. Otherwise, moving business offshore to cheap labor locals accomplishes the same, without the need for extraordinary capital investment. Either way, the result is the same. You are left with unemployable people.

[Dr. Who]

Ultimately, if you can utter, "Earl Grey, hot" at the computer and it just materializes, you can stop celebrating Labor Day and we can start celebrating 'Labor Free Day'

A productive agricultural sector gives rise to an industrial sector, freeing labor for industrialization, better industrial productivity does likewise, freeing more labor for services and in particularly, and most pertinently for the information sector from the internet, to google to advances in medicine,like say research into antiviral medications, or robotics, etc.

If you get to that Star Trek point, scarcity isn't an issue, but until then, you will not run out of things to do. Demand is basically infinite, its SUPPLY that is finite.
But people are already running out of things to do, which flies in the face of your theory. Why is there so much unemployment if so much theoretical employment should exist.

[Newpublius]

Productivity is the cornerstone of prosperity only if it translates to income for the general population, who spend their money to the benefit of the overall economy..

If I am making 10 widgets per day and become more productive, I can now make 20 widgets per day. That is more income for me, I can now trade those 20 widgets for more stuff than I previously could only trade my 10 widgets for.


For instance, if a business located in America could manufacture with virtually no employees, and there were no business tax, what value would that business provide? It's income would inure to it's owners or a handful of shareholders, but in the overall scheme of things it would add no more value than a foreign exporter.

It would produce value in the product of the business.


business no longer supports the income needs of the burgeoning population

The business produces those 20 widgets, per the above example, and that is now traded for the production of the rest of the burgeoning population. Specialization breeds specialization. There's no point in me making widgets if the rest of society has nothing else to trade for me in return. And I can assure you we're in no danger of falling back into subsistence mode.

[Dr. Who]

And you could've EMPLOYED them doing ANYTHING else.
And what difference would that have made from a theoretical economic perspective? Either way it would have been a waste of money, economically, but a net benefit from a safety perspective. It's about valuing human life over petty financial concerns. Is there any amount of money that you wouldn't pay for the lives of your children? Extrapolating from that, people are worth more than profits. Choosing profit over human life is just monstrous.

[Newpublius]

But people are already running out of things to do, which flies in the face of your theory. Why is there so much unemployment if so much theoretical employment should exist.

No, there isn't and in many places there's still very low tier Maslow Pyramid needs to be addressed. Even in recessions, what was the unemployment rate? 10% here, you realize that means 90% of the labor force IS employed.

And ultimately, I WANT TO RUN OUT OF THINGS TO DO. I WANT TO SOLVE SCARCITY.

[Dr. Who]

If I am making 10 widgets per day and become more productive, I can now make 20 widgets per day. That is more income for me, I can now trade those 20 widgets for more stuff than I previously could only trade my 10 widgets for.



It would produce value in the product of the business.



The business produces those 20 widgets, per the above example, and that is now traded for the production of the rest of the burgeoning population. Specialization breeds specialization. There's no point in me making widgets if the rest of society has nothing else to trade for me in return. And I can assure you we're in no danger of falling back into subsistence mode.
If the bulk of the rest of the population has no money to pay for your goods because no one is employing them, it won't matter how many widgets you can produce, because people won't have the money to pay for them. Your economic theory, which is based in a different century, doesn't account either for an exodus to third world manufacturing or automation consistently reducing the number of jobs providing income for consumers.

[Newpublius]

And what difference would that have made from a theoretical economic perspective?

Their goal was to employ people, their mode wasn't necessary to accomplish that task. They could've built the road with the heavy machinery at hand employing a certain quantum of labor and then utilized the excess labor to accomplish other useful tasks, the difference is in the value of the 'other useful tasks'


Either way it would have been a waste of money, economically, but a net benefit from a safety perspective.

One way is inherently less wasteful though.


It's about valuing human life over petty financial concerns. Is there any amount of money that you wouldn't pay for the lives of your children? Extrapolating from that, people are worth more than profits. Choosing profit over human life is just monstrous.

Its rather ironic that is being argued in the context of the invasion/occupation of Iraq where if somebody was taking your argument seriously we'd never have been there to begin with, but that's not the argument. In my original post on the sub thread I acknowledged the military context, but that doesn't change the fact that if employment of Iraqis generally was desirable to help prevent them from wanting to join the insurgency, then employment is necessary; not road employment. And to go ahead and employ them in road employment notwithstanding an apparent at-hand ability to do the task in a much more efficient manner is rather silly actually.

[Newpublius]

If the bulk of the rest of the population has no money to pay for your goods because no one is employing them, it won't matter how many widgets you can produce.

That's right, it won't, but if I can produce 20 widgets without employing anybody, so can you and fact is the per capita GDP of the world is about 10-11K so I can assure you even if the world QUADRUPLED its population people would still want 'more' generally. Its not like there's some magic line or amount of stuff that the population of the world wants and 1% of that population has figured out how to produce it all. No, we're not even REMOTELY close to that, and again I would very much LIKE that to happen.

[Dr. Who]

No, there isn't and in many places there's still very low tier Maslow Pyramid needs to be addressed. Even in recessions, what was the unemployment rate? 10% here, you realize that means 90% of the labor force IS employed.

And ultimately, I WANT TO RUN OUT OF THINGS TO DO. I WANT TO SOLVE SCARCITY.
Hah. There is no scarcity. It's all artificial. Scarcity is produced by greedy individuals hoarding resources and meting them out to the world at exorbitant rates. Consider all of the agricultural product that is destroyed daily to maintain prices, while people go hungry.

The unemployment rate is a great deal higher than 10%. Many of the unemployed have just stopped looking for work and are now living on welfare, enjoying the underground economy and/or involved in criminal enterprise. 25% would be a more realistic figure.

[Newpublius]

Hah. There is no scarcity. It's all artificial. Scarcity is produced by greedy individuals hoarding resources and meting them out to the world at exorbitant rates. Consider all of the agricultural product that is destroyed daily to maintain prices, while people go hungry.

I know, I'm on the co-chair of the Widget Cartel. That's ridiculous CT nonsense.

[Newpublius]

25% would be a more realistic figure.

And even so the vast majority 75% would still actually be employed, but your basic point of "Oh my God we're running out of things to do" isn't true and frankly I wish it were.

[Dr. Who]

Their goal was to employ people, their mode wasn't necessary to accomplish that task. They could've built the road with the heavy machinery at hand employing a certain quantum of labor and then utilized the excess labor to accomplish other useful tasks, the difference is in the value of the 'other useful tasks'



One way is inherently less wasteful though.



Its rather ironic that is being argued in the context of the invasion/occupation of Iraq where if somebody was taking your argument seriously we'd never have been there to begin with, but that's not the argument. In my original post on the sub thread I acknowledged the military context, but that doesn't change the fact that if employment of Iraqis generally was desirable to help prevent them from wanting to join the insurgency, then employment is necessary; not road employment. And to go ahead and employ them in road employment notwithstanding an apparent at-hand ability to do the task in a much more efficient manner is rather silly actually.
It's only wasteful if you actually have some other task that they would be better suited. It's unlikely that unskilled and relatively uneducated young men could be otherwise deployed.

[Newpublius]

It's only wasteful if you actually have some other task that they would be better suited. It's unlikely that unskilled and relatively uneducated young men could be otherwise deployed.

In post invasion Iraq, only the roads needed fixing?

[Dr. Who]

And even so the vast majority 75% would still actually be employed, but your basic point of "Oh my God we're running out of things to do" isn't true and frankly I wish it were.
How curious. I will admit that I see an ultimate future not unlike the Star Trek scenario, where having a job is really a privilege that befalls the best and brightest and the rest of the people are supported in a non-capitalistic world that provides for all. I'm not sure if that is what you are getting at. However in this paradigm, 25% unemployed and counting will increasingly result in a dystopic world where the things that people despise about Mexico and South America will become the norm in America.

[Dr. Who]

In post invasion Iraq, only the roads needed fixing?
If your impetus is moving troops and machinery, yes.

[Dr. Who]

I know, I'm on the co-chair of the Widget Cartel. That's ridiculous CT nonsense.
It's no secret that excess production is destroyed rather than allowing the sale price of said manufactured and agrarian goods to drop. That creates artificial scarcity.

[Peter1469]

And you could've EMPLOYED them doing ANYTHING else.

Really? We were the US army, not a job placement company. We were in a combat zone, not a university classroom.

[Mac-7]

Ultimately, if you can utter, "Earl Grey, hot" at the computer and it just materializes, you can stop celebrating Labor Day and we can start celebrating 'Labor Free Day'

A productive agricultural sector gives rise to an industrial sector, freeing labor for industrialization, better industrial productivity does likewise, freeing more labor for services and in particularly, and most pertinently for the information sector from the internet, to google to advances in medicine,like say research into antiviral medications, or robotics, etc.

If you get to that Star Trek point, scarcity isn't an issue, but until then, you will not run out of things to do. Demand is basically infinite, its SUPPLY that is finite.

I think you are broadcasting from Cloud Nine somewhere to the rest of us down here on planet earth.

All you know is what you read in a book and even that is incoherent.

This world that you babble about exists only in an episode of Star Trek.

Americans with modest educations and skills have run out of things to do that are productive and earn them a good living.

They are missing the American Dream in part because of people who think like you do.

They need the jobs that were exported to China and nothing can fill that need except good old fashioned WORK.

[donttread]

Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain argument goes something like this: Apply any wealth distribution scheme you please, level the playing field if you prefer. But along will come a Wilt Chamberlain whom people will be willing to pay to see play. Over time, more and more wealth will shift from everyone to Wilt. You end up where are are now, before the grand scheme was applied.

Only way to stop it is to take people's freedom to pursue happiness as they see fit away.

Not quite true in a generational sense. Lets use the Hilton empire for example, somewhere along the line someone had business skills and talent in that family. Paris does not yet she lives just as large and obscene as if she did. Period resets , like the one in 1776, would greatly improve the situation

[Chris]

Well, doesn't the production of others help you? Without it, your inability to specialize would lead to a subsistence mindset, since you'd have nobody to trade with. Of course people do trade and its to their fantastic benefit and that includes trade with foreigners. History is littered with examples of how desperate people are to trade. Roman coins in India, Marco Polo, Columbus, even the Portuguese Empire, the genuine desire to trade with the East. People do this.....because the trade is inherently beneficial.

Newpublius, long time, no see, and I see you picked up where I left off.

Subsistence was something else I was going to bring up for it is true the less you trade the more you devolve to subsistence, caught in the Malthusian Trap, if not worse. Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimiat: How Prosperity Evolves, looks at how division of labor, specialization and trade drove much of ma's evolution, and how when a people became isolated from trade, they devolved if not disappeared.

[Chris]

but, but free trade.....

:rofl:

for something that hasn't been around for a thousand years, if it ever existed at all, people sure seem to think it will solve everythang



Free trade is that much of trade, most of it, governments don't mess up by trying to manipulate.

[Mac-7]

@Newpublius (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=685), long time, no see, and I see you picked up where I left off.

Subsistence was something else I was going to bring up for it is true the less you trade the more you devolve to subsistence, caught in the Malthusian Trap, if not worse. Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimiat: How Prosperity Evolves, looks at how division of labor, specialization and trade drove much of ma's evolution, and how when a people became isolated from trade, they devolved if not disappeared.


Conservatives want trade.

but fair trade that does not destroy the American standard of living.

not the goofy free trade advocated by you and that other person.

[Chris]

If we were all plopped onto a brand new planet with what we know now, I'm certain that we could establish fair free trade because everyone would have the opportunity to find land. Land allows you the basic ability to fend for yourself in some manner. We don't have that now and therefore this whole concept of free trade just emboldens those who know how to abuse it.

Once again you take what's argued in degree and change it to an absolute simply because you know you can knock it down as non-existent. Why not, no absolutes exist.

The question isn't whether 100% free trade or 100% managed trade is better, but which direction, toward free or toward managed trade is better.

[Chris]

DEFINITION OF 'TRADE DEFICIT'An economic measure of a negative balance of trade in which a country's imports exceeds its exports. A trade deficit represents an outflow of domestic currency to foreign markets.
INVESTOPEDIA EXPLAINS 'TRADE DEFICIT'Economic theory dictates that a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad situation because it often corrects itself over time. However, a deficit has been reported and growing in the United States for the past few decades, which has some economists worried. This means that large amounts of the U.S. dollar are being held by foreign nations, which may decide to sell at any time. A large increase in dollar sales can drive the value of the currency down, making it more costly to purchase imports. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trade_deficit.asp

Compound the above with the fact that the trade deficit also implies that people who would otherwise be working for those manufacturing concerns that have disappeared may well be unemployed and drawing on society for their survival. This begins to explain the need to continue printing fiat currency to maintain the grand illusion that everything is fine, notwithstanding the bankruptcy of places like Detroit that relied on manufacturing to support their population. The emperor's new clothes were eventually outed by a guileless child just as one day the true economic state of America will be recognized and all the King's horses and all the King's men will be unable to put Humpty together again.

Theory. It's funny that the bunch of you criticize theory, oh that's just theory, yet each of you cite theory, depend on theory, theorize yourselves. What a hoot.

[Chris]

The lengths the right will go on forums to defend who they are told to defend. Not a single one is one of the 2% or the 10% yet they will say anything to make what all the facts show is wrong right.

You cant win this argument all and I mean ALL the facts prove you wrong. So go right on cheerleading and singing to the choir.


Newpublius is not on the right nor am I and neither of us is defending the 1% but free trade. Both the left and the right are united in wanting to plan the economy and manage trade, both want to regulate and reduce what generates wealth.

[Mac-7]

Theory. It's funny that the bunch of you criticize theory, oh that's just theory, yet each of you cite theory, depend on theory, theorize yourselves. What a hoot.

The Dr is not leaning on theory to make his case.

He's stating a fact that trade deficits are REAL not theoretical - and harmful.

[donttread]

The table becomes more tilted with each generation

[Mac-7]

The table becomes more tilted with each generation

A $300 bil annual trade deficit with China means $3 trillion of wealth transferred from the American middle class to the people of china every 10 years.

And free traders think that is a good thing?

[Chris]

So how is it anybody is producing anything? The Chinese, I suppose just want to export.....for what? For the sake of exporting?

30 years ago it was Japan, now its China.....I love trading with China, because of them MY relative income is higher.


You trade with China? Dude, what are you trading and what is China trading back? I thought only individuals trade. Where the hell is Chris, he's gotta hear this shit...


Yes, we all, each and everyone of us, trades with the Chinese. Newpublius hasn't said anything different than I have.

Not everything traded is direct, like say, the Chinese tea I drink. Most is indirect and you're unaware of it. Consider China’s Top 10 Exports (http://www.worldstopexports.com/chinas-top-10-exports/1952), do you know for a fact there's no Chinese plastics, iron or steel shipped here to manufacture products you do buy? The #2 export is machinery. Are you so certain those machines aren't used here to manufacture goods you buy?

Or look at it the other way, can you tell us exactly what it is China as a nation state and the US as another trade? Nations don't produce things or consume things. Nations might trade laws in the form of treaties and agreements, but that is all.

[Chris]

Efficiency is good for business and the bottom line. In Iraq we ditched the heavy equipment for our Iraqi road crews and made them go old school. Sure, not efficient, but it employed lots more people.

Very Keynesian.

[Chris]

Not quite true in a generational sense. Lets use the Hilton empire for example, somewhere along the line someone had business skills and talent in that family. Paris does not yet she lives just as large and obscene as if she did. Period resets , like the one in 1776, would greatly improve the situation


True, though it might be said Paris did something, be a daughter, to "earn" the inheritance.

[Chris]

The Dr is not leaning on theory to make his case.

He's stating a fact that trade deficits are REAL not theoretical - and harmful.

I replied to a post of his that provided a theoretical economic definition of trade deficit.

He didn't state a fact but a definition. And by that definition they are abstract, not real, they are aggregates.

[Mac-7]

I replied to a post of his that provided a theoretical economic definition of trade deficit.

He didn't state a fact but a definition. And by that definition they are abstract, not real, they are aggregates.

He stated a definition that was used to arrive at a cockeyed conclusion by the free traders.

and he (dr who) rebutted your dogma with facts.

So did I for that matter when I pointed out that Americans are losing $3 trillion of wealth to china every 10 years.

[Chris]

He stated a definition that was used to arrive at at cockeyed conclusion by the free traders.

and he (dr who) rebutted your dogma with facts.

So did I for that matter when I pointed out that Americans are losing $3 trillion of wealth to china every 10 years.


One doesn't argue from definitions, mac. You're making no sense.


And his and your arguments have been rebutted. So what?

[Paperback Writer]

That's a neomercantalist mindset and its wrong on so many levels. Most people have a job/occupation/source of income and they 'export' that and get income. With that income they then trade with others, import if you will, from the grocery store, gas station, car dealership.

There was nothing wrong with what he said aside from the fact that the didn't use the same terms as would an economist. You choose not to refute the fact that Yanks (and us as well) do purchase more goods that are created out of country than goods created in country. Their cost of labour is cheaper, driving down the price of goods and making it less profitable to buy from a country whose cost of living prohibits $1.48 an hour wages such as yours and hours. This is irrefutable.

What you are trying to imply is that our labourers and yours can find something else to "trade" and I'm asking you what you believe that something else is. Not in some ethereal plane, but in reality.

Oh tell us, Mr. Portfolio, what shall they do for a living?

Make widgets?
Open a factory out of pixie dust and happy thoughts?
Work at 7-11 now that you've allowed in millions more low wage workers to W-2 positions and we've got the Eastern Europeans rushing to sell fish and chips?

There is a "deficit" of low wage jobs because our cost of living is too high to support factory work as it used to, and there are only so many fast food and big box jobs available. People incurred debt because you must incur debt to have credit. You must have credit to get a job now. That's the shit part of the system. So people bought flats or vehicles or got a credit card and then cost of living rose and they're doing everything they can to hold onto them in a desperate economy plane.




If you exported less than you imported, it'd be fair to say that you are consuming more than you are producing and in general you'd be expected to be incurring debt.


Gads! Thank you for simplifying this little known fact. I'd never thought about it that way. While you're educating us, do tell if I drop an apple from my hand will it also fall to the ground?

[Paperback Writer]

So how is it anybody is producing anything? The Chinese, I suppose just want to export.....for what? For the sake of exporting?

None of the questions you are responding to me with has a bit to do with what I've said. You've naught by danced around it.

People in China are producing because their system is conducive to low wage workers and therefore they are able to provide producers and thus the products made by those producers due to their low cost of living. If you can work for $2.00 an hour at Apple or $.85 at Kellogg and still have a place to live, food on the table, clothing and utilities all is well and you won't ask for a pay rise. Everyone should be able to work for basic quid and live.

Bravo for the Chinese that their smog filled, totalitarian countries are able to provide this by controlling their own currency's inflation in such an arbitrary manner. It has close to $4 trillion in exchange reserves and is now about to solidify its ability to say fuck off to everyone with BRIC.

Our is less simple. Unless we could drop our cost of living to the same levels as China or India with a quickness of Hermes we're not going to be able to compete and will end up spinning in the water closet.

You and Ethereal and Chris seem to think we exist in a vacuum, either that or you give no fucks abut the low wage earners in your country who happen to be your countrymen.

At the risk of sounding maudlin, I actually care about mine. I care about tradition. I hear "Rule Britannia" as I walk to my job.




30 years ago it was Japan, now its China.....I love trading with China, because of them MY relative income is higher.

That's lovely for you. I'm not a blithe **** who doesn't care about the people around me that suffer nor my own tax bill to provide for them.

[Mac-7]

Gads! Thank you for simplifying this little known fact. I'd never thought about it that way. While you're educating us, do tell if I drop an apple from my hand will it also fall to the ground?



Careful.


You are disagreeing with a lib who claims have enough advanced diplomas on her wall to choke a horse.


If you are a mere mortal then don't make her mad.

[Newpublius]

It's no secret that excess production is destroyed rather than allowing the sale price of said manufactured and agrarian goods to drop. That creates artificial scarcity.

Its a ridiculous proposition and at odds an with your theory of protectionism, the very auto industry that you want to impose artificial scarcity by precluding imports for. Protectionism IS the imposition of artificial scarcity.

[Paperback Writer]

Bullshit, when I wake up at 5:30AM for another starlit journey into NYC, don't have the chutzpah to say my life couldn't be easier. Trust me, I'd rather sleep in. Its favoritism and its not only favoritism in the context of the auto industry, its favoring a party who not only ABANDONED U (Ford left NJ), but SHIT ON US with pollution (See Mann v Ford, a court case AND a movie, you can probably google that and see that), so NO, Ford doesn't get protected. Protectionism = Favoritism.

Protectionism is favouritism. That's what we've all been acknowledging. I like my countrymen better than I like the Chinese. In fact, I've said it repeatedly.

I'm not a globalist. I have a framed Union Jack on my wall that you see as you walk through the flat. I have a framed picture of the Queen in my water closet and I have a tea pot painted with Buckingham Palace.

I live in England. My Grans is in Scotland. I've got a brilliant accent and none of this is by accident. I have a job where I could be all over the world, paying far less in taxes but I happen to love my country and fuck the bloody Chinese. These are people that have subverted rivers to kill off populations of their own people, forcibly sterilised women, left girl babies to die, and we want to give them money so we can have cheaper prices.

I'm glad that you have made money off the misery and suffering of others and can live with that at night cos you've got a terrible drive into New York City. Some of us are not so fortunate as to be able to slough that off like the party guests in the Masque of the Red Death.

[Chris]

There was nothing wrong with what he said aside from the fact that the didn't use the same terms as would an economist. You choose not to refute the fact that Yanks (and us as well) do purchase more goods that are created out of country than goods created in country. Their cost of labour is cheaper, driving down the price of goods and making it less profitable to buy from a country whose cost of living prohibits $1.48 an hour wages such as yours and hours. This is irrefutable.

What you are trying to imply is that our labourers and yours can find something else to "trade" and I'm asking you what you believe that something else is. Not in some ethereal plane, but in reality.

Oh tell us, Mr. Portfolio, what shall they do for a living?

Make widgets?
Open a factory out of pixie dust and happy thoughts?
Work at 7-11 now that you've allowed in millions more low wage workers to W-2 positions and we've got the Eastern Europeans rushing to sell fish and chips?

There is a "deficit" of low wage jobs because our cost of living is too high to support factory work as it used to, and there are only so many fast food and big box jobs available. People incurred debt because you must incur debt to have credit. You must have credit to get a job now. That's the shit part of the system. So people bought flats or vehicles or got a credit card and then cost of living rose and they're doing everything they can to hold onto them in a desperate economy plane.



Gads! Thank you for simplifying this little known fact. I'd never thought about it that way. While you're educating us, do tell if I drop an apple from my hand will it also fall to the ground?



Reduced to mere mockery, I see. Shame, paper, you're so much better than that.

BTW, the fact we import more than we export is irrefutable, no one has argued otherwise. The argument by who and peter and mac is that that is detrimental, the argument by newpublius, and I agree, is it's beneficial. Heck, this has been known since the time of Adam Smith.

[Chris]

Protectionism is favouritism. That's what we've all been acknowledging. I like my countrymen better than I like the Chinese. In fact, I've said it repeatedly.

I'm not a globalist. I have a framed Union Jack on my wall that you see as you walk through the flat. I have a framed picture of the Queen in my water closet and I have a tea pot painted with Buckingham Palace.

I live in England. My Grans is in Scotland. I've got a brilliant accent and none of this is by accident. I have a job where I could be all over the world, paying far less in taxes but I happen to love my country and fuck the bloody Chinese. These are people that have subverted rivers to kill off populations of their own people, forcibly sterilised women, left girl babies to die, and we want to give them money so we can have cheaper prices.

I'm glad that you have made money off the misery and suffering of others and can live with that at night cos you've got a terrible drive into New York City. Some of us are not so fortunate as to be able to slough that off like the party guests in the Masque of the Red Death.



Political favoritism is corrupt.

[Newpublius]

Really? We were the US army, not a job placement company. We were in a combat zone, not a university classroom.

Yes, really, you're the one saying you employed them out of military necessity and that to do so you essentially left the machinery idle. At the very minimum you could've simply engaged in additional road construction over and above what the machines could've accomplished. The military necessity of employing idle Iraqis did not require allowing machinery to lie unused/idle.

[Paperback Writer]

Reduced to mere mockery, I see. Shame, paper, you're so much better than that.

I suppose you don't see the irony in saying "reduced to mockery" and "shame" in the same paragraph. Note the sarcasm. I'm not above either mockery or sarcasm. More people should be mocked when they say arrogant and contemptible things. It's how you libertarians are going to keep your social order by publicly showing contempt for bad behaviour is it not?

At least, that's what I've been told. You'll stop abortion by frowning at women and telling them they're killing babies.




BTW, the fact we import more than we export is irrefutable, no one has argued otherwise. The argument by who and peter and mac is that that is detrimental, the argument by newpublius, and I agree, is it's beneficial. Heck, this has been known since the time of Adam Smith.

It is detrimental to your own people. No one has argued that it is detrimental end-stop. It is certainly not detrimental to the Chinese or the middle and upper classes who have the money for a flat, a vehicle, food, and other cheaply priced goods thanks to the labourers who will work for pence on the quid and have to wear gas masks when walking in their towns.

[Chris]

None of the questions you are responding to me with has a bit to do with what I've said. You've naught by danced around it.

People in China are producing because their system is conducive to low wage workers and therefore they are able to provide producers and thus the products made by those producers due to their low cost of living. If you can work for $2.00 an hour at Apple or $.85 at Kellogg and still have a place to live, food on the table, clothing and utilities all is well and you won't ask for a pay rise. Everyone should be able to work for basic quid and live.

Bravo for the Chinese that their smog filled, totalitarian countries are able to provide this by controlling their own currency's inflation in such an arbitrary manner. It has close to $4 trillion in exchange reserves and is now about to solidify its ability to say fuck off to everyone with BRIC.

Our is less simple. Unless we could drop our cost of living to the same levels as China or India with a quickness of Hermes we're not going to be able to compete and will end up spinning in the water closet.

You and Ethereal and Chris seem to think we exist in a vacuum, either that or you give no fucks abut the low wage earners in your country who happen to be your countrymen.

At the risk of sounding maudlin, I actually care about mine. I care about tradition. I hear "Rule Britannia" as I walk to my job.



That's lovely for you. I'm not a blithe **** who doesn't care about the people around me that suffer nor my own tax bill to provide for them.



You and Ethereal and Chris seem to think we exist in a vacuum, either that or you give no fucks abut the low wage earners in your country who happen to be your countrymen.\

Ever think that that impression comes not from us but from you? Your patriotic emotionalism frames the way you read others. Who's zero-sum perspective precludes understanding win-win. Peter's arguing for the sake of arguing backs him into corners. Mac, whatever, forget mac.

What Ethereal, Newpublius and I argue is for greater freedom and prosperity.


BTW, I appreciate you putting me in with them.

[Paperback Writer]

Political favoritism is corrupt.

The Chinese are engaged in it, as well. Don't see you crying about that as you purchase from Walmart. How's their fiat currency controlled again? Where's the competition?

[Chris]

I suppose you don't see the irony in saying "reduced to mockery" and "shame" in the same paragraph. Note the sarcasm. I'm not above either mockery or sarcasm. More people should be mocked when they say arrogant and contemptible things. It's how you libertarians are going to keep your social order by publicly showing contempt for bad behaviour is it not?

At least, that's what I've been told. You'll stop abortion by frowning at women and telling them they're killing babies.



It is detrimental to your own people. No one has argued that it is detrimental end-stop. It is certainly not detrimental to the Chinese or the middle and upper classes who have the money for a flat, a vehicle, food, and other cheaply priced goods thanks to the labourers who will work for pence on the quid and have to wear gas masks when walking in their towns.


Mockery is not rational argument.

The 'arrogant and contemptible" are from you as I just explained in post above.

You don't seem to understand libertarianism.


Sorry, but importing more than we export is beneficial to our own people.

Here's one important thing studying economics has taught me: Look beyond immediate effects but down the chain of cause and effect, don't just look at what is seen but what is unseen. You and who and others are just looking at the immediate notion of deficit in trade and proclaiming it's a great loss. In reality, it's a great gain, US consumers are getting products are lower cost and able in turn to use their savings to consume or invest more--we end up wealthier at the expense of Chinese citizens. This has been known since the time of Adam Smith if not before.

[Paperback Writer]

\

Ever think that that impression comes not from us but from you? Your patriotic emotionalism frames the way you read others. Who's zero-sum perspective precludes understanding win-win. Peter's arguing for the sake of arguing backs him into corners. Mac, whatever, forget mac.

I happen to know that libertarians don't believe in nations, borders, and want free and open trade. I've also said repeatedly that if we have a fresh start on the planet that would be delightful, but we don't.

We live in nations. Our taxes go to pay for programmes within our nation. It serves us to be patriotic until such time as we don't pay taxes. As of right now, I'm paying taxes so that banks and businesses can earn extra quid off of these lovely normalised trade relations.




What Ethereal, Newpublius and I argue is for greater freedom and prosperity.


Of course, that is your argument. Tell me how in specifics, not theory, in specifics how this system is benefiting the man who just spent $60k to get an accounting degrees and a CPA license now that Indians do your taxes? How did it benefit the steel workers of Sheffield?

Freedom and prosperity for a certain type because those same countries that you want to freely let down your knickers for don't feel the same.




BTW, I appreciate you putting me in with them.

Naturally.

[Mac-7]

BTW, the fact we import more than we export is irrefutable, no one has argued otherwise. The argument by who and peter and mac is that that is detrimental, the argument by newpublius, and I agree, is it's beneficial. Heck, this has been known since the time of Adam Smith.



America transfers $400 billion of wealth from average Americans to others countries every year.

That is $40 trillion of wealth every 10 years.

And that is killing the standard of living and the American Dream for average Americans.

[Chris]

The Chinese are engaged in it, as well. Don't see you crying about that as you purchase from Walmart. How's their fiat currency controlled again? Where's the competition?

You're not going to argue two wrongs make a right, are you. The Chinese government engages in corruption so ours should to? Think of what you're saying.

[Chris]

America transfers $40 billion of wealth from average Americans to others countries every year.

That is $4 trillion of wealth every 10 years.

And that is killing the standard of living and the American Dream for average Americans.


And those US dollars can only eventually be spent on US goods and services. Think past immediate effects.

[Mac-7]

America transfers $400 billion of wealth from average Americans to others countries every year.

That is $40 trillion of wealth every 10 years.

And that is killing the standard of living and the American Dream for average Americans.

[Newpublius]

Protectionism is favouritism. That's what we've all been acknowledging. I like my countrymen better than I like the Chinese. In fact, I've said it repeatedly.

I'm not a globalist. I have a framed Union Jack on my wall that you see as you walk through the flat. I have a framed picture of the Queen in my water closet and I have a tea pot painted with Buckingham Palace.

I live in England. My Grans is in Scotland. I've got a brilliant accent and none of this is by accident. I have a job where I could be all over the world, paying far less in taxes but I happen to love my country and $#@! the bloody Chinese. These are people that have subverted rivers to kill off populations of their own people, forcibly sterilised women, left girl babies to die, and we want to give them money so we can have cheaper prices.

I'm glad that you have made money off the misery and suffering of others and can live with that at night cos you've got a terrible drive into New York City. Some of us are not so fortunate as to be able to slough that off like the party guests in the Masque of the Red Death.

You're missing that they specifically chose not to do business with us and when they did, they polluted the region. They don't feel beholden to manufacture here one iota. As for me, I go into NYC as an attorney and own a business in NJ and they don't do business with me at all (all of that is in the process of changing). You have every right to prefer local to regional, regional to national, national to international. I prefer my family and if Ford wants to sell me a Focus over a Forte, they can, they can lower the price and offer a 12 year 144k warranty. Hmmm, but that would be hard, like when its 5:30a and its 2 below zero.

I have to work hard and long to make sure people voluntarily by my widgets. Your coddling inevitably leads to Trabants.

[Newpublius]

The Chinese are engaged in it, as well. Don't see you crying about that as you purchase from Walmart. How's their fiat currency controlled again? Where's the competition?

They shouldn't be doing that. Note how your objection to free trade rests on the factors of trade that actually aren't free. Why not ask why the US Treasury doesn't label China a 'currency mamipulator' -- they could, what stops them?

[Mac-7]

And those US dollars can only eventually be spent on US goods and services.



Yes, currently china is buying up Detroit.

The trillions of dollars leaving the US are taken from the pockets of average Americans.

Which is destroying their economic security and driving down their standard of living.

[Paperback Writer]

Mockery is not rational argument.

I've never said it's an argument. It is showing my contempt. Understand you cannot control how people express themselves and that I don't rightly care if you only want "rational arguments" from me. There's some liberty for you. I'm saying what I feel like at the time I feel it.




The 'arrogant and contemptible" are from you as I just explained in post above.


Yes, it's far more arrogant and contemptible to mock someone who said that they love being rich off the misery of others than it is for them to proclaim it.

I do so love that world you live in. Can't see why libertarianism hasn't caught on like wildfire yet with this type of "friendly"rhetoric. :rollseyes:


You don't seem to understand libertarianism.


Yes, Chris, I do. You don't seem to understand reality. If the markets would or could work as you've suggested then every country of the world would have already let down their borders and increased the global prosperity already. They don't because it does not benefit their own elite to do so. The reality is there are a few families on the board of the top organisations who know how to make wealth for themselves. I could put up a chart of who owns what but I believe you've seen it. These people guide the economics of their nations through coercion already.

It's done. They won't undo it because they're neither altruistic or an idealist such as yourself.




Sorry, but importing more than we export is beneficial to our own people.


Yes, Americans are doing so much better now than they were in 1950. That's sarcasm, by the way.

It takes two people working high paying jobs to own a home, have a vehicle, and eat and you believe that it prosperity.



Here's one important thing studying economics has taught me: Look beyond immediate effects but down the chain of cause and effect, don't just look at what is seen but what is unseen. You and who and others are just looking at the immediate notion of deficit in trade and proclaiming it's a great loss. In reality, it's a great gain, US consumers are getting products are lower cost and able in turn to use their savings to consume or invest more--we end up wealthier at the expense of Chinese citizens. This has been known since the time of Adam Smith if not before.

I've studied economics. I understand the theory. Why then hasn't your normalised relations produced Americans who are wealthier than ever?

Why can't you have a father work a normal work week and families own a home, have clothing, food, and a vehicle now?

Because the system is far more complicated than your charts and graphs would suggest. You've got the Federal Reserve System to contend with (We've got our own version) where shareholders are banks who have a global mindset. You've got lack of currency competition. You've got BRIC now to contend with.

It's a juggling act and you seem to think there's only one ball in play at a time.

[Newpublius]

I happen to know that libertarians don't believe in nations, borders, and want free and open trade. I've also said repeatedly that if we have a fresh start on the planet that would be delightful, but we don't.

We live in nations. Our taxes go to pay for programmes within our nation. It serves us to be patriotic until such time as we don't pay taxes. As of right now, I'm paying taxes so that banks and businesses can earn extra quid off of these lovely normalised trade relations.



Of course, that is your argument. Tell me how in specifics, not theory, in specifics how this system is benefiting the man who just spent $60k to get an accounting degrees and a CPA license now that Indians do your taxes? How did it benefit the steel workers of Sheffield?

Freedom and prosperity for a certain type because those same countries that you want to freely let down your knickers for don't feel the same.



Naturally.

If one vendor sells a product for 2 dollars and you buy it , there's a mutual benefit, if another comes along and sells it for a dollar, you buy it, the guy who had hitherto been selling it for 2 dollars loses, but the purchaser STILL HAS A DOLLAR to spend on something else. These are the gains from trade. You could even say the same thing about the English farmer, I don't even think the UK is agriculturally self sufficient. The rest of that specialization is a far more prosperous UK which doesn't focus on foodstuffs. You could of course, you could protect local farms, resources would flow into agriculture, the UK would ostensibly become self sufficient, you'd protect that industry of course, so your diet would be limited accordingly.....and that's what protectionism is, you'd be worse off.

[Newpublius]

Americans are doing much better now than in the 1950s as you're doing better than Britain at the height of the British Empire. The US in 1950s had income, infant mortality and life expectancy that are about equivalent to Mexico TODAY. America derives a boon from foreign trade. Happy Days is a good show, someday check out the Honeymooners and check out the living standard of a NYC bus driver, they show it in the show. Its not pretty.

[Mac-7]

If one vendor sells a product for 2 dollars and you buy it , there's a mutual benefit, if another comes along and sells it for a dollar, you buy it, the guy who had hitherto been selling it for 2 dollars loses, but the purchaser STILL HAS A DOLLAR to spend on something else.

Where did the free trade wacko get the two dollars from in the first place?

[Chris]

Yes, currently china is buying up Detroit.

The trillions of dollars leaving the US are taken from the pockets of average Americans.

Which is destroying their economic security and driving down their standard of living.


All of those dollars can only be used to purchase US goods and services.


The trillions of dollars leaving the US are taken from the pockets of average Americans.

How's that, mac. Oh, but I'm asking you to back up something you said, nevermind.

[Paperback Writer]

You're not going to argue two wrongs make a right, are you. The Chinese government engages in corruption so ours should to? Think of what you're saying.

Don't give me that Haight Ashbury flowers in your hair rubbish. The world is not a simple place where you can make the type of individual argument of conscience. I may personally choose to let down my knickers and talk a kick to the bollocks from the Chinese. That would be my choice. I can't make that decision for my mates which is essentially what you are suggesting we do.

What I am saying is that there is a reality and all the philosophy in the world about good economic practice is meaningless cos that reality is that people I know are hurting because their jobs that were let go at age 42 so that Chinese workers have a slightly better standard of living and "free trade" can prevail. I say "free trade" but it's not really because the Chinese don't believe in it, either.

So, I don't know how to make this more clear to you, but fuck the Chinese bastards.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD04yHDrvRc

[Paperback Writer]

Americans are doing much better now than in the 1950s

Do tell. Can a family of four today purchase a home, vehicle, clothe their children, and eat well with the father making a lower middle income wage of $40k?

If you say "yes" then I submit I'm wrong. I've looked at the property costs in the States, have a flat there I share, purchase goods etcetera at an upper middle salary, and I'm sorry but my skepticism abounds.

[Newpublius]

You've got BRIC now to contend with.

And all of those countries send, from their point of view, emigrees, from our point of view, immigrants, that enrich our area. Brazilians are a great example. When I go into the city, I go to 46th and 6th and 46th Street is 'Little Brazil' and the largest city in NJ has the 'Portuguese' section which of course is mostly Brazilian as opposed to people actually from Portugal.

[Newpublius]

Do tell. Can a family of four today purchase a home, vehicle, clothe their children, and eat well with the father making a lower middle income wage of $40k?

In NYC? No. In the vast area of the United States, without question and the home is bigger (TWICE as big), the cars are definitely better and good chance there's an above ground pool in the back yard.

$165,000
5 Bedrooms
3 Full Baths, 1 Half Bath
Single Family
3,149 Square Feet


[IMG]http://wdcimagestorageprodeast.blob.core.windows.net/mls043/Web/44878363_1.jpgPearland, TX, a suburb of Houston (not even in the middle of nowhere.

Payment is BELOW 33% of 40K ($1200 per month). Odds are that house has three Ford F-150s in the garage.

[Mac-7]

All of those dollars can only be used to purchase US goods and services.

The Chinese are buying real estate.

That means they will be our landlord in the future.



How's that, mac. Oh, but I'm asking you to back up something you said, nevermind.

Its not coming from the top 1% because they are getting wealthier as you pointed out at the beginning of this thread.

They make money with free trade or with fair trade.

but the American people only benefit with fair trade.

[Paperback Writer]

If one vendor sells a product for 2 dollars and you buy it

Stop, mate. I make the American equivalent of $125k a year. I do quite well. I'm not discussing two individuals making a deal. I do that with my pot dealer and we both benefit. I'm not even discussing the benefit of cheap goods. Naturally a poor bloke would prefer cheaper ruddy shirts than expensive ones. However, if his overall standard of living decreases it's akin to kicking him in the bollocks then handing him a painkiller and say "look what I just did for you!" You've done fuck all of relative importance.

Economic systems are complex and decisions do not occur in a vacuum. They effect profoundly those of a lower middle income wage who have not the government safety net of the poor nor the skillsets to move to a higher bracket.

[Chris]

I've never said it's an argument. It is showing my contempt. Understand you cannot control how people express themselves and that I don't rightly care if you only want "rational arguments" from me. There's some liberty for you. I'm saying what I feel like at the time I feel it.



Yes, it's far more arrogant and contemptible to mock someone who said that they love being rich off the misery of others than it is for them to proclaim it.

I do so love that world you live in. Can't see why libertarianism hasn't caught on like wildfire yet with this type of "friendly"rhetoric. :rollseyes:



Yes, Chris, I do. You don't seem to understand reality. If the markets would or could work as you've suggested then every country of the world would have already let down their borders and increased the global prosperity already. They don't because it does not benefit their own elite to do so. The reality is there are a few families on the board of the top organisations who know how to make wealth for themselves. I could put up a chart of who owns what but I believe you've seen it. These people guide the economics of their nations through coercion already.

It's done. They won't undo it because they're neither altruistic or an idealist such as yourself.



Yes, Americans are doing so much better now than they were in 1950. That's sarcasm, by the way.

It takes two people working high paying jobs to own a home, have a vehicle, and eat and you believe that it prosperity.



I've studied economics. I understand the theory. Why then hasn't your normalised relations produced Americans who are wealthier than ever?

Why can't you have a father work a normal work week and families own a home, have clothing, food, and a vehicle now?

Because the system is far more complicated than your charts and graphs would suggest. You've got the Federal Reserve System to contend with (We've got our own version) where shareholders are banks who have a global mindset. You've got lack of currency competition. You've got BRIC now to contend with.

It's a juggling act and you seem to think there's only one ball in play at a time.



Nonetheless an argument it is not.

No, arrogant etc is how you see things. It comes from you, not any libertarian argument.

Oh, boy, the reality cop out again.


If the markets would or could work as you've suggested then every country of the world would have already let down their borders and increased the global prosperity already.

Mostly, actually, in reality, they do, with trillions and trillions of trade. Against that there's the cry of people like you who want to control what people do, think they know better what people value.


Yes, Americans are doing so much better now than they were in 1950. That's sarcasm, by the way.

No, it's fact.


...your normalised relations...

I haven't argued anything like that.

My father is retired, enjoying the fruits of his labor.


Because the system is far more complicated than your charts and graphs would suggest.

If that's true then how can you as well argue anything in the way of central planning of an economy, and protectionism is just that?

BTW, I agree, the system is far too complicated for anyone to claim an anointed vision and try to dictate anything. It's far too complex because the knowledge needed for an economy to function is distributed and dynamic. Only individuals can know this in his or her valuations and decisions and plans, only individuals can change as their knowledge changes.

What's odd is you just countered your own arguments here, and supported mine, thanks!

[Chris]

Don't give me that Haight Ashbury flowers in your hair rubbish. The world is not a simple place where you can make the type of individual argument of conscience. I may personally choose to let down my knickers and talk a kick to the bollocks from the Chinese. That would be my choice. I can't make that decision for my mates which is essentially what you are suggesting we do.

What I am saying is that there is a reality and all the philosophy in the world about good economic practice is meaningless cos that reality is that people I know are hurting because their jobs that were let go at age 42 so that Chinese workers have a slightly better standard of living and "free trade" can prevail. I say "free trade" but it's not really because the Chinese don't believe in it, either.

So, I don't know how to make this more clear to you, but fuck the Chinese bastards.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD04yHDrvRc



But your protectionist theory also fucks your own people. It doesn't harm Chinese people. British consumers pay the tariff, not Chinese people.

[Paperback Writer]

In NYC? No. In the vast area of the United States, without question and the home is bigger, the cars are definitely better and good chance there's an above ground pool in the back yard.

Rubbish. Who can afford it on your current median ranges? Only upper middle class can afford a pool.

My mate lives in rural Virginia where I have looked into homes in the case I do choose to immigrate. The average cost of a three bedroom home in her area (father + mother + 2 kids) is over $200K. This is with the closest city being a university town.

The cost of living is exceedingly high unless you wish to move to a wrecked city like Detroit with your wife and children and invest in guard dogs and guns.

[Chris]

The Chinese are buying real estate.

That means they will be our landlord in the future.




Its not coming from the top 1% because they are getting wealthier as you pointed out at the beginning of this thread.

They make money with free trade or with fair trade.

but the American people only benefit with fair trade.



Try again, mac. Here's your claim: "The trillions of dollars leaving the US are taken from the pockets of average Americans." Explain how it's taken. Explain who takes it and how they do that.

[Matty]

Do tell. Can a family of four today purchase a home, vehicle, clothe their children, and eat well with the father making a lower middle income wage of $40k?

If you say "yes" then I submit I'm wrong. I've looked at the property costs in the States, have a flat there I share, purchase goods etcetera at an upper middle salary, and I'm sorry but my skepticism abounds.


Mine too. We are not doing better. Due to the influx of millions of illegals we have lost jobs and income. We would be doing better if the borders were sealed, we stopped engaging in foreign conflicts, and if we stopped sending foreign aid money to all countries.

[Paperback Writer]

But your protectionist theory also fucks your own people. It doesn't harm Chinese people. British consumers pay the tariff, not Chinese people.

What utter rubbish! Our current system effects and fucks my people. Do you think we're all well off?

I'm absolutely tired of your speculative theories. Give me a modern real world example of how blue collar workers in a western nation were able to come by gobs of jobs as a result of normalising trade with China.

Just one example of a blue collar industry that sprung up which we can then discuss.

[Peter1469]

Very Keynesian.

Perhaps. If you looked around the real world, that is the basis of every nation-states' economic policies. Yes I know Austrian school would be better and more accurate. Practice and theory again.

But the US Army has no economists in it at the operational level. Combat troops told to build a nation were faced with tens of thousands unemployed Iraqi males. Why give them modern construction equipment to build a road when we can pass out a thousand shovels and put them to work instead.

[Mac-7]

Try again, mac. Here's your claim: "The trillions of dollars leaving the US are taken from the pockets of average Americans." Explain how it's taken. Explain who takes it and how they do that.

The money comes from someone's pocket.

You don't think the top 10% are losing money to the Chinese, do you?

of course the trade deficit is a net loss for average Americans.

[Paperback Writer]

Try again, mac. Here's your claim: "The trillions of dollars leaving the US are taken from the pockets of average Americans." Explain how it's taken. Explain who takes it and how they do that.

Chris, you've had that same query put to you, asking for specific examples and you shed those questions like water off a duck's back. Time for you to put up or shut up.

Name a single blue collar industry that has sprung up since 1998 as a direct result of this new competition that has also employed Americans and is legal.

[Mister D]

In NYC? No. In the vast area of the United States, without question and the home is bigger (TWICE as big), the cars are definitely better and good chance there's an above ground pool in the back yard.

$165,000
5 Bedrooms
3 Full Baths, 1 Half Bath
Single Family
3,149 Square Feet


[IMG]http://wdcimagestorageprodeast.blob.core.windows.net/mls043/Web/44878363_1.jpgPearland, TX, a suburb of Houston (not even in the middle of nowhere.

Payment is BELOW 33% of 40K ($1200 per month). Odds are that house has three Ford F-150s in the garage.

Really? You're telling me one income households are the norm "in the vast area of the United State"?

[Paperback Writer]

And all of those countries send, from their point of view, emigrees, from our point of view, immigrants, that enrich our area. Brazilians are a great example. When I go into the city, I go to 46th and 6th and 46th Street is 'Little Brazil' and the largest city in NJ has the 'Portuguese' section which of course is mostly Brazilian as opposed to people actually from Portugal.

I've been there. Do tell me what industries the Brazilians opened up and employed blue collar Americans with in NYC.

I'm breathtakingly curious.

[Chris]

Chris, you've had that same query put to you, asking for specific examples and you shed those questions like water off a duck's back. Time for you to put up or shut up.

Name a single blue collar industry that has sprung up since 1998 as a direct result of this new competition that has also employed Americans and is legal.


The US has turned from manufacturing to service.

So, no, paper, I do answer questions.

[Chris]

Really? You're telling me one income households are the norm "in the vast area of the United State"?

Saw a study a ways back that said the normal US household in 1 point something people.

[Paperback Writer]

Really? You're telling me one income households are the norm "in the vast area of the United State"?

He's also neglecting the credit score one would need to have to get the interest rate, the year on the loan, and deposit, but we shouldn't let that stop us. Everyone should move to Pearland and watch the COI rise.

[Peter1469]

Yes, really, you're the one saying you employed them out of military necessity and that to do so you essentially left the machinery idle. At the very minimum you could've simply engaged in additional road construction over and above what the machines could've accomplished. The military necessity of employing idle Iraqis did not require allowing machinery to lie unused/idle.

They didn't have the machinery (much). They wanted us to give it to them. We said no, but here are lots of shovels and wheel barrels.

[Chris]

The US has turned from manufacturing to service.

So, no, paper, I do answer questions.


Technology is also creating new blue collar jobs. Here's one report: Where the jobs are: The new blue collar (http://www.usatoday.com/longform/news/nation/2014/09/30/job-economy-middle-skill-growth-wage-blue-collar/14797413/).

[Mister D]

Saw a study a ways back that said the normal US household in 1 point something people.

but the question was whether "a family of four today purchase a home, vehicle, clothe their children, and eat well with the father making a lower middle income wage of $40k?" My upper middle class friends with fat salaries have stay at home wives but it seems to be an unrealizable ideal for most Americans today. both parents typically work.

[Paperback Writer]

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/crisis-middle-class-and-american-power


The median household income of Americans in 2011 was $49,103. Adjusted for inflation, the median income is just below what it was in 1989 and is $4,000 less than it was in 2000. Take-home income is a bit less than $40,000 when Social Security and state and federal taxes are included. That means a monthly income, per household, of about $3,300. It is urgent to bear in mind that half of all American households earn less than this. It is also vital to consider not the difference between 1990 and 2011, but the difference between the 1950s and 1960s and the 21st century. This is where the difference in the meaning of middle class becomes most apparent.


In the 1950s and 1960s, the median income allowed you to live with a single earner — normally the husband, with the wife typically working as homemaker — and roughly three children. It permitted the purchase of modest tract housing, one late model car and an older one. It allowed a driving vacation somewhere and, with care, some savings as well. I know this because my family was lower-middle class, and this is how we lived, and I know many others in my generation who had the same background. It was not an easy life and many luxuries were denied us, but it wasn't a bad life at all.


Someone earning the median income today might just pull this off, but it wouldn't be easy. Assuming that he did not have college loans to pay off but did have two car loans to pay totaling $700 a month, and that he could buy food, clothing and cover his utilities for $1,200 a month, he would have $1,400 a month for mortgage, real estate taxes and insurance, plus some funds for fixing the air conditioner and dishwasher. At a 5 percent mortgage rate, that would allow him to buy a house in the $200,000 range. He would get a refund back on his taxes from deductions but that would go to pay credit card bills he had from Christmas presents and emergencies. It could be done, but not easily and with great difficulty in major metropolitan areas. And if his employer didn't cover health insurance, that $4,000-5,000 for three or four people would severely limit his expenses. And of course, he would have to have $20,000-40,000 for a down payment and closing costs on his home. There would be little else left over for a week at the seashore with the kids.


And this is for the median. Those below him — half of all households — would be shut out of what is considered middle-class life, with the house, the car and the other associated amenities. Those amenities shift upward on the scale for people with at least $70,000 in income. The basics might be available at the median level, given favorable individual circumstance, but below that life becomes surprisingly meager, even in the range of the middle class and certainly what used to be called the lower-middle class.


Read more: The Crisis of the Middle Class and American Power | Stratfor (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/crisis-middle-class-and-american-power#ixzz3JuSfDxJF)
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dKd9f6JQur37hqadbi-bpO&u=stratfor) | Stratfor on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dKd9f6JQur37hqadbi-bpO&u=Stratfor)

[Mac-7]

The US has turned from manufacturing to service.

.

Yes, people with college diplomas asking "Do you want fries with that burger?"

[Mister D]

He's also neglecting the credit score one would need to have to get the interest rate, the year on the loan, and deposit, but we shouldn't let that stop us. Everyone should move to Pearland and watch the COI rise.

True.

[Chris]

but the question was whether "a family of four today purchase a home, vehicle, clothe their children, and eat well with the father making a lower middle income wage of $40k?" My upper middle class friends with fat salaries have stay at home wives but it seems to be an unrealizable ideal for most Americans today. both parents typically work.

OK, probably not, a lower middle class family would have to work harder to climb to upper middle class. But that's always been the case.

[Chris]

Yes, people with college diplomas asking "Do want fries with that burger?"

A service job doesn't mean just mac's, mac.

[Paperback Writer]

The US has turned from manufacturing to service.

Exactly my point. Thank you. Blue collar workers got fucked up the arse...unless they have the quid to move to China, I imagine.

[Paperback Writer]

A service job doesn't mean just mac's, mac.

No, it means skilled labour requiring a degree or service experience.

[Chris]

Exactly my point. Thank you. Blue collar workers got fucked up the arse...unless they have the quid to move to China, I imagine.

Service jobs can pay more than assembly work, paper.

Plus see my second post answering your question.

[Peter1469]

You're not going to argue two wrongs make a right, are you. The Chinese government engages in corruption so ours should to? Think of what you're saying.

Turn the other cheek? There are not enough libertarians in the US to keep a president in office who overtly ignores Chinese predatory behavior in US markets.

[Chris]

No, it means skilled labour requiring a degree or service experience.

There's a wide range of jobs in the service industry. Just as there was in manufacturing.

[Paperback Writer]

OK, probably not, a lower middle class family would have to work harder to climb to upper middle class. But that's always been the case.

No, it is not the case. Lower middle class families could live an enjoyable life on lower middle income. Not everyone want to climb to the upper middle class, and quite frankly not everyone has the resources. Should they manage the bar will raise higher.

[Chris]

Turn the other cheek? There are not enough libertarians in the US to keep a president in office who overtly ignores Chinese predatory behavior in US markets.


What's that got to do with the recent rise in the price of turnips, peter?

[Peter1469]

They shouldn't be doing that. Note how your objection to free trade rests on the factors of trade that actually aren't free. Why not ask why the US Treasury doesn't label China a 'currency mamipulator' -- they could, what stops them?
Politics. And likely bribery and graft.

[Paperback Writer]

There's a wide range of jobs in the service industry. Just as there was in manufacturing.

Yes, but we're discussing those which allow you to live at the level you did in the 1950's. That was the query presented. Now, that does not include as you pointed out to Mac, delivering fast food. It means things like software coding and that requires a degree.

[Chris]

No, it is not the case. Lower middle class families could live an enjoyable life on lower middle income. Not everyone want to climb to the upper middle class, and quite frankly not everyone has the resources. Should they manage the bar will raise higher.

I grew up lower middle class, the standard of life is nothing like what I have now. All your statistics won't tell you that.

No, not everyone wants to work that hard, or can. We're not all the same, not all equal.

[Paperback Writer]

They shouldn't be doing that. Note how your objection to free trade rests on the factors of trade that actually aren't free. Why not ask why the US Treasury doesn't label China a 'currency mamipulator' -- they could, what stops them?

I've said this entire time that there is no such thing as free trade and won't be in our lifetimes. It's you and Chris who argue from a vacuum.

What stops them? Avarice, bribes; the usual.

[Chris]

Yes, but we're discussing those which allow you to live at the level you did in the 1950's. That was the query presented. Now, that does not include as you pointed out to Mac, delivering fast food. It means things like software coding and that requires a degree.

Answered previous post.

[Paperback Writer]

What's that got to do with the recent rise in the price of turnips, peter?

Chris, we're all obliged to humour your Austrian religion, but at times it's quite annoying to see you so recklessly espouse a belief system that is divorced from current reality.

[Paperback Writer]

I grew up lower middle class, the standard of life is nothing like what I have now. All your statistics won't tell you that.

No, not everyone wants to work that hard, or can. We're not all the same, not all equal.

I grew up in lower middle class when my father left and it's not the same now. A mum and kids couldn't do it now. Statistics won't tell me that, either.

It's not about wanting to work that hard. Most labourers I knew worked backbreakingly hard, Chris. Quite frankly you're espousing elitism at the moment.

[Peter1469]

What if one vendor sells a product for $2 and you buy it. Then a Chinese company comes along and sells you the same product for .50 cents (because the Chinese government gives them $1.50). The other vendor goes out of business, because only an insane person would pass up that deal.

And in some instances like that, the Chinese product is dangerous (http://www.chinesedrywall.com/) or deadly (http://time.com/107922/china-pet-food-contamination-recall-video/).

Is that free trade?



If one vendor sells a product for 2 dollars and you buy it , there's a mutual benefit, if another comes along and sells it for a dollar, you buy it, the guy who had hitherto been selling it for 2 dollars loses, but the purchaser STILL HAS A DOLLAR to spend on something else. These are the gains from trade. You could even say the same thing about the English farmer, I don't even think the UK is agriculturally self sufficient. The rest of that specialization is a far more prosperous UK which doesn't focus on foodstuffs. You could of course, you could protect local farms, resources would flow into agriculture, the UK would ostensibly become self sufficient, you'd protect that industry of course, so your diet would be limited accordingly.....and that's what protectionism is, you'd be worse off.

[Mister D]

OK, probably not, a lower middle class family would have to work harder to climb to upper middle class. But that's always been the case.

I'll concede that the notion of what constitutes the "good life" has steadily increased but living a comfortable existence was possible in the past with one wage earner in the home. Is it today for most of us? It doesn't seem like it. Most of the families I know have two wage earners. My friend, who works for Bank of America and whose bonus is close to half my annual salary, can have his wife stay home with the kids. Most people I know can't do that.

[Peter1469]

In NYC? No. In the vast area of the United States, without question and the home is bigger (TWICE as big), the cars are definitely better and good chance there's an above ground pool in the back yard.

$165,000
5 Bedrooms
3 Full Baths, 1 Half Bath
Single Family
3,149 Square Feet


[IMG]http://wdcimagestorageprodeast.blob.core.windows.net/mls043/Web/44878363_1.jpgPearland, TX, a suburb of Houston (not even in the middle of nowhere.

Payment is BELOW 33% of 40K ($1200 per month). Odds are that house has three Ford F-150s in the garage.


Oakton, Virgina.
$300,000
2 bdm, 1.5 bath condo with loft
1300 sq ft.

[Mac-7]

Service jobs can pay more than assembly work, paper.

.

But most pay less.

A maytag factory paying up to $40 and hour in a small town moves to china and the American workers left behind are lucky to find something paying minimum wage.

that is the result of free trade.

[Chris]

Chris, we're all obliged to humour your Austrian religion, but at times it's quite annoying to see you so recklessly espouse a belief system that is divorced from current reality.

The reality meme again.

[Paperback Writer]

Oakton, Virgina.
$300,000
2 bdm, 1.5 bath condo with loft
1300 sq ft.

That's easy to manage with a job at Walmart, eh? Those lucky Yanks!

[Chris]

I grew up in lower middle class when my father left and it's not the same now. A mum and kids couldn't do it now. Statistics won't tell me that, either.

It's not about wanting to work that hard. Most labourers I knew worked backbreakingly hard, Chris. Quite frankly you're espousing elitism at the moment.


So different people experience different things. How can you then draw conclusions?

I didn't say it was just about working hard, paper. Try that tactic on someone else.

Elitism is imagining you know better what good for others and what they value and advocating laws to enforce your anointed vision. That's not me doing that.

[Chris]

I'll concede that the notion of what constitutes the "good life" has steadily increased but living a comfortable existence was possible in the past with one wage earner in the home. Is it today for most of us? It doesn't seem like it. Most of the families I know have two wage earners. My friend, who works for Bank of America and whose bonus is close to half my annual salary, can have his wife stay home with the kids. Most people I know can't do that.

It's all very subjective, depends on what each person values. That's why I can't understand advocating one-size-fits-all policies.

[Paperback Writer]

The reality meme again.

Chris, reality is not a meme. You are oblivious to what the average blue collar family is going through and your salve of they can buy cheap pencils from Walmart now does nothing but inflame.

[Mac-7]

The reality meme again.

Reality is something you should try to get acquainted with before you die.

Yes we are trying to explain the real world to you because all you know is theoretical bs.

[Paperback Writer]

It's all very subjective, depends on what each person values. That's why I can't understand advocating one-size-fits-all policies.

And yet you'd place your subjective values upon them with your one-size-fits-all policy of western free trade.

[Peter1469]

That's easy to manage with a job at Walmart, eh? Those lucky Yanks!

Or McDonalds.

[Chris]

Chris, reality is not a meme. You are oblivious to what the average blue collar family is going through and your salve of they can buy cheap pencils from Walmart now does nothing but inflame.

The way you use it it is just a meme. I see people do it all the time, lacking an argument, they throw out that's just a theory, in reality.... BS. Not buying it. Come up with arguments.

That's another version of it, "you're oblivious".

Ignored for what it's worth.

[Chris]

And yet you'd place your subjective values upon them with your one-size-fits-all policy of western free trade.

You therefore understand neither libertarianism nor Austrian economics. You're having a bit of trouble thinking outside your own box, from which your projecting. I advocate just the opposite, letting people make their own choices according to their own values.

[Paperback Writer]

You therefore understand neither libertarianism nor Austrian economics. You're having a bit of trouble thinking outside your own box, from which your projecting. I advocate just the opposite, letting people make their own choices according to their own values.

Chris, you've read half a dozen people state that their choice is limited protectionism. If you truly believed in letting people make their own choices according to their own values you'd have picked up on that and said "fair play".

[Chris]

Chris, you've read half a dozen people state that their choice is limited protectionism. If you truly believed in letting people make their own choices according to their own values you'd have picked up on that and said "fair play".

Even limited protectionism imposes the preferences of a few on the many. A tariff imposes a tax on all who consume the tariffed product. If people really valued US products why they'd choose to purchase them instead.

[Mac-7]

You're having a bit of trouble thinking outside your own box, from which your projecting.



We are giving it to you straight from the perspective of most people.

You are the one isolated in your own little niche.

[Chris]

We are giving it to you straight from the perspective of most people.

You are the one isolated in your own little niche.

Mac, if you want me to respond, quit misrepresenting what I post by cutting out parts.

[Chris]

For all of you who argue the US/UK should continue its protectionist policies. Much of the above discussion entailed a conclusion we're all (but the 1%) worse off. OK, assume that's true, that we're worse off. Explain why you want to continue to pursue policies that got us into trouble to begin with. Why repeat what fails?

[decedent]

The 1% are suffering. They need your help. In the land of prosperity, how can we help poor people more than rich people. It ain't right.

[Paperback Writer]

The way you use it it is just a meme. I see people do it all the time, lacking an argument, they throw out that's just a theory, in reality.... BS. Not buying it. Come up with arguments.

That's another version of it, "you're oblivious".

Ignored for what it's worth.


I'm sorry, Chris, but it's the truth. I've asked you to name a single blue collar industry in the US that has sprung up due to the normalising of trade with China. You haven't been able to do so. That is reality. Instead of acknowledging and accepting that this is the truth you move on to the possibility of other types of jobs opening.

What is possible is not the current "real".

It's as though you don't even understand the definition of real or reality when you repeatedly eschew it for the possible. It's possible that every country in the world will do as John Lennon said in Imagine, but is it likely? Not based on any understanding of humans thus far.

I'm sorry but we're discussing what can be done under parameters and precedence established, not theory.

[Mac-7]

Mac, if you want me to respond, quit misrepresenting what I post by cutting out parts.

What I don't remove is the part I'm responding to.

You may not realize it, but you ramble and waste a lot of bandwidth.

[Peter1469]

For all of you who argue the US/UK should continue its protectionist policies. Much of the above discussion entailed a conclusion we're all (but the 1%) worse off. OK, assume that's true, that we're worse off. Explain why you want to continue to pursue policies that got us into trouble to begin with. Why repeat what fails?

Where does the assumption that limited protectionist policies caused the lowered standard of living come from? Your head?

Strawman alert. :smiley:

[Paperback Writer]

Even limited protectionism imposes the preferences of a few on the many. A tariff imposes a tax on all who consume the tariffed product. If people really valued US products why they'd choose to purchase them instead.

Chris, they do value US and EU products. They're better made. They're just unaffordable with current inflation rates caused by the reserve system and therefore they'll choose lower quality at lower prices.

When people have money they purchase a BMW or Bose.

[Peter1469]

Exactly. In theory, we all agree with Chris.

But in the real world we have to adapt theory to what reality is. Maybe Chris can lead the revolution to end government. :smiley:


I'm sorry, Chris, but it's the truth. I've asked you to name a single blue collar industry in the US that has sprung up due to the normalising of trade with China. You haven't been able to do so. That is reality. Instead of acknowledging and accepting that this is the truth you move on to the possibility of other types of jobs opening.

What is possible is not the current "real".

It's as though you don't even understand the definition of real or reality when you repeatedly eschew it for the possible. It's possible that every country in the world will do as John Lennon said in Imagine, but is it likely? Not based on any understanding of humans thus far.

I'm sorry but we're discussing what can be done under parameters and precedence established, not theory.

[Chris]

I'm sorry, Chris, but it's the truth. I've asked you to name a single blue collar industry in the US that has sprung up due to the normalising of trade with China. You haven't been able to do so. That is reality. Instead of acknowledging and accepting that this is the truth you move on to the possibility of other types of jobs opening.

What is possible is not the current "real".

It's as though you don't even understand the definition of real or reality when you repeatedly eschew it for the possible. It's possible that every country in the world will do as John Lennon said in Imagine, but is it likely? Not based on any understanding of humans thus far.

I'm sorry but we're discussing what can be done under parameters and precedence established, not theory.


Pointed to service and news jobs technology creates.

Again, the theory vs reality meme. Sorry, not buying it.

[Mac-7]

The reality is that nothing we say can change Chris' mind.

Some wacko economics professor got to him first.

We only can point out that most people see it another way.

and one of these days he might begin to see it that way too.

But only when we say it often enough that he thinks its his idea.

[Chris]

What I don't remove is the part I'm responding to.

You may not realize it, but you ramble and waste a lot of bandwidth.

At least I contribute something, mac. So does paper, so does who, so does new publius.

[Chris]

Where does the assumption that limited protectionist policies caused the lowered standard of living come from? Your head?

Strawman alert. :smiley:


The US has always pursued protectionism, peter. If we're doing worse now, well, how's that working out for you.

(Learn what a strawman is.)

[Chris]

Chris, they do value US and EU products. They're better made. They're just unaffordable with current inflation rates caused by the reserve system and therefore they'll choose lower quality at lower prices.

When people have money they purchase a BMW or Bose.


If we are buying Chinese-made products, it's because we value them despite your subjective valuation US/UK is better made.

Tariffs are just another form of inflation.

[Chris]

Exactly. In theory, we all agree with Chris.

But in the real world we have to adapt theory to what reality is. Maybe Chris can lead the revolution to end government. :smiley:

There we go with that worn out meme about theory and reality again. Seems to be catchy.

Why would I need to end government, peter, when as you argue it's on a path to self-destruction?

[Chris]

The reality is that nothing we say can change Chris' mind.

Some wacko economics professor got to him first.

We only can point out to him that most people see it another way and one of these days he might begin to see it that way too.

But only when we say it often enough that he thinks its his idea.


Mac, I'm more than willing to listen and respond to any rational argument you can put forth. Waiting...

[Peter1469]

The US has always pursued protectionism, peter. If we're doing worse now, well, how's that working out for you.

(Learn what a strawman is.)

Incorrect. How did Japanese cars gain such a large foothold in the US? We let them flood our markets with subsided cars. The automakers were selling cars at a loss - except Japan made up the difference. While it was very hard to sell American cars in Japan.

[Mac-7]

Mac, I'm more than willing to listen and respond to any rational argument you can put forth. Waiting...

We have given you the arguments but you just don't accept them.

Post #215 still applies.

[Chris]

We have given you the arguments but you just don't accept them.

Post #215 still applies.

They have given arguments, agree. You haven't, mac.

[Chris]

Incorrect. How did Japanese cars gain such a large foothold in the US? We let them flood our markets with subsided cars. The automakers were selling cars at a loss - except Japan made up the difference. While it was very hard to sell American cars in Japan.

Naming a single instance of non-protectionism is not countering the fact historically the US has been protectionist.

[Peter1469]

Naming a single instance of non-protectionism is not countering the fact historically the US has been protectionist.

You said always. Only one instance is needed to defeat that claim. :smiley:

[Chris]

You said always. Only one instance is needed to defeat that claim. :smiley:

Yes, the US has always been protectionist. Time, peter, historical. How you got it applies protections to all products is beyond me.

[Paperback Writer]

Yes, the US has always been protectionist. Time, peter, historical. How you got it applies protections to all products is beyond me.

If it did your day labourers would be doing a sight better. Free trade and open borders was to solve all our problems in the EU. I'm still waiting.

[Paperback Writer]

Pointed to service and news jobs technology creates.

Where? Name the companies that have arisen to hire the laid off blue collar workers. I'd like actual examples of companies.



Again, the theory vs reality meme. Sorry, not buying it.

It's only a "meme" because you want to continue to argue theory.

[Chris]

If it did your day labourers would be doing a sight better. Free trade and open borders was to solve all our problems in the EU. I'm still waiting.

They would if protectionism generated wealth rather then restricting it.

What you're calling free trade was managed trade. Same happened here, government came up with all sorts of schemes, NAFTA, CAFTA, whatever, all managed trade, but sold is as free trade.

[Paperback Writer]

They would if protectionism generated wealth rather then restricting it.

What you're calling free trade was managed trade. Same happened here, government came up with all sorts of schemes, NAFTA, CAFTA, whatever, all managed trade, but sold is as free trade.

Is China protectionist, Chris ?

[Chris]

Where? Name the companies that have arisen to hire the laid off blue collar workers. I'd like actual examples of companies.



It's only a "meme" because you want to continue to argue theory.


Go back a few pages. The technology post followed my service post.


It's a meme because you use it that way. Reality's just a label you slap on anything you argue, theory on what you disagree with. It doesn't mean anything. Oddly, you yourself yesterday stated politics is the art of the possible. To argue what is is reality and the possible theory is to engage in the naturalistic fallacy.

[Chris]

Is China protectionist, Chris ?

Yes.

[Paperback Writer]

Go back a few pages. The technology post followed my service post.

No, I read that and responded. I asked specifics and you gave me the expected generalisation. I asked which of these firms (specific businesses) have been started since 1998 that hired the blue collar workers who've lost their jobs.

I understand that currently there are technology service jobs but they'll go the same route as before given India and China's new educational bursaries that are established so that their citizens can take those, too.

Again, let us speak in specifics. Which firms (not industries), but firms have arisen since 1998 to replace those workers who've lost their jobs. Not industries that hire college graduates but the workers who had a factory job and then lost that factory job--which companies hired them en masse?

Those at the high point of this:

http://www.iqtest-center.com/images/gauss_curve.gif



It's a meme because you use it that way. Reality's just a label you slap on anything you argue, theory on what you disagree with. It doesn't mean anything. Oddly, you yourself yesterday stated politics is the art of the possible. To argue what is is reality and the possible theory is to engage in the naturalistic fallacy.

No, Chris, at times you should defer to those around you for definitions so that everyone speaks in the same language. There is not a bloke on this thread, including Mister D who believes you're speaking in anything but economic theory at the moment.

Theory by definition is not reality.

[Mac-7]

They have given arguments, agree. You haven't, mac.

Ronald Reagan said there is no limit to what can be accomplished if you don't mind who gets the credit.

We have all given you good arguments against free trade and for fair trade.

If you prefer to listen to them instead of me I don't mind so long as you listen to someone.

[Peter1469]

Yes, the US has always been protectionist. Time, peter, historical. How you got it applies protections to all products is beyond me.

You: Always protectionist.
Me: Japan dumped cars in the US market while US cars were blocked from their markets.

Everyone sees that always was the wrong word choice.

Then go back to all the examples of China dumping its products in the US harming US business.

Everyone sees you were wrong to use the word always.

Except you.

[Chris]

You: Always protectionist.
Me: Japan dumped cars in the US market while US cars were blocked from their markets.

Everyone sees that always was the wrong word choice.

Then go back to all the examples of China dumping its products in the US harming US business.

Everyone sees you were wrong to use the word always.

Except you.


Always is a temporal modifier, peter. an adverb, not an adjective as in "all products."

Get a dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/always




I see you arrogantly speak for everyone now. LOL.

[Paperback Writer]

What bothers me is the callousness of the argument's they make.

I doubt Ethereal would say (only cos I know him) to the child who's father lost his job at Mini,

"Well, luv, it's a terrible thing you won't get but shite for Christmas this year, but luckily the loss may spawn some service industry jobs in the future that will enable the Mexican chap who get's his job to do that job better! If your da is lucky he can retrain and get an entry level position at one of them and start over at 39!"


It's just rubbish to keep our knickers down in this environment. We don't have free trade. The other countries that our businesses are engaging with have protectionist policies which promote their getting all the jobs.

Gads, this is pathetic.

[Paperback Writer]

Always is a temporal modifier, peter. an adverb, not an adjective as in "all products."

Get a dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/always




I see you arrogantly speak for everyone now. LOL.


He speaks for me. I think you've got Asperger's or else I've no explanation.

[Chris]

No, I read that and responded. I asked specifics and you gave me the expected generalisation. I asked which of these firms (specific businesses) have been started since 1998 that hired the blue collar workers who've lost their jobs.

I understand that currently there are technology service jobs but they'll go the same route as before given India and China's new educational bursaries that are established so that their citizens can take those, too.

Again, let us speak in specifics. Which firms (not industries), but firms have arisen since 1998 to replace those workers who've lost their jobs. Not industries that hire college graduates but the workers who had a factory job and then lost that factory job--which companies hired them en masse?

Those at the high point of this:

http://www.iqtest-center.com/images/gauss_curve.gif



No, Chris, at times you should defer to those around you for definitions so that everyone speaks in the same language. There is not a bloke on this thread, including Mister D who believes you're speaking in anything but economic theory at the moment.

Theory by definition is not reality.



You responded to my service post not my technology post. I gave you a link to many specific examples of new blue collar jobs brought about by innovations in technology.

Here's another I am just reading now: An amazing chart of an amazing job-creating state; we owe a debt of gratitude to ‘Saudi Texas’ and the shale boom (http://www.aei.org/publication/822253/):

http://i.snag.gy/GrMF2.jpg

Mostly blue colar. Possible through innovation in technology.





Theory by definition is not reality.

How is your advocating for more protectionism any less "theory" than my advocating for less? Scare quotes for the special meaning you give the word. We're both advocating for change from what is. So we're both arguing by your logic "theories" over "reality."

Therefore your claim to be arguing reality and me theory is just a BS meme.

[Chris]

What bothers me is the callousness of the argument's they make.

I doubt Ethereal would say (only cos I know him) to the child who's father lost his job at Mini,

"Well, luv, it's a terrible thing you won't get but shite for Christmas this year, but luckily the loss may spawn some service industry jobs in the future that will enable the Mexican chap who get's his job to do that job better! If your da is lucky he can retrain and get an entry level position at one of them and start over at 39!"


It's just rubbish to keep our knickers down in this environment. We don't have free trade. The other countries that our businesses are engaging with have protectionist policies which promote their getting all the jobs.

Gads, this is pathetic.

No, I doubt ethereal nor I nor any other libertarian would say such things as you make up, paper. But it does have such strong emotional appeal, now doesn't it.

[Chris]

He speaks for me. I think you've got Asperger's or else I've no explanation.

Ah, so two now equal everyone. Ad hom makes for great emotional appeal as well.

[Paperback Writer]

@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128)

I feel as though you're being purposefully obtuse. I asked specifically which companies are employing those who lost their jobs. Not name a company in Texas that just opened its doors. The lad who lost his job in Detroit in the auto trade isn't going to get that job in Texas.

Do you even know what a resume is? It's where you put your work history so that your future employer knows if you're qualified for that position. Local hiring managers in Texas may take a chance on a 27 year old from construction businesses who has no experience with fracking equipment as he's young enough to train and local. He's not going to hire someone from Michigan who's 39 and lost his.

I want to just hold you still and make you focus upon what I'm asking you.

Name the company in Michigan which has taken on those who've lost their jobs from the auto industry, what does it provide, etc.

[Paperback Writer]

Ah, so two now equal everyone. Ad hom makes for great emotional appeal as well.

Because you're bloody frustrating at this point. You'd drive Pope Francis to drink.

[Paperback Writer]

No, I doubt ethereal nor I nor any other libertarian would say such things as you make up, paper. But it does have such strong emotional appeal, now doesn't it.

You wouldn't because you know it's wrong. If this theory you're espousing is correct and righteous you could look a child or family in the face who've lost everything to offshore labour and say it to them.

It hurts people around you. Now, I realise you globalists don't care about nations and culture but some of us do. I care about my countrymen and what they're going through. It all makes for job security for me, but I don't just care about me. I care about the people around me.

[Chris]

@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128)

I feel as though you're being purposefully obtuse. I asked specifically which companies are employing those who lost their jobs. Not name a company in Texas that just opened its doors. The lad who lost his job in Detroit in the auto trade isn't going to get that job in Texas.

Do you even know what a resume is? It's where you put your work history so that your future employer knows if you're qualified for that position. Local hiring managers in Texas may take a chance on a 27 year old from construction businesses who has no experience with fracking equipment as he's young enough to train and local. He's not going to hire someone from Michigan who's 39 and lost his.

I want to just hold you still and make you focus upon what I'm asking you.

Name the company in Michigan which has taken on those who've lost their jobs from the auto industry, what does it provide, etc.


I gave you industries that are opening up blue color jobs.

[Polecat]

A strong independent middle class is too big a threat to world domination. That is why it has been getting slowly dismantled over the last several decades.

[Chris]

You wouldn't because you know it's wrong. If this theory you're espousing is correct and righteous you could look a child or family in the face who've lost everything to offshore labour and say it to them.

It hurts people around you. Now, I realise you globalists don't care about nations and culture but some of us do. I care about my countrymen and what they're going through. It all makes for job security for me, but I don't just care about me. I care about the people around me.

I wouldn't because I don't think that way--the way you do.

Protectionism harms the very people you claim you want to help. There is no direct connection between trade and jobs. Trade leads to prosperity and that leads to jobs. So it seems to me you're the one with the cruel protectionist theory--sorry, I'm not very good at emotional appeal.

[Chris]

A strong independent middle class is too big a threat to world domination. That is why it has been getting slowly dismantled over the last several decades.


I'd forgot that was the topic I posted.

[Paperback Writer]

I gave you industries that are opening up blue color jobs.
Chris

But that is not what I asked. i asked which blue collar firms opened to employ those that have lost their jobs.

You're a software developer. That's a white collar job. Let's take all the software jobs and move them overseas. Now, I'll open a fashion design business. Do you think you have a chance in hell of getting a position there at your age? Even if you did, which is doubtful, would you make a salary remotely close to what you have now?

Just cos they're both blue collar doesn't mean that they don't require skills. A pipe fitter is not an electrician.

[Paperback Writer]

I wouldn't because I don't think that way--the way you do.

Protectionism harms the very people you claim you want to help. There is no direct connection between trade and jobs. Trade leads to prosperity and that leads to jobs. So it seems to me you're the one with the cruel protectionist theory--sorry, I'm not very good at emotional appeal.

In the words of our good Queen Elizabeth: Bullshit.

Harm is relative. Most people will pay gladly fifty pence more per item if they have a job that pays a middle class income. That extra quid or two that they pay is far less harmful than being jobless or having to start a new career at a time when you ought to look forward to retiring from your existing one.