Presidential Election: 2012

[Bye Ya]

Don't attempt to assume you know anything about me at a personal level.

Likewise.

What I've learned in life is that everything can't sunshine and rainbows. That people do get the short end of the stick at times, not everyone can be a winner.

Not when the people capable of sharing only care to horde the surplus.

You're amazingly naive if you think there is some magic solution where everyone "wins" in your mind.

Sigh of relief.

 

[Danoff]

Likewise.

You should substantiate where he made personal assumptions about you.

Not when the people capable of sharing only care to horde the surplus.

"Surplus" what is this you're talking about now. Money, wealth, is created... from nothing. It isn't gotten from the backs of the poor, this isn't a zero-sum game where some people are holding on to larger pieces of a pie and so you get a smaller piece. Wealth literally gets created from nothing. There is no such thing as surplus, only what you earn for yourself.


(again, economics)

 

[DustDriver]

...by offering jobs? Which they desperately wanted?

But why do they need jobs from a foreign company? If they still had a healthy economy without western influence local companies would have more opportunity to develop without having to compete with those foreign companies. It's a fact that we have a big industry advantage over those countries, and have used this in the past to steal resources. Resources that they could have used now for local factories to compete on the international market later.

They only want those jobs because we made the people dependant upon them.
At this point it can't be much worse though, so the only way for them is to go forward, and hope the situation improves with good politicians making laws to keep the 'evil' companies in check.

 

[Azuremen]

Everyone does win. But not in the way he described. I suspect this is what you meant to convey.

Yes, very much so.

Likewise.

I've not brought up any of the assumptions I have of you. Nor implied anything in an underhanded manner.

If you'd like, I can tell you them.

Not when the people capable of sharing only care to horde the surplus.

Who are you to define what is a surplus? And who are you to say what people should do with their money?

Based on the attitude you've presented in other threads, and specifically the James Cameron thread, you seem to think that people with money should be told what they can and cannot do with it. Often with little regard to how they got it or their own qualifications for utilizing it.

Sigh of relief.

Do you have an actual solution then?

 

[Danoff]

But why do they need jobs from a foreign company? If they still had a healthy economy without western influence local companies would have more opportunity to develop without having to compete with those foreign companies.

...are you trying to insinuate that... the people who work in these sweatshops can't get other employment because they.... buy Nikes?!?

It's a fact that we have a big industry advantage over those countries, and have used this in the past to steal resources.

Demonstrate that fact.

They only want those jobs because we made them dependant upon them.

Huh? What? How exactly did we do that? Again, if someone went over there and put guns to their head and forced them to start sewing shoes together, that someone should be locked in jail.

How did we make them dependent on the jobs they chose?

 

[DustDriver]

...are you trying to insinuate that... the people who work in these sweatshops can't get other employment because they.... buy Nikes?!?

I meant that those local economies, especially farmers, couldn't sell their products due to cheap foreign food surpluses. And I do wonder how many clothes that are worn by those sweatshop workers are actually bought and how many are just donations.

Demonstrate that fact.

Colonisation.

Huh? What? How exactly did we do that? Again, if someone went over there and put guns to their head and forced them to start sewing shoes together, that someone should be locked in jail.
How did we make them dependent on the jobs they chose?

By disrupting an economy so that local businesses have to shut down, while stealing resources for a couple of generations will do that to a country. Choosing between a lousy job or starvation isn't really choice, now is it?
You don't have to force people at gunpoint, just take away their other options.

 

[Danoff]

I meant that those local economies, especially farmers, couldn't sell their products due to cheap foreign food surpluses.

So... we're exporting food from the US cheaply to these people (who work for nothing) and putting their farmers (who work for nothing) out of business because we make food for less than nothing? What are you talking about? I'm completely losing you.

And I do wonder how many clothes that are worn by those sweatshop workers are actually bought and how many are just donations.

I see, so we give them the clothes that they make at the factory, and that puts local clothing manufacturers out of business.... except that all any of them do all day is make clothing - which might ALSO put local clothing manufacturers out of business because they're ALL clothing manufacturers who no longer need to buy clothes from the guy down the road because they can make them themselves (and no a sewing machine is not required).

Colonisation.

Proves this??

we have a big industry advantage over those countries, and have used this in the past to steal resources

Um... how? Colonization is not defined as the theft of resources. And how and why is this happening? I'm not aware of any Wal-Mart colonies. You're going to have to work a lot harder.

By disrupting an economy so that local businesses have to shut down, while stealing resources for a couple of generations will do that to a country.

Those accusations don't add up. Who is stealing resources and how? What local businesses are shutting down and why?

Choosing between a lousy job or starvation isn't really choice, now is it?
You don't have to force people at gunpoint, just take away their other options.

Choosing between starvation and starvation is definitely not much of a choice.

 

[Nessy]

Coca Cola, India... don't know whether it's fact though, probably just allegations. (water resources)

 

[Danoff]

Citation needed.

 

[Exorcet]

Not when the people capable of sharing only care to horde the surplus.

Make sure to sell off your computer, TV, and car so you can food for next beggar you see on the street, after all the above items are luxuries acquired when one has more money than what's absolutely necessary to stay alive (though that's really 0 money).

Everyone is entitled to all their money, Billionaires have as much obligation to give me their money as do people in homeless shelters.

 

[Bye Ya]

I've not brought up any of the assumptions I have of you. Nor implied anything in an underhanded manner.

If you'd like, I can tell you them.

Fire away, Tiger.

Do you have an actual solution then?

No, because I don't think there is a solution that is also capable of working within the current larger issue, being that human population numbers already cannot be sustained.


I do think that they could pay these people at least, I dunno, $5k a year so that they are at least somewhat comfortably above total impoverishment, you know, based on their current standards.

 

[Danoff]

No, because I don't think there is a solution that is also capable of working within the current larger issue, being that human population numbers already cannot be sustained.

There is zero evidence that the human population is unsustainable. Go ahead, try to substantiate this.

I do think that they could pay these people at least, I dunno, $5k a year so that they are at least somewhat comfortably above total impoverishment, you know, based on their current standards.

I think that might actually be very dangerous for these employees. I'm all for them making more money (via competition and healthy growth rather than force), but handing these people $5k is more likely to get their heads chopped off by some warloard than it is to help them.

 

[Bye Ya]

Bait... but I'll play.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

"Where do we stand in our efforts to achieve a sustainable world? Clearly, the past half century has been a traumatic one, as the collective impact of human numbers, affluence (consumption per individual) and our choices of technology continue to exploit rapidly an increasing proportion of the world's resources at an unsustainable rate. ... During a remarkably short period of time, we have lost a quarter of the world's topsoil and a fifth of its agricultural land, altered the composition of the atmosphere profoundly, and destroyed a major proportion of our forests and other natural habitats without replacing them. Worst of all, we have driven the rate of biological extinction, the permanent loss of species, up several hundred times beyond its historical levels, and are threatened with the loss of a majority of all species by the end of the 21st century."

The Worldwatch Institute said the booming economies of China and India are planetary powers that are shaping the global biosphere. The report states:
The world's ecological capacity is simply insufficient to satisfy the ambitions of China, India, Japan, Europe and the United States as well as the aspirations of the rest of the world in a sustainable way[168]
It said that if China and India were to consume as much resources per capita as United States or Japan in 2030 together they would require a full planet Earth to meet their needs.[169] In the longterm these effects can lead to increased conflict over dwindling resources[170] and in the worst case a Malthusian catastrophe.
Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.[171][172]

Overpopulation: A Key Factor in Species Extinction


Topsoil Crisis


Biosystems in Decline




One more.

Malthusian Catastrophe




Go to town bud. 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

I was out of town, so I need to catch up. But let me see if I catch the gist of what is being said.

Taking a job that current people do at a middle class wage and giving it to someone else, who has no job, for significantly less is immoral and a sign that you lack compassion?

And we are apparently going to exceed our natural resources in about 20 years?

 

[Danoff]

Bait... but I'll play.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation






Overpopulation: A Key Factor in Species Extinction


Topsoil Crisis


Biosystems in Decline




One more.

Malthusian Catastrophe




Go to town bud. 👍

Ah, somehow I missed this. Yea, nothing even remotely resembling evidence that the human population is unsustainable. I see a lot of conjecture about "if" we increased demand with the implication being "without changing anything else" - which is of course a poor assumption.

Also natural resources can get gobbled up and that doesn't necessarily mean our consumption is unsustainable. I explained why the human species can gobble up all of the oil in the world and we'll be just fine, better even, when we're done.

The overpopulation scare is a dogma, it's not proveable, you just have to take it on faith that we must consume these resources, that there is no way around it and never will be, and that we must consume these resources at an unsustainable rate, and that we will not develop methods to increase production (despite having done so for all of history) to meet our needs.

 

[Keef]

Human population has no direct link to other species' extinctions. What those humans do is another story, but the number of them is much less relevant if at all.

 

[ProjectVRD]

There is zero evidence that the human population is unsustainable. Go ahead, try to substantiate this.

Entropy.

We know there is finite natural resources that will be exhausted and if we fail to achieve fusion power on a commercial level, and with the current rate of growth in energy demand, then the current human population is unsustainable. Both for energy, food and even clean water if we factor in the expected increase in human population.

But entropy causes an issue with the population as it is now, because as we run out of coal (forget oil, nuclear, wind, solar etc... it is coal that is key to keeping us going right now) then we are screwed.

 

[BobK]

Just how is entropy relevant in anything less than a timescale of billions of years?

 

[Pupik]

Just how is entropy relevant in anything less than a timescale of billions of years?

Any politician can work that into a "your children's children" or "your grandchildren" plus the words "burden" or "paying for it", and insert the words Federal and/or Government or something like that.

Example: Your grandchildren are going to pay for the entropy of the government in the future.

Well, duh. Entropy affects everything, all things tend towards it, almost naturally. More energy is spent maintaining ways against entropy, as all things naturally break down.

I don't think it will be billions, to be honest, probably on a scale of millions...But I'd like to hope it's greater than that.

 

[FoolKiller]

The overpopulation scare is a dogma, it's not proveable,

Don't write that off so quickly. We have been about 20 years from disaster for the last 50 years or so. With a record like that it must be true. I can't remember all the things we were supposed to run out of by the time I was an adult.

 

[Danoff]

Entropy.

We know there is finite natural resources that will be exhausted and if we fail to achieve fusion power on a commercial level, and with the current rate of growth in energy demand, then the current human population is unsustainable. Both for energy, food and even clean water if we factor in the expected increase in human population.

But entropy causes an issue with the population as it is now, because as we run out of coal (forget oil, nuclear, wind, solar etc... it is coal that is key to keeping us going right now) then we are screwed.

Nonsense. We don't use coal for anything we can't replace easily. We use it because it's cheaper than the next thing, not because we have to have it.

 

[Joel]

Nonsense. We don't use coal for anything we can't replace easily. We use it because it's cheaper than the next thing, not because we have to have it.

But that's just like, your opinion man.

 

[Seismica]

Shifts the US economy toward higher value, more efficient jobs - Check.

All of this was explained.

I know it's an old(ish) post but i'm curious.

There are a lot of economic models out there. They all have flaws of one form or another. But in the grand scheme of things, how is shifting the economy to higher value, more efficient jobs the best solution for America as a whole? When you say 'It benefits the American economy', who do you mean exactly?

You can outsource the jobs, but you can't outsource the people. When you lay people off those people have to find another job to continue to support themselves and contribute to the economy. If there are no jobs available they require government support to meet their basic needs (Food, water, shelter etc.). In a lot of cases they do find another job; a job that requires less skill than they had, for a much lower wage.

If you continue to outsource the relatively low skilled jobs in favour of creating more expensive skilled positions such as engineers (Or 'innovators' as you put it) then you are expanding the lower class and contracting the middle class. You are funneling the wealth upwards and creating a situation where the economy grows, GDP and such may increase but living standards for the majority of the people decreases because those at the bottom have nothing.

That's just the way I see it. Obviously going the complete other way is just as bad. If you stop outsourcing work so you end up with a completely flat economy consisting almost solely of low skilled workers. A balance needs to be found, and a constant push for efficiency is not the answer. You need to balance how the wealth is distributed. Not by increasing taxes for the wealthy (That does more harm than good), but by ensuring jobs are protected and services that exist that reduce the financial burden on those who truly need it continue to exist. This requires that tax income is maintained; It doesn't always have to be a case of increase or decrease as opposition parties always feel is necessary. An efficient workforce in this instance translates to fewer workers doing more of the work for less money. It could benefit the economy as a whole. But if all companies take these steps during difficult times you get a situation where the wealth re-distributes upwards and it will have a negative impact overall.

Improving the American economy doesn't necessarily translate to an improvement for the American people.

I'm not interested in getting into a heated debate here, i'm just putting forward my point of view (Which will probably be ripped to shreds).

 

[Danoff]

I know it's an old(ish) post but i'm curious.

Good. 👍

There are a lot of economic models out there. They all have flaws of one form or another.

Already lost you. Are we talking about predictive models that try to determine what a given economy will do in various situations? Or are we talking about economic principles? Because economic principles do not have flaws, they're just a characterization of incentives.

But in the grand scheme of things, how is shifting the economy to higher value, more efficient jobs the best solution for America as a whole? When you say 'It benefits the American economy', who do you mean exactly?

Consider America of 150 years ago. The jobs that existed then are much more manufacturing, farming... labor oriented. Today many of those jobs are gone from America - some are done by machines, but others are done by unskilled workers in other countries going through the same progression that America has. The development of our economy from 150 years ago to now is one of constant increase in the average sophistication of the American worker and an increase in overall productivity. Our GDP today is a result of that ongoing evolution.

You can outsource the jobs, but you can't outsource the people. When you lay people off those people have to find another job to continue to support themselves and contribute to the economy.

What if they don't send the job to another company hire a service to do the job for them? Let's say a company has 10 janitors on their payroll. Instead of keeping those 10 janitors, they decide to use an outside service that will do the same job for less with only 5 janitors. The company decides lay off their 10 janitors and contract the service to provide all janitorial support. As a result, 5 people lost their jobs. Can that ever benefit the economy? Can any layoff of any kind ever benefit the economy? Those are the real questions you're asking, and the economics answer obviously has to be yes.

Fundamentally you're asking whether there is a net gain to all parties involved, and do answer that you have to talk macroeconomics and trade deficits. This is a great article on the subject and a relatively easy read.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj25n2/cj25n2-12.pdf

Even the harshest critics of outsourcing agree that it can benefit the firm itself; after all, the firm wouldn’t choose buying over making unless it saved money. But is it possible that, at least under certain conditions, outsourcing could benefit the narrow interests of firms but hurt the broader American economy?

In order to answer “no” to that question—to argue that outsourcing offers net social benefits—two conditions must hold. First, workers and resources that are dislocated because of outsourcing must find new opportunities elsewhere in the economy. Second, outsourcing must not be so sweeping that it will lead to direct competition for most American workers, but instead will supplement the tasks of most of them. The facts regarding both of these conditions suggest that outsourcing benefits both the firms that do it and the economy as a whole.

Take the first element in this two-pronged test. Any gain in the efficiency of production, whether through outsourcing or some new production wizardry, can lead some workers in a firm to lose their jobs. But when a firm or an industry can produce at lower cost, it can also sell more of its products and eventually end up hiring more workers, rather than fewer. For example, the incredible productivity gains in producing personal computers haven’t eliminated jobs in the computer industry broadly defined—even if jobs have shifted away from manufacturing computers and toward providing computerrelated services. When outsourcing allows firms to produce more cheaply, competition between firms that are outsourcing will drive down the prices of their products. If insurance companies and health-care providers can hold down their costs by outsourcing various back-office operations, consumers will have more money to spend on other goods, which will help jobs in other industries.

Martin Baily and Diana Farrell (2004a) recently conducted a study for the McKinsey Global Institute that investigated what happens when an American firm moves work that cost one dollar to India (also see Baily and Farrell 2004b). Out of that dollar, India’s economy garners 33 cents in wages paid in India and profits earned by Indian firms. But 67 cents accrues back to American firms, in three categories. Indian firms spend five cents buying equipment from American firms. Some American firms own the operations in India that perform the outsourcing, so four cents in profits comes back to the United States in that form. Finally, American firms that outsource to India save 58 cents of the original dollar. Baily and Farrell then consider estimates of the costs to American workers who lose their jobs because of outsourcing, and also how well the American economy redeploys the workers whose jobs are lost and the money that is saved through outsourcing. After taking human and financial costs and benefits into account, they conclude that a corporate dollar spent on offshore outsourcing ends up providing $1.12 in benefit to the American economy.

From this perspective, outsourcing is just another manifestation of a classic challenge for market economies. Many economic changes create winners and losers: outsourcing and international trade; the rise of new domestic competitors, new products, and new methods of production; shifts in consumer demand; changes in laws and regulations; superior or lousy management; and shifts in the methods and availability of finance. Faced with a world of continuous economic upheaval, a dynamic market economy must attempt a balancing act. On one side, the economy must embrace flexibility in the face of productivity-enhancing innovations, including outsourcing and international trade, since growing productivity is the pathway to a higher standard of living. On the other side, policymakers should consider what laws and institutions are needed to cushion and assist those who suffer as a result of these changes. If a society attempts instead to shut down economic changes, like those from outsourcing, international trade, and new technology, it can avoid some economic disruption in the short run, but at a cost of blocking overall economic gains.

 

[GTsail]

.....You can outsource the jobs, but you can't outsource the people. When you lay people off those people have to find another job to continue to support themselves and contribute to the economy. If there are no jobs available they require government support to meet their basic needs (Food, water, shelter etc.). In a lot of cases they do find another job; a job that requires less skill than they had, for a much lower wage......

I share your concern about individual workers (and I think that a government should help mitigate excessive dislocations(but then I also believe in public education)), but overall, like Danoff mentions, the shift to higher value/more efficient jobs has to be a plus for a nation.

As you know, I like examples:

The year is 1890......

Lets say that the oursourced-threatened people/Company are employees who work at a British carriage company that makes horse-drawn carriages for the general population.

Along comes a German Company (Daimler-Benz), who starts making Patent Motorwagens that can replace the British horse-drawn carriages.

Should British citizens refrain from buying the Motorwagens and continue to buy the British carriages?

Or should the British citizens buy the Motorwagens because they are quicker and have fewer road fertilizing emissions?

If the British citizens stop buying the horse-drawn carriages, should the British government step-in and keep the British carriage company in business so that it can continue to provide jobs for the carriage workers? If we keep the carriage company in business, what should we do with all the carriages that are being produced that nobody wants anymore?

My recommendation for the dislocated workers is that they should open up a new vehicle factory (if they are quick about it, maybe the name "BMC" is still available).

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Keef]

Samuel L. Jackson's Obama ad called "Wake the **** Up".

And here's the rebuttal from Reason.

 

[Joel]

Enough is enough! I've had it with these motha:censored:in bombs, from these motha:censored:in planes!


(err.. Drones. But whatever.)

 

[ProjectVRD]

Nonsense. We don't use coal for anything we can't replace easily. We use it because it's cheaper than the next thing, not because we have to have it.

[Long read]

By far the most used source of energy is coal. Not only is it the cheapest, it is the most abundant.... hence why it is the cheapest. However, coal is increasingly being used and as each new coal power plant is built those reserves decrease that little bit faster.

The UK and USA etc will be indirectly affected by this even if we completely remove ourselves from reliance on coal, because the other nations would not be able to compete for the currently less abundant power sources and as such they would fail in an economic sense. That economic collapse would reverberate around the entire financial machine and bring everything down with it.

As the energy crisis hits, democratic nations get extremely disgruntled and start voting for far right or far left political parties who have promised more energy production. Usually that means invasion of the adjacent countries. In Africa, Asia and South America we will see numerous wars begin but the big killer would be death from poverty and disease.

Pretty much the entire G20 is desperate for ITER to work, not because it provides cheap energy... it doesn't, Fusion energy will be expensive... it just provides abundant energy, and can be used by all nations. Most nations might not be able to afford to build such a power plant but another, richer neighbour can and then that neighbour can sell electric to the poorer nations around it. The keeps the global ecomony relatively stable.

With economic growth of about 10% per annum in countries like Kenya, Argentina and Turkey... countries with populations close to or over 100,000,000... we need ITER to stay on course and produce a commercial fusion power plant by 2050. Any later and we are running a very big risk.

 

[Danoff]

I definitely did not pretend that there was no cost to replacing coal, just that we have the technology to do so. It's not something that we depend on to keep the lights on. But it would definitely have an economic impact.

 

[FoolKiller]

The EPA was already attempting to force us away from coal. That is how technologically feasible it is. Fortunately the courts shut thst down. But the economic impact would be tough. I do not see any hints of a coal shortage. If that happened we would be hurting, but I'd wager on a petroleum shortage first. Coal even gets the added bonus of being available in in politically stable regions, so pipeline shortages aren't even an issue.