Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50

Thread: My Ron Paul moment

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    U.S. Penal Colony Georgia
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by swamprat View Post
    Brent -

    It is more than government taking more of our money in taxes. The federal share of taxes is at a low since 1958. Tax rates for rich individuals are 1/2 of what they were in the 1970s. I just don't buy that income taxes are having much of an impact on employment. We have had 5 tax cuts since Reagan started cutting rates in 1981. We have also have had 5 recessions.

    Your proposal for mirror principle based trade policy is a great start which I would take in a second, but how about treating American companies that ship jobs overseas equally harshly. I am not against imports. I drive a Jaguar. What I am against is that our policies let companies manufacture our basic necessities overseas when they were formerly manufactured here. It's immoral and wrong. We have NOT benefitted from this exercise. Look at the price of athletic shoes. When Nike and others started manufacturing them overseas, the prices never came down. The same applies for just about anything else on store shelves today. If there are savings, they are nominal.

    The fact is that the economy was a lot healthier in the 1960s and even the 1970's when jobs were relatively plentiful.

    Vis a vis the EPA and things like that, I am in complete agreement. I would gut that agency in a nanosecond.
    How old are you? And I ask that in all seriousness because I want to make sure I'm not debating a child.

    Your statement about morality demonstrates very clearly that you do not even know the difference between right and wrong! Shame on you. Seriously, how old are you?

    A right (moral) is something that someone gets to do w/o anyone else's permission. A wrong (immoral) is when you do something that violates another's right. I learned this in kindergarten: it's wrong to take a toy from another child w/o his permission. Why didn't you learn that too?

    To say that it is wrong and immoral for a businessman to employ his private resources somewhere other than in the U.S. only, is an immature, adolescent, stupidly ignorant thing to say in terms of economics, private property and social skills! Period.

    YOU and people who think like YOU are EXACTLY the reason that the gov't is able to get and keep such a strangle hold on our country. You don't know the difference between right and wrong - how pathetic - so the gov't will tell you what that is. The media will tell you how immoral it is for a businessman to produce overseas due to the strangling gov't regulations and taxation here and you believe it and preach it as gospel when you know you don't know the first thing about economics, business or the benefits of international trade.

    Your entire body of knowledge comes from 60 minutes and 20/20. But don't worry, you're not alone. The majority of voters in this country are just as stupid.

    Yes, yes that's a great policy. Let's force businesses to produce everything here even though it costs 2x, 3x as much so eventually EVERYBODY can be unemployed rather than just the 16% that are now. Let's kill the country with American patriotism. Let's love our country to death.

    Moron.
    Last edited by doncoo; 12-13-2011 at 03:07 PM.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by swamprat View Post
    It is more than government taking more of our money in taxes. The federal share of taxes is at a low since 1958. Tax rates for rich individuals are 1/2 of what they were in the 1970s. I just don't buy that income taxes are having much of an impact on employment. We have had 5 tax cuts since Reagan started cutting rates in 1981. We have also have had 5 recessions.
    We have had no tax cuts because we have had no spending cuts. A tax cut with no equal and opposite cut in spending is a deferred tax increase, likely to be monetized. As mentioned before you should deal with and use reality as a basis for your analysis, not political rhetoric and equivocations.

    If you truly want to know why our standard of living is in the toilet, look to The Fed. They've been debasing your wages and savings for the last century. You should be concerned about the value of your wages as much as if not more so than the nominal amount. Who cares if you earn 200K a year if a Snickers bar costs 190K? When you consider the raw increase in economic output over the last century and that concurrently The Fed has still managed to debase the currency to the tune of a compounded 2-3% annual rate, if you understand the implications of that you're lucky to survive the subsequent heart attack caused by the realization of how badly and thoroughly the government has screwed you in the ass.
    Your proposal for mirror principle based trade policy is a great start which I would take in a second, but how about treating American companies that ship jobs overseas equally harshly. I am not against imports. I drive a Jaguar. What I am against is that our policies let companies manufacture our basic necessities overseas when they were formerly manufactured here. It's immoral and wrong. We have NOT benefitted from this exercise. Look at the price of athletic shoes. When Nike and others started manufacturing them overseas, the prices never came down. The same applies for just about anything else on store shelves today. If there are savings, they are nominal.
    Jobs do not ship overseas. No one owns a job, it is an opportunity not property. Look up comparative advantage. Then explain why, if America should protect and hold on to 'American' jobs, why doesn't Kansas do the same relative to Montana, and the same for cities, and towns, and counties, and down to the individual level? The reason is because it's assinine. The division of labor isn't based on national borders, it's based on comparative advantage and where people are most productive relative to everyone else. The problem is labor is not immediately re employed, and if the government is engaging in protectionist strategies and debasing the currency to stop prices from falling when necessary, labor will take even longer to be re employed.
    Think about all those jobs people have stolen from you! How much better off would you be if you still had to make your own shoes, grow your own food, sew your own clothing, building your own car... Or do you see the assinitiy in that approach? Limiting the division of labor based on national borders is no different than limiting it to your house and forcing you to do all that ridiculous crap by yourself. It's not a gain, it's a loss, because you can be more productive if someone else takes care of all that crap. Division of labor; comparative advantage, get it?
    The fact is that the economy was a lot healthier in the 1960s and even the 1970's when jobs were relatively plentiful.
    And your idea to make them more plentiful is to have to government make it harder and more expensive to create jobs. Great plan. As for the tax rates you mentioned, look up 'effective tax rates'. Taxes were once over 90% for some people at some income levels, but you're certifable if you think they really paid that.
    Last edited by CDB; 12-13-2011 at 05:25 PM.

  3. #23
    Senior Member BrentP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by swamprat View Post
    Brent -

    It is more than government taking more of our money in taxes. The federal share of taxes is at a low since 1958. Tax rates for rich individuals are 1/2 of what they were in the 1970s. I just don't buy that income taxes are having much of an impact on employment. We have had 5 tax cuts since Reagan started cutting rates in 1981. We have also have had 5 recessions.

    Your proposal for mirror principle based trade policy is a great start which I would take in a second, but how about treating American companies that ship jobs overseas equally harshly. I am not against imports. I drive a Jaguar. What I am against is that our policies let companies manufacture our basic necessities overseas when they were formerly manufactured here. It's immoral and wrong. We have NOT benefitted from this exercise. Look at the price of athletic shoes. When Nike and others started manufacturing them overseas, the prices never came down. The same applies for just about anything else on store shelves today. If there are savings, they are nominal.

    The fact is that the economy was a lot healthier in the 1960s and even the 1970's when jobs were relatively plentiful.

    Vis a vis the EPA and things like that, I am in complete agreement. I would gut that agency in a nanosecond.
    Tax rate half of what they were? The only way that is even remotely true is if you work from a premise that a 2011 dollar has the same buying power as a 1970 dollar. Which is a fiction only government and those who favor government interference in the economy would use.

    Recessions have *NOTHING* to do with taxes and everything to do with money creation by the federal reserve. It is the central bank that drives the boom-bust cycle, not the tax rate. The process by which we are actually being taxed. Thanks to the real inflation my salary is less than it was 10 years ago and I do more work for it. Food double, Gasoline double, utilities up by at least half. Cars by half... and so on and so on.

    Why do companies send jobs overseas? Because the conditions created by the bankers and the government make it beneficial to do so. Real free trade, gold/silver backed dollar, non-interventionist foreign policy? Wouldn't be worth it. Too much risk, too little gain, financing difficult to obtain, etc and so on. It just wouldn't happen under a complete free trade system with honest money. Under the present system a big NYC bank can finance a new factory for a big US corporation in China no problem. Now what if it was real money and not fractional reserve created from thin air money? How is the big NYC bank going to protect the capital they loaned out when it's used in far away China and there's no US military to go back them up with firepower?

    It is all one giant fabric. Leave anything untended to and the bankers will exploit until they have this system we live under today or worse back.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    1,429
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Jobs do not ship overseas. No one owns a job, it is an opportunity not property. Look up comparative advantage.


    Then explain why, if America should protect and hold on to 'American' jobs, why doesn't Kansas do the same relative to Montana, and the same for cities, and towns, and counties, and down to the individual level? The reason is because it's assinine.
    I must disagree. People own careers, people own skills, people own experience. Once the opportuntiy to use these qualities is taken away it creates a great deal of human suffering.


    The people who control the capital and means of production own the jobs. They have decided to export these jobs for thier own benefit and to hell with the people who have acquired the education, skills, and experience over years, to perform the job.

    To hell with the jet engine mechanic I spoke with the other day (who was working at Home Depot). Delta air lines decided they can fly their jets to Singapore and have them serviced. This guy (who was about 50) should be retrained? Oh well, tough sh1t, it's great that Delta is keeping costs down, so we can fly in their cattle car seating plane.

    IMO the 'comparative advantage' arguement is shallow. The real reason China (and other turd world countries) can produce and ship goods so cheaply is because they have a substantially lower standard of living. Very much lower.

    So what's to become of the 20% of our fellow Americans who have lost the opportunity to have interesting / meaningful / family supporting incomes? I guess they should just suffer and live like people in China? Is that what you want?

    We indirectly pay for all these unemployed people - for AFDC, for Medicaid, for food stamps, for social programs, for unemployment.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Think about all those jobs people have stolen from you! How much better off would you be if you still had to make your own shoes, grow your own food, sew your own clothing, building your own car... Or do you see the assinitiy in that approach?

    Many years ago I realized that we have a zero sum game going on with our consumer society.

    I venture to guess that most people would trade in their commute and cube farm jobs for a more self sufficient life style. Look at the quality of shoes today - nothing like it used to be. Same for clothing. If you want 'an Arrow' shirt like your dad wore in the 60's - it's now going to cost you $135. There are more goods - but the quality / fit / finish is sorely lacking.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    ....It's not a gain, it's a loss, because you can be more productive if someone else takes care of all that crap.

    Food, clothing, shelter, self sufficiency, self actualization is crap?

    What else is there? Really? We have gotten to a point where we are too far from the basics.

    Productive / Meaningful work: The insurance industry? Financial services? Investment banking? Fast Food Franchising? Big Box Stores? How about IPads, IPhones, 4G networks, the exciting world of continuous entertainment. Now that's meaningful.
    Last edited by dBrong; 12-14-2011 at 01:00 PM.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by dBrong View Post
    I must disagree. People own careers, people own skills, people own experience.
    Disagree all you want, you're wrong. You own your skills. When you lose your job you still have them, so no one is taking them from you. You do not however have a right to have any particular job. Saying you do is assinine, because you have no right to force remuneration from someone who doesn't not want to nor ever agreed to pay it to you in return for anything.

    Once the opportuntiy to use these qualities is taken away it creates a great deal of human suffering.
    So your employer may never fire you then is what you're saying? You do realize that is the logical consequence of your statement? So if I employ a guy to landscape my house and then move to an apartment, I have to keep paying him to do... what? I have no damn lawn or bushes anymore. Or if I stay in my house but find someone who does it better in my view, or who does it cheaper and to a degree that satisfies me, I have too... what? Keep the original guy on my payroll and now pay double? Because according to you if I fire him and take away his opportunity to use his skills it will create human suffering.

    Do you see how incredibly assinine a situation your 'point' leads to?

    The people who control the capital and means of production own the jobs. They have decided to export these jobs for thier own benefit and to hell with the people who have acquired the education, skills, and experience over years, to perform the job.
    So we should enslave them and force them to keep the jobs here in the US? Which means the products will be made here and we will... still have no jobs. Because the prices will be higher and demand will drop proportionately with the elasticity of each product on the market and those jobs and those products will then disappear. Good work. You just made sure that likely just about as many people will be unemployed as before anyway and took away any hope of cheap products for those who were lucky enough to keep their jobs.

    This is why you really should take a few economics classes. There is no functional difference between you buying shoes from a guy in Brooklyn than buying shoes from a guy in China because empoyment of one person does not have to come at the expense of employment of another. People specialize and that specialization benefits all people whether they are in the same country or not. The issues we are seeing today do not and are not the result of free trade or free markets, they are the result of deliberate policy decisions that have concurrently priced and regulated US labor into functional inefficiency and forced foreign labor costs down.

    As an example of both, domestically the administrative costs of dealing with both union and nonunion labor compliance issues adds massive amounts of time, effort, overhead, and legal risk to employing every single person hired; while internationally China, for example, will not buy our debt and this allow The Fed to go on inflating to help their bankster friends if we don't also agree that a boatload of that new credit we bought will be spent... in China.

    Therefore jobs move there, and people who are disemployed here are on the market for longer because it takes exponentially longer to create jobs because of the morass of red tape and lakes of bullsh1t you have to wade through to do so. Red tape and bullsh1t people like you insist on to 'protect' those workers. In my company alone I can tell the costs aren't the benefits and salaries, it's the damn compliance overhead and legal risk and threat of arbitrary legal assault should some bureaucrat think we're too successful.

    To hell with the jet engine mechanic I spoke with the other day (who was working at Home Depot). Delta air lines decided they can fly their jets to Singapore and have them serviced. This guy (who was about 50) should be retrained? Oh well, tough sh1t, it's great that Delta is keeping costs down, so we can fly in their cattle car seating plane.
    Once more, should we force Delta to employ him? Pay more for the tickets then. Or if you don't they'll see a drop in demand and he and/or someone else will lose their job.

    IMO the 'comparative advantage' arguement is shallow. The real reason China (and other turd world countries) can produce and ship goods so cheaply is because they have a substantially lower standard of living. Very much lower.
    The comparative advantage argument is fundamental. There is a clear difference between jobs that open elsewhere because it is advantageous and jobs that open elsewhere because policy forced it to our disadvantage. Some jobs that should have opened here in the US opened elsewhere. The problem with your analysis/solution is that a protectionist policy will do everything to stop US citizens from enjoying the benefits of the division of labor and comparative advantage and nothing to stop the exportation of jobs that should have opened here, because there's no practical way for the policy to distinguish between the two. The only way to know which is which is to let the market work freely; to not hinder labor here nor favor labor elsewhere.

    So what's to become of the 20% of our fellow Americans who have lost the opportunity to have interesting / meaningful / family supporting incomes? I guess they should just suffer and live like people in China? Is that what you want?
    No, that is the conclusion you erroneously assign to me because you simply don't understand the subject matter. If wages are determined by employers then everyone should be at minimum wage in the US. They legally don't have to pay more, so why do they? Why, when wages were frozen during WWII, did employers start offering group based health plans? The wages they could offer were fixed by law, they had every legal right and backing from the government to tell any employee who wanted more to screw themelves. Instead they started offerring benefits to try and get better employees. Why?

    The reason is wages are not determined by employers, they are like all prices and determined by existing supply and demand. They pay more for some labor compared to others because it commands that value on the market, just like steel will command a certain price relative to how badly people want it and its current supply. So your dystopia of a forever enslaved workforce living in perpetuity in its own crap is not a worry; labor will command what it can receive on the market. The existing situation we currently see in the world is once more not the result of free markets but heavily managed and controlled ones, and specifically ones where the currency is being systemically debased. One of the results of central bank inflation is the devaluation of real wages, in general but specifically for those people not close to the new money creation.

    Which you would know if you understood the subject matter being discussed.

    New money is spent in a periodic fashion, with those who receive and spend it soonest always being at a buying advantage to those who receive and spend it later, and at a massive advantage to those who receive it and try to save it. Inflation is wealth transfer from the poor to the rich, and is the primary reason for the stagnation of real wages in the US, and monetary policy in general a huge reason for the exportation of jobs that would otherwise have been done here within our borders.

    Which you would know if you understood the subject matter being discussed.

    Many years ago I realized that we have a zero sum game going on with our consumer society.
    Many years ago you made a mistake in assuming this.

    Which you would know if you understood the subject matter being discussed.

    I venture to guess that most people would trade in their commute and cube farm jobs for a more self sufficient life style. Look at the quality of shoes today - nothing like it used to be. Same for clothing. If you want 'an Arrow' shirt like your dad wore in the 60's - it's now going to cost you $135. There are more goods - but the quality / fit / finish is sorely lacking.
    And once more, you're wrong. If people favored more 'self sufficient' lives you're going to have to explain why, whenever given the chance, the majority choose to specialize and enjoy a higher standard of living. Do you honestly believe you would be better off if everything that is done for you right via the market was put on your shoulders? Your responses show quite clearly you don't even begin to fathom the insanity of such a plan. You want to make your own shoes? Fine.

    Mine the ore to make the nails yourself.

    Grow the trees and cut the wood yourself.

    Raise the cows for the leather yourself.

    Tan their hides yourself.

    Come up with the cordage yourself.

    Come up with the rubber yourself.

    Food, clothing, shelter, self sufficiency, self actualization is crap?
    When you are beter off and more productive letting someone else do it for you, yes it is. Because it means you're operating at a loss. You see if you are capable of producing X, but can only produce 50% of X because a lack of specialization forces you to spend time making your own damn shoes or some other idiocy, you are living at a lower standard of living. What's more, other people are too because while you're fucking around with your cobbler hobby they could use more of what you're really good at producing. Once more, division of labor and comparative advantage. Those are not debatable points, they're settled and well understood economic concepts first year students would understand.

    What else is there? Really? We have gotten to a point where we are too far from the basics.
    Rhetorical BS. The cavemen were really close to the basics, you want to live like that? The whole point of a modern economy is we don't have to live at a basic level. We can all live better. Even in our currently screwed up system the 'poor' are massively better off than the poor of any other age. The 'poor' in America usually are more likely to be fat than hungry, own at least one TV, a car, often their own home, cell phones, computers, etc. This is possible not because we voted ourselves these things, but because we worked for them and earned them.

    Productive / Meaningful work: The insurance industry? Financial services? Investment banking? Fast Food Franchising? Big Box Stores? How about IPads, IPhones, 4G networks, the exciting world of continuous entertainment. Now that's meaningful.
    How kind of you to decide for everyone else what they should think is meaningful and what isn't. If you want to live in your own shit and lead a more 'meaningful' life no one is stopping you. But I seriously doubt that's what you propose. No, we will all lead more meaningful lives by government fiat, right? Look up 'structure of production' or better yet the essay I, Pencil, by Leonard Reed.

    You strike me as some kid who, lacking even the most basic economic education and never having wanted for much, grew up in a worl dof market provided plenty and took it all for granted without stopping to consider what it takes to deliver all those things you simply assume are and always will be there to use. It's tragic and hilarious; people like you wear clothes made in countries from fabric from other countries still, drive cars made with metal from multiple continents, rubber from South America, glass from China, computer chips from Malaysia, etc. You get a coffee from Brazil in a cup from China delivered to the store you bought it in by a truck made in Idaho, sit down at a computer which was designed in the US with metal components made in the far east, chips designed in England, made in India and the US in clean room environments costing millions, and surrounded by God knows how many more products and available services that required the coordination of resources through a structure of production that spans continents and goes back decades if not more in terms of development, and you hop on the internet and pontificate about the evils and inabilities of free markets.

    Kid, get a clue.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    1,429
    Excerpts from you previous post:

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Disagree all you want, you're wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Do you see how incredibly assinine a situation your 'point' leads to?
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    This is why you really should take a few economics classes.
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    that is the conclusion you erroneously assign to me because you simply don't understand the subject matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    So your dystopia of a forever enslaved workforce living in perpetuity in its own crap is not a worry
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Which you would know if you understood the subject matter being discussed.
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    And once more, you're wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Your responses show quite clearly you don't even begin to fathom the insanity of such a plan.
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Those are not debatable points, they're settled and well understood economic concepts first year students would understand.
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    You strike me as some kid who, lacking even the most basic economic education and never having wanted for much
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    It's tragic and hilarious; people like you
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Kid, get a clue.
    WTF is wrong with you? No, I mean WTF Isn't wrong with you?

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    How kind of you to decide for everyone else what they should think is meaningful and what isn't.
    My thoughts about you exactly.

    I feel duped on the time I spent replying to you doocoo.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by dBrong View Post
    WTF is wrong with you? No, I mean WTF Isn't wrong with you?
    My 'problem' can be summed up thus: having gotten an actual education in modern Neoclassical economics, Keynesian and Monetarist fusion basically, and having self taught and plowed my way through Austrian and Classical economics, and having taught the subject for a time at the high school and introductory college level, I actually have a clue what I'm talking about and you don't. I gave up at the modeling level because I can't stand math and applied stats, and economics isn't a math or applied stats subject anyway once you get down to it.

    Your posts and 'analysis' are full of the worst irrational nationalist/protectionist/leftist rhetoric, and full of claims and accusations that show you know little of the subject beyond what you have read in the NY Times, excluding Krugman's crap because having read even that drivel you would realize at least some of what you say is utterly fallacious. I took a couple of longer posts to try and briefly explain why, if you felt that was a waste of time then don't take the econ classes unless you can score a Marxist prof because you're not going to like finding out 90%+ of your worldview on these issues is totally wrong.

    It is very simple in the end; protectionist policies can't benefit people in the long term because neither the policy nor its administrators have a way to determine which jobs are advantageous to export and which aren't. All you end up with is a bunch of Americans doing a whole bunch of crap that they'd be better off having others do. Michael Jordan may have loved laying bricks and been great at it, he was clearly better suited and more productive on the courts. A protectionist policy would have let him lay bricks in perpetuity and he, and the rest of society, would have lost out on all the wealth he produced as a basketball player.

    Our current markets are not free by any stretch of the imagination. Some are more free than others, the US despite its rhetoric is a very heavily managed market. When there are multi-thousand page government documents dictating how trade is to be done acorss borders, that trade is not 'free'. You don't need thousands of pages of instructions to tell you how to trade freely.

    The Fed and its constant money creation are at the heart of most of our problems these days, especially the devaluation of our wages and savings, and other parts of monetary policy dictate jobs have to go elsewhere or people won't buy our debt. Stop these idiotic policies and the problems minimize or totally disappear.

    As with most confused youths you're on to something because you're right, we are being screwed left and right in this world. You just have the causes and cure wrong.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    U.S. Penal Colony Georgia
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    My 'problem' can be summed up thus: having gotten an actual education in modern Neoclassical economics, Keynesian and Monetarist fusion basically, and having self taught and plowed my way through Austrian and Classical economics, and having taught the subject for a time at the high school and introductory college level, I actually have a clue what I'm talking about and you don't. I gave up at the modeling level because I can't stand math and applied stats, and economics isn't a math or applied stats subject anyway once you get down to it.

    Your posts and 'analysis' are full of the worst irrational nationalist/protectionist/leftist rhetoric, and full of claims and accusations that show you know little of the subject beyond what you have read in the NY Times, excluding Krugman's crap because having read even that drivel you would realize at least some of what you say is utterly fallacious. I took a couple of longer posts to try and briefly explain why, if you felt that was a waste of time then don't take the econ classes unless you can score a Marxist prof because you're not going to like finding out 90%+ of your worldview on these issues is totally wrong.

    It is very simple in the end; protectionist policies can't benefit people in the long term because neither the policy nor its administrators have a way to determine which jobs are advantageous to export and which aren't. All you end up with is a bunch of Americans doing a whole bunch of crap that they'd be better off having others do. Michael Jordan may have loved laying bricks and been great at it, he was clearly better suited and more productive on the courts. A protectionist policy would have let him lay bricks in perpetuity and he, and the rest of society, would have lost out on all the wealth he produced as a basketball player.

    Our current markets are not free by any stretch of the imagination. Some are more free than others, the US despite its rhetoric is a very heavily managed market. When there are multi-thousand page government documents dictating how trade is to be done acorss borders, that trade is not 'free'. You don't need thousands of pages of instructions to tell you how to trade freely.

    The Fed and its constant money creation are at the heart of most of our problems these days, especially the devaluation of our wages and savings, and other parts of monetary policy dictate jobs have to go elsewhere or people won't buy our debt. Stop these idiotic policies and the problems minimize or totally disappear.

    As with most confused youths you're on to something because you're right, we are being screwed left and right in this world. You just have the causes and cure wrong.
    Well said. It's those the believe that they have a right to a job who, again, do not know the difference between "right" and "wrong". They've been manipulated into believing that something that's wrong - like forcing businesses owners to hire minorities, pay minimum wages, pay this tax and that tax - is right, but it's not. They believe that whatever the gov't decides is "right" is right, but it's not. No critical thinking needed. No reason. No common sense. No economic analysis.

    And those that are shouting on OWS that a job is a right just blow my mind. As you said, to force an employer to pay you for a job his business doesn't need is exactly what communism was all about.

    The communsits always bragged about 0% unemployment. Everybody worked for the gov't and had a place of employment even if there was not job to be done. Many didn't even have to go in every day because there just wasn't anything for them to do but they got paid just the same. And we saw how well that worked.

    Ignorance is not a disease, but it takes humility to admit you don't know something and to educate yourself on the subject so you can have an intelligent debate. Unfortunately, humility is not really an American virture.

    We're number 1! We're number 1!

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by doncoo View Post
    The communsits always bragged about 0% unemployment. Everybody worked for the gov't and had a place of employment even if there was not job to be done. Many didn't even have to go in every day because there just wasn't anything for them to do but they got paid just the same. And we saw how well that worked.
    That's generally what amazes and pisses me off at the same time. These policies were tried already in various places like: the USSR, East Germany, North Korea, etc. Didn't work too well. These people also tend to ignore the various ways in which some of their Scandanavian love-examples are a hell of lot more free than we are. I have cousins who work for an industrial fan company in the Netherlands who refuse to work in the US sometimes, and in the north eastern US always, because the unions are too much of a pain in the ass. People from freaking Holland saying our unions are screwed up and too demanding...

    You'd think people would get a clue. But, like you say, Americans prefer to wallow in ignorance and self congratulations. The killer is they don't realize, just like this kid DBrong here, that this is not the natural state of affairs. They have what they have due to massive capital invetments, and they're not tending it. It's like they're farmers that expect the fields to till and plant and harvest themselves, and all they have to do is enjoy the food.

  10. #30
    Senior Member eesquared's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    455
    Quote Originally Posted by doncoo View Post
    I finally got to meet Ron Paul this past weekend at the GOP foreign policy debate in Spartanburg, SC.

    What a genuine man. After he spoke in the morning, he took over 450 pictures with supporters.

    Then after the debate he came to the pizza place where we gathered to watch, and signed hundreds upon hundreds of books, signs, t-shirts etc...

    He engaged every single person he met. He wrote a dedication in my book for my father - it's a Christmas present so don't anyone say anything. Then he asked me some questions about my dad and we chatted. Just a remarkably humble and intelligent man.

    America doesn't deserve Ron Paul.
    I agree. I met him many years ago. He sometimes stayed with my parents when he visited our town. He is very unassuming, and what we refer to a 'just a nice guy.'

    I'm glad you got the chance to meet him.

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    U.S. Penal Colony Georgia
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by dBrong View Post

    WTF is wrong with you? No, I mean WTF Isn't wrong with you?

    My thoughts about you exactly.

    I feel duped on the time I spent replying to you doocoo.
    CDB is correct on everything he's pointed out to you. His grasp of economic principles is as evident as your lack of them.

    Humility is a virture. Admit your entire body of economic knowledge comes from the media and read some intro-economics texts then let's revisit your points and you'll see how ridiculous they are.

    This is the true test of a person's character: can they admit they are wrong and learn and grow from the experience? It's not easy. You up to the challenge or you just gonna go through life whining and crying when others blow your logic out of the water?

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    1,429
    Quote Originally Posted by doncoo View Post
    CDB is correct on everything he's pointed out to you. His grasp of economic principles is as evident as your lack of them.

    Humility is a virture. Admit your entire body of economic knowledge comes from the media and read some intro-economics texts then let's revisit your points and you'll see how ridiculous they are.

    This is the true test of a person's character: can they admit they are wrong and learn and grow from the experience? It's not easy. You up to the challenge or you just gonna go through life whining and crying when others blow your logic out of the water?
    You sir (which is an insult to a real sir) are an asshole of the first degree.

    I will no longer respond to the sh1t that spews from your mouth.

    Go fu

  13. #33
    Senior Member misterdecibel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, Arkansas
    Posts
    3,408
    Quote Originally Posted by BrentP View Post

    Why do companies send jobs overseas? Because the conditions created by the bankers and the government make it beneficial to do so.
    Why do companies "send jobs" overseas? Because they can. It wasn't done sooner because the emerging and developing nations hadn't emerged and developed the necessary infrastructure and work skills. Any MBA who doesn't exercise every available means of minimizing labor costs is derelict of duty.

    America will stop "exporting" jobs when the emerging and developing nations develop sufficiently high standards of living, or else when ours drops to their level. The latter seems to be the goal of the GOP.

  14. #34
    Staff
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    3,126
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel View Post
    Why do companies "send jobs" overseas? Because they can. It wasn't done sooner because the emerging and developing nations hadn't emerged and developed the necessary infrastructure and work skills. Any MBA who doesn't exercise every available means of minimizing labor costs is derelict of duty.

    America will stop "exporting" jobs when the emerging and developing nations develop sufficiently high standards of living, or else when ours drops to their level. The latter seems to be the goal of the GOP.
    America will stop exporting jobs when we decide to protect vital industries that keep our economy going. That means taxing foreign made products that used to be made here on the basis of wage differences between countries. That would take care of the whole damned mess.

    Both the GOP and the Democrats are interested in sinking the economy. The Republicans do it through lifting trade barriers and the Democrats do it through punitive regulation, executive rulemaking and threatening new methods of taxation and increased levies.

    It's that simple. They all suck.

  15. #35
    Senior Member BrentP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    123
    Quote Originally Posted by swamprat View Post
    America will stop exporting jobs when we decide to protect vital industries that keep our economy going. That means taxing foreign made products that used to be made here on the basis of wage differences between countries. That would take care of the whole damned mess.

    Both the GOP and the Democrats are interested in sinking the economy. The Republicans do it through lifting trade barriers and the Democrats do it through punitive regulation, executive rulemaking and threatening new methods of taxation and increased levies.

    It's that simple. They all suck.
    Tariffs will only hurt people who buy things. Protected industries become like government, inefficient. They will forever require government protection and more and more of it. Sure it may work for a little while but then domestic protected and unionized industry stagnates and doesn't improve, may even go backwards while foreign industry improves. Then suddenly you have the 1970s... when the imports can overcome the tariffs.

    Furthermore trade wars lead to real wars. They have in the past and they will again.

  16. #36
    Administrator Ken's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Lincolnshire, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by misterdecibel View Post
    Why do companies "send jobs" overseas? Because they can. It wasn't done sooner because the emerging and developing nations hadn't emerged and developed the necessary infrastructure and work skills. Any MBA who doesn't exercise every available means of minimizing labor costs is derelict of duty.
    I started at the bottom and worked my way up through the ranks to a senior management level, in a once thriving Defence Electronics company. A company that, eventually, started to collapse as the wage demands of its union led manufacturing workforce, coupled with poor executive management, priced it out of competition. It ended up being taken over by a foreigh competitor and now, although still in existence, is just a minor shadow of the company it once was and no longer trades under its once internationally recognised name.

    I still believe that perpetual growth often brings about national downfall. My view of national manufacturing economy is simplistic but has always held true in my own personal situations.

    The prime purpose of any company is to make money for its owners and shareholders. A 'company' as an entity has no real loyalty other than to the maintenance/improvement of its bottom line. A company, as such, has no need for morals or ethics unless these are embellishments that can improve its trading position. All workers, at every level, need to understand these facts.

    A company's workforce is its production machinery and, like any machinery, needs to be maintained. If machinery becomes worn out, inefficient or too costly to maintain then it gets changed. Good machinery is maintained, and looked after, at a minimum effective cost. A worker needs to appreciate that he is production machinery and 'minimal effective cost' applies to him/her as well as the lathes, tools and foundries.

    One of the largest elements of end product costs is usually the workforce - if this cost can be significantly reduced, without detriment to the end product, then surely a 'company' would not be acting in its best interests if it failed to take advantage of a cheaper workforce. Hence outsourcing. I always saw the unions, with their perpetual unjustified demands, as signalling the death knell of our British manufacturing industry. (Strange that the workers never realised how the union fat cats lived in luxury off their fellow workers.)

    A company avails itself of a workforce by offering a given salary/wage for a given task. Those who find the terms acceptable work, those who don't should look elsewhere. When the workforce start to get too strong, or unionised, and start to demand higher and higher wages all they are actually doing is reducing the trading power of the company that is employing them.

    Once a national workforce decides to price the national output out of the marketplace there is little that can be done until the whole cycle of little or no work, mass unemployment, lower wages, harder times, depression and a gradual slow recovery based on lower wages, higher output and lower unit costs has taken place.

    Just my two penn'orth (ten cents), FWIW.

    Ken.
    Last edited by Ken; 12-28-2011 at 08:55 AM.
    Die dulci fruimini!
    Ken.
    Wolds Bikers, Lincolnshire, England.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by swamprat View Post
    America will stop exporting jobs when we decide to protect vital industries that keep our economy going. That means taxing foreign made products that used to be made here on the basis of wage differences between countries. That would take care of the whole damned mess.
    Please tell me how a protectionist policy will tell the difference between a job that 'should' remain here vs one that 'should' be outsourced so we can enjoy the full benefit of the division of labor? The answer, if you're wondering, is it can't be done. You may keep some jobs in the US, you will also cause a net loss in productive output of Americans and a subsequent fall in their standard of living because instead of being able to swap productive bottlenecks with foreigners when advantageous, they'll be locked into doing the work themselves. Which is basically like expecting you to maintain your current level of output in whatever job you do while also forcing you to make your own shoes and build your own house and build your own car and grow your own food. That is what protectionist policies do; the reason you don't do those things is because you can be more productive, and likewise for society as a whole, if you specialize and let other people do those things.

    Sure, with protectionism you'll have a lot do and 'unemployment' might even be lower. It doesn't mean you would be better off.

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    U.S. Penal Colony Georgia
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Please tell me how a protectionist policy will tell the difference between a job that 'should' remain here vs one that 'should' be outsourced so we can enjoy the full benefit of the division of labor? The answer, if you're wondering, is it can't be done. You may keep some jobs in the US, you will also cause a net loss in productive output of Americans and a subsequent fall in their standard of living because instead of being able to swap productive bottlenecks with foreigners when advantageous, they'll be locked into doing the work themselves. Which is basically like expecting you to maintain your current level of output in whatever job you do while also forcing you to make your own shoes and build your own house and build your own car and grow your own food. That is what protectionist policies do; the reason you don't do those things is because you can be more productive, and likewise for society as a whole, if you specialize and let other people do those things.

    Sure, with protectionism you'll have a lot do and 'unemployment' might even be lower. It doesn't mean you would be better off.
    Save it dude. This guy swamprat forms opinions based on what "feels" is right rather than knowledge, empirical evidence or economic principles.

    Who was it that said: "it's no crime to be ignorant of economics, but to have a loud and vociferous opinion while remaining in that state of ignorance is irresponsible"

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by doncoo View Post
    Who was it that said: "it's no crime to be ignorant of economics, but to have a loud and vociferous opinion while remaining in that state of ignorance is irresponsible"
    Rothbard. What's weird is you don't get this in the other sciences, like physics. How many people are pissed they can't fly, but they're not mouthing off at Hawking and bitching about gravity being 'only a theory'. What is it with economics and the persistence of bullshit? I mean it's not a hard discipline to get at the most basic level. I'd be hard pressed to start messing around with models again at this point, but for the most part economic analysis is pretty simple, fundamental work. Yet it elludes people like a fart in a hurricane.

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    U.S. Penal Colony Georgia
    Posts
    175
    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    Rothbard. What's weird is you don't get this in the other sciences, like physics. How many people are pissed they can't fly, but they're not mouthing off at Hawking and bitching about gravity being 'only a theory'. What is it with economics and the persistence of bullshit? I mean it's not a hard discipline to get at the most basic level. I'd be hard pressed to start messing around with models again at this point, but for the most part economic analysis is pretty simple, fundamental work. Yet it elludes people like a fart in a hurricane.
    Because economics is life isn't it? Every decision someone makes is an economic decision. Regardless if it's your personal relationships, work, shopping, vacation, what to have for dinner for christ's sake.

    And so many people have absolutely no idea who they are or what their life is about so they watch tv and get the news and reality tv and they define the world around them based on those things and then say stupid shit.

    Also, humility is not really and American virtue. One has to admit they are not educated on the subject in order to learn and grow.

Similar Threads

  1. Sputnik Moment—or GM Moment?
    By Eric in forum Motor Mouth
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-28-2011, 08:50 AM
  2. Bike weather is here... for the moment!
    By Eric in forum On Two Wheels
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-15-2009, 02:59 PM
  3. GM bailout on ice - for the moment
    By Eric in forum Automotive News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-20-2008, 07:38 AM
  4. VA's "abuser fees" get dumped ... for the moment
    By Eric in forum Fight Traffic Tickets/Driving Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-29-2008, 03:27 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-05-2008, 09:22 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •