Columnist Robert Novak has ties to Anti-Kerry book

Re: George

Thomas wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
George

scroll.

BBB

Translation: I know what my opinions are, and I don't want to confront them with facts and arguments that might refute them. Better shun the bastards who have the nerve to disagree with me, and stick to discussing with those who agree with me.

Correct?

Thomas, you certainly got that wrong. In my youth, I would have taken Geoorge on. But I'm an old woman now (75) and have learned not to waste my time or energy on people with closed minds who are only interested in reinforcing their viewpoints. George has a management bias, probably built on a lifetime of business association, and I've not detected any inclination to try to understand the labor side of the issues. So, I will scroll and play with my dog, Maddy, and enjoy my memories of a lifetime spent trying to help the working classes. I want to spend my shortening time left on this planet with discussions that will lead to better understanding between people. George and Thomas don't fit that criteria.

BBB

0 Replies

Re: George

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Thomas wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
George

scroll.

BBB

Translation: I know what my opinions are, and I don't want to confront them with facts and arguments that might refute them. Better shun the bastards who have the nerve to disagree with me, and stick to discussing with those who agree with me.

Correct?

George, you certainly got that wrong. In my youth, I would have taken you on. But I'm an old woman now (75) and have learned not to waste my time or energy on people with closed minds who are only interested in reinforcing their viewpoints. You have a management bias, probably built on a lifetime of business association, and I've not detected any inclination to try to understand the labor side of the issues. So, I will scroll and play with my dog, Maddy, and enjoy my memories of a lifetime spent trying to help the working classes.

BBB

0 Replies

Except that I'm not georgeob1, and I've never been a manager in my life. Apart from that, fair enough. Very Happy

0 Replies

BBB,

Perhaps you have me confused with Thomas. He is a well-spoken and smart guy, so perhaps I should be flattered. (However he uses a decidedly ugly avatar).

I haven't noticed that you are particularly weary of the effort of advocating your positions here. Perhaps it is only disagreement you wish to avoid. OK by me, but is is really necessary for you to base your rationalization for it on supposed defects in my character? After all, I am merely advocating my views, just as you do so prolifically here.

0 Replies

Thomas
Thomas, you got me. See what happens when you reach 75. I've edited my post to correct the mistake you pointed out. Thanks.

BBB

0 Replies

They will insulate the affected American industry from the effects of competition. <-- George

Yeah, but when the competition is cheating (charging much lower rates due to their lack of respect for human life/environment/crappy economy) then it isn't fair for American companies. To ignore these facts, as well, shows no regard for human life whatsoever.

Now, a logical extension of your argument is that since it is nearly always cheaper to produce manufactured goods in other countries, we should. According to you it is better for, well, everything if we let the market sort itself out.

What happens though when there ARE no more manufacturing companies in America? Our economy becomes extremely unstable would be my guess. We must act to make sure that this doesn't happen, and also to ensure that jobs stay in America instead of flowing overseas. During wartime, we must have the resources neccessary to produce quantities of steel; what happens when we no longer have those due to foreign competition?

We must work to protect manufacturing in America, even if it is at the expense of some of our other industries.

Quote:

Greed is a universal motivator of economic activity. One persons greed is anothers "fiar wage".

No, it isn't. You missed the point of what I was saying entirely, which is not surprising, really.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

George
George, I've planted my feet between a loading dock and a scab truck driver who threatened to beat me while walking a picket line in support of a strike at the risk of my life. I've been belly-butted by police officers as they tried to help scabs get into an office to take my job during a strike. I've been tear-gassed while protesting the Vietnam war. Etc. Etc. Etc. too long a list to go into here.

As a 75 year old woman, there are some things I still think worth raising my blood pressure over; your arguments are not among them.

I'm passing the torch to Cycloptichorn, who is doing just fine in that department.

BBB

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, but when the competition is cheating (charging much lower rates due to their lack of respect for human life/environment/crappy economy) then it isn't fair for American companies. To ignore these facts, as well, shows no regard for human life whatsoever.

1) It isn't America's business to prescribe how highly other countries should value their environment. You wouldn't like Europe to boycott America for its refusal to ratify Kyoto, so maybe you should refrain from boycotting foreign countries for pursuing their own environmental policy rather than yours.

2) There's a cornucopia of examples where authoritarian Third World regimes engaged in free trade with the First World and became much more democratic and free as a result. From the top of my head, I can think of South Korea, Taiwan, and, to a lesser extent, China. On the other hand, there is no example where the West tried to use embargoes and tarriffs to enforce human rights, and succeeded. The most dismal failures were Iraq in the 1990s and Cuba since the 1960s.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Now, a logical extension of your argument is that since it is nearly always cheaper to produce manufactured goods in other countries, we should. According to you it is better for, well, everything if we let the market sort itself out.

I can't speak for georgeob1, but in the case of trade, I agree.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What happens though when there ARE no more manufacturing companies in America? Our economy becomes extremely unstable would be my guess.

You guess wrongly. To start with, this will never happen because if everything is cheaper to produce offshore, the exchange rate of the dollar would fall. It would keep falling until the market value of everything America sold abroad equaled the market value of everything America bought from abroad at that exchange rate.

Moreover, even if this did extinguish most of the manufacturing industry, America's economy would do just fine by importing manufactured goods and exporting services like banking, consulting, and entertainment. There is nothing special about manufacturing in terms of economic stability.[/quote]

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Yeah, but when the competition is cheating (charging much lower rates due to their lack of respect for human life/environment/crappy economy) then it isn't fair for American companies. To ignore these facts, as well, shows no regard for human life whatsoever.

I don't think it is accurate to say the competition is cheating or has a lack of respect for human life. A good deal of our steel comes from Brazil and Korea. These countries have fairly high standards of living compared to many, and these industries pay relatively well there for their workers. True there are some sweatshops in every country (including ours). However this accounts for only a very small fraction of our imports.

Quote:

Now, a logical extension of your argument is that since it is nearly always cheaper to produce manufactured goods in other countries, we should. According to you it is better for, well, everything if we let the market sort itself out.

No and yes. No -- it is not always cheaper to produce manufactured goods in other countries. The United States remains one of the world's major exporters of manufactured goods. However other countries are industrializing and taking the share that they can earn of these markets. Yes -- I do believe it is generally better to let the market sort itself out. (We have the skills and the money to invest in productivity enhancing equipment to enable us to compete effectively. This requires competition, not protection on our part).

Quote:

What happens though when there ARE no more manufacturing companies in America? Our economy becomes extremely unstable would be my guess. We must act to make sure that this doesn't happen, and also to ensure that jobs stay in America instead of flowing overseas. During wartime, we must have the resources neccessary to produce quantities of steel; what happens when we no longer have those due to foreign competition?

I don't think that will happen. We are an inventive people, and we have the resources needed to adjust and thrive. Protection will enervate our industries and ultimately render them unfit to meet even our needs. The nations of the former Soviet Union discovered this truth when their closed economic system collapsed.

Quote:

We must work to protect manufacturing in America, even if it is at the expense of some of our other industries.

How do you propose to decide which of our industries we will protect and which we will tax to pay the bill? What will be the effect on the donor industries? Will any net benefit result?

Quote:

No, it isn't. You missed the point of what I was saying entirely, which is not surprising, really.

Looks like a cheap shot to me. For this reason I have attempted here to systematically address your "points" in order.

0 Replies

cyclo said

Quote:

Yeah, but when the competition is cheating (charging much lower rates due to their lack of respect for human life/environment/crappy economy) then it isn't fair for American companies. To ignore these facts, as well, shows no regard for human life whatsoever.

thomas said

Quote:

It isn't America's business to prescribe how highly other countries should value their environment. You wouldn't like Europe to boycott America for its refusal to ratify Kyoto, so maybe you should refrain from boycotting foreign countries for pursuing their own environmental policy rather than yours.

Why would it not be a proper role for any nation (or group) to criticize and work to change destructive or inhumane conditions within another state? Would your formula apply on other issues, like civil rights? Or what's going on now in certain African countries? Or in Burma?

And to suggest, as seems implicit in your last sentence, that environmental issues conveniently hold to the integrity of national boundary markers is a bit odd.

0 Replies

Re: George

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

George, I've planted my feet between a loading dock and a scab truck driver who threatened to beat me while walking a picket line in support of a strike at the risk of my life. I've been belly-butted by police officers as they tried to help scabs get into an office to take my job during a strike. I've been tear-gassed while protesting the Vietnam war. Etc. Etc. Etc. too long a list to go into here.

As a 75 year old woman, there are some things I still think worth raising my blood pressure over; your arguments are not among them.

I'm passing the torch to Cycloptichorn, who is doing just fine in that department.

BBB

Somehow you don't give me the impression of a weary "75 year old woman". Besides the guy on our Board who challenges me most is 88 years old and sharp as a tack, so you get no slack from me on that factor.

I have no doubt you were a formidable opponent on the picket line and otherwise. I also occasionally get the impression that you too have your own world view, shaped similarly by your own experience in life. No doubt you have mastered it. However, haven't we both learned many times that full understanding of anything requires the mastery of multiple perspectives and points of view?

I am convinced that if we met you would find that I am a charming and affable guy. Hell, I might even like you ! We could even exchange stories about the Bay Area and the good old days in Alameda.

Fend for yourself. Cyclo is doing fairly well, but nothing spectacular.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Why would it not be a proper role for any nation (or group) to criticize and work to change destructive or inhumane conditions within another state? Would your formula apply on other issues, like civil rights? Or what's going on now in certain African countries? Or in Burma?

From my point of view, this is a non-problem because embargoes simply don't work as tools for liberating countries like Burma, Sudan and Iran. On the contrary, economic sanctions have cemented these regimes by disinfranchising the productive people within those countries whithout impeding the oppressors much. But I don't want to dodge your question. As a matter of principle, embargoing Cuba is less improper than invading Iraq was, but it would be improper nonetheless. People have to get happy on their own terms, and that includes sacking their own oppressors.

blatham wrote:

And to suggest, as seems implicit in your last sentence, that environmental issues conveniently hold to the integrity of national boundary markers is a bit odd.

Not for the particular environmental issues that arize in the countries we're talking about. Producing Aluminium in third world countries produces the same amount of CO2 as producing it in North America. The environmental difference lies in things like air and water pollution, nuclear waste disposal, and other issues that are mostly confined to national boundaries.

0 Replies

George
George, you make assumptions on false impressions. I have a checkered past. I was a director for three years until I moved from the area (elected to the Board by 13,000 voters) of a 30-million dollar public-held stock corporation (in 1970s dollars) with 1200 employees. The last 14 years of my employment, I held a top management position with a multi-million dollar budget corporation with 60 on-site employees until I retired at age 73.

When I was a union representative, the best lesson I learned and which helped me to be so successful, was to learn everything about the employers with whom I was negotiating contracts. I had to learn everything about their agenda as well as my own. I learned to be sure management got some of their agenda that was justified as well as the workers I represented---the typical win-win outcome. I never had to take my workers out on strike and they were satisfied with the outcome. Both labor and management knew I was honest, they trusted me and knew I would keep my word. I consider that a success. Strikes indicate the failure of negotiations. I represented people from a wide range of occupations, from office workers and other laborers to physicians and dentists. I had to understand all of their needs as well as their employers to be successful.

So don't try to label me with something you know nothing about.

BBB

0 Replies

It's time for us to move back to the basics in this argument.

Question 1: Why is it cheaper to produce goods in other countries besides America?

Question 2: Can America survive with an economy based entirely upon intellectual products (banking, entertainment, software)?

Now, I don't expect anyone to answer these questions; I'd just like to know what you gents think of them.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Question 1: Why is it cheaper to produce goods in other countries besides America?

Because some countries are more productive than America at producing some things, just like America is more productive than these countries at producing other things. Brazil has a better climate for coffee, South Africa has more diamonds in the ground, and so forth. But if your question implies that it's cheaper to produce everything in other countries rather than in America, my answer is that your implication is simply wrong.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Question 2: Can America survive with an economy based entirely upon intellectual products (banking, entertainment, software)?

I don't expect this hypothetical to materialize in the real world, but assuming that it does, my answer is yes. There are examples of nations that come close to doing just that -- Hong Kong, Macao and Singapore for example.

For another approach to the same point, consider that 90% of Americans were farmers 200 years ago. If we had had this discussion back then, you would almost certainly tell me that America's economy can't survive without farming. Yet the farming business has declined to the point where it only employs 2% of Americans anymore, and the economy is doing just fine. There is no economic reason why the same shouldn't apply to manufacturing.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Question 1: Why is it cheaper to produce goods in other countries besides America?

Question 2: Can America survive with an economy based entirely upon intellectual products (banking, entertainment, software)?

Cycloptichorn

1. It isn' t always cheaper to produce goods in other countries. However when that does occur it is the result of comparative advantage in any of the many factors that influence cost and quality --- Lower labor costs; less restrictive enviromnmental laws; lower liabilities due to worker compensation claims and zealous, exploitive tort lawyers; closer access to raw materials; comparative advantage in transportationv or other like factors; lower taxes; smarter managers; more productive workers; better design; better quality.

2. I don't believe we will ever base our economy entirely on intellectual products. There are too many remaining inherent advantages for manufacturing of many products here. Given the degree to which the United States dominated manufacturing in the world in 1945, it is neither surprising nor undesirable that a dispersion of manufacturing to other countries has occurred. We should instead rejoice in the political and economic benefit to ourselves that results from the growing prosperity and politicaL freedom of others. If anything affects our continued economic health it is the relative lack of serious attention to the effectiveness (as opposed to merely funding) of our educational systems. We will depend more and more on intellectual achievements - whether for the creation of 'intellectual property' or just the intelligent design of manufactured goods and processes, for our continued prosperity.

Protectionism removes the feedback signals that promote innovation, improvement and beneficial economic activity. The result is injury to the object one was attempting to "protect".

0 Replies

Good point with the farming, Thomas. The only reason I don't think it would apply to manufacturing is that Banking, entertainment, and software are not labor-intensive industries.

We've taken one labor intensive industry (farming) and replaced it with another (manufacturing, though that has become less so as robotics has ramped up). There are still a ton of labor-based jobs out there.

Banking, entertainment, and software are white-collar jobs. You can't reasonably expect workers who previously were labor-oriented to work these jobs. How do we maintain our economy when there are only (or, mostly) white-collar jobs?

As to the first question, however, let me clarify:

Discounting those goods which have regional advantages, why is it cheaper to produce a manufactured item (which could be made anywhere - say, a child's toy car made of steel) in other countries than it is in America?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Protectionism removes the feedback signals that promote innovation, improvement and beneficial economic activity. The result is injury to the object one was attempting to "protect".

I understand this, but there is a line in the middle of the two extremes of complete regulation of the market and complete unregulation.

I do believe it is unfair to the American worker that his company has to pay minimum wage, whereas someone else does not. Now, from an economic point of view, the model may hold up just fine; but that doesn't change anything for the American guy who is out of a job.

Also, I believe that the 'less restrictive environmental laws' are a serious problem as well. If a company isn't allowed to use a process that is damaging to the environment in the U.S., foreign companies who use those processes should not be allowed to market their products here. Easy as pie. And yes, I believe in the reverse as well - we have some serious cleaning up to do here in the US.

I agree with you that education is the real goal here. You should talk to your party some more about that one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I agree that both extreme positions are undesirable. In general though I strongly believe it is more beneficial to err on the side of free trade than protectionism. Historical examples demonstrating the truth of this proposition are many.

Thomas has addressed the environmental aspect of this very well. I do note that many who piously decry the environmental and social exploitation of their foreign competitors are merely seeking government protection for their present situation as an alternative to productive innovation and improvement. People and governments everywhere make their own decisions about the relative values they attach to such things and, except in extreme cases, we have no right to interfere.

I believe the biggest threat to our education system is a deeply entrenched and non-productive education elite composed of text publishers, teachers unions, the NEA, and closed circuit of education bureaucrats & officials. They have a fully protected monopoly and they zealously resist competition in any form. Vouchers and competition are the solution.and the Republicans are for it.

0 Replies

Columnist Robert Novak has ties to Anti-Kerry book

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know