the economy

[ketostix]

I bet if people committed to a life of poverty while dedicating their waking hours to work and education, 90% of them would become super rich.

Well if everyone was a high producer and a low consumer almost no one could get rich. The market would force a lower production and the result would be wider spread poverty. What we basically have in the US is high production and high consumption, which is basically a good thing economically. One problem though is the US is too favorable to consumer over producers. For there to be rich there has to be poor. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying. There is such a thing as scarcity.

 

[ketostix]

And I find it deliciously ironic when someone who I'm going to guess has lived in the USA all their life tries to educate someone that has actually been to 'communist' countries like Cuba where you aren't allowed, and has actually lived in the USSR, with family there for generations.

Aside from perhaps a small hanful of the ultra-elite, in those societies there was very little disparity between people.

The only problem was, they were all equally poor. Some things were better, you didn't have to worry about going broke to pay your doctor or unemployment and such, but overall, those systems simply DO NOT WORK. They just don't, and denying that because it doesn't fit in with your ideals doesn't really lead anywhere useful.

A couple of reasons why communism/socialism doesn't work is because there's not enough incentive to produce, and the combined greedy human nature with the state having a monopoly. Now I wouldn't say going in the complete extreme opposite is the best solution, i.e., laisee faire (sp?) capitalism combined with a libertarian politics. Like most things, the middle ground is probably the best compromise.

 

[ketostix]

This is more circular logic: using the market's own criteria to justify the market.

I'm talking about the effect of the market on quality, and simply using my own business as an example, Danger. I'm not talking about fairness, which is obviously seen as a quaint and outdated notion, but quality.

And the incidence of many of these problems of pollution, poor wages, etc. in socialist countries is often attributed toward their market-driven aspects, or the simple lack of resources in the nation itself, which does not apply to the same degree in the US, thankfully. Why would one tolerate harmful amounts of pollution, if not to save money?

The genetic defect of capitalism is that it does not serve quality of life. It serves capital. And it's foolishly naive to think the two are one in the same.

**************

A-Unit, it would not surprise me if most people who are making a genuine effort to make millions would just as soon throw anybody in the trash compactor if it gets in the way of their road to millions.

**************

This has been a good discussion, but it's starting to go around in circles, so I'll just state my last bit and get back to work, so I can finish in time to catch a real cool band tonight (what? leisure activities? the horror!).

The sophistry with which people justify such a mean-spirited disregard for the welfare of human beings and the valuation of money over quality of life truly disgusts me.

And it just dumbfounds me how people can prefer a tooth and nail struggle for survival over the sort of comfortable, enjoyable, low-stress existence that is well within the realm of possibility for every American who does their fair part, given this nation's vast resources ... while still affording ample opportunity for those with ambition to become immensely wealthy.

But the funny thing is that you guys who are touting the virtues of the system are absolutely right in that a large enough percentage of Americans are responsible for their own difficulties by uncritically accepting what is going on. I can't make them realize they could have it much better if they stop chasing after crap and demand better.

The best I can do is continue to say "no" to the artificial needs, stick to my guns, state my piece for those who care to listen, and optimize the quality of my own life and those with whom I deal.

Teflon_McGee, I suspect you and I are actually a lot more alike than most people looking in on this discussion could imagine.

I have to say even a staunch capitalist has to say that Bonhomme has a good point. For one example, Walmart and Target are OK, but they sell a lot of chinese made junk and collectively people are so stupid to only look at price and don't consider quality or the trade off it's costing them in wages.

Extreme capitalism is not the holy grail, and socialism/communism definitely isn't either. I do think there needs to be a middle ground to protect capitalism from imploding on itself and causing more harm than good. There should at least be a level and fair playing field for capitalist and businesses who operate in ways that favor American producers in blance with favoring consumers. The thing is, is Bonhomme position just theorectical? There will never be a perfect system or a utopia because people are imperfect. It just seems to me if a person wants to be practical in an imperfect world they have to look out for themselves and based on what you feel is important in trading off for-trading your time and liesure activist and purchases in pursuit of money and the effect that has on others.

 

[Teflon_Mcgee]

Well if everyone was a high producer and a low consumer almost no one could get rich. The market would force a lower production and the result would be wider spread poverty. What we basically have in the US is high production and high consumption, which is basically a good thing economically. One problem though is the US is too favorable to consumer over producers. For there to be rich there has to be poor. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying. There is such a thing as scarcity.

While I understand the logic of what you are saying I don't fully agree.

To say say that if everybody is a high producer then it would lead to everybody being low consumers seems flawed.

Even producers consume. And more money means more individuals will consume even more superfluous goods.This will yet again create a demand for more producers.

While there is such a thing as scarcity, money in a laisezze-fair system is not a zero-sum asset.

But of course, this is just my belief.

 

[j-flex]

Extreme capitalism is not the holy grail, and socialism/communism definitely isn't either. I do think there needs to be a middle ground to protect capitalism from imploding on itself and causing more harm than good. There should at least be a level and fair playing field for capitalist and businesses who operate in ways that favor American producers in blance with favoring consumers. The thing is, is Bonhomme position just theorectical? There will never be a perfect system or a utopia because people are imperfect. It just seems to me if a person wants to be practical in an imperfect world they have to look out for themselves and based on what you feel is important in trading off for-trading your time and liesure activist and purchases in pursuit of money and the effect that has on others.

even though the market has some failures (pollution) it is by far the best system. the term capitalism has bad connotations in our society, but what it is is that people are free to choose and to buy from whoever they want without the interference of government.

you see, "extreme" capitalism, in reality is extreme human freedom, but that doesnt means there is no rules, of course there are so people can have a fair play.

a lot of people bash big companies and say they are bad etc, but the reality is that those companies exist because we are willing to pay for their products, we have benefits. the moment we decide to not buy their products thats the moment they break.

Saying that a "middle way" between capitalism and socialism works is bullshiet, i live in that society and guess what, is a third world country, because that "middle way" sucks, just take a look at the economic freedom index and the freer the nations the richer they are, there are actually studies on that subject! and i just posted them!!.

EU is not extreme capitalism. it was in the 19 century though.

 

[j-flex]

revised.

 

[j-flex]

Well if everyone was a high producer and a low consumer almost no one could get rich. The market would force a lower production and the result would be wider spread poverty. What we basically have in the US is high production and high consumption, which is basically a good thing economically. One problem though is the US is too favorable to consumer over producers. For there to be rich there has to be poor. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying. There is such a thing as scarcity.

that is a fallacy.

The Market mechanism is so perfect you would be amazed!

you see the market gives the people what they want and according to that is what will be produced and at what price.

If companies produce a lot and people consume low, then they wont produce more because people are not buying it!, they would be obliged to adapt to the people's tastes and preferences and produce what people are willing to pay for it. this way we will get better products.

thats microeconomy! the LAW of demand and supply.

geez!

the thing you said is not a market failure, but a communist one!!

that example you just said is true but only on communist countries because the market mechanism doesnt exist. The government says what will be produced and how much without knowing if people will like it, buy it and at what price, and this is one of the many reasons why marx was wrong all along.

 

[ketostix]

that is a fallacy.

The Market mechanism is so perfect you would be amazed!

you see the market gives the people what they want and according to that is what will be produced and at what price.

If companies produce a lot and people consume low, then they wont produce more because people are not buying it!, they would be obliged to adapt to the people's tastes and preferences and produce what people are willing to pay for it. this way we will get better products.

thats microeconomy! the LAW of demand and supply.

geez!



the thing you said is not a market failure, but a communist one!!

that example you just said is true but only on communist countries because the market mechanism doesnt exist. The government says what will be produced and how much without knowing if people will like it, buy it and at what price, and this is one of the many reasons why marx was wrong all along.

You and Teflon Mcgee are totally muisunderstanding what I said. McGee said, "IF eveyone worked hard (produced more) and limited their consumption, they could all be millionaires." Then he went on to say people consume too much. And I said what i said, basically that if people produced more and consumed less, then there'd be less millionaires and the market would correct for overproduction. What are you guys disagreeing about?

 

[ketostix]

even though the market has some failures (pollution) it is by far the best system. the term capitalism has bad connotations in our society, but what it is is that people are free to choose and to buy from whoever they want without the interference of government.

you see, "extreme" capitalism, in reality is extreme human freedom, but that doesnt means there is no rules, of course there are so people can have a fair play.

a lot of people bash big companies and say they are bad etc, but the reality is that those companies exist because we are willing to pay for their products, we have benefits. the moment we decide to not buy their products thats the moment they break.

Saying that a "middle way" between capitalism and socialism works is bullshiet, i live in that society and guess what, is a third world country, because that "middle way" sucks, just take a look at the economic freedom index and the freer the nations the richer they are, there are actually studies on that subject! and i just posted them!!.

EU is not extreme capitalism. it was in the 19 century though.

The US has a very mixed system as it is with the tax system, government spending redistributing wealth (sometimes gives hand outs to corporations), regulations, etc. The US had laisezze-fair capitalism before in the early 20th century and prior. You know, the industrial revolution, monopolies, poor working conditions and wages, etc. that resulted. Look at what the oil companies are getting away with now. Laisezze-fair capitalism is not perfect, because people are imperfect. It results in monopolies among other things. Everything has to be counterbalanced. A nation's wealth is primarily dependent on it's resources and productivity, not on how disparate the wealth is distributed.

 

[Celadus]

It is hard to follow this thread. There's no perfect system, because people (crowds in particular) are emotional and illogical. Whatever system (dictatorship, republic, etc) that maintains a diamond shape income distribution, but rewards risk taking seems to be the way to go.

Keep most people fat and content and everything works out fine as long as the capable can rise to the top.

I went to Wendy's today, and the worker didn't give me a straw, barbecue sauce or ketchup. If I can't earn more than her, I'm honestly not interested in being a member of society.

 

[Poonani Maker]

I'll tell ya what's fvcked our economy is those fvckers at the top outsourcing all the jobs to make their numbers look good to "get ahead" in this short life (pleasing the Public shareholder is ruining us). Also, illegal immigration and the hiring thereof from law-breaking construction companies is tanking our people's access to more jobs. Also, our colleges suck balls. I learned more in private highschool than in the university which was mostly just multiple-fvckin-choice and a waste of my money, but the piece of paper sayin that I graduated has helped me live where I want to live. Without it I'd be kinda screwed I think. Our education system is not practical with these liberal professors, just a bunch of theoretical hogwash that can't be applied to real-life scenarios. Politics is fvcking our country too. So glad I'm blue collar and don't have to deal with these swine at the top who don't do any of the work just know people and kiss azz, delegate all the work, and fire people/ruin lives. I like my job because I do my work and go home like Fred Flintstone.

 

[j-flex]

I'll tell ya what's fvcked our economy is those fvckers at the top outsourcing all the jobs to make their numbers look good to "get ahead" in this short life (pleasing the Public shareholder is ruining us). Also, illegal immigration and the hiring thereof from law-breaking construction companies is tanking our people's access to more jobs. Also, our colleges suck balls. I learned more in private highschool than in the university which was mostly just multiple-fvckin-choice and a waste of my money, but the piece of paper sayin that I graduated has helped me live where I want to live. Without it I'd be kinda screwed I think. Our education system is not practical with these liberal professors, just a bunch of theoretical hogwash that can't be applied to real-life scenarios. Politics is fvcking our country too. So glad I'm blue collar and don't have to deal with these swine at the top who don't do any of the work just know people and kiss azz, delegate all the work, and fire people/ruin lives. I like my job because I do my work and go home like Fred Flintstone.

Illegal inmigration taking your jobs? yeah right, they just take the jobs nobody wants: in the fields, janitors etc.

im done here.

 

[Teflon_Mcgee]

You and Teflon Mcgee are totally muisunderstanding what I said. McGee said, "IF eveyone worked hard (produced more) and limited their consumption, they could all be millionaires." Then he went on to say people consume too much. And I said what i said, basically that if people produced more and consumed less, then there'd be less millionaires and the market would correct for overproduction. What are you guys disagreeing about?

Ahh, got you. But I didn't mean cut consumption indefinately. And I wasn't speaking of a mass coordinated effort.

But yeah, I see what your saying now.

 

[Teflon_Mcgee]

Poonani Maker,

I recommend you read the book "The Lexus and the Olive Tree." (I believe that's the name, it's been a while since I read it)

It'll really make you think about the real effects of outsourcing and globalization.

Americans need to be less focused on these menial jobs that are being outsourced and more on becoming the leader in high tech labor.

People complain about Engineering and Science jobs being outsourced and given to immigrants with HB1 visas. But the truth is Americans aren't stepping up to the plate to fill these jobs. And given a factory job or a call service job to a foreigner just means that Americans need to start gaining valuable skills and education to produce more valuable assest while letting other countries handle our light work.

America will either made or broken by our future labor market. If we continue on creating a labor force that works in factories and industry then we will lose our posistion as a world leader by falling technologicly behind the rest of the world. Then countries like India and Japan will start outsourcing to us and we'll have all the low paying, low skill jobs you want (Okay, so not at all likely)

The global market is a free market and America is just another player. And the jobs that we outsource are jobs that we should be trying to stay away from.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Illegal inmigration taking your jobs? yeah right, they just take the jobs nobody wants: in the fields, janitors etc.

im done here.

I could care less about any jobs that illegal immagrates have, I just think that they should be damned to pay taxes on their income like everyone else.

As for outsourcing overseas, I find it funny that people think it's fine to shop around to purchase the best product which costs the least yet get pissed off when corporations do the same. How the hell do they expect to be able to purchase things at such a low price without corporations being able to produce the products with less overhead?

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Whoa Whoa Whoa. Laisezze-Fair capitalism had nothing to do with monopolies (There are only Government sanctioned monopolies btw, otherwise they do not exist).

And what are oil companies getting away with now??? They aren't doing anything wrong that I know of.

Glad that you caught that. People keep blaming companies about being monopolies without realizing that what they see is marketshare being created because so many people are purchasing one company's products or services more than another's. Maybe they should create a company which makes a better product at a lower price point. It would be even more impressive if they could do it without globalization. Companies are huge because of outrageous need of consumption by most people.

 

[Bonhomme]

Sharp of you to put "cheaper" in quotes, Danger, because the net effect of outsourcing may well cost more than it saves for most Americans. Consider the relative prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s when most goods were produced here and typical factory workers were earning enough to raise a family by themselves. Let's just say outsourcing giveth and outsourcing taketh away.

************

There’s been something bothering me about this sense of entitlement based on one’s efforts and abilities that’s been “on the tip of my tongue,” so to speak throughout this whole discussion, but eluding my grasp. It’s finally come to me: the long-standing concept of noblesse oblige.

OK, let me get this straight. It’s unethical to gain massive wealth by outright stealing, fraud, deceit, and/or murder, but it’s perfectly OK to murder people economically if they are on the real bottom of the totem pole, so to speak, and nobody exercises the free will to hire them and/or pay them a sufficient wage to survive. How convenient it is to shirk responsibility when it’s indirect. By supporting a system that allows this, you become just as responsible for those people’s fate as if you locked them up and staved them.

Direct murder, bad; indirect murder via economic deprivation, perfectly OK (“Sorry, you just weren’t strong, smart, or cunning enough, you’re the weakest link, goodbye”).

Robbing people at gunpoint, bad; stealing people’s labor by not paying them a living wage and/or taxing sub-living wage income, again perfectly OK.

We righteously condemn the keepers of the concentration camps who starve people to death, but is not a society with sufficient resources that neglects the needs of people who are willing to contribute their fair share doing the very same thing?

That is precisely where an entirely market-driven economy leads. It makes us no better than animals in the jungle. So-called “primitive” societies have typically had more consideration for their lowest ranking people, except in times of genuine scarcity. Whatever happened to noblesse oblige?

A mixed economy that provides ample opportunity for advancement within the constraints of enabling everybody to have a means to contribute to society (a job, if you will) and in exchange for that provides them a living wage or takes care of them if they truly can’t work (infirmed, underage, or whatever), is nothing more than noblesse oblige writ large.

And no “advanced” nation currently lacks ample resources to accomplish this with a 30-40 hour work week. I’ll take this a step further and say no nation with sufficient resources that neglects this responsibility can very well call itself “advanced.”

And for those who can only see things in terms of self-interest, history has shown us that the upper classes neglect this responsibility at their peril. Storm the Bastille, anyone?

If it gets bad enough here that it comes down to that (and a casual stroll through the worst neighborhoods of any major American city will confirm we’re well on our way), I won’t have an iota of sympathy for those whose heads are rolling on account of their lack of noblesse oblige. My sympathy will lie with the inevitable innocent victims who are caught up in it.

No, not all self-made millionaires have earned their money: those who have neglected noblesse oblige have indeed stolen it.

 

[joekerr31]

Outsourcing does nothing wrong other than make the goods and services you buy "cheaper". That means you spend less money on one good or service and have more money left over. That is NOT bad for America.

what makes me laugh when people say outsourcing is good is this notion of 'cheaper goods'. the reality is that outsourcing merely pits the poor against the poorer. its a game of maximizing returns from the poor, why pay an american worker 1 dollar when you can pay a chinese worker 5 cents for the same amount of work / output.

the problem with this logic however is that the chinese worker is living in squalor and basically is tantamount to SLAVE labor. but we justify this by saying 'hey, he'd have it even worse without the job. he should be lucky to be making 5 cents as opposed to nothing."

the global economy is going to be a RUTHLESS place, where companies could care less about the countries they are in and maximize their access to the cheapest labor possible. the end result will be company profits will increase, standards of living will increase slightly for the poorest in the world, while dropping for everyone else.

and who wins in this game? as always the rich do. because even the poor chinese worker can't win. the moment the chinese company starts to make profit and the workers start demanding more pay (which will happen as china evolved into a truly industrialized nation) they'll just move the jobs to mexico or something.

the only ones winning are the 1% of the rich at the top who are maximizing profits by pitting the poor against the poor.

from a corporations perspective, the disappearing middle class is great. the more poor people in the world the better it is for the rich ironically.

 

[Poonani Maker]

As for outsourcing overseas, I find it funny that people think it's fine to shop around to purchase the best product which costs the least yet get pissed off when corporations do the same. How the hell do they expect to be able to purchase things at such a low price without corporations being able to produce the products with less overhead?

Pretty soon, the only jobs left in any American corporation will be the CEO, and even That position will get outsourced. So where are you aspiring youngsters gonna work then? Oh, that's right, in the fields, with the Mexican field-hands, the job you so hate. I'm telling you I have dinner with engineers on a weekly basis, and they're telling me that when level 1 engineers got laid off this past year and outsourced to India, the people in India who said that they could do the job, couldn't as promised. What does the company do? Well, they just promptly start laying off level 2 engineers to save a buck. The level 3 engineers who I've been talking with say they're looking for other employment because they feel they're next. There is no higher level than them. I just chuckled as said, "It wouldn't be this way if you had a union. If we didn't have a union, our company would be shipping in Chinese people to do our jobs." I'm telling you, you're being raped from the top down and you continue to believe the bs rhetoric, turning a blind eye, to the bastardization of our nation by these fvckups in Corporate, trying to please the shareholders in the short-term and get ahead in the short-term. They're selling the farm folks, to people who can't do the job, and just to make the financial statements look good IN THE SHORT TERM.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

Pretty soon, the only jobs left in any American corporation will be the CEO, and even That position will get outsourced. So where are you aspiring youngsters gonna work then? Oh, that's right, in the fields, with the Mexican field-hands, the job you so hate. I'm telling you I have dinner with engineers on a weekly basis, and they're telling me that when level 1 engineers got laid off this past year and outsourced to India, the people in India who said that they could do the job, couldn't as promised. What does the company do? Well, the just promptly start laying off level 2 engineers to save a buck. The level 3 engineers who I've been talking with say they're looking for other employment because they feel they're next. There is no higher level than them. I just chuckled as said, "It wouldn't be this way if you had a union. If we didn't have a union, out company would be shipping in Chinese people to do our jobs." I'm telling you, you're being raped from the top down and you continue to believe the bs rhetoric, turning a blind eye, to the bastardization of our nation by these fvckups in Corporate, trying to please the shareholders in the short-term and get ahead in the short-term. They're selling the farm folks, to people who can't do the job, and just to make the financial statements look good IN THE SHORT TERM.

The engineers that I know and the ones that are hired more often are those who have learned abroad. Their education was better and their work ethic is better than most Americans. Add to that the fact that it costs less for their productivity and it's a no brainer. America is not the technical powerhouse which it once was and yet people believe it's the job of the corporations to make them rich.

The the truly intelligent engineers and developers realize this and start their own companies. Microsoft, Dell, Yahoo, MySpace, eBay, Amazon and countless other companies were created by people who felt that they could do better on their own than though the companies they worked for. Instead of wining about how bad they have it, why don't people go out do better on their own and create their own corporation and compete?