Moderator: Community Team
BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:The idea that outsourcing jobs to other nations isn't taking away American jobs seems like a foolish contention.[/u]
Yet you use nothing new to defend your claim. You're simply repeating what you said earlier.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not suggesting that you're saying we revert to autarky, so stop being thick. It's a question, which should force you to think, which you're unwilling to do.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Do you realize that outsourcing is related to trade? Do you understand the benefits of the division of labor (which includes outsourcing)? Why not think about these concepts instead of digging in your heels and repeating your argument?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff wrote:Actually, I would amend my previous statement a bit (above that last sentence), now that I consider it...you routinely blindly defend the free market as the fix to everything. I do recognize that you don't care for crony capitalism, for instance
I made a thread about crony capitalism regarding ethanol and the EPA. I point out the crony capitalism when I see it, and feel like typing enough down. Since you're incapable of moving beyond logical fallacies to defend your claim about corporations being the problem that prevents Americans from getting jobs, then at this moment you're not worth taking seriously. For someone so supposedly fixated on exercising logic, you're failing terribly at it.
BigBallinStalin wrote:I would ask you to provide quotes which support your ad hominems, but knowing you, you won't look for them. Why hold yourself to a standard to which you hold others (e.g. j9b)?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff, you've completely failed in holding yourself to the standards of logic.
Woodruff wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Woodruff, you've completely failed in holding yourself to the standards of logic.
I keep forgetting that you're never wrong, and then un-foeing you. At the risk of being Phatscotty, back in the hole...this time permanently. Feel free to continue your argument with me though.
BigBallinStalin wrote:So you deny that Americans obtain the cost-savings from such exchanges?
Is it "pretty one-way"?
US exports to China for 2003-2012, so no, you're wrong.
Here's the imports:
https://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html
$400 imports v. $100 exports (excluding exported 'money' via US bonds). But government trading is a completely different conversation on trade itself.
As the marginal costs of labor rise for China--with everything being held constant (as you are doing), then sure, but that's not how it works. Marginal costs for the factors of production are more than just labor, and people sell different products at different qualities.
Even if we accept your contention, which is incorrect/misleading, then people would trade less with China--assuming that price is the only factor that matters (e.g. rising price + rising quality may offset each other as far as quantity traded is concerned). <shrugs>
BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not sure if you know what it's like to be poor, but I can imagine that buying higher quality goods (e.g. from whole foods, or from wherever) really eats into one's budget. Those are luxury goods from their perspective. You can feel smug by calling them "mindless consumers," which I don't think they are, but you're really not resolving their constraints. "Mindless consumption." People gotta eat. What are you annoyed about?
Also culture is not homogenous, so this irreparable damage claim is a joke.
Who are you to even claim which culture is superior to others? That sounds imperialistic to me. How do you even know these things? I'm not proud/arrogant enough to claim which culture would be best for which people. I only want them to be able to choose whichever they identify with, and allow them to do so on a voluntary basis.
Regarding informing people, that's fine--so long as the information isn't propaganda. "Soft regulation" when done through the political process won't overcome interest group politics nor rent-seeking, so I'm not in favor of that.
Remove wal-mart, and you get... a culture of people affording less goods at higher prices? What a great culture! What would the culture even look like? How do you know the current culture is even caused by wal-mart or by buying low-priced goods? How do you know what that culture looks like? I think grasping at straws here.
Would average wages for poorer people within the US increase if "more domestic consumption" was increased? It depends on the prices and really the means for affecting this change. Hampering international trade would make domestic goods more expensive--assuming that the domestic production of such goods was less efficient compared to trade (so, assuming we'd have a comparative advantage better than our trading partners. Currently, the US doesn't; otherwise, that intl. trade wouldn't be occurring to such a degree). Regardless of those factors, an increased demand for labor in such sectors would on some margin pull labor from other sectors. You can't have your cake and eat it too, nor is unemployment homogenous, so I don't find the "well, there's unemployment in the US, therefore, no problem." So with a policy focused on domestic consumption, you might get an increase in domestic wages, you'd get an increase in prices. So effective wages wouldn't increase (they might even fall, depending on how much trade is hampering with).
There's more, but regarding the deficit: that is allowed to continue due to the government's fiscal policy and the Fed's monetary policy. If 'money' is being shipped out to make up for the lack of exported goods, then--ceteris paribus--the supply of money would decrease, and so in relation to money, we'd get deflation (as the money depletes, you'd need less to buy the same amount of goods). But, the government avoids this--thus the necessary impetus to change our balance of payments, which to me is a problem. Markets in currencies which aren't fiat could correct for this, but <shrugs> try convincing the government to relinquish its indirect method of taxing people through inflating the money supply.
Timminz wrote:How much are Walmart's low wages costing YOU?
BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not sure if you know what it's like to be poor, but I can imagine that buying higher quality goods (e.g. from whole foods, or from wherever) really eats into one's budget. Those are luxury goods from their perspective. You can feel smug by calling them "mindless consumers," which I don't think they are, but you're really not resolving their constraints. "Mindless consumption." People gotta eat. What are you annoyed about?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Also culture is not homogenous, so this irreparable damage claim is a joke. Remove wal-mart, and you get... a culture of people affording less goods at higher prices? What a great culture! What would the culture even look like? How do you know the current culture is even caused by wal-mart or by buying low-priced goods? How do you know what that culture looks like? I think we're grasping at straws here, so perhaps we can look forward to a different conversation on culture.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Regarding informing people, that's fine--so long as the information isn't propaganda. "Soft regulation" when done through the political process won't overcome interest group politics nor rent-seeking, so I'm not inf favor with this concern of mine, which in my opinion is inevitable through any political process of large-scale democracies. People already market all the time on the margins we've been discussing. How do you think Whole Foods came about? I view it as a reaction to "rampant consumerism" (yet Whole Foods can definitely be part of 'rampant consumerism'), yet such places serve as a fill-in-the-gap measure for environmental issues. The market handled that one section pretty well without soft regulation and bold claims about hampering international trade and about what would be best for other people's cultures.
Finally, a real criticism of the idea that markets are entirely self-correcting? Only if you were to really pay attention, instead of just use it as a minor blip in your debate.BigBallinStalin wrote:Of course, there is the long-term v. Short-term concern. I look at the various processes for attaining our mutual goal (in general, prosperity for more). In my opinion, the most efficient means of correcting addressing problems must overcome knowledge and incentive problems, which are best yet not perfectly achieved through the market process).
No, it REALLY depends on how those costs are created and passed on. Far too often things are made "cheaper" simply because folks are allowed to pass on many of the real costs onto others.BigBallinStalin wrote:Anyway, IIRC the main question: Would average wages for poorer people within the US increase if "more domestic consumption" was increased? It depends on the prices and really the means for affecting this change.
Nope, you have it backwards. Its not people wanting better wages that are wanting to have their cake and eat it, too, its those wanting to hire folks cheaply, cut subsidies for the poor and also get away with whatever damage to land/soil and water they wish without any serious regard. Such things are almost NEVER economical until forced, because there will always be more than a few willing to skirt and cut. You might see a few higher end retailers like Whole Foods, catering to a select and fairly well off target group, but to make these things permeate down to the average person requires regulation and control. Walmart will not pay much more than the minimum, own't hire more full-time workers unless forced. Big agri companies won't check pollution, cut use of antibiotics or the use of other additives/pesticides unless forced, because they do get short term economic gain. It is only when the longer term picture comes into view that the true cost-benefit of such measures come into play. Typically, a farmer who lives on his or her own land and who plans to pass it on to his/her kids does care, but those farms that are just another business venture for various investors --aka "absentee owners" do not. It has to do with a base ethic of what you value. Those who get money through investment value anything that will get them gain, for the most part. (it takes a pretty heavy and absolute moral issue to make most change, something like dangerous child labor.. and not all will, even then.)BigBallinStalin wrote:Hampering international trade would make domestic goods more expensive--assuming that the domestic production of such goods was less efficient compared to trade (so, assuming we'd have a comparative advantage better than our trading partners. Currently, the US doesn't; otherwise, that intl. trade wouldn't be occurring to such a degree). Regardless of those factors, an increased demand for labor in such sectors would on some margin pull labor from other sectors. You can't have your cake and eat it too, nor is unemployment homogenous, so I don't find the "well, there's unemployment in the US, therefore, no problem." So with a policy focused on domestic consumption, you might get an increase in domestic wages, you'd get an increase in prices. So effective wages wouldn't increase (they might even fall, depending on how much trade is hampering with).
BigBallinStalin wrote:There's more, but regarding the deficit: that is allowed to continue due to the government's fiscal policy and the Fed's monetary policy. If 'money' is being shipped out to make up for the lack of exported goods, then--ceteris paribus--the supply of money would decrease, and so in relation to money, we'd get deflation (as the money depletes, you'd need less to buy the same amount of goods). But, the government avoids this--thus the necessary impetus to change our balance of payments, which to me is a problem. Markets in currencies which aren't fiat could correct for this, but <shrugs> try convincing the government to relinquish its indirect method of taxing people through inflating the money supply.
Its mostly not, and yes, we are.Lootifer wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm not sure if you know what it's like to be poor, but I can imagine that buying higher quality goods (e.g. from whole foods, or from wherever) really eats into one's budget. Those are luxury goods from their perspective. You can feel smug by calling them "mindless consumers," which I don't think they are, but you're really not resolving their constraints. "Mindless consumption." People gotta eat. What are you annoyed about?
I was talking about non-food consumption; I would hope that most of your food is sourced locally (if not then I give up; you guys are fucked lol).
And actually what REALLY matters is not whether the chickens were "free range", but whether they were raised with antibiotics or with a bunch of pesticides/herbicides. This is actually the biggest impediment to growing things very locally, in cities and the like.. most all of that land has already been heavily contaminated. Then you have situations like in much of Florida, where chickens run all over rampant, causing problems. Truly "free" livestock causes major havoc for wildlife, upon with all natural system depend. Many municipalities just see elimination as the easiest method of controlling such problems. Any attempt to bring local agriculture into municipalities meets with that type of attitude, along with fears of things like bee stings from aviaries, increase rat population from fruits left improperly attended, etc.Lootifer wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Regarding informing people, that's fine--so long as the information isn't propaganda. "Soft regulation" when done through the political process won't overcome interest group politics nor rent-seeking, so I'm not in favor of that.
Well yeah, but I'd argue that has everything to do with your current political process/landscape rather than any failing on soft regulation (I.e. I mean "Free range eggs are great because they look out for the wellbeing of chickens" and not "Free range eggs at BEST; you can get all the free range eggs you need from WholeFoods - message brought to you by the wonderful partnership between XYZ government agency and WholeFoods").
Lootifer wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
Remove wal-mart, and you get... a culture of people affording less goods at higher prices? What a great culture! What would the culture even look like? How do you know the current culture is even caused by wal-mart or by buying low-priced goods? How do you know what that culture looks like? I think grasping at straws here.
Would average wages for poorer people within the US increase if "more domestic consumption" was increased? It depends on the prices and really the means for affecting this change. Hampering international trade would make domestic goods more expensive--assuming that the domestic production of such goods was less efficient compared to trade (so, assuming we'd have a comparative advantage better than our trading partners. Currently, the US doesn't; otherwise, that intl. trade wouldn't be occurring to such a degree). Regardless of those factors, an increased demand for labor in such sectors would on some margin pull labor from other sectors. You can't have your cake and eat it too, nor is unemployment homogenous, so I don't find the "well, there's unemployment in the US, therefore, no problem." So with a policy focused on domestic consumption, you might get an increase in domestic wages, you'd get an increase in prices. So effective wages wouldn't increase (they might even fall, depending on how much trade is hampering with).
There's more, but regarding the deficit: that is allowed to continue due to the government's fiscal policy and the Fed's monetary policy. If 'money' is being shipped out to make up for the lack of exported goods, then--ceteris paribus--the supply of money would decrease, and so in relation to money, we'd get deflation (as the money depletes, you'd need less to buy the same amount of goods). But, the government avoids this--thus the necessary impetus to change our balance of payments, which to me is a problem. Markets in currencies which aren't fiat could correct for this, but <shrugs> try convincing the government to relinquish its indirect method of taxing people through inflating the money supply.
I do find it interesting that the trickle down effect only applies when it is convienent; and looking out for number one (or more specifically looking out for number ones populace) should be discouraged. To me it looks like you are contradicting your key principles here, but that might just be me...
Are you not misrepresenting efficiency here thou (underlined)? What naturally present comparable advantage is leading to this "efficiency"? I dont believe there is anything other that labour costs that could not be overcome - but labout costs cannot be overcome obviously. So there's a kind of induced imbalance that sends sub optimal signals to the market (sub-optimal in terms of looking out for number one): made in china goods appear cheaper as because of the reduced labour cost; but in terms of real purchasing power I dont see any reason why they cannot be the same price (or less considering you are making them halfway around the world and paying extra cost to get them from producer to consumer). The more expensive domestic goods should be offset by increased domestic wage pool and less waste in transport I would have thought...
Are you not misrepresenting efficiency here thou (underlined)? What naturally present comparable advantage is leading to this "efficiency"? I dont believe there is anything other that labour costs that could not be overcome - but labout costs cannot be overcome obviously. So there's a kind of induced imbalance that sends sub optimal signals to the market (sub-optimal in terms of looking out for number one): made in china goods appear cheaper as because of the reduced labour cost; but in terms of real purchasing power I dont see any reason why they cannot be the same price (or less considering you are making them halfway around the world and paying extra cost to get them from producer to consumer). The more expensive domestic goods should be offset by increased domestic wage pool and less waste in transport I would have thought...
BigBallinStalin wrote:Player, you're never worth addressing because you can't hear beyond your echo chamber. inb4 "ur in a echo chamber." No, I'm not, so don't be stupid.
Night Strike wrote:Player, are people greedy when they demand that the government force businesses to pay them more than their position is worth?
I don't. I just understand that they won't police themselves, something you seem to pretend they can do well.Night Strike wrote:And if you hate companies that have shareholders
Night Strike wrote:then only work and shop at places that do not. You have the freedom to make that choice, so why don't you want others to have the freedom to make that same choice? Why is the only permissible business model the one that YOU approve of?
PLAYER57832 wrote:...The problem is that you (Nightstrike) think a business has the right to determine the worth of a human being based on the profit they wish to attain...
Nobunaga wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:...The problem is that you (Nightstrike) think a business has the right to determine the worth of a human being based on the profit they wish to attain...
Jumping into the mix. Sorry, can't help myself.
Businesses don't attempt to determine the worth of human beings - they couldn't care less. They do determine the worth of a human being's labor, however, and they have every right to do so, gauging the value of their labor against what they will pay them.
PLAYER57832 wrote:LOL
The problem is that you think a business has the right to determine the worth of a human being based on the profit they wish to attain. That is backwards. What is greedy is to demand that its OK to ask people to work at any job and that you don't have to worry about what it costs them to eat or get a house or anything else.. just what you think is a reasonable profit.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Player, you're never worth addressing because you can't hear beyond your echo chamber. inb4 "ur in a echo chamber." No, I'm not, so don't be stupid.
Yeah, like many here, you only want to argue when you are sure you can win. Page down to the last paragraph of my answer to NIghtstrike. There is the REAL answer.
DoomYoshi wrote:Nobunaga wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:...The problem is that you (Nightstrike) think a business has the right to determine the worth of a human being based on the profit they wish to attain...
Jumping into the mix. Sorry, can't help myself.
Businesses don't attempt to determine the worth of human beings - they couldn't care less. They do determine the worth of a human being's labor, however, and they have every right to do so, gauging the value of their labor against what they will pay them.
Not true, businesses don't decide "I want this to be the value for labor". Rather, they use the labor that they can get cheapest.
Unfortunately, this leads to a zero-sum game for the workers, as workers consistently bid lower, until everybody is working for nothing. The businesses benefit, and workers suffer.
Nobunaga wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:...The problem is that you (Nightstrike) think a business has the right to determine the worth of a human being based on the profit they wish to attain...
Jumping into the mix. Sorry, can't help myself.
Businesses don't attempt to determine the worth of human beings - they couldn't care less. They do determine the worth of a human being's labor, however, and they have every right to do so, gauging the value of their labor and paying them accordingly.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Nobunaga wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:...The problem is that you (Nightstrike) think a business has the right to determine the worth of a human being based on the profit they wish to attain...
Jumping into the mix. Sorry, can't help myself.
Businesses don't attempt to determine the worth of human beings - they couldn't care less. They do determine the worth of a human being's labor, however, and they have every right to do so, gauging the value of their labor and paying them accordingly.
Right. That's the goal. IF it was costless, then everyone would know how much anyone could 'bring to the table'. There's nothing wrong with that. If we all lived in a commune, and all I could provide was toe cheese, then why would anyone expect others to pay more than they wanted to for my labor of producing toe cheese?
it would be nonsensical to do so.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users