Jump to content

Coakley


Lars

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 37
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

 

We still make stuff. There's just less of us doing it.

 

And more of the Indians and Chinese doing it for us?

And anyway, are you trying to say that fewer jobs is a good thing? Well I suppose for the employers, yes, it could be, if they found cheaper labor somewhere else.

 

B) Do you really think that millitary expenditures are a net economic plus for the US?

 

No. That part of the post was called "sarcasm"...

 

C) How - exactly - are we living off the backs of the rest of the world? They seem quite eager to voluntarily sell us the stuff that they're good at producing when we allow them to do so,

 

Read: goods produced by desperately poor workers working for near slave wages in banana republics where the only people getting rich are despots. Oh and oil, which requires making cozy deals with some of the worst violators of human rights imaginable.

 

 

 

and also seem to enjoy using the proceeds to buy the stuff that we're good at producing.

 

 

Like limos for Saudi sheikhs and extra accessories for El Presidente's golden palace, and more jack booted police to stomp on the necks of the populace that dares to speak up.

 

But hey, it works good for us, America first, right?

 

1. Less jobs...compared to what conditions? It's good for the workers for two reasons.

 

The first because domestic employment in manufacturing would be next to zero if we'd mandated that no new technology could be incorporated into any manufacturing process at some arbitrary point in the past. Higher cost and lower quality doesn't translate into secure employment.

 

The second is that the increased output made possible by the capital investment necessary to bring in additional technology, machinery, etc is the one and only thing that can generate real wage growth for the folks who work in that sector.

 

2. Sweat shops.

 

Again - what are the alternatives available to them? Would they be better off scavenging, working in subsistence agriculture, etc? Unless you argue that you are in a better position to determine what's good for them according to their own values, preferences, etc - how do you explain their decision to leave the countryside and/or whatever employment they had available to them previously and work in the factories?

 

3. You could just as easily have pointed to Iranians using iphones to record protests and disseminate the footage via Twitter and Facebook, or other people all over the world fending off AIDS via anti-retrovirals developed in the US, using a CCD (Bell Labs, 1969) based camera to take a family photo, munching on Washington apples, enjoying California Wine or Alaskan salmon, enjoying an American movie or novel, shredding some pow on a pair of Line skis, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, - the total, aggregate consumption of which by people in free countries, who are able to spend their money in a manner that's in their best interest as they know and understand it outweighs the total consumption by the said handful of rich despots by many, many many orders of magnitude.

 

All of which makes me wonder why you focus on the handful of rich despots as opposed to the billions of free people who have had their lives improved via trade with the US....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html

 

the real story is that the Bush administration took a surplus and turned it into MASSIVE deficit. Obama and his "majority" in congress haven't done shit to fix it. obviously we need to fix it. at this point our option is to turn to the party that created it to fix it, and thats how people voted this time around.

 

NOW FIX IT BITCH!

 

Dude, spare us the conservative spin on how fixing the deficit has suddenly become a priority when a quarter of America is out of work and has no prospect of getting a job (we won't discuss the bloated military budget that is bankrupting us and that no pols has any intention of slashing). It is time for investing in a sustainable economy, not for slashing services that are fundamental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first because domestic employment in manufacturing would be next to zero if we'd mandated that no new technology could be incorporated into any manufacturing process at some arbitrary point in the past. Higher cost and lower quality doesn't translate into secure employment.

 

strawman. Nobody is against technological advances and most manufacturing jobs have been lost to regions less technologically advanced.

 

The second is that the increased output made possible by the capital investment necessary to bring in additional technology, machinery, etc is the one and only thing that can generate real wage growth for the folks who work in that sector.

 

effective income has gone down for 30+ years despite the introduction of technology.

 

Again - what are the alternatives available to them? Would they be better off scavenging, working in subsistence agriculture, etc? Unless you argue that you are in a better position to determine what's good for them according to their own values, preferences, etc - how do you explain their decision to leave the countryside and/or whatever employment they had available to them previously and work in the factories?

 

as if these folks left the country side of their own free will and not because of bankruptcy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...