What you socialist don't get

[NGNM85]

Dead wrong. The political class is the most socially useless strata of society. They contribute virtually nothing of value, and usurp an enormous portion of the proceeds of other peoples' labor.

Actually; our politicians are probably underpaid, comparatively speaking. However; these days, it's pretty hard to argue with the; 'useless' part.

 

[sangha]

I raise you Rolling Stones, U2, Jimmy Carr, and the Queen of England.

You mean the expats from a nation with a Conservative govt?

 

[Diogenes]

Actually; our politicians are probably underpaid, comparatively speaking. However; these days, it's pretty hard to argue with the; 'useless' part.

If you count the payments under the table, they are overpaid.

 

[jimbo]

I wish I could, but rather than use their influence to carve out a place for themselves back home, the manufacturers of these and many more items have decided to go play in sandboxes where they're free to pay their employees pennies to work in dramatically less safe environments.

You really don't get it, do you?

Every one of those products I mentioned are American made inventions and formerly produced products that no longer have a niche in the US manufacturing market. Business, jobs and money will go where they are wanted.

Most, if not all business and businessmen would rather ply their trade near their home. The light bulb is no longer possible to manufacture here because of environment restrictions. The new replacements require rare minerals whose extraction costs are prohibitive due to those same restrictionsv which, in the case of mining. make it impossible even without the economic factors. The problem does not go away, just gets moved to a more friendly and more dangerous environment. Masda produces the Ranger, not because Ford wanted Detroit to be the hell hole it has become, but because wages, taxes, and other factors forced them elsewhere. The US is sitting on more oil than the rest of the world combined, yet extraction is often prohibited and subject to the immediate closing of extraction at the whim of a government. We can't even ship oil from Canada using US labor to ports in LA due to stonewalling from the administration. The oil pipeline was not attempted by an environmentalist or a politician, but by an investor who saw an opportunity and was/is willing to risk his own capital and in the process provide jobs and income for workers and the US treasury.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Arnault isn't taking any jobs anywhere. All he's taking is his savings, which isn't taxed, His income, which is taxed, will continue to be generated in the same places it has been generated in the past

Same principle.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

You really don't get it, do you?

No, I absolutely do get it. Rather than flex their considerable muscle to maintain an environment in which they can operate, or change to fit the environment, they've opted for the quick-and-easy solution of shipping operations overseas.

They pay as little as they can get away with in wages there, abuse the environment as much as they are allowed, and so on.

This isn't as simple as government excess at home, there's also a lot of greed at work too.

 

[sangha]

Same principle.

Yes, "he's moving jobs out of the country" is exactly the same principle as "he's not moving jobs out of the country" :screwy

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Yes, "he's moving jobs out of the country" is exactly the same principle as "he's not moving jobs out of the country" :screwy

Look, if you want to be deliberately obtuse that's fine, just don't expect me to take you seriously when you are.

 

[sangha]

Look, if you want to be deliberately obtuse that's fine, just don't expect me to take you seriously when you are.

Yes, it's "obtuse" to point out that he's not moving any jobs anywhere when someone dishonestly claims that he's moving jobs out of the country :doh

 

[jimbo]

No, I absolutely do get it. Rather than flex their considerable muscle to maintain an environment in which they can operate, or change to fit the environment, they've opted for the quick-and-easy solution of shipping operations overseas.

They pay as little as they can get away with in wages there, abuse the environment as much as they are allowed, and so on.

This isn't as simple as government excess at home, there's also a lot of greed at work too.

Greed is the driving factor. Without the motivation of bettering yourself, including purchasing a more expensive boat, car, or home, there would be no reason for someone to risk the capital they already have in a new venture. So I'll give you the point. It is also greed that drives workers to strive for higher income, be it by making themselves more valuable to an employer, or attempting other measures to do so without the necessity of doing it on their own.

Second, using their considerable power to maintain an environment in which they can operate, or change to fit the environment? That is what they do. Moving elsewhere is changing to fit the environment. But let's look at your solution(s). Wages: There are two possibilities which can level the playing field in wages. Either the wages in competing countries must be raised, or wages in the US must be lowered. I doubt if any American company has the considerable muscle to order China to increase wages to even $20 a day, let alone a wage competing with the American worker. Environment: A similar problem. Do you think that Exxon has the muscle to order Saudi Arabia to improve the environmental conditions under which they operate? That leaves using their power to improve conditions in the US and that means opening more oil fields to more drilling, fracking ,less restrictions, or whatever, relaxing environmental guidelines to bring ours more into line with those of the rest of the world. Mining? Due to environmental concerns, there are no mercury mines in the US, yet the new bulb requires mercury. We are nott supposed to even throw them out without EPA approval. Which of those problems are you willing to compromise on in the interest of more manufacturing in the US?

There is a third solution. A 50 inch television made in America that costs $8000 instead of the $800 it now costs. Gasoline at $10 a gallon and in short supply.

 

[Diogenes]

Greed is the driving factor. Without the motivation of bettering yourself, including purchasing a more expensive boat, car, or home, there would be no reason for someone to risk the capital they already have in a new venture. So I'll give you the point. It is also greed that drives workers to strive for higher income, be it by making themselves more valuable to an employer, or attempting other measures to do so without the necessity of doing it on their own.

I would prefer to say ambition is the driving factor. "Greed" is the pejorative term used by those who lack the ambition necessary to be successful, in order to defend (however unsuccessfully) their own sense of self-worth.

Second, using their considerable power to maintain an environment in which they can operate, or change to fit the environment? That is what they do. Moving elsewhere is changing to fit the environment. But let's look at your solution(s). Wages: There are two possibilities which can level the playing field in wages. Either the wages in competing countries must be raised, or wages in the US must be lowered. I doubt if any American company has the considerable muscle to order China to increase wages to even $20 a day, let alone a wage competing with the American worker. Environment: A similar problem. Do you think that Exxon has the muscle to order Saudi Arabia to improve the environmental conditions under which they operate? That leaves using their power to improve conditions in the US and that means opening more oil fields to more drilling, fracking ,less restrictions, or whatever, relaxing environmental guidelines to bring ours more into line with those of the rest of the world. Mining? Due to environmental concerns, there are no mercury mines in the US, yet the new bulb requires mercury. We are nott supposed to even throw them out without EPA approval. Which of those problems are you willing to compromise on in the interest of more manufacturing in the US?

Wages (absent monopoly influences like unions) are proportional to productivity, which is why the guy driving a D9 Cat makes more than the guy steering a shovel. And why wages are so much lower in undeveloped countries.

You are spot on in pointing out that environmentalists cost us a lot of jobs (and tax revenue on the wages that would have been paid) with their silly nonsense about light bulbs. After visiting the EPA web page on the CFL (Chinese Fail Light), I won't allow them in the house, although I have a couple in the garage. I understand that California has about a 1% compliance rate on bulb disposal, and the future damage from mercury contaminated groundwater from putting them in landfills will be enormous.

There is a third solution. A 50 inch television made in America that costs $8000 instead of the $800 it now costs. Gasoline at $10 a gallon and in short supply.

Yep. I remember the long gas lines of the Jimmy Carter days.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Greed is the driving factor. Without the motivation of bettering yourself, including purchasing a more expensive boat, car, or home, there would be no reason for someone to risk the capital they already have in a new venture. So I'll give you the point. It is also greed that drives workers to strive for higher income, be it by making themselves more valuable to an employer, or attempting other measures to do so without the necessity of doing it on their own.

You are mistaking ambition for greed. Ambition is what drives people to improve their lot in life. Greed is what drives the pursuit of lower costs at any cost.

Second, using their considerable power to maintain an environment in which they can operate, or change to fit the environment? That is what they do. Moving elsewhere is changing to fit the environment.

That's fleeing the environment, not changing to fit it.

But let's look at your solution(s). Wages: There are two possibilities which can level the playing field in wages. Either the wages in competing countries must be raised, or wages in the US must be lowered. I doubt if any American company has the considerable muscle to order China to increase wages to even $20 a day, let alone a wage competing with the American worker. Environment: A similar problem. Do you think that Exxon has the muscle to order Saudi Arabia to improve the environmental conditions under which they operate? That leaves using their power to improve conditions in the US and that means opening more oil fields to more drilling, fracking ,less restrictions, or whatever, relaxing environmental guidelines to bring ours more into line with those of the rest of the world. Mining? Due to environmental concerns, there are no mercury mines in the US, yet the new bulb requires mercury. We are nott supposed to even throw them out without EPA approval. Which of those problems are you willing to compromise on in the interest of more manufacturing in the US?

There is a third solution. A 50 inch television made in America that costs $8000 instead of the $800 it now costs. Gasoline at $10 a gallon and in short supply.

There's also a fourth solution, but that involves change over time, an American public less interested in cheap and an American businessman less interested in profit.

 

[jimbo]

You are mistaking ambition for greed. Ambition is what drives people to improve their lot in life. Greed is what drives the pursuit of lower costs at any cost.

That's fleeing the environment, not changing to fit it.

There's also a fourth solution, but that involves change over time, an American public less interested in cheap and an American businessman less interested in profit.

Your 4th solution is simply not workable. Business, especially those that I own stock with, better be interested in profit. That is why I purchased them. Your first point, that the American public, over time, can be convinced that, given two televisions, all other things being equal, the one with the highest price tag is the most desirable is not workable.

Diogenes above you, has pointed out that greed has become a perjorative word. I will give you the point without further comment.

So, what is your solution? As I see it, here is your ideal situation:

You want American wages to continue to be many times the wages of other competing countries.

You want Americans to be the leaders in the development of new technology and rebuild our manufacturing without the prospect of improved profits.

You want goods and services to remain at current price levels or the American purchaser to be willing to pay a higher price for a similar item.

How do you propose to do that?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Your 4th solution is simply not workable.

No, not currently, because business leaders are more interested in profitability than they are in sustainability, customers are more interested in cost and availability than they are in sustainability, the government is more interested in power than it is in sustainability, and the people who could be sounding clarion call for change are more interested in selling advertising than they are in sustainability.

In other words, the problem isn't that we can't solve the problem, it's that everybody is too interested in their own instantaneous gratification to bother trying to solve it.

 

[jimbo]

No, not currently, because business leaders are more interested in profitability than they are in sustainability, customers are more interested in cost and availability than they are in sustainability, the government is more interested in power than it is in sustainability, and the people who could be sounding clarion call for change are more interested in selling advertising than they are in sustainability.

In other words, the problem isn't that we can't solve the problem, it's that everybody is too interested in their own instantaneous gratification to bother trying to solve it.

Which was my question to you. I deliberately left out government to avoid another misdirection. Advertisers want to be paid for their services? Agreed. Two more entities to add to the equation.

How do you propose to fix this?

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Which was my question to you. I deliberately left out government to avoid another misdirection. Advertisers want to be paid for their services? Agreed. Two more entities to add to the equation.

How do you propose to fix this?

There are plenty of things that can't be made in third-world countries or emerging economies like China's because the equipment, expertise and materials needed cost too much. A lot of the circuitry used in high-end medical equipment and miniaturized design concepts in general are examples of this. That's why when a big name makes their bestseller overseas, it's in a factory used specifically for that purpose, rather than in one of the many contract manufacturers.

On the other side of the coin, when something can be manufactured overseas, the designer of a particularly popular or profitable item typically has 6 months to recoup their initial investment before those same contract manufacturers start cranking out knock-offs.

Ultimately, there are several things we absolutely positively need to do:

1) Popularize the trades. There's a lot of manufacturing that withers up simply because of a lack of qualified laborers.

2) Fix our broken educational system. There are millions of kids wasting away in public school districts that have essentially been given up on, where literacy rates and graduation rates are beyond pathetic.

3) Encourage community models that are more sustainable and self-contained than anything we've got today. I'm talking about living closer to where you work, where you buy your necessities, and more necessities which are locally produced. The sprawl model we've got in many places is a lot like a fat guy spread out on a couch -- we need to get into better shape.

4) Encourage small business. Big companies have lots of labor, materials and influence, but if we had the same number of people employed by or running their own small businesses, the economy would be so much more stable and self-correcting. The bigger the operation, the slower it is to respond to change.

5) Take money out of politics. Money does not equal speech, and in too many circumstances it equals bribery.



There's more and I could go on at length, but those are just a few of the things that nobody seems to want to talk about -- mainly because the solutions aren't cut-and-dried. They take time, money, and hard work.

 

[austrianecon]

You mean the expats from a nation with a Conservative govt?

uh no.. these people moved their assets under Labour Governments or Liberal Governments. For example Rolling Stones moved in 1970 which means they were planning it under a Labour Party controlled Government. U2 moved their assets to avoid royalty taxes on Artist (Ireland) which was passed 2005 under a Fianna Fáil–Progressive Democrats government. Jimmy Carr did his tax evasion when Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were PMs of UK so that's Labour Party.

And the Queen of England can't be an ex-pat but rather she refused to pay taxes on inheritance and "voluntarily" pays taxes when she wants to.

 

[sangha]

uh no.. these people moved their assets under Labour Governments or Liberal Governments. For example Rolling Stones moved in 1970 which means they were planning it under a Labour Party controlled Government. U2 moved their assets to avoid royalty taxes on Artist (Ireland) which was passed 2005 under a Fianna Fáil–Progressive Democrats government. Jimmy Carr did his tax evasion when Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were PMs of UK so that's Labour Party.

And the Queen of England can't be an ex-pat but rather she refused to pay taxes on inheritance and "voluntarily" pays taxes when she wants to.

Your response is sohpistry

When the party moved during a conservative govt, you claimed the planning occured during the previous liberal govt. When they moved during a liberal govt, there was no planning. It was the liberal govts fault.

I concede the QoE.

 

[StringBean]

Bonjour French upper class. Allo stagnant economy.

 

[bonfire]

This is what you get when people refuse to acknowledge that

taxation = theft


Or maybe they don't care that theft is taking place? Who knows

 

[Luna Tick]

This is what happens when you start confiscating wealth to fund your failed socialist programs. If obama is successful with his tax and spend schemes you can expect our job creators and tax payers to look for greener pastures.

If you're going to complain about socialism, it would certainly make more sense to talk about someone other than Obama who isn't even remotely a socialist. The socialists agree that he's not. Right-wing extremists brand him one because they have no earthly clue what socialism is. This makes a conversation with them about it next to impossible.

 

[spud_meister]

This is what you get when people refuse to acknowledge that

taxation = theft


Or maybe they don't care that theft is taking place? Who knows

And how do you expect society to function without taxation?

 

[waas]

This is what you get when people refuse to acknowledge that

taxation = theft


Or maybe they don't care that theft is taking place? Who knows

"Taxation is the price we pay for a free society", bonfire.

 

[Ikari]

Shun the rich, huh? Lol. How are you going to build and maintain anything without money?

The rich don't actually make money. If you got rid of all the rich people, you could still foster a new economy and a new set of people would become rich. One being rich doesn't make them better than everyone else or somehow magical or the source of wealth generation.

 

[bonfire]

"Taxation is the price we pay for a free society", bonfire.

You aren't free if a government official has to extort money from you at the barrel of a gun.