RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy.

RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

pahunkboy -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 2:30:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 In capitalism you try to knock your "competition" out of business not help them! If you’d ever played that board game Monopoly you’d realise it’s a bit boring at the end when you own all the hotels and no one wants to play with you anymore. In reality chasms between the rich and the poor only lead to the poor not wanting to play anymore;threatening the rich with terrorism and or not buying all the shit you produce to keep your economy going. It’s all about moving the money around, the money only has value as long as it never stops moving. Profound point!

NorthernGent -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 2:31:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I just don't think that what we have now is "competition." More likely some type of socialised trade. The global economy is a very Liberal affair; it is nothing whatsoever to do with Socialism. The very essence of Liberal economic policy is free trade, or as free as possible. It's a corner stone of Liberalism. Obviously, Socialism is a very protectionist form of economics: the government takes control of the means of production. quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 And I think that the powers that be are handing us a pig in a poke. Maybe it's different over there, but over here, the powers that be have rarely placed the interests of us mere serfs above the interests of the powers that be? and when were business owners such committed philanthropists? Business owners exist to make money, that is their reason for being. If they can get away with selling you any old shit at a higher profit, then there's only one option for them. Yeah, the global economy is a competitive environment; the problem is that the serfs are putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage by towing the line: the line being all sorts of bollocks including "they're out to get us", "we're better than them", "we need to kill them, or they'll kill us"......it all creates a culture of gathering people behind the banner in order for those holding the banner to herd the masses down a path: whether that path be war, politics, economics, marketing, spin etc. Put it this way, if people are told "someone has WMDs, and we need to kill him/them" for the 10th time in 50 years (swap WMDS for major threat), and the previous 9 times turn out to be bollocks, but people still fall for it on the 10th occasion......then how can you ever hope to fight back at the powers that be?

seeksfemslave -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 3:47:52 PM)
quote: lapresence They(China) have devalued their currency because it is to their advantage to do so; they have a trade surplus. Meaning they export way more than they import. This allows them to flood markets with cheap products (below market prices). Clever Chinese....wont kiss American ass....lol Whose market ?

samboct -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 5:43:53 PM)
Hi Popeye While I agree with your sentiment- I also agree with a chunk of Lady Ellen's points as well. In terms of competition-not so fast-our biggest trading partner is Canada, and I think both countries are richer for it. Making money isn't a zero-sum game (which it is in your scenario- i.e. there's only so much money around, and if I don't get it, you will) which means that in a good trading system, both sides benefit. US and Europe come to mind- but neither side was trying to be a heavily export driven economy. Trade with China on the other hand, does seem to be something of a sick joke, with them laughing, and us getting sick. What China's doing is unsustainable, but they're also crushing US businesses. However- a chunk of the problem with China is staring us right in the mirror- we're willing to purchase goods that have the lowest sticker price, even if the total cost would actually be higher. (I often grumble about stupid economists-they come up with overly simplistic models- admit they are too simplistic to model the real world even reasonably- and then use them anyway.) As an example- buying that toy from China that has lead paint saves a buck over something from Europe or the US. Well, does it really? Or does the cost of testing for the lead paint change the pricing structure? How about treating the kids for lead poisoning? We've already gone through all this crap-we figured out that protecting the environment, workers health, and consumers actually made sense in the long run. Since China is just exporting most of their junk (and human life is cheap there, but expensive here), they haven't figure this out yet- hence the "global economy" is regressing as far as I'm concerned. One problem that economists have rarely dealt with well is the "tragedy of the commons"- for example, a plot of land where you can graze up to a dozen sheep- but put a hundred on it, and the grass is gone- and the sheep need a new place to devour. Well, economists often take that plot of land as free- but since there really aren't open spaces any more, it's about high time we began putting some prices on things like good land, clean water, and fresh air- which ISN'T free- we need to have scrubbers on industrial plants- so there's a cost associated with it. Lady Ellen's point about intellectual property- one of the key points of the founding fathers of this country were strong patent rights for the individual inventor- because inventors would give up if not rewarded for their labors- hence the phrase "yankee ingenuity" have been ridden over roughshod by both China and India- where patents are another sick joke. (Apparently China's getting better.) On the other hand- this is our own stupidity-there is no way we should have trusted these countries without strong IP protection with our secrets. It's like GM designing a new car, and asking Ford to build it. (well, that would have been inconceivable 30 years ago- nowadays- not so much.) It's completely insane- but these are US MBAs who've been chanting this idiotic mantra for years. The Chinese firms aren't really trying very hard to get us to come over, this is our own stupidity. I'm not real interested in bailing out US firms that decide to manufacture goods in China- but I think we need to get back to our roots and do what we do better than anybody in this country- innovate, and create new businesses. And if we need to be a bit protectionistic about US companies compared with China- I'm all for it. How about an environmental tax- levied unless the companies in China can prove every step in the supply chain isn't contributing to lower air quality in the US? But if we're going to build new industries- we need good first customers- which have traditionally been the military and the gov't. Well, with military procurement an oligopoly- these companies don't have a vested interest in providing the best technology for our soldiers- they have a vested interest in the bottom line. Why aren't there more unmanned vehicles out detecting IEDs in Iraq? Why aren't our troops vehicles armored-like this wasn't an easy problem to have foreseen? Why did the last energy bill provide $6B for "clean coal" (yet another sick joke) instead of oil replacement technology? To your point about foreign aid- well- most of it benefits the large firms forming our military/industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about. Popeye- while I share your anger at the trend that our country has gone in- I don't think it's fair to blame others for shooting ourselves in the foot. To quote Walt Kelly (creator of Pogo) "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Sam

Real0ne -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 7:13:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lapresence Bush has been telling them to for years. Unless they can put enough pressure on China, it ain't happening. No one holds their debt, which gives China power; not to mention, it's in their best interest not to change. It will take monumental political pressure to move China towards playing fair. Since when has America played fair? To the best of my knowledge china has surplus and carries our debt. why should chin reset their valuation to hep poo lil ole us when we butt into their affairs all the time? Especially now that we are messing with their buddies in Iran?

Real0ne -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 7:17:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen At the macro level, our wealth is being transferred to other countries - they will improve their standard of living whilst ours will fall. Eventually, there may be a balance - or it may swing about and we will be the low wage labourers in the sweat shops of overseas countries. At the micro level, it means that the misery and poverty of other countries will be exchanged for our comparative well being. How this is in any way protecting the interests of the people, I do not understand. E Its a socialist world

Real0ne -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 7:35:08 PM)
quote: "We have met the enemy, and he is us." nice quote. You would think that we would learn but we dont. The bretton-woods days literally exported 75% of all our gold reserves and Nixon jumped on the friedman bandwagon of the fiat system. The problem is that without gold to back us we now put up our land and assets as collateral for the debt. I agree that its unsustainable for china as it was for us 60 years ago. It took years to get this way and I expect the road back will take years as well. Its a catch 22 the way the system it set up because we now need a 2 income family to do the same as a one income used to do so our buying power is severely reduced by comparison combined with all the worthwhile jobs going south. It seems to me like the stage is set for a literal economic implosion.

thompsonx -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 7:44:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Just as here in the UK. You will struggle to find anything thats totally made here. I got a Timberland top direct online...Made in China... All major companies outsource work, car manufactures buy complonents abroad. It is in effect capitalism at its finest, making stuff as cheap as possible and maximising profits. If they made everything in the UK or the USA the costs would increase, would we be prepared to pay them or not. Or would we be happy to get cheap " named brands" from overseas ? As for overseas aid, i am cynical enough to think no governments do this without seeing whats in it for them, in the way of trade or cheap labour ect. Politesub: It sounds a lot like the same rhetoric that was used to justify slavery. Now we are just too polite to call it slavery so we use the PC term "cheap labor". We have outlawed slavery in our country so now we use slaves that we do not even have to look at...faceless and nameless and not here to be a nuisance. We call it capitalism...we call it "good business" but all it is is slavery in a PC world. thompson

thompsonx -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 7:50:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I think it is a real difficult chore trying to decide which company uses only american parts in the completion of their product. Even Ford, GM, and all use foreign parts and assemble their equipment here. To buy American purely is about gone. Even our groceries come fromother countries. at different tiimes of the year. We use international standards (even tho many of them are created in this country and adopted overseas) to determine quality. If we invest in an American company that has interests overseas, we are supporting their economy. Are we really ready to give up everything to buy American products only. Nice dream not realistic. It is not about only buying American products it is about not buying products made with slave labor. I do think that to much is paid in Foreign Aid. Why not send business in there instead and take over those economies, produce American Good, To American Standards, for sale worldwide, bringing the profits back to our economy and giving us world dominance. World dominance...wasn't that what Hitler was trying for? I thought America had loftier goals.

DesertRat -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 7:55:40 PM)
~fr~ I tried avoiding Chinese stuff for several years but eventually had to give up. When it comes to important stuff like cars, motorcycles, or audio gear, I buy Japanese stuff whenever possible. I doubt if I'll ever buy another American car. Bob

thompsonx -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 8:01:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I recall a day when the manufacturers of a Nation poisoning America's children and pets would be considered an Act of War. farglebargle; What day was that? What day was it when a corporation or a company or an individual of another country committed murder of an American citizen in the pursuit of wealth that was considered an act of war? A country can commit an act of war...corporations,companies and individuals commit crimes. I kinda like the way China deals with those assholes. In the U.S. we fine them and tell them to play nice from now on. thompson

thompsonx -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 8:06:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesertRat ~fr~ I tried avoiding Chinese stuff for several years but eventually had to give up. When it comes to important stuff like cars, motorcycles, or audio gear, I buy Japanese stuff whenever possible. I doubt if I'll ever buy another American car. Bob Awwe common' Bob we still make Studebakers ...ya know America's other fiberglass car. thompson

Griswold -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 8:16:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 We're told that people must be better educated to "compete" in this "global economy." But then, we don't "compete" against foreign countries. The United States (economy) is in constant competition with every other nation on Earth. You as an individual compete with the storekeeper or whomever in that/those countries. Anyone with a lesser education (decide for yourself what that means) is going to be subject to the vagaries of the market. An education doesn't require a degree....it just requires that you're smarter than your tools. For some that may require a lifetime of simple obvservation, for others, a 4 year degree, still others may succeed wildly by virtue of a great mentor. We actually "help" foreign countries with favored trade deals and "foreign aid!" And if you read just a little bit more than simply the headlines, you'd know very well that in almost every case, those "gifts" are made with the promise (by the one getting the gift) that they will spend a percentage of it (usually much more than 50%) on American products manuafactured by Americans. How is doing those things "competing" against foreign countries in a "global economy?" See above. Nations are always going to be about guns or butter. We can either prepare to one day shoot the bastards (guns) because they're hungry, or we can help them feed themselves (butter). Personally, as much as I abhor the current system, I'd rather send them 20 billion and require that they buy 10 billion of stuff we make, than to spend a like amount to send over a bunch of young kids and watch them come home in body bags. I mean if we were really serious about competing "against" foreign countries shouldn't we be locking them out of our markets and putting them out of business? That's competition! That's unadulterated stupidity, it's economic suicide and the very fact that you can say it with a straight face, shows your entire lack of knowledge about either economics....or the world stage at large. In fact, one of the smartest things an American manufacturer ever did was...Ford. He doubled the wages of his employees, in effect saying "if my own people can't afford the cars we make, what's the point?" He understood the concept of "creating customers". Want other people around the globe to buy our products? Help them get in a financial position to be customers. Maybe not today and maybe not in your lifetime...but it's already happening. The reason our products are as good as they are (in the knowledge based products) is because we know we have to be better, smarter, faster...thanks to competition. Those products which don't require much brain power (Tupperware, garbage sacks, TV's, etc.) have long ago been ceded to foriegn manufacturers, and it's a good thing. The money we save not spending ridiculous amounts on things others can produce for less allows us to put our money and effort into things that produce a higher return. In capitalism you try to knock your "competition" out of business not help them! All true, but the minute you gate yourself off from other manufacturers of similar products, you stifle innovation. East Germany was a perfect labratory for this experiment. Both East and West Germany were essentially identical in values and productivity at one point (because they were in fact one place)....and then 50 years of a walled off, protected economy proved the fallibility of a walled society. Then, we are told that "we should develope foreign markets to buy our goods and services." Oh? And why is that? I believe I already explained that, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that when you have more people capable of purchasing a product, sales increase. Are they saying that we should start opening Lincoln-Mercury dealorships in Port O Prince, Haiti? Absolutely...now you're getting it. Except for one thing. The Japanese already opened up a store there 20 years ago...and their products are cheaper, get better gas mileage, etc., so there's really no point. However, those folks do need software, which those who studied and went to school, now have the skill sets to make and manufacture...and at highly profitable margins. All of which flows back to our shores. If I had a choice to be selling the world our software and airplanes, or our Tonka Trucks and our zip lock bags and frisbees...I'd choose the former every time. All the while our salaries are going down and our jobs are going overseas. Everyone is going to read the statistics the way that best suits their argument, but the fact is, we're all driving cars today that had they been manufactured 20 years ago, would easily cost double what we currently pay, same with computers. Even when the product doesn't go down in price, it's capacity has generally increased over the last few decades. Houses that used to cost $200,000.00 now cost $500,000.00, but we're not paying 10% interest (200k payment = $1,700.00 a month) anymore either, we're paying 6% (500k payment approx. $2,600.00 a month)...and if you're like 99.9999% of the population, your income has surely risen over those same last 20 years...at minimum, doubled and more than likely much more, even if you didn't get a college degree. In short, that $500,000.00 house is probably costing you less per month than the $200,000.00 house 20 years ago in real dollars. (And by the way...if it's not, your problem isn't with the govt. screwing you, it's more likely with you). I make a real concious effort now to "not" buy anything made in foreign countries. Everyone should follow their convictions....but the simple fact is, it's impossible to buy American made unless you're buying little wooden trucks made out of Virginia pine. Accept it. This really doesn't sound like capitalism to me! Well, if you're referring to your above comments as to how things work...I'd have to agree....what you've described isn't even remotely capitalism. It's just silliness, none of which is even remotely based in fact. I don't know what it is but I do know that I don't want my Tax Dollars involved in this! Ahhhh well, until there's a Federal Govt. of Popeye....I think you're stuck with the current plan.

UtopianRanger -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 9:06:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 We're told that people must be better educated to "compete" in this "global economy." But then, we don't "compete" against foreign countries. We actually "help" foreign countries with favored trade deals and "foreign aid!" How is doing those things "competing" against foreign countries in a "global economy?" I mean if we were really serious about competing "against" foreign countries shouldn't we be locking them out of our markets and putting them out of business? That's competition! In capitalism you try to knock your "competition" out of business not help them! Then, we are told that "we should develope foreign markets to buy our goods and services." Oh? And why is that? Are they saying that we should start opening Lincoln-Mercury dealorships in Port O Prince, Haiti? All the while our salaries are going down and our jobs are going overseas. I make a real concious effort now to "not" buy anything made in foreign countries. This really doesn't sound like capitalism to me! I don't know what it is but I do know that I don't want my Tax Dollars involved in this! What say you? You're on the right path, Popeye : There's nothing ''free'' about a ''free market'' that is perpetuated by modern day slavery. Confucius Say : Be very leery of advice given by little fat guys with beards who idolize Alan Greenspan. [:D] - R

popeye1250 -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 9:48:10 PM)
Griswold, you just proved my point! If what you say is true then we're not actually "competing" in this "global economy" are we? Then why is the government and business telling us we must "compete" in a "global market" if that is not in fact what is happening? As for your definition of foreign aid, if that is in fact what is really going on then it's bad policy, bad management and quite honestly corruption if it's done to favor individual businesses or industries.

DesertRat -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 9:53:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: DesertRat ~fr~ I tried avoiding Chinese stuff for several years but eventually had to give up. When it comes to important stuff like cars, motorcycles, or audio gear, I buy Japanese stuff whenever possible. I doubt if I'll ever buy another American car. Bob Awwe common' Bob we still make Studebakers ...ya know America's other fiberglass car. thompson Okay, okay...maybe, just maybe I'd consider a clean Avanti if the price was right. Or maybe an original 289 or 427 Cobra, or a cherry GT350. Or a GT40 or a Saleen...gee, come to think of it, there are lots of American cars I'd consider if I ever won the lottery. Bob

meatcleaver -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/10/2007 11:44:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 All the while our salaries are going down and our jobs are going overseas. I make a real concious effort now to "not" buy anything made in foreign countries. This really doesn't sound like capitalism to me! I don't know what it is but I do know that I don't want my Tax Dollars involved in this! What say you? I find it amazing that so much whining comes out of America about this issue. If America is losing jobs overseas and wages are going down, it means that America isn't competitive in a particular market. If you can't find anything that is made in America, maybe other countries are making better products. Germany manages to export more goods than America and has about the quarter of the population. German workers on average are also paid more than American workers and have better social services. I'm guessing as to the reason but American companies on the whole have made products for the home market with it being so big and forgot the world market is even bigger, while their competitors concentrated on the world market in the first place. As for out sourcing, every developed country has that problem. The idea is to let old industry move to the third world and develope modern industry making products that can be sold at a premium. As for aid, that is one sure fire way of stopping competition and has nothing to do with helping a country develope. The best way to help a country develope is to get rid of protectionist trade barriers and allow developing countries to compete on a level playing field. The US and EU destroy many economies around the world by dumping subsidized agricultural products on developing countries while rstricting access to their markets.. Hey. I'm not a capitalist but I can see the irony of western labour whinging about capitalism and the hardship it causes. Post war, workers in the west took the thirty pieces of silver given to them by the powers that be and thought fuck the rest of mankind. If you take a bribe, expect to pay it back at some point.

Zensee -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/11/2007 12:46:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen 3) insurance, banking and call centres are service industries - by their nature they make money, but they do not create wealth, which is an entirely different thing. One creates wealth by taking one thing and making it into something more valuable - manufacturing in other words. If you'd used casinos and currency traders as examples of parasitic industries, I'd agree with you. Manufacture and resource extraction are the classic methods of wealth production but material value is not the only value in an economy. Services have value and ideas have value. Organisation, transportation, communication... Insurance (in theory) stabilises economies by sharing and redistributing risk over populations, geographies and time. Banks (in theory) provide reliable and secure means to transact business and safeguard wealth. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen At the macro level, our wealth is being transferred to other countries - they will improve their standard of living whilst ours will fall. Eventually, there may be a balance - or it may swing about and we will be the low wage labourers in the sweat shops of overseas countries. At the micro level, it means that the misery and poverty of other countries will be exchanged for our comparative well being. How this is in any way protecting the interests of the people, I do not understand. E Historically the center of economic and political power migrates east to west. Having taken several millennia to get from the Indus Valley to England (for the Industrial Revolution) it then hopped the ocean and scooted across North America in a century or so, stubbing its toe on the Information Revolution in Silicone Valley. Its stern lights can be seen from the west coast of North America as it steams for Hong Kong. The Glorious Party has the perfect setup: a vast, private third-world of peasants to plunder and exploit and a sexy city by the sea to wheel and deal with the world through. China is just getting started. They will move feudalism to a new level. So it is in our interest to empower and enrich other countries in the long run, if we hope to stand and even prosper in the shadow of The Great Wallmart of China. Z.

seeksfemslave -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/11/2007 1:33:08 AM)
The "hole" referred to really boils down to this: We are living in times of major economic change. As a consequnce, in the West, the standard of living for the masses is going to fall. For those in China and India it will rise. Can anything be done ?. Not a lot IMO, its too late. Speaking for the UK, for the the US I dont know, but over here if more respect and prestige had been associated with manufacture then maybe things would be different. That has not been the case and so we are in a mess. At the moment we are riding on a merry go round of money creation. I have been expecting that merry go round to seize up for at least 25 years. So far it hasnt but I cant see any reason why it shouldn't. A poster in this thread, who made some good economic points said. I paraphrase..... let others manufacture the simple things eg TVs while we do high value added things like software... Clearly poster you have no idea how technically advanced is a TV system. Transmission/Reception.

Politesub53 -> RE: A hole in the theory of the global economy. (10/11/2007 3:05:07 AM)
Thompson, i dont see how you can equate slavery with cheap labour, one is forced and one is not. I agree the people involved are still being used, although the pittance they recieve is better than they would otherwise have. In some countries working for foreign firms is the difference between eating and not eating. Sam, i think the scandal about the lead in toys is as much the fault of Mattel as of the Chinese. Mattel wanted cheap labour and took their eye off quality control, i am just glad that they found out before the busy Christmas period. As for fining China for polluting American air, the need for America to reduce its co2 output is still significant. China and America produce 40% of the worlds total. People in general want consumer goods as cheap as possible, that situation wont ever change, nor will companies constantly looking for cheaper ways of production.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125