quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I'm not as concerned with our reputation as it regards this. Think about it this way, if the Americans government raised import tariffs and/or capped importation, what would that do to the economies and societies we import from? Wouldn't that tarnish our world reputation, too?

Possibly, although I don’t think it will be as bad as some of the other things we’ve done which affect our reputation around the world. As I said, lots of countries have raised tariffs at one time or another, so it’s a perfectly legitimate action for a national government to take. At least we’re still exercising our prerogative and free choice without directly violating, invading, or bombing other nations.

quote:


When there are no more people willing to make the stuff at the cheap labor prices, one of two things will happen: 1. Labor prices will rise, or 2. People will be forced to work for those wages. I think the former will happen, but the latter could happen, and the latter is where the non-peaceful events will mostly occur. But, if the latter does happen, I do believe there will be fallout (on the world stage) for whatever country forces their people into it.

It depends on what you define as “force.” The way it is now, I would say that some people are already forced to work at low wages.
As far as being “willing” to work at those wages, again, some definitions are in order here. Let’s say you were offered the choice of staying at home and getting $1 million per year tax free – or going to work at a shoe factory for $5 a day. Who would be “willing” to work at those wages if they didn’t have to (that is, if they weren’t forced to).
So, the “force” to which you refer is already in place. All that we can expect now is counter-force.

quote:

quote:

As cheap labor searches move from one country to the next, to the next, etc., the standards of living in those countries will rise. It may not be fast, but it certainly will happen.

It’s already happening. China has had some new billionaires lately, so it’s rising quite fast for some people, although most people still get left behind. India has also made some improvements in their economy, but much of their country is still impoverished.

quote:


Who are we to prevent people from choosing to work for a wage that may be better than what they were working for previously, or what they would otherwise be working for?

We wouldn’t be preventing anything, not in this example regarding tariffs and duties. People in other countries can make their choices, and we would make ours. What’s wrong with that?

quote:

quote:

It's a culture thing. I do believe there needs to be a "culture shock," or a "reset" of America's culture and principles.

Perhaps. I’ve often thought along those same lines, but I don’t know how it can be done and still be effective.

quote:

If it can't be done from within, then it's going to have to be done from without. The "from without" thing could be a total crash of the economy where things have to be rebuilt from the ground up.

Or it could be a war or insurrection. It’s different in countries throughout history where people had always lived in squalor and didn’t know any better. But when people who have been living the good life suddenly have it pulled out from under them, then the reaction could be sharper and more pronounced.

quote:

quote:

And, no, the Great Recession didn't do that. It could have, but government didn't let it happen. It's going to be painful. A lot of people are going to have their lives completely upturned. I do think we'll be better off after we recover from it, though.

Hard to say how it will play itself out.
The thing is, in a global economy practically without borders, there will be a natural tendency towards equilibrium. The economies in the developing world are improving while Western economies are in decline. This would ordinarily be considered a desirable goal towards global equality, stability, and unity. Yes, it may be painful, but there has been a great deal of pain around the world these past centuries, much of it caused by the West, while we’ve been somewhat cocooned in our insular bubble. We Americans just can’t handle even the slightest bit of pain, whether it’s emotional pain or physical pain. We want to be pampered and spoiled, earning high salaries (because we’re just so fucking good at what we do), and end up with the most toys.
It’s a one-way, dead-end street which America never should have gone down. That’s what happens when there’s too many accountants and not enough statesmen.

quote:

My implication of "American Labor" (notice the capital 'L') wasn't regarding it being incapable or of a poor quality. I fully believe that Americans can be employed as productively as a worker from any other country in whatever line of work. And, if Americans put their minds to it and focus on it, I do think we can be the world economic trailblazer again. American Labor (again, capital 'L') is not just the American labor force, and I do think is responsible, in part, for our not having as competitive a labor market as other countries. I'm sure someone will jump on my for this, but I'm opposed to the minimum wage for that same reason. You will end up with fewer people employed at the higher rate than you would have had employed at the lower rate. What a Union negotiator defines as "fair," and what the Everyman (TM) defines as fair likely vary widely.

What is “fair” may be considered somewhat arbitrary, but before the Labor Movement, the business owners decided what was “fair.” And history has already shown us their track record and how they operate. We already know what they think is “fair.” They’re the reason why a Labor Movement had to get started in the first place, not just in America, but in Europe as well, leading to countless strikes, riots, unrest, and even revolutions on a few occasions. This isn’t an issue to be taken lightly or dealt with in a cavalier manner. This isn’t something that should be solely left up to economists or businessmen.

quote:

In other countries around the world where they didn’t have an industrial revolution or labor movement, these are the countries with virtually captive labor forces who have been earning wages that no American worker could possibly live on or compete with. You can’t blame American Labor for that either, since these countries have been long term victims of Western colonialism and imperialism. We, as Westerners, put them in that situation, and this includes China and India.
China’s situation is a bit inexplicable, since they already had their workers’ revolution and lived as a communist society for several decades, but now they seem to be reverting back to the days of Imperial China. It’s like their whole revolution was a complete waste.

quote:

We agree that executive pay is extremely high. We also agree that's it's probably not "fair" compensation. Should government come in and cap executive pay? Didn't we do something like that before? What did that result in?

I think the high executive pay is more symptomatic of the overall mentality and culture which exists at that level in society. I’m not saying that the government should intervene and cap executive pay (since that’s more a symbolic issue than anything else). But if a company is showing consistent losses yet still gives its CEO an obscenely high salary and bonus, then it shouldn’t be too difficult to figure out why our economy is in such a shambles. The people running it are complete idiots.
I believe there was once a time when the industrialists and executives of this country actually wanted to build and create something meaningful. Sure, they wanted to make money and earn a profit, but that wasn’t their sole motivation. It’s not like today where executives and Wall Street raiders want to loot as much as they can from a company and then slip away with their golden parachutes and move on to the next company. I don’t think that we, as a country, should just stand by and let our country be looted just because too many people are religiously obsessed with this ideology called “capitalism.”
It’s always a mistake to throw out common sense merely for the sake of ideological orthodoxy. That was the mistake made by Soviet economists, and now, American economists are doing the same thing – adhering to an ideology just for the sake of adhering to an ideology, even if common sense says we should do otherwise.

quote:

What economists and businessmen are saying what they are doing is exact science, with mathematical precision?

I didn’t say that they actually said it, but they imply it. It’s implied in some of the arguments which are advanced, even by you when you say that “If America raises tariffs or duties, then X will happen.” The thing is, we don’t know what will happen, yet if someone predicts something with an implied certainty, then I view that as an attempt to pass off that field of study as an exact science or at least a natural science – and not a social science, which is what it is.
I’ve been in arguments with people who worship economics as a science. There was one PhD candidate I remember who was particularly insufferable, a devout ideologue through and through. Yes, they really are that arrogant and full of themselves (and of course, they believe they should earn a high salary because of their “skills”).

quote:

IMO, the idea isn't to tear down the Joneses, nor is it to subsidize the "keeping up with them." Society can't do anything, but individuals can. Each individual can choose for himself or herself to stand up for principles and to bring consumption back under income.

Well, we can only hope. Hell, I’ve been saying all along that it’s up to individuals to vote for better politicians so we can have a better government which might actually do some good for this country. But most of the time, every Election Day, the people turn out to be an utter disappointment.

quote:

quote:

quote:

If our competition is with China, simply raising China's import prices won't give incentive for domestic companies to improve or be more efficient. They'll still compete with other domestic manufacturers, but when you artificially raise the price of the lowest priced good, the consumer will end up paying more.

Is that the only issue here? We both agreed that some elements of rampant consumerism have been bad for our society, so a policy that might discourage it may not be a bad thing for America overall.

Didn't work for alcohol during Prohibition, did it?

We’re not talking about Prohibition, we’re talking about tariffs (and I believe that tariffs are still in place for most alcoholic beverages). I’m not saying that anything should be banned outright (and in fact, I’m actually in favor of legalization of other substances as well).
But on the subject of Prohibition, there was no economic incentive for imposing it, nor was there an economic reason for rescinding Prohibition. There were other societal problems associated with it.
However, for what I’m suggesting, a better analogy might be the tobacco tax. Even though many tobacco users balk about it, the tax still gets paid, the tobacco companies stay in business, and there’s no economic disaster or social unrest as a result. Some people have even quit smoking as a result, so those kinds of taxes also entail a bit of social engineering of the kind that might be necessary to wean people off consumerism as well (which is probably more harmful to society than tobacco).

quote:

I think if we raised interest rates, it would bring us back to fiscal sanity. Eventually. The Fed can start raising their rate and banks and lenders will follow. Eventually, savings will be more prudent than debt, and consumption will drop. It would be ugly. It wouldn't be "fair" to all. But, it would lead to a change in the whims of society, and could very well reset America's rampant consumerism back to a sane level.

I see what you’re saying, but with all due respect, this sounds more like a band-aid solution. We might have to dig deeper and think outside the box. A temporary command economy might be necessary to get us back on our feet, and as far as I’m concerned any “ugliness” or “unfairness” should be visited upon the bankers and CEOs first, since they’re the ones responsible for putting us in this mess to begin with.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)