Cheap Products vs. High Wages... Americans Want BOTH!

I do not know where you come up with all this bizarre stuff. I have been very clear in what I am saying and that is that the US needs to get more mercantilist when dealing with mercantilist countries. No more free rides and one-way deals. It may have worked in the past for multinationals who found a way to increase their profits, but it will not work in the future the way it is hollowing out 80% of the US workforce (who are voters).



Quote from Gringinho:

indexer,

are you really saying that USA invented markets, adaptation, evolution, information, time? Are you by any chance a strongly religious person who adheres to blind faith?
:D

You speak about resisting the changes by strong foreign policy - like objectivism, protectionism, interventionism and some libertarianism. Well, conflict can be very profitable sometimes - but let me know how it works out for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interventionism_(politics)

Here in Brazil the rich are resisting higher wages and sharing the generated wealth. Then they buy more guards, guns and level 5 bombproof cars. It's really nice and benefits the security and defence sector tremendously.
:p

Now, think about how India and China churning out more than a million highly skilled engineers every year - and how incredibly difficult it is to be accepted to some of these studies. They're not the best in the world at much that they do, but they also lack the familiarity and social platform that we enjoy. However, they are catching up at frenetic pace.

Don't you think that trying to be a little smart, understand what the underlying dynamics are at such a level where we talk importance of education for a realistic future scenario where armed conflict is not the central issue?

No doubt others will have at least as formidable weapons and weapons technology as USA in the very near future. Russia, India and Brazil going for the Sukhoi PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter jet is just one example of this. Take a look at optronics, laser terrain mapping and new radar technology - as well as intelligent missiles and new emerging defence systems with countermeasures, like those from e.g Sweden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Electronically_Scanned_Array
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIDAR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIDAR_Contour_Mapping


indexer,
essentially - what you are saying is that intervention of progress, evolution, markets, society should be made with strong foreign politics prone to conflict - so that you can maintain an advantage and those who oppose shall be crushed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolibertarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

You know, the rules of dictatorship, authoritarians and despots do not stand the test of time. You can't stop evolution.
:p
More...
 
Quote from Gringinho:

... Russia, India and Brazil going for the Sukhoi PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter jet is just one example of this.
More...

Sukhoi PAK-FA fifth-generation flying piece of crap is just another example of what can be accomplished by a very few remaining engineers left from all those brains that moved to the West after 20 years without funding.

Fifth-generation fighter jet is a fifth-generation electronics and software mounted on a generic titanium frame.

It took 30 something years for koreans to figure out how to make microchips. None of the countries above have been able to do that yet.

Quote from Gringinho:

...
are you really saying that USA invented markets, adaptation, evolution, information, time?
More...
It's the other way around: markets, adaptation, evolution, information invented the USA.

Quote from Gringinho:

...

You know, the rules of dictatorship, authoritarians and despots do not stand the test of time.
More...
Of course they do, just look at the UK - still a monarchy, Russia - still authoritarian. As long as they evolve, it should not be a problem.
 
Quote from indexer:

I do not know where you come up with all this bizarre stuff. I have been very clear in what I am saying and that is that the US needs to get more mercantilist when dealing with mercantilist countries. No more free rides and one-way deals. It may have worked in the past for multinationals who found a way to increase their profits, but it will not work in the future the way it is hollowing out 80% of the US workforce (who are voters).
More...

Ok, it seems you did a little 180 degrees here...

I agree that one needs to adapt to the emerging markets, and balance out the deficiencies in current commerce systems - like tariffs, market access etc. But that is because there are currently no free markets!

I am a strong supporter of Laissez-faire, and will always be - because philosophically I think free markets reflect the evolution of mankind. I am very strongly opposed to interventionism.

That is also why I strongly support outsourcing and offshoring, in fact I run a business where this is the central model. It is progress - and protectionism is just flawed conservative capitalism - purely idiotic and hostile.


makloda,
I know what you mean.

Gorbachev took a look at how much of the GDP was being spent on keeping up the arms race with the west - and then stopped the madness. They went through a rough patch and are now adapting to the realities. Europe with Germany and Holland sold off thousands of main battle tanks no longer needed. Things are improving a lot - prospering even.

USA has not changed that much - e.g cue the build-up and initiation of the Georgia conflict. The US has reduced defence spending with regards to GDP, but are world leaders in military spending - more than the rest of the world together.

Now China, Venezuela and others are stepping up their military spending - because USA is seen as hostile towards their increasing economies, threatening the domination of USA for future domination of the world economy and current advantages the US is protecting.

USA is still leaning heavily towards interventionist policy, and the neoconservatives showed just what they were talking about - damaging the US economy structurally in the process, not reforming it or adapting to world evolution but rather resisting any change or reform...


romanus,
I think you would agree that UK is not ruled by the monarchy. Also, I think you would agree that Russia is much more democratic now than before - they have strengthened parts of their government, but it is not by any measure a dictatorship... and as long as it's not being censored heavily and continues to be an open democracy (albeit imperfect), they will continue to evolve into something better like the rest of us.

And I agree - the ideas from the enlightenment period in Europe, the French revolution and ideas of free market capitalism - that is what made USA. The interventionists, protectionism and neoconservatives are what is destroying USA today - corrupting the ideas and encumbering society with subsidies, conflict, punitive reactions etc...
:)
 
This topic had a really flurry of activity didn't it?

I agree with the camp that holds the strongest voice at the moment, the problem is trade. Not education. Yes americans are great entrepreneurs and they can have a better education but FIRST you must have FAIR TRADE. You must enforce the laws and never take no for an answer when dealing with these merchantilistic (finally someone said it!) countries. They want to protect their industries, or they refuse to respect the laws? Then fuck them.
Countries like China can deal with the great backlash that exists in their country when most of the riches are held by the top %. It's not a country of equalities.

Japan can look at its 200% debt to GDP ratio and try to trade with that if they don't accept fair trade.

Also as Hydroblunt put it so bluntly, American flourished during its protectionism years. Be careful of statements without facts, before you know it they are nothing but dogma. None of this free market bs, America has been a very different country throughout its history.

Here's some nice videos to convert the few who remain, we are getting closer to the tipping point every day!


A rebutal why the 1930s tariffs, so often quoted by neo-liberals, weren't the cause of the great depression. The logic is very good, I know quite a lot about the 1920s bubble and great depression. Taxes during the 1920s were lowered by 50% and the debt by 33%.
http://pl.net/~keithr/rf98_GreatDepression.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_American_history

The period I know most about that concerns tariffs is the late 1800s. Grover Cleveland lost his election because he lowered tariffs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland
If you don't read, you will never educate yourself.

He opposed the McKinley tariffs who increased prosperity and taxes!
In fact Williams McKinley became the next president, why don't you check what his campaign was based on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McKinley

Unfortunately wikipedia or the internet isn't the best source of this information, it's like it's getting destroyed because its so old. I read a book written by a pretty successful broker of the times, it described the situation 100x better.

The 1920s were no different, tariffs were brought back to their high pre war levels. America the industrial nation was built on selling to European markets while protecting its own. The good news is that Europe managed to stay a prosperous region..

And finally, 2 multi-part videos about the unfair trade of Japan in the 1980s-1990s. The second is Lee Iacocca.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GecyyDHmNg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUXpOZRg1sw
 
There is no 180 degree turn. I am saying the same thing in all my posts. You however, are bouncing around like someone who has had one too many expressos.

Quote from Gringinho:

Ok, it seems you did a little 180 degrees here...

I agree that one needs to adapt to the emerging markets, and balance out the deficiencies in current commerce systems - like tariffs, market access etc. But that is because there are currently no free markets!

I am a strong supporter of Laissez-faire, and will always be - because philosophically I think free markets reflect the evolution of mankind. I am very strongly opposed to interventionism.

That is also why I strongly support outsourcing and offshoring, in fact I run a business where this is the central model. It is progress - and protectionism is just flawed conservative capitalism - purely idiotic and hostile.
More...
 
Renegen,

you are saying that fair trade comes before education. I disagree.

Unfair trade is a systemic failure. This systemic failure needs correction, and to think that intervention is the solution is fundamentally flawed. If you keep intervening on a market, the market reacts and will adapt to punitive measures, legislation etc. In the end the encumbering increase of complexity will make the system fail utterly or be extremely ineffective.

The solution is to look at what is wrong - what causes unfair commerce? The answer lies very much in the execution of trade, and in the trust-models. As long as trade is possible to be unfair and as long as corruption, deceit, fraud is possible - there will be the ones taking the risk. So - to relieve the encumbering practices of increasingly complex tariffs, subsidies and trade negotiations - you simple move the trust-model over to a technological platform where the guidelines and rules for execution are more effectively adjusted and monitored to stay fair and balanced.

I think most of us agree that free trade is the ideal; but free trade needs to be fair - and corruption, imbalances, fraud, deficiencies and ultimately intervention are all negatives on a free trade fair market. Therefore the whole debate should really be how to evolve trade so that these negative influences are cancelled out or nullified - ineffective strategies or effects.

As long as humans shift money between hands, and as long as we subjectively choose who to do business with - when equal alternatives are present, then there will be problems with the trust-model - because humans are not equipped to perfectly handle complex models or do so in a fair, balanced manner. Open trade exchanges, futures/options and reverse auctions/tenders for any trade with transparency for audit, monitoring and review is how to progress into a more fair trade balance and economy.

America and other nations may have flourished during protectionist periods, but one has to understand the place of protectionist periods in history. Now the world is different, and we are progressing into more free trade and open markets. That does not make protectionism something remotely resembling a successful strategy - but a regression in evolution.
 
Quote from indexer:

It has got nothing to do with - dynamic balances, faster adapting or new paradigms. The US invented all that non-sense and it is just consultant B.S.

Read the article that I posted above from Fritz Hollings. It’s about not trying to be Mr. Nice Guy anymore and to start playing hardball. Tom Friedman (who is a billionaire by marriage), is a clown. We need more Hollings and less Friedman.
More...

indexer,
I think it was you who said that it has nothing to do with markets balancing themselves, being dynamic... and you also mentioned concern for the workforce in USA by outsourcing.

Clearly, you are not promoting free markets - in employment or free trade, but an interventionist approach. Maybe we are not thinking about the same thing when thinking "mercantile action". The thing that comes to my mind is making fair, balanced trade with free markets...
:p
 
Gringho, misguided ideologue.

Tell me why exactly it is a fundamental flaw to repair an unfair trade system. It is only a fundamental flaw on your head, where you are completely disconnected to reality. You are faith based, not evidence based.

Go on, tell me. Are you saying you should never correct any problem ever, because intervention would be bad?


And then you pad your post with more theories. Are you applying for an academia job or something?
 
Renegen,

you are correct that this is theory; but it is philosophical theory founded on an analysis of the whole process and system.

I have recognized that to keep the current system, one needs to use the current available measures - but what I'm saying is that we need to keep in mind how to keep evolving. That is why the guidelines for evolving and transitioning into improved systems is a more successful approach than simply "fixing the problem" with interventionism. You always need to keep in mind the big picture - and work to improve not only the details, but the whole system.

An example - if a pizzeria has problems with employee embezzlement, then they can install video cameras, security personnel, cash-register checks, employee vetting etc. But a much smarter approach is to look at the whole system and all the components, and then separate the production from the ordering and cash units. That way a central dispatch of production orders into delivery which take payment back to the ordering unit or a special accounting unit will defy any attempt at selling products and pocketing the money.

That is also the wiser approach that lets you evolve into fair and balanced trade. Interventionism is a temporary strategy which ultimately ends into a dead end.
 
There are many types of Unions. Unions do not only represent the middle class.

The AMA is a union because you must be a certain expertise to get licensed. The bar association is the same deal. Why is it ok for some professionals to be reguired for membership and many bitch about having to join a union to get into a certain plant or drive for the TEAMSTERS and make a hundred grand in a good year?

If the airlines were allowed they would hire a pilot for 5 an hour if the insurance companies allowed them. Face the truth.........UNION BUSTING was never about high wages....it was about greed.

If a Ford is asembled in mexico for lower wages is it cheaper than the one in the showroom that was made in Dearborn?

Done ....there is no arguing this issue because greed is why this country is going into the crapper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top