Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

helgrenze wrote:

col. krazy kenny wrote: Its time for a change.

Isn't this what Obama promised?

Ok just because some-one has to be the "bad guy" and say it.....
The main area that is in real dire straights for job in this country is manufacturing. With Union wages draining the working capitol of the industry plants are closing and jobs are lost over seas. This is primarily due to the Unions failure to adapt to the changing demands of a global market. They do not function competitivly with foreign manufacturers. The UAW actually refused to take an across the board paycut in order to save plants that built Pontiacs. Which wound up costing jobs which have not been recovered yet.
American Unions have stagnanted and have shown little growth over the last 20 years, mainly due to loss of jobs in the sectors where they hold sway.
Not saying Unions are all bad, but they need to change and adapt to the global economy to be competitive with other manufacturers around the world.

Unions have realistically little to do with modern manufacturing job flight, the average U.S. untrained factory worker was overpayed heavily for years and as globalization made outsourcing manufacturing jobs easier those jobs were outsourced. Americans aren't willing to work for the wages the companies want to pay, unions or no, thus the jobs leave. Manufacturing is a low pay untrained sector that exists comfortably in developing nations. The start to every new economy is resource exploitation and manufacturing. About the only manufacturing jobs that our economy can keep are highly automated or highly trained jobs like chipset manufacturing or high end machinery. An economy doesn't need to manufacture actual cheap goods to function, and the obsession with bringing the mills back in america is hurting the areas of economic growth it should be encouraging instead.

Unions have realistically little to do with modern manufacturing job flight, the average U.S. untrained factory worker was overpayed heavily for years and as globalization made outsourcing manufacturing jobs easier those jobs were outsourced.

Surely they wouldn't have been so drastically overpaid (or more accurately, overpensioned), if not for the unions?

Americans aren't willing to work for the wages the companies want to pay, unions or no, thus the jobs leave.

You can speculate as to what people are willing to do, but we can't say that for sure. The only thing we can say for sure is that with unions around, people aren't ALLOWED to work fot the wages companies want to pay.

An economy doesn't need to manufacture actual cheap goods to function, and the obsession with bringing the mills back in america is hurting the areas of economic growth it should be encouraging instead.

While you're largely correct here, I think there calculations aren't being done very thoughtfully.

When you send work overseas, you send capital overseas, and generally it doesn't come back. If you pay an American worker 30% more than a foreign worker, don't forget, he then pays that 30% right back to us in taxes, and then that goes to build roads to your factory, schools to give you better trained workers, etc. etc.

Now, I realize that a foreign worker doesn't typically want 30% less. They often will work for more like 300% less. But there's a place where you set the bar, and I think we've set it without thinking very hard about the real costs of foreign labor.

Wow... this turned pretty quickly from what is obviously an erroneous statement by Pelosi ("It [unemployment benefits] creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.") to an argument on the merits of paying benefits in general.

It's simple folks... businesses won't hire people if they face uncertainty. Government spending like drunken sailors in the face of massive debt and deficits creates uncertainty.

You want to create jobs? Ease the tax burden on the populace. THAT is the fastest way to create jobs.

The Green Git wrote:Wow... this turned pretty quickly from what is obviously an erroneous statement by Pelosi ("It [unemployment benefits] creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.") to an argument on the merits of paying benefits in general.

It's simple folks... businesses won't hire people if they face uncertainty. Government spending like drunken sailors in the face of massive debt and deficits creates uncertainty.

You want to create jobs? Ease the tax burden on the populace. THAT is the fastest way to create jobs.

Tax breaks are the single least effective form of economic stimulus a government can engage in. This has been proven every year in every economy since the conceptual basis between macro supply and demand and the aggregate spending power of a populace was realized. If you had attended any sort of anything involving anything even remotely related to an economics class you would be aware of that. Our tax burden is lower than it was during the clinton boom and still lower than it was post WW2 which saw the longest period of economic growth in the nations history.Given our ludicrous amount of debt cutting taxes is the last thing this country should do. Another round of massive tax cuts would put the last nail in this nations coffin.

Surely they wouldn't have been so drastically overpaid (or more accurately, overpensioned), if not for the unions?

It's possible, and it's quite likely that functionally corrupt unions have exacerbated the problem by a few years in several industries. The automotive industry specifically. It doesn't make a tremendous difference though, whether the job flight occurred now, a decade ago, or five years from now, it was going to happen regardless. With tighter union controls at a national level I doubt the nation could have squeezed more than five years out of the industries that are now ailing. Of the lot only the automotive industry strikes me as something that proper controls could have saved, and it's a highly technical field and it's loss shows poorly on the managerial and working abilities of the companies involved. American made hasn't meant quality at any time that I've been alive, and if the cars aren't better the employees and bosses definitely shouldn't get paid more.

You can speculate as to what people are willing to do, but we can't say that for sure. The only thing we can say for sure is that with unions around, people aren't ALLOWED to work fot the wages companies want to pay.

I find that to be an irrelevant proposition anyway. Companies WANT to pay nothing. They SETTLE for paying the minimum possible. In most fields of manufacture the minimum possible is under a liveable wage in america. These are jobs the country doesn't actually want, they are bad for it in a global economy because they pull it's standard of living down. No one cares for an american made little carnival spider ring, and when you can pay a man in africa 35 cents a day (significantly beyond 1000% less then what an american would work for) there is absolutely no incentive to produce in America. Labor unions exist for a reason, and that reason is to prevent American workers from being treated like Thai workers.

While you're largely correct here, I think there calculations aren't being done very thoughtfully.

Its quite thoughtful thankyouverymuch!

When you send work overseas, you send capital overseas, and generally it doesn't come back. If you pay an American worker 30% more than a foreign worker, don't forget, he then pays that 30% right back to us in taxes, and then that goes to build roads to your factory, schools to give you better trained workers, etc. etc.

The alternative is to shutter these same companies due to an inability to compete with low cost foreign firms. As an alternative you can up tarifs, but thats even more destructive to the western economic model which relies on economic growth outpacing borrowing. The government doesn't outsource jobs, private companies do. Multinationals care little for the aggregate loss of capitol due to their business practices. Average manufacturing wages in america are what? 12-16$ an hour? At foxcon, which is a highly trained electronics manufacturer making things like the Ipad (in china) the average hourly wage is ~1.20$. This is after a series of pay raises making it one of the highest paying companies in the region. Cut the head off of every union leader in america, you're not getting these jobs back. It's not worth trying. The american manufacturing industry is going to be going through some difficult times and it's not going to abate, but it has nothing to do with unions and everything to do with the fact that America has been an island of high quality of living and the ocean is a much smaller distance to travel then it used to be.

Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Allentown.... All cities that were part of "big Steel", all affected by the collapse of same when foreign steel was found to be more affordable. Many jobs in the mills were classed as "Unskilled". These were also bastions of the United Steel Workers Union. Of these three, Buffalo is still not recovered, Allentown has become a study in alternative energy and Pittsburgh is still recovering.

Not look at the auto industry in this country. Companies that rely heavily on Union employees are falling behind. Honda, Toyota, and VW all have nonunion plants in this country. Detroit may be the first major city in this country to become an effective ghost town.... but not the last. They are already closing schools by the hundreds and disincorporating outlying areas.

The unions have stagnated, they have no growth, and are spending more on politics than on improving things for the dwindling membership. They are supporting a bill that has Obama's stamp on it, The so called "Employee Free Choice Act". This act will give unions more power to subvert the work place than ever before by technically eliminating the secret ballot vote to unionize. They will be able to claim to represent a workplace with just a majority signing. The unions need this because they have had zero growth and are losing members as plants close and industries they are involved in start dying off.

Cut the head off of every union leader in america, you're not getting these jobs back. It's not worth trying.

If it's all the same to you, let's give it a try, just to be sure?

As an alternative you can up tarifs, but thats even more destructive to the western economic model which relies on economic growth outpacing borrowing.

In thinking on this issue I've always come to tariffs, and then concluded much as you have... Just not feasible.

But then again, I wonder if some sort of retroactive tariff isn't on the horizon. As it stands now, the US has a debt on a scale that I just don't see us paying off. We have this idea that if we can just run a surplus for long enough, away it goes! NEVER going to happen.

The largest surplus we ever ran was $236 billion under Clinton. Massive embarassment to the Republicans that he's the only fiscally responsible President of the past 50 odd years... But anyway, $236 billion is the MOST we ever did in a single year, and right now the debt is over $13 trilion. So, if you can pay off, say, $250 billion that's 52 YEARS of doing that to pay off the debt. Not going to happen, ever.

So you look at what's actually going on. We have a pretty massive trade deficit with China. We send all our money over there, and then because we can't operate without it, they loan it back in the form of bonds. Eventually we'll get to a point where we can't afford to do this any longer, or the Chinese decide not to buy any more bonds, or whatever. And then they Chinese will say "we want our $7 trillion" (or whatever it's up to at that point) and we just say "no. And I checked with our military, and they say no as well."

And so, because we all basically just want to keep doing what we do, they'll make some sort of deal, where there's a retroactive tariff, and the debt is gone, or whatever madness, so we can all keep going.

It could be that we can raise taxes, cut spending, find a way to generate a surplus, and do that long enough to reduce the debt to a manageable level. We don't have to pay it ALL off to be under control, just pay off a good chunk and be more responsible going forward.

But I work with the Feds. I can assure you, it's not going to happen.

Anecdote: You may have heard of Second Life or There. If you haven't they're like World of Warcraft where you play yourself, and do boring crap like talk to people, or buy t-shirts. The agency I work with feels that this software might enable them to improve the effectiveness of their teleconferencing and meetings, and they've set aside $18 million dollars to develop an implementation.

http://www.saic.com/products/simulation/olive/

No kidding.

Better idea, Feds. Buy all your employees WoW accounts. They can have meetings at the Orgrimmar bank, and if any of them (probably by pure accident) manage to collect some gold, you can sell it on eBay and put it towards the deficit.

Better idea, Feds. Buy all your employees WoW accounts. They can have meetings at the Orgrimmar bank, and if any of them (probably by pure accident) manage to collect some gold, you can sell it on eBay and put it towards the deficit.Fantastic idea!!! thanks Phryxis

The Green Git wrote:
It's simple folks... businesses won't hire people if they face uncertainty. Government spending like drunken sailors in the face of massive debt and deficits creates uncertainty.

There is always uncertainty in the future. Simply saying that businesses won't hire due to uncertainty is self-delusional nonsense as it ignores the fundamental reality of unpredictability.

The Green Git wrote:
You want to create jobs? Ease the tax burden on the populace. THAT is the fastest way to create jobs.

Maybe, but that's not being done now. Pelosi stated that unemployment is the most effective method of creating jobs that is currently being practiced. Its almost as if you don't read the articles you post.

Pelosi doesn't know her head from her ass (and frankly I bet her ass is better looking than her face) so anything NP says is to be regarded as fallacy and bs.

Of course she could say the sun was purple and somewhere, someone would believe her. It's like that Hope and Change nonsense.

Pelosi is indeed completely worthless. There are people on the American left, say like Rahm Emanuel, who are very smart, and very good at what they do, even if I think they're completely wrong ideologically.

Nancy Pelosi is not one of those people. She's just a total dimwit.

Here's my favorite Pelosi moment:

She was applauding herself and Congress for passing an anti-harassment law for Federal employees.

One thing this law did was make it illegal to fire a Federal employee within 1 year of their filing a sexual harassment lawsuit. Thus, if you file a lawsuit every 364 days, you can never be fired from a Federal job.

Of course, that would be unethical...

So what's the moral? The moral is that Nancy Pelosi passed a law that says, in effect, the only way a Federal employee can ever be fired is if they ARE ethical.

And I work with the Feds. I spent the first year and half at my current job, listening to the Fed over the cube wall rant to whoever had the misfortune of being in her vicinity about how everyone was sexually harassing her, and the job was a nightmare. I should also point out this woman was a good 350 lbs, and had some sort of respitory issue that made her pant loudly any time she walked around.

helgrenze wrote:It depends on what is being stimulated. How many jobs were created by this latest bank bailout?

Giving money to people for consumptions spending, as in the extension to welfare, is wholly different to lending money to the banks, which was money needed to put cash into the banks and prevent a greater crash.

This isn't a situation where throwing Big money at big problems makes better.. that is Reaganomics/trickle-down theory. The current situation needs a different approach.

That’s not right. The trickle-down theory argues that you get the rich end of town investing and making even more money and that money will flow down to the middle and lower classes. This is normally attempted in terms of cuts to the top marginal tax rate and to the capital gains tax.

The general theory has merit, much of the productivity (and therefore incomes) of the poor and middle class is created by investment spending by the rich. The theory fails in assuming the rich are inclined to invest more when given a tax break – that part never seems to work out.

Like having the National DoT create a list for each state for infrastructure repair. With the resourses of the FAA, FTA, FRA, MARAD, NHTSA and OIG, they should already have a list of what needs fixing or replacing. Then its just a matter of funding and .. HIRING people.
Wow, look at that I just created theoretical jobs for who knows how many.

Yes, infrastructure spending is an excellent source of stimulus, most economists argue it is the most effective source. There practical arguments against relying purely on infrastructure, though, there are timing delays, often several years, before the bulk of the money is spent, and that might be too late. Further, you need to put the new bridge where the new bridge is needed, and that might not match up with the areas most affected by the economic downturn.

More than, that, however, are the political problems, mostly built around the fixation on tax cuts that dominates US political thinking. It’s worth noting the original stimulus bill contained much, much more infrastructure spending, and that this was cut considerably as part of the compromises to get the Republicans and blue dogs to support the bill. They wanted a smaller bill, and they wanted tax cuts, so the planned infrastructure spend took the hit.

dogma wrote:Unemployment, at least in the US, has the additional effect of extending the average period that people remain unemployed. There have been quite a few studies which have supported, though not proven, this effect. Now, these studies were conducted during the 90's when we had very near what I would consider peak employment, as 5% has been the nominal rate of unemployment for the majority of recent US history.

Sure, as you note later we’re basically on the same page. I’d agree that in stronger economic conditions an extension or increase in welfare payments would allow people to be more selective in the job they take.

JohnHwangDD wrote:OTOH, a lack of food money is a pretty darn good incentive to get a job...

The assumption that the primary cause of unemployment right now is a lack of incentive among the unemployed is problematic.

helgrenze wrote:Ok just because some-one has to be the "bad guy" and say it.....
The main area that is in real dire straights for job in this country is manufacturing. With Union wages draining the working capitol of the industry plants are closing and jobs are lost over seas. This is primarily due to the Unions failure to adapt to the changing demands of a global market. They do not function competitivly with foreign manufacturers. The UAW actually refused to take an across the board paycut in order to save plants that built Pontiacs. Which wound up costing jobs which have not been recovered yet.
American Unions have stagnanted and have shown little growth over the last 20 years, mainly due to loss of jobs in the sectors where they hold sway.
Not saying Unions are all bad, but they need to change and adapt to the global economy to be competitive with other manufacturers around the world.

Unions often don’t help, especially in the US, but they aren’t the primary cause of manufacturing job loss. Unions were more powerful in previous decades and yet US manufacturing was still very strong.

The primary issue is simply that industries built around low skilled work can’t be economically viable in a country with relatively higher wage. The industry with the lowest skill and lowest level of capital investment is textiles, and it’s always the first to go. Funnily enough, as wages in Chinese cities are rising they’re finding their textile industry is becoming increasingly less competitive, and jobs are moving to inland China and to countries with even lower wages. Meanwhile China shifts into industries requiring greater investment of capital and greater employee skills, which justify the higher wages.

That’s the nature of economics, as economies change competitive advantages will come and go. The US no longer has any advantage in low value added manufacturing, but it does have a population with a high skill base and it remains an extremely safe place for investment. This gives it an overwhelming advantage in high level manufacturing and services industries. In terms of sheer dollars of manufactured goods produced, the US is still the biggest in the world, and it isn’t because it’s producing t-shirts. It’s because it’s producing aircraft and precision medical equipment, things like that.

The Green Git wrote:Wow... this turned pretty quickly from what is obviously an erroneous statement by Pelosi ("It [unemployment benefits]

The claim that Pelosi’s comment was inaccurate was dismissed as silly on the first page. Pelosi’s comment was based on a basic truth of economics. Follow the conversation, please.

It's simple folks... businesses won't hire people if they face uncertainty. Government spending like drunken sailors in the face of massive debt and deficits creates uncertainty.

You want to create jobs? Ease the tax burden on the populace. THAT is the fastest way to create jobs.

No, that’s a contrived and wrong headed view of the situation. Risk is certainly a factor in investment decisions, but it’s foolish to equate employment and investment as the same thing. Either way, the primary driver of employment is demand. Businesses employ when there is demand for their products above and beyond their present capacity. In an economic downturn in order to stabilise the economy it is sensible to promote demand through stimulus spending.

The debate on any of the above ended in the 1930s.

Phryxis wrote:But then again, I wonder if some sort of retroactive tariff isn't on the horizon. As it stands now, the US has a debt on a scale that I just don't see us paying off. We have this idea that if we can just run a surplus for long enough, away it goes! NEVER going to happen.

Sort of. It’s unlikely the debt will be brought to zero, but it can be brought back to manageable levels in the medium term. While the nominal amount might not be addressed, the US economy will continue to grow. In the twenty or thirty years when the US economy has doubled again, and if you’ve maintained a balanced budget or slight overall deficit in that period, then the debt will still be around $10 trillion, but it’ll $10 trillion in comparison to a GDP of around $25 trillion.

Either way, the primary issue right now is to get through the recession, and following that the issue is to move the deficit to a sustainable level. From there you can plan for deficit reduction, but the first and second steps are hard enough without worrying what’s 10 or more years down the line.

So you look at what's actually going on. We have a pretty massive trade deficit with China. We send all our money over there, and then because we can't operate without it, they loan it back in the form of bonds.

I’m beginning to believe the most necessary point of economic reform in the world right now is for China to either float their dollar or readjust it to a much more sensible value in comparison to the US dollar. It’s the primary cause for the trade imbalance, and a primary cause for economic instability world wide.

Phryxis wrote:Pelosi is indeed completely worthless. There are people on the American left, say like Rahm Emanuel, who are very smart, and very good at what they do, even if I think they're completely wrong ideologically.

Nancy Pelosi is not one of those people. She's just a total dimwit.

Of the leaders of the house and senate, majority and minority, I think I like Pelosi more than any of them. This is not so much a compliment to Pelosi as it is a condemnation of the rest.

Unions often don’t help, especially in the US, but they aren’t the primary cause of manufacturing job loss. Unions were more powerful in previous decades and yet US manufacturing was still very strong.

The primary issue is simply that industries built around low skilled work can’t be economically viable in a country with relatively higher wage. The industry with the lowest skill and lowest level of capital investment is textiles, and it’s always the first to go. Funnily enough, as wages in Chinese cities are rising they’re finding their textile industry is becoming increasingly less competitive, and jobs are moving to inland China and to countries with even lower wages. Meanwhile China shifts into industries requiring greater investment of capital and greater employee skills, which justify the higher wages.

There is more than enough information besides this clip to reinforce your opinion, but I think it will do for the moment. The moment from the early part of this year...

That’s the nature of economics, as economies change competitive advantages will come and go. The US no longer has any advantage in low value added manufacturing, but it does have a population with a high skill base and it remains an extremely safe place for investment. This gives it an overwhelming advantage in high level manufacturing and services industries. In terms of sheer dollars of manufactured goods produced, the US is still the biggest in the world, and it isn’t because it’s producing t-shirts. It’s because it’s producing aircraft and precision medical equipment, things like that.

In other words, most people would not want to fly in a plane that was built by workers that earned less than a satisfactory fart.

I will add something real quick of my own. I gladly dig ditches and work with the unblessed, but there are no more ditches to dig. Years in construction leaves me with little more than disdain for opinions that boil down to little more than, "Go dig your own grave". I pity the fool who thinks that a shovel and a kick ass attitude will get you anywhere these days, it simply isn't true. If I know someone who has work, I get work. It is really that simple, and it doesn't matter if I am the fastest gravel pusher in the state; I need to know people to get work, and at that point I can set whatever pace I feel like.

How many yards of gravel can you move in a day? Take one or two days to average your ability, then continue to shoot for that average over 6 weeks. The weakest will be weeded out within one week, followed by those who injure themselves attempting to be Rambo the gravel pusher.

I’m beginning to believe the most necessary point of economic reform in the world right now is for China to either float their dollar or readjust it to a much more sensible value in comparison to the US dollar.

I really don't get the Chinese... They spend all this energy on depressing their currency to prevent exactly what you're talking about. It's a very antagonistic stance they take, and I don't really understand their logic. We're going to give them what we're going to give them, no more.

Why suppress your own population to gain an favor you'll never be able to collect on?

After all, while it's a very, very bad idea, we could decide to default on all the bonds we've issued to Chinese banks... That would really screw things up for us, and for the world. But is that really as bad as getting $7 trillion for free is good? Ok, what if it gets up to $10 trillion (which I'm sure Obama will have taken care of by the end of his first term)? There's a point at which we've broken ourselves so badly that this kind of thing is actually a decent option.

I can't fathom why the Chinese want to force that issue. If we decide to walk away, what are they going to do? Threaten us? We're not Taiwan. And, hell, Taiwan IS Taiwan, and all the Chinese have for them is empty threats.

Hell, we should just sue them $7 trillion for stabbing us in the back during the Korean war about 13 seconds after we freed them from the Japanese.

This is not so much a compliment to Pelosi as it is a condemnation of the rest.

It's certainly one way to look at it. I would agree, the others are more calculatingly wrong. Pelosi is more of a wishful thinking simpleton. The others are true criminals and thieves.

It’s because it’s producing aircraft and precision medical equipment, things like that.

An impression I've always had of the Chinese is that they're incapable of leadership. They're a society of order takers. They don't do new things. They do what somebody else thought of, but for less.

In that respect the US has a sort of "industry bubble" problem facing it. We NEED to be innovators and produce new techology, that's what's going to keep us growing at the rate we require. But as we do that, we create these industries that thrive for a time, and then get shipped over to China as the processes become well enough understood that consultants can spool them up in China. It'll repeat over and over... It's something we need the agility to prepare for.

Wrexasaur wrote:Rambo the gravel pusher.

Better watch out, as that may be the new spin on Rambo of the 21st century. Coming in 2012....

Well, it is true that connections can make or break your potential job. People prefer conformity and comfort when hiring people, so don't be suprised when friends, people of the same mold, and people who make others comfortable get the position you wanted.

Better watch out, as that may be the new spin on Rambo of the 21st century.

I'm betting it's more like Rambo vs. the evil corporations and capitalist bourgois leeches, as he battles in defense of the glorious Hope and Change Revolution.

Remember when we just hated Commies and were pretty glad about it?

These days we elect Commies and all the war movies are lamentations about how racist and confused we are about Muslims.

I long for the days when life as as simple as a big knife with a serrated back, a compass in the butt, and a hollow handle full of waterproof matches.

Phryxis wrote:

Remember when we just hated Commies and were pretty glad about it?

These days we elect Commies and all the war movies are lamentations about how racist and confused we are about Muslims.

The world is complex. No over-simplification of people is allowed anymore as well as all issues dissected by all walks of life. That is the price of an informed public within a free society with ever expanding boundaries of communication at their fingertips.

I'm pretty sure Rambo was about the horrors of war and the destructive effects of internecine strife on the psyches of soldiers and the lives of citizens. Life wasn't any simpler back when those movies were new.

Phryxis wrote:I really don't get the Chinese...

You were not put on this Earth to get it, Mr Burton.

They spend all this energy on depressing their currency to prevent exactly what you're talking about. It's a very antagonistic stance they take, and I don't really understand their logic. We're going to give them what we're going to give them, no more.

It’s much like mercantilism of old, playing economics to win rather by exporting more than you import. Which as you rightly point out results in building up a pile of surplus cash while your population consume far less than they’re should be able to.

I suspect it probably comes out of the materialist assumptions of communist thought, that you can measure progress and living standards by a series of numbers. The Soviets used to assume that the country was succeeding when steel production went up, because that meant there was more to consume therefore everyone must be happier, they didn’t really notice that the steel was piling up in the warehouse and that the emissions were making everyone sick.

I think the Chinese still have some of that some ideology, they think they’re winning because they’re expanding their production, and the best way to expand is to keep the Yuan low. Like the Soviets, it escapes them that the actual end game of the economy is for your people to have better lives.

I can't fathom why the Chinese want to force that issue. If we decide to walk away, what are they going to do? Threaten us? We're not Taiwan. And, hell, Taiwan IS Taiwan, and all the Chinese have for them is empty threats.

Basically, if trade between the US and China collapsed both countries would enter recession overnight. You are both major importers and exporters of each other’s stuff. I’d assume if the US did default then there’d be a negotiated interest free period, or a reduction in the debt to a manageable amount.

Hell, we should just sue them $7 trillion for stabbing us in the back during the Korean war about 13 seconds after we freed them from the Japanese.

Well, except you tried to free them from the Japanese by sponsoring the KMT, who pretty much spent all their time hunting the communists while letting the Japanese do what they want. After the Japanese were defeated you continued to sponsor the KMT, right up until their defeat by the communists.

The Communist government of China would not have considered you their ally, they had every reason to consider you an enemy that had directly supported their enemy.

It's certainly one way to look at it. I would agree, the others are more calculatingly wrong. Pelosi is more of a wishful thinking simpleton. The others are true criminals and thieves.

Sure. I’d say Harry Reid manages to be both calculating wrong, and a simpleton. Which is quite something, when you think about it.

An impression I've always had of the Chinese is that they're incapable of leadership. They're a society of order takers. They don't do new things. They do what somebody else thought of, but for less.

Well, that a pretty broad generalisation to put across a billion people. For a few thousand years they were inventing all kinds of stuff, after all.

I’d argue it’s more a product of their planned economy. The Soviets had outstanding growth figures into the 50s and 60s, because a planned economy can grow very quickly through sheer resources, taking people from subsistence agriculture and chucking them into factories.

But there comes a point where you’ve run out of peasants and further growth is dependant on free enterprise to innovate. Into the mid-60s the Soviets, while never quite a match for the US, were at least within touching distance. But then there was 20 odd years of almost complete stagnation, arguably even decline, meanwhile the US continued to grow, and developed computing tech and all kinds of robotics and high end manufacture.

China will reach that point, as well, where all the peasants have been put to work and future growth will only be possible if government stops planning everything, and lets free enterprise take over. The Russians tried it and screwed it up, by the Chinese will likely be too clever to let the IMF anywhere near their economy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm pretty sure Rambo was about the horrors of war and the destructive effects of internecine strife on the psyches of soldiers and the lives of citizens. Life wasn't any simpler back when those movies were new.

Well, the first movie was. It was pretty good.

After the first movie, though, they're basically power fantasies about slaughtering Vietnamese, Russian and Burmese people.

First Blood was interesting from a social point of view, Rambo was just plain stupid. How many faceless nameless evil communists does it take to guard a wooden cell with a couple of POWs that have been there for decades?

The answer is, enough for all the explosions we can fit into a Reagan-era anti-commie movie. Stupid stupid. That premise was just so dumb that at the time, people were so scared of the commie threat that they thought the movie was patriotic and awesome. Dumb dumb dumb. I've seen Tom And Jerry episodes with better thought out plots.

The one thing that stood out to me lately in this thread was the world war II japanese bailout. If the U.S. hadn't invested an AWFUL LOT of resources to topple the Japanese imperialist occupation of China, they would still be grubby uneducated peasants living in 3rd world (4th world?) conditions under Japanese occupation.

I think a case could be made that the money loaned to the U.S. no matter what actual dollar amount, could be considered payback for freeing them to let them get into the position they are now.

If our trade was even, our labor and their labor could do just fine trading back and forth. But we have Unions, while they have communist authority over their people, so they will naturally be able to pump out crappy goods faster than our more regulated labor force, sell them cheaper, ship them wherever, and undersell us. How did you get those factories, China? You didn't build them with Chinese knowhow of how to make bamboo spears or 19th century rifles. Why aren't you being forced to worship the Emperor of Japan and converting to Shinto?

The Japs occupied a good deal of Chinese land and it was just peasants and some outdated technology, (also inherited from the west), and distance issues opposing a total takeover of the area. The U.S. smashed Japan with the worlds first nuke, and massive island-to-island naval and marine investment, which and gave China the breathing room to actually develop beyond a bunch of grubby peasants... At great cost and effort from the U.S.

Maybe our national debt should be called our national invoice.

Fateweaver wrote:Pelosi doesn't know her head from her ass (and frankly I bet her ass is better looking than her face) so anything NP says is to be regarded as fallacy and bs.

Pelosi is an idiot, but to conclude that, because she is an idiot, everything she says is wrong is itself idiotic.

Basically, if trade between the US and China collapsed both countries would enter recession overnight.

Right, but then if we spent our way out of the recession, would that cost $10 trillion? I'd have to assume it would not.

Plus, what's China gonna do? Not sell to us anymore?

I just don't get their plan here. It's like they're trying keep giving free stuff to the town bully. If you ever try to call that debt in, who wins? Sure, people might then call him the deadbeat town bully, but he still doesn't have to do what you say.

After the Japanese were defeated you continued to sponsor the KMT, right up until their defeat by the communists.

Oh, I know, I'm just saying, you have to have a reason. Like WMDs.

Sure. I’d say Harry Reid manages to be both calculating wrong, and a simpleton.

And a Mormon. A Democrat Mormon. Figure that one out.

Well, that a pretty broad generalisation to put across a billion people.

No question. But can you think of a billion people who'd better be generalized? I've been to China more than once. They're a very, very homogeneous bunch when compared to virtually any other nation.

Also, I'm not really generalizing the whole population so much as their government and leaders of industry. It's not so much that they're all the same person, as they've taken a certain approach.

The US, for example, has a particular mentality and approach to business. That's not to say all Americans agree, but there is a certain way we do things the great majority of the time.

For a few thousand years they were inventing all kinds of stuff, after all.

They def had a period of technological innovation that was very, very long.

On the other hand, they've always been invaded and subjugated. The Great Wall is a testament to that. Their Dynasties are basically breaking up their history by times they got invaded and taken over. Then you've got the UK coming in and making them slaves in their own country. When you add Communism to that, you've got a real submissive populace.

I agree, a managed economy is also a factor, but it's a managed economy that focuses on doing what others have done at lower costs.

After the first movie, though, they're basically power fantasies about slaughtering Vietnamese, Russian and Burmese people.

With some torture of hero to establish moral highground. Pretty sweet, if you ask me.

gave China the breathing room to actually develop beyond a bunch of grubby peasants... At great cost and effort from the U.S.

Actually, what Mao did was just kill the grubby peasants, to the tune of about 60 million people.

One of the reasons I love Rambo killing Communists is because Communism is LITERALLY that evil. It's the single most destructive concept in human history. People focus on Hitler killing 5 million people. Mao killed 60 million. Stalin killed 30 million. Hitler was a samaritan by comparison. Forget Hitler, if you want to talk about the most evil Germans of all time, look at Marx.

Of course, these days we view "Fascism" as being from the "right" so it's very very scary. Even though the Nazis called themselves socialist. By comparison Communism, while not good, isn't ALL that scary, because it's founded on good ideas of equality and providing for all, right? Right? Yeah, it must be true, Obama has hope and change going for him, he wouldn't be steering us TOWARD the ideology of the most brutal, mass murdering regimes in human history, would he? No...

And to be clear, I'm not saying Obama is a Communist, I'm just saying that the mainstream media suddenly become less fond of their "slippery slope" arguments when it works against their favorite politicians.

Guitardian wrote:First Blood was interesting from a social point of view, Rambo was just plain stupid. How many faceless nameless evil communists does it take to guard a wooden cell with a couple of POWs that have been there for decades?

The answer is, enough for all the explosions we can fit into a Reagan-era anti-commie movie. Stupid stupid. That premise was just so dumb that at the time, people were so scared of the commie threat that they thought the movie was patriotic and awesome. Dumb dumb dumb. I've seen Tom And Jerry episodes with better thought out plots.

The one thing that stood out to me lately in this thread was the world war II japanese bailout. If the U.S. hadn't invested an AWFUL LOT of resources to topple the Japanese imperialist occupation of China, they would still be grubby uneducated peasants living in 3rd world (4th world?) conditions under Japanese occupation.

I think a case could be made that the money loaned to the U.S. no matter what actual dollar amount, could be considered payback for freeing them to let them get into the position they are now.

If our trade was even, our labor and their labor could do just fine trading back and forth. But we have Unions, while they have communist authority over their people, so they will naturally be able to pump out crappy goods faster than our more regulated labor force, sell them cheaper, ship them wherever, and undersell us. How did you get those factories, China? You didn't build them with Chinese knowhow of how to make bamboo spears or 19th century rifles. Why aren't you being forced to worship the Emperor of Japan and converting to Shinto?

The Japs occupied a good deal of Chinese land and it was just peasants and some outdated technology, (also inherited from the west), and distance issues opposing a total takeover of the area. The U.S. smashed Japan with the worlds first nuke, and massive island-to-island naval and marine investment, which and gave China the breathing room to actually develop beyond a bunch of grubby peasants... At great cost and effort from the U.S.

Maybe our national debt should be called our national invoice.

You say that, however it was Japan that got Taiwan (Formosa) started into industrialisation during the pre-WW2 period.

For all we know, the Japanese would have developed all the territories they could, including China, given enough time and resources.

The newest Rambo was bestest Rambo. Watching guys blow apart into bloody chunks when hit by that 50cal was just awesome as hell. The jeep scene was classic.

This entire administration is a bunch of idiots. Bill was smarter than BO in that at least he got a bj from an intern in the oval office. BO just wants to play golf. Of course I still wanted to see Clinton impeached for lying about his affair and the Waco incident but I think the collective IQ of the Clinton administration was at least 3 times that of the current administration (and that's admitting something I don't much care to admit).

Phryxis wrote:Forget Hitler, if you want to talk about the most evil Germans of all time, look at Marx.

To be fair, Marx's Communism was very different from Lenin's, Stalin's, or even Trotsky's. In fact, Marx's Communism shares a great deal with Capitalism in terms of eventual intent (though Adam Smith let John Locke talk about that), its only the methodology which differs.

Phryxis wrote:
Of course, these days we view "Fascism" as being from the "right" so it's very very scary. Even though the Nazis called themselves socialist.

This conversation lasted about 4 pages last time, with people (including myself) breaking Nazism and German policy during that era into minutia. The consensus therefore seems to be that Nazism occupies an odd place outside the political spectrum; a third way, if you will.

I don't think a level of 'evil' can be simplified by a comparison of body counts. Hitler didn't have the opportunity that Stalin and Mao had, hence the lower tally. He was too busy trying to invade places at the same time.

Communism isn't evil, neither was Marx. It is, at its best, a caring and thoughtful way for everyone to help take care of everyone else in return. Nothing wrong with that. When it becomes a government regime and enforced compliance under threat of force, police, re-education etc... NOW you have your good efficient uncomplaining work force making crap for cheap and seeing how far you can milk the people's toil in the name of The People.

Reminds me of bees. Yeah they make honey, something we like, and to a certain extent have a mutual relationship over. Try to explain a concept like 'liberty' to a worker drone. But you can't really do much about them without the workers wanting to sting you for messing with their giant hive, for the sake of the hive. Well china is a pretty big busy bee hive because communism only works on small levels (like 'i'll bring some beer, you bring the potato salad, she brought the meat, etc lets have a BBQ' kind of levels)

One of the reasons I love Rambo killing Communists is because Communism is LITERALLY that evil. It's the single most destructive concept in human history. People focus on Hitler killing 5 million people. Mao killed 60 million. Stalin killed 30 million. Hitler was a samaritan by comparison. Forget Hitler, if you want to talk about the most evil Germans of all time, look at Marx.

The evils of collectivist farming comes from it's historically disastrous implementation and the evils of communist industrial growth under stalin came from his overt use of force to silence and pacify threats that most often didn't exist. The dead under stalin were dead because of stalin, not because of communism. You don't need collectivism to kill your own people and you certainly don't need it to run out of food. To take the body counts of those two nations and attribute it to communism alone is foolish and speaks to a lack of knowledge concerning the events themselves.

Of course, these days we view "Fascism" as being from the "right" so it's very very scary. Even though the Nazis called themselves socialist. By comparison Communism, while not good, isn't ALL that scary, because it's founded on good ideas of equality and providing for all, right? Right? Yeah, it must be true, Obama has hope and change going for him, he wouldn't be steering us TOWARD the ideology of the most brutal, mass murdering regimes in human history, would he? No...

They see you trollan' you hatin' they tryin' to catch you blamin' commies.

Ubercapitalists cause famines too, just ask the Indians. I mean, the famines under the British Empire weren't quite as bad, but mismanagement is mismanagement.

The consensus therefore seems to be that Nazism occupies an odd place outside the political spectrum; a third way, if you will.

I rather like this system, which I think explains itself better than I can:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

As you can see, it has Hitler as a centrist left-right, but extreme authoritarian.

In my opinion Hitler was actually left of center, and had numerous collectivist elements to his ideology, but this site seems to see the left-right center as a bit more to the left of where I do.

Suffice it to say that I think that the current American left is well within the upper left quadrant, as are virtually all the names we associate with great evil, such as Hitler and Stalin, which is something that the American media and educational system seek to downplay as much as possible.

It is, at its best, a caring and thoughtful way for everyone to help take care of everyone else in return.

That's what they always say. And yet, virtually everywhere it's ever been, it's total horror. Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, even Cambodia ran up Hitler-esque numbers of dead. Then there's the places like Cuba, where it's not a total genocide, but it's still an oppressive police state.

It's failed EVERY single time it's tried on a large scale, and usually in a fashion more horrific than anything before.

So I say it's evil. The thing about evil, is that it's not like in the comic books. It's not like somebody decides "hey, I'm evil" and so they go figure out what good is, and do the opposite of it. On the contrary, evil is what happens when people with twisted minds try to do good.

Hitler thought he was a good guy. He didn't burn Jews because he thought it'd make for a really good villain when they novelization was written, he did it because in his messed up head it was a really good thing to do for the world.

Evil is twisted people trying to do good. That's key. People who think they're doing good will take it that much further, and drive it home with that much more self-assuredness.

And that's EXACTLY what Communism is. It's the ULTIMATE in twisting somebody's mind. It teaches control, it teaches you to take everything somebody has, and control their life and their future "for their own benefit," as a way of "helping" them. Communism teaches the management of virtually every aspect of the individual's life, until everything they are is what you made them, rather than what they chose to be.

In the name of "helping" everyone becomes a well cared for slave. And that's the best case scenario. They're rarely actually well cared for.

That's EVIL. It's not merely slavery. It's giving people a logical/moral framework that allows slavery to be seen as benevolent and beneficial to the slave.

Now, I realize that Stalinism isn't the necessary conclusion of Communism. You don't have to go murdering and oppressing everyone in order to conduct your policy, and in THEORY you could have a happy communist society. On a very small scale, I think this has actually happened from time to time.

But, that said, and with history as my most obvious support, when you start thinking of people as farm animals to be cared for, you end up treating them like farm animals, slaughter included.

To take the body counts of those two nations and attribute it to communism alone is foolish and speaks to a lack of knowledge concerning the events themselves.

You spend too much time assuring people that they don't know history.

I fully understand history. I understand the differences and similarities between Stalin and Mao. I understand the role of starvation and mismanagement of agriculture (Mao) vs. that, plus willfull mass murder (Stalin).

I'm not saying that Communism has a "commit genocide" phase built into it. I'm saying that it's an ideology that seems compassionate, but actually teaches contempt for the individual, and without saying "commit genocide" that's the end result in the majority of cases.

I mean, come on... You can say genocide isn't part of Communism, but after ALL major implementations of it result in genocide, you need to start asking "ok, we know Communism ends in genocide. Why is that the case?"

As I've said, I think the reason is that it destroys the concept of the individual, which results in indivduals being expendable. The only reason Communism sometimes works on a small scale, is that all the participants have a concept of each other as individuals, which they maintain in parallel to the Communist system they live under, and thus preserve themselves from the moral decay that would otherwise inevitably occur.

When you control everything a person does, when you loan them everything they ever have, you inevitably begin to see them as your property. I don't care if Communist dogma admits that or not. It's the facts, and it's been proven over 100 million times in the brief period of human history since Marx articulated his evil in text.

I mean, the famines under the British Empire weren't quite as bad, but mismanagement is mismanagement.

They're a symptom of not caring about individuals, and not fearing them either. Communism assures that situation occurs more readily than any other political system. That's why it's the world leader in genocide.

I'm not trying to say that the same can't occur in other systems. Clearly it can and does. But Communism assures it on a large scale, every time.

The British Empire was mercantilist when the majority of the various famines occurred, and it could be argued that the manner in which India was governed was feudal.

dogma wrote:The British Empire was mercantilist when the majority of the various famines occurred, and it could be argued that the manner in which India was governed was feudal.

Fair enough, but I feel the point has been made; namely that famine and death occur under other systems, something that Phryxis has acknowledged, to be fair.