ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited October 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1880488:date=Oct 18 2011, 12:10 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Oct 18 2011, 12:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1880488"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is a straying off-topic a bit, but I have noticed people in the US seem to usually have no trust in the police, and certainly hold no love. What gives?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That isn't actually the case. The majority of people trust the majority of cops, however, we do have a history of corrupt/abuse being far to common. Enough people are tainted by that history that every time a cop screws up it's huge news (as it should be honestly).
That and the standard "It's cool to say ###### the Police" thing. Because people are dumb.
Oh, and we have a lot of Anti-Establishment subcultures, and well, cops are a rather good front for The Man.
I found this image, what do you guys think? Apart from "it's shoddily compressed" <img src="http://i51.tinypic.com/2dirjbk.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Tier 1: Politicians have never worked for the people in the US. What finally pushed independence out the door were taxes on business that were considered unfair by the business owners. Specifically import tax on things like tea. (Boston Tea Party) The government of the United States is a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. It was never designed to bend to the whims of individuals, but to those of overall progress. If this is not what you want, then fine. But don't attempt to draw parallels in history as though we've lost our way.
Tier 2: -Questions of what effects lending has on economics and whether impulsive trading and speculation has negative or positive impacts are so hard to answer I won't even try. I'm too stupid on the subject, so suffice to say- sure, let's say Wall Street (whatever that is) is at fault, now:
-The incentives to move jobs off shore come from things like minimum wage/collective bargaining on wages, high corporate income tax, high employment taxes (for social security, etc), and to a lesser extent gaming due to import/export taxes. Outsourcing happens because it's actually cheaper to manufacture it outside the US and import it due to these things. Therefore, the way to bring jobs back here is to make it cheaper for jobs to be here. That means cutting taxes, and that means either cutting spending or amassing debt. Maybe both.
-I don't know how the social value of a tax deduction can be measured. I think this just sounds noble and they say it.
-I also don't understand how the tax code can balance the need for competitive business with the needs of the people. First you have to define everything involved, and I don't see anyone who has defined this stuff yet.
Tier 3: -The federal government historically does <b>not</b> work for the General Welfare of the people. It provides for the common defense. Over time, it has assumed more and more responsibility. I believe it is wrong for the federal government to have that extra responsibility. I believe you must be careful about how far you extrapolate what "common defense" means. Military protection? Sure. Equality before the eyes of the law? Sure. Give you a job? No. I'd even go for free treatment of physical trauma. If you get hit by a car and need immediate medical attention, I think we can manage saving your life and rehabilitating you on the public dime. I don't think we should be handing out narcotics and antibiotics by the bucket for free. But that's another argument.
The point is, providing General Welfare is again a totally different style of government, so don't sell it like we've lost something we used to have.
-Demands for health care, environmental protections, and education all cost lots of money, which the federal government must fund by taxes, which as mentioned above must be passed on to workers and will cause the things listed as the most important things to fix (out sourcing)
<!--quoteo(post=1880526:date=Oct 18 2011, 07:33 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Oct 18 2011, 07:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1880526"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->-The incentives to move jobs off shore come from things like minimum wage/collective bargaining on wages, high corporate income tax, high employment taxes (for social security, etc), and to a lesser extent gaming due to import/export taxes. Outsourcing happens because it's actually cheaper to manufacture it outside the US and import it due to these things. Therefore, the way to bring jobs back here is to make it cheaper for jobs to be here. That means cutting taxes, and that means either cutting spending or amassing debt. Maybe both.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aaaaaaaaaand wrong. Republican rhetoric, nothing more.
+ No health / safety laws. + No EPA. + No minimum wage. + No taxes.
- You have to ship the items across the ocean. - People don't like it, but can't do anything about it.
The only way to bring manufacturing jobs back is overwhelming punitive financial action to these companies, or to pay stipends to do it. Unless you think Americans should be content to sew shoes together seven days a week, sixteen hours a day for twelve cents an hour and we should outlaw OSHA, minimum wage, and labor unions.
Even without all that, the fact that these ######hole nations don't care about the environment will outweigh everything. Don't believe me? Palm oil. It's cheaper to bulldoze virgin rainforest, and it nets you a greater profit than growing food crops, and both of these outweigh the costs of developing an alternative or farming it responsibly.
Me, I vote we develop a "cure for cancer" and inject everyone for free around the world. Only instead of a cure, it's actually a superplague and we only inject countries with a GDP of less than 200 billion dollars. Bam, no more third world countries to steal our jobs. (We'll miss you, Kiwis)
So, I'm not <i>wrong</i>. You just want to fix the problem by artificially inflating the price of goods by forcing companies to produce them here rather than were it's cheaper?
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1880555:date=Oct 18 2011, 11:14 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Oct 18 2011, 11:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1880555"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So, I'm not <i>wrong</i>. You just want to fix the problem by artificially inflating the price of goods by forcing companies to produce them here rather than were it's cheaper?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. You claimed manufacturing was outsourced due to high taxes in the US, and lower taxes outside the US, then claimed that the way to bring manufacturing back to mainland US (and thus create jobs) is to lower corporate taxes to lure the businesses back in.
Temphage is saying that the main reason companies outsource manufacturing isn't due to tax (although that may be a benefit), it's because you can make things in countries that let you treat workers like crap.
Even if the US had 0 tax on anything, ever, it'd still be significantly cheaper to make clothes in a sweatshop paying 6 cents a day per worker (along with ignoring all the health and safety laws that cost money to implement in countries that have them) and import the goods to the US than manufacture them in the US for $7.25 (which wikipedia tells me is the current US minimum wage) an hour per person.
Maybe. Depends on the good. For many goods, I'm sure, it would be cheaper to make them here than to make them outside and ship them in. Especially if the source materials were here. In any case, it's not the goal of the company to treat people like crap. It's the goal of the company to make money. Sometimes it treats people like crap to do that. It's a subtle distinction but an important one.
Don't forget that those shoes still get shipped here, unloaded at the dock by american workers, shipped to stores by american drivers, sold in american stores by american teenagers. Maybe we wouldn't buy those shoes if they cost so much more because the government force the company to make them here just because. Then the whole company dies and everyone looses. Of course this is a conjecture, but so is the statement that the way to fix outsourcing is to add taxes, tariffs and regulations.
My initial point is that companies outsource because it's cheaper because of minimum wage and taxes. And that's what it comes down to. Putting morality aside, I'm quite sure that there are people in the US today that would work in a sweat shop if it were allowed here.
<!--quoteo(post=1880563:date=Oct 19 2011, 01:07 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Oct 19 2011, 01:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1880563"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Putting morality aside, I'm quite sure that there are people in the US today that would work in a sweat shop if it were allowed here.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> NOT putting morality aside, that's a sad state of affairs.
<!--quoteo(post=1880651:date=Oct 19 2011, 08:41 AM:name=konata)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (konata @ Oct 19 2011, 08:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1880651"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yeah Rob. Those people are called illegal Mexicans.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've never seen so many houses built so quickly. Some of us legals should have such a good work ethic. :P
<!--quoteo(post=1880656:date=Oct 19 2011, 08:08 AM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Oct 19 2011, 08:08 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1880656"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've never seen so many houses built so quickly. Some of us legals should have such a good work ethic. :P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The methods used to build a home today have changed since the 1950s.
<!--quoteo(post=1880664:date=Oct 19 2011, 09:31 AM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Oct 19 2011, 09:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1880664"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The methods used to build a home today have changed since the 1950s.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They haven't changed, but there are more options. Plenty of homes are still built with brick or block foundations instead of formed concrete, etc. It also matters where you build- the soil/bed rock, etc. Lots of houses in Florida are on concrete slabs, I think. Up here further north you have to dig down to find bedrock so you might as well build a block foundation and use that space for storage or extra living.
My point is that my father who owned a residential contracting company was very impressed with the speed and quality of the work. To take it a step further, working a job, any job, should never be considered "dirty" or "unbecoming" of a civilized person. There's nothing wrong with taking pride in your work whatever that work is, and that's an entirely separate thing from corporate abuse of workers.
I don't really get it either, I think it's making a case for the Fed's corruption as it's pushing BofA to move bad sections of it's company to hide them, then ultimately let them fold and have FDIC cover all it's defaulted obligations. So that's why FDIC is against it.
<!--quoteo(post=1880874:date=Oct 20 2011, 07:55 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Oct 20 2011, 07:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1880874"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't really understand the contents of that article...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> See, that's why democracy doesn't work. You vote about matters you don't understand or to elect person to decide about things you don't understand. (nothing personal BTW :P)
<!--quoteo(post=1880533:date=Oct 18 2011, 10:49 PM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Oct 18 2011, 10:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1880533"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only way to bring manufacturing jobs back is overwhelming punitive financial action to these companies, or to pay stipends to do it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know, Zimbabwe took all property from white land owners. That taught these evil capitalists! (yes, they moved away and country became banana republic)
Wage, imports/exports/manufacturing and US: why does Germany manufacture so much and export so much while having high wages? Someone explain this weird imbalance between US and Germany.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1880890:date=Oct 20 2011, 01:50 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rob @ Oct 20 2011, 01:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1880890"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't really get it either, I think it's making a case for the Fed's corruption as it's pushing BofA to move bad sections of it's company to hide them, then ultimately let them fold and have FDIC cover all it's defaulted obligations. So that's why FDIC is against it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> In this case you should not use the abbreviation "the Fed" because it's ambiguous. The FDIC is also "the Fed" and saying "the Fed" is fighting "the Fed" is hopelessly confusing. I know the article did it first, but that's not a good excuse. Your overall assessment is correct. BofA is trying to pull a fast one by shifting some potentially bad assets to company it owns that is insured by the federal gov't. The federal reserve, which sets monetary policy, approves of the transfer. The federal insurance deposit corp, which would be on the hook for the assets if they went bad, opposes the transfer.
It could be shady business by the federal reserve, or it could be the FDIC doesn't know enough about the transfer to approve it yet.
<!--quoteo(post=1880930:date=Oct 20 2011, 05:06 PM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Oct 20 2011, 05:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1880930"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Wage, imports/exports/manufacturing and US: why does Germany manufacture so much and export so much while having high wages? Someone explain this weird imbalance between US and Germany.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They don't manufacture ###### for the lowest bidder, and have awesome trade deals.
Us? We've got China and tariffs. Also, a freakin' ocean between us and people who might want our goods. Germany? A line in the ground. And then ocean to reach US shores.
And finally, something something Americans are lazy A-holes something something.
The same reason they weren't crippled with sub-prime mortgages and bad debts - because they have laws to prevent things like all their jobs fleeing to India.
<!--quoteo(post=1880979:date=Oct 21 2011, 09:32 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Oct 21 2011, 09:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1880979"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->because they have laws to prevent things like all their jobs fleeing to India.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> German companies have lots of factories in Eastern Europe, China and so on. I don't have statistics available but for sure a lot of things were outsourced.
There was one documentary with German manager of some kind inspecting company's factory in India. I completely forgot what it was about. :)
<!--quoteo(post=1880929:date=Oct 21 2011, 01:00 AM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Oct 21 2011, 01:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1880929"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->See, that's why democracy doesn't work. You vote about matters you don't understand or to elect person to decide about things you don't understand. (nothing personal BTW :P)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That depends on your idea of what democracy is supposed to do.
If you mean the actual greek definition of the world, rule by the people, obviously it's not very good at it, because most people are far from qualified to rule or to decide who should rule.
If on the other hand, you mean the system whereby we swap rulers every few years to stop any of them getting any fancy ideas about being in charge, it's pretty good at that. It means the country is both inefficient but also fairly free of despotism.
It's like having a revolution every decade but without all the killing, and therefore much better.
I always thought 'the Fed' was short for the Federal Reserve. :X I'll be more clear in the future.
[edit] Also, as I've said before. We're a democratic republic. It's representative democracy, not full democracy. And the reason we elect representatives to govern us is precisely because we can't have perfect knowledge on all subjects. The person we elect is <i>supposed</i> to get smart on the issues they are elected to handle. Whether they do that or not is an entirely different story. :P
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1880930:date=Oct 21 2011, 01:06 AM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Oct 21 2011, 01:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1880930"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You know, Zimbabwe took all property from white land owners. That taught these evil capitalists! (yes, they moved away and country became banana republic)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really see what this has to do with anything.
Comments
That isn't actually the case. The majority of people trust the majority of cops, however, we do have a history of corrupt/abuse being far to common. Enough people are tainted by that history that every time a cop screws up it's huge news (as it should be honestly).
That and the standard "It's cool to say ###### the Police" thing. Because people are dumb.
Oh, and we have a lot of Anti-Establishment subcultures, and well, cops are a rather good front for The Man.
<img src="http://i51.tinypic.com/2dirjbk.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
EDIT: accidentally implied I had made it; fixed
Tier 1:
Politicians have never worked for the people in the US. What finally pushed independence out the door were taxes on business that were considered unfair by the business owners. Specifically import tax on things like tea. (Boston Tea Party) The government of the United States is a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. It was never designed to bend to the whims of individuals, but to those of overall progress. If this is not what you want, then fine. But don't attempt to draw parallels in history as though we've lost our way.
Tier 2:
-Questions of what effects lending has on economics and whether impulsive trading and speculation has negative or positive impacts are so hard to answer I won't even try. I'm too stupid on the subject, so suffice to say- sure, let's say Wall Street (whatever that is) is at fault, now:
-The incentives to move jobs off shore come from things like minimum wage/collective bargaining on wages, high corporate income tax, high employment taxes (for social security, etc), and to a lesser extent gaming due to import/export taxes. Outsourcing happens because it's actually cheaper to manufacture it outside the US and import it due to these things. Therefore, the way to bring jobs back here is to make it cheaper for jobs to be here. That means cutting taxes, and that means either cutting spending or amassing debt. Maybe both.
-I don't know how the social value of a tax deduction can be measured. I think this just sounds noble and they say it.
-I also don't understand how the tax code can balance the need for competitive business with the needs of the people. First you have to define everything involved, and I don't see anyone who has defined this stuff yet.
Tier 3:
-The federal government historically does <b>not</b> work for the General Welfare of the people. It provides for the common defense. Over time, it has assumed more and more responsibility. I believe it is wrong for the federal government to have that extra responsibility. I believe you must be careful about how far you extrapolate what "common defense" means. Military protection? Sure. Equality before the eyes of the law? Sure. Give you a job? No. I'd even go for free treatment of physical trauma. If you get hit by a car and need immediate medical attention, I think we can manage saving your life and rehabilitating you on the public dime. I don't think we should be handing out narcotics and antibiotics by the bucket for free. But that's another argument.
The point is, providing General Welfare is again a totally different style of government, so don't sell it like we've lost something we used to have.
-Demands for health care, environmental protections, and education all cost lots of money, which the federal government must fund by taxes, which as mentioned above must be passed on to workers and will cause the things listed as the most important things to fix (out sourcing)
Aaaaaaaaaand wrong. Republican rhetoric, nothing more.
+ No health / safety laws.
+ No EPA.
+ No minimum wage.
+ No taxes.
- You have to ship the items across the ocean.
- People don't like it, but can't do anything about it.
The only way to bring manufacturing jobs back is overwhelming punitive financial action to these companies, or to pay stipends to do it. Unless you think Americans should be content to sew shoes together seven days a week, sixteen hours a day for twelve cents an hour and we should outlaw OSHA, minimum wage, and labor unions.
Even without all that, the fact that these ######hole nations don't care about the environment will outweigh everything. Don't believe me? Palm oil. It's cheaper to bulldoze virgin rainforest, and it nets you a greater profit than growing food crops, and both of these outweigh the costs of developing an alternative or farming it responsibly.
Me, I vote we develop a "cure for cancer" and inject everyone for free around the world. Only instead of a cure, it's actually a superplague and we only inject countries with a GDP of less than 200 billion dollars. Bam, no more third world countries to steal our jobs. (We'll miss you, Kiwis)
Holy ###### you go higher in the corporate ladder and you get more money for doing less!
Holy ###### I just realised how capitalism works.
Key: the #### is the 4 lettered word for poo that consists of one vowel Carol, begins with S and ends in T.
No. You claimed manufacturing was outsourced due to high taxes in the US, and lower taxes outside the US, then claimed that the way to bring manufacturing back to mainland US (and thus create jobs) is to lower corporate taxes to lure the businesses back in.
Temphage is saying that the main reason companies outsource manufacturing isn't due to tax (although that may be a benefit), it's because you can make things in countries that let you treat workers like crap.
Even if the US had 0 tax on anything, ever, it'd still be significantly cheaper to make clothes in a sweatshop paying 6 cents a day per worker (along with ignoring all the health and safety laws that cost money to implement in countries that have them) and import the goods to the US than manufacture them in the US for $7.25 (which wikipedia tells me is the current US minimum wage) an hour per person.
Don't forget that those shoes still get shipped here, unloaded at the dock by american workers, shipped to stores by american drivers, sold in american stores by american teenagers. Maybe we wouldn't buy those shoes if they cost so much more because the government force the company to make them here just because. Then the whole company dies and everyone looses. Of course this is a conjecture, but so is the statement that the way to fix outsourcing is to add taxes, tariffs and regulations.
My initial point is that companies outsource because it's cheaper because of minimum wage and taxes. And that's what it comes down to. Putting morality aside, I'm quite sure that there are people in the US today that would work in a sweat shop if it were allowed here.
NOT putting morality aside, that's a sad state of affairs.
I've never seen so many houses built so quickly. Some of us legals should have such a good work ethic. :P
The methods used to build a home today have changed since the 1950s.
They haven't changed, but there are more options. Plenty of homes are still built with brick or block foundations instead of formed concrete, etc. It also matters where you build- the soil/bed rock, etc. Lots of houses in Florida are on concrete slabs, I think. Up here further north you have to dig down to find bedrock so you might as well build a block foundation and use that space for storage or extra living.
My point is that my father who owned a residential contracting company was very impressed with the speed and quality of the work. To take it a step further, working a job, any job, should never be considered "dirty" or "unbecoming" of a civilized person. There's nothing wrong with taking pride in your work whatever that work is, and that's an entirely separate thing from corporate abuse of workers.
See, that's why democracy doesn't work. You vote about matters you don't understand or to elect person to decide about things you don't understand. (nothing personal BTW :P)
You know, Zimbabwe took all property from white land owners. That taught these evil capitalists! (yes, they moved away and country became banana republic)
Wage, imports/exports/manufacturing and US: why does Germany manufacture so much and export so much while having high wages? Someone explain this weird imbalance between US and Germany.
In this case you should not use the abbreviation "the Fed" because it's ambiguous. The FDIC is also "the Fed" and saying "the Fed" is fighting "the Fed" is hopelessly confusing. I know the article did it first, but that's not a good excuse. Your overall assessment is correct. BofA is trying to pull a fast one by shifting some potentially bad assets to company it owns that is insured by the federal gov't. The federal reserve, which sets monetary policy, approves of the transfer. The federal insurance deposit corp, which would be on the hook for the assets if they went bad, opposes the transfer.
It could be shady business by the federal reserve, or it could be the FDIC doesn't know enough about the transfer to approve it yet.
They don't manufacture ###### for the lowest bidder, and have awesome trade deals.
Us? We've got China and tariffs. Also, a freakin' ocean between us and people who might want our goods. Germany? A line in the ground. And then ocean to reach US shores.
And finally, something something Americans are lazy A-holes something something.
German companies have lots of factories in Eastern Europe, China and so on. I don't have statistics available but for sure a lot of things were outsourced.
There was one documentary with German manager of some kind inspecting company's factory in India. I completely forgot what it was about. :)
That depends on your idea of what democracy is supposed to do.
If you mean the actual greek definition of the world, rule by the people, obviously it's not very good at it, because most people are far from qualified to rule or to decide who should rule.
If on the other hand, you mean the system whereby we swap rulers every few years to stop any of them getting any fancy ideas about being in charge, it's pretty good at that. It means the country is both inefficient but also fairly free of despotism.
It's like having a revolution every decade but without all the killing, and therefore much better.
[edit]
Also, as I've said before. We're a democratic republic. It's representative democracy, not full democracy. And the reason we elect representatives to govern us is precisely because we can't have perfect knowledge on all subjects. The person we elect is <i>supposed</i> to get smart on the issues they are elected to handle. Whether they do that or not is an entirely different story. :P
I don't really see what this has to do with anything.