Shattered Capitalism

[SlithVampir]

I seem to have found something new that annoys me these days! More and more am I beginning to dislike people who think Clinton was some kind of a god. He was not. You know why?

NAFTA!

Now, in combination with various other measures toward globalization, the corporations took capitalism, a system that works quite well, and broke it. That's right. Broke it.

Anyone who understands economics understands that under capitalism, if there are less of a particular type of worker, those workers can then ask for more money, right? Well, under NAFTA, those rules don't apply.

Say that, due to normal fluctuations, there are less people at the shoe factory. Or, say that the strike for higher wages. Converse, or Nike, or whoever can, under NAFTA, lay off that entire factory, and send those jobs over to China, where they can get 14 year old girls to make them for ten cents an hour.

So, you might say something like "You cant send fry cooks to China". This IS MY POINT! When the liberals talk about "living wages" they try to tell us that one day the fry cook can support a family by making the manager pay $25/hr to someone looking at it like a career. Optimistic?

The conservatives are equally bad. all you guys can talk about are tax breaks. Why kill the business, or starve the public coffers?

All you have to do is repeal NAFTA, and tax the corporations who send jobs overseas to the point where it is no longer profitable. That'll send those jobs back real quick.

Now, I don't watch all the debates, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but the only people who I've seen talk about beating NAFTA are Kucinich and Ron Paul. It just goes to show that the fringe candidates are the only ones with a clue.

[JudgeDredd]

At 12/31/07 03:04 PM, SlithVampir wrote: Converse, or Nike, or whoever can, under NAFTA, lay off that entire factory, and send those jobs over to China, where they can get 14 year old girls to make them for ten cents an hour.

here's my 2 cents..

Those brands were being made in China illegally anyway. I'm sure those companies thought "if can't beat 'em, join 'em". The result of 10 years of globalization and Chinese boom have had the result of bringing 100s of millions of dollar-a-day rural folk into the Chinese middle classes. Those in turn have disposible income, and long for western lifestyle and western products. American companies are, like the rest of the world, keen to cash in on China's new prosperity. Anything jobwise that America has lost it will certainly gain back if those companies are bringing back bottom line profits for shareholders, and cheaper goods for the public. China should look after it's own labor laws, and in the odd case they don't, we certainly arn't too slow hearing about it.

The cracks that have appeared in Capitalism, not those visible surface cracks, but the deeper structual ones, is how well 'trickle-down theory' works. Like, is there a growing demand for more service industry workers? Does that demand translate into higher wages or new jobs in western countries who are losing factories to China, India, or Mexico? Seeing how there is a return in western society to colonial-style paid housework, then i guess at some level it does.

We can debate whether those are real jobs or not, but nevertheless it's still a function of supply and demand. America's new middle classes can only afford housemaids because they have more money and less time. Is that an improvement on the past? Perhaps not. But 'the good with the bad' is that shop goods we buy have never been more widely available or cheaper than are now. As consumers at least we don't have too much to complain about.

.

[Al6200]

At 12/31/07 03:04 PM, SlithVampir wrote:

Now, in combination with various other measures toward globalization, the corporations took :capitalism, a system that works quite well, and broke it. That's right. Broke it.

No, in a true free market, people can buy and sell goods as they please, without arbitrary barriers in place.

Anyone who understands economics understands that under capitalism, if there are less of a :particular type of worker, those workers can then ask for more money, right? Well, under NAFTA, :those rules don't apply.

They do apply, since American workers are competitive with Mexican and Canadian workers in many fields.

Say that, due to normal fluctuations, there are less people at the shoe factory. Or, say that the strike :for higher wages. Converse, or Nike, or whoever can, under NAFTA, lay off that entire factory, and :send those jobs over to China, where they can get 14 year old girls to make them for ten cents an :hour.

That means that China gets the jobs that its emerging market is best suited for, while America gets the white-collar jobs that its market is best suited for. And besides, in many fields, America is very competitive with China or Mexico. Look at where Intel, IBM, etc. hire their best workers.

Over time, as China moves into the global marketplace, their wages will go up (this is already happening), and the outsourcing will stop. And besides, what about the Chinese people? Are you suggesting they just lose their jobs so that you can wall the world into tiny little chunks? This should be obvious, yet it seems to escape a lot of people. Globalization helps everyone.

In other words, we're not losing jobs to China. Instead, we're trading jobs that they can do better for jobs that we can do better.

So, you might say something like "You cant send fry cooks to China". This IS MY POINT! When the :liberals talk about "living wages" they try to tell us that one day the fry cook can support a family by :making the manager pay $25/hr to someone looking at it like a career. Optimistic?

Irrelevant. There are lots of great jobs in engineering and science that America can compete very well in.

The conservatives are equally bad. all you guys can talk about are tax breaks. Why kill the business, :or starve the public coffers?

Tax breaks make American business more able to compete with China.

All you have to do is repeal NAFTA, and tax the corporations who send jobs overseas to the point :where it is no longer profitable. That'll send those jobs back real quick.

No. It won't "send the jobs back real quick". Think about it. Let's say the low paid Chinese manufacturers can make a shoe for $1, while American manufacturers can make one for $2. Now, only developed countries have the educational infrastructure to allow it to actually design and engineer the shoe, so let's say that $3 must go to the American or Japanese company. (This is actually a very realistic scenario. Look at an Xbox, Cell Phone, what have you. The chips are designed by American or Japanese firms, but most of the manufacturing is done in China).

Under the free trade system, America and China manufacture phones that are competitive and sell well in both nations. But if America isn't allowed to outsource to China, then the Japanese company that can crushes America in competition.

So in other words, closing the doors doesn't bring the jobs back. It destroys all the jobs and cuts America off from the world economy - since none of our business will be competitive anymore.

Now, I don't watch all the debates, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but the only people who I've :seen talk about beating NAFTA are Kucinich and Ron Paul. It just goes to show that the fringe :candidates are the only ones with a clue.

Maybe, when you have a view that nearly all of the electorate disagrees with, you don't have some magical insight that everyone else is too stupid to realize. Maybe, just maybe, the issue is way more complex than you're making it out to be - and your simple isolation approach won't work.

Here's a little analogy that should make this as clear as possible. Let's say I wanted to cut off all trade between the 50 American states. Obviously, it would create some jobs: say, for the potato farmer in New York who no longer has to compete with other state's crops. But would this be a good solution for that state or for the nation?

[Zeistro]

At 12/31/07 03:04 PM, SlithVampir wrote: I seem to have found something new that annoys me these days! More and more am I beginning to dislike people who think Clinton was some kind of a god. He was not. You know why?

It's a good way to confirm who is and isn't an idiot. It's one thing to be a Clinton fan: it's another to perform e-fellatio on him.

Look up superkooter

NAFTA!

The horror! Not only is it a bad plan, but it's also a shitty acronym!

Now, in combination with various other measures toward globalization, the corporations took capitalism, a system that works quite well, and broke it. That's right. Broke it.

NAFTA has it's flaws, but it also corrects myriad of things. For example, NAFTA abolishes the tariffs(or tries to reduce) associated with many products. It's anti-capitalism to undermine exporting or importing.

Anyone who understands economics understands that under capitalism, if there are less of a particular type of worker, those workers can then ask for more money, right?

Not necessarily. It depends if that worker is skilled or not. Let's just give an example, for this instance we'll use smelter/blacksmiths. By having a shortage of smelters, it yields less production in metallurgy, thus spiking the cost of metallic products such as horeshoes, knives, crucibles, etc. This does not guarantee they'll get a raise, but what it will due is cause the price of the product to go up in proportion to profit-margin.

Likewise, If there was a shortage of McDonalds fry-cooks, I doubt they'll get a raise because any jackass can flip burgers.

Well, under NAFTA, those rules don't apply.

NAFTA, from what I read, seems to be pretty lackadaisical about these things and lets the market solve it. What would you prefer, the government stepping in telling someone how much they pay their employees?

Say that, due to normal fluctuations, there are less people at the shoe factory. Or, say that the strike for higher wages. Converse, or Nike, or whoever can, under NAFTA, lay off that entire factory, and send those jobs over to China, where they can get 14 year old girls to make them for ten cents an hour.

And how the hell is this wrong? Is it not the investors and managements decision who they hire on? If your parents decides it'll be cheaper energy-wise to live in another house then what's stopping them? If higher management decides it'll be cheaper to hire Chinese workers then what's the beef?

It seems to me NAFTA is safeguarding capitalism here.

So, you might say something like "You cant send fry cooks to China". This IS MY POINT! When the liberals talk about "living wages" they try to tell us that one day the fry cook can support a family by making the manager pay $25/hr to someone looking at it like a career. Optimistic?

Optimistic indeed.

The conservatives are equally bad. all you guys can talk about are tax breaks. Why kill the business, or starve the public coffers?

Taxes are counter-productive for the economy in three ways.

All you have to do is repeal NAFTA, and tax the corporations who send jobs overseas to the point where it is no longer profitable. That'll send those jobs back real quick.

That, or the owners decides it'll save more money to just close-down than to endure these costly protocals, since the pissant-government is high on legislating business ethics, thus losing the econoy much-needed revenue. Not only this, but since the government likes to tax so much, it'll dissuade future investors.

Now, I don't watch all the debates, so correct me if I'm wrong here, but the only people who I've seen talk about beating NAFTA are Kucinich and Ron Paul. It just goes to show that the fringe candidates are the only ones with a clue.

It just goes to show Kucinich's quasi-socialist tendency and Ron Paul's inability to recognize something when it is in favor of freer economies.

[therealsylvos]

At 12/31/07 03:04 PM, SlithVampir wrote: I seem to have found something new that annoys me these days! More and more am I beginning to dislike people who think Clinton was some kind of a god. He was not. You know why?

NAFTA!

Now, in combination with various other measures toward globalization, the corporations took

capitalism, a system that works quite well, and broke it. That's right. Broke it.

Apperently capitalism works best with the least amount of competition?

Anyone who understands economics understands that under capitalism, if there are less of a particular type of worker, those workers can then ask for more money, right? Well, under NAFTA, those rules don't apply.

Of course they do, thats ridiculous.

Say that, due to normal fluctuations, there are less people at the shoe factory. Or, say that the strike for higher wages. Converse, or Nike, or whoever can, under NAFTA, lay off that entire factory, and send those jobs over to China, where they can get 14 year old girls to make them for ten cents an hour.

Durr thats competition, if people in china are willing to do the work for ten cents an hour, you are going to FORCE an employer to pay some one here 8 dollars an hour? Thats really market driven.

The conservatives are equally bad. all you guys can talk about are tax breaks. Why kill the business, or starve the public coffers?

I don't know, because it helps expand the economy and thus increases the public coffers? Take ECO 101 soon please.

All you have to do is repeal NAFTA, and tax the corporations who send jobs overseas to the point where it is no longer profitable. That'll send those jobs back real quick.

OOO! Artificial control of the market, I'm telling you, you laissez-faire liberals make us conservatives look like communists.

Look all Nafta does is REMOVE tarrifs between U.S.A. canada and mexico, making it easier for us to sell to them, and for them to sell to us, which increases the market which is the best thing for capitalism.

also china has no part

[Zeistro]

I'm going to bump this topic because it's too good to allow to disappear into obscurity, and much better than all these other shitty threads.