Founder Of Reaganomics Says That “Without A Revolution, Americans Are History”

[davelj]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Not if you look at all humans equally.

From a world humanitarian perspective, as long as more people are being lifted out of poverty than fall into poverty, then the system is working.

If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.

Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]

And therein lies the problem. We look at our “problems” from our perspective (of course). The vast majority of the “underdeveloped” world views globalization very favorably because their lot is being improved measurably at the margin. And this improvement is coming at the expense of the middle class in the developed world. Who deserves what? It’s hard to say. Because where you stand depends upon where you sit.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Not if you look at all humans equally.

From a world humanitarian perspective, as long as more people are being lifted out of poverty than fall into poverty, then the system is working.

If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.

Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]

And therein lies the problem. We look at our “problems” from our perspective (of course). The vast majority of the “underdeveloped” world views globalization very favorably because their lot is being improved measurably at the margin. And this improvement is coming at the expense of the middle class in the developed world. Who deserves what? It’s hard to say. Because where you stand depends upon where you sit.[/quote]

Pretty much sums it up, davelj.

Brian, you’re a fan of globalization and wants to see the poor from around the world lifted out of poverty. I’d like to see that too, but am not willing to take us down to the level of “developing countries” to do so. Perhaps, because you are childless, you have a different perspective from those of us who have a more vested interest in our well-being — our children who will be the ones to suffer the brunt of this “equalization.”

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Not if you look at all humans equally.

From a world humanitarian perspective, as long as more people are being lifted out of poverty than fall into poverty, then the system is working.

If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.

Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]

And therein lies the problem. We look at our “problems” from our perspective (of course). The vast majority of the “underdeveloped” world views globalization very favorably because their lot is being improved measurably at the margin. And this improvement is coming at the expense of the middle class in the developed world. Who deserves what? It’s hard to say. Because where you stand depends upon where you sit.[/quote]

Pretty much sums it up, davelj.

Brian, you’re a fan of globalization and wants to see the poor from around the world lifted out of poverty. I’d like to see that too, but am not willing to take us down to the level of “developing countries” to do so. Perhaps, because you are childless, you have a different perspective from those of us who have a more vested interest in our well-being — our children who will be the ones to suffer the brunt of this “equalization.”

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Not if you look at all humans equally.

From a world humanitarian perspective, as long as more people are being lifted out of poverty than fall into poverty, then the system is working.

If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.

Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]

And therein lies the problem. We look at our “problems” from our perspective (of course). The vast majority of the “underdeveloped” world views globalization very favorably because their lot is being improved measurably at the margin. And this improvement is coming at the expense of the middle class in the developed world. Who deserves what? It’s hard to say. Because where you stand depends upon where you sit.[/quote]

Pretty much sums it up, davelj.

Brian, you’re a fan of globalization and wants to see the poor from around the world lifted out of poverty. I’d like to see that too, but am not willing to take us down to the level of “developing countries” to do so. Perhaps, because you are childless, you have a different perspective from those of us who have a more vested interest in our well-being — our children who will be the ones to suffer the brunt of this “equalization.”

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Not if you look at all humans equally.

From a world humanitarian perspective, as long as more people are being lifted out of poverty than fall into poverty, then the system is working.

If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.

Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]

And therein lies the problem. We look at our “problems” from our perspective (of course). The vast majority of the “underdeveloped” world views globalization very favorably because their lot is being improved measurably at the margin. And this improvement is coming at the expense of the middle class in the developed world. Who deserves what? It’s hard to say. Because where you stand depends upon where you sit.[/quote]

Pretty much sums it up, davelj.

Brian, you’re a fan of globalization and wants to see the poor from around the world lifted out of poverty. I’d like to see that too, but am not willing to take us down to the level of “developing countries” to do so. Perhaps, because you are childless, you have a different perspective from those of us who have a more vested interest in our well-being — our children who will be the ones to suffer the brunt of this “equalization.”

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
We need to enact tariffs to offset the profit margins gained by exploiting cheap labor around the world. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom, which should be clear to everyone by now (but for some reason, too many people refuse to see it!).[/quote]

Not if you look at all humans equally.

From a world humanitarian perspective, as long as more people are being lifted out of poverty than fall into poverty, then the system is working.

If 10 million Americans fall into poverty, but 100 million Chinese gain education and a “middle-class” life, it’s a net positive gain for humanity.

Actually, if Americans can no longer afford “Carlsbad-like” neighborhoods and everything in San Diego deteriorates to “El Cajon-like” and people have to move to apartments, it still won’t be the end of the world.[/quote]

And therein lies the problem. We look at our “problems” from our perspective (of course). The vast majority of the “underdeveloped” world views globalization very favorably because their lot is being improved measurably at the margin. And this improvement is coming at the expense of the middle class in the developed world. Who deserves what? It’s hard to say. Because where you stand depends upon where you sit.[/quote]

Pretty much sums it up, davelj.

Brian, you’re a fan of globalization and wants to see the poor from around the world lifted out of poverty. I’d like to see that too, but am not willing to take us down to the level of “developing countries” to do so. Perhaps, because you are childless, you have a different perspective from those of us who have a more vested interest in our well-being — our children who will be the ones to suffer the brunt of this “equalization.”

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
Some would contend that it was never the unions that “priced us out of the market” because it was those unions that provided the *customers* of those businesses that had union labor. It was a virtuous cycle: well paying jobs produced wealthier employees who were customers of the companies who provided those well paying jobs. Once the corporations decided to get greedy and grow their profits at the expense of their workers and customers, they began the steady destruction of their customer base.
[/quote]

Maybe that wast just an aberration in the history of capitalism.

Allowing unionization and providing more benefits to workers may just have been a temporary concession to workers to avoid revolution.

Remember that in the first 1/2 of the 20th century, revolution was taking place throughout the world.[/quote]

Very possible. Remember that there was a tremendous fear of communism gripping our nation after the Great Depression (this fear of communism being the precursor to the Cold War), IMHO. The GD was triggered by exactly what we’ve seen during this bubble/crash — too much credit, and a growing wealth disparity with the financiers/capitalists growing fatter by the day during the runup. Perhaps allowing workers to unionize in greater numbers quelled this anger for a while.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
Some would contend that it was never the unions that “priced us out of the market” because it was those unions that provided the *customers* of those businesses that had union labor. It was a virtuous cycle: well paying jobs produced wealthier employees who were customers of the companies who provided those well paying jobs. Once the corporations decided to get greedy and grow their profits at the expense of their workers and customers, they began the steady destruction of their customer base.
[/quote]

Maybe that wast just an aberration in the history of capitalism.

Allowing unionization and providing more benefits to workers may just have been a temporary concession to workers to avoid revolution.

Remember that in the first 1/2 of the 20th century, revolution was taking place throughout the world.[/quote]

Very possible. Remember that there was a tremendous fear of communism gripping our nation after the Great Depression (this fear of communism being the precursor to the Cold War), IMHO. The GD was triggered by exactly what we’ve seen during this bubble/crash — too much credit, and a growing wealth disparity with the financiers/capitalists growing fatter by the day during the runup. Perhaps allowing workers to unionize in greater numbers quelled this anger for a while.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
Some would contend that it was never the unions that “priced us out of the market” because it was those unions that provided the *customers* of those businesses that had union labor. It was a virtuous cycle: well paying jobs produced wealthier employees who were customers of the companies who provided those well paying jobs. Once the corporations decided to get greedy and grow their profits at the expense of their workers and customers, they began the steady destruction of their customer base.
[/quote]

Maybe that wast just an aberration in the history of capitalism.

Allowing unionization and providing more benefits to workers may just have been a temporary concession to workers to avoid revolution.

Remember that in the first 1/2 of the 20th century, revolution was taking place throughout the world.[/quote]

Very possible. Remember that there was a tremendous fear of communism gripping our nation after the Great Depression (this fear of communism being the precursor to the Cold War), IMHO. The GD was triggered by exactly what we’ve seen during this bubble/crash — too much credit, and a growing wealth disparity with the financiers/capitalists growing fatter by the day during the runup. Perhaps allowing workers to unionize in greater numbers quelled this anger for a while.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
Some would contend that it was never the unions that “priced us out of the market” because it was those unions that provided the *customers* of those businesses that had union labor. It was a virtuous cycle: well paying jobs produced wealthier employees who were customers of the companies who provided those well paying jobs. Once the corporations decided to get greedy and grow their profits at the expense of their workers and customers, they began the steady destruction of their customer base.
[/quote]

Maybe that wast just an aberration in the history of capitalism.

Allowing unionization and providing more benefits to workers may just have been a temporary concession to workers to avoid revolution.

Remember that in the first 1/2 of the 20th century, revolution was taking place throughout the world.[/quote]

Very possible. Remember that there was a tremendous fear of communism gripping our nation after the Great Depression (this fear of communism being the precursor to the Cold War), IMHO. The GD was triggered by exactly what we’ve seen during this bubble/crash — too much credit, and a growing wealth disparity with the financiers/capitalists growing fatter by the day during the runup. Perhaps allowing workers to unionize in greater numbers quelled this anger for a while.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
Some would contend that it was never the unions that “priced us out of the market” because it was those unions that provided the *customers* of those businesses that had union labor. It was a virtuous cycle: well paying jobs produced wealthier employees who were customers of the companies who provided those well paying jobs. Once the corporations decided to get greedy and grow their profits at the expense of their workers and customers, they began the steady destruction of their customer base.
[/quote]

Maybe that wast just an aberration in the history of capitalism.

Allowing unionization and providing more benefits to workers may just have been a temporary concession to workers to avoid revolution.

Remember that in the first 1/2 of the 20th century, revolution was taking place throughout the world.[/quote]

Very possible. Remember that there was a tremendous fear of communism gripping our nation after the Great Depression (this fear of communism being the precursor to the Cold War), IMHO. The GD was triggered by exactly what we’ve seen during this bubble/crash — too much credit, and a growing wealth disparity with the financiers/capitalists growing fatter by the day during the runup. Perhaps allowing workers to unionize in greater numbers quelled this anger for a while.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Actually Arraya was correct. An inevitable outcome of capitalism is such that the drive for profits will take no prisoners. The bottom line will always search for the labor force that is the cheapest and globalization fed that drive. Unions are not a bad thing and I think serve a useful purpose. However if there is a labor force that will work for a much lower wage due to a lower standard of living then the unionized labor force then who is at fault here? Pure capitalism dictates you follow the margin and go to the lower salaried work force dont you? Shouldn’t you?

I don’t think there is anyone who is more pro free markets and pro capitalism then me. However pure capitalism has drawbacks and this is one of them. It is a very hard dilema to resolve. CAR I agree with alot of your points and yes I guess placing hefty tax burdens on corps who outsource and manufacture overseas is a POSSIBLE solution. However when does it become protectionist? So if USA company makes a widget overseas for 5 bucks and can sell it in the USA for 20 bucks you say tax the hell out of them for making it overseas correct? Effectively force them to make a decision to continue to make it overseas for 5 bucks, then tax them another 10 bucks for doing that so the profit is only 5 bucks. Or dont tax them if they make it in the USA for 13 bucks so the profit is 7 bucks. So what about the cost of the company to retool back in the USA and all the costs associated with USA employment? Also what about foreign company X who will make the same widget offshore for that same 5 bucks and send it to the USA and undercut the USA company who you effectively forced to stay here? Do you put huge tarrifs on those foreign companies? Do you really think those foreign govts won’t start doing the same thing?

I don’t really have or know of a good solution. It is to f’d up right now. However those who say we can bring back American jobs and bring them back immediately I think are full of it.

Tough problem to solve.[/quote]

SDR,

We are a debtor nation and a net importer now. Protectionism would hurt other countries far more than it would hurt ours. I favor *fair trade* where we trade with other countries that have the same labor and environmental protections (and wages) that we do.

As for the retooling, this is exactly why so many people were opposed to the offshoring in the first place. We HAD the technology and the plants here to manufacture whatever we need. By allowing the corporatists/capitalists to offshore our jobs, we’ve allowed them to destroy our ability to support ourselves.

I have tremendous faith in the American people (as long as we can keep them from being brainwashed). We have some of the most creative, innovative, and flexible workers in the world. We can work our way out of this if we could ever get our politicians out of the capitalists’ pockets.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Actually Arraya was correct. An inevitable outcome of capitalism is such that the drive for profits will take no prisoners. The bottom line will always search for the labor force that is the cheapest and globalization fed that drive. Unions are not a bad thing and I think serve a useful purpose. However if there is a labor force that will work for a much lower wage due to a lower standard of living then the unionized labor force then who is at fault here? Pure capitalism dictates you follow the margin and go to the lower salaried work force dont you? Shouldn’t you?

I don’t think there is anyone who is more pro free markets and pro capitalism then me. However pure capitalism has drawbacks and this is one of them. It is a very hard dilema to resolve. CAR I agree with alot of your points and yes I guess placing hefty tax burdens on corps who outsource and manufacture overseas is a POSSIBLE solution. However when does it become protectionist? So if USA company makes a widget overseas for 5 bucks and can sell it in the USA for 20 bucks you say tax the hell out of them for making it overseas correct? Effectively force them to make a decision to continue to make it overseas for 5 bucks, then tax them another 10 bucks for doing that so the profit is only 5 bucks. Or dont tax them if they make it in the USA for 13 bucks so the profit is 7 bucks. So what about the cost of the company to retool back in the USA and all the costs associated with USA employment? Also what about foreign company X who will make the same widget offshore for that same 5 bucks and send it to the USA and undercut the USA company who you effectively forced to stay here? Do you put huge tarrifs on those foreign companies? Do you really think those foreign govts won’t start doing the same thing?

I don’t really have or know of a good solution. It is to f’d up right now. However those who say we can bring back American jobs and bring them back immediately I think are full of it.

Tough problem to solve.[/quote]

SDR,

We are a debtor nation and a net importer now. Protectionism would hurt other countries far more than it would hurt ours. I favor *fair trade* where we trade with other countries that have the same labor and environmental protections (and wages) that we do.

As for the retooling, this is exactly why so many people were opposed to the offshoring in the first place. We HAD the technology and the plants here to manufacture whatever we need. By allowing the corporatists/capitalists to offshore our jobs, we’ve allowed them to destroy our ability to support ourselves.

I have tremendous faith in the American people (as long as we can keep them from being brainwashed). We have some of the most creative, innovative, and flexible workers in the world. We can work our way out of this if we could ever get our politicians out of the capitalists’ pockets.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Actually Arraya was correct. An inevitable outcome of capitalism is such that the drive for profits will take no prisoners. The bottom line will always search for the labor force that is the cheapest and globalization fed that drive. Unions are not a bad thing and I think serve a useful purpose. However if there is a labor force that will work for a much lower wage due to a lower standard of living then the unionized labor force then who is at fault here? Pure capitalism dictates you follow the margin and go to the lower salaried work force dont you? Shouldn’t you?

I don’t think there is anyone who is more pro free markets and pro capitalism then me. However pure capitalism has drawbacks and this is one of them. It is a very hard dilema to resolve. CAR I agree with alot of your points and yes I guess placing hefty tax burdens on corps who outsource and manufacture overseas is a POSSIBLE solution. However when does it become protectionist? So if USA company makes a widget overseas for 5 bucks and can sell it in the USA for 20 bucks you say tax the hell out of them for making it overseas correct? Effectively force them to make a decision to continue to make it overseas for 5 bucks, then tax them another 10 bucks for doing that so the profit is only 5 bucks. Or dont tax them if they make it in the USA for 13 bucks so the profit is 7 bucks. So what about the cost of the company to retool back in the USA and all the costs associated with USA employment? Also what about foreign company X who will make the same widget offshore for that same 5 bucks and send it to the USA and undercut the USA company who you effectively forced to stay here? Do you put huge tarrifs on those foreign companies? Do you really think those foreign govts won’t start doing the same thing?

I don’t really have or know of a good solution. It is to f’d up right now. However those who say we can bring back American jobs and bring them back immediately I think are full of it.

Tough problem to solve.[/quote]

SDR,

We are a debtor nation and a net importer now. Protectionism would hurt other countries far more than it would hurt ours. I favor *fair trade* where we trade with other countries that have the same labor and environmental protections (and wages) that we do.

As for the retooling, this is exactly why so many people were opposed to the offshoring in the first place. We HAD the technology and the plants here to manufacture whatever we need. By allowing the corporatists/capitalists to offshore our jobs, we’ve allowed them to destroy our ability to support ourselves.

I have tremendous faith in the American people (as long as we can keep them from being brainwashed). We have some of the most creative, innovative, and flexible workers in the world. We can work our way out of this if we could ever get our politicians out of the capitalists’ pockets.

[CA renter]

[quote=SD Realtor]Actually Arraya was correct. An inevitable outcome of capitalism is such that the drive for profits will take no prisoners. The bottom line will always search for the labor force that is the cheapest and globalization fed that drive. Unions are not a bad thing and I think serve a useful purpose. However if there is a labor force that will work for a much lower wage due to a lower standard of living then the unionized labor force then who is at fault here? Pure capitalism dictates you follow the margin and go to the lower salaried work force dont you? Shouldn’t you?

I don’t think there is anyone who is more pro free markets and pro capitalism then me. However pure capitalism has drawbacks and this is one of them. It is a very hard dilema to resolve. CAR I agree with alot of your points and yes I guess placing hefty tax burdens on corps who outsource and manufacture overseas is a POSSIBLE solution. However when does it become protectionist? So if USA company makes a widget overseas for 5 bucks and can sell it in the USA for 20 bucks you say tax the hell out of them for making it overseas correct? Effectively force them to make a decision to continue to make it overseas for 5 bucks, then tax them another 10 bucks for doing that so the profit is only 5 bucks. Or dont tax them if they make it in the USA for 13 bucks so the profit is 7 bucks. So what about the cost of the company to retool back in the USA and all the costs associated with USA employment? Also what about foreign company X who will make the same widget offshore for that same 5 bucks and send it to the USA and undercut the USA company who you effectively forced to stay here? Do you put huge tarrifs on those foreign companies? Do you really think those foreign govts won’t start doing the same thing?

I don’t really have or know of a good solution. It is to f’d up right now. However those who say we can bring back American jobs and bring them back immediately I think are full of it.

Tough problem to solve.[/quote]

SDR,

We are a debtor nation and a net importer now. Protectionism would hurt other countries far more than it would hurt ours. I favor *fair trade* where we trade with other countries that have the same labor and environmental protections (and wages) that we do.

As for the retooling, this is exactly why so many people were opposed to the offshoring in the first place. We HAD the technology and the plants here to manufacture whatever we need. By allowing the corporatists/capitalists to offshore our jobs, we’ve allowed them to destroy our ability to support ourselves.

I have tremendous faith in the American people (as long as we can keep them from being brainwashed). We have some of the most creative, innovative, and flexible workers in the world. We can work our way out of this if we could ever get our politicians out of the capitalists’ pockets.

[Author]

Posts