Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientrenter
ParticipantWell, I think most of the good arguments on both sides are laid out well here.
I’ll only add, as one of those in the pro-globalization camp, that I am very focused on the quality of what I buy, and the total value it provides me. I do favor local products in some cases. For example, wherever I have lived, I seek out the highest quality bakery, and then go to some trouble to buy from them. I deliberately pay more to help them stay in business. Why? Because I love very high quality and very fresh bread, and I will only have that if I and others pay enough for it.
Same with reliability and toxicity of products. I am happy to pay some more for known better quality for me. But I am not happy to pay more, regardless of the quality I am getting, simply because the people making the good happen to live close to me. If some Japanese people can make a better car for the price than Americans, I will buy Japanese (or vice versa). I won’t lose out if that means all cars come from Japan, so I don’t worry about making the right decision. If everyone stops buying from my favorite local baker, I won’t have any local fresh bread. Then I will lose out. So the right decision for me is to support one and not the other. Our personal preferences and circumstances dictate what local support is right for each of us.
But although I support each person exercising their own personal preferences, I remain very leery when that results in simplistic “Buy American” campaigns. Blanket statements tend to follow, like the other people make lower quality goods, or they have barbaric politics or practices. Unless justified by specifics, I think a lot of these blanket statements are misguided, show a lack of respect for others, and are the beginnings of a slippery slope to a very nasty end.
There is that famous Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I would not want New Yorkers to boycott San Diego in favor of the Finger Lakes for their vacations. I would not want Europeans or Chinese to boycott American goods just because they were American. Yes, we can argue about the pluses and minuses of specific goods, and complain about the other guy’s unfair practices, but we are simply making our world a poorer place for us all, and for ourselves, if we allow all that bickering to send us all in the wrong direction.
ParticipantWell, I think most of the good arguments on both sides are laid out well here.
I’ll only add, as one of those in the pro-globalization camp, that I am very focused on the quality of what I buy, and the total value it provides me. I do favor local products in some cases. For example, wherever I have lived, I seek out the highest quality bakery, and then go to some trouble to buy from them. I deliberately pay more to help them stay in business. Why? Because I love very high quality and very fresh bread, and I will only have that if I and others pay enough for it.
Same with reliability and toxicity of products. I am happy to pay some more for known better quality for me. But I am not happy to pay more, regardless of the quality I am getting, simply because the people making the good happen to live close to me. If some Japanese people can make a better car for the price than Americans, I will buy Japanese (or vice versa). I won’t lose out if that means all cars come from Japan, so I don’t worry about making the right decision. If everyone stops buying from my favorite local baker, I won’t have any local fresh bread. Then I will lose out. So the right decision for me is to support one and not the other. Our personal preferences and circumstances dictate what local support is right for each of us.
But although I support each person exercising their own personal preferences, I remain very leery when that results in simplistic “Buy American” campaigns. Blanket statements tend to follow, like the other people make lower quality goods, or they have barbaric politics or practices. Unless justified by specifics, I think a lot of these blanket statements are misguided, show a lack of respect for others, and are the beginnings of a slippery slope to a very nasty end.
There is that famous Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I would not want New Yorkers to boycott San Diego in favor of the Finger Lakes for their vacations. I would not want Europeans or Chinese to boycott American goods just because they were American. Yes, we can argue about the pluses and minuses of specific goods, and complain about the other guy’s unfair practices, but we are simply making our world a poorer place for us all, and for ourselves, if we allow all that bickering to send us all in the wrong direction.
ParticipantWell, I think most of the good arguments on both sides are laid out well here.
I’ll only add, as one of those in the pro-globalization camp, that I am very focused on the quality of what I buy, and the total value it provides me. I do favor local products in some cases. For example, wherever I have lived, I seek out the highest quality bakery, and then go to some trouble to buy from them. I deliberately pay more to help them stay in business. Why? Because I love very high quality and very fresh bread, and I will only have that if I and others pay enough for it.
Same with reliability and toxicity of products. I am happy to pay some more for known better quality for me. But I am not happy to pay more, regardless of the quality I am getting, simply because the people making the good happen to live close to me. If some Japanese people can make a better car for the price than Americans, I will buy Japanese (or vice versa). I won’t lose out if that means all cars come from Japan, so I don’t worry about making the right decision. If everyone stops buying from my favorite local baker, I won’t have any local fresh bread. Then I will lose out. So the right decision for me is to support one and not the other. Our personal preferences and circumstances dictate what local support is right for each of us.
But although I support each person exercising their own personal preferences, I remain very leery when that results in simplistic “Buy American” campaigns. Blanket statements tend to follow, like the other people make lower quality goods, or they have barbaric politics or practices. Unless justified by specifics, I think a lot of these blanket statements are misguided, show a lack of respect for others, and are the beginnings of a slippery slope to a very nasty end.
There is that famous Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I would not want New Yorkers to boycott San Diego in favor of the Finger Lakes for their vacations. I would not want Europeans or Chinese to boycott American goods just because they were American. Yes, we can argue about the pluses and minuses of specific goods, and complain about the other guy’s unfair practices, but we are simply making our world a poorer place for us all, and for ourselves, if we allow all that bickering to send us all in the wrong direction.
Participant[quote=Huckleberry]No matter how you slice it, he is still an idiot.
At what point do taxpayers have a fiduciary responsibility to make it right, because there was a regulatory failure?
I know it wasn’t my fault! How about all you other Piggs out there, was it your fault?
He definitely has some sort of ulterior motive for writing something like this…
What a scumbag and bonehead!
[/quote]As outtamojo pointed out, he is Moody’s chief economist, so he would like all those AAA ratings they gave to MBSs to be somewhat justified. Instead of bad lenders taking losses on bad loans, his idea is that they forgive the debt and send the bill for the forgiveness to the taxpayer. Everyone is happy, unless you didn’t borrow too much to buy a house and you pay lots of taxes. Well, what about those people who limit their borrowings to well within their means to repay, and who pay lots of taxes? Scum of the earth. Soak ’em.
Speaking of motives, I wonder how big the home values and mortgages are on Barney Frank’s house(s)? Chris Dodd’s? Larry Summers? Ben Bernanke? Tim Geithner? It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that they owned homes that had, at the peak of the bubble, been valued at ridiculous multiples of their pay, and with big mortgages to boot. Do they want the bubble to reflate just a little, for their own selfish sake, as well as to satisfy the demands of their voters and banker contributors? Just askin’.
Participant[quote=Huckleberry]No matter how you slice it, he is still an idiot.
At what point do taxpayers have a fiduciary responsibility to make it right, because there was a regulatory failure?
I know it wasn’t my fault! How about all you other Piggs out there, was it your fault?
He definitely has some sort of ulterior motive for writing something like this…
What a scumbag and bonehead!
[/quote]As outtamojo pointed out, he is Moody’s chief economist, so he would like all those AAA ratings they gave to MBSs to be somewhat justified. Instead of bad lenders taking losses on bad loans, his idea is that they forgive the debt and send the bill for the forgiveness to the taxpayer. Everyone is happy, unless you didn’t borrow too much to buy a house and you pay lots of taxes. Well, what about those people who limit their borrowings to well within their means to repay, and who pay lots of taxes? Scum of the earth. Soak ’em.
Speaking of motives, I wonder how big the home values and mortgages are on Barney Frank’s house(s)? Chris Dodd’s? Larry Summers? Ben Bernanke? Tim Geithner? It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that they owned homes that had, at the peak of the bubble, been valued at ridiculous multiples of their pay, and with big mortgages to boot. Do they want the bubble to reflate just a little, for their own selfish sake, as well as to satisfy the demands of their voters and banker contributors? Just askin’.
Participant[quote=Huckleberry]No matter how you slice it, he is still an idiot.
At what point do taxpayers have a fiduciary responsibility to make it right, because there was a regulatory failure?
I know it wasn’t my fault! How about all you other Piggs out there, was it your fault?
He definitely has some sort of ulterior motive for writing something like this…
What a scumbag and bonehead!
[/quote]As outtamojo pointed out, he is Moody’s chief economist, so he would like all those AAA ratings they gave to MBSs to be somewhat justified. Instead of bad lenders taking losses on bad loans, his idea is that they forgive the debt and send the bill for the forgiveness to the taxpayer. Everyone is happy, unless you didn’t borrow too much to buy a house and you pay lots of taxes. Well, what about those people who limit their borrowings to well within their means to repay, and who pay lots of taxes? Scum of the earth. Soak ’em.
Speaking of motives, I wonder how big the home values and mortgages are on Barney Frank’s house(s)? Chris Dodd’s? Larry Summers? Ben Bernanke? Tim Geithner? It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that they owned homes that had, at the peak of the bubble, been valued at ridiculous multiples of their pay, and with big mortgages to boot. Do they want the bubble to reflate just a little, for their own selfish sake, as well as to satisfy the demands of their voters and banker contributors? Just askin’.
Participant[quote=Huckleberry]No matter how you slice it, he is still an idiot.
At what point do taxpayers have a fiduciary responsibility to make it right, because there was a regulatory failure?
I know it wasn’t my fault! How about all you other Piggs out there, was it your fault?
He definitely has some sort of ulterior motive for writing something like this…
What a scumbag and bonehead!
[/quote]As outtamojo pointed out, he is Moody’s chief economist, so he would like all those AAA ratings they gave to MBSs to be somewhat justified. Instead of bad lenders taking losses on bad loans, his idea is that they forgive the debt and send the bill for the forgiveness to the taxpayer. Everyone is happy, unless you didn’t borrow too much to buy a house and you pay lots of taxes. Well, what about those people who limit their borrowings to well within their means to repay, and who pay lots of taxes? Scum of the earth. Soak ’em.
Speaking of motives, I wonder how big the home values and mortgages are on Barney Frank’s house(s)? Chris Dodd’s? Larry Summers? Ben Bernanke? Tim Geithner? It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that they owned homes that had, at the peak of the bubble, been valued at ridiculous multiples of their pay, and with big mortgages to boot. Do they want the bubble to reflate just a little, for their own selfish sake, as well as to satisfy the demands of their voters and banker contributors? Just askin’.
Participant[quote=Huckleberry]No matter how you slice it, he is still an idiot.
At what point do taxpayers have a fiduciary responsibility to make it right, because there was a regulatory failure?
I know it wasn’t my fault! How about all you other Piggs out there, was it your fault?
He definitely has some sort of ulterior motive for writing something like this…
What a scumbag and bonehead!
[/quote]As outtamojo pointed out, he is Moody’s chief economist, so he would like all those AAA ratings they gave to MBSs to be somewhat justified. Instead of bad lenders taking losses on bad loans, his idea is that they forgive the debt and send the bill for the forgiveness to the taxpayer. Everyone is happy, unless you didn’t borrow too much to buy a house and you pay lots of taxes. Well, what about those people who limit their borrowings to well within their means to repay, and who pay lots of taxes? Scum of the earth. Soak ’em.
Speaking of motives, I wonder how big the home values and mortgages are on Barney Frank’s house(s)? Chris Dodd’s? Larry Summers? Ben Bernanke? Tim Geithner? It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that they owned homes that had, at the peak of the bubble, been valued at ridiculous multiples of their pay, and with big mortgages to boot. Do they want the bubble to reflate just a little, for their own selfish sake, as well as to satisfy the demands of their voters and banker contributors? Just askin’.
Participant[quote=SDEngineer] ….BTW, median prices have never been as low as 3-4x individual incomes in San Diego – about the lowest they get is about 6.5x individual, or about 4x household income. There really is a “sunshine tax”, and it’s pretty well historically documented.[/quote]
SDE, I’d say that median price / median household income is a better measure of affordability over long periods. It makes no sense to compare the per capita ratio in the 1950’s when almost all households had only one income to the per capita ratio today when households have mostly two incomes. I’d be interested to see a long history of the household ratio, and the ratio in 1997 would definitely be less than 6.75, the recent low point of the SD per capita measure. Even that would be higher, I’d guess, than the ratio in the 1960’s and earlier.
Participant[quote=SDEngineer] ….BTW, median prices have never been as low as 3-4x individual incomes in San Diego – about the lowest they get is about 6.5x individual, or about 4x household income. There really is a “sunshine tax”, and it’s pretty well historically documented.[/quote]
SDE, I’d say that median price / median household income is a better measure of affordability over long periods. It makes no sense to compare the per capita ratio in the 1950’s when almost all households had only one income to the per capita ratio today when households have mostly two incomes. I’d be interested to see a long history of the household ratio, and the ratio in 1997 would definitely be less than 6.75, the recent low point of the SD per capita measure. Even that would be higher, I’d guess, than the ratio in the 1960’s and earlier.
Participant[quote=SDEngineer] ….BTW, median prices have never been as low as 3-4x individual incomes in San Diego – about the lowest they get is about 6.5x individual, or about 4x household income. There really is a “sunshine tax”, and it’s pretty well historically documented.[/quote]
SDE, I’d say that median price / median household income is a better measure of affordability over long periods. It makes no sense to compare the per capita ratio in the 1950’s when almost all households had only one income to the per capita ratio today when households have mostly two incomes. I’d be interested to see a long history of the household ratio, and the ratio in 1997 would definitely be less than 6.75, the recent low point of the SD per capita measure. Even that would be higher, I’d guess, than the ratio in the 1960’s and earlier.
Participant[quote=SDEngineer] ….BTW, median prices have never been as low as 3-4x individual incomes in San Diego – about the lowest they get is about 6.5x individual, or about 4x household income. There really is a “sunshine tax”, and it’s pretty well historically documented.[/quote]
SDE, I’d say that median price / median household income is a better measure of affordability over long periods. It makes no sense to compare the per capita ratio in the 1950’s when almost all households had only one income to the per capita ratio today when households have mostly two incomes. I’d be interested to see a long history of the household ratio, and the ratio in 1997 would definitely be less than 6.75, the recent low point of the SD per capita measure. Even that would be higher, I’d guess, than the ratio in the 1960’s and earlier.
Participant[quote=SDEngineer] ….BTW, median prices have never been as low as 3-4x individual incomes in San Diego – about the lowest they get is about 6.5x individual, or about 4x household income. There really is a “sunshine tax”, and it’s pretty well historically documented.[/quote]
SDE, I’d say that median price / median household income is a better measure of affordability over long periods. It makes no sense to compare the per capita ratio in the 1950’s when almost all households had only one income to the per capita ratio today when households have mostly two incomes. I’d be interested to see a long history of the household ratio, and the ratio in 1997 would definitely be less than 6.75, the recent low point of the SD per capita measure. Even that would be higher, I’d guess, than the ratio in the 1960’s and earlier.
Participantjpnpb, it’s obvious from your postings that you’re an honest and decent stand-up person, so I intend no offense.
But I think it’s all too easy for even civilized people to drift into disparaging or damaging others for bad reasons. What’s a bad reason? Being foreign, or of a different religion or skin tone, or other ways completely incidental to what those other people do to or for us.
I personally recommend steering clear of calls to support my tribe against the other tribes. I’ll support my immediate family, and I’ll support the safety of my countrymen, but I draw a line at supporting my countrymen’s right to get more for doing less than people elsewhere, all at my expense. It doesn’t work for me selfishly, and it ends up not working for mankind in general.
Now I totally support exhortations to my fellow countrymen to work harder, and do more of what other people want, and less of they want for themselves. If you want an economy that’s more self-sufficient, that’s a good way to go about it. As someone else mentioned, instead of steering people into buying American goods because they are American, even when they are worse, steer people into making goods and services that are better than what foreigners offer, and offer better value. Then the foreigners win too because they can buy that stuff from us. Better world.
-
AuthorPosts
