patrick.net

HEY YOU says

Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Yeah! some 12 years latter Liberals still get a lot of milage out of that.

CaptainShuddup says

12 years latter Liberals still get a lot of milage

Don't know much about "latter milage," but there are posters on this site who claim that WMD's did exist.

HydroCabron says

there are posters on this site who claim that WMD's did exist.

And you know better how?

Wait a minute, just one single minute Skid Stroke!

How do you get the audacity to question the validity of the WMD claims, but you honestly believe that any acting world leader in the history of the world. Would have the good sense to shoot the worlds most wanted man in the head then dump his faceless carcass in the Mariana trench.

You are a very conflicted lot aren't you?

CaptainShuddup says

You are a very conflicted lot aren't you?

Nobody could possibly be as conflicted as you. Every time you think you learn something, your first thought is:

"This is true. Therefore it's something liberals deny and oppose !"

All I can think is, what the fuck ?

CaptainShuddup says

Just a little known fact, Libs deny

Right, like every Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, Audi, Acura, Infinity, Porche, etc that you see on the road is driven by a "liberal" who is denying what ?

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=15918

Why don't you tee up the next libby lie for us??

HydroCabron says

Don't know much about "latter milage," but there are posters on this site who claim that WMD's did exist.

Libs don't deny facts. They just bury them in bullshit until you can't recognize them any more.

SoftShell says

Why don't you tee up the next libby lie for us??

So we went to war over weapons produced in the 1980s that were so deteriorated that they were no longer fit for use? Is that your contention?

HydroCabron says

Per the classical economists conservatives claim to worship - those same economists whose principles are cited as the model for Republican Party economic orthodoxy - favoring your own country's products makes everybody poorer, because it coddles less-productive producers and rewards inefficiency.

Conservatives believe they are the reincarnation of Adam Smith while preaching xenophobic protectionist nonsense. This is because they are stupid.

Right. Are they for globalized capitalism without regulation--Ayn Rand acolytes?

Or are they for protectionism, and John Ratzenberger acolytes?

I wouldn't normally ask, but he does have all the hallmarks of a conservative icon--washed up start from the 80s---only better if he had been a vigilante (on tv) who cuts through bureaucracy and red tape the way he avoids the stupid judicial system and pesky rights like due process! Because liberals are bad and coddle brown people.

HydroCabron says

Per the classical economists conservatives claim to worship - those same economists whose principles are cited as the model for Republican Party economic orthodoxy - favoring your own country's products makes everybody poorer, because it coddles less-productive producers and rewards inefficiency.

There is a difference between encouraging people to buy local products and enforcing people to do the same. Ultimately, the power must lie with the people.

gsr says

There is a difference between encouraging people to buy local products and enforcing people to do the same.

Quit wriggling. The end effect is the same. Classical economics is unambiguous on the effects.

People who do this are, according to conservative religious principles, impoverishing themselves and others.

Damned right HyperCojon...

What exactly is your argument anyway?
Well all of you, what exactly is wrong with entrepreneurship, small business, healthy industry, and wages that can sustain an adult living in the 21 Century?

The more folks seem to talk about ways to create more of it, the more you idiots start this "what Bush did" bullshit. You guys git like this every time I smoke dope and I'm sick of it!

From my study of basic economics, protectionism is bad on the long term for consumers. I also believe that it violates free market principles. Of course things are much more complex than that, if 'cheap' products from China are causing greater environmental/social harm; that in itself has a 'cost' that is not obviously visible. Trade has to be taken into the context of the individual service or good to make a sober assessment.

So when the article says, "Buy American" - it's not as simple as that - it depends a lot on who you are buying from and what you are buying.

***

As for WMDs: Yes, the buck ultimately stops at Bush (he is the 'decider' after all.) A failure based on the CIA department and "slam dunk" Tenant - the assumption that Iraq had WMDs was a purely bi-partisan assumption as well as going to war.

I believe it was ultimately a huge policy mistake led by Bush (and followed by many Democrats.) - but the Bush was lying stuff needs to stop by anybody intellectually honest with themselves.

HydroCabron says

Quit wriggling. The end effect is the same. Classical economics is unambiguous on the effects.

Absolutely not. It clearly shows your lack of understanding. Not all domestic businesses are same. Consumers must always have a choice.

Pride is not the same as protectionism.

Cliff is saying if we all bought Ameircan we'd all pay less taxes and have more tax dollars to more great things with. Everyone wins, even Democrats with Liberal ambitious socialist programs.

gsr says

Absolutely not. It clearly shows your lack of understanding. Not all domestic businesses are same. Consumers must always have a choice.

I said nothing about restricting their choices. What I am saying is that you're telling them to make the wrong choice as far as their own wealth and the wealth of society - according to conservative principles.

CaptainShuddup says

Cliff is saying if we all bought Ameircan we'd all pay less taxes and have more tax dollars to more great things with.

By conservative principles, cost-ineffective workers should be terminated, and non-competitive businesses should die off. Cliff is a traitor to those principles.

For a guy who derides people for voluntarily choosing to drive Priuses, you sure are slow to understand these principles.

yodaking says

From my study of basic economics, protectionism is bad on the long term for consumers.

Does your study incorporate the loss of income to consumers as their jobs are shipped to the "lower cost" countries?

tatupu70 says

yodaking says

From my study of basic economics, protectionism is bad on the long term for consumers.

Does your study incorporate the loss of income to consumers as their jobs are shipped to the "lower cost" countries?

Many of our imports are necessary for the basic functioning of our economy. Take our biggest historical import, oil. By your rational; we should stop importation of that natural good (which I happen to agree with, by the way, but we're not there yet.)

Your position would result in a much more severe loss of jobs from machines and transports now idle due to lack of energy. This basic premise also applies to other necessities such as rare earth minerals, pharmaceuticals, and compounds.

As time marches on, the world is becoming more connected, not less. The key for the United States to thrive in this new environment is education and re-education of existing blue collar labor. Whether one likes it or not, our competitive landscape is no longer local but global.

Yeah, for some products such as cars, we follow foreigners lead with respect to quality/dollar. For the German cars this is especially impressive, considering they assemble some of their VWs, and BMWs here.

( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-10/bmws-made-in-america-surging-as-biggest-auto-export-cars.html )

Then with low skills assembly work and clothing manufacturing, I think the price difference for clothing made in china or bangledesh is is just too hard to ignore. Ratzenberger has a point, in a way, but it's just one piece of the puzzle.

The fact is, we either believe in capitalism on a global scale or we don't. Plus the fact that if we all started buying only American made products, it would create an entirely new set of problems. Who would buy all of our debt (treasury bonds) ? And with what?

It is true though, that the inflation (including wage inflation) that needs to occur for our standard of living to stay steady is hampered by the our current global economic situation.

sbh says

CaptainShuddup says

what exactly is wrong with.............wages that can sustain an adult living in the 21 Century?

Ask the GOP, they have been destroying them since 1980.

Wage growth (likCaptainShuddup says

Pride is not the same as protectionism.

Cliff is saying if we all bought Ameircan we'd all pay less taxes and have more tax dollars to more great things with. Everyone wins, even Democrats with Liberal ambitious socialist programs.

All things being equal, I agree it makes sense to 'buy American' - even if solely based on patriotism. In the end, the American consumer often will purchase a product based on price and perceived quality - in a sense - many have already 'voted' with their pocketbook.

I believe a more pro-active stance is how to help America become more competitive new 'knowledge-based economy' jobs. The only way this can happen is with a more effective education system. Unfortunately, our current system is often broken, and a whole different thread can be devoted to the reasons why.

HydroCabron says

By conservative principles, cost-ineffective workers should be terminated, and non-competitive businesses should die off. Cliff is a traitor to those principles.

Everyone has an opinion. He is opining on that basis of patriotism, and he is entitled to his opinion. He is certainly not right if he generalizes to *all* domestic industries, including auto industries. He is right that China has issues with environmental pollution. But that does not necessarily apply to the rest of the world, like Germany. Social conservatism and economic freedom are not the same. You might be more socially conservative than I am.

HydroCabron says

For a guy who derides people for voluntarily choosing to drive Priuses, you sure are slow to understand these principles.

When did I deride Prius drivers? I don't like Prius much. But I am definitely not in favor of subsidizing GMC Yukon over Prius.

sbh says

CaptainShuddup says

what exactly is wrong with.............wages that can sustain an adult living in the 21 Century?

Ask the GOP, they have been destroying them since 1980.

Wage growth (like other economic indicators) is largely a reflection on labor market availability (unemployment rate.) In simplest terms, a low unemployment situation spurs more competition for labor, generating higher wages. Your assertion of the GOP destroying jobs since the 80's is engagement in false. You can see the job growth here under different adminstrations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

It's hard to assign what policies should get credit absolute job growth (or on the flip side dampening growth)

Should the GOP congress and Clinton's tax cuts in his second term be credited for the job growth? Or did it create downward pressure that would have created even more jobs?

My argument is the biggest damper on real wage growth has been the hyper rise of healthcare costs. If healthcare costs were contained and translated to each worker's paycheck, we would be in much better shape.

sbh says

Since the Reagan revolution of the 80s labor has been hammered by the twin towers of Republican ideology: globalization (offshoring) and deregulation. It doesn't matter if you replace one high paying job with three shitty ones, no matter how often you repeat the catechism that this is "innovation", it doesn't do squat for wage growth.

You can only successfully employ tariffs if you don't depend on foreign resources, incl. debt and cheap stuff. Also I agree with yodaking that the world has been getting more connected every day and eventually trade isolation does not work anymore. There is still plenty of manufacturing from highly developed countries that people pay for even though it costs more, e.g. Germany. Lastly, the development of crony capitalism in the FIRE sector has been a large contributor. You may not be able to outsource local hospitals or CA mansions/shacks, but there is no reason why you cannot have global banking and insurance. Yet, the banking/insurance sector salaries have been ample with consistent, taxpayer funded million dollar bonuses, add-in criminals laws prohibiting drug import and a constant stream of fiat buying up and guaranteeing every mortgage taken on. There is protectionism at its finest, not only against globalism, but also against its own citizens/taxpayers.

sbh says

The stuff cheap enough to make outsourcing the modern mantra is labor, whether it's coders or engineers from India, textile sweatshops in Bangladesh, or tech parts assemblers in China. How can you put tariffs on overseas labor?

I haven't yet worked within a single project where outsourcing coding was even mildly successful. Usually it ends with a clusterfuck and the company guts the outsourced project. It's a bit of an American mindset to go for the cheapest labor, but it can change - actually it has to. WRT textiles it is harder, but there are plenty of companies who manufacture in the US and you can still buy nice tshirts for $20, just not $5. Also, if you give tax incentives for domestic manufacturing companies would be less inclined.

sbh says

What do people on the bottom of yoda's graph buy that comes from Germany? Beamers? Diebold household ATMs? Does Siemens make toothbrushes?

Anything as long as they keep it long enough. Usually the initial higher cost is recouped by the quality of the ware if you hold on to it long enough. Which is unfortunately not a current American quality either, when you have to sell your house every 7 years and go for instant gratification with a new web-phone/tablet every 6 months.

sbh says

Ya know, Germans can afford those expensive German products, not because they have no cost of transport, but because they earn enough, and also because that spendthrift fiscally irresponsible nation has the audacity to see the folly in our healthcare system. Oh yeah, they hate unions too.

Programmers in Germany make less than here, so do healthcare workers. They just ratified a minimum wage and were running long enough without one. True, some sectors are and have been unionized. Then again, teachers are not allowed to strike for their generous benefits and they do not have a FIRE sector even remotely as powerful and cronied as the US.

yodaking says

By your rational; we should stop importation of that natural good (which I happen to agree with, by the way, but we're not there yet.)

That's actually not my rationale. How about you stick to your thoughts and let me explain mine?

yodaking says

Your position would result in a much more severe loss of jobs from machines and transports now idle due to lack of energy. This basic premise also applies to other necessities such as rare earth minerals, pharmaceuticals, and compounds.

Again--I don't believe I've ever posted my premise, so I'm not sure how you can tell me what it would lead to.

yodaking says

As time marches on, the world is becoming more connected, not less. The key for the United States to thrive in this new environment is education and re-education of existing blue collar labor. Whether one likes it or not, our competitive landscape is no longer local but global.

Really? Re-educate them for what exactly? Are there lots of educated jobs that are going unfilled??

tatupu70:

I apologized if my response did not capture your sentiments. I assumed (I see incorrectly) that your curt response "Does your study incorporate the loss of income to consumers as their jobs are shipped to the "lower cost" countries?" implied that you valued protectionism.

Any bi-partisan economics 101 book summarizes the mechanics of protectionism. In two of the most well-known economists on political opposites (Friedman/Krugman) support it.

Source: NY Times (Krugman)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/opinion/28krugman.html?ex=1356498000&en=59380e4088506422&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&_r=0

Source (Friedman Debates protectionist)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk3ruapRQZk

Now of course, Economics not being a natural science is open to debate - so I know there are no 'absolutes.' - I thought it was common knowledge that the majority of economist's view protectionism (and the overhead it brings) has a net deficit to the citizenry of the country.

Of course no policy is Utopian, we are human after all and jobs theoretically lost, but you discount the jobs created as well. Again, we cannot fiddle with micro and discount the overall macro - It would be on par if I brought up Juche as a criticism of isolationism - an unfair assessment.

***
As for your query: "Really? Re-educate them for what exactly? Are there lots of educated jobs that are going unfilled??"

Yes, there are:
Source: US News 10/30/2014
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/30/thousands-of-middle-skill-jobs-unfilled-in-new-york-city

Is there really a better world?

It is more productive to turn the tragedy of life into something beautiful.

Actually a lot of "educated" people are retraining blue collar so they can get decent jobs. I know that applies to me. I went from a $40k job to a $150k job by switching to blue collar.

Quigley says

Actually a lot of "educated" people are retraining blue collar so they can get decent jobs. I know that applies to me. I went from a $40k job to a $150k job by switching to blue collar.

Software can replace white collar workers way faster than robots can replace blue collar workers.

Peter P says

Quigley says

Actually a lot of "educated" people are retraining blue collar so they can get decent jobs. I know that applies to me. I went from a $40k job to a $150k job by switching to blue collar.

Software can replace white collar workers way faster than robots can replace blue collar workers.

Still, it's a race against time. In another generation, most work, white or blue collar, will be automated.

Rin says

Still, it's a race against time. In another generation, most work, white or blue collar, will be automated.

Absolutely. But the perhaps oldest profession will be affected last. :-)

yodaking says

Now of course, Economics not being a natural science is open to debate - so I know there are no 'absolutes.' - I thought it was common knowledge that the majority of economist's view protectionism (and the overhead it brings) has a net deficit to the citizenry of the country.

OK--getting back to my question then--did you factor in the loss of income on the consumers who lose their jobs?
yodaking says

Of course no policy is Utopian, we are human after all and jobs theoretically lost, but you discount the jobs created as well. Again, we cannot fiddle with micro and discount the overall macro - It would be on par if I brought up Juche as a criticism of isolationism - an unfair assessment.

The jobs are created overseas--how exactly does that help US workers in the micro or macro?

yodaking says

As for your query: "Really? Re-educate them for what exactly? Are there lots of educated jobs that are going unfilled??"

Yes, there are:

Source: US News 10/30/2014

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/30/thousands-of-middle-skill-jobs-unfilled-in-new-york-city

10K jobs is a drop in the bucket.

sbh says

Why don't you reflect on our Patnet STEM brethren who put the lie to this:

http://patrick.net/?p=1245248

SBH - the chart that was displayed was 3 years outdated - in the midst of the "Great Recession" - of course it will face pressure -- all jobs did.

Here is data as of 2013 (2014 saw even greater rises in wages in STEM) but BLS is still catching up.

2013
http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-3/an-overview-of-employment.htm
$79,640

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/05/art1full.pdf
$77,880K

Quigley says

Actually a lot of "educated" people are retraining blue collar so they can get decent jobs. I know that applies to me. I went from a $40k job to a $150k job by switching to blue collar.

Definitely, especially if you combine this with entrepreneurship of a 'blue collar" tasks.

tatupu70 says

10K jobs is a drop in the bucket.

I believe that is just the city of New York - nationwide there is many STEM jobs unfilled.

tatupu70 says

OK--getting back to my question then--did you factor in the loss of income on the consumers who lose their jobs?

The labor market is elastic, all policies outside communism does not guarantee employment. A corporation's main task is to generate profit. At a certain point, X labor * y efficiency will generate z good/service.

Now if domestic labor > off-shore - it is in the best interest for said corporation to offshore (all other things being equal) - However many jobs simply cannot be offshored. For example - the Medical Field (Doctor, Nurse), Local Marketing, Finance (especially the big 4 auditing firms), legal, and entrepreneurship. tatupu70 says

The jobs are created overseas--how exactly does that help US workers in the micro or macro?

If the labor cost generates additional growth for said corporation, other roles domestically will be created. Apple is the best example of this. They 'off-shored' their manufacturing correct?

"Designed in California, Made in China"

Yet did this create 'less' domestic' employees through their growth or more?

Did the savings from offshoring reward current shareholders in the terms of stock buybacks?
(see apple stock chart)

sbh says

At least you started off on topic, but strayed into numbers of jobs created which doesn't have the vaunted effect it's supposed to have on wage growth.

Actually, the % of a person's paycheck that goes into health care is much higher now than say 30 years ago - and this is very real $$$ that a company pays per worker that would otherwise could have gone direct to a worker's pocket. As far as deregulation of the financial industry - it did create the disastrous "Great Recession" - however I believe it's pretty clear that Kenseysian capitalistic policies is what prevented the second Great Depression, and current capitalist policies what is slowly getting us out. Or do you infer that we should have abandoned capitalism to a different economic model?

yodaking says

The labor market is elastic, all policies outside communism does not guarantee employment. A corporation's main task is to generate profit. At a certain point, X labor * y efficiency will generate z good/service.

Now if domestic labor > off-shore - it is in the best interest for said corporation to offshore (all other things being equal) - However many jobs simply cannot be offshored. For example - the Medical Field (Doctor, Nurse), Local Marketing, Finance (especially the big 4 auditing firms), legal, and entrepreneurship

Yes, but that doesn't answer my question unless you think there is enough demand for nurses, marketing, and finance to soak up all the lost jobs in manufacturing.

yodaking says

If the labor cost generates additional growth for said corporation, other roles domestically will be created. Apple is the best example of this. They 'off-shored' their manufacturing correct?

"Designed in California, Made in China"

Yet did this create 'less' domestic' employees through their growth or more?

Clearly less.

yodaking says

Did the savings from offshoring reward current shareholders in the terms of stock buybacks?

(see apple stock chart)

Of course. And that's one big reason for widening wealth disparity in the US.

You've shown exhibit A and exhibit B why offshoring is bad for the US. So, tell me again why it's good?

sbh says

nor worry the efficacy of the divergent course our FED took as compared to the ECB

How is this divergent?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-04/draghi-says-ecb-will-reassess-stimulus-measures-early-next-year.htmlsbh says

Or maybe you should abandon your complaint.

What complaint is that?
sbh says

immediately evidencing unmet labor demand,

Are those articles false?

Simple exercise - go to www.indeed.com - there are over 1/2 a million jobs posted in the last 7 days.

Are you inferring these are all fake jobs?

tatupu70 says

Yes, but that doesn't answer my question unless you think there is enough demand for nurses, marketing, and finance to soak up all the lost jobs in manufacturing.

well, yes.

Just taking healthcare by itself (nevermind the other industries I mentioned)
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm

15.6 Healthcare jobs in the next 10 years - that's an annualized rate of 1.5 Million

The US lost about 6 Million factory jobs
Source:
http://www2.itif.org/2012-american-manufacturing-decline.pdf

Again, I'm just counting the healthcare industry - count the other industries and you've more then made up the loss.

Also more manufaturing jobs are experiencing are turn

tatupu70 says

Clearly less.

Actually Clearly More.

not just in America too (here they went from 10,000 to 50,000 in the last 10 years
https://www.apple.com/about/job-creation/

But worldwide
http://www.statista.com/statistics/273439/number-of-employees-of-apple-since-2005/tatupu70 says

Of course. And that's one big reason for widening wealth disparity in the US.

You've shown exhibit A and exhibit B why offshoring is bad for the US. So, tell me again why it's good?

I think the main reason for the widening wealth disparity is you have a population of highly educated professionals and those that were victims of our public school system.

yodaking says

Actually Clearly More.

not just in America too (here they went from 10,000 to 50,000 in the last 10 years

https://www.apple.com/about/job-creation/

But worldwide

http://www.statista.com/statistics/273439/number-of-employees-of-apple-since-2005/tatupu70 says

Well, we're talking about the US, not the world. Obviously, there are more jobs overseas.

Sure, Apple employs more people in the last 10 years, but that's not a fair comparison. How many jobs were lost in Apple competitors in the US? We're talking net jobs in the US.

yodaking says

I think the main reason for the widening wealth disparity is you have a population of highly educated professionals and those that were victims of our public school system.

Were public schools better in the 1970s? What happened in 1980 to reverse the trend of shrinking disparity and change to increasing disparity?