 |
|
yavoon
|
|
Imran I'd only buy that if they were losing jobs to real inefficiencies and not protectionism or worker exploitation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
I bet if you lost your job you wouldn't think that way would you?
Slow erosion of industrial capacity which ends up giving the jobs to hardly-paid chinese sweatshop laborers is only good for the company's pockets, not for the country as a whole. |
As long as industrial capacity is available, it doesn't matter where. Same as the dependence on an agricultural economy, dependence on an industrial economy is just a ticket to perpetual macroeconomic mediocrity. It's great for the shoprats, but overpriced and inefficient for everyone else.
I get sick of these "Wull, I done used to have me a five hunerd dolleranhour yooonyun job with triple-quintuple overtime if I had to acshully work, but now alls I gots is a job flippin' burgers at McDonalds, so ah had to sell mah quadruple-wide trailer" sob stories. There are more high-paying jobs per capita in the US economy now than there were in the days of the Detroit chrome is king, America über alles manufacturing heyday. If people don't have market competitive job skills, or won't adapt and acquire those skills, then **** 'em. Go work at the local Stop-n-Rob and whine. That's not the only choice out there, it's the choice you made be refusing to educate yourself in a way that's marketable in the current economy.
There used to be more jobs shoveling **** out of stables, too. Should we get rid of cars and go back to using horses, to save those jobs?
I've been unemployed, and I've changed job fields. It's called "adapt or starve."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
And corn is but just one example...  |
Exactly. There's all those American products subject to 18% or more import duties when brought across the border, to protect Mexican products.
Or how about the situation for my brother-in-law, who when he moved from Tijuana (in the border trade zone) to Chihuahua city (outside the border trade zone) couldn't legally take his own computer, because he assembled it himself from parts he bought from various sources, rather than buying an underspec, overpriced turd computer from a Mexican retail computer store, so he'd have a fiscal receipt to prove he'd been screwed silly and paid far more than the thing was worth?
In our delusional taxation/protection system here, we still do plenty of **** to subsidize non-competitive products and services, and to restrict or price up gringo products and services coming here.
Screw who gets to sell corn to who - agriculture is just a way to make sure the peasants get to stay peasants for the rest of their lives. Transition from an agriculture to industrial to post-industrial economy, and unimpeded access to the cheapest and greatest variety of products is what is going to elevate third world economies. Not carping over who is more cheaper at selling corn without subsidies.
And unless you Pipope Chilangos  get it all, we export all of our good produce anyway - much of the stuff (especially leaf vegetables, or anything else that rots in say, less than a decade ) for sale in the local Comercial Mexicana and Calimax isn't good enough to feed to goats. Milk and meats (except ham) are the exception, and some vegetables like potatos (they're probably gringo vegetables anyway) are ok, but a lot of the stuff for sale here looks like crap. It certainly couldn't get exported, so if that's the pride of Mexican agriculture, it doesn't have a chance in the US market, any more than tacos de cabeza. (hint: in the US, they use that stuff to make dried dog food  ) If it's the dregs of Mexican agriculture, then obviously the good stuff is going to someone else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
As long as industrial capacity is available, it doesn't matter where. Same as the dependence on an agricultural economy, dependence on an industrial economy is just a ticket to perpetual macroeconomic mediocrity. It's great for the shoprats, but overpriced and inefficient for everyone else.
|
Oh yes it matters where. What you're not getting is that the reason the jobs are no longer at home is not because of inefficiency sometimes but because of wages. Is it your fault that another 3rd world country pays a guy like you 1/10 to do the same job? In that case, you are suffering from having to been born in a high-wage nation, and that IMO is unacceptable. Sorry for not agreeing with the laissez-faire approach to thinks but I cannot agree with an ideology which all it does is makes the CEO's wallet fatter at the expense of the workers who are the first to be laid off. Is inefficiency = to a high-wage phenomenon? No.
Perpetual macroeconoic mediocrity is when you fail to address all the macroeconoic concerns in a coordinated manner. Oh, **** inflation, let's keep the unemployment rate low. Oh, **** employment, let's lower inflation. Unexcusable as sound economic policy can lessen the effect of both phenomenons.
quote:
I get sick of these "Wull, I done used to have me a five hunerd dolleranhour yooonyun job with triple-quintuple overtime if I had to acshully work, but now alls I gots is a job flippin' burgers at McDonalds, so ah had to sell mah quadruple-wide trailer" sob stories. There are more high-paying jobs per capita in the US economy now than there were in the days of the Detroit chrome is king, America über alles manufacturing heyday. If people don't have market competitive job skills, or won't adapt and acquire those skills, then **** 'em. Go work at the local Stop-n-Rob and whine. That's not the only choice out there, it's the choice you made be refusing to educate yourself in a way that's marketable in the current economy.
|
I agree for the most part, however, re-educating the work force for the new economy is not as easy as it sounds and it has never been during the great waves of technological change (called Leontief waves). I can quote a lot of papers since the thesis I'm working on has a lot to do with that...
Ask a 50-year old steelworker if learing CAD or Photoshop is so easy... If anything, there's no excuse for the government not to assist. Leaving them laid off and on welfare is hardly the solution.
quote:
There used to be more jobs shoveling **** out of stables, too. Should we get rid of cars and go back to using horses, to save those jobs?
I've been unemployed, and I've changed job fields. It's called "adapt or starve." |
Unemployment has always existed, even in the days of shoveling **** out of stables. Nothing will change that. Readaptation takes time, that's what I'm pointing out, it is inexcusable for you or the government to turn a blind eye to this and say "or starve" especially since it was that government which educated you to fullfill a purpose in the workforce.
btw, hear Billy Joel's "Allentown"...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Exactly. There's all those American products subject to 18% or more import duties when brought across the border, to protect Mexican products.
Or how about the situation for my brother-in-law, who when he moved from Tijuana (in the border trade zone) to Chihuahua city (outside the border trade zone) couldn't legally take his own computer, because he assembled it himself from parts he bought from various sources, rather than buying an underspec, overpriced turd computer from a Mexican retail computer store, so he'd have a fiscal receipt to prove he'd been screwed silly and paid far more than the thing was worth?
|
Find someone to make you a receipt...  (but don't say I said this...)
quote:
Screw who gets to sell corn to who - agriculture is just a way to make sure the peasants get to stay peasants for the rest of their lives. Transition from an agriculture to industrial to post-industrial economy, and unimpeded access to the cheapest and greatest variety of products is what is going to elevate third world economies. Not carping over who is more cheaper at selling corn without subsidies.
|
This is something I won't even be able to emphazise in just one post, but AGRICULTURAL PROSPERITY IS WHERE INDUSTRIAL PROSPERITY BEGINS. Read any and all accounts on economic history of the industrial revolution. The indsutrial revolution in Britain started only because of an Agricultural revolution during the previous century which gave the agro sector such surpluses which made the people flock to cities with their new-found wealth. Problem with us is that people have flocked to the cities for exactly the opposite reason: poverty. As long as you keep the agro poor, you keep the rest of the economy poor as those newly migrant city workers will end up in the dirt on the streets. Or across the border... So, first step for surplus is to actually sell the corn, and that won't happen if you have to compete with subsidized products
quote:
And unless you Pipope Chilangos get it all, we export all of our good produce anyway - much of the stuff (especially leaf vegetables, or anything else that rots in say, less than a decade ) for sale in the local Comercial Mexicana and Calimax isn't good enough to feed to goats. Milk and meats (except ham) are the exception, and some vegetables like potatos (they're probably gringo vegetables anyway) are ok, but a lot of the stuff for sale here looks like crap. It certainly couldn't get exported, so if that's the pride of Mexican agriculture, it doesn't have a chance in the US market, any more than tacos de cabeza. (hint: in the US, they use that stuff to make dried dog food ) If it's the dregs of Mexican agriculture, then obviously the good stuff is going to someone else. |
Of course it's going somewhere else, IT'S GETTING EXPORTED!!
And if not, you've just found out the sorry state of Mexican agriculture. Surprise! And northern meat is great, try an Arrachera and you'll know what I mean...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
Oh yes it matters where. What you're not getting is that the reason the jobs are no longer at home is not because of inefficiency sometimes but because of wages. Is it your fault that another 3rd world country pays a guy like you 1/10 to do the same job? In that case, you are suffering from having to been born in a high-wage nation, and that IMO is unacceptable. Sorry for not agreeing with the laissez-faire approach to thinks but I cannot agree with an ideology which all it does is makes the CEO's wallet fatter at the expense of the workers who are the first to be laid off. Is inefficiency = to a high-wage phenomenon? No.
|
Is it my fault if I'm still paying $5,000 for the likes of an IBM PC-AT because protection of manufacturing jobs and thwarting of a competitive marketplace makes me captive to buying overpriced crap in the marketplace?
I worked in Silicon Valley in it's early heyday, when companies most people have now never heard of (Amdahl, Fairchild Semiconductor, Monolithic Memories, Inc. {weird name, that one }) ruled the roost. Going from Silicon Valley mercenary wages to Army wages was a big shock to my wallet.
In the mid-80s, when the US had RAM manufacturing, and the first 256KB (yes, KB, not MB) chips came out, the US imposed a 100% duty against Japanese chips (the Koreans weren't in the market yet), to protect the American industry. The American RAM industry is still gone, and the only effect of the action by the US was to delay adoption of superior technology and increase the price of that adoption, reducing US competitiveness in other areas.
quote:
Perpetual macroeconoic mediocrity is when you fail to address all the macroeconoic concerns in a coordinated manner. Oh, **** inflation, let's keep the unemployment rate low. Oh, **** employment, let's lower inflation. Unexcusable as sound economic policy can lessen the effect of both phenomenons.
|
That's another way to do it, but IMO clinging to backwards economic vision is harder to eradicate. At least you can replace your econ policy wonks more easily than you can change political vision for where a country should be going.
quote:
I agree for the most part, however, re-educating the work force for the new economy is not as easy as it sounds and it has never been during the great waves of technological change (called Leontief waves). I can quote a lot of papers since the thesis I'm working on has a lot to do with that...
Ask a 50-year old steelworker if learing CAD or Photoshop is so easy... If anything, there's no excuse for the government not to assist. Leaving them laid off and on welfare is hardly the solution.
|
Government, unions, private sector industry, all can and should assist the transition, because keeping those people as financially solvent consumers is beneficial.
quote:
Unemployment has always existed, even in the days of shoveling **** out of stables. Nothing will change that. Readaptation takes time, that's what I'm pointing out, it is inexcusable for you or the government to turn a blind eye to this and say "or starve" especially since it was that government which educated you to fullfill a purpose in the workforce.
btw, hear Billy Joel's "Allentown"... |
Heard it. Even been there, and plenty of places worse. Hell, I've got family in Kentucky, West Virginia and western Virginia coal country.
Adapt or starve (I was being rhetorical, BTW ) applies on multiple levels - companies have to adapt to competitive forces and market changes or they go out of business. Employees in the US by now should be over the delusion of "company loyalty" and realize that they too are marketable assets, just like the companies they work for. Adaptation and self-improvement (economically and otherwise) should be a standard way of doing things, but a lot of people still stick to that "have the old lady have dinner on the table at six and then watch TV and drink beer" approach to life. If you're not interested in adapting to the changing marketplace, you shouldn't be too offended if it's not that interested in counter-adapting to subsidize you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Is it my fault if I'm still paying $5,000 for the likes of an IBM PC-AT because protection of manufacturing jobs and thwarting of a competitive marketplace makes me captive to buying overpriced crap in the marketplace?
I worked in Silicon Valley in it's early heyday, when companies most people have now never heard of (Amdahl, Fairchild Semiconductor, Monolithic Memories, Inc. {weird name, that one }) ruled the roost. Going from Silicon Valley mercenary wages to Army wages was a big shock to my wallet.
In the mid-80s, when the US had RAM manufacturing, and the first 256KB (yes, KB, not MB) chips came out, the US imposed a 100% duty against Japanese chips (the Koreans weren't in the market yet), to protect the American industry. The American RAM industry is still gone, and the only effect of the action by the US was to delay adoption of superior technology and increase the price of that adoption, reducing US competitiveness in other areas.
|
Again, "pick and protect" that's the problem (or rather solution). Looking at the world in the black and white term of protection/free trade is silly. You don't have to go to either extreme. If the RAM industry was better left unprotected because it was inherently weak then let it die, not every country is good at everything. However, what is wrong is not giving the industry a chance, and its also wrong to let it die when the problem is not necessarily inefficient. Again, in economic terms being non-competitive in wages is technically being "inefficient". However, I do not see it that way, then again, I'm a very unconventional economist
As for the rest of the post, I think we generally agree on most things, except we have different ways of expressing things.
G'nite
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Yeah, arguing with a PRDista (I'm assuming, you don't sound like a card-carrying PANista ) is restoring my center-right credentials after my views on the war in Iraq got me lumped in with all the commies. 
I'd much rather see a pan-Latinamerican trade organisation that looked toward internal development and dealing with the US from a position of parity, rather than the White Man's Burden/Monroe Doctrine crap that's the norm now. Especially with Fox and his constant, non-productive bootlicking of Bush. I don't think most people would mind Fox using his tongue, if it got results, but every time he goes north, he comes away with nothing. |
I'd agree 110% if that were mathematically possible  Such a trade organization (and not just limited to trade but to a common diplomatic front) is what I dream of every day...
PRD!!!
I would never join that party, they are rebelious idiots who have no ****ing clue on how to run a country, just complain and ***** about things and organize riots. Much less PAN who are a bunch of pro-US pro-Catholic elitist lying scum, oh and no words can express the contempt I feel for PRI...
So, that leaves me with no party to identify which, and hence, no party to vote in the next elections (something which I don't plan on doing). So, consider me an "enemy of the state" for all that means, and an enemy of the political system as a whole, not just any party in particular.
For the record, I am a leftist in economic affairs (which is strange since I am studying in a very elitist school) but very much an authoritarian if I were to run this joint. God help us if I ever do...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:27
|
|
Sloww, your article dealt with people in the telecom industry, not manufacturing. So stop with the blue-collar righteousness act, ok?
Secondly, the article mentions Mexico not a bit, but does speak a bit about India and China, making it's relevence in this NAFTA discussion moot.
Third, the South is now primarily a service based industry, especially GA, AL, TN, NC, VA, SC, and FL. It is a land dominated by office parks, not factories. This South is the one that benefits from NAFTA.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-05-2003 05:10
|