Politics --> Obama --> Deal with it or don't

Post Reply New Topic

As much as I despise GWBush Clinton had a hand in deregulating the banking industry and offshoring jobs.

True, but that accelerated under Bush. The outsourcing on its own probably would not have been too horrible (I'm not a protectionist) and there is a happy medium of regulation somewhere. The Bush administration, however, is directly responsible for upwards of a million civilian casualties in Iraq alone, not to mention the Afghan dead, our own fallen soldiers, and the budget crisis. For all the Bush fans I know, I don't believe they really understand the fact that because of his policies, people are dead. These are human lives we are talking about that were ended unnecessarily. There are grieving families who can rightfully blame Bush for their sadness.

Nothing will change until people realize that they do not pick the candidates. Those who really wield power choose them for us. No matter who wins, they generally can exploit whoever wins the office. Anyone they don't approve of is violently rejected in the media in spite of actual public support (e.g., Ron Paul).

Since you diagnose a totally hopeless situation do you have any suggestions?

We are also in the midst of the dot-com bubble that started in the second Bill Clinton Administration. The economy was going into the tank before Dubya took office. Be that as it may, the foolishness and stupidity of the Dubya Bush administration made a bad thing much worse.

ruveyn

The only legal suggestion is that we take back government via grass roots to ensure independents get voted into office, but sadly, the masses of lemmings with voting rights seem to keep buying into the "more of the same" they are offered every election.

What a load of bull. If the best chance for a progressive the US will get can't effectively use standard public relations and political framing techniques, there's a pretty low standard. You should read of the work done by Drew Westen - work that spineless appeaser to the Right has failed to capitalize on.



Sure, followed by someone who is intent on "looking at the past" rather than "moving forward" when attributing economic causation. If Obama were focused a bit more on the past crimes of Bush, maybe the populace's memory wouldn't be so short-term.



And inflating an already bloated Military-Industrial Complex to boot. Obama really is just a repeat of the Clinton years.

The "Progressivism" of Barack "don't scream at me Beck, I'll continue purging my cabinent to your wishes" Obama.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAnf-Yf_6_I[/youtube]

The political blogger interviewee is pretty much dead wrong on all her predictions.

Can I ask why you don't have a problem with outsourcing? To me, outsourcing has been the death of our economy, along with many other things. I myself, don't have a problem with buying imported goods, as long as they are made by a company in their home country. What I do have a problem with is buying goods from an American company that are manufactured overseas. Not only does this directly cost American's their jobs, but it also causes fierce competition between companies to lower their prices, in order to compete with foreign made goods, which in turn, causes even more job losses down the line.

Don't get me wrong, I love low prices as much as the next person, but I think too low of prices is just as bad as too high of prices.

It takes a bit of a paradigm shift in thinking to see it, it was actually Orwell and AwesomelyGlorious that explained this in such a way that I could understand it.

Outsourcing is no different than an invention that makes the job more efficient, no one has an ethical problem with efficiency, so logically no one should have a problem with outsourcing.

To go into greater detail, let's look at farming. In the old days it took lots of man hours and many laborers to run a farm, but as technology advanced it took less and less people to do the work, until today farms are practically automated and run by virtual skeleton crews compared to what it traditionally took. All these innovations made farming more efficient, and thus it's products cost less money to produce because they save so much money on the labor they don't have to use. Now where it takes the total mental gear change is to understand that the same economic effect could have also been produced by lowering the cost of the labor in some other manner than technology, such as moving the farm to a location where labor is cheaper, hence off-shoring.

If a company doesn't have a wonder-gizmo to lower their costs, one way to do so is to seek out cheaper labor, that is not evil, it is just efficient. The economic reality is that it doesn't make sense to base certain industries requiring unskilled labor here in the States, not only will the product cost more but the industry will collapse if it's not subsidized and or protected by the state from the full force of the market, which will favor more efficiently made (read: cheaper to produce) product. We don't make cheap plastic doodads in the US, we make high tech products that require skilled labor, such as pharmaceuticals and software, and then we trade them to countries that have abundant supplies of cheap labor that need high tech products, such as India and China.

Yes, some people get left behind, but that's an unfortunate reality of the market and can't be helped absent inefficient government protectionism and subsidies, which do more harm in the long run anyway. What's important is that the next generation that would have worked in the displaced industry then go on to create the new wave of innovations and by extension the new industries that keep the economy going.

I was about to reply when I saw Dox's post. He pretty much covered it. I will also note that my stance on outsourcing (and trade in general) is informed by a notion of comparative advantage. We can have more overall wealth by trading with other countries (including purchasing stuff that was manufactured overseas) rather than attempting to be autarkic. Basically, outsourcing makes us better off. Some low-level laborers get screwed in the short term, and perhaps I could be swayed by an argument for helping them find new jobs, but there is nothing wrong with outsourcing in and of itself.

What do you think of Dean Baker's arguments against "Professional Protectionism"?

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publicati ... onists.PDF

There are some contingencies which invalidate that statement in certain situations: for example, where manufacturers are held up by tolitarian governments overseas. Such issues are morally problematic, but I may very well be willing to overlook it as a neccessary cost on the road to socioeconomic development.

Another isssue is while you might be (sort of right) on India right now, the dynamic is changing. The political economist James Laxer has predicted a new trading dynamic in the future:



http://www.jameslaxer.com/2010/03/great ... s-and.html

I'll read the rest of it later, but I just want to respond to one point:


As an aerospace engineer, my dad has over the past twenty years seen constant attempts to transfer his functions to Poland. He has a four-year degree from a poorly-regarded state university, and the Poles who are trying to replace him have doctorate degrees. They are also completely incompetent and make bizarre errors when performing even the most trivial tasks. As far as I can tell, the main limitations on outsourcing professional work really are practical ones. It is harder to consult a lawyer in India who does not speak your language and is not well versed in the local law code. It is almost impossible to have a check-up with a doctor on the other side of the world. And the foreign engineers (at least the ones they have found thus far) have not been able to do the work.

I am, of course, in favor of easing immigration restrictions to allow more skilled professionals into this country. The instructor for one of my courses this semester had to jump through a variety of hoops when he first came here and got a job; the company hiring him had to demonstrate that it was unable to find a single qualified American. That's silly, and it is the same kind of short-sighted protectionism that I oppose in the manufacturing sector.

It is also pretty relevant. I mean, we should be allowing high wage immigration to a larger extent and we should allow more outsourcing of high skilled labor where possible as well. I think that most of the free trade arguments advanced by free-marketers hold just as well in this area.

To Orwell and Dox:

I agree with you that producing items in cheap labor countries is efficient and cost effective for companies, but at what cost? Do you think it's right that certain Americans live a better and easier lifestyle, because the goods they buy are made by a slave laborer in China for 70 cents per hour? Do you think it's right that working class Americans lose their jobs? Many of these people either can't afford to get a better education, or lack the skills, or smarts to do so. If they lose their jobs, they are either forced to work at some minimum wage retail job, and/or go on Welfare, etc, which would actually cost everyone else even more money in taxes.