04 Oct 2016, 2:15 pm
GGPViper wrote:
I too, believe that businesses should devote themselves to compassion, and not just the ruthless pursuit of profit...
As such, companies in rich Western countries like the US ought to - in the name of social responsibility and fairness - commit themselves to outsourcing at least 50 percent of their production to third world countries.
After all, the increased income generated in these lesser developed countries (where a much larger percentage of the population lives in poverty - sometimes even on the brink of starvation) would go much further in improving human welfare than keeping production facilities at home among those who already enjoy much higher living standards...
But those damn selfish crony capitalists just won't ship enough jobs overseas... a**holes...
As such, companies in rich Western countries like the US ought to - in the name of social responsibility and fairness - commit themselves to outsourcing at least 50 percent of their production to third world countries.
After all, the increased income generated in these lesser developed countries (where a much larger percentage of the population lives in poverty - sometimes even on the brink of starvation) would go much further in improving human welfare than keeping production facilities at home among those who already enjoy much higher living standards...
But those damn selfish crony capitalists just won't ship enough jobs overseas... a**holes...
I enjoy using a modified version of this argument to attack liberals from the left; judging from the reactions, they're not used to being attacked as nationalists who hate the third world.
04 Oct 2016, 2:17 pm
04 Oct 2016, 4:29 pm
04 Oct 2016, 8:16 pm
04 Oct 2016, 8:17 pm
05 Oct 2016, 5:13 am
05 Oct 2016, 6:12 am
07 Oct 2016, 10:28 pm
androbot01
Veteran
Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
08 Oct 2016, 1:07 am
09 Oct 2016, 7:06 am
09 Oct 2016, 7:53 am
09 Oct 2016, 8:05 am
09 Oct 2016, 9:46 am
09 Oct 2016, 3:08 pm
Jacoby wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Your country, and ever other country, was terrible before the implementation of the 16th amendment and the slow abolition of tariffs and import taxes. The economic improvement of East Asia is directly associated with economic liberalisation and growth. Standards of living have been done huge goods by liberalisation. The economic policies you advocate for were tried for hundreds of years and didn't get us anywhere. The ones I advocate for have led to massive global increases in the standard of living.
I agree that wage undercutting is a serious issue but the best way to solve it is by encouraging China and co. to improve worker's rights, not by tanking the American economy. Alternatively, outcompete China and co. on fair terms by focusing on the things that America is better at. You're world leaders in dozens of fields, make the most of them! That's what has made your country and its citizens prosperous and powerful. Don't use Soviet tactics which everyone knows don't work.
I agree that wage undercutting is a serious issue but the best way to solve it is by encouraging China and co. to improve worker's rights, not by tanking the American economy. Alternatively, outcompete China and co. on fair terms by focusing on the things that America is better at. You're world leaders in dozens of fields, make the most of them! That's what has made your country and its citizens prosperous and powerful. Don't use Soviet tactics which everyone knows don't work.
Yeah I don't think China cares what we think, if we press the issue I think they might reply about playing some joke with our coke.
Encourage the communist future super power to recognize human rights and respect its worker at their detriment? That makes about as much sense is the environmentalists that think China and India will take vows of poverty and never develop for the sake of 'sustainability', we might do that as they laugh all the way to the bank. I have no interest in competing with slaves, period. The "tactics" do work, you might find them distasteful as someone devoted to the globalist ideal but all I care about is putting America first and I believe that the world NEEDS the US far more than the US needs the world so why should the US accept being on the losing side of any deal? The rest of the world would just have to take like they do with China because what else can they do? The US should use its economic might to build wealth just as other economic powers have.
The world is big enough to split up among the real world powers and these other powers are already doing what I want to US to do which is to protect its industry. What benefit does free trade with a third world nation have for the US other than cheaper crap we don't need? I know it really helps them out and makes these outsourcers a lot of cash but how does it help the American worker?
I would like to replace income taxes with tariffs and excise taxes, it would incentivize making products here at home and thus jobs. The US should also move to domestic energy sources, what do you think the whole point of that idea is? It's so we can stop involving ourselves in the problems overseas and so we aren't beholden to enemy nations like Saudi Arabia.
I don't think the US was economically feeble before the 16th amendment, we became one of the most powerful countries on earth in the 150 years we didn't have it. It was the income tax and the federal reserve that has debased our currency and has encouraged wild spending way beyond our means, that is what funded two world wars. The US was built on protectionism just as China is now doing. The Asian economic powers protect their industries so why is it wrong for the US to protect their own? Patents, trademarks, copyrights are protectionism so do you oppose those? By the way, China has absolutely zero respect for our intellectual property. China is building themselves into a superpower on our backs, America needs a better deal and I'm sorry if it hurts little countries but we need policy that puts America first rather than some "humanitarian surrender" to the forces of globalism. Yes the US is the leader in dozens of fields and we should enact policies the ensure it stays that way forever.
Capitalism 101: parties only agree to things that benefit them both.
Capitalism 102: the stronger party usually comes out ahead.
"Cheaper crap" isn't some minor fringe benefit and it's extremely naive to think it is. Having to spend less on food, power, clothes, electronics, and almost everything else will give the average American worker more disposable income and a higher standard of living. That means that there's more money circulating in the American economy. That means that there are more jobs available, in things that can't be outsourced (retail, cleaning, construction, medicine, law, accountancy, most jobs really) and things where America wins (creative industries, space and aerospace technology, finance, fast food).
Yes, there are huge benefits for other countries, but that's a good thing, both in itself and because they'll spend more money on American products.
I do largely oppose intellectual property laws. They need to be set at a strength which maximises growth, and currently I think they're too strong in a lot of fields. Medicine is the obvious case where they need to be protected so that creators have an incentive to invest, but I think they're much too strong in the mobile phone industry and in the creative arts. They also need to be harmonised globally to stop a race to the bottom and to ease the regulatory burden. I think this might actually be included in some of the Obama-era deals.
I think you're overestimating the extent of protectionism in the Asian countries. Countries and regions like Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong have the most liberal economies in the region and are also the most successful per capita. Japan (73.3%) is within touching distance of the US (75.4%) and South Korea (71.4%) is only slightly behind Japan. China's much more liberal than it used to be, and that's helped its growth, but it's worse off per capita than Thailand, let alone Taiwan and Hong Kong. It's much better to be an American worker than a Chinese worker.
Domestic energy definitely makes sense but not at the cost of pricing ordinary Americans out of being able to heat their homes and run their cars, or prioritising biofuels ahead of food. Investing in renewables and nuclear is crucial for furthering American prosperity, and the same is true for most other countries. Sharing energy grids with Canada and maybe Mexico probably also makes sense for you.
Interfering with the free market is usually a recipe for disaster. It definitely held back economies worldwide before the modern era. Getting a few bureaucrats to manage a whole economy doesn't work, you need to rely on spontaneous order from everyone acting in their best interests. On a fine scale, sometimes the little guy gets exploited, and then it's fair to step in, but America is a winning nation and it always does well out of trade negotiations.
If some American little guys lose out from major trade deals, then the country as a whole will be benefiting, and you can make it up to them by investing more in construction in areas that have lost out (the Rust Belt?) and making them more attractive to private investors.
09 Oct 2016, 5:05 pm
09 Oct 2016, 6:06 pm
