Look at history. If a government imposes tariffs or other measure then the other party responds in kind. You generally lose in the end because you have f'd what exports you did have and the marginal decrease in imports is too small to offset the export loss
This is only true if your exports and imports with that particular country you imposed tariffs upon were even. In case of China, they are decidedly not - Western imports from them dwarf any exports we do there.
True, but I was too brief. The trade war also comes with recessionary effects, a general downturn in economic activities. The total effect of all this typically dwarfs any increased tariffs.
Your logic is flawed because it is government based, based on political pressure.
And why is that flawed?
Look at history. If a government imposes tariffs or other measure then the other party responds in kind. You generally lose in the end because you have f'd what exports you did have and the marginal decrease in imports is too small to offset the export loss. Trade wars generally fail.
The true solution is to have a consumer based solution, to leverage corporate greed.
You'll spend eternity arranging one. The problem is, you may get some people - even many people - willing to put pressure on the companies, but only if they know that said pressure will actually result in improved conditions. If it doesn't, then they're depriving themselves of some utility with nothing whatsoever in return (other than some vague sense of moral superiority). What's needed is a scheme where, once enough people decide to do this, it goes in effect for everyone. And we already have such a scheme - it's called democratically elected legislature.
Again, legislative based approaches fail as described above. Consumer based approaches have caused industry to change. On the negative it was consumer based pressure that drove outsourcing. The first companies that exported were rewarded with increased sales, those that retained domestic production lost sales. On the positive a consumer preference for green products made a difference for household cleaners and other consumer goods. One company experimented with a greener cleaning product and it was rewarded with increased sales. Other companies followed to satisfy the newly identified consumer preference. While government actions can get tied up in the politics of legislature or the courts by corporate actions and lobbying, a change in consumer preference can force corporate actions through the profit motive.
Nope. Japan was a controlled experiment. As part of the post-WW2 reconstruction the US assisted Japan's rebuilding and modernization of its industry and opened US markets to Japan as a form of economic support. Japan was subsidized and externally managed to a degree.
Ignorance on parade.
Yours. Do you need assistance with the phrase "rebuilding and modernization of its industry"? Are you aware that the topic of this thread is not whether industrialization merely occurred but when the more modern mode of industrialization with some worker protections came into existence and whether a nation can go from pre-industrialization to modern industrialization without going through the more primitive industrialization with severe worker exploitation? Do you understand that my comment argues that Japan did not skip exploitation?
The Japanese had industrialized well before WW2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Restoration
That is not the issue. The issue is whether the industrialization process avoided serious exploitation of the worker. While a market based economy was adopted society remain semi-feudal. For example peasant farmers who could not pay taxes were forced to send their daughters to factories in the city and their daughters wages were used to pay the tax debt, plus interest, minus living expenses paid back to the employer. State repression was used to put down peasant and worker reform movements.
Nokia has been in China for a while. 5+ years ago I saw a program on the business tv channel cnbc showing how Nokia had compliance officers auditing their factories in China. The Nokia compliance person said that they actually spend a bit of their time getting vendors to comply with Chinese labor and environmental laws, as required by the Nokia contract. The program gave the impression that Nokia does more to assure compliance with Chinese law than local governments.
the regulations on 'made in' are fairly lax. 'made in mexico' just means the components were slapped into the case in mexico (in some extreme cases, it may just mean the assembled monitor was stuck into a box in mexico). many of the components were still likely made in China.
this is a big part of the problem, of course; it's very very difficult to figure out where much of the manufacture involved in any given product was done, with current labelling regulations in most countries.
Oh I understand that. In fact some apologists for China make similar arguments, that many parts used in assembly in China are imported from elsewhere. The fact remains that I could choose mere assembly done by a friendly neighbor or a distant party who seems less friendly.
The converse is also true. In California we have a manufacturer who makes flashlights, Mag Instrument - Maglite. They manufacture some parts and assemble in California, other parts are sourced elsewhere in the US, and *one* part is sourced from China - an o-ring. Due to this one part California law prevents them from putting Made in USA on their packaging. They can't have special packaging for California, no-CA goods may be sold to distributors in other states but find their way to CA stores and run afoul of the law. In epic hypocrisy California is buying steel components for the San Francisco Bay Bridge from China.
I would be thrilled if made in labels were more like auto labeling and listed the percentage of components made domestically, the percentage imported and where assembly took place.
... The only way to solve the problem (that I'm thinking of right now in full on rhetoric mode) is to have better national standards of who we do business with in the global international trade community. Put standards in place, and make it profitable for international actors to meet the improved standards. But as can be evidenced by opening your eyes in the morning and looking at the world, there will be a lot of political pressure against that path...
Yes and no. Your logic is flawed because it is government based, based on political pressure. The true solution is to have a consumer based solution, to leverage corporate greed. To have consumers make conscious decisions to pick products more inline with their ideals rather than whatever has the lowest price tag. Corporate greed seeks sales not lowest cost production. Low cost production does no good if consumers reject your products to do your production methods.
I looked at two full HD resolution computer monitors last week. A Viewsonic made in China and a Samsung made in Mexico. They seemed to be basically equivalent, but the Viewsonic was about US$30 cheaper. After considering that Mexico is a neighbor and that the Mexican government is friendlier I decided to go with the Samsung. I do not mean to suggest that Mexico is perfect with respect to labor practices, just less objectionable. Sometimes that is the only option available.
That said, the internet has made if far easier to find Made in USA goods than ever before. You are no longer limited to what your local brick and mortar carries.
Nope. Japan was a controlled experiment. As part of the post-WW2 reconstruction the US assisted Japan's rebuilding and modernization of its industry and opened US markets to Japan as a form of economic support. Japan was subsidized and externally managed to a degree.
There's no such thing. Corporations aren't in the business of creating products in an ethical manner. They're in the business of making money by using the cheapest parts and labor possible.
Emphasize "possible". "Possible" includes behavior acceptable to consumers.
Sweat shops and outsourcing are driven by consumer preferences. Namely the consumer's preference for the absolute lowest price regardless of all other considerations. It is a classic tragedy of the commons situation.
Corporate greed does *not* inevitably lead to sweat shops and outsourcing. Of primary importance to corporations are sales, and sales are determined by consumers. Outsourcing and sweat shops are only possible if there is consumer indifference, if employing such methods will offend customers and result in lost sales then the "greed" motivation says do not employ such methods.
Corporate greed actually inevitably leads to satisfying consume demands at the lowest possible cost *and* consistent with consumer expectations. Consumers are actually in control of the methods employed by corporations.
Good idea, so they fly a flag of convenience, like the Liberian, as many commercial vessels already do. Most vessels that fly no flag are pirate vessels...
My understanding is that the vessel needs to be actually registered in the jurisdiction of that flag, and flying that flag without registration or flying multiple flags will make a vessel fair game for naval boarding. In other words a vessel needs to be under the legal jurisdiction of some recognized nation. Even so, if that nation is notorious for turning a blind eye toward illegal activities then flagged vessels may still be subject to naval boarding mid voyage.
And on a friendlier note I recall, years ago, seeing a system where shoppers were tracked in a large warehouse type store and if someone stood in one spot for "too long", presumable confused or undecided, a clerk was sent over to ask if they could answer any questions or help in some manner.
Oh, sensitive information about the United States government that they consider to be a threat to national security? Yeah, good luck with that. The US will take out anybody in Pakistan (or a number of other countries) in the middle of the night if they want to, I highly doubt they'd be worried about slapping some thermite to some servers out in the middle of the ocean and calling it a day -- which government would they worry about upsetting if they did so?
A far more likely scenario is that some Bank of America middle managers who want to win favor from upper management will land on the island, shove the occupant aside, unplug the servers and toss them into the ocean.
a long tradition of operating pirate radios has been to do it from a vessel on international waters.
Such a ship has no physical contraband to seize and they are merely violating local broadcasting regulations. Possessing "stolen" diplomatic messages ups the controversy to espionage, the later being something that might give a naval vessel in international waters the authority to board and search.
If you are beyond territorial waters and flying no flag to avoid legal responsibilities you must accept the risk that you also have far less legal protection.
It doesn't move them out of reach, it just adds an extra step or two to takedown.
A takedown would actually seem to be far easier. The site could be treated as a vessel engaged in criminal activity on the high seas and an naval vessel could board it, search it and confiscate contraband.
It would seem that in reality they have removed the required legal steps for a takedown.
I'm not sure if this post is a troll, or how this got rated as "5, Insightful". There are so many things wrong on this post - the comments contradict themselves, the assumptions are bad... ugh. If this wouldn't be such a depressing time sink I would outline it all.
Show some balls, give it a try. I expect your logic would fail rather quickly. Perhaps that is the true motivation for your silence.;-)
At the same time though, consumers have noticed a significant reduction in their buying power, forcing them to choose based more on price than on other factors such as the ethicality of the business they are buying from. Corporate America dug it's own grave when it failed to enforce an actual standard of living for it's workers.
No, Consumer America dug that grave and initiated the feedback loop. Corporate America had little choice in off-shoring. The companies that experimented with it were rewarded. The remaining domestic producers could go along with the consumer preference or go out of business, or perhaps become a much smaller business serving the niche community who reads labels. Consumers overwhelmingly chose the short term gain of a lower price today over the long term downward spiral. Classic tragedy of the commons.
The same is true for purely domestic situations. Consumers had the choice to reward or punish a manufacturer who paid unfair wages to its workers. The person making the buying decision is in control. Absent a monopoly of course.
Actually, Capitalism means to get anything for the least amount possible.
That is not correct either. Capitalism is about delivering a product that best meets the consumer's requirements and preferences. If consumers have non-monetary preferences that factor into their buying decisions then those preferences will be reflected in products. For example consumers have demonstrated a preference for environmentally friendly products and the market responded. Similarly if consumers demonstrate a preference for domestic production the market will respond.
There is nothing inevitable about off-shoring in capitalism, nor is there a requirement for the lowest cost of production. These are artifacts of consumer preference, namely the preference for the absolute lowest priced goods regardless of all other considerations. Consumers drive off-shoring, not corporations. Corporations desire profits, in other words corporations desires sales. So corporations will follow the preferences of consumers.
When you to shopping, and you have two sellers selling the exact same thing (let's say, cheese), with the exact same quality (insert everything you can think in this: brand, weight, environmental conscience, distance from your house, amount of sunlight, nice vista etc.), but priced differently, which one do you chose? The one where it's cheaper, or the one where it's more expensive? In the exact same way you don't usually ask, or care about, the expensive cheese vendor reasons in charging more...
That's the key. To reverse off-shoring consumers need to actually care. I'm not suggesting some ultra patriotic buy-domestic-only dogma. Just to give domestic production some weight. If a domestic good is "close enough" to the imported good then give the domestic good the preference.
You are mistaken. It is consumers that drive off-shoring through their complete and utter disregard for where things are made. Cutting costs is only beneficial to a corporation if sales are not lost. If consumers show a preference in their purchasing decisions for domestic production then corporations will not off-shore. Corporations don't care where things are made, they care about profits. Profits are based on sales and consumers make the decision as to whose products sell and whose do not.
And this is somehow different now than say, in the 60's or 70's or 80's why?
What is occurring today is part of the same trend that started back then. When I mentioned consumers rewarding/punishing those early adopters of off-shoring I was referring to the above time frame, not something more contemporary.
Consumers have always, and will always, want the highest quality good at the lowest price.
Correction, "cost" not "price". The problem is that consumers do not consider the true cost, a classic example of tragedy of the commons. This can change. As demonstrated by the increased awareness of external costs related to the environment. Consumers have show a preference for green products and suppliers have moved to meet this preference. Similarly consumers could show a preference for domestic production.
There are other factors at play besides consumer desire that have encouraged the erosion of certain US manufacturing jobs. One factor is that China is now a much more attractive place to set up a factory than it was 30 years ago. Another factor are all the 'free trade' agreements that happened in the 90's. Prior to the 90's we had tariffs in place to help protect American jobs from overseas low wages. Now we have no tariffs. And then there are policies that led to actually giving various tax breaks for overseas profits, despite being headquartered in the US. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/21/us-usa-tax-wyden-idUSTRE78K1YB20110921
All that is largely irrelevant. Consumer preferences and buying decisions trump all that. As I said before, the decision by the consumer to purchase the lowest priced good regardless of all other considerations is primary. Everything you mention is secondary.
All things being equal they would have things made locally by locals.
I don't think this is true at all. Corporations maximize profits and one way to do that is decrease their cost(s) of production. This would have led to offshoring as a cost-savings measure eventually. What led to lower prices is competition with other corporations.
The methods used to cut costs must be acceptable to the buyers or sales will suffer. Off-shoring is not inevitable, buyers must be willing to accept domestic job losses in order to receive a lower price. So far they have been willing to do so. If buyers change their preference the tendency to off-shore would also change. First and foremost the corporation must have sales, costs are secondary.
This is simply the race to the bottom that corporate America is pursuing writ large. When we traded our democracy for a corporatocracy, this was the inevitable result.
You are mistaken. It is Consumer America, not Corporate America, that is responsible for the race to the bottom. Corporations do not care where things are made or who makes them. All things being equal they would have things made locally by locals. There are coordination and transportation costs when you move manufacturing or development to some distant place. These additional costs would have to be offset somehow.
Corporations primarily care about sales, costs are secondary to sales. Cost cutting is only desirable if it (1) generates new sales or (2) preserves existing sales but increases the profit margin. Now consider who controls the sales, it is the consumer.
Consumers are responsible for the current situation because the consumer preference is for the lowest priced product or service, the consumer does not care where manufacturing or development takes place. **If** consumers did care where manufacturing or engineering took place and **if** this preference was reflected in buying decisions then corporations would not engage in off-shoring since it would hurt sales.
In other words the U.S. experienced a lot of off-shoring because consumers rewarded those companies that off-shored with sales. **If** consumers had punished those companies but buying domestically manufactured/engineered products from competitors then off-shoring would have been a failed experiment and not have become a major trend. It was all in the hands of the consumer, it still is.
While much manufacturing has moved off-shore the web has made it easier than ever to find domestically manufactured products. If consumers start showing a preference for such goods then off-shoring can be reversed. The power is in the hands of those making the buying decisions, the consumer, not the corporation.
You do realize PhoneDog_Bob could rename his Twitter handle to PhoneDawgBob or Bob_Smith easily and without creating a new account. Right?
Yes, but the followers on that account were assembled while that account was using the company name and that account discussed company and industry business. It would seem more fair to let the company have that account and those followers. This is the real underlying issue, not merely preventing a former employee from using the company name.
One side or the other has to go through the inconvenience of asking followers to move. Given the use of the company name and discussion of company business I think the scales tip in favor of the company keeping the name and the individual asking followers to move to a new account.
Agreed - Unless the twitter account was under the name of the company. If it's under his personal name E.G "My name is bob, follow me on twitter as bob" shouldn't entitle a company to it.
In the case in question the guy was hired to do marketing stuff and the company name *was part* of the account. When the company name is "PhoneDog" and the twitter account is something like "PhoneDog_Bob" I think you can make an argument that the account was work related. Given the use of the company name in the account name I think in this case he should create a new personal account, announce it, and expect those only interested in him personally switch. Letting the company keep the old account.
We've already blown over a trillion dollars on two wars, and you want us to blow another trillion on Iran?
That was due to the occupations. Its likely we would not occupy Iran. Well, except for a brief incursion by air assault forces to secure and destroy nuclear research and production facilities, and who would then leave.
Basically things would probably more closely resemble the first Gulf War of the 90s. Trash the military, leave, hope the locals do something about the government.
Anti-radar missiles are not the incoming Iranian missiles, they are the outgoing US missiles. "Anti-radar" is not a reference to stealth, it is a reference to the missile homing in and guiding itself to a radar source. Its anti radar in that it destroys radar sites.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at history. If a government imposes tariffs or other measure then the other party responds in kind. You generally lose in the end because you have f'd what exports you did have and the marginal decrease in imports is too small to offset the export loss
This is only true if your exports and imports with that particular country you imposed tariffs upon were even. In case of China, they are decidedly not - Western imports from them dwarf any exports we do there.
True, but I was too brief. The trade war also comes with recessionary effects, a general downturn in economic activities. The total effect of all this typically dwarfs any increased tariffs.
Your logic is flawed because it is government based, based on political pressure.
And why is that flawed?
Look at history. If a government imposes tariffs or other measure then the other party responds in kind. You generally lose in the end because you have f'd what exports you did have and the marginal decrease in imports is too small to offset the export loss. Trade wars generally fail.
The true solution is to have a consumer based solution, to leverage corporate greed.
You'll spend eternity arranging one. The problem is, you may get some people - even many people - willing to put pressure on the companies, but only if they know that said pressure will actually result in improved conditions. If it doesn't, then they're depriving themselves of some utility with nothing whatsoever in return (other than some vague sense of moral superiority). What's needed is a scheme where, once enough people decide to do this, it goes in effect for everyone. And we already have such a scheme - it's called democratically elected legislature.
Again, legislative based approaches fail as described above. Consumer based approaches have caused industry to change. On the negative it was consumer based pressure that drove outsourcing. The first companies that exported were rewarded with increased sales, those that retained domestic production lost sales. On the positive a consumer preference for green products made a difference for household cleaners and other consumer goods. One company experimented with a greener cleaning product and it was rewarded with increased sales. Other companies followed to satisfy the newly identified consumer preference. While government actions can get tied up in the politics of legislature or the courts by corporate actions and lobbying, a change in consumer preference can force corporate actions through the profit motive.
Japan.
Nope. Japan was a controlled experiment. As part of the post-WW2 reconstruction the US assisted Japan's rebuilding and modernization of its industry and opened US markets to Japan as a form of economic support. Japan was subsidized and externally managed to a degree.
Ignorance on parade.
Yours. Do you need assistance with the phrase "rebuilding and modernization of its industry"? Are you aware that the topic of this thread is not whether industrialization merely occurred but when the more modern mode of industrialization with some worker protections came into existence and whether a nation can go from pre-industrialization to modern industrialization without going through the more primitive industrialization with severe worker exploitation? Do you understand that my comment argues that Japan did not skip exploitation?
The Japanese had industrialized well before WW2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_Restoration
That is not the issue. The issue is whether the industrialization process avoided serious exploitation of the worker. While a market based economy was adopted society remain semi-feudal. For example peasant farmers who could not pay taxes were forced to send their daughters to factories in the city and their daughters wages were used to pay the tax debt, plus interest, minus living expenses paid back to the employer. State repression was used to put down peasant and worker reform movements.
Nokia has been in China for a while. 5+ years ago I saw a program on the business tv channel cnbc showing how Nokia had compliance officers auditing their factories in China. The Nokia compliance person said that they actually spend a bit of their time getting vendors to comply with Chinese labor and environmental laws, as required by the Nokia contract. The program gave the impression that Nokia does more to assure compliance with Chinese law than local governments.
the regulations on 'made in' are fairly lax. 'made in mexico' just means the components were slapped into the case in mexico (in some extreme cases, it may just mean the assembled monitor was stuck into a box in mexico). many of the components were still likely made in China.
this is a big part of the problem, of course; it's very very difficult to figure out where much of the manufacture involved in any given product was done, with current labelling regulations in most countries.
Oh I understand that. In fact some apologists for China make similar arguments, that many parts used in assembly in China are imported from elsewhere. The fact remains that I could choose mere assembly done by a friendly neighbor or a distant party who seems less friendly.
The converse is also true. In California we have a manufacturer who makes flashlights, Mag Instrument - Maglite. They manufacture some parts and assemble in California, other parts are sourced elsewhere in the US, and *one* part is sourced from China - an o-ring. Due to this one part California law prevents them from putting Made in USA on their packaging. They can't have special packaging for California, no-CA goods may be sold to distributors in other states but find their way to CA stores and run afoul of the law. In epic hypocrisy California is buying steel components for the San Francisco Bay Bridge from China.
I would be thrilled if made in labels were more like auto labeling and listed the percentage of components made domestically, the percentage imported and where assembly took place.
... The only way to solve the problem (that I'm thinking of right now in full on rhetoric mode) is to have better national standards of who we do business with in the global international trade community. Put standards in place, and make it profitable for international actors to meet the improved standards. But as can be evidenced by opening your eyes in the morning and looking at the world, there will be a lot of political pressure against that path ...
Yes and no. Your logic is flawed because it is government based, based on political pressure. The true solution is to have a consumer based solution, to leverage corporate greed. To have consumers make conscious decisions to pick products more inline with their ideals rather than whatever has the lowest price tag. Corporate greed seeks sales not lowest cost production. Low cost production does no good if consumers reject your products to do your production methods.
I looked at two full HD resolution computer monitors last week. A Viewsonic made in China and a Samsung made in Mexico. They seemed to be basically equivalent, but the Viewsonic was about US$30 cheaper. After considering that Mexico is a neighbor and that the Mexican government is friendlier I decided to go with the Samsung. I do not mean to suggest that Mexico is perfect with respect to labor practices, just less objectionable. Sometimes that is the only option available.
That said, the internet has made if far easier to find Made in USA goods than ever before. You are no longer limited to what your local brick and mortar carries.
Japan.
Nope. Japan was a controlled experiment. As part of the post-WW2 reconstruction the US assisted Japan's rebuilding and modernization of its industry and opened US markets to Japan as a form of economic support. Japan was subsidized and externally managed to a degree.
There's no such thing. Corporations aren't in the business of creating products in an ethical manner. They're in the business of making money by using the cheapest parts and labor possible.
Emphasize "possible". "Possible" includes behavior acceptable to consumers.
Sweat shops and outsourcing are driven by consumer preferences. Namely the consumer's preference for the absolute lowest price regardless of all other considerations. It is a classic tragedy of the commons situation.
Corporate greed does *not* inevitably lead to sweat shops and outsourcing. Of primary importance to corporations are sales, and sales are determined by consumers. Outsourcing and sweat shops are only possible if there is consumer indifference, if employing such methods will offend customers and result in lost sales then the "greed" motivation says do not employ such methods.
Corporate greed actually inevitably leads to satisfying consume demands at the lowest possible cost *and* consistent with consumer expectations. Consumers are actually in control of the methods employed by corporations.
Good idea, so they fly a flag of convenience, like the Liberian, as many commercial vessels already do. Most vessels that fly no flag are pirate vessels...
My understanding is that the vessel needs to be actually registered in the jurisdiction of that flag, and flying that flag without registration or flying multiple flags will make a vessel fair game for naval boarding. In other words a vessel needs to be under the legal jurisdiction of some recognized nation. Even so, if that nation is notorious for turning a blind eye toward illegal activities then flagged vessels may still be subject to naval boarding mid voyage.
And on a friendlier note I recall, years ago, seeing a system where shoppers were tracked in a large warehouse type store and if someone stood in one spot for "too long", presumable confused or undecided, a clerk was sent over to ask if they could answer any questions or help in some manner.
Oh, sensitive information about the United States government that they consider to be a threat to national security? Yeah, good luck with that. The US will take out anybody in Pakistan (or a number of other countries) in the middle of the night if they want to, I highly doubt they'd be worried about slapping some thermite to some servers out in the middle of the ocean and calling it a day -- which government would they worry about upsetting if they did so?
A far more likely scenario is that some Bank of America middle managers who want to win favor from upper management will land on the island, shove the occupant aside, unplug the servers and toss them into the ocean.
HOWEVER...
a long tradition of operating pirate radios has been to do it from a vessel on international waters.
Such a ship has no physical contraband to seize and they are merely violating local broadcasting regulations. Possessing "stolen" diplomatic messages ups the controversy to espionage, the later being something that might give a naval vessel in international waters the authority to board and search.
If you are beyond territorial waters and flying no flag to avoid legal responsibilities you must accept the risk that you also have far less legal protection.
It doesn't move them out of reach, it just adds an extra step or two to takedown.
A takedown would actually seem to be far easier. The site could be treated as a vessel engaged in criminal activity on the high seas and an naval vessel could board it, search it and confiscate contraband.
It would seem that in reality they have removed the required legal steps for a takedown.
I'm not sure if this post is a troll, or how this got rated as "5, Insightful". There are so many things wrong on this post - the comments contradict themselves, the assumptions are bad... ugh. If this wouldn't be such a depressing time sink I would outline it all.
Show some balls, give it a try. I expect your logic would fail rather quickly. Perhaps that is the true motivation for your silence. ;-)
At the same time though, consumers have noticed a significant reduction in their buying power, forcing them to choose based more on price than on other factors such as the ethicality of the business they are buying from. Corporate America dug it's own grave when it failed to enforce an actual standard of living for it's workers.
No, Consumer America dug that grave and initiated the feedback loop. Corporate America had little choice in off-shoring. The companies that experimented with it were rewarded. The remaining domestic producers could go along with the consumer preference or go out of business, or perhaps become a much smaller business serving the niche community who reads labels. Consumers overwhelmingly chose the short term gain of a lower price today over the long term downward spiral. Classic tragedy of the commons.
The same is true for purely domestic situations. Consumers had the choice to reward or punish a manufacturer who paid unfair wages to its workers. The person making the buying decision is in control. Absent a monopoly of course.
Actually, Capitalism means to get anything for the least amount possible.
That is not correct either. Capitalism is about delivering a product that best meets the consumer's requirements and preferences. If consumers have non-monetary preferences that factor into their buying decisions then those preferences will be reflected in products. For example consumers have demonstrated a preference for environmentally friendly products and the market responded. Similarly if consumers demonstrate a preference for domestic production the market will respond.
There is nothing inevitable about off-shoring in capitalism, nor is there a requirement for the lowest cost of production. These are artifacts of consumer preference, namely the preference for the absolute lowest priced goods regardless of all other considerations. Consumers drive off-shoring, not corporations. Corporations desire profits, in other words corporations desires sales. So corporations will follow the preferences of consumers.
When you to shopping, and you have two sellers selling the exact same thing (let's say, cheese), with the exact same quality (insert everything you can think in this: brand, weight, environmental conscience, distance from your house, amount of sunlight, nice vista etc.), but priced differently, which one do you chose? The one where it's cheaper, or the one where it's more expensive? In the exact same way you don't usually ask, or care about, the expensive cheese vendor reasons in charging more ...
That's the key. To reverse off-shoring consumers need to actually care. I'm not suggesting some ultra patriotic buy-domestic-only dogma. Just to give domestic production some weight. If a domestic good is "close enough" to the imported good then give the domestic good the preference.
You are mistaken. It is consumers that drive off-shoring through their complete and utter disregard for where things are made. Cutting costs is only beneficial to a corporation if sales are not lost. If consumers show a preference in their purchasing decisions for domestic production then corporations will not off-shore. Corporations don't care where things are made, they care about profits. Profits are based on sales and consumers make the decision as to whose products sell and whose do not.
And this is somehow different now than say, in the 60's or 70's or 80's why?
What is occurring today is part of the same trend that started back then. When I mentioned consumers rewarding/punishing those early adopters of off-shoring I was referring to the above time frame, not something more contemporary.
Consumers have always, and will always, want the highest quality good at the lowest price.
Correction, "cost" not "price". The problem is that consumers do not consider the true cost, a classic example of tragedy of the commons. This can change. As demonstrated by the increased awareness of external costs related to the environment. Consumers have show a preference for green products and suppliers have moved to meet this preference. Similarly consumers could show a preference for domestic production.
There are other factors at play besides consumer desire that have encouraged the erosion of certain US manufacturing jobs. One factor is that China is now a much more attractive place to set up a factory than it was 30 years ago. Another factor are all the 'free trade' agreements that happened in the 90's. Prior to the 90's we had tariffs in place to help protect American jobs from overseas low wages. Now we have no tariffs. And then there are policies that led to actually giving various tax breaks for overseas profits, despite being headquartered in the US. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/21/us-usa-tax-wyden-idUSTRE78K1YB20110921
All that is largely irrelevant. Consumer preferences and buying decisions trump all that. As I said before, the decision by the consumer to purchase the lowest priced good regardless of all other considerations is primary. Everything you mention is secondary.
All things being equal they would have things made locally by locals.
I don't think this is true at all. Corporations maximize profits and one way to do that is decrease their cost(s) of production. This would have led to offshoring as a cost-savings measure eventually. What led to lower prices is competition with other corporations.
The methods used to cut costs must be acceptable to the buyers or sales will suffer. Off-shoring is not inevitable, buyers must be willing to accept domestic job losses in order to receive a lower price. So far they have been willing to do so. If buyers change their preference the tendency to off-shore would also change. First and foremost the corporation must have sales, costs are secondary.
No, consumers started this mess. See http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2629450&cid=38755994.
This is simply the race to the bottom that corporate America is pursuing writ large. When we traded our democracy for a corporatocracy, this was the inevitable result.
You are mistaken. It is Consumer America, not Corporate America, that is responsible for the race to the bottom. Corporations do not care where things are made or who makes them. All things being equal they would have things made locally by locals. There are coordination and transportation costs when you move manufacturing or development to some distant place. These additional costs would have to be offset somehow.
Corporations primarily care about sales, costs are secondary to sales. Cost cutting is only desirable if it (1) generates new sales or (2) preserves existing sales but increases the profit margin. Now consider who controls the sales, it is the consumer.
Consumers are responsible for the current situation because the consumer preference is for the lowest priced product or service, the consumer does not care where manufacturing or development takes place. **If** consumers did care where manufacturing or engineering took place and **if** this preference was reflected in buying decisions then corporations would not engage in off-shoring since it would hurt sales.
In other words the U.S. experienced a lot of off-shoring because consumers rewarded those companies that off-shored with sales. **If** consumers had punished those companies but buying domestically manufactured/engineered products from competitors then off-shoring would have been a failed experiment and not have become a major trend. It was all in the hands of the consumer, it still is.
While much manufacturing has moved off-shore the web has made it easier than ever to find domestically manufactured products. If consumers start showing a preference for such goods then off-shoring can be reversed. The power is in the hands of those making the buying decisions, the consumer, not the corporation.
You do realize PhoneDog_Bob could rename his Twitter handle to PhoneDawgBob or Bob_Smith easily and without creating a new account. Right?
Yes, but the followers on that account were assembled while that account was using the company name and that account discussed company and industry business. It would seem more fair to let the company have that account and those followers. This is the real underlying issue, not merely preventing a former employee from using the company name.
One side or the other has to go through the inconvenience of asking followers to move. Given the use of the company name and discussion of company business I think the scales tip in favor of the company keeping the name and the individual asking followers to move to a new account.
Agreed - Unless the twitter account was under the name of the company. If it's under his personal name E.G "My name is bob, follow me on twitter as bob" shouldn't entitle a company to it.
In the case in question the guy was hired to do marketing stuff and the company name *was part* of the account. When the company name is "PhoneDog" and the twitter account is something like "PhoneDog_Bob" I think you can make an argument that the account was work related. Given the use of the company name in the account name I think in this case he should create a new personal account, announce it, and expect those only interested in him personally switch. Letting the company keep the old account.
We've already blown over a trillion dollars on two wars, and you want us to blow another trillion on Iran?
That was due to the occupations. Its likely we would not occupy Iran. Well, except for a brief incursion by air assault forces to secure and destroy nuclear research and production facilities, and who would then leave.
Basically things would probably more closely resemble the first Gulf War of the 90s. Trash the military, leave, hope the locals do something about the government.
Anti-radar missiles are not the incoming Iranian missiles, they are the outgoing US missiles. "Anti-radar" is not a reference to stealth, it is a reference to the missile homing in and guiding itself to a radar source. Its anti radar in that it destroys radar sites.
Also, the pilots for such missions are usually volunteers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Weasel