Thanks to a quirk of capitalism being an *extreme* emphasis on competition, governments that embrace capitalism tend to quite rightly see other nations as enemies. The reason why is simple- economic war has now arrived at the point where it can do as much, or more, damage to a country than conventional or nuclear war can. Want to truly destroy a capitalist economy? Just make sure your workers can live on 1/100th the wages of that capitalistic country, and manipulate your currency to stay at that level. Within 50 years, a large majority of the manufacturing jobs from that country will be yours- and a majority of their population will be retired, disabled, or unemployed.
The Chinese becoming capitalist was the ultimate arrow aimed at the soft underbelly of the United States- and it has achieved it's goal (which is why Social Security is in trouble).
What a great idea! I wonder why Boeing hasn't done this?
For the same reason most companies haven't done that- class warfare indicates that the shareholders deserve to live in luxury, earning money off of the workers. Without that, there would be no profit- for a man would be paid what his economic input is, no more and no less. Profit is derived from the difference between what the workers put in, and what the so-called "free market price" is.
Then the greedy union thugs stepped in, helped by bad government laws. Being overpaid 5 times was not enough!!!.
They weren't overpaid 5x- they were paid what they were worth. The government laws stepped in because oligarchy members like you were living off of other people's labor- a totally indefensible moral position.
Ford went into slow decline that continues today.
Here's an alternate explaination- with the death of old Henry Ford, his lazy-good-for-nothing children and grandchildren took over, and stole so much value out of the company that it went into decline.
Which is why I'm entirely against the idea of inherrited wealth.
How viable is this? Can everyone right now buy a 1950 Ford and serve their transportation needs?
I've bought used cars all my life- it's pretty easy these days given the Internet.
We NEED to eat, so we are slaves?
In any given society that does not do something to service this need to the extent that everybody can afford basic nutrition, that is essentially correct. More enlightened societies divorce need from work- note that this does NOT neccessarily alliviate poverty, nor does it eliminate the fact that if one wishes to live with any luxury at all, then one should do something to earn that luxury. It just means that one's first-level Maslow needs are met simply by being a citizen- anything above that requires work.
I'll take you up on that. Look at the Gospels: Christ there is no gentile or Jew, no slave or free, no woman or man (Gal. 3:28). Where does it say in here that Koreans do not count? Where does it say that Japanese and Mexicans are, as you called them, "the enemy"? None of the philosophies you name have your idea that people far away are to be treated like dirt. They tend toward a "global brotherhood of man".
A global brotherhood of man is not possible as long as first level Maslow needs are not met. Capitalism puts groups of workers against each other- until capitalism is eliminated, it would be foolish for workers in America to give up work to workers in Mexico, or Japan, or Korea- they are the enemy in the eternal war that is capitalism. That's what COMPETITION means- that the other is your deadly enemy, and you must do whatever it takes to win. Up to and including using nuclear devices to depopulate the workers in the other country.
However, if we do take up your "neighbor first" philosophy, it means that someone in Florida should buy a car from Mexico, instead of from one of the many American car factories in California: the Mexican factories are workers are closer (neighbors) to Florida than California is.
Two different memes: Under the idea of a true, Maslow needs met, society, you are of corse correct. Under the Oligarchy of Capitalism- Florida is the neighbor of California, and both pay taxes to the federal government to defend the border and keep Mexico out. That the federal government fails quite regularly in their constitutional duty to provide for the common defense is immaterial to the fact that there is a constitutional duty to provide for the common defense.
I've seen the Forbes list. It is quite fluid, and contains no oligarchy members.
Really? Then why, out of the last 20 years, have the first 10 names been Gates, Allen, Bennet, and Walton? If the list is as fluid as you say, why haven't these names been replaced in that time? Oh yeah- because there's an oligarchy all right- and the top 25% own 75% of the real wealth in this country- and the lower 75% can't afford their own health insurance.
DESPITE my above answer- I completely agree. *ABSTRACT* programming requires higher math and/or a heck of a lot of philosophy and logic. *Concrete* programming, and even how higher concepts such as memory allocation and object orientation pertains to concrete programming, can be done by even very young children.
For a concrete way to teach object orientation, I suggest a turtle graphics engine, in a Lisp-like extensible language. Logo used to be ideal for this- anybody know where I can get a hold of a decent LOGO interpreter for either Linux or Windows? I'd love to have it available just as my son is learning to type and read in a couple of years.
By the same extension- interpreted languages are better for young programmers because they can see instant results to what they do. Scripting and compiling the result is divorced from that original action of typing in the source code to some extent- and thus are less likely to keep the very young engaged.
It's impossible to explain memory allocation to someone who doesn't yet possess the ability to understand basic math (it's hard to teach it to someone who DOES understand basic math!).
I used legos to teach memory allocation to 4th graders, and I'm pretty sure the same method would work with younger kids. Pretty easy to have a heap of legos, and "allocate" certain block sizes to different building projects, which is no different than basic memory allocation (including the importance of "releasing" ownership of a block so that somebody else can use it). I'm always amazed at the math majors who think that without higher math, higher math concepts can't be explained in concrete terms.
Already done, it appears. If you're using a RECENT copy of firefox, look to the right of the go button in the default address bar and navigation toolbar- there you will see a box with a Google icon in it- that ties directly to google (and overwrites your rightmost tab with search results).
Was the Google Search Box in the upper right hand corner on the installation used here at my state agency.
I'm not sure if it's a recent addition or not- my ability to run Firefox at work postdates Ben's involvement with Google- but it's just the sort of thing that I'd expect from such a combination.
I think also you're making the mistake of calling what might be society without economic classes middle class. Essentially meaningless.
If there are no rich- and are no poor- then there is only one class- the middle. The Kwakiutal achieved this even with "slavery" and "chiefs"- all of whom suffered equally in a hard winter or ate equally with a good hunt.
I'm really confused as to what your thoughts are on this matter, MH. They seem to be all over the board. Maybe you're ahead of your time? =)
Part of the problem is that the language itself is outside of my time- modern english isn't well designed to criticize the status quo.
"You mean the Ford economic method of decades-long steady and significant firing and reduction of work force, while Wal-Mart hires people during the same period?"
That came WAY later. I mean the Henry Ford economic method of every worker being able to reasonably afford that which he is working on- and being paid enough to do so (at the time, he was paying 5x the going factory wage for assembly-line work; and sure enough, within three years just about every Ford employee owned a Model T).
What fantasies are you reading? Slavery was/is rife in tribal societies. It is hard to get more poor than a slave.
We're all slaves in one way or another- the distinction is meaningless in a society where all suffer equally in times of famine, and all prosper equally in times of feast, like with the Kwakiutal.
If someone is building an NTSC set of the same quality for half the price, they are building better.
But it's arguably NOT the same quality when that old Philo or Zenith set lasts for 20 years; but the cheap asian crap dies after 5. Unless, of course, you're arguing quality for STOCKHOLDERS instead of CONSUMERS...where arguably lower quality manufacture leads to more sales.
So, anyone who needs to do something productive to survive is a "slave"?
The keyword there is NEEDS as opposed to WANTS. Anybody who needs to do anything at all is a slave to someone or something. The person who escapes from slavery has free will- no NEED to do anything.
The "social contrast" has nothing to do with giving a lazy thief something or else he will rob you.
But it has EVERYTHING to do with making sure your neighbor has what he needs- so that in turn he will give you what you need. Didn't you ever read the Gospels? The Tao? Any philosophy at all?
That's great, since the Korean warranties typically are 10 years. That has the Korean cars lasting 6 years longer than the American ones.
The difference being I can buy a 55-year-old Ford and still get it to run without replacing every damn bolt in it- despite the fact that it's been out-of-warenty for 54 years. But that's not quality to somebody who expects to make more money off of the consumer after 10 years.
This is not the case.
Prove it- find me a Kia that still runs after 20 years.
They are not allowed to talk to Elvis, either. He is just as real as this "oligarchy".
Except Forbes Magazine publishes a list of the Oligarchy members yearly- a list that rarely, if ever, changes.
Uh- tried that- in fact, that page was an attempt at it. Never did get paid for it at all. Good luck with your fight, since you seem to be unable to separate concrete reality from the myths.
Uh, same is same- NTSC is NTSC no matter how you slice it.
There are documented instances of slavery in the United States, did you know that? Never buy from Americans again! I ignored the link you gave because it contained the contradictory term "wage slave". Slaves do not earn wages. The term is used, typically, by those who think that someone who earns below an arbitrary wage level is a "slave".
No- it's a term that indicates anybody who needs to earn a wage to survive is actually a slave- that just because "slavery" has been replaced with "wages" doesn't make a damn whit of difference to the lifestyle of the poorest people in the country- they're STILL slaves.
You give people jobs? As gifts? They don't earn them by doing them well? That is one nasty neighbor you have: he will steal you unless you give him a gift. He should go out an earn a job.
Don't know the first thing about the social contract do you? By buying local, instead of imports, you create jobs in your own community which pay you back many times the ammount that the item cost you extra. You should ALWAYS buy local first.
A deal that costs less is a better deal.
Not when it's for worse quality, and takes away the job of your neighbor so that he robs you.
If I was concerned about that, I'd never buy American. Even the Koreans make better cars now than Americans.
Every Korean car I've seen falls apart as soon as the warrenty ends.
Do you know nothing of the elegant and groundbreaking early Benz?
I know that the Ford Model T was a much better car for the money.
You certainly do not have their best interests at heart if you want to deny them economic choices, and force them to get inferior overpriced goods. Unlike you, I trust Americans to make these decisions themselves.
The price of a good is a symbol of it's quality- cheap is always worse.
No, I am talking about decisions made by individuals.
Individuals are not allowed to tell the oligarchy where the factories go.
'Dja know WW2 is over?
But the economic war is still going strong- and America, by the looks of the $661 billion trade deficit posted for 2004, is losing.
Doubt it? Yes, Americans suck at making TVs. If we didn't we'd all have Philco's and Magnetboxes in our living rooms still.
Uh, we do- Sony and Magnavox bought them out and use their designs.
That is why I prefer my imports from countries like Taiwan and Thailand (where there is no slavery).
Ah, another stupid idjit who doesn't realize that just because a country outlaws slavery doesn't mean that there is no slavery in that country. http://www.distributism.org/wageslave.htm ought to set you straight. Then you'll be wondering what country is actually FREE anymore...
China is run under marxism and is indeed a slave-labor country.
Not much worse than the United States itself- but let's face it- it's a matter of cheap, not better.
I make that choice willingly because I appreciate good work.
If you truly appreciated good work, you'd still be buying American, not Mexican, where they skimp on everything they can.
Jobs? It has everything to do with who can do the job better.
No, it has to do with who can do the job CHEAPER, which is usually WORSE. Which is why you have to buy a new car every few years because the last piece of crap fell apart.
What kind of ugly American are you?
The kind that appreciates the idea that if I buy to give my neighbor a job, then he won't rob me.
A few European countries had cars before America did.
Yeah- but what pieces of shit they were indeed.
You have the right to hold out for such a racially-pure Aryan automobile, but as there are few such bigots in the country, the market will be small and Ford will likely not serve you.
Actually, there were plenty of people still buying American automobiles when the market went oversease.
It is the democracy of the free market.
You mean the oligarchy of the manufacturers.
I'm sorry, you will have to put up with cars made by people you can't "trust" like sneaky japs and spics, right?
Nope, I mean by people who do not have the best economic interests of my country at heart. Nothing to do with racism, EVERYTHING to do with knowing who your enemies are.
Because Americans suck at making TV's and DVD players.
Considering that the TV was invented in America- I doubt it. It's more that the price is cheaper if you use southeast asian slave labor to build it.
The decisions are made by us, now. That is all "globalization" means. If we want to get a car from Mexico, it is our choice. Pat Buchanan thinks that the government should take away this choice.
Anybody who would make that "choice" willingly is an idiot who doesn't know where his job comes from. Since that describes most of America- well, it isn't much of a choice. I challenge you to find a car where EVERY part was Made in America. We invented the car- should be easy to do, right, since you claim we have the "choice"? I choose to drive a Ford, don't I have the right to drive one where the car parts are made by people I trust?
Ah, I see, you're yet another person who can't tell the difference between a person's ideals and what they are forced to do by the system they are involved in- which also explains why you can't break out of the religion of Adam Smith and see the concrete reality beneath the abstract. You also fail to realize that to me, money has NO value left- and hasn't for several years now.
Bull. 5 million people, according to the Department of Labor, have dropped into poverty.
Our standard of living will improve, as we will able to make our own decisions about matters with less regard to things that don't matter (like national borders).
And how will we do that, when all of our own decisions are already being made for us by other people?
Things will even out.
Agreed they will- they'll even out when the whole world is living on $2/day.
Consider manufacturing. The American labor unions have done everything they can to encourage companies to open factories off-shore.
No, it was the government that did that with the offshore tax credit.
When they do this, the number of union members goes down, and unions lose power and diminish presence.
True enough- because all the factories closed.
As a result, the companies start to bring jobs "back home".
Then why have the only factories that have reopened been car factories, on which there's a huge quota caping imports? The problem is, not a single textile factory has reopened. Not a single TV factory has reopened. No VCRs, no computers, DVD players were NEVER made in America. Tons of industries moved out- and those industries will not return without a serious change in the way we do business.
Here's the fallacy in your thinking: the state of our economy is not a static thing, unrelated to the rest of the world. Our standard of living wouldn't stand still after we shut off our borders, it would drop like a stone.
If, like they keep telling us, we have the most productive workers in the world right now, there's no reason at all why it should. We'd simply move from producing products overseas to producing them here again- using the Ford economic method instead of the WalMart economic method to keep standard of living high.
I think your proposal would be only slightly less absurd if it was to put the entire US into suspended animation and then into a time capsule (and thus, keep our current standard of living). Your proposal is almost Swiftian, except that it lacks the component of canabalism.
Not at all- we did it before and it created one of the most prosperous decades ever seen in America.
Oh, and in third world countries? A disappearing middle class isn't a salient feature, because they haven't yet developed much of a middle class.
Shows what you know about the third world- they started out tribal, under which EVERYBODY is middle class and there are no rich and there are no poor (for that you need this wierd invention known as money).
I think you mean, "emerge into a world where we've become the weakest and poorest third world nation.
Considering that under globalism, the weakest and poorest third world nations is where the jobs go, this would not be a bad thing necessarily- and besides, we've already got the main economic signature of a third world nation: A two class system in which one class is rapidly becoming more poor and the other class is rapidly becoming more rich, with a disappearing middle class. That's almost the textbook definition of a bannana republic right there. If we're going to become a third world nation anyway, wouldn't it make sense to keep our current standard of living until the rest of the world catches up instead of decreasing our standard of living down to the current state of the rest of the world? Think about it for a second- since these are our two choices with globalization- Participate and watch our standard of living fall, or don't participate and watch our standard of living stand still as the rest of the world passes us by.
keep in mind that it's not the PC hardware that falls pray to the 50,000 or so items of malware out there - it's the software . the OS matters . the hardware matters . the little details matter : the choice of materials , the proportions , the fit and finish of the machine - it's all part of the product.
You'd also never be able to fit a Windows license into any $500 price point for comparable hardware....
Nice try, but you should really study the sham science before you act like an authority in it.
One does not need to be an authority in something to recognize it as a con job with superstitious and magical overtones.
GDP equals one dollar in that scenario, and it certainly does not equal the cost of making the widget.
Only if you invent "value" out of thin air...but of course, that's the whole point of the supply vs demand price setting myth, isn't it?
The cost of production in that highly simplified example is just his labor, for which he is compensated one dollar. Because there are no input costs, his profit is one dollar. Therefore, GDP is one dollar.
In which case it's way too highly simplified to be anything close to reality, isn't it? The P in GDP is for Production, not Profit, if you have forgotten.
Our stone stacker buys stones from the stone seller for 60 cents. He then stacks them and sells them to our buyer in the hypothetical universe for one dollar.
Of which, 40% is the markup- the real profit. 60% is production. Thus Gross Domestic PRODUCTION is 60 cents, Gross Domestic Profit is 40 cents.
The GDP in this example is still one dollar because the final good (the good with the most value added) sold for one dollar. If you counted every sale from the raw materials up, you'd end up double counting the cost of the raw materials, so only the final good counts.
Why would you count every sale of the raw materials to begin with? The cost of the raw materials shouldn't change. If it does- that's a parasite middle man who can be cut out of the equation to make the economy more efficient.
Really, a lot of people smarter than you and me have thought and written about this. The concept of GDP is not perfect, anyone who examines it can see that. But you fundamentally misunderstand it and then dismiss it out of hand. It does not reflect well up on Marxists.
In fact as you've shown, the concept is totally imaginary and completely bogus. It's not only not perfect- it's a complete sham that mixes profit with production cost, thus making both utterly meaningless. Worse yet- it's misnamed. Should be GDPP if you want to add profit in to the equation.
This is what I mean when I say that economics is superstition and myth rather than a science- it has no realtion whatsoever to reality, so there's no need to pretend that it does. Might as well redesign it to maximize human happiness instead of shuffling paper.
They are unrelated. The first (15 billion people) came from The Rome Project, and the second (80 billion people) came from a more recent study commissioned by the LDS Church. You may live to see the first- but I rather doubt it as the current stats say that we're topping out at 7 billion due to infertility and disease problems (and it took us twice as long to get there as it should have by the Rome Project numbers back in the 1970s). 80 billion? Even with current asymtopic growth you'd have to live to be 3000 before we saw those kinds of numbers on this planet.
Yes life just happens, it's neither fair nor unfair but when circumstances beyond your control make your life worse it's not very nice at all.
Uh, isn't circumstances beyond your control making your life worse the very DEFINITION of unfair?
I don't know what the answer is but I don't think any of us can escape from globalisation. The world is driven by trade and commerce on a global stage and there is no way it's going back into national borders.
Actually, there is- we just don't have the courage to do it, because it would require us doing basically what the rest of the world did to fall behind us- close our borders for 50 years, and emerge into a world where we're no longer a superpower.
What we need is a way to ensure companies operate in a way which will eventually lead to a level playing field
They already are- it's just that we're so far above that playing field that it will take a major depression to get back down to it.
take account of the human cost of their operations;
Not possible under capitalism and never will be possible under a free market that lacks national borders.
whether that is shutting down plants in the US or exploiting workers in the 3rd world. That would certainly cost us all money but we may be able ease growing pains.
True enough- but like I said above, we do not have the courage to do so.
We really need more say in how business works, probably everyone in the US and the UK holds shares in some companies indirectly or otherwise but that doesn't seem to translate into much in the way of control or input into how a business is run, maybe it should.
I own a few shares- but I'm selling them off to keep the house. The grand majority will never actually own shares- they'll be promised shares (through 401(k)s and the like) but they won't actually even own them enough to be able to tell their broker when to trade them, let alone run the business. What we need is a new system entirely- one that includes steep taxes on shipping to encourage that goods are created as close to the consumers as possible.
Do a search on the original poster's name- he admitted in the discussion that the contract was indeed international, and did indeed deal with India.
I say again, this is a simple contract dispute issue. The company hired a contractor, and they have a problem with the final work. The contract should specify a course of action. Even if it doesn't, there are procedures in place for that in every nation.
But there aren't, at least, not for international contracts. I'm sure the WTO will be overruling the sovereignity of contract law soon in their bid to enslave everybody to the multinational corporations, but it hasn't happened yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks to a quirk of capitalism being an *extreme* emphasis on competition, governments that embrace capitalism tend to quite rightly see other nations as enemies. The reason why is simple- economic war has now arrived at the point where it can do as much, or more, damage to a country than conventional or nuclear war can. Want to truly destroy a capitalist economy? Just make sure your workers can live on 1/100th the wages of that capitalistic country, and manipulate your currency to stay at that level. Within 50 years, a large majority of the manufacturing jobs from that country will be yours- and a majority of their population will be retired, disabled, or unemployed.
The Chinese becoming capitalist was the ultimate arrow aimed at the soft underbelly of the United States- and it has achieved it's goal (which is why Social Security is in trouble).
What a great idea! I wonder why Boeing hasn't done this?
For the same reason most companies haven't done that- class warfare indicates that the shareholders deserve to live in luxury, earning money off of the workers. Without that, there would be no profit- for a man would be paid what his economic input is, no more and no less. Profit is derived from the difference between what the workers put in, and what the so-called "free market price" is.
Then the greedy union thugs stepped in, helped by bad government laws. Being overpaid 5 times was not enough!!!.
They weren't overpaid 5x- they were paid what they were worth. The government laws stepped in because oligarchy members like you were living off of other people's labor- a totally indefensible moral position.
Ford went into slow decline that continues today.
Here's an alternate explaination- with the death of old Henry Ford, his lazy-good-for-nothing children and grandchildren took over, and stole so much value out of the company that it went into decline.
Which is why I'm entirely against the idea of inherrited wealth.
How viable is this? Can everyone right now buy a 1950 Ford and serve their transportation needs?
I've bought used cars all my life- it's pretty easy these days given the Internet.
We NEED to eat, so we are slaves?
In any given society that does not do something to service this need to the extent that everybody can afford basic nutrition, that is essentially correct. More enlightened societies divorce need from work- note that this does NOT neccessarily alliviate poverty, nor does it eliminate the fact that if one wishes to live with any luxury at all, then one should do something to earn that luxury. It just means that one's first-level Maslow needs are met simply by being a citizen- anything above that requires work.
I'll take you up on that. Look at the Gospels: Christ there is no gentile or Jew, no slave or free, no woman or man (Gal. 3:28). Where does it say in here that Koreans do not count? Where does it say that Japanese and Mexicans are, as you called them, "the enemy"? None of the philosophies you name have your idea that people far away are to be treated like dirt. They tend toward a "global brotherhood of man".
A global brotherhood of man is not possible as long as first level Maslow needs are not met. Capitalism puts groups of workers against each other- until capitalism is eliminated, it would be foolish for workers in America to give up work to workers in Mexico, or Japan, or Korea- they are the enemy in the eternal war that is capitalism. That's what COMPETITION means- that the other is your deadly enemy, and you must do whatever it takes to win. Up to and including using nuclear devices to depopulate the workers in the other country.
However, if we do take up your "neighbor first" philosophy, it means that someone in Florida should buy a car from Mexico, instead of from one of the many American car factories in California: the Mexican factories are workers are closer (neighbors) to Florida than California is.
Two different memes: Under the idea of a true, Maslow needs met, society, you are of corse correct. Under the Oligarchy of Capitalism- Florida is the neighbor of California, and both pay taxes to the federal government to defend the border and keep Mexico out. That the federal government fails quite regularly in their constitutional duty to provide for the common defense is immaterial to the fact that there is a constitutional duty to provide for the common defense.
I've seen the Forbes list. It is quite fluid, and contains no oligarchy members.
Really? Then why, out of the last 20 years, have the first 10 names been Gates, Allen, Bennet, and Walton? If the list is as fluid as you say, why haven't these names been replaced in that time? Oh yeah- because there's an oligarchy all right- and the top 25% own 75% of the real wealth in this country- and the lower 75% can't afford their own health insurance.
Thank you- my son will really enjoy this when he's old enough to type more than gibberish.
DESPITE my above answer- I completely agree. *ABSTRACT* programming requires higher math and/or a heck of a lot of philosophy and logic. *Concrete* programming, and even how higher concepts such as memory allocation and object orientation pertains to concrete programming, can be done by even very young children.
For a concrete way to teach object orientation, I suggest a turtle graphics engine, in a Lisp-like extensible language. Logo used to be ideal for this- anybody know where I can get a hold of a decent LOGO interpreter for either Linux or Windows? I'd love to have it available just as my son is learning to type and read in a couple of years.
By the same extension- interpreted languages are better for young programmers because they can see instant results to what they do. Scripting and compiling the result is divorced from that original action of typing in the source code to some extent- and thus are less likely to keep the very young engaged.
It's impossible to explain memory allocation to someone who doesn't yet possess the ability to understand basic math (it's hard to teach it to someone who DOES understand basic math!).
I used legos to teach memory allocation to 4th graders, and I'm pretty sure the same method would work with younger kids. Pretty easy to have a heap of legos, and "allocate" certain block sizes to different building projects, which is no different than basic memory allocation (including the importance of "releasing" ownership of a block so that somebody else can use it). I'm always amazed at the math majors who think that without higher math, higher math concepts can't be explained in concrete terms.
Nevermind- just got a reply to my first message- this tie in has apparently been there for quite some time.
Already done, it appears. If you're using a RECENT copy of firefox, look to the right of the go button in the default address bar and navigation toolbar- there you will see a box with a Google icon in it- that ties directly to google (and overwrites your rightmost tab with search results).
Was the Google Search Box in the upper right hand corner on the installation used here at my state agency.
I'm not sure if it's a recent addition or not- my ability to run Firefox at work postdates Ben's involvement with Google- but it's just the sort of thing that I'd expect from such a combination.
I think also you're making the mistake of calling what might be society without economic classes middle class. Essentially meaningless.
If there are no rich- and are no poor- then there is only one class- the middle. The Kwakiutal achieved this even with "slavery" and "chiefs"- all of whom suffered equally in a hard winter or ate equally with a good hunt.
I'm really confused as to what your thoughts are on this matter, MH. They seem to be all over the board. Maybe you're ahead of your time? =)
Part of the problem is that the language itself is outside of my time- modern english isn't well designed to criticize the status quo.
"You mean the Ford economic method of decades-long steady and significant firing and reduction of work force, while Wal-Mart hires people during the same period?"
That came WAY later. I mean the Henry Ford economic method of every worker being able to reasonably afford that which he is working on- and being paid enough to do so (at the time, he was paying 5x the going factory wage for assembly-line work; and sure enough, within three years just about every Ford employee owned a Model T).
What fantasies are you reading? Slavery was/is rife in tribal societies. It is hard to get more poor than a slave.
We're all slaves in one way or another- the distinction is meaningless in a society where all suffer equally in times of famine, and all prosper equally in times of feast, like with the Kwakiutal.
If someone is building an NTSC set of the same quality for half the price, they are building better.
But it's arguably NOT the same quality when that old Philo or Zenith set lasts for 20 years; but the cheap asian crap dies after 5. Unless, of course, you're arguing quality for STOCKHOLDERS instead of CONSUMERS...where arguably lower quality manufacture leads to more sales.
So, anyone who needs to do something productive to survive is a "slave"?
The keyword there is NEEDS as opposed to WANTS. Anybody who needs to do anything at all is a slave to someone or something. The person who escapes from slavery has free will- no NEED to do anything.
The "social contrast" has nothing to do with giving a lazy thief something or else he will rob you.
But it has EVERYTHING to do with making sure your neighbor has what he needs- so that in turn he will give you what you need. Didn't you ever read the Gospels? The Tao? Any philosophy at all?
That's great, since the Korean warranties typically are 10 years. That has the Korean cars lasting 6 years longer than the American ones.
The difference being I can buy a 55-year-old Ford and still get it to run without replacing every damn bolt in it- despite the fact that it's been out-of-warenty for 54 years. But that's not quality to somebody who expects to make more money off of the consumer after 10 years.
This is not the case.
Prove it- find me a Kia that still runs after 20 years.
They are not allowed to talk to Elvis, either. He is just as real as this "oligarchy".
Except Forbes Magazine publishes a list of the Oligarchy members yearly- a list that rarely, if ever, changes.
Uh- tried that- in fact, that page was an attempt at it. Never did get paid for it at all. Good luck with your fight, since you seem to be unable to separate concrete reality from the myths.
That's what happens when you build better.
Uh, same is same- NTSC is NTSC no matter how you slice it.
There are documented instances of slavery in the United States, did you know that? Never buy from Americans again! I ignored the link you gave because it contained the contradictory term "wage slave". Slaves do not earn wages. The term is used, typically, by those who think that someone who earns below an arbitrary wage level is a "slave".
No- it's a term that indicates anybody who needs to earn a wage to survive is actually a slave- that just because "slavery" has been replaced with "wages" doesn't make a damn whit of difference to the lifestyle of the poorest people in the country- they're STILL slaves.
You give people jobs? As gifts? They don't earn them by doing them well? That is one nasty neighbor you have: he will steal you unless you give him a gift. He should go out an earn a job.
Don't know the first thing about the social contract do you? By buying local, instead of imports, you create jobs in your own community which pay you back many times the ammount that the item cost you extra. You should ALWAYS buy local first.
A deal that costs less is a better deal.
Not when it's for worse quality, and takes away the job of your neighbor so that he robs you.
If I was concerned about that, I'd never buy American. Even the Koreans make better cars now than Americans.
Every Korean car I've seen falls apart as soon as the warrenty ends.
Do you know nothing of the elegant and groundbreaking early Benz?
I know that the Ford Model T was a much better car for the money.
You certainly do not have their best interests at heart if you want to deny them economic choices, and force them to get inferior overpriced goods. Unlike you, I trust Americans to make these decisions themselves.
The price of a good is a symbol of it's quality- cheap is always worse.
No, I am talking about decisions made by individuals.
Individuals are not allowed to tell the oligarchy where the factories go.
'Dja know WW2 is over?
But the economic war is still going strong- and America, by the looks of the $661 billion trade deficit posted for 2004, is losing.
Doubt it? Yes, Americans suck at making TVs. If we didn't we'd all have Philco's and Magnetboxes in our living rooms still.
Uh, we do- Sony and Magnavox bought them out and use their designs.
That is why I prefer my imports from countries like Taiwan and Thailand (where there is no slavery).
Ah, another stupid idjit who doesn't realize that just because a country outlaws slavery doesn't mean that there is no slavery in that country. http://www.distributism.org/wageslave.htm ought to set you straight. Then you'll be wondering what country is actually FREE anymore...
China is run under marxism and is indeed a slave-labor country.
Not much worse than the United States itself- but let's face it- it's a matter of cheap, not better.
I make that choice willingly because I appreciate good work.
If you truly appreciated good work, you'd still be buying American, not Mexican, where they skimp on everything they can.
Jobs? It has everything to do with who can do the job better.
No, it has to do with who can do the job CHEAPER, which is usually WORSE. Which is why you have to buy a new car every few years because the last piece of crap fell apart.
What kind of ugly American are you?
The kind that appreciates the idea that if I buy to give my neighbor a job, then he won't rob me.
A few European countries had cars before America did.
Yeah- but what pieces of shit they were indeed.
You have the right to hold out for such a racially-pure Aryan automobile, but as there are few such bigots in the country, the market will be small and Ford will likely not serve you.
Actually, there were plenty of people still buying American automobiles when the market went oversease.
It is the democracy of the free market.
You mean the oligarchy of the manufacturers.
I'm sorry, you will have to put up with cars made by people you can't "trust" like sneaky japs and spics, right?
Nope, I mean by people who do not have the best economic interests of my country at heart. Nothing to do with racism, EVERYTHING to do with knowing who your enemies are.
Because Americans suck at making TV's and DVD players.
Considering that the TV was invented in America- I doubt it. It's more that the price is cheaper if you use southeast asian slave labor to build it.
The decisions are made by us, now. That is all "globalization" means. If we want to get a car from Mexico, it is our choice. Pat Buchanan thinks that the government should take away this choice.
Anybody who would make that "choice" willingly is an idiot who doesn't know where his job comes from. Since that describes most of America- well, it isn't much of a choice. I challenge you to find a car where EVERY part was Made in America. We invented the car- should be easy to do, right, since you claim we have the "choice"? I choose to drive a Ford, don't I have the right to drive one where the car parts are made by people I trust?
Ah, I see, you're yet another person who can't tell the difference between a person's ideals and what they are forced to do by the system they are involved in- which also explains why you can't break out of the religion of Adam Smith and see the concrete reality beneath the abstract. You also fail to realize that to me, money has NO value left- and hasn't for several years now.
The middle class is as large as ever.
Bull. 5 million people, according to the Department of Labor, have dropped into poverty.
Our standard of living will improve, as we will able to make our own decisions about matters with less regard to things that don't matter (like national borders).
And how will we do that, when all of our own decisions are already being made for us by other people?
Things will even out.
Agreed they will- they'll even out when the whole world is living on $2/day.
Consider manufacturing. The American labor unions have done everything they can to encourage companies to open factories off-shore.
No, it was the government that did that with the offshore tax credit.
When they do this, the number of union members goes down, and unions lose power and diminish presence.
True enough- because all the factories closed.
As a result, the companies start to bring jobs "back home".
Then why have the only factories that have reopened been car factories, on which there's a huge quota caping imports? The problem is, not a single textile factory has reopened. Not a single TV factory has reopened. No VCRs, no computers, DVD players were NEVER made in America. Tons of industries moved out- and those industries will not return without a serious change in the way we do business.
Here's the fallacy in your thinking: the state of our economy is not a static thing, unrelated to the rest of the world. Our standard of living wouldn't stand still after we shut off our borders, it would drop like a stone.
If, like they keep telling us, we have the most productive workers in the world right now, there's no reason at all why it should. We'd simply move from producing products overseas to producing them here again- using the Ford economic method instead of the WalMart economic method to keep standard of living high.
I think your proposal would be only slightly less absurd if it was to put the entire US into suspended animation and then into a time capsule (and thus, keep our current standard of living). Your proposal is almost Swiftian, except that it lacks the component of canabalism.
Not at all- we did it before and it created one of the most prosperous decades ever seen in America.
Oh, and in third world countries? A disappearing middle class isn't a salient feature, because they haven't yet developed much of a middle class.
Shows what you know about the third world- they started out tribal, under which EVERYBODY is middle class and there are no rich and there are no poor (for that you need this wierd invention known as money).
I think you mean, "emerge into a world where we've become the weakest and poorest third world nation.
Considering that under globalism, the weakest and poorest third world nations is where the jobs go, this would not be a bad thing necessarily- and besides, we've already got the main economic signature of a third world nation: A two class system in which one class is rapidly becoming more poor and the other class is rapidly becoming more rich, with a disappearing middle class. That's almost the textbook definition of a bannana republic right there. If we're going to become a third world nation anyway, wouldn't it make sense to keep our current standard of living until the rest of the world catches up instead of decreasing our standard of living down to the current state of the rest of the world? Think about it for a second- since these are our two choices with globalization- Participate and watch our standard of living fall, or don't participate and watch our standard of living stand still as the rest of the world passes us by.
keep in mind that it's not the PC hardware that falls pray to the 50,000 or so items of malware out there - it's the software . the OS matters . the hardware matters . the little details matter : the choice of materials , the proportions , the fit and finish of the machine - it's all part of the product .
You'd also never be able to fit a Windows license into any $500 price point for comparable hardware....
Nice try, but you should really study the sham science before you act like an authority in it.
One does not need to be an authority in something to recognize it as a con job with superstitious and magical overtones.
GDP equals one dollar in that scenario, and it certainly does not equal the cost of making the widget.
Only if you invent "value" out of thin air...but of course, that's the whole point of the supply vs demand price setting myth, isn't it?
The cost of production in that highly simplified example is just his labor, for which he is compensated one dollar. Because there are no input costs, his profit is one dollar. Therefore, GDP is one dollar.
In which case it's way too highly simplified to be anything close to reality, isn't it? The P in GDP is for Production, not Profit, if you have forgotten.
Our stone stacker buys stones from the stone seller for 60 cents. He then stacks them and sells them to our buyer in the hypothetical universe for one dollar.
Of which, 40% is the markup- the real profit. 60% is production. Thus Gross Domestic PRODUCTION is 60 cents, Gross Domestic Profit is 40 cents.
The GDP in this example is still one dollar because the final good (the good with the most value added) sold for one dollar. If you counted every sale from the raw materials up, you'd end up double counting the cost of the raw materials, so only the final good counts.
Why would you count every sale of the raw materials to begin with? The cost of the raw materials shouldn't change. If it does- that's a parasite middle man who can be cut out of the equation to make the economy more efficient.
Really, a lot of people smarter than you and me have thought and written about this. The concept of GDP is not perfect, anyone who examines it can see that. But you fundamentally misunderstand it and then dismiss it out of hand. It does not reflect well up on Marxists.
In fact as you've shown, the concept is totally imaginary and completely bogus. It's not only not perfect- it's a complete sham that mixes profit with production cost, thus making both utterly meaningless. Worse yet- it's misnamed. Should be GDPP if you want to add profit in to the equation.
This is what I mean when I say that economics is superstition and myth rather than a science- it has no realtion whatsoever to reality, so there's no need to pretend that it does. Might as well redesign it to maximize human happiness instead of shuffling paper.
They are unrelated. The first (15 billion people) came from The Rome Project, and the second (80 billion people) came from a more recent study commissioned by the LDS Church. You may live to see the first- but I rather doubt it as the current stats say that we're topping out at 7 billion due to infertility and disease problems (and it took us twice as long to get there as it should have by the Rome Project numbers back in the 1970s). 80 billion? Even with current asymtopic growth you'd have to live to be 3000 before we saw those kinds of numbers on this planet.
Yes life just happens, it's neither fair nor unfair but when circumstances beyond your control make your life worse it's not very nice at all.
Uh, isn't circumstances beyond your control making your life worse the very DEFINITION of unfair?
I don't know what the answer is but I don't think any of us can escape from globalisation. The world is driven by trade and commerce on a global stage and there is no way it's going back into national borders.
Actually, there is- we just don't have the courage to do it, because it would require us doing basically what the rest of the world did to fall behind us- close our borders for 50 years, and emerge into a world where we're no longer a superpower.
What we need is a way to ensure companies operate in a way which will eventually lead to a level playing field
They already are- it's just that we're so far above that playing field that it will take a major depression to get back down to it.
take account of the human cost of their operations;
Not possible under capitalism and never will be possible under a free market that lacks national borders.
whether that is shutting down plants in the US or exploiting workers in the 3rd world. That would certainly cost us all money but we may be able ease growing pains.
True enough- but like I said above, we do not have the courage to do so.
We really need more say in how business works, probably everyone in the US and the UK holds shares in some companies indirectly or otherwise but that doesn't seem to translate into much in the way of control or input into how a business is run, maybe it should.
I own a few shares- but I'm selling them off to keep the house. The grand majority will never actually own shares- they'll be promised shares (through 401(k)s and the like) but they won't actually even own them enough to be able to tell their broker when to trade them, let alone run the business. What we need is a new system entirely- one that includes steep taxes on shipping to encourage that goods are created as close to the consumers as possible.
Do a search on the original poster's name- he admitted in the discussion that the contract was indeed international, and did indeed deal with India.
I say again, this is a simple contract dispute issue. The company hired a contractor, and they have a problem with the final work. The contract should specify a course of action. Even if it doesn't, there are procedures in place for that in every nation.
But there aren't, at least, not for international contracts. I'm sure the WTO will be overruling the sovereignity of contract law soon in their bid to enslave everybody to the multinational corporations, but it hasn't happened yet.