"Second would be encouraging technical schools, stuff where businesses are screaming they can't find employees."
A, businesses want to be able to scream that they cant find employees, because then ( they believe ) that they can send the jobs to lower wage countries without political costs.
B, we have had them, but they cost money. taxes. taxes are bad, there should be none of them spent ( unless that expenditure supports a business's profit model ).
You are preaching to the choir. I used to look out at the sky near night ( San Diego, so, close to LA ) and see the orange from the smog. I used to ride a lot in traffic, and never did like the exhaust from cars. The GW thing is kinda frustrating to me as there are other reasons ( not saying GW isnt important ) to curb pollution. I remember that Carter tried to take steps to wean us off oil back in the day. Reagan dismantled it all. "The market fixed it all". ( which was nonsense, price was only the worst reason for getting off oil ). I am pro-environment, but tired of lame "we will all glow in the dark" stupid arguments against nuclear power. ( rational arguments should be entertained ).
Being rationally in doubt is good. But it will be hard to prove GW.
So, in the mean time, are you
A: driving a reasonably fuel efficient car and otherwise trying to lighten your impact or
B: driving a toy hauler truck or suburban to get yourself ( and only yourself ) back and forth to work saying "bunch of hippy GW , hope they enjoy my extra smog"?
You are joking. After the war, Japan was not made part of a US empire. Nor Germany.
What happened with the states bordering Russia after the war? You know why there was an east and west Germany, right?
Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Okinawa#Civilian_losses If things were this bad close to Japan, what would actually landing on mainland Japanese soil have been like? The predictions were for many more civilian casualties than the bombs produced.
The US has not been perfect, and has plenty of faults, no doubt.
"Huh? Increasing prices will increase employment?"
If the prices on the import items go up, that will leave room for local sourced items to become competitive. Never did I call for us to bury our heads and ignore China. And things wont get magically better. Ignoring the fact that jobs are in a sad state because we are moving them to China and India and other places doesnt help.
"Furthermore increasing prices on some goods like steel makes everything you make out of those goods more expensive. It hurts economic growth in a very easy to demonstrate way"
Take that to it's logical conclusion. Everything we do can be done cheaper in lower wage countries. Send them all there. Where is our economy then? No where. And this is where things seem to be headed. We need a balance on the issues of costs and where produced. We need to have sufficient jobs here to have an economy.
"liquidity trap"
And why did we have a crisis in the first place?
"The jobs didn't just magically disappear of their own accord"
People running companies decided to move jobs to increase their profits. That is how the jobs disappeared. Those profits have not really helped the US economy much, they are demonstrably not going into job creation.
"because of cost and it is highly non-trivial, not to mention expensive, to relocate all of that production. Much of the burden of the increased costs of goods will fall on the low income portion of the the population."
True, but it was expensive to move it all to China to begin with, and that worked.
And, bonus, to go along with the uptick in costs, we might well have an uptick in employment. And those poor people might have a bit more money to offset the increase in prices. They did manage to get by before China came along, right? With the price increases, doing those jobs here will become more "affordable".
"Raise prices suddenly on a wide variety of goods and you are almost certainly going to send the US economy into the tank again. Tax revenues would plummet much more than any money that would be raised from tariffs."
I disagree, yes there will be consequences, but, the reason the US economy is in the tank to begin with is a lack of jobs. Raise prices and increase employment, and I think you will have a good thing ( for most, the wealthy who are gaining wealth arbitraging wage disparities will go backwards ). And with increased employment comes and increase in income tax. And spending ( my understanding is that 70% of the US economy is consumer spending, which isnt going to happen when people have no jobs ).
First, start with "what is a Republican". It is a large group of people who are socially conservative, fiscally conservative, believe in the market, business leaders who prefer their mantra on regulations and business environment and others.
So, do Republicans want burning rivers?
No, none of them do.
But, certain parts of the group ( I would argue, those with more control than others ) are more concerned with business profits than about whether rivers burn or not. That group is pushing for no/less regulation of these matters. We have the regulations we have because we have seen that the ones pushing for no/less regulations did not do a great job of keeping the rivers from burning when they had no/less regulation.
So, for me, the notion that returning to a no/less regulation environment meaning that we will return to having burning rivers has a good deal of traction. You are right, they dont want burning rivers, but their actions seem likely to put us there regardless. And as long as those in control don't have to live near those rivers, little will be done about it in a market driven environment. So,"want" is irrelevant.
China is not really communist, though. The proletariat there is nothing more than bodies to be exploited as in capitalist systems.
Note, I am not saying Communism works, just saying you should be criticizing an autocratic regime, not a communist one. Another note, I agree with the point that being offender and prosecutor leads to abuse.
What I would like to know is this: If conservatives can see this effect ( the conflict of interest when asked to govern ethically ) ( and can they see that? ) why do so many believe that putting the same responsibilities in the hands of corporate executives is good? Both are nominally "overseen" ( the electorate in govt, the market in corp ), both seem to ignore this oversight.
I think what we need is a certain amount of antagonism between corporations and government, like how the courts and executive and legislative branches are separate but equal in nominal American government.
Some of the group making "...upwards of $40k a year..." does not mean all or most of the group making .
There are two groups. Poor, not making enough to qualify under the current taxation regime to have to pay and not poor, making enough to lots, using loopholes and strategy to not pay. ( I include corporations that pay little or no tax in that last group. ).
For the poor, I agree with s73v3r. For the not poor, I agree with you.
( I butted into this conversation recently, so, for me, there is no "again" that makes sense ).
Believing that merit pay is not a good solution does not imply that I believe that there is no problem.
And I don't think throwing money at the problem is the answer ( nor is blindly cutting education funding ).
Society respecting teaching and teachers would be a good start. No more of the "if you were any good, you would be in industry" nonsense.
Making it so that families can support themselves without both parents having to work full time plus jobs, so one can support the children through school would be another.
Teacher 1, great teacher, but works at school in poorer part of town, kids don't do so well, gets poor pay because students aren't doing well in spite of being great teacher
Teacher 2, bad teacher, but works at school in best part of town, parents involved ( only 1 works, other is there to support education, feed kid before school, etc, etc ), gets great pay because students are doing well in spite of being a bad teacher.
Gibson case: yes, that case supports your case, microsoft might, but ( while I dont have them at hand ) I recall many news stories ( here,other sites ) about companies using legislature to protect them from competitors ( and from their customers ). Many are also abusing patents to this end. There may be many companies in the boat you allege, but all I have seen to date leads me to believe there are also many in the "protect our profits" boat as I allege.
"The auto was the "modified" version, hence more expensive, hence reserved for the luxury or executive version" and "So for the manual, they need to produce an entirely unique production line"
Not really, the car is designed to accommodate both, it is just a matter of what is fitted. The automatic is more expensive because there is more to it ( in general ). There is no different production line ( except for the transmission itself, of course ).
"And as dual-clutch autos increasingly filter down to the base model in more and more brands, do you expect to see more manuals?"
Manuals as in not dual-clutched autos? No, I don't expect to see more of them.
I have to assume you have no real idea what benefits there are to a manual transmission ( or even what the real differences are ), or the whole idea of putting a fake pedal on the floor would *never* have occurred to you.
And cars have been designed to accommodate both an automatic and a manual since time out of mind, so, no there would be no modifications, and the car would not be a modified custom car.
I doubt policy "came after them" unless it was solicited by a competitor. Or something they simply didn't like. Like I dont like speed limits. Why would government want to pick winners and losers? Why is there such resistance to getting corporate money out of politics?
"It is so large now that many industries and companies must pay tribute to the policy-makers, or they will find themselves run over by the competitors with Washington pull"
I disagree, they pay because that gives them access to the legislature, to ensure/expand their profits.
They are not made to do it, they actively -want- to do it.
"Yes, exactly, and that situation will continue as long as the government is as big and powerful as it is. The only way to reverse that is to reduce the power of the government itself. "
Again, I disagree, the government needs to be in a position where they are not corporate lap dogs. Then they can answer to the voters again.
Yes, it does. Should it? Optimally? No. But it will, certainly.
The problem is that stupid rich kids are not subsidizing smart poor ones. They are complaining about how much tooooooo much they are paying in taxes. How they did it all by themselves, nothing and no one else helped, and they don't have to repay the obligation.
A: Can they drop price? ( they will probably lay off, putting more people either on the dole or in substandard ( from a tax collection standpoint ) job ) B: Accept more students Hire more people to educate said students, costs go up. You can argue that they are just coming back to previous numbers, but if they layed off to drop prices, they will either need more productivity per person ( unlikely ), or more people, hence more costs. And this will be at less per student than they were making before. ( by your argument, it *has* to be ) Which will have to come out of the profit margin. So, profit down, so maybe they accept more students. And enter the costs again.
Not everything responds to prices this way. Rolls Royce cars are at a price point where only the wealthy can afford them. They are not catering to the masses. Colleges *may* do the same, raise prices and go elite.
Slashdot Mirror
"Second would be encouraging technical schools, stuff where businesses are screaming they can't find employees."
A, businesses want to be able to scream that they cant find employees, because then ( they believe ) that they can send the jobs to lower wage countries without political costs.
B, we have had them, but they cost money. taxes. taxes are bad, there should be none of them spent ( unless that expenditure supports a business's profit model ).
You are preaching to the choir. I used to look out at the sky near night ( San Diego, so, close to LA ) and see the orange from the smog.
I used to ride a lot in traffic, and never did like the exhaust from cars.
The GW thing is kinda frustrating to me as there are other reasons ( not saying GW isnt important ) to curb pollution.
I remember that Carter tried to take steps to wean us off oil back in the day.
Reagan dismantled it all. "The market fixed it all". ( which was nonsense, price was only the worst reason for getting off oil ).
I am pro-environment, but tired of lame "we will all glow in the dark" stupid arguments against nuclear power. ( rational arguments should be entertained ).
Being rationally in doubt is good. But it will be hard to prove GW.
So, in the mean time, are you
A: driving a reasonably fuel efficient car and otherwise trying to lighten your impact or
B: driving a toy hauler truck or suburban to get yourself ( and only yourself ) back and forth to work saying "bunch of hippy GW , hope they enjoy my extra smog"?
You are joking.
After the war, Japan was not made part of a US empire. Nor Germany.
What happened with the states bordering Russia after the war? You know why there was an east and west Germany, right?
Also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Okinawa#Civilian_losses
If things were this bad close to Japan, what would actually landing on mainland Japanese soil have been like?
The predictions were for many more civilian casualties than the bombs produced.
The US has not been perfect, and has plenty of faults, no doubt.
"Huh? Increasing prices will increase employment?"
If the prices on the import items go up, that will leave room for local sourced items to become competitive.
Never did I call for us to bury our heads and ignore China.
And things wont get magically better. Ignoring the fact that jobs are in a sad state because we are moving them to China and India and other places doesnt help.
"Furthermore increasing prices on some goods like steel makes everything you make out of those goods more expensive. It hurts economic growth in a very easy to demonstrate way"
Take that to it's logical conclusion. Everything we do can be done cheaper in lower wage countries. Send them all there. Where is our economy then? No where. And this is where things seem to be headed. We need a balance on the issues of costs and where produced. We need to have sufficient jobs here to have an economy.
"liquidity trap"
And why did we have a crisis in the first place?
"The jobs didn't just magically disappear of their own accord"
People running companies decided to move jobs to increase their profits. That is how the jobs disappeared.
Those profits have not really helped the US economy much, they are demonstrably not going into job creation.
"because of cost and it is highly non-trivial, not to mention expensive, to relocate all of that production. Much of the burden of the increased costs of goods will fall on the low income portion of the the population."
True, but it was expensive to move it all to China to begin with, and that worked.
And, bonus, to go along with the uptick in costs, we might well have an uptick in employment. And those poor people might have a bit more money to offset the increase in prices. They did manage to get by before China came along, right? With the price increases, doing those jobs here will become more "affordable".
"Raise prices suddenly on a wide variety of goods and you are almost certainly going to send the US economy into the tank again. Tax revenues would plummet much more than any money that would be raised from tariffs."
I disagree, yes there will be consequences, but, the reason the US economy is in the tank to begin with is a lack of jobs. Raise prices and increase employment, and I think you will have a good thing ( for most, the wealthy who are gaining wealth arbitraging wage disparities will go backwards ). And with increased employment comes and increase in income tax. And spending ( my understanding is that 70% of the US economy is consumer spending, which isnt going to happen when people have no jobs ).
"When you get to court seeking damages because they refused to negotiate licensing"
Why would someone be damaged because another refused to negotiate licensing?
Esp if they are willing to end the supposed use of whatever is patented?
First, start with "what is a Republican". It is a large group of people who are socially conservative, fiscally conservative, believe in the market, business leaders who prefer their mantra on regulations and business environment and others.
So, do Republicans want burning rivers?
No, none of them do.
But, certain parts of the group ( I would argue, those with more control than others ) are more concerned with business profits than about whether rivers burn or not. That group is pushing for no/less regulation of these matters. We have the regulations we have because we have seen that the ones pushing for no/less regulations did not do a great job of keeping the rivers from burning when they had no/less regulation.
So, for me, the notion that returning to a no/less regulation environment meaning that we will return to having burning rivers has a good deal of traction.
You are right, they dont want burning rivers, but their actions seem likely to put us there regardless. And as long as those in control don't have to live near those rivers, little will be done about it in a market driven environment. So,"want" is irrelevant.
China is not really communist, though. The proletariat there is nothing more than bodies to be exploited as in capitalist systems.
Note, I am not saying Communism works, just saying you should be criticizing an autocratic regime, not a communist one.
Another note, I agree with the point that being offender and prosecutor leads to abuse.
What I would like to know is this:
If conservatives can see this effect ( the conflict of interest when asked to govern ethically ) ( and can they see that? ) why do so many believe that putting the same responsibilities in the hands of corporate executives is good? Both are nominally "overseen" ( the electorate in govt, the market in corp ), both seem to ignore this oversight.
I think what we need is a certain amount of antagonism between corporations and government, like how the courts and executive and legislative branches are separate but equal in nominal American government.
Some of the group making "...upwards of $40k a year..." does not mean all or most of the group making .
There are two groups. Poor, not making enough to qualify under the current taxation regime to have to pay and not poor, making enough to lots, using loopholes and strategy to not pay. ( I include corporations that pay little or no tax in that last group. ).
For the poor, I agree with s73v3r.
For the not poor, I agree with you.
( I butted into this conversation recently, so, for me, there is no "again" that makes sense ).
Believing that merit pay is not a good solution does not imply that I believe that there is no problem.
And I don't think throwing money at the problem is the answer ( nor is blindly cutting education funding ).
Society respecting teaching and teachers would be a good start.
No more of the "if you were any good, you would be in industry" nonsense.
Making it so that families can support themselves without both parents having to work full time plus jobs, so one can support the children through school would be another.
"merit-based pay."
Teacher 1, great teacher, but works at school in poorer part of town, kids don't do so well, gets poor pay because students aren't doing well in spite of being great teacher
Teacher 2, bad teacher, but works at school in best part of town, parents involved ( only 1 works, other is there to support education, feed kid before school, etc, etc ), gets great pay because students are doing well in spite of being a bad teacher.
Gibson case: yes, that case supports your case, microsoft might, but ( while I dont have them at hand ) I recall many news stories ( here,other sites ) about companies using legislature to protect them from competitors ( and from their customers ). Many are also abusing patents to this end. There may be many companies in the boat you allege, but all I have seen to date leads me to believe there are also many in the "protect our profits" boat as I allege.
"The auto was the "modified" version, hence more expensive, hence reserved for the luxury or executive version"
and
"So for the manual, they need to produce an entirely unique production line"
Not really, the car is designed to accommodate both, it is just a matter of what is fitted. The automatic is more expensive because there is more to it ( in general ). There is no different production line ( except for the transmission itself, of course ).
"And as dual-clutch autos increasingly filter down to the base model in more and more brands, do you expect to see more manuals?"
Manuals as in not dual-clutched autos? No, I don't expect to see more of them.
Most people who think they are rev matching are really relying on the syncromesh system to do the actual matching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_transmission#Synchromesh
I have to assume you have no real idea what benefits there are to a manual transmission ( or even what the real differences are ), or the whole idea of putting a fake pedal on the floor would *never* have occurred to you.
And cars have been designed to accommodate both an automatic and a manual since time out of mind, so, no there would be no modifications, and the car would not be a modified custom car.
"and you will still be wrong"
Must be nice being right all the time. :-)
I doubt policy "came after them" unless it was solicited by a competitor. Or something they simply didn't like. Like I dont like speed limits.
Why would government want to pick winners and losers?
Why is there such resistance to getting corporate money out of politics?
"It is so large now that many industries and companies must pay tribute to the policy-makers, or they will find themselves run over by the competitors with Washington pull"
I disagree, they pay because that gives them access to the legislature, to ensure/expand their profits.
They are not made to do it, they actively -want- to do it.
"Yes, exactly, and that situation will continue as long as the government is as big and powerful as it is. The only way to reverse that is to reduce the power of the government itself. "
Again, I disagree, the government needs to be in a position where they are not corporate lap dogs. Then they can answer to the voters again.
Yes, it does. Should it? Optimally? No.
But it will, certainly.
The problem is that stupid rich kids are not subsidizing smart poor ones.
They are complaining about how much tooooooo much they are paying in taxes.
How they did it all by themselves, nothing and no one else helped, and they don't have to repay the obligation.
If we are going after smart, then lets only allow smart people into college.
Money ( or the lack thereof ) shouldnt enter into it.
That neglects a couple things, though
A: Can they drop price? ( they will probably lay off, putting more people either on the dole or in substandard ( from a tax collection standpoint ) job )
B:
Accept more students
Hire more people to educate said students, costs go up.
You can argue that they are just coming back to previous numbers, but if they layed off to drop prices, they will either need more productivity per person ( unlikely ), or more people, hence more costs.
And this will be at less per student than they were making before. ( by your argument, it *has* to be )
Which will have to come out of the profit margin. So, profit down, so maybe they accept more students. And enter the costs again.
Or maybe they do as I said earlier....
Sounds like you went at about the same time I did...
I was at UCSD.
Not everything responds to prices this way. Rolls Royce cars are at a price point where only the wealthy can afford them.
They are not catering to the masses. Colleges *may* do the same, raise prices and go elite.
If they drop their prices, their income is down also.