Soros interviewed in Time. You need to read between the lines and consider the publication. Map that you other statements Soros has made.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1 101040301-593544,00.html
Hull is running for office and in the link below he does not refer to outsourcing as such. He speaks more broadly, in terms of trade policy. It should be pretty clear where he stands.
http://www.blairhull.com/issues/jobsamerica.html
l
I'll bite.
It's about the transformation of energy/material from 'useless' forms to useful forms that make life 'better'.
Clearly there is some point beyond which the marginal benefit of marginal wealth deminishes. For most people in the world that point is a long way off (on the curve).
The crux of the problem here his not really about wealth. It's about power. This is why the point about slavery is critical to the discussion.
People who are driven to pursue wealth are, mostly, driven to pursue power. The persuit of power is, of course, the pursuit of power over others. Obviously maximum power means maximum control - slavery and/or death, which ever comes first.
The 'paying for' part is the work of people: physical and mental labor. It is not a zero sum game because the planet has energy dumped into it every day.
There was a book published in 1980 called "Why the Poor Get Richer & the Rich Slow Down: Essays in the Marshallian Long Period" that you might find interesting. Amongst the observations made is that technology can take a long time to be invented but not long (now) to be transfered. Hence, the title of the book refers to the process by which technology migration enables a relative narrowing of the gap between rich and poor.
The point I was trying to make, however, is that the speed of transfer (which is what outsourcing reflects) have have large destabilizing effects which impact both 'parties' to the transfer. Housing prices in the US are predicated on a particular level of income. If income falls because of the actions of a labor price arbitrage, then price of housing must fall. The knock-on effects would be *very* large and likely *global*. It is to prevent this kind of catastrophic shift in equilibriums that rules/laws/conventions exists and are observed.
In my view there are two better paths to narrowing the gap between rich and poor: focus on politcal stability and associated institutions of government; focus on development of the domestic market. That is much harder to do than setup an outsourcing operation and it may mean some material shifts in local politics, e.g., the Tata Group in India becomes less powerful.
I'd much rather bring people 'up' than take them 'down'.
The complexities of the issue are not simple reflected in the idea of equity holds by 'workers'. They are much better understood in terms of household balance sheets. Most households balance sheets are, by and large, debtor balance sheets: the car, the home, credit cards, etc. As it stands, people have been able to carry this debt but it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so... evidenced by record bankruptcy filings despite the increased difficulty in filing bankruptcy.
No, we are looking at naive capital vs. labor here. Naive capital looks for a return using simple world models. These models systematically fail because they do not capture the complexities of the real world. For example, if all jobs are shipped overseas because labor is cheaper in india/mexico/china then no one has a job in the US. If no one has a job in the US then no one in the US can be a buyer of products and services. So, the aggregation of seemingly rational choices result in an irrational conclusion. Sophisticated capitalists exist: George Soros and Blair Hull to name two.
The US is a kind of democracy. The intent of the Founding Fathers was that jobs be shipped overseas because (a simple world model) suggests is cost efficient to do so.
From the preamble of the US Constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Oddly, this is something so-called 'conservatives' sometimes forget.
But (a lot of) oil is still used in the production of ethanol and to grow the corn from which the ethanol is made. I'd like to see a complete energy loss statement: it would include the oil-to-ethanol phase.
Slashdot Mirror
Soros interviewed in Time. You need to read between the lines and consider the publication. Map that you other statements Soros has made. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1 101040301-593544,00.html
Hull is running for office and in the link below he does not refer to outsourcing as such. He speaks more broadly, in terms of trade policy. It should be pretty clear where he stands.
http://www.blairhull.com/issues/jobsamerica.html
l
I'll bite. It's about the transformation of energy/material from 'useless' forms to useful forms that make life 'better'. Clearly there is some point beyond which the marginal benefit of marginal wealth deminishes. For most people in the world that point is a long way off (on the curve). The crux of the problem here his not really about wealth. It's about power. This is why the point about slavery is critical to the discussion. People who are driven to pursue wealth are, mostly, driven to pursue power. The persuit of power is, of course, the pursuit of power over others. Obviously maximum power means maximum control - slavery and/or death, which ever comes first. The 'paying for' part is the work of people: physical and mental labor. It is not a zero sum game because the planet has energy dumped into it every day.
There was a book published in 1980 called "Why the Poor Get Richer & the Rich Slow Down: Essays in the Marshallian Long Period" that you might find interesting. Amongst the observations made is that technology can take a long time to be invented but not long (now) to be transfered. Hence, the title of the book refers to the process by which technology migration enables a relative narrowing of the gap between rich and poor. The point I was trying to make, however, is that the speed of transfer (which is what outsourcing reflects) have have large destabilizing effects which impact both 'parties' to the transfer. Housing prices in the US are predicated on a particular level of income. If income falls because of the actions of a labor price arbitrage, then price of housing must fall. The knock-on effects would be *very* large and likely *global*. It is to prevent this kind of catastrophic shift in equilibriums that rules/laws/conventions exists and are observed. In my view there are two better paths to narrowing the gap between rich and poor: focus on politcal stability and associated institutions of government; focus on development of the domestic market. That is much harder to do than setup an outsourcing operation and it may mean some material shifts in local politics, e.g., the Tata Group in India becomes less powerful. I'd much rather bring people 'up' than take them 'down'.
I went through a similar process, about 15 years removed.
The complexities of the issue are not simple reflected in the idea of equity holds by 'workers'. They are much better understood in terms of household balance sheets. Most households balance sheets are, by and large, debtor balance sheets: the car, the home, credit cards, etc. As it stands, people have been able to carry this debt but it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so ... evidenced by record bankruptcy filings despite the increased difficulty in filing bankruptcy.
No, we are looking at naive capital vs. labor here. Naive capital looks for a return using simple world models. These models systematically fail because they do not capture the complexities of the real world. For example, if all jobs are shipped overseas because labor is cheaper in india/mexico/china then no one has a job in the US. If no one has a job in the US then no one in the US can be a buyer of products and services. So, the aggregation of seemingly rational choices result in an irrational conclusion. Sophisticated capitalists exist: George Soros and Blair Hull to name two.
The US is a kind of democracy. The intent of the Founding Fathers was that jobs be shipped overseas because (a simple world model) suggests is cost efficient to do so.
From the preamble of the US Constitution:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Oddly, this is something so-called 'conservatives' sometimes forget.
But (a lot of) oil is still used in the production of ethanol and to grow the corn from which the ethanol is made. I'd like to see a complete energy loss statement: it would include the oil-to-ethanol phase.