Just because a couple wackos say "the Earth is flat", "global warming doesn't exist", or "evolution is wrong" doesn't mean there are two sides to scientific findings. When enough facts come out and consensus emerges, then there really is only one side for non-biased scientists. Sure, someone could come up with a better theory to explain the facts, but until that point there is only one side.
You're on the wrong side of the facts. You're a kook.
A little more broadly, I do think politics is the driving factor, and specifically WWII.
WW2 was over 60 years ago. For the past 30 years, most of the scientists from that time have retired. Further, there were other advances, such as computer technology, which had nothing to do with the Germans.
What's to explain that our universities are still so much better, especially since our lower level schools have gone to shit? Are our universities doing something here that isn't done there? Hell if I know, I've only gone to colleges here.
It could be socialism. It could be having a single language. Pulling together the best and brightest of a region in one place is easy to do when they all speak the same language. It could also be that America has momentum. Our colleges have been pulling the best and the brightest for so long that we still pull from everywhere, including Europe, putting European universities at a disadvantage. But, I don't think any of these reasons are enough to account for the entire discrepancy.
Well, last time i checked, the US has 300 million inhabitants, compared to the minuscule populations in many European countries that do first class research.
Yes, and the US has roughly two and a half times the land mass of Europe. Germany alone could fit in the single state of Montana. But, Germany has 82 million people and Montana has 902 thousand.
It is not accurate to compare the entire US to single countries in Europe. If you look at EU countries, they have a combined population of 462 million people.
Certainly Europe could create universities on par with the US. The population difference is not the reason why they haven't. Something else is. It could be socialism - making everyone more equal makes everyone more lazy. It could be language barriers - Europe likes to tout its multiculturalism, but US citizens have the ability to all speak in a single language, which is far more powerful. And it could be that since the US schools are better, they attract the better students from Europe, further enforcing that cycle.
Thus supply is limited and value increases. It is still supply and demand.
Aggressive, backstabbing MBAs are not so rare as to demand $500 million salaries. The job goes to those who can convince a board that they are the person for the job, aka the person with the aggressive, backstabbing MBA who also has the popularity and right connections... Think George Bush getting his previous job running the oil company.
Winning a popularity contest does not mean these people are rare and should be paid more.
Surely you can see why one would suggest that the schools should not be for indoctrination, but instead be places of learning where balanced viewpoints are presented about controversial issues.
There is no balanced viewpoint on the other side. In fact, amongst scientists, this is not a "controversial issue".
Most scientists agree that global warming is happening and that it is happening as a result of man. The only people on the "other side" of this debate are shills of the oil companies and non scientists.
Your idea of bringing "balanced viewpoints" about "controversial issues" would open the classroom to such kooks as those who believe the Earth is flat. The Earth is very much NOT flat, as any picture from space will prove. Likewise, the Earth is very much under the effect of global warming as a result of human activity.
The dictionary definition of protectionism is the theory, practice, or system of fostering or developing domestic industries by protecting them from foreign competition through duties or quotas imposed on importations.
Generally, that label is hurled at fair trade proponents who want protectionism in the form of environmental and labor restrictions. The group usually doing the hurling are big business proponents, who want protectionism in the form of intellectual property, copyright, and patent restrictions.
Both fair trade proponents and big business proponents are equally protectionist, even though the big business proponents would argue otherwise. Both sides want protections that favor their group when dealing with underdeveloped countries. Calling one side protectionist and not the other is illogical.
Institutional investors - the mutual funds to whom all the working stiffs have entrusted their retirements, can demand and get an end to this legalized theft. Individual investors don't have the clout, and the companies are set up in such a way that activist shareholders proposals for compensation reform are uniformly defeated. Why are the mutual funds allowing this?
Individual mutual funds don't like investing more than a small percentage of their portfolio in one stock or company - that defeats the purpose behind a mutual fund. To have a major effect, only the major mutual fund companies such as Fidelity could really put pressure on a company by leveraging the shares held across a line of mutual funds. But, why should Fidelity bother when there's a million companies out there? They can just sell the shares in the problem company and invest in twenty others that are more attractive.
The major mutual fund companies don't fix these companies because there's no financial incentive to do so. And no one else can fix these companies because they don't have that kind of clout.
Just recently the feds conducted raids on meat processing plants, removing the illegal alien workers. The next day, there was a line out the door of Americans looking to take those jobs.
News flash: every country has income inequality. That's true, even in communist countries where people are all supposed to be the same. There is no place in the WORLD where "EVERYONE is poor".
Me: Our labor laws were enacted at a time when our economic status was radically different, much like a third world country of today.
You: The oldest ones come from around the 1930s.
Uh, no. You need to go back about 100 years earlier. The first state child labor law came about in 1836 when Massachusetts required children under 15 working in factories to attend school at least 3 months/year.
Besides, the country we have been mostly talking about in these offshoring debates is India, and they do have extensive labor laws.
Well, they why did you bring this topic up? If they already have laws similar to ours, then your previous point is irrelevant.
Further, while you may be just talking about India, I am not unless I specifically say so.
Thats still often enough to kill any chance they have at growing through trade.
Bullshit. They can still sell competitively priced goods, they just can't do it at a price that unfairly undercuts our other goods.
Further, we are not the only country they trade with. They can take their goods and go sell them to someone else.
We have by far the largest economy in the world. If they cannot trade with us, that often means they are just screwed.
World GDP is $60 trillion. US GDP is $12 trillion. Europe matches us at $12 trillion. That's a whole shitload of other economies they can trade with. We are not the only game in town.
If they want to play ball with us, then they need to play by our rules. Its a good incentive for them to catch up with the rest of the world.
Me: Businesses are not labeled protectionist when they request protection in the form of intellectual property, copyright, and patent laws when dealing with countries that do not have similar laws to ours. The fair trade proponents are using the exact same logic, but with protections that effect labor. Calling one side protectionist and not the other is illogical.
You: The side arguing for more liberal trade policies (thats economic liberal, not political liberal) are often called supporters of free-trade. They may still argue for some restrictions, for instance they would not be against embargoes against North Korea because they are an evil communist country. The side arguing for more restrictions on trade are often called protectionists. They may still be fine with open trade to some degree and with some countries, they just want more restrictions than the free trade backers. If you don't like the label they have chosen for themselves, feel free to use a different one like "fair trade". But that doesn't mean people are wrong when they use the more common label, since they are effectively the same thing.
Sorry, your logic still doesn't match reality. A lot of fair trade proponents would be happy eliminating or reducing intellectual property, copyright, and patent laws. In that regard, they are the supporters of free trade, while big business is protectionist.
Fair trade proponents are only more protectionist than big business in regards to laws benefiting the environment and labor.
Calling one side protectionist and not the other is illogical. Both want protections that favor their group when dealing with underdeveloped countries.
But again, free trade is not about eliminating all restrictions over trading.
Interesting. So, some restrictions are good, but others are bad and protectionist. Specifically, restrictions that help big business are good and not protectionist, but restrictions on environmental and labor law which hurt big business are bad and protectionist.
It's all supply and demand. If the majority of the population were only capable of being CEOs, the job would be a minimum wage job at best. The reason they get ridiculous salaries is because nobody fit for the job is stepping in to do it for less.
Bullshit. Quit drinking the kool-aid. Most people with an MBA are qualified to run a large corporation, and those kind of people certainly aren't rare. Nominations to CEO level positions are about popularity, connections, backstabbing, and aggressiveness.
Saying that CEO pay is all about supply and demand and that they are the only ones with the talent for these positions tells me that you have about zero experience in the corporate world.
CEOs weasel their way into the position and then set their own salary. At that point, CEOs are dictators of their company, able to loot and plunder for whatever they like. That's until either they break some laws and the government gets involved. Or, the board and shareholders revolt and depose the CEO.
You moron, pay attention to the god damn conversation. Don't hop in the middle of something you aren't paying attention to attempt to "enlighten" us on something we aren't even talking about. Jesus Christ, you're about just as bad as the Grandparent poster and those idiots who labeled his post insightful.
If control over economics is revoked from government, bureaucrats have less corruptable power to exert on smaller businesses and individuals.
Yes, and then you're giving control of the economy to big business, a group that has proven time and again that it is more corruptible than the government.
In a free market society, the law isn't for sale because it is out of the hands of corruptable men.
Bullshit. Here in the US, we have the closest thing going to a free market. Our government is for sale, as evidenced by the lobby scandals of the recent years.
The separation of economy and State is at least as important as the separation of Church and State for reasons that should be obvious to anyone that believes deep-pocket lobbies, not voters, control governments.
Yeah, that'll get rid of the lobbies. Businesses won't have to pay them any more because they'll have full control of the economy. That'll take away more power from the voters, not less.
Did you even read the article? The poor mostly attack the other poor in Brazil. Then, occasionally, other people are caught in the crossfire. The rich can afford security and protection, so the poor generally leave them alone.
You want to impose our labor laws on other nations even though their economic status is radically completely different from ours.
Our labor laws were enacted at a time when our economic status was radically different, much like a third world country of today. Given that, it is completely possible for third world countries to enact our style of labor rules. It probably would do them some good. Limiting child labor reduces the supply of labor, making employers compete for the adult laborers by raising wages. That further gives time for the children to attend school, making them better workers in the future. Limiting the work week to 40 hours also limits the supply of labor, making employers raise wages. There have also been studies over the last hundred years which say that 40 hour work weeks are the best for optimum productivity. So, that would be good for both the employee and the employer. The poorest citizens typically spend all the money they make, so increased wages is generally always a boon to both businesses and the workers. Adding a minimum wage of some kind and actually enforcing it is always a good idea.
That said, fair trade proponents don't necessarily argue for completely cutting off countries with substandard environmental and labor laws. Tariffs and quotas are available. Third world goods could still go on sale in the US, but at a competitive and fair price.
And since other nations really cannot become developed if they are not free to trade with the rest of the world, that translates we will only trade with a small portion of the world, thus ensuring the status quo remains.
Interesting straw man. Fair trade proponents do not necessarily care to cut off all trade with countries with substandard labor and environmental protections, as I just mentioned. Duties and quotas are an option for importing their goods. Further, developing nations can trade with any other nation they like and do not necessarily have to deal with us.
Thats like saying its wrong to call George Bush a conservative because he holds traditionally liberal views on issues like immigration and education reform.
Your analogy does not make sense. Businesses are not labeled protectionist when they request protection in the form of intellectual property, copyright, and patent laws when dealing with countries that do not have similar laws to ours. The fair trade proponents are using the exact same logic, but with protections that effect labor. Calling one side protectionist and not the other is illogical.
Me: No, they are not generally referred to as protectionist laws, which they certainly are.
You: Read the "protectionism" definition you posted. They do "protect" certain individuals and organizations, but they do not fall under the economic definition of "protectionism".
protectionism [pruh-tek-shuh-niz-uhm] -noun 1. Economics. the theory, practice, or system of fostering or developing domestic industries by protecting them from foreign competition through duties or quotas imposed on importations.
Let's see, intellectual property, copyright, and patent laws is a system of laws. It fosters or develops domestic industries by protecting them from foreign competition. For example, it is illegal to sell bootleg copies of Britney Spears CDs on street corners in America. Likewise, it is illegal to sell generic drugs before they come off their patent. And, this is done through quotas imposed on importations - none are allowed in the US.
Damn, that meets the definition of protectionism.
And yes, IP laws are very common in trade debates. Look at Russia and China for examples.
I never said IP debates were uncommon. If you go back and read what I wrote, I said that in discussions regarding free trade, people like you never mention that intellectual property law, copyright, and patent law are protectionist.
Everyone likes to claim that there ARE Americans willing and able to take the jobs held by illegal immigrants.
There are. After the recent raids of meat processing plants, Americans lined up at the door for jobs previously held by illegal immigrants.
The above story though suggests that there are skilled positions that Americans are simply unwilling to do.
Bullshit. This story says they couldn't find American AND illegal alien workers... We're talking about California here, where white people are a minority. The illegal aliens are there, but even they don't want to do this work.
The fact is these pear farmers can't get workers because this is hard labor and they pay crap. Both Americans and illegal immigrants can get far easier jobs for the same pay. Increase the salaries, and both illegal immigrants and Americans would be interested in the work.
Me: Most free traders label everyone who doesn't agree with them protectionist, even though the label doesn't always fit... They just want fair protections for the working class, which isn't an unreasonable request.
You: Thats pretty much the definition of a protectionist.
If you pull up the definition of protectionism, you get this:
protectionism [pruh-tek-shuh-niz-uhm] -noun
1. Economics. the theory, practice, or system of fostering or developing domestic industries by protecting them from foreign competition through duties or quotas imposed on importations.
Those pushing for fair trade do want fair trade protections for the working class from underdeveloped countries without similar environmental and employment laws as ours. In that sense, proponents of fair trade are protectionist.
However, fair trade proponents are open to free trade with other developed nations. In that sense, proponents of fair trade are not protectionist.
So, should we label fair trade proponents with the blanket label of protectionist when half of the time they are not? We do not label businesses protectionist when they make similar requests for protection in the form of intellectual property, copyright, and patent laws in the exact same circumstances. So, if we follow that logic, then we should not label proponents of free trade with the protectionist label.
No, copyright, patents, and other IP laws are a hot topic in trade debates.
No, they are not generally referred to as protectionist laws, which they certainly are.
But what you are talking about isn't free trade as its argued for by its advocates.
That was my point. The trade is presented and labeled as "free", but that is not true to its name. There are protections for the big corporations. What we have today is not truly free trade, but fair trade for big business posing under the label of free trade.
Intellectual property laws, copyright, and patent laws are not considered protectionist, although these certainly are protectionist. Since these laws are not considered protectionist, then big businesses purporting to believe in free trade can then label anyone requesting similar protections for their own group as protectionist. In reality, you have the pot calling the kettle black.
No one is saying there shouldn't be any laws regarding trade, claiming otherwise is a straw man.
Wow. I could say that exact same statement to you.
CEOs effectively set their own salary, with no true veto power from anyone. And so, they set it artificially and abnormally high. Their salary has nothing to do with merit. It only has to do with greed. In many cases, CEOs still rake in enormous salaries even if their company tanks.
These high executive salaries make companies extremely wasteful in their spending. To make up for this waste, companies have to squeeze savings from average workers in the form of wages. The companies either delay wage increases, make people do more work with less resources, or just fire workers outright. In the cases where CEOs take hundreds of millions of dollars per year from their companies, that wasteful spending just comes from the bottom line.
On a side note, people constantly berate the government for inefficiency and wasteful spending. However, no executive in government makes hundreds of millions of dollars. The president himself only makes $400,000 per year. In some cases, it could easily be said that government is more efficient with money than private business.
Previous: If you want to build an industry then build it yourself like we did.
You: America built itself by forcing the blacks into slavery.
The civil war ended in 1865. And, blacks were only slaves in the south where they mostly performed agricultural work. Most of America's growth and wealth came after 1865, when blacks were free. Most of the industries and companies we created came after that time.
The country grew because the natives were pushed, killed and forced to work under them.
True, the previous native population was pushed off the land and often killed. Most were pushed to reservations. Some did join the rest of society, including my ancestors. However, by the 1850s, there was not a lot of them left. It's completely laughable to suggest that there was a large native workforce which was exploited by employers. Most of the workers were immigrants from Europe and other countries, as well as their descendants.
Throughout history, there's livid examples of how America waged wars for their own prosperity.
Yes, just like every other country in the world.
You can't convert a wasteland, something hitherto unknown to mankind to the most advanced country within 300 years; not without making a lot of people suffer. The same goes for Britain - an island which is a speck on the globe cannot rise to be the world's richest nation (this was 80-90 years ago) without colonizing half the world, and oppressing their basic rights.
The question is, which comes first: prosperity or power? Britain could never have exerted that kind of power without first having an extremely prosperous economy.
Face it, there's no pain without any gain. In this day and era, you cannot repeat that kind of history.
The "pain" was only possible after the "gain". And yes, "in this day and era", you can repeat that type of gain. Look at China and India. China is already a threat to US domination. India is not far behind.
Face it, you are a human and so is the indian half a world away. If you can't perform at the same level as he does, I dont see a reason why the employer should choose you.
US worker productivity is the best in the world. We literally outproduce every single worker in the world. The fact of the matter is that Indians can not keep up with us.
Face it, your standard of level, your cost of living and your definition of basic nessicities are bloated when compared to him. That automatically makes him more competitive.
Yes, people in India have a lower cost of living. That lets companies replace one American with multiple Indians. Even with an American's advantages in productivity, we can not hope to outproduce multiple Indians at once. But, that kind of advantage only lasts so long though. Indians are already demanding double-digit increase in their wages every year. In the end, it is productivity that will attract and keep companies.
The reason our standard of living is so much better is because of the American workers who built and supported these big corporations for literally decades and, in some cases, over a century. American work and American innovation went into these companies. And, American companies used to value the work of Americans, paying them a modest portion of their profits in return. Those modest profits occurred for so long that now we are paid more than people of other lands. That's because our businesses do better than those of other countries. Unfortunately, our businesses have forgotten why they became so great in the first place, which is the labor of the American worker.
Most free traders label everyone who doesn't agree with them protectionist, even though the label doesn't always fit. Lou Dobbs and everyone for fair trade do not want to cut off trade completely. They just want fair protections for the working class, which isn't an unreasonable request.
Free trade never has existed. And it probably never will exist. That's because corporations have built in their own fair protections for their own benefit: copyright, patent, and intellectual property laws. In all the talk and bluster regarding free trade, people like you never ever mention these protectionist laws that benefit the big corporations.
Big businesses are just as protectionist as everyone else. They just don't want anyone to see or point out their hypocrisy when they sing the praises of free trade and deride the rest of us for the same protectionism that they practice.
I'm not entirely sure why so many people believe that hiring an American is somehow more virtuous than hiring a foreigner. Is it just thinly disguised racism?
"American" is not a race. It's a nationality.
Thinly disguised nationalism? Sure.
A belief that Americans are more worthy of a job because of where they happened to be born?
No. You have to remember that you are on a American website, set up by Americans, run by Americans, and visited primarily by Americans. That's why you see this preference so prominently here.
Americans want to see American jobs go to other Americans. This is the same when the Chinese want to see Chinese jobs go to other Chinese or when Indians want to see Indian jobs go to other Indians. It's called self-interest.
Or is it just a fear that they aren't as qualified for their own job as someone else could be?
You must be new here. IT geeks are a cocky bunch that believe no one can do their job as well as they can. And, everyone else's work is shit. Americans can barely stand the shit they see from other Americans. Americans get absolutely livid with dealing with shit work from someone in another country half a world away.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because a couple wackos say "the Earth is flat", "global warming doesn't exist", or "evolution is wrong" doesn't mean there are two sides to scientific findings. When enough facts come out and consensus emerges, then there really is only one side for non-biased scientists. Sure, someone could come up with a better theory to explain the facts, but until that point there is only one side.
You're on the wrong side of the facts. You're a kook.
The point is that there are not two sides to scientific matters where the overwhelming majority agrees on one side.
You are wrong. The only people sitting on your side have a stake to sitting on your side. That makes them biased and unworthy to listen to.
A little more broadly, I do think politics is the driving factor, and specifically WWII.
WW2 was over 60 years ago. For the past 30 years, most of the scientists from that time have retired. Further, there were other advances, such as computer technology, which had nothing to do with the Germans.
What's to explain that our universities are still so much better, especially since our lower level schools have gone to shit? Are our universities doing something here that isn't done there? Hell if I know, I've only gone to colleges here.
It could be socialism. It could be having a single language. Pulling together the best and brightest of a region in one place is easy to do when they all speak the same language. It could also be that America has momentum. Our colleges have been pulling the best and the brightest for so long that we still pull from everywhere, including Europe, putting European universities at a disadvantage. But, I don't think any of these reasons are enough to account for the entire discrepancy.
Well, last time i checked, the US has 300 million inhabitants, compared to the minuscule populations in many European countries that do first class research.
Yes, and the US has roughly two and a half times the land mass of Europe. Germany alone could fit in the single state of Montana. But, Germany has 82 million people and Montana has 902 thousand.
It is not accurate to compare the entire US to single countries in Europe. If you look at EU countries, they have a combined population of 462 million people.
Certainly Europe could create universities on par with the US. The population difference is not the reason why they haven't. Something else is. It could be socialism - making everyone more equal makes everyone more lazy. It could be language barriers - Europe likes to tout its multiculturalism, but US citizens have the ability to all speak in a single language, which is far more powerful. And it could be that since the US schools are better, they attract the better students from Europe, further enforcing that cycle.
...those are skills that only the very few have.
Popularity and connections are not skills.
Thus supply is limited and value increases. It is still supply and demand.
Aggressive, backstabbing MBAs are not so rare as to demand $500 million salaries. The job goes to those who can convince a board that they are the person for the job, aka the person with the aggressive, backstabbing MBA who also has the popularity and right connections... Think George Bush getting his previous job running the oil company.
Winning a popularity contest does not mean these people are rare and should be paid more.
They'll have Shatner in there playing Kirk, but not James T Kirk. They'll have Shatner playing James's father.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/co rporate_governance/MediaMentions/WSJ_01.11.06.pdf
The hedge fund managers are paying themselves huge fortunes when they take over a company and replace the CEO with themselves.
Surely you can see why one would suggest that the schools should not be for indoctrination, but instead be places of learning where balanced viewpoints are presented about controversial issues.
There is no balanced viewpoint on the other side. In fact, amongst scientists, this is not a "controversial issue".
Most scientists agree that global warming is happening and that it is happening as a result of man. The only people on the "other side" of this debate are shills of the oil companies and non scientists.
Your idea of bringing "balanced viewpoints" about "controversial issues" would open the classroom to such kooks as those who believe the Earth is flat. The Earth is very much NOT flat, as any picture from space will prove. Likewise, the Earth is very much under the effect of global warming as a result of human activity.
The dictionary definition of protectionism is the theory, practice, or system of fostering or developing domestic industries by protecting them from foreign competition through duties or quotas imposed on importations.
Generally, that label is hurled at fair trade proponents who want protectionism in the form of environmental and labor restrictions. The group usually doing the hurling are big business proponents, who want protectionism in the form of intellectual property, copyright, and patent restrictions.
Both fair trade proponents and big business proponents are equally protectionist, even though the big business proponents would argue otherwise. Both sides want protections that favor their group when dealing with underdeveloped countries. Calling one side protectionist and not the other is illogical.
Institutional investors - the mutual funds to whom all the working stiffs have entrusted their retirements, can demand and get an end to this legalized theft. Individual investors don't have the clout, and the companies are set up in such a way that activist shareholders proposals for compensation reform are uniformly defeated. Why are the mutual funds allowing this?
Individual mutual funds don't like investing more than a small percentage of their portfolio in one stock or company - that defeats the purpose behind a mutual fund. To have a major effect, only the major mutual fund companies such as Fidelity could really put pressure on a company by leveraging the shares held across a line of mutual funds. But, why should Fidelity bother when there's a million companies out there? They can just sell the shares in the problem company and invest in twenty others that are more attractive.
The major mutual fund companies don't fix these companies because there's no financial incentive to do so. And no one else can fix these companies because they don't have that kind of clout.
I too am sick of that mantra.
Just recently the feds conducted raids on meat processing plants, removing the illegal alien workers. The next day, there was a line out the door of Americans looking to take those jobs.
News flash: every country has income inequality. That's true, even in communist countries where people are all supposed to be the same. There is no place in the WORLD where "EVERYONE is poor".
Me: Our labor laws were enacted at a time when our economic status was radically different, much like a third world country of today.
You: The oldest ones come from around the 1930s.
Uh, no. You need to go back about 100 years earlier. The first state child labor law came about in 1836 when Massachusetts required children under 15 working in factories to attend school at least 3 months/year.
Besides, the country we have been mostly talking about in these offshoring debates is India, and they do have extensive labor laws.
Well, they why did you bring this topic up? If they already have laws similar to ours, then your previous point is irrelevant.
Further, while you may be just talking about India, I am not unless I specifically say so.
Thats still often enough to kill any chance they have at growing through trade.
Bullshit. They can still sell competitively priced goods, they just can't do it at a price that unfairly undercuts our other goods.
Further, we are not the only country they trade with. They can take their goods and go sell them to someone else.
We have by far the largest economy in the world. If they cannot trade with us, that often means they are just screwed.
World GDP is $60 trillion. US GDP is $12 trillion. Europe matches us at $12 trillion. That's a whole shitload of other economies they can trade with. We are not the only game in town.
If they want to play ball with us, then they need to play by our rules. Its a good incentive for them to catch up with the rest of the world.
Me: Businesses are not labeled protectionist when they request protection in the form of intellectual property, copyright, and patent laws when dealing with countries that do not have similar laws to ours. The fair trade proponents are using the exact same logic, but with protections that effect labor. Calling one side protectionist and not the other is illogical.
You: The side arguing for more liberal trade policies (thats economic liberal, not political liberal) are often called supporters of free-trade. They may still argue for some restrictions, for instance they would not be against embargoes against North Korea because they are an evil communist country. The side arguing for more restrictions on trade are often called protectionists. They may still be fine with open trade to some degree and with some countries, they just want more restrictions than the free trade backers. If you don't like the label they have chosen for themselves, feel free to use a different one like "fair trade". But that doesn't mean people are wrong when they use the more common label, since they are effectively the same thing.
Sorry, your logic still doesn't match reality. A lot of fair trade proponents would be happy eliminating or reducing intellectual property, copyright, and patent laws. In that regard, they are the supporters of free trade, while big business is protectionist.
Fair trade proponents are only more protectionist than big business in regards to laws benefiting the environment and labor.
Calling one side protectionist and not the other is illogical. Both want protections that favor their group when dealing with underdeveloped countries.
But again, free trade is not about eliminating all restrictions over trading.
Interesting. So, some restrictions are good, but others are bad and protectionist. Specifically, restrictions that help big business are good and not protectionist, but restrictions on environmental and labor law which hurt big business are bad and protectionist.
Sounds like you've been brainwashed to me.
It's all supply and demand. If the majority of the population were only capable of being CEOs, the job would be a minimum wage job at best. The reason they get ridiculous salaries is because nobody fit for the job is stepping in to do it for less.
Bullshit. Quit drinking the kool-aid. Most people with an MBA are qualified to run a large corporation, and those kind of people certainly aren't rare. Nominations to CEO level positions are about popularity, connections, backstabbing, and aggressiveness.
Saying that CEO pay is all about supply and demand and that they are the only ones with the talent for these positions tells me that you have about zero experience in the corporate world.
CEOs weasel their way into the position and then set their own salary. At that point, CEOs are dictators of their company, able to loot and plunder for whatever they like. That's until either they break some laws and the government gets involved. Or, the board and shareholders revolt and depose the CEO.
You moron, pay attention to the god damn conversation. Don't hop in the middle of something you aren't paying attention to attempt to "enlighten" us on something we aren't even talking about. Jesus Christ, you're about just as bad as the Grandparent poster and those idiots who labeled his post insightful.
If control over economics is revoked from government, bureaucrats have less corruptable power to exert on smaller businesses and individuals.
Yes, and then you're giving control of the economy to big business, a group that has proven time and again that it is more corruptible than the government.
In a free market society, the law isn't for sale because it is out of the hands of corruptable men.
Bullshit. Here in the US, we have the closest thing going to a free market. Our government is for sale, as evidenced by the lobby scandals of the recent years.
The separation of economy and State is at least as important as the separation of Church and State for reasons that should be obvious to anyone that believes deep-pocket lobbies, not voters, control governments.
Yeah, that'll get rid of the lobbies. Businesses won't have to pay them any more because they'll have full control of the economy. That'll take away more power from the voters, not less.
Did you even read the article? The poor mostly attack the other poor in Brazil. Then, occasionally, other people are caught in the crossfire. The rich can afford security and protection, so the poor generally leave them alone.
Our labor laws were enacted at a time when our economic status was radically different, much like a third world country of today. Given that, it is completely possible for third world countries to enact our style of labor rules. It probably would do them some good. Limiting child labor reduces the supply of labor, making employers compete for the adult laborers by raising wages. That further gives time for the children to attend school, making them better workers in the future. Limiting the work week to 40 hours also limits the supply of labor, making employers raise wages. There have also been studies over the last hundred years which say that 40 hour work weeks are the best for optimum productivity. So, that would be good for both the employee and the employer. The poorest citizens typically spend all the money they make, so increased wages is generally always a boon to both businesses and the workers. Adding a minimum wage of some kind and actually enforcing it is always a good idea.
That said, fair trade proponents don't necessarily argue for completely cutting off countries with substandard environmental and labor laws. Tariffs and quotas are available. Third world goods could still go on sale in the US, but at a competitive and fair price.
And since other nations really cannot become developed if they are not free to trade with the rest of the world, that translates we will only trade with a small portion of the world, thus ensuring the status quo remains.
Interesting straw man. Fair trade proponents do not necessarily care to cut off all trade with countries with substandard labor and environmental protections, as I just mentioned. Duties and quotas are an option for importing their goods. Further, developing nations can trade with any other nation they like and do not necessarily have to deal with us.
Thats like saying its wrong to call George Bush a conservative because he holds traditionally liberal views on issues like immigration and education reform.
Your analogy does not make sense. Businesses are not labeled protectionist when they request protection in the form of intellectual property, copyright, and patent laws when dealing with countries that do not have similar laws to ours. The fair trade proponents are using the exact same logic, but with protections that effect labor. Calling one side protectionist and not the other is illogical.
Me: No, they are not generally referred to as protectionist laws, which they certainly are.
You: Read the "protectionism" definition you posted. They do "protect" certain individuals and organizations, but they do not fall under the economic definition of "protectionism".
Let's see, intellectual property, copyright, and patent laws is a system of laws. It fosters or develops domestic industries by protecting them from foreign competition. For example, it is illegal to sell bootleg copies of Britney Spears CDs on street corners in America. Likewise, it is illegal to sell generic drugs before they come off their patent. And, this is done through quotas imposed on importations - none are allowed in the US.
Damn, that meets the definition of protectionism.
And yes, IP laws are very common in trade debates. Look at Russia and China for examples.
I never said IP debates were uncommon. If you go back and read what I wrote, I said that in discussions regarding free trade, people like you never mention that intellectual property law, copyright, and patent law are protectionist.
"Free tr
Everyone likes to claim that there ARE Americans willing and able to take the jobs held by illegal immigrants.
There are. After the recent raids of meat processing plants, Americans lined up at the door for jobs previously held by illegal immigrants.
The above story though suggests that there are skilled positions that Americans are simply unwilling to do.
Bullshit. This story says they couldn't find American AND illegal alien workers... We're talking about California here, where white people are a minority. The illegal aliens are there, but even they don't want to do this work.
The fact is these pear farmers can't get workers because this is hard labor and they pay crap. Both Americans and illegal immigrants can get far easier jobs for the same pay. Increase the salaries, and both illegal immigrants and Americans would be interested in the work.
You: Thats pretty much the definition of a protectionist.
If you pull up the definition of protectionism, you get this:
Those pushing for fair trade do want fair trade protections for the working class from underdeveloped countries without similar environmental and employment laws as ours. In that sense, proponents of fair trade are protectionist.
However, fair trade proponents are open to free trade with other developed nations. In that sense, proponents of fair trade are not protectionist.
So, should we label fair trade proponents with the blanket label of protectionist when half of the time they are not? We do not label businesses protectionist when they make similar requests for protection in the form of intellectual property, copyright, and patent laws in the exact same circumstances. So, if we follow that logic, then we should not label proponents of free trade with the protectionist label.
No, copyright, patents, and other IP laws are a hot topic in trade debates.
No, they are not generally referred to as protectionist laws, which they certainly are.
But what you are talking about isn't free trade as its argued for by its advocates.
That was my point. The trade is presented and labeled as "free", but that is not true to its name. There are protections for the big corporations. What we have today is not truly free trade, but fair trade for big business posing under the label of free trade.
Intellectual property laws, copyright, and patent laws are not considered protectionist, although these certainly are protectionist. Since these laws are not considered protectionist, then big businesses purporting to believe in free trade can then label anyone requesting similar protections for their own group as protectionist. In reality, you have the pot calling the kettle black.
No one is saying there shouldn't be any laws regarding trade, claiming otherwise is a straw man.
Wow. I could say that exact same statement to you.
I also agree that a maximum wage is a good idea.
CEOs effectively set their own salary, with no true veto power from anyone. And so, they set it artificially and abnormally high. Their salary has nothing to do with merit. It only has to do with greed. In many cases, CEOs still rake in enormous salaries even if their company tanks.
These high executive salaries make companies extremely wasteful in their spending. To make up for this waste, companies have to squeeze savings from average workers in the form of wages. The companies either delay wage increases, make people do more work with less resources, or just fire workers outright. In the cases where CEOs take hundreds of millions of dollars per year from their companies, that wasteful spending just comes from the bottom line.
On a side note, people constantly berate the government for inefficiency and wasteful spending. However, no executive in government makes hundreds of millions of dollars. The president himself only makes $400,000 per year. In some cases, it could easily be said that government is more efficient with money than private business.
The model is also called the Circular Flow Model.
Here's a picture of the Circular Flow Model.
With our trade deficit in the negative for decades now, we are leaking far more than we are injecting. Offshoring is another type of leak.
Previous: If you want to build an industry then build it yourself like we did.
You: America built itself by forcing the blacks into slavery.
The civil war ended in 1865. And, blacks were only slaves in the south where they mostly performed agricultural work. Most of America's growth and wealth came after 1865, when blacks were free. Most of the industries and companies we created came after that time.
The country grew because the natives were pushed, killed and forced to work under them.
True, the previous native population was pushed off the land and often killed. Most were pushed to reservations. Some did join the rest of society, including my ancestors. However, by the 1850s, there was not a lot of them left. It's completely laughable to suggest that there was a large native workforce which was exploited by employers. Most of the workers were immigrants from Europe and other countries, as well as their descendants.
Throughout history, there's livid examples of how America waged wars for their own prosperity.
Yes, just like every other country in the world.
You can't convert a wasteland, something hitherto unknown to mankind to the most advanced country within 300 years; not without making a lot of people suffer. The same goes for Britain - an island which is a speck on the globe cannot rise to be the world's richest nation (this was 80-90 years ago) without colonizing half the world, and oppressing their basic rights.
The question is, which comes first: prosperity or power? Britain could never have exerted that kind of power without first having an extremely prosperous economy.
Face it, there's no pain without any gain. In this day and era, you cannot repeat that kind of history.
The "pain" was only possible after the "gain". And yes, "in this day and era", you can repeat that type of gain. Look at China and India. China is already a threat to US domination. India is not far behind.
Face it, you are a human and so is the indian half a world away. If you can't perform at the same level as he does, I dont see a reason why the employer should choose you.
US worker productivity is the best in the world. We literally outproduce every single worker in the world. The fact of the matter is that Indians can not keep up with us.
Face it, your standard of level, your cost of living and your definition of basic nessicities are bloated when compared to him. That automatically makes him more competitive.
Yes, people in India have a lower cost of living. That lets companies replace one American with multiple Indians. Even with an American's advantages in productivity, we can not hope to outproduce multiple Indians at once. But, that kind of advantage only lasts so long though. Indians are already demanding double-digit increase in their wages every year. In the end, it is productivity that will attract and keep companies.
The reason our standard of living is so much better is because of the American workers who built and supported these big corporations for literally decades and, in some cases, over a century. American work and American innovation went into these companies. And, American companies used to value the work of Americans, paying them a modest portion of their profits in return. Those modest profits occurred for so long that now we are paid more than people of other lands. That's because our businesses do better than those of other countries. Unfortunately, our businesses have forgotten why they became so great in the first place, which is the labor of the American worker.
Most free traders label everyone who doesn't agree with them protectionist, even though the label doesn't always fit. Lou Dobbs and everyone for fair trade do not want to cut off trade completely. They just want fair protections for the working class, which isn't an unreasonable request.
Free trade never has existed. And it probably never will exist. That's because corporations have built in their own fair protections for their own benefit: copyright, patent, and intellectual property laws. In all the talk and bluster regarding free trade, people like you never ever mention these protectionist laws that benefit the big corporations.
Big businesses are just as protectionist as everyone else. They just don't want anyone to see or point out their hypocrisy when they sing the praises of free trade and deride the rest of us for the same protectionism that they practice.
I'm not entirely sure why so many people believe that hiring an American is somehow more virtuous than hiring a foreigner. Is it just thinly disguised racism?
"American" is not a race. It's a nationality.
Thinly disguised nationalism? Sure.
A belief that Americans are more worthy of a job because of where they happened to be born?
No. You have to remember that you are on a American website, set up by Americans, run by Americans, and visited primarily by Americans. That's why you see this preference so prominently here.
Americans want to see American jobs go to other Americans. This is the same when the Chinese want to see Chinese jobs go to other Chinese or when Indians want to see Indian jobs go to other Indians. It's called self-interest.
Or is it just a fear that they aren't as qualified for their own job as someone else could be?
You must be new here. IT geeks are a cocky bunch that believe no one can do their job as well as they can. And, everyone else's work is shit. Americans can barely stand the shit they see from other Americans. Americans get absolutely livid with dealing with shit work from someone in another country half a world away.