|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 17, 2012 8:03:26 GMT -6
Jake, that is a complicated question, and I will try to give it as honest answer as possible. I am short on time today. I will try to get back to it this evening.
BTW- I dont use "fair trade" in the same way that the 21st century hippies mean it as label for expensive coffee and the like.
|
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Oct 17, 2012 10:18:00 GMT -6
Tex, once again, more poor saps working for, as Anita put it "for a fraction of their previous wages", or in this case, a fraction of the wages their fathers earned. As Tex said America must adjust to the rest of the world as we are now in a world market. So what if the past generation made more. They were the only game around and could command high wages for low or no skills. This is 2012 not the 50's or 60's. In my job see unskilled labor gets over $40 an hour on apartment developments that have Federal funding. The unions double or triple the cost to build 'affordable' housing as compared to non union developers. It's a rip off of the tax payers. The USA ain't all that anymore. We must ch-ch-change our game and compete on the world market. |
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 17, 2012 17:47:37 GMT -6
I dont get it Anita, a few posts back you were crying about the fact that the poor American worker is working for only a fraction of what they used to... now you are all "so what if the past generation made more"
I DONT GET IT ANITA? WHICH IS IT?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 17, 2012 19:25:41 GMT -6
. .....The unions fought against free trade in favor of fair trade...... Gordon, I am fascinated by your distinction between "free" trade and "fair" trade. In my book, "fair" is a null word. That is, it has ZERO meaning. That is to say, "fair" is so subjective a concept that it has no place in civilized discourse. What is your "fair" share of taxes? What is your "fair" duty to your countrymen? It cannot be defined, quantified, or enumerated. It is whatever you want it to be. Therefore, it has no meaning at all. But I suspect you have some more concrete definition in mind, and I'd be curious to hear what it is. Seriously, no snark intended, I'd like to know how you define it. Free trade is in theory a great idea. Everybody drops tariffs and everyone has an open shot at selling their goods in everyone else's market. So far, no problem. Where "free" trade breaks down is that we are playing in a game that is rigged against us on MANY fronts. While there are a LOT of countries that have essentially the same set of economic rules that they play by as we do, others, some of them SIGNIFICANT trading partners have absolutely no qualms about playing the game by an entirely different set of rules that skews the trade relationship in their favor. Discounting the fact that American businesses are at essentially a global disadvantage because THEY bear the costs of providing health care rather than the government bearing that cost, we are on a par with most of Europe, Canada, Korea, and Japan in our overall concept of what is acceptable in the game of international trade. Outside of that, the emerging third world countries provide nothing more than an end run around the legal framework that limits the exploitation of the employees on wages and health environment that we and our equivalent trading partners have established. "Fair trade" is trade where there is a symmetry between the trade partners in the overall expectation of corporate responsibility to society AND government interference/support with/for the corporate structures. The key word there is SYMMETRY. One reason that I no issues with the bailout of GM and Chrysler is that I saw it as a move TOWARDS symmetry between these companies and their foreign competitors. That is, it reduced an imbalance. Ideally, there would be no bailouts, but we do not compete in an ideal world. Ideally, the workers in China would make the same wages as the workers in the US. Ideally, there would be just as much incentive for a company, any company, based in any country, to set up shop in the US as there would be to set up shop in Germany, Russia, Zambia, or Paraguay. That is obviously an oversimplification, but it needs to be because global trade is a complex network, a VERY complex network of international relationships, subsidies and resource allocation. Free trade, in the long term, means that eventually all the asymmetries will work themselves out. The worker in the US will be paid the same as the worker in Vietnam, or India, or Pakistan. Given the direction these have gone in the past it will mean a LONG run in our country, and other equivalent countries, of declining wages and rising levels of "acceptable" unemployment until symmetry is reached. Yes, we will develop new technologies, and new efficiencies.. those will only give us a temporary edge, because they will inevitably migrate in the global marketplace. That is the free market. The "Fair Trade" market would be one where we would not be willing to trade with any country whose basic principles would result in the lowering of our standard of living. Where the asymmetries would adjust UPWARD to our levels. A RISING boat of global standard of living without sacrificing ours as part of the bargain. If that requires some protectionism until those countries have more respect for their people then so be it. |
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Oct 17, 2012 20:05:44 GMT -6
Gordon, I am fascinated by your distinction between "free" trade and "fair" trade. In my book, "fair" is a null word. That is, it has ZERO meaning. That is to say, "fair" is so subjective a concept that it has no place in civilized discourse. What is your "fair" share of taxes? What is your "fair" duty to your countrymen? It cannot be defined, quantified, or enumerated. It is whatever you want it to be. Therefore, it has no meaning at all. But I suspect you have some more concrete definition in mind, and I'd be curious to hear what it is. Seriously, no snark intended, I'd like to know how you define it. Free trade is in theory a great idea. Everybody drops tariffs and everyone has an open shot at selling their goods in everyone else's market. So far, no problem. Where "free" trade breaks down is that we are playing in a game that is rigged against us on MANY fronts. While there are a LOT of countries that have essentially the same set of economic rules that they play by as we do, others, some of them SIGNIFICANT trading partners have absolutely no qualms about playing the game by an entirely different set of rules that skews the trade relationship in their favor. Discounting the fact that American businesses are at essentially a global disadvantage because THEY bear the costs of providing health care rather than the government bearing that cost, we are on a par with most of Europe, Canada, Korea, and Japan in our overall concept of what is acceptable in the game of international trade. Outside of that, the emerging third world countries provide nothing more than an end run around the legal framework that limits the exploitation of the employees on wages and health environment that we and our equivalent trading partners have established. "Fair trade" is trade where there is a symmetry between the trade partners in the overall expectation of corporate responsibility to society AND government interference/support with/for the corporate structures. The key word there is SYMMETRY. One reason that I no issues with the bailout of GM and Chrysler is that I saw it as a move TOWARDS symmetry between these companies and their foreign competitors. That is, it reduced an imbalance. Ideally, there would be no bailouts, but we do not compete in an ideal world. Ideally, the workers in China would make the same wages as the workers in the US. Ideally, there would be just as much incentive for a company, any company, based in any country, to set up shop in the US as there would be to set up shop in Germany, Russia, Zambia, or Paraguay. That is obviously an oversimplification, but it needs to be because global trade is a complex network, a VERY complex network of international relationships, subsidies and resource allocation. Free trade, in the long term, means that eventually all the asymmetries will work themselves out. The worker in the US will be paid the same as the worker in Vietnam, or India, or Pakistan. Given the direction these have gone in the past it will mean a LONG run in our country, and other equivalent countries, of declining wages and rising levels of "acceptable" unemployment until symmetry is reached. Yes, we will develop new technologies, and new efficiencies.. those will only give us a temporary edge, because they will inevitably migrate in the global marketplace. That is the free market. The "Fair Trade" market would be one where we would not be willing to trade with any country whose basic principles would result in the lowering of our standard of living. Where the asymmetries would adjust UPWARD to our levels. A RISING boat of global standard of living without sacrificing ours as part of the bargain. If that requires some protectionism until those countries have more respect for their people then so be it. 1) Do you really think that a country with 5% of the world population is going to dictate to the world economy? ...even if it has the reserve currency (and how long is that going to last with the Fed printing play money.) 2) If putting the health care cost off on government is the ticket to being competitive, why is Europe doing so much worse than we are? 3) Agreed that trading partners need to be held to the same set of rules. 4) Are third world countries really doing an end run around the system on paying low wages etc.? Really? They are 85% of the world. Whose system? We are the odd man out, not them. If you want to equalize with them, get ready for some real serious lifestyle sacrifices. IMHO, we should quit going on defense trying to protect nonproductive sectors of our economy. We have some real competitive advantages if we would only use them. We could have the cheapest energy in the developed world and we lead the world in robotics. In a few years, we will have the youngest work force in the developed world. These are the keys to competitive manufacturing in the future. Markets don't pay for buckets of sweat, they pay for quality goods and services. Robotics and 3D printers are the future of manufacturing, not sweatshops. New technologies absolutely will migrate through the marketplace. By the time the technology arrives at its destination, much of it will be obsolete. A huge advantage in energy prices and age of the workforce won't migrate so easily. Europe has their electricity costs north of 30 cents/KWH equivalant, well over double what we pay. Try being competitive producing, say aluminum (or any other energy intensive product) with that. We should stick to businesses that play to our strengths and not try to maintain our economy through subsidies as some museum of what our parents produced. We are not special snowflakes who can dictate just because we are the USA. We have to bring something to the table that someone else wants or we will wither and die. JMHO |
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Oct 17, 2012 20:48:17 GMT -6
2) If putting the health care cost off on government is the ticket to being competitive, why is Europe doing so much worse than we are? What proof is there that the cost of health care borne by the government of ALL European nations has a direct relationship to the economies of the same countries? Does tarring all of Europe with the same brush even make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Oct 17, 2012 20:58:04 GMT -6
2) If putting the health care cost off on government is the ticket to being competitive, why is Europe doing so much worse than we are? What proof is there that the cost of health care borne by the government of ALL European nations has a direct relationship to the economies of the same countries? Does tarring all of Europe with the same brush even make sense? Correct you are. There is no proof. I was responding to Gordon's post stating that putting health care costs off on the government was a key to competiveness. As far as lumping Europe together, maybe the Eurozone would have been more accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Oct 18, 2012 0:03:20 GMT -6
Gordon - thanks for the thoughtful, well reasoned response. I really appreciate it. I don't agree with it, of course, but I do appreciate that you took the time to put that reply into writing.
The main thing I disagree with is your comment about health care. In some countries, the government provides health insurance. In others, they don't. But in the long run and the bigger picture, what is the difference? Either way, the society as a whole has to bear the costs. Put the burden on the public sector, put the burden on the private sector, it amounts to the same thing in the long run, on a country-by-country basis. The "government" doesn't provide anything that they didn't confiscate at gunpoint from the private sector. So I don't see how that can make a difference in a country's competitiveness.
I agree with you that there is a difference between countries in terms of how they "protect workers rights" (which I put in quotes because I don't really believe in worker's rights). If a country is going to insist that their workers have certain minimum wages, certain protections, certain benefits guaranteed to them despite market forces, that country is going to suffer in the market place. If another country is going to forgo those "rights," that country is going to thrive in the marketplace because their costs will be lower. It comes down to a risk/reward deal: do you want a gold-plated contract but low market volume, or a no-frills job but lots of job security? Unfortunately, politicians find one option much easier to sell than the other, and many workers are stupid enough to fall for the empty promises of a better life, and suffer as a result of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 18, 2012 5:10:37 GMT -6
1) Do you really think that a country with 5% of the world population is going to dictate to the world economy? ...even if it has the reserve currency (and how long is that going to last with the Fed printing play money.)
4) Are third world countries really doing an end run around the system on paying low wages etc.? Really? They are 85% of the world. Whose system? We are the odd man out, not them. If you want to equalize with them, get ready for some real serious lifestyle sacrifices. 1) Tex you know that in this the population is not the number of measure, otherwise India and China would have been calling all the shots for decades now. The US has had the worlds largest economy for decades now. Currently that economy is about $15 trillion per year. Based on how the global economic game is ch-ch-changing, is it any wonder that China's economy may soon pass (or already have passed) us in overall size. That means we are having to play their game more and more. In the terms of my post from last night, the asymmetries are shifting TOWARDS the Chinese model, to the detriment of us. 4) That is not what I believe I said or intended to say. The end around is being done by corporations in nations like ours, using the underdeveloped nation's work force to circumvent laws at home. All that being said, regardless who is in office in the US, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, we will HAVE to play the game by their rules, and without some sort of dramatic revision to "Free Trade" that will mean the lowering of Americans living standards. |
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 18, 2012 5:18:55 GMT -6
What proof is there that the cost of health care borne by the government of ALL European nations has a direct relationship to the economies of the same countries? Does tarring all of Europe with the same brush even make sense? Correct you are. There is no proof. I was responding to Gordon's post stating that putting health care costs off on the government was a key to competiveness. As far as lumping Europe together, maybe the Eurozone would have been more accurate. As I said above this is a VERY complex network of relationships and to focus on any one aspect is a gross simplification that can only be exemplary. I also indicated that I was setting that aside, BUT how can American corporations that compete in the international markets when they supply health care for for a much higher cost per person than their competition who does not have that as part of their cost of doing business. Edited: and BTW, it is NOT just the Eurozone that holds that advantage, it is every other nation in the industrialized world EXCEPT us including Japan and Korea. |
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 18, 2012 5:35:33 GMT -6
Gordon - thanks for the thoughtful, well reasoned response. I really appreciate it. I don't agree with it, of course, but I do appreciate that you took the time to put that reply into writing. The main thing I disagree with is your comment about health care. In some countries, the government provides health insurance. In others, they don't. But in the long run and the bigger picture, what is the difference? Either way, the society as a whole has to bear the costs. but if there is one thing that is provable, under our system we pay, by far, the highest cost per person for health care, which to me indicates a grossly inefficient system, because individuals cannot negotiate effectively in the health care marketplace. Providers dictate the cost side of the equation. A government organization CAN and does reduce the cost per person of healthcare AND have do this with no negative effect on the quality of the health care provided Put the burden on the public sector, put the burden on the private sector, it amounts to the same thing in the long run, on a country-by-country basis. The "government" doesn't provide anything that they didn't confiscate at gunpoint from the private sector. So I don't see how that can make a difference in a country's competitiveness. I agree with you that there is a difference between countries in terms of how they "protect workers rights" (which I put in quotes because I don't really believe in worker's rights). If a country is going to insist that their workers have certain minimum wages, certain protections, certain benefits guaranteed to them despite market forces, that country is going to suffer in the market place. If another country is going to forgo those "rights," that country is going to thrive in the marketplace because their costs will be lower. It comes down to a risk/reward deal: do you want a gold-plated contract but low market volume, or a no-frills job but lots of job security? Unfortunately, politicians find one option much easier to sell than the other, and many workers are stupid enough to fall for the empty promises of a better life, and suffer as a result of it. I am sure that you would believe in "workers rights"if you didnt have them available to you. Workers must have rights otherwise the result is slavery or at best, a system of indentured servitude. Beyond that, your post PROVES my base point. Essentially you are saying that we are in a race to the bottom and a dramatic lowering of our overall standard of living. On one thing we do agree. You say "Unfortunately, politicians find one option much easier to sell than the other, and many workers are stupid enough to fall for the empty promises of a better life, and suffer as a result of it"... the American Dream, which is what you describe, IS A FALLACY designed to get the workers out their working their asses off chasing after what is for the most part unattainable. Sure there are exceptions, just enough to keep the hopes of winning the lottery alive, but for the vast majority workers ARE stupid enough to believe that they are working to make their lives better, when in fact they are working to make the lives of their businesses owners better. |
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 18, 2012 6:15:24 GMT -6
BTW- I find it fascinating that in this topic, you guys are more in line with Obama's stance, and mine, more in line with Romney's
|
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Oct 18, 2012 7:11:58 GMT -6
I would agree that our pre-Obama healthcare finance system left a lot to be desired. Obama took it downhill from there. The pass it - then find out what's in it, shut out the other party completely, full of perks and waivers for your friends can of worms that is Obamacare is no way to completely re-make a large sector of our economy.
BTW, Japan isn't much of an example to point out either. Their economy has been dead for 20 years. I remember when the Nikkei Dow hit 41,000. Today it's under 9,000. They adopted numerous "industrial policies" (government orchestration of the private sector) in the 70s which Jimmy Carter fawned over. The Japanese economy has not thrived since.
There is no health care Santa. It costs money and putting the costs on the government translate into borrowing money from the Chinese or printing more money to pay current doctor bills - not exactly a sound policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 18, 2012 7:37:02 GMT -6
Tex- Its odd that you would point out Japanese industrial policies are a failure given that a few posts back you were lauding their automotive plants in the US a success and a model for us to look to. Edited: Oh and BTW, the only reason we have those facilities here is because at one time we DEMANDED, during the Reagan administration, that if you want to sell in the US you must have at least some physical presence in the US. Here is a little history of that. |
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Oct 18, 2012 8:15:23 GMT -6
Japanese companies are not the Japanese government.
|
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Oct 18, 2012 8:21:08 GMT -6
I dont get it Anita, a few posts back you were crying about the fact that the poor American worker is working for only a fraction of what they used to... now you are all "so what if the past generation made more" I DONT GET IT ANITA? WHICH IS IT? I wasn't crying about it...just stating the fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Oct 18, 2012 8:25:12 GMT -6
Japanese companies are not the Japanese government. Unfortunately, some folks see no distinction between industry and government. But in reality, they are virtually polar opposites. |
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Oct 18, 2012 8:29:34 GMT -6
And frequently at odds with each other. Unless, of course, the industry has a good lobby.
|
|
