The high price of losing manufacturing jobs: research

Feb 23, 2012

The loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs is a topic that can provoke heated arguments about globalization. But what do the cold, hard numbers reveal? How has the rise in foreign manufacturing competition actually affected the U.S. economy and its workers?

A new study co-authored by MIT David Autor shows that the rapid rise in low-wage manufacturing industries overseas has indeed had a significant impact on the United States. The disappearance of U.S. frequently leaves former manufacturing workers unemployed for years, if not permanently, while creating a drag on local economies and raising the amount of taxpayer-borne social insurance necessary to keep workers and their families afloat.

Geographically, the research shows, foreign competition has hurt many U.S. — not necessarily the ones built around heavy manufacturing in the industrial Midwest, but many areas in the South, the West and the Northeast, which once had abundant manual-labor manufacturing jobs, often involving the production of clothing, footwear, luggage, furniture and other household consumer items. Many of these jobs were held by workers without college degrees, who have since found it hard to gain new employment.

"The effects are very concentrated and very visible locally," says Autor, professor and associate head of MIT's Department of Economics. "People drop out of the labor force, and the data strongly suggest that it takes some people a long time to get back on their feet, if they do at all." Moreover, Autor notes, when a large manufacturer closes its doors, "it does not simply affect an industry, but affects a whole locality."

In the study, published as a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Autor, along with economists David Dorn and Gordon Hanson, examined the effect of overseas manufacturing competition on 722 locales across the United States over the last two decades. This is also a research focus of MIT's ongoing study group about manufacturing, Production in the Innovation Economy (PIE); Autor is one of 20 faculty members on the PIE commission.

The findings highlight the complex effects of on the United States.

"Trade tends to create diffuse beneficiaries and a concentration of losers," Autor says. "All of us get slightly cheaper goods, and we're each a couple hundred dollars a year richer for that." But those losing jobs, he notes, are "a lot worse off." For this reason, Autor adds, policymakers need new responses to the loss of manufacturing jobs: "I'm not anti-trade, but it is important to realize that there are reasons why people worry about this issue."

Double trouble: businesses, consumers both spend less when industry leaves

In the paper, Autor, Dorn (of the Center for Monetary and Fiscal Studies in Madrid, Spain) and Hanson (of the University of California at San Diego) specifically study the effects of rising manufacturing competition from China, looking at the years 1990 to 2007. At the start of that period, low-income countries accounted for only about 3 percent of U.S. manufacturing imports; by 2007, that figure had increased to about 12 percent, with China representing 91 percent of the increase.

The types of manufacturing for export that grew most rapidly in China during that time included the production of textiles, clothes, shoes, leather goods, rubber products — and one notable high-tech area, computer assembly. Most of these production activities involve soft materials and hands-on finishing work.

"These are labor-intensive, low-value-added [forms of] production," Autor says. "Certainly the Chinese are moving up the value chain, but basically China has been most active in low-end goods."

In conducting the study, the researchers found more pronounced economic problems in cities most vulnerable to the rise of low-wage Chinese manufacturing; these include San Jose, Calif., Providence, R.I., Manchester, N.H., and a raft of urban areas below the Mason-Dixon line — the leading example being Raleigh, N.C. "The areas that are most exposed to China trade are not the Rust Belt industries," Autor says. "They are places like the South, where manufacturing was rising, not falling, through the 1980s."

All told, as American imports from China grew more than tenfold between 1991 and 2007, roughly a million U.S. workers lost jobs due to increased low-wage competition from China — about a quarter of all U.S. job losses in manufacturing during the time period.

And as the study shows, when businesses shut down, it hurts the local because of two related but distinct "spillover effects," as economists say: The shuttered businesses no longer need goods and services from local non-manufacturing firms, and their former workers have less money to spend locally as well.

A city at the 75th percentile of exposure to Chinese manufacturing, compared to one at the 25th percentile, will have roughly a 5 percent decrease in the number of manufacturing jobs and an increase of about $65 per capita in the amount of social insurance needed, such as unemployment insurance, health care and disability payments.

"People like to think that workers flow freely across sectors, but in reality, they don't," Autor says. At a conservative estimate, that $65 per capita wipes out one-third of the per-capita gains realized by trade with China, in the form of cheaper goods. "Those numbers are really startling," Autor adds.

The study draws on United Nations data on international trade by goods category among developing and developed countries, combined with U.S. economic data from the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Social Security Administration.

New policies for a new era?

In Autor's view, the findings mean the needs to improve its policy response to the problem of disappearing jobs. "We do not have a good set of policies at present for helping workers adjust to trade or, for that matter, to any kind of technological change," he says.

For one thing, Autor says, "We could have much better adjustment assistance — programs that are less fragmented, and less stingy." The federal government's Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program provides temporary benefits to Americans who have lost jobs as a result of foreign trade. But as Autor, Dorn and Hanson estimate in the paper, in areas affected by new Chinese manufacturing, the increase in disability payments is a whopping 30 times as great as the increase in TAA benefits.

Therefore, Autor thinks, well-designed job-training programs would help the government's assistance efforts become "directed toward helping people reintegrate into the labor market and acquire skills, rather than helping them exit the labor market."

Still, it will likely take more research to get a better idea of what the post-employment experience is like for most people. To this end, Autor, Dorn and Hanson are conducting a new study that follows laid-off workers over time, nationally, to get a fine-grained sense of their needs and potential to be re-employed.

"Trade may raise GDP," Autor says, "but it does make some people worse off. Almost all of us share in the gains. We could readily assist the minority of citizens who bear a disproportionate share of the costs and still be better off in the aggregate."

Explore further: Entrepreneurs aren't overconfident gamblers

Related Stories

Study debunks myth of job testing as race barrier

May 09, 2008

Conventional wisdom holds that the standardized tests some employers require of job applicants serve as a barrier to equal employment. But a pioneering study shows just the opposite: Screening increases employers' precision ...

Oakland economy is in the early stages of sustained recovery

Apr 29, 2011

After posting modest job losses last calendar year following an abysmal 2009, the Oakland County economy should add nearly 29,000 jobs over the next three years—the best years since 2000, say University of Michigan economists.

Technology gives mixed meaning to labor day celebration

Sep 05, 2011

This Labor Day, with unemployment hovering above 9 percent, workers are confronting an enigma. Although there are one-third fewer factory workers than there were only 10 years ago, manufacturing in the United ...

Recommended for you

Marcellus drilling boom may have led to too many hotel rooms

4 hours ago

Drilling in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale region led to a rapid increase in both the number of hotels and hotel industry jobs, but Penn State researchers report that the faltering occupancy rate may signal that there are ...

Entrepreneurs aren't overconfident gamblers

Sep 17, 2014

Leaving one's job to become an entrepreneur is inarguably risky. But it may not be the fear of risk that makes entrepreneurs more determined to succeed. A new study finds entrepreneurs are also concerned about what they might ...

User comments : 108

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vendicar_Decarian
2.1 / 5 (24) Feb 23, 2012
As a Libertarian I don't care how many people lose their jobs as long as I can shop cheaper.

Screw em.

Pressure2
3.1 / 5 (19) Feb 23, 2012
This article mentions that most of us gain in lower prices, true. What this article does not mention is that all the jobs lost in the last 35 years of trade deficits is responsible for between 50 to 75% of our 16 trillion dollar accumulated federal deficit. How, it is really simple. Say a person loses his job making toasters, he goes from a taxpayer to a tax consumer over night. Now multiply that by about 9 million jobs that a 500 billion dollar deficit cost us in this country and you are now talking about 100's of billions of dollars in extra expenses to all level of government, and about the same amount in reduced tax revenue. Now again multiply that by 30 plus years and you are into the trillions of dollars.

One more point, without our federal government running huge deficits we would be a depression worst than the the Great One right now.

axemaster
4.5 / 5 (16) Feb 23, 2012
Many of these jobs were held by workers without college degrees, who have since found it hard to gain new employment.

No duh. The biggest drag on startups in the USA these days is the lack of skilled workers. For example, companies have to search for an average of 7 months to find a properly trained machinist. It just takes 1 year at a trade school to be a machinist, and it pays up to 100,000 per year.

Meanwhile you see people going to college and getting degrees in english, then going on to lofty positions like "bartender", "waitress", "truck driver" etc. Absolutely genius. Until people start acquiring actual skills like they were in the 50's and 60's, we won't see our economy soar. It'll just putter along like it is now...
Skepticus
3.3 / 5 (18) Feb 23, 2012
That's what you get for a relentless push for higher education for all ( as a supposed mean for better pay and life in general). A person with a college degree is not going to settle for a manual job, no way, unless he/she is starving (like Tesla digging ditches). Multiply this scenario with a country full of Bachelors, Masters, and Ph.Ds, and a job market bounded by socio-politico-econonomic reigns, then you will have wagon loads of rocket scientists with no rockets to work on!
axemaster
5 / 5 (13) Feb 23, 2012
I'm a bachelor's of science in physics and I spend a lot of time in the machine shop making stuff. I enjoy it. I actually entertained the idea of getting professional training, but decided not to since I should be able to pick up most of the tricks on my own.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with getting training in manual labor type skills. In fact, being able to make all your own equipment is very empowering, because you know intimately how everything works and how to fix it.

It's got to be better than sitting at a desk and getting fat.
Telekinetic
2.9 / 5 (22) Feb 23, 2012
As a manufacturer of household goods, I saw the handwriting on the wall 25 years ago, when local foundries and other wood and metal fabricating businesses began to disappear. The very addictive push to make more profit, the basic tenet of capitalism, is also what will always make it fail, and now capitalism has failed spectacularly. When industrialists produce goods overseas in slave nations and then use America's marketplace like their own private whorehouse, you can bet people are going to suffer. We can thank our elected officials for allowing the pursuit of happiness to become an empty promise.
Callippo
2.9 / 5 (14) Feb 23, 2012
As a Libertarian I don't care how many people lose their jobs as long as I can shop cheaper.
The lower price is usually balanced with lost of quality of life. In AWT the entropic phenomena and mixing of people is balanced with spontaneous aggregation and crystallization of phases and only the society, which can manage the both can survive and evolve into more complex one from long term perspective. In nature the biodiversity helps to maintain the optimal speed of evolution and it makes the society less fragile. Note that only primitive parasitic forms of life tend to be more genetically homogeneous. I'm not xenophobic, but - as someone once said - if the world will becomes unicolor, it will actually lose all its colors. If Asians will get all the jobs of Americans, they will get the technology, markets and money of Americans too and you will get only basic food ans services cheaply - the rest of more complex and high quality goods will be imported and expensive the more.
Callippo
1.4 / 5 (14) Feb 23, 2012
I don't care how many people lose their jobs as long as I can shop cheaper

Note that the extreme liberalism is antiliberal in its consequences in the same way, like the extreme socialism converges into extreme right wing position (for example Stalin used many methods of Hitler). Or like the space-time at the cosmological distances becomes similar to the space-time at the extreme small quantum scales. From dispersive mechanism of AWT follows, very extreme opinion will start to contradict itself.
Estevan57
2.1 / 5 (26) Feb 23, 2012
You would never know America is still the largest manufacturer in the world from the tone of the media. It is heartening to see at least some effort by the government to provide incentives for manufacturers bringing jobs back to the U.S. (Half the government at least). I think the gains made in productivity during the last decade will result in a rebound of jobs in that sector. It already has if you read the journals. Modern Manufacturing, etc.

If we can stay out of 600,000,000,000 dollar wars, perhaps the deficit can be whittled down. In my area, the community colleges are stuffed with computer aided design and manufacturing students, the major colleges are stuffed with four year degree students and the rest of the young (18 - 29) people struggle like crazy.

I too enjoy the machine shop, and was a CNC machinist for many years.

I agree with Callipo for once! It's unfortunate that the people who most closely follow a principle take stands that are unprincipled.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2012
For example the prices of basic goods are extremely low at Haiti or let say Cameroon and the people living there are mostly unemployed, thus fulfilling your paradigm well. In certain sense they're all living in extreme liberal environment - the only problem is, they're dependent on import in every nontrivial kind of goods and the quality of their life remains very low - despite this life is very free in essence...
I agree with Callipo for once! It's unfortunate that the people who most closely follow a principle take stands that are unprincipled.
AWT is deeply based on dualities and balanced stance in its very nature - it's whole basis of its very philosophy. We can be never fully wrong with balanced unbiased stance - or at least we will always remain more correct, than every proponent of extreme stance.
axemaster
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2012
If we can stay out of 600,000,000,000 dollar wars, perhaps the deficit can be whittled down.

Couldn't agree more. The recent warmongering over Iran has me worried though.

I too enjoy the machine shop, and was a CNC machinist for many years.

Yeah, the machine shop is fun. Unfortunately the University of Rochester doesn't allow the students to make use of the CNC machines, so I've been making do with the manual ones. CNC is something I look forward to very much. There really are limits on what you can do by hand with an untiltable milling machine.

Edit: Oh yeah, they don't have any welding equipment here either, so I'm trying to make my own torch using oxyhydrogen. Trying to work sheet metal without welding is just awful.
Callippo
2.1 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2012
In brief, if we would follow the minimization of prizes "at any price" as the only criterion, our lives will become very cheap - and our life style and its perspectives too. Such stance is not even libertarian, because the minimization of prizes limits the income, purchasing power and opportunities of life for the whole society. You can get only as much of money, as much the other people will give you for your work. If you will spend less money, other people will get less money too.
Jayded
4.2 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2012
mathematically the drive for cheaper goods with foreign based outsourced manufacturing it negatively recursive for any country. primarily due to pooling of profits yielded from product sales but ultimately the gradual decline of jobs slowly diminishes the market size.
the usa is a prime example of this, they made china and are at present struggling to maintain the unemployment rate and quality of life, likely you will see more and more credit enter the market. in addition to this china's ferocious demand for natural resources has seen them take over much of africa to our detriment.
stesichorus
4 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2012
Our economic policies are antiquated, built on borders and nations when corporations are nation-less and able to move and take advantage of wherever laws are weakest. The loss of jobs overseas would not be an economic drag if the wages were equal, because workers in any nation would have enough money to create economic demand and require products to be imported. In fact, raising the wages of Chinese workers to equal American salaries would actually grow everyone's economies. So the longterm goal of economic policy ought to be a universal minimum wage.
But the more realistic short-term policy ought to be instituting a tariff system, not based on country of origin, but based on the wages, health and safety standards of a corporation's workers wherever their product is manufactured. You can make your goods in China, but if you want to pay peanuts for your workers and ignore their human rights, then you pay a tariff to off-set the global economic damage you've caused.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.1 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2012
Wanted: Experienced programmer. Must have 5 years experience programming under Microsoft windows 8.

"No duh. The biggest drag on startups in the USA these days is the lack of skilled workers." - Axemaster
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (18) Feb 24, 2012
Will govts stop punishing businesses for manufacturing?
A few short months ago Obama tried to stop Boeing from manufacturing aircraft in SC.
IL is taxing Caterpillar out of the state.
NIMBYs and watermelons drive manufacturing out of their neighborhoods.
Telekinetic
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2012
Will govts stop punishing businesses for manufacturing?
A few short months ago Obama tried to stop Boeing from manufacturing aircraft in SC.
IL is taxing Caterpillar out of the state.
NIMBYs and watermelons drive manufacturing out of their neighborhoods.

What exactly do you mean by "watermelons"?
axemaster
3.6 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2012
Wanted: Experienced programmer. Must have 5 years experience programming under Microsoft windows 8.

No offense Vendicar, but I don't think anyone is going to want to work for you... Also, what does "programming under Microsoft windows 8." even mean? Beyond the obvious trolling, you are aware that Windows isn't a programming language, right?
Yellowdart
2.7 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2012
Well America has also shifted into the service industry as well. Whether you provide manufacturing or a service, so long as you continue to produce things that people need and want you will sustain the economy.

The problem with the economy has little to do with what area we choose to provide products in, but that it's being dragged down by as many of you said the overspending.

Whether that is overspending on war, social, or cable tv, when you are 16 trillion in debt it compromises the integrity of the economy. If the US were to start paying down it's debt, cut costs, the value of the dollar would rebound, gas prices would drop as well, and the increase in economic stability would make us look more and more lucrative again to investment.

So long as it continues to print money and devalue the system, whether it is manufacturing or service, it doesn't matter when you are flat broke either way.
Yellowdart
2.7 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2012
Another thing is that times change with technology as well. For instance, the digital age entirely reduced the paper market. Many paper mills went out of business because the demand has dropped. But the digital age has also opened up just as many if not more so in jobs because of that advancement. Yes, paper workers lost jobs, even towns declined, but the overall number of jobs simply grew as it shifted into a new area. Which of course can require new training, new skills.

But you would not bail out or force sustain the paper industry, much like you would not save the horse and buggy maker when Ford developed the car. You must recognize and adapt to the demand, not only business wise, but personally as well in the job market.

One problem is that the government steps in to save their own pockets, not yours, and they bail out the horse and buggy.
antialias_physorg
2 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2012
Whether you provide manufacturing or a service, so long as you continue to produce things that people need and want you will sustain the economy.

An economy that produces goods can be self sustaining. An economy that produces only services can't (because it is dependent on others for its goods)

, and now capitalism has failed spectacularly

Capitalism didn't fail. It just doesn't lead to any sort of utopia. Capitalism is alive and well: Getting ever more money into the hands of ever less people. How is that not capitalism at its finest? Governmnt debts and rising prices are what it's there for!
The money that government (i.e. the taxpayer) goes into debt for goes right to the capitalists. So do the profits from rising prices.

I can see nothing here but capitalism at its most pure.
Yellowdart
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2012
But if all diseases were cured tomorrow, would we bail out doctors or would we keep the cure from the public just to save their pockets? There is no reason to fear such transitions, for there is always something else that one can work on and produce for. Doctors can always become something else if they are no longer needed. Just like the labor force for manufacturing can always shift to service or another industry.

Yellowdart
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2012
An economy that produces goods can be self sustaining. An economy that produces only services can't (because it is dependent on others for its goods)


A service is a good. It can always be traded for other goods. If no one wishes to trade their goods for yours, it thus becomes efficient to produce your own again.
Au-Pu
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 24, 2012
I hope that Vendicar Decarian loses his source of income and assets so that he may learn from the experience. Though his mind appears to be so closed that even such a situation may make no impression on him.
Yellowdart
2.7 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2012
I can see nothing here but capitalism at its most pure.


Except that's not capitalism at all, it's just manipulation and greed. Capitalism promotes the integrity of the market, not the deconstruction of it.

Regardless of what system of economy one chooses to use, so long as those who control the strings ignore integrity to line their own pockets, the system will fail eventually.

Associating that this is capitalism's fault is like saying it's the boat's fault for sinking when you dropped the anchor through the hull...
Yellowdart
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2012
Since the elite gained control of the education system, along with with the income tax, and eventually welfare, what they've done (regardless of Rep or Dem) is to create a dependent population by which the same sorts of elites will continue to be elected. Representatives honestly and truly represent the population from which they come.

The only means of change aside from revolution at this point will be the population actually electing men who have integrity and put the people first over their own pockets. Good luck.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2012
Since the elite gained control of the education system, along with with the income tax, and eventually welfare, what they've done (regardless of Rep or Dem) is to create a dependent population by which the same sorts of elites will continue to be elected. Representatives honestly and truly represent the population from which they come.

The only means of change aside from revolution at this point will be the population actually electing men who have integrity and put the people first over their own pockets. Good luck.

They call themselves 'progressives'. Teddy Roosevelt was one of the first. They are only 'elite' in their own minds.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2012
Will govts stop punishing businesses for manufacturing?
A few short months ago Obama tried to stop Boeing from manufacturing aircraft in SC.
IL is taxing Caterpillar out of the state.
NIMBYs and watermelons drive manufacturing out of their neighborhoods.

What exactly do you mean by "watermelons"?

Environmental socialists. Green on the outside, red on the inside.
Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors [Paperback]
James Delingpole
Telekinetic
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2012
"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. ... An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career."
Albert Einstein in Why Socialism?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 25, 2012
"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. ... An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career."
Albert Einstein in Why Socialism?

But he opposed national socialism.
Czcibor
1.6 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2012
But if all diseases were cured tomorrow, would we bail out doctors or would we keep the cure from the public just to save their pockets? There is no reason to fear such transitions, for there is always something else that one can work on and produce for. Doctors can always become something else if they are no longer needed. Just like the labor force for manufacturing can always shift to service or another industry.

It depends how strong their lobby would be. Keeping the drug for another decade under detailed tests just to be certainly sure that it safe sounds quite probable. Also staging a mass hysteria against it (like those are against vaccines or nuclear energy) sounds good idea. ;)
Czcibor
1.6 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2012
I've got a feeling that here a are quite a few factors mixed:
-simple technological progress that turns many capital investment /skills obsolete so overnight this fixed capital/human capital disappears
-US dollar is still used as world currency so many people sell goods to US not to buy some US goods but to have currency reserves or money just used to trade with third parties. Trade deficit is inevitable and Americans should be rather happy that are effectively able to borrow from other countries at after including inflation negative interest rates.
-Chinese mercantile policy (Yeah, finally something for which you can find someone to blame!) Sure, Chinese keep artificially low exchange rate. The only problem is that this factor is diminishing - their wages are increasing, inflation is elevated and yuan is slowly appreciating.
Czcibor
1 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2012
-education/evil capitalism - US has top world universities and rather mediocre rest of education system. So is anyone surprised that the top jobs got insane amount of money and the rest got stagnation in their salary, when companies discover that moderate amount of skills they can they find all over the world at lower price?

I also absolutely don't how people are pretending higher moral ground when they fight against investment of US companies all over the world. Sure low skill people in developed world might lose from that, but general gain for those in developing world is enormous. Net effect is clearly positive. Also to be honest these guys loosing jobs in US are at least world 20% of richest people so I don't get how any protectionist policies can be considered as protection of the poor.

By occasion - keep in mind that inequality of whole world population is actually declining which is the outcome of globalization.
antialias_physorg
2.8 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2012
Regardless of what system of economy one chooses to use, so long as those who control the strings ignore integrity to line their own pockets, the system will fail eventually.

The holy grail of capitalism is deregulation. Any sort of regulation means that those who have found a niche to tun a profit get punished (in favor of those who were not so clever).
How can you prevent manipulation and greed while advocating deregulation? Not possible.
'Market forces' will sink the boat every time. Yes. It's the fault of (unchecked) capitalism. Not some magical byproduct of human nature that has nothing to do with it.

Regardless of what system of economy one chooses to use, so long as those who control the strings ignore integrity

Integrity is a losing proposition in a free market for companies.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2012
Oh, look. RyggTard is lying again. Surprise surprise.

"A few short months ago Obama tried to stop Boeing from manufacturing aircraft in SC." - RyggTard

In fact Obama wasn't involved in any way with regard to the legal case against Boeing.

It was the National Labor Relations Board that charged Boeing in court.

As the New York Times explained, the case originates with an unfair labor charge filed by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Engineers last year, declaring that Boeing was illegally punishing its Washington state members for exercising their right to strike.

So once again RyggTard has been exposed as a liar.

I have never encountered a Libertarian/Randite who wasn't a congenital and perpetual Liar.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2012
Absolutely. Lose your 50K job to "off-shoring" and "right-sizing" so you can become a part time wage slave at McDonalds.

It is a good trade not that you can purchase cheap Chinese made trinkets at Walmart and Target.

Just don't try to purchase a car, a house, pay off your mortgage or put the kinds through college.

And you had better not get ill if you are an American, since you probably don't have health care coverage.

"Sure low skill people in developed world might lose from that, but general gain for those in developing world is enormous. Net effect is clearly positive." - czcibor
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2012
OOH Lookie. Another Libertarian Lie from RyggTard.

"But he (Einstein) opposed national socialism." - RyggTard

Einstein was smart enough to know that National Socialism wasn't Socialism.

You on the other hand have been told this on many, many occasions.

Yet you persist in promoting a lie that National Socialism was Socialism.

Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2012
"James Delingpole" - RyggTard

Delingpole is a British writer employed by a Conservative Tabloid.

His opinions are worth less than nothing.

Here is a fine example of his lack of intellectual honesty and integrity.

http://www.youtub...LvK6kxeU

Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
As the debates show, the only man with integrity in the Republican Party is Ron Paul, and his plan is to push the U.S. into a decades long economic depression by massive and immediate cuts in government spending that will put tens of millions of Americans out of work, and increase the U.S. unemployment rate to 30 or 40 percent.

Good luck with his Libertarian Plan.

"The only means of change aside from revolution at this point will be the population actually electing men who have integrity' - YellowTard
Czcibor
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2012
"Absolutely. Lose your 50K job to "off-shoring" and "right-sizing" so you can become a part time wage slave at McDonalds."

To be honest I work in my country for much less than equivalent of 50 000 USD/year.

I'm not an American. I'm Polish, it's at the eastern verge of the EU.

But your point is that I should feel sorry for some Americans who if don't improve their qualifications risk earning more at McJob that I earn at my work requiring MA? Do I get you right?
Telekinetic
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2012
Parties related to Nazi-style ideology or Why Einstein opposed National Socialism:

Bulgarian National Socialist Party (Bulgarian, anti-Semitic)
Canadian National Socialist Unity Party (Canada)(pro-Anglo-Canadian/ French-Canadian)
German National Socialist Workers' Party (Czechoslovakia) (Sudeten German, anti-Semitic)
Russian National Unity (pro-Russian, pro-Russia-apartheid, anti-Semitic, anti-non-Russian-indigenous)
Greek National Socialist Party (Italian-style fascist, pro-Hitler)
Hungarian National Socialist Party (one of several such groups, 1920s-40s) (German-style National Socialist, anti-Semitic)
Iranian National Socialist Party (est. 1952) (pro-Hitler, anti-Semitic, anti-Arab, anti-Turk)
Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (United States)
Nasjonal Samling (Norway, est. May 13, 1933 - dissolved May 8, 1945)(German-style National Socialist, anti-Semitic, anti-Masonic)
National Socialist Action Party (United Kingdom, est. 1982)(British, possibly anti-immigrant)
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 25, 2012
The holy grail of capitalism is deregulation.

No, it's not.
In a free market, the customers and the competition regulate the economy, not socialist politicians, not the takers, not the plunderers.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2012
"The truth, surprising to many, is that real manufacturing output today is near an all-time high. What's dropped precipitously in recent decades is manufacturing employment. Technology and automation has allowed American manufacturers to build more stuff with far fewer workers than in the past."
http://www.dailyf...ebmail20
This is called productivity and is the result of capital investments.
Pressure2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2012
So much for your propaganda Ryggesogn2. The United States lost 6 million manufacturing jobs just during Bush ll's presidency. Many more millions were lost during the Reagan, Bush l and Clinton presidencies.

You certainly ought to like the first article by the American Conservative.

Death of Manufacturing
http://www.theame...1/00007/

The United States lost 6 million manufacturing jobs between early 2001 and late 2009. And despite small gains during the last two years, the trend in manufacturing employment for the last 30 years has been downward.

http://money.cnn....ndex.htm
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2012
As the debates show, the only man with integrity in the Republican Party is Ron Paul, and his plan is to push the U.S. into a decades long economic depression by massive and immediate cuts in government spending that will put tens of millions of Americans out of work, and increase the U.S. unemployment rate to 30 or 40 percent.
Well in balance to make the transition smoother he will supposedly ban the federal reserve banksters. This could provide a meteoric economic boost seen during the early years of the American colonialists, and more recently in Hitler's Germany when government issued marks. Of course, we all know what happened to Kennedy the day before he was to issue government Silver Certificates and Giffords when she proposed to audit the FED mafia.
"The truth, surprising to many, is that real manufacturing output today is near an all-time high.
Yes conservatives manufacturing LIES is at an all-time high.
Pressure2
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2012
Here is more Rygg2.
Over the last 30 years, manufacturing has fallen from a quarter to an eighth of the domestic economy, while the share of manufactured goods consumed in America but produced by foreigners has risen from a tenth to a third. The decline of US manufacturing is reflected in record merchandise trade deficits, the loss of over 40,000 manufacturing jobs every month in the current decade, and the shrinking role of American producers in global industries - - -http://www.newgeo...-matters
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 25, 2012
Now if manufacturing becomes more efficient, workers become more productive, why didn't this keep expanding in the US?
Union greed and bad management.
Productivity increased wealth which the unions demanded and management gave in.
It happened in Germany so the Germans opened factories in the US. Japan opened factories in non-union states.
And then don't forget the NIMBY's and watermelons that drive away manufacturing and states that try to suck the company dry as IL is trying to do with Cat.
And don't forget the recent attempt by the unions to prevent Boeing from expanding.
Union and govt greed chocked the productivity goose until it was forced to leave.
Cut corporate taxes and expand right to work laws and productive manufacturing will return.
Estevan57
1.8 / 5 (20) Feb 25, 2012
"You must recognize and adapt to the demand, not only business wise, but personally as well in the job market."

A good point, Yellowdart. The swiftness of the paradigm shift from low skill-medium wage jobs to high skill med.to high wage jobs in the manufacturing sector has caught millions flatfooted, with no easy way to upgrade skills. That, coupled with the recession has been very hard on millions. That being said, the US has still added 330,000 manufactering jobs in 2011 and the manufacturing index is still solidly in the positive direction. Current rate is 54, which signals growth. New orders, production, employment, and supplier deliveries have all been on a positive growth pattern for 28 to 33 months.

Capitalism is a great thing; all the evils of mankind, greed, gluttony, lust, etc can be blamed on it, and yet we still say its the best system around.
The low dollar is actually VERY good for manufacturing, it makes the price of our goods (and services) more competitive.
Telekinetic
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2012
"Capitalism is a great thing; all the evils of mankind, greed, gluttony, lust, etc can be blamed on it, and yet we still say its the best system around. "- Estevan57

Who's we? Capitalism's structure is predicated on the exploitation of people who work slavishly generation after generation for a small piece of it and get booted out of their miserable jobs in the end. Then they're told that they have to "reinvent themselves", after three or four generations in the steel mill. Who are you kidding with that rah rah- ain't the system just peachy keen. Money is the best way to launder misdeeds.
210
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2012
I hope that Vendicar Decarian loses his source of income and assets so that he may learn from the experience. Though his mind appears to be so closed that even such a situation may make no impression on him.

Nope...Vendi's mind is NOT closed...it is MISSING-from-inaction. If he turns it back on, you WILL be impressed. Meanwhile, he says stuff that reminds us of humanity's supposed evolutionary path...about 2 Billion years ago. Vendi, take your meds NOW!
word-
Deathclock
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2012
Capitalism isn't the problem... you're all barking up the wrong tree.

The problem is the government. The failure of democracy is that the majority of the public is ignorant. Politicians use welfare and tax related promises to LITERALLY buy the votes of the ignorant majority. People don't know what is best for them, they are fooled by promises that are enticing but are not in their best interest in the long run. It is far too easy to exploit, confuse, and entice people, and because of that is far too easy to weasel your way into politics and cause untold harm to the country under the banner of good will to the less fortunate.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2012
Rygg2: You are missing the point. Sure Germany built plants in the US BUT Germany is running a trade SURPLUS.

It really boils down to one thing, your "balance of trade" with the rest of the world. If it is a deficit, you as a nation are headed in the wrong direction and if it is a HUGE deficit for 35 plus years straight you (US) are nearly ruined.

Manufacturing is not even necessary, you could rely solely on tourism. The trade deficits are what is creating much of the welfare needs in this country. It is also shortening the life solvency of the SS funds and Medicare. Trade deficits is what started the ruination of Greece.

Wake up America!
Skepticus
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
Capitalism isn't the problem... you're all barking up the wrong tree.

The problem is the government. The failure of democracy is that the majority of the public is ignorant. Politicians use welfare and tax related promises to LITERALLY buy the votes of the ignorant majority. People don't know what is best for them, they are fooled by promises that are enticing but are not in their best interest in the long run. It is far too easy to exploit, confuse, and entice people, and because of that is far too easy to weasel your way into politics and cause untold harm to the country under the banner of good will to the less fortunate.

To resurrect the old turkey" People got the government they deserve." Come to think of it, the masses got their brains. How they are using it-or chose not to use it (too much work!) -are the issue. If you know a lot about your car's workings, can a unscrupulous mechanics screw you up for 5000 bucks of un-needed repairs???
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2012
Germany is running a trade SURPLUS.

So?
t really boils down to one thing, your "balance of trade" with the rest of the world.

This is irrelevant.

What is your balance of trade with your grocery store? My guess is you have a trade deficit with your local grocer.

"Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade.

Adam Smith

The Wealth of Nations"

"The pundits and politicians hysteria over the trade deficit is rooted in confusion."
http://www.thefre...tanding/
antialias_physorg
2.5 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2012
It really boils down to one thing, your "balance of trade" with the rest of the world.

At that point, at the latest, one should stop and think.
Can all nations have a trade surplus? No. That is mathematically impossible.

At least one nation (or more likely about half of all nations) MUST have a trade deficit.
The system of 'wealth through trade' (capitalism) only works as long as someone gets shafted.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2012
Rygg2, you are getting humorous now. Actually I don't run a "trade" deficit with my grocer, I spend less than I make.
You see the US is spending more than it produces (makes), that is exactly what a trade deficit represents!

You as an individual, state, city, nation or whatever CANNOT consume more than you produce indefinitly without running into a PAYDAY.
That is what Greece is running into right now. As they say "payback is a bitch". And if the US continually keeps running a trade deficit, we will eventually suffer the same fate, and end up a third world nation.

We discussed this same topic about 2 years ago, haven't you learned anything?
Pressure2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
A&P: Nobody has to get shafter. Trade can actually benefit both parties. And it does not even have to be balanced in the short run, BUT it must be balanced over a long period of time.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2012
You see the US is spending more than it produces (makes), that is exactly what a trade deficit represents!

This can't happen unless it creates money out of thin air, inflation, which it is doing.
The system of 'wealth through trade' (capitalism) only works as long as someone gets shafted.

That's why trade surplus is a bogus measure.
The real measure is the change in wealth of a nation. Adam Smith and Ricardo understood this.
Socialists can't seem to understand the concept of creating wealth.
Maybe you can think of it as a decrease in economic entropy.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2012
The problem with Greece,and many other socialist states is they are spending resources that don't create wealth.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2012
A&P: Nobody has to get shafter. Trade can actually benefit both parties. And it does not even have to be balanced in the short run, BUT it must be balanced over a long period of time.

I agree free trade benefits all, but it should not 'balance' in the long run.
I would submit that at any instant of time, and with an accurate measure of valuation, all economic activity in the world balances.
The total value of the activity increases if wealth is created and decreases when wealth is destroyed.
Socialists refuse to understand how the size of the 'pie' increases and insist upon 'equally' distribution the slices instead of growing the pie.
When we have built a Dyson's sphere around the sun and the sun dies, wealth creation is for all intents and purposes unlimited, if socialists can be stopped.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
Capitalism isn't the problem... you're all barking up the wrong tree.
Every system is a problem, when taken too literally (ideologically) outside of its applicability scope. The capitalism is based on free market economy, which doesn't work well for solution of global problems in the same way, like the technocratic socialism doesn't work well at the local, communal level. The free market deals with actual prices only, so it cannot account into solution of strategical questions which do require the planning and thinking in advance, like the national security questions and global environmental problems. Even the exploitation of fossil fuels doesn't work well under free market control, because free market follows the minimization of cost and it cannot account well to the gradual depletion of fossil fuels.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2012
The capitalism is based on free market economy, which doesn't work well for solution of global problems

Of course it does.
That is the excuse socialists use to usurp power.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2012
You see the US is spending more than it produces (makes), that is exactly what a trade deficit represents!

This can't happen unless it creates money out of thin air, inflation, which it is doing.


Of course it can happen. You see it can happen in two different ways, one our Federal Reserve creates new money by "quantitative easing". Banks can also create money by loaning out 90% of the value of a previous loan while holding the previous loan as collateral. Then China, who we are running a trade deficit with, uses the money and loans it back to the US. The US needs this money to pay welfare and unemployment compensation to the people sitting on their asses because they lost their jobs because what they made is now imported. China gains, US loses year after year.

Our current $500 billion trade deficit has about 9,000,000 Americans sitting on their asses right now that you are probably helping to support.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2012
Quote Rygg2: "I agree free trade benefits all, but it should not 'balance' in the long run.
I would submit that at any instant of time, and with an accurate measure of valuation, all economic activity in the world balances.
The total value of the activity increases if wealth is created and decreases when wealth is destroyed."

Sure trade is balanced on a worldwide basis, but that in NO way means there aren't winners (surpluses) and loser (deficits).
World temperatures and rainfall are pretty much balanced on a worldwide basis also. Why didn't you tell that to the Texans last summer during their drought?
As for wealth created and destroyed, a good example of that is Obama's bailing out of the auto industry (created wealth) and Bush's war in Iraq (destroyed wealth).
aironeous
3 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2012
In reply to many of the posters here I want to say a few things
1) China is stealing US trade (not competing but stealing) through counterfeiting of brands, hacking of computers here, hacking of smartphones and laptops when you are there doing business in China, limiting its raw materials exports forcing manufacturers to relocate there, gold farming in online games (which is stealing subscription $ to the US company), manipulation of its currency to make it cheaper to buy their counterfeits and slave labor goods in other countries instead of US goods, placing high tariffs on US imports and refunding their own exporting companies sales taxes which prices us out of the market and pirating our music, movies and software and reselling it sometimes back to us.

2)All of these ideas about we have to become more efficient and more educated is just an excuse or an attempt to cover up China's unfair trade practices and outright trade theft or the abuse of capitalism which China is encouraging.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2012
Anyone surprised a socialist govt supports the theft of property?

Sure trade is balanced on a worldwide basis

At the moment of every free exchange, both parties win, no one loses.
aironeous
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2012
2) continued
I'll give you an example:
The solar company I worked for got bought out by a German company. Over the last 5 years or so they increased automation to the point where almost everything was being run by robots. They kept pressuring us to produce higher and higher quality pieces. The last month before our plant got the shut down order we had exceeded our previous record of panels produced in a month by 10,000 and attained our highest quality rate (I think it was 98 % class A's)ever. We had been consistently and significantly lowering the cost every quarter of how much it took to produce a solar panel.
One day here comes China >>DUMP<< a huge amount of almost slave labor panels on the US market driving the retail price down below what it costs us to make them and then our plant gets shut down.
So you can make up all kinds of "reasons" why it's our fault but I'm telling you China's not only using unfair trade practices they are also outright stealing our trade.
aironeous
1 / 5 (1) Feb 26, 2012
If you want another example I remember reading a story somewhere on the web of an Italian windmill manufacturer which once they relocated to China was forced to give up their trade secrets and now there are other companies using their tech and getting government contracts.

3) High income disparity shows abuse of capitalism - twisting of the rules, lobbying to get the rules changed in your favor, bribery, ignoring human rights and the environment etc..

If you go to hulu.com and watch Richard Wilkinson's TED talk you'll see the harm it does to societies when there is abuse of capitalism resulting in huge income disparity. IMO Apple CEO making 380 million while the workers in China are making max 280 a month is super abuse of capitalism. There is a difference between abuse of capitalism and just plain capitalism.
China is not a democratic republic with some socialism and capitalism that respects property rights.
USITC.gov read pdf on China
americanmanufacturing.org read the pdf on China
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2012
China was forced to give up their trade secrets and now there are other companies using their tech and getting government contracts.

3) High income disparity shows abuse of capitalism - twisting of the rules, lobbying to get the rules changed in your favor, bribery, ignoring human rights and the environment etc..

This is the nature of socialism. Failure to protect private property.
they are also outright stealing our trade.

But the other socialist govts, Germany, USA, etc, won't protect the property rights of their citizens. Why? They are socialists.

There is a difference between abuse of capitalism and just plain capitalism.

The difference is called socialism.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2012
When socialism fails:
"Mr Osborne made it clear that due to the parlous state of the public finances the best hope for economic growth was to encourage businesses to flourish and hire more workers.

The British Government has run out of money because all the money was spent in the good years, the Chancellor said. The money and the investment and the jobs need to come from the private sector. "
http://www.telegr...ney.html
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2012
And it (trade) does not even have to be balanced in the short run, BUT it must be balanced over a long period of time.

I just don't see how that works. When one country rnus a surplus that means that country is getting ahead (accumulating wealth). With that accumulated wealth they will then invest in getting an even bigger surplus (investments in research, manufacturing, sabotaging others' ability to catch up, ... ).

How that balance should 'magically turn around' to be fair every once in a while is a concept you need to explain. Just having cheap labor isn't enough with ever more products being either high tech or manufactured by automated processes. Cheap labor cannot compete with machines in the long run.
sandler
not rated yet Feb 27, 2012
It would be interesting to see a study on online shopping to determine if it benefits the economy or not. As it now gets in full gear with help of new initiatives like Amazon fulfillment services where sellers ship goods to Amazon warehouses and which they then sell and send out almost instantaneously with their Prime free 2 day shipping, tax free, at a lower price and under trusted Amazon name(box). Most of the products are directly imported from China, and not paying tax couldn't be good for the economy, right?
Deathclock
1 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2012
and not paying tax couldn't be good for the economy, right?


Taxation has nothing to do with the economy.

Taxation is the governments primary means of funding itself. The government and the economy are (or should be) completely separate entities.

"The economy" is a word used to describe the overall well being of the financial landscape, encompassing both individual wealth and wealth disparity and the stability of the environment which promotes the success (or possibility thereof) of individual business ventures. The government CAN influence the economic condition of the country by enforcing laws and regulations, but it would almost always be better if it kept it's filthy hands off... In reality corruption in the form of conflicts of interest prevent this from happening, where powerful members of society influence the government to change the economic landscape to one that is favorable to them, and detrimental to everyone else.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2012
Do you all realize how many baby boomers are retiring?
Jobs migrate to places where there are people who can work.
In the SE USA some complain that illegal alien restrictions threaten crop harvests.
There could be some truth to that as the state of Georgia tried to force prisoners in the fields to harvest. They refused such hard labor.
There are plenty of jobs. Just not enough people willing to work hard.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2012
In reality corruption in the form of conflicts of interest prevent this from happening, where powerful members of society influence the government to change the economic landscape to one that is favorable to them, and detrimental to everyone else.

AKA 'progressives'.
When one country rnus a surplus that means that country is getting ahead

People accumulate wealth, not political entities, unless they are the state, like Saudi Arabia.
Pressure2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2012
A&P, it can be a good thing for a country to run a temporary trade deficit. If the extra imports are invested in infrastructure it can raise everyone's living standard in that country. It can also help the country create goods and services more efficiently, thereby turning a temporary deficit into a future surplus.
Individual usually do the same thing in the course of living out their lifetime.

A trade deficit only becomes a major problem if the extra imports are short lived consumable products and the deficits persist for decades. This is the problem the US and Greece both face!
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2012
So? It still means that for some to accumulate wealth others must fall (comparatively) behind.
Capitalism leads to ever fewer people accumulating wealth at the expense of ever more people. That's not just from theory of capitalism, but that's just plain observation of what is happening in ALL capitalist countries.

Can this go on indefinitely? Hardly.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2012
So? It still means that for some to accumulate wealth others must fall (comparatively) behind.


It's a zero sum game in the short term only. In the long term it is entirely possible for everyone to win... but your point still stands I just wanted to point this out.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2012
Capitalism leads to ever fewer people accumulating wealth

Accumulating implies theft, which is what socialists do, plunder wealth.
Capitalists CREATE wealth, and all have the opportunity to participate in that creation, (unless you live in a socialist state) and it can go on indefinitely for the next several thousand years, or more.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2012
Accumulating implies theft, which is what socialists do, plunder wealth.
Wait, doesn't that mean that libertarians are thieves? Good point ryggesogn2!
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2012
Capitalists CREATE wealth,

Wealth is relative. If everyone got 1 million tons of gold then gold would be devalued to the point where it wouldn't mean anything to have a million tons of gold. It wouldn't mean that everyone suddenly had gotten wealthy.

It's a zero sum game in the short term only. In the long term it is entirely possible for everyone to win..

Winning can mean that people can, with less effort, afford the basics of life. However, that does not seem to be the case in capitalism. Especially in the US the number of working poor has doubled in the past ten years (by both relative and absolute standards of what 'working poor' means).
Deathclock
1 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2012
It's a zero sum game in the short term only. In the long term it is entirely possible for everyone to win..

Winning can mean that people can, with less effort, afford the basics of life. However, that does not seem to be the case in capitalism. Especially in the US the number of working poor has doubled in the past ten years (by both relative and absolute standards of what 'working poor' means).


You nailed it, the definition of "poor" has changed substantially. Today's poor are yesterday's middle class, in terms of quality of life and access to luxury goods and services. I know many "poor" people on welfare with 50" flat screen TV's, high speed internet, and 2 vehicles... that is what "poor" means in America today.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2012
If everyone got 1 million tons of gold then gold

That is not wealth.
Wealth would be the capital tools used to extract and process that gold.
That is the mistake Spain made in the 16th century when it stole gold from the Americas.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2012
"We usually equate money with wealth, but they are really very different things. Imagine a person stranded on a desert island without food, water, shelter, or medicine, but with a billion dollars in gold coin. Is this person wealthy?

Hardly! Food, water, shelter, and medicine prerequisites for physical survival are true wealth. Money is valuable only if it can be exchanged for something of value, such as goods or services. Money is only a measure of how much of the available wealth a person has access to. If no wealth is available, money is worthless."
http://www.ruwart...ap2.html
sandler
not rated yet Feb 27, 2012
@Deathclock,

and not paying tax couldn't be good for the economy, right?

Taxation has nothing to do with the economy. Taxation is the governments primary means of funding itself. The government and the economy are (or should be) completely separate entities.


This makes sense when talking about collecting tax. However is reverse also true? For example Dubai has one of the fastest growing economies and they don't collect tax. The reason why I think tax is important because any individual can have an impact on it.
Yellowdart
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2012
The holy grail of capitalism is deregulation.


It is not about "deregulation". It is about proper regulation to ensure the integrity of the market. Your straw man is like saying libertarianism is anarchism. This is untrue. Capitalism isn't void of regulation, it is void of manipulating regulation that ensures the pockets of the elite over the people.

By contrast, socialism can be used to regulate in order to funnel specific resources to the elite just as easily, or used in order to tax and control what the populace receives, thus making them dependents.

Yellowdart
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2012
Capitalism leads to ever fewer people accumulating wealth at the expense of ever more people. That's not just from theory of capitalism, but that's just plain observation of what is happening in ALL capitalist countries.


It's economics in general. Not just capitalism. In every culture this breaks down because the governing always want to manipulate their own results to their ends.

Why bother to polarize the system, when it is the elite that attempt to always, regardless of system, marginalize the populace.

The reason a capitalist system can be beneficial is because it at least attempts to maintain the consequences of risk in business, and the freedom to create opportunity and pursue that opportunity.

In a socialist system, the government (read elites) is already in prime control, and if they do not care for the populace, then it will just as easily and more quickly put the wealth into the hands of the few.
Yellowdart
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2012
Especially in the US the number of working poor has doubled in the past ten years (by both relative and absolute standards of what 'working poor' means).


The fed, the public education system, are all managed and manipulated by who? The government. This has less to do with capitalism, and more to do with a lack of common sense. When a country is $15 trillion in debt and has devalued it's currency, it puts a massive strain on it's industry to sustain itself. It won't matter that we are capitalism or socialism when the people running it lack the wisdom and service to it's country instead of themselves.

You can't buy cable tv whether the programming is good or bad, when you are faced with bankruptcy.
Yellowdart
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2012
Taxation is the governments primary means of funding itself.


Except when you have a fed, then the primary means is just control, because you can already print as much money as you want. To have both will cripple the consumer in the long run.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2012
Wealth would be the capital tools used to extract and process that gold.

And you see this kind of 'wealth' coming to the broad masses exactly...where?

Food, water, shelter, and medicine prerequisites for physical survival are true wealth

Then your 'generation' of wealth for the masses is failing on all fronts - or haven't you been paying attention for the past 50 years?
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2012
The holy grail of capitalism is deregulation.

The essence of capitalism regulation. Regulation by competitors and customers.
Phony capitalism, aka 'progressivism'/socialism, promote regulations to restrict competition and customer choices.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 16, 2012
In other words, no regulation.

"The essence of capitalism regulation. Regulation by competitors and customers." - RyggTard

I have never encountered a Libertarian who wans't a congenital and perpetual liar.

RyggTard is no exception.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2012
Who do you think printed money before the Fed?

What prevented them from printing more of it?

"Except when you have a fed, then the primary means is just control, because you can already print as much money as you want." - YellowTard

Thinking isn't one of your talents, is it?
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 16, 2012
"The fed, the public education system, are all managed and manipulated by who? The government." - YellowTard

The Fed is essentially an independent arm of the Government. It does not receive it's marching orders from any American politician.

As for America's system of public education. It is perfectly fine as a system of education.

The failure comes from a society that thinks it is a daycare center for corporate wage slaves, and a substitute for parenting for parents who slave to long for their corporate masters to have time to parent their children.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 16, 2012
In a Democracy, the people elect the government they deserve.

"In every culture this breaks down because the governing always want to manipulate their own results to their ends." - YellowTard
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 16, 2012
Free Market Capitalism is.

"Capitalism isn't void of regulation" - YellowTard

Properly regulated to serve the interests of society, Capitalism is tolerable, as long as it's destructive nature is tightly constrained.

The system as it stands however, is highly sub-optimal, with almost all effort expended for the purpose of lining the pockets of the Capitalists at the expense of the environment and man.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 16, 2012
Capitalists are incapable of producing gold. Workers do. Without workers there would be no gold. Without Capitalists the workers would still be there to extract the gold.

"Wealth would be the capital tools used to extract and process that gold." - RyggTard

Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 16, 2012
Proving that only fools seek wealth.

Money has lost it's relevance.

"I know many "poor" people on welfare with 50" flat screen TV's, high speed internet, and 2 vehicles... that is what "poor" means in America today." - DeathClock
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 16, 2012
Yes it does.

"Wait, doesn't that mean that libertarians are thieves?" - Kochev

"Accumulating implies theft..." - RyggTard
Yellowdart
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2012
The Fed is essentially an independent arm of the Government. It does not receive it's marching orders from any American politician.


It's board is nominated by the President and confirmed by Congress. It has Congressional oversight.

Why? Because in 1913 when the Dems retook Congress, they changed the original Aldrich plan to ensure that the GOVERNMENT HAD CONTROL. So now you have an politically influenced federal reserve that has no accountability. It can act even without government or populace authority in controlling the flow of money.

That's NOT CAPITALISM. The government entirely manipulated the system in 1913 to ensure that Wall Street and Washington held the wealth. The whole purpose originally being to prevent panics, yet 2 of the worst recessions have come during it's tenure.

Yellowdart
2.1 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2012
Who do you think printed money before the Fed?


Previously there were 2 other central banks. However, they were quite often opposed by state banks. Andrew Jackson chose not to renew the 2nd one. Last time I checked, the US didn't stop when the central banks ceased to exist.

The Fed was just another argument over how much control Wall Street vs Government gets. It was never an argument for the people, and especially not a free market or capitalism.
Yellowdart
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2012

The failure comes from a society that thinks it is a daycare center for corporate wage slaves, and a substitute for parenting for parents who slave to long for their corporate masters to have time to parent their children.


If that was the intention to create, then you would be correct, it's working perfectly fine.

Dependents have increased, and largely because the US has created that culture. When people don't have to consider the cost, they do not consider the worth, and so they will only view public school as a free day care or a parental substitute.

Yellowdart
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2012
The holy grail of capitalism is deregulation. Any sort of regulation means that those who have found a niche to tun a profit get punished (in favor of those who were not so clever).
How can you prevent manipulation and greed while advocating deregulation? Not possible.
'Market forces' will sink the boat every time. Yes. It's the fault of (unchecked) capitalism. Not some magical byproduct of human nature that has nothing to do with it.


The holy grail of republicans is deregulation, namely to line their pockets. The holy grail of democrats is bad regulation, to line their pockets. Neither are market forces.

Each deconstructs what capitalism needs, and that's simply good regulation. And by good regulation, is regulation that protects the integrity of the market. It must avoid punishing those who do well by good means, it must avoid playing favorites for the sake of political pockets, and it must punish crime. A well designed boat, will float, and will sail freely.
TkClick
1 / 5 (1) Apr 12, 2012
As a Libertarian I don't care how many people lose their jobs as long as I can shop cheaper.
You should visit and stay at North Korea of Cuba after then - these countries are incredibly cheap.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (2) Apr 17, 2012
Andrew Jackson chose not to renew the 2nd one. Last time I checked, the US didn't stop when the central banks ceased to exist.


Which caused a devastating panic that damaged the US economy for years. Andy was a very bad president.

High TkClick/Zephir so here you are again doing what you lied about not doing. Pretending your someone other than Zephir.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2012
And by good regulation, is regulation that protects the integrity of the market.

Yes, it is called protecting private property rights.
Yellowdart
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2012
Which caused a devastating panic that damaged the US economy for years. Andy was a very bad president.


I never said Andy was great. But ending the central bank had less to do with any panic, than banks in general having once again over expanded over loaned on all the new land from out west. Property has almost always been at the center of depression/panics because it's the most lucrative. Andy was right to end the central bank and it's corruption, but his safeguards on the state banks didn't curb what was already in motion, nor did it curb overinvestment.

Later in the 1870s there was the railroad boom and bust (over investment in property again), coupled with the decrease in demand for southern cotton. (Plus the equine flu wasn't helpful either).

So the commonality isn't really whether we use just paper or back it with gold, the issue is always that over invesments will be made, and thus at some point it will be forced to contract or depress.

Yellowdart
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2012
A true standard hopes to keep people from over loaning, or over committing themselves to debt. It obviously doesn't always prevent that. Which is why, what is more important is that education teaches and disciplines generation after generation to spend wisely, remain out of debt, and thus minimize over expansion so that when the crap does hit the fan, most people are still afloat. You have to have leadership that doesn't put your country $15 trillion in debt and sets a bad example.