Outsourcing Gone Wild...

You all forget that everything you want is in place now, and look at the state of the entire western world. You all have fallacies and economic hypothesis on your side. I have reality and 100s of millions of pissed off people. Trillions of dollars being funneled into the pockets of connected individuals and foreign nations. Economic ghost towns and cities, from industrial, to commercial, to residential, all across America. By all means, tell the American people they are wrong about what they see with their own 2 eyes. Insult them as you rob them. Do my job for me. When the pot boils over, I'll but have to point my finger. I hope all of you arguing for the global robber barons have a seat on their private jet with your name on it when they flee. You don't want to be left behind. Don't forget, it is not white collar types who drive tanks. It is not white collar types who drive police cars. Better hope that broke government can keep their paychecks coming.

 

Well first of all correlation does not equal causation!! And second of all, are things that bad? I mean we are in a mess economically, but even so I was just in Manhattan shopping for apartments, and every person I saw had a smart phone. What do you think it is people are hurting for? What was better for them when we used protectionist policies? I can't think of a way in which our lives were better when we had strong protectionist policies, than they are now. So what exactly did we lose? We live longer, make more money, have more stuff, etc, etc, etc. What exactly are you pointing out to me that is so bad in comparison to the utopia that existed when we had protectionist policies?


PS. On top of the economic argument, there is a strong foreign policy argument against protectionism as well. Protectionism leads to foreign policy conflicts. It is not a coincidence that the introduction of free trade as a basic goal and policy also saw the end of world wars. Trade wars and protectionism were major causes of our 2 world wars, and protectionism still leads to enmity between nations. What do you think would be the result of a 25% tariff on Chinese goods other than the instant inflationary pressure it would cause? The Chinese would respond in kind, and it would see the cooling of our relationship with China. Which at best would lead to serious hostility, and a serious degradation of our relationship with China. That would be a bad thing.

 

I try not to jump to xenophobia/nationalism first, though this often seems like the best explanation. I try to hold out hope that, if it can be shown that we are all the beneficiaries of trade and that our standard of living is increased exponentially as a result of it that maybe a few can be convinced.

Perhaps the disconnect is from the inability to transfer the ideas of specialization and comparative advantage from our personal lives to the national level. Here is an excerpt from an excellent article on the topic that I hope TLD will read and consider:

Source

It's not a matter of us foregoing manufacturing (and earlier in our history agriculture) for the sake of nothing... but rather to use our resources to do something more productive. Currently manufacturing is falling to the wayside, but we are a world leader in creative technologies and even if we don't assemble those items within our border the idea is what is profitable and most productive, not the turning of cogs and the soldering of transistors.

The article also includes a quote from Adam Smith, that rings as true now as when it was written:

What I always find odd, is that we as Americans enforce constitutionally one of the largest free trade zones in the entire world, that being those between the states, whether it's nationalism or some other affliction that prevents folks from being able to extrapolate that concept to the world economy I'm not sure, I just hope that people like TLD can shed their veil of ignorance before they manage to elect people who make it policy.

 

!st off, who are you kidding? No one but yourself, I assure you. People who live in Manhattan don't represent the condition of 99% of the population, and the fact you were looking for a place to live there shows you have no clue as to what people are going through. Only the top % are living longer. Only the top % are making more. Only the top % have more "stuff" that isn't junk. Tell me, when was the last time your servants got a raise?

In response to your P.S.-What you just described is called a threat. What you are arguing is forced coercion. Extorting your own people, using a hypothetical threat. There are many ways for the world to trade that could benefit ALL. Taking people out of homes in one nation to put in apartments, so other nations people can come out of huts to also live in apartments, is global socialism. If corporations have the rights of individuals, because they are made up of individuals, then so should nations, and if socialism is wrong on a national scale than so should it be on a global scale. A bunch of rich wanting their cake and eating it too. I will now steal a line from a fellow PF member. "Globalism is trickle up poverty". Nothing more. The losses haven't hit the top brackets yet, but as sure as you were born, they are coming like a bat out of hell. Then of course, you will be willing to fight. But I think I can speak for all the working class in America when I say this. A rich man with no wealth has nothing to offer. The short term gains the left think they have made by selling out the workers for owner implemented socialism will cost them dearly in the end. You will not be safe because at one time you cared. I have argued enough with Anikdote and Reiver for 10 lifetimes, I need not reply to them again. All they prove as when it comes to American workers, there is no difference between the globalized right and left. I think you are a privileged citizen who cares even if he doesn't know how Frodly, and that's why I responded to you. Denying what is obvious to everyone will just make things worse, and bloody in the end. Is every nation on earth burnt to the ground internally really that much better than world wars, or is it the same results in the end? At least the rich can make money off world wars. I seriously thought there would be at least a few of you smarter than this.

 

For Anikdote, a global capitalist, I think this article is more appropriate:

"Globalism, a policy of treating the planet as the proper sphere of US economic influence – economic imperialism – was born with the death of the competing Soviet ideology. The unwitting and uncared for victim of this march of the globalist was the American worker and the American middle-class. Good jobs, hard working, esteem building jobs were being sent packing to new exotic locales with low wage earners. Capital investments were being written off and salary and benefit savings were being pushed to the bottom line, and manufacturing began its long decline in the US. To be followed shortly by those service industry jobs that telecommunications and networks made easy to build overseas with a little capital investment and a large pool of skilled cheap laborers to utilize. Both political parties have acquiesced in what is essentially the looting of America's middle-class heritage of jobs. While these may not be the "jobs that Americans do not want to do", they are the jobs that American businesses "do not want to pay Americans to do." American business, in seeking to be rewarded by Wall Street, has made labor a tradable commodity which places the American worker in an unwinnable position and disrupts a long standing partnership between that worker and the economy that generations of American workers helped to build. A nation is more than a mere collection of people. A nation is a collection of peoples' economic efforts, their philosophy of government, the use of their nation's natural resources, their nation's intellectual property, and the shared vision of their nation's future. In the case of America it is, and always has been, the collective efforts of the whole that has created our nation's success. And it is that success upon which America's corporations were built. And it is that collective effort of the whole nation upon which America's corporations have turned their back. And worst of all, the American worker is the one sacrificed. From the rural sections of our country, to the high rises and the inner cities, America's workers are being replaced, laid-off, or overlooked. The American workers, whose innovations are the bedrock of America's growth, find themselves watching the closing of their factories and plants, and a leadership immune and unconcerned by what that means to Main Street USA. The CEO's tell the nation these events are essential in order for America to compete "globally", and the political elite buy this as unfettered truth and then parrot it back to the voters as a cover to their failure of leadership. This sacrifice of the American worker cannot continue. As we watch the debate about rescue packages notice that the debate centers on saving the globalist and not on the American worker. Our financial problems stem from a globalized interconnected financial system that is making money from using the American worker, but which has no interest in preserving that which gave the American workers high standing in the financial system in the first place. It is time to throw off the blinders and for the conservatives of the Republican Party to take the side of the middle-class fight against the global looting of the nation. If corporations wish to take advantage of cheap labor in other locales then a tax system to level the field is needed. The entrustment of generations of American workers cannot be ignored, the nation cannot support both the housing industry that the world seems so to need and the lowering of America's living standard to Chinese levels in order to compete. If you wish to sell within this nation to Americans then pay for the privilege. Build it here and pay Americans, or pay the Value Added Tax to acquire access to a large consumer market. Instead of helping to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, conservatives should restructure the system to support the American middle-class."-can't remember the source.

 

There isn't a drop a economic thought in that word wall... platitudes and generalizations with absolutely no logic or evidence to back it up. Partisan dogma really has no place in this subforum and I find it utterly uninteresting.

The uncited text that you pasted draws spurious conclusions and fails completely to back it up... at all. It doesn't even make an attempt to do so.

I'm not sure why I'm about to bother picking portions of this out to attack since you obviously didn't bother to read or consider a single thing I posted, but despite your desire to continue to wallow in your own dogma and ignorance, here I go.

This is complete crap, trade on the global scale has existed since boats were first able to circumnavigate the globe, and truthfully long before then. It's also not even an accurate definition of globalism.

The author never bothers to substantiate this and it's probably better he didn't. Our quality of life has increased exponentially over any extended period of time over which you wish to measure. Our nation in particular has participated in trade on the global scale since our inception, and we've been one of, if not the most productive nations on earth as a result of it. Middle class suffering? Our impoverished enjoy a higher quality of life than some of the most wealthy in other nations...

I originally thought I'd bother to respond to more of it than this, but I'm 2 sentences in and the amount of fail is causing my stomach to turn. How about next time you make a post in the economic subforum, you try to actually include some economics and not idiotic rhetoric.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/203054-america-wtf-going-4.html#post4344053

 

Really? A link to a thread with a demotivational poster in the OP is your response?

The quality of the posters here is truly at an all time low... really, really pathetic.

 

It was a link to Surfer Joe's post on another thread, which was perfect for what is being discussed here. Apparently, those who are anti-globalization in its current form don't like this section because it is dominated by those who love globalism in its current form. Like preaching protectionism on Wall St. LOL. I don't care, myself. If things are going to change, those being screwed must bring their fight to the lions den. Even economists and people in power are slowly coming over to my thinking. Those who don't want to see western markets collapse 500 years before eastern markets could pretend to be at the same level. With 4 against 1 in this section and on this thread, patting each others back with each post, you'd think you would be able to not stoop to childish rhetoric like what is in your last post. I prefer you and Reiver on ignore, simply because both of you are so smug you make my skin crawl. Mostimproved will stay on ignore, you and Reiver are the best at arguing the varying sides of the great handshake between market socialists and crony capitalists. I don't need to engage a parrot. Frodly is a genuine person, can tell from other threads. He is a top rung American, so thinks workers just don't get it and need to be defended by elites who care. I am simply trying to wake him up to the fact that workers aren't as dumb as he thinks, and he is walking hand-in-hand with pimps.

 

　
　
You mean the people creating unnaturally unrealistic profits, and destroying their own countries economy in the process, while supporting and financing communism and communist dictatorships world wide by exploiting slave labor and utilizing the best government corporate money can buy to make this all possible, while they are pissing all over the security of the very nation that allowed them to amass such fortunes in the first place.
　
　
　
Those traitorous bunch of scumbag POS without a shred of honor or loyalty to their own country? Those people??


Now your avatar and moniker make sense. Take it for all it is worth and then wipe your feet on it, eh??

 

I'm on your side, Buck. My avatar is for Americans who are anti-world order. "Til the Last Drop" is referring to globalists. At least read the other posts 1st. LOL

 

Because we expect something better than political rhetoric and the tired parroted dogma, it's sad that this is the one bastion left on this forum that doesn't accept bumper sticker politics as a response. (thought it appears to be rapidly moving in that direction)

You prefer people like myself on ignore because it makes it easy to ignore content, perhaps an image in this case truly is worth a thousand words.



So, in short, I couldn't care less, folks like you who blindly pull the levers in the ballot box without considering any of the available information on the topics represent everything wrong with democracy and to my great sadness... this entire forum.

You've sadly offered nothing to this thread, I was hoping earlier to stir some genuine commentary and consideration from you, I can see now that effort was in vein.

 

It's been a long morning.

 

Consideration of what? The policies in place are just as you want. The western world is collapsing, and all arrows point to it heading for a global depression. How long are broke governments going to be able to inject funds into the economies of nations globalism has destroyed? I mean really? I have to sit here and put up a link to the new Morgan report so you will acknowledge it exists? A link to what has happened yet again on wall st.? A link to the cost of all consumer goods starting to shoot through the roof in last month? A Weimar republic situation is coming to America, and instead of taking a couple of recommendations to make sure it doesn't happen, you just want to push this all or nothing BS and that everyone who doesn't see it like that is some ignorant pessimist.

 

Yep to make thing better, not to destroy their own homeland, exactly what is going on today. Trade also kept some warring parties from attacking as well. If you were not willing to participate in a mutually beneficial trade and couldn't rightfully defend yourself they would just come in and take it.


That's not a bumper sticker either.

 

And as an aside, the reason you see so much uniformity of opinions in this section regarding free trade is because, despite our many differences (of which Riever and I especially have many), it is nearly universally agreed upon by virtually everyone with even the slightest inkling on the subject that trade, at any and all levels is beneficial to all parties involved.

One smack I keep hearing against trade is that foreigners are exploited, well the I must ask... relative to what? To our standard of living here in the US? You could make that case, but then you have to wonder does that standard matter? The folks who are the victims of this exploitation are often doing fantastically better than their countrymen without these opportunities.

The other knock that keeps cropping up is that, we're destroying our own economy by trading with others, this is simply not reality. Consider the link I posted above and consider that no one makes all their own stuff, we want whomever can make a widget the best (this is subjective, i know) and the cheapest should, it allows for someone who has a more productive skillset to utilize it, like a lawyer who can type up letters faster than his secretary, despite the fact he's better at it, he would be less productive if he spent time doing that rather than being in the courtroom

 

Free trade doesn't hold a patent on global trade. Never has, never will. People have been trading, even when at war, since the beginning of time. That is the problem with the pro-free trade crowd. You have to give all these false assumptions to make your point. "People wouldn't trade without free trade", "world war 3 would start without free trade", "we are doing it for the poor people of 3rd world nations". It is all BS and everyone who pays even the smallest bit of attention can see it. Come real or go home.

 

Not hardly, if I had my druthers there would be virtually no tariffs on imports for industrialized nations and open borders, neither of these are current policy.

I don't believe so, but even if I accept your premise as true I don't believe it has anything to do with trade. Protectionism ensures that the things we want to buy will be more expensive and less available, that's not good for country or individual.

I don't accept the premise for this statement either, globalization has increased the quality of life for nearly every inhabitant thanks to consumer goods being available (and cheap) on a scale never before seen in history. Look over any time period in which trade has expanded and you can find a correlative time over which the quality of life has increased. This should be abundantly evident by the fact that the impoverished American, on average, has a big screen TV, a car and a roof over their head.

I'm unfamiliar with this but would be more than happy to take a look at it and give my opinion.

This is a huge topic that I believe has nothing to do with globalization, but rather a moral hazard problem created by government policy that supports and encourages failure.

They've risen, but I think a much better correlative argument could be made for the rise in the costs of fuel, which we all know affect nearly every consumer good. I'd go on to mention that the consumer goods index ignores a handful of products seemingly arbitrarily, I'd take the numbers with caution.

Not at all, I just want those that are ignorant of the subject to take a few moments and understand trade as Adam Smith and Ricardo have, it's really a matter of perspective and once you've acknowledged it, it then becomes possible to examine how to fix the issues with it, because there certainly are issues, but the problem isn't trade itself.

You simply cannot support this, though I'd be very interested in you trying. Please show me some causation between trade and the current economic situation, not just a correlation, some direct and measurable causation.

It still does create peace as we, as nations, all like being able to reap the benefits of comparative advantage, economies of time and scale and specialization, now instead of coming in and taking what we want, we simply exclude them from this privilege, take a look at the crap whole that Cuba is, yea it has a lot to do with their failed policies, but just as much to do with the fact that they aren't allowed to participate in the trade that has made those who are so wealthy.

THANK YOU! This is all I wanted from you both, real dialog on the subject and not ideological talking points, no one learns anything from that.

 

One is implicit in the other, which is why the correlation between the free trade zone that is the United States is so easy to correlate to the global economy, free trade is trade, free of restriction, including those arbitrarily drawn imaginary lines on the globe.

If I have something you want, and you have a means to pay me for it, but there is a chalk line between us, should that chalk line matter? Or only the fact that we would be mutually benefit from the exchange?

I think you know this question is rhetorical.

 

Great. So you're not even for free trade in the actual sense, you are one of those who supports protectionism in developing markets while industrialized nation markets are free to exploit. You do realize that is what is commonly referred to as treason, right?

What protectionism is left in America? Agriculture? Who cares? Lord knows, we would all hate to see illegal aliens wages stagnate like the rest. By all means, destroy agriculture too while you're at it. LOL

To get the actual Morgan Stanley report costs $125. I could give you a link to what media outlets are saying. Basically, Germany and France's economies have flat lined. Jobless claims up. Manufacturing employment has gone back down now for the 1st time in a few months. Housing markets are starting to falter in US again. Recommended FED and ECB injection immediately to prevent another recession.

Basically, bankers aren't even waiting 100 years now between robberies, it has apparently become an every other year scheme.

 

Your use of the term treason is wholly incorrect, we'll ignore that for now, though the accusation does raise my hackles.

It may be in some young economies best interest to protect their infant industries, I'm not 100% sold on the idea and think they'd likely still benefit from trade, but we're talking about nations in dire straights (like Haiti or the Congo) and the political economies are in situations where any outside resources may be gobbled up by the political elite while the citizens reap none of the benefits. Again, this isn't a problem with free trade though, it is however an issue with their political structure.

My God, YES! Probably the most protected industry in the US, farm subsidies keep many US growers afloat, and there is a boat load of information on how our government has sheltered our sugar growers from competition.

And I'm not just making this up:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0498d.asp
http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbp/tbp-013.pdf
http://econ.duke.edu/Papers/Other/Tower/sweet.pdf
http://mises.org/daily/4586

I could go on and on here... sugar growers have manipulated policy in their own interests for centuries, and we pay the price for it.

I agree there are huge issues with banking and finance, but I just don't see the correlation, and especially any causal information pointing to trade as the issue. If anything I'd suggest, as I did earlier, that the moral hazard issue we've created by making bailouts standard policy.

 

You have private central banks.

You have a loss of government revenue, from wages that use to be able to be taxed now at an untaxable rate, to loss of tariffs, to the loss of all the commercialism and taxes that came from the manufacturing sector(shipping, to restaurants for workers to eat at, to housing, etc.)

Now governments can't pay the bills without borrowing from those private central banks.

Did you ever think you are so blinded with bias towards "free trade", like a socialist with their utopia, that maybe you can't see the epidemic it has caused in industrialized nations? I'm not trying to be an ignorant, stupid, retarded, or whatever else people want to call me, poster. It is simply a question.

 

　
　
The balance of trade is completely off. All I need to do is show you a picture of capitalism when it actually worked in the late 40-60's, bustling thriving communities with positive growth, thriving businesses on every main street with numerous names exclusive to that community or the region, several grocery stores, several gas stations, several department stores, several choices to choose from in every aspect of business or service, farming of one form or another, and robust coops providing food for the local community, and a considerable manufacturing community in virtually every small town.
　

Now let us transport ourselves to present day. Those same main streets empty of business, roads in need of repair, schools below any standard that could be considered acceptable in the richest (cough) country in the world, empty silos and a grocery store or two filled with food nobody can be sure of where it came from, dry abandoned fields, and an empty deteriorating manufacturing district that looks more like a ghost town, and a wallyworld built by the best government corporate money can buy, and a strip mall of the exact same three to four fast food franchises. No competition, no chance of competition reestablishing itself for the good of the community, no jobs, no security, no capitalism.
　
That pretty much says it all don't you think? Cause and effect.
　
　
Now show me a bias statistic or two that says this isn't the case.
　

　
　
Politics is their major downfall, and it looks the way every communist country and criminal dictatorship should look. The reason others don't is because rogue American companies and global corporate entities are financing (the enemy) communism and communist dictators instead of suppressing it out of existence. Communism is good as long as long as the best government corporate money can buy insists upon it to benefit a small percentage of international billionaires can thrive exploiting the situation.
　
　
Free trade has to be balanced and comparable between different economic structures. Free trade with Canada for instance is beneficial, so called free trade with Mexico or China is a corporate con, a scam, a racket. For a small percentage of unethical, unpatriotic, shysters.

 

The developing world lose out because of inefficient protectionist policies used by the developed world. There is no defence for it. Hiding from foreign competition will only harm economic well-being

 

tell that to all the unemployed factory workers!