Obama 14th-Best President of All Time

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If the steel companies can’t produce a competitive product, why should other business be forced to by from them?[/quote]

Because it is good for the common American.

Competing with slave labor is neither ethical nor good for the US.[/quote]

It may be good for workers in the steel industry to have protectionist policies, but all Americans benefit from cheaper steel. Cheaper steel means all steel products are cheaper, raising the overall standard of living for all Americans.

These are economic facts and can’t even be argued.

82

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If the steel companies can’t produce a competitive product, why should other business be forced to by from them?[/quote]

Because it is good for the common American.

Competing with slave labor is neither ethical nor good for the US.[/quote]

It may be good for workers in the steel industry to have protectionist policies, but all Americans benefit from cheaper steel. Cheaper steel means all steel products are cheaper, raising the overall standard of living for all Americans.

These are economic facts and can’t even be argued.[/quote]

It could be argued that the deporting of almost all industrial jobs, and the subsequent trade deficits could result in long-term economic contraction, a small but highly relevant part of our current economic difficulties.

83

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
What if it’s not slave labor, but just REALLY cheap labor (comparatively)?[/quote]

Hey look if you can afford to have a decent style of living and also undercut me…well good for you.

But if you are malnutritioned and living in squalid conditions then it is neither ethical nor good for the US to do business with you.

Do you know why it is REALLY cheap labor? Because there is extreme pressure to work for shitty wages. And a sad acceptance that it is the best they can do. Because the people are exploited and don’t have the same rights or standards that we do over here. Freedom of Speech? In China? Fuck off.

84

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
It may be good for workers in the steel industry to have protectionist policies, but all Americans benefit from cheaper steel.
[/quote]

Are you sure? It is clear the steel workers wouldn’t be as well off.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
These are economic facts and can’t even be argued.[/quote]

Stop treating “economic facts” as a trump card in public policy. For instance which of the following two cases is better for society:

1000 people have to pay $10 per year for a total of $10,000 AND
That $10,000 goes to Jim, the widget man

OR

1000 people have to pay a cheaper man in China only $8/year for a total of $8,000 AND
Jim is destitute and on the streets

Option 2 is economically $2000 better off than option 1. Yet option 1 will result in a much better society.

You are simply looking at the economic aspect of it and going LALALALALALA at the social consequences.

85

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

I despise people jumping to conclusions…Push instead of jumping down someones throat all the time, take the time to get to know them. My heart is for what God wants, not what men want.

Think and meditate about it. [/quote]

Interesting that I said I despised a line of thinking and you responded by saying you despise me and then tell me your “heart is for what God wants.” Interesting.[/quote]

Hehehehe it is interesting that you jumped to conclusions Push.

dmaddox said “I despise people jumping to conclusions”

That does not mean “I despise people who jump to conclusions”. Instead it means “I despise situations where a person jumps to conclusions”.

So dmaddox never said he despised you. In fact his next two sentences make it clear he doesn’t.

87

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I’d put William Henry Harrison above Reagan.[/quote]

I put Reagan Dead last I know he was a champion to the free market , he cost America it’s steel industry [/quote]

Please tell us how Reagan cost America it’s steel industry. Also, is that the only reason you’d place him as last? Or is that the issue that cut’s closest to home for you. I’d like to hear more as to why you’d place him dead last.
[/quote]

He signed a bill that open the doors for steel imports ,

It is close to home and a major catastophry for America . America had 100 of thousnds of high paying jobs running through PA,OH,IN, IL and MI . there were other states as well . But where you once had a thriving industry that had a lot of high paying jobs that produced a lot of tax revenue . You now have vast areas of poverty, with no Industry at all .

All of your poorest cities in America were all old steel towns . They are now a stone around America’s neck and will be until some one come’s up with jobs .

I have heard all the free market defense, the buggy whip defense, but no one can say the good that came out of it. Except what steel mills we do have are a lot more productive . I feel what Reagan did was short sighted.He is not eligable for greatness because of that catastrophic mistake.

If the name of our country was the United States of the Free Market , I would think Reagan great[/quote]

I grew up in a steel town and in a family of steelworkers and I can safely say that what killed the US steel industry was paying an high school educated worker 35K a year in 1978 to do a job pretty much anybody in the world could be trained to do. The labor economics of the steel industry got insanely out of whack with reality.

88

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
It may be good for workers in the steel industry to have protectionist policies, but all Americans benefit from cheaper steel.
[/quote]

Are you sure? It is clear the steel workers wouldn’t be as well off.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
These are economic facts and can’t even be argued.[/quote]

Stop treating “economic facts” as a trump card in public policy. For instance which of the following two cases is better for society:

1000 people have to pay $10 per year for a total of $10,000 AND
That $10,000 goes to Jim, the widget man

OR

1000 people have to pay a cheaper man in China only $8/year for a total of $8,000 AND
Jim is destitute and on the streets

Option 2 is economically $2000 better off than option 1. Yet option 1 will result in a much better society.

You are simply looking at the economic aspect of it and going LALALALALALA at the social consequences.[/quote]

Why are there always only two choices? Why can’t we have option 3) where people get their cheaper widgets, and Jim finds another job, one that is competitive and helps himself rather than expecting society to pay for his noncompetitveness?

Oh I forgot all economics is zero sum game.

89

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
It may be good for workers in the steel industry to have protectionist policies, but all Americans benefit from cheaper steel.
[/quote]

Are you sure? It is clear the steel workers wouldn’t be as well off.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
These are economic facts and can’t even be argued.[/quote]

Stop treating “economic facts” as a trump card in public policy. For instance which of the following two cases is better for society:

1000 people have to pay $10 per year for a total of $10,000 AND
That $10,000 goes to Jim, the widget man

OR

1000 people have to pay a cheaper man in China only $8/year for a total of $8,000 AND
Jim is destitute and on the streets

Option 2 is economically $2000 better off than option 1. Yet option 1 will result in a much better society.

You are simply looking at the economic aspect of it and going LALALALALALA at the social consequences.[/quote]

Right. What are the Chinese not people? Does China not have a society? If you are looking at the societal consequences of those options, why do you exclude non American societal impacts. Why do I owe Jim a job any more than Sam over in china?

I guess you are against all the charities that give money to starving kids in Africa, because then there is less money in the American economy. Never mind the impact on society outside the US.

But the larger issue is where do you get off thinking you have the authority to tell me I can’t buy from Sam?

90

"If our only response to excess consumption is to pull out all the stops trying to “stimulate” consumption every time it falters; if our only response to reckless lending is to defend the bondholders every time their poor allocation of capital threatens to produce a loss for them, then quite simply, we will destroy our economy, our future, and our standard of living.

The last thing I want to be is a cheerleader for the bears here. But quite honestly, it’s difficult to envision a return to long-term saving, productive investment, and thoughtful allocation of capital until - as happens every two or three decades - the speculative elements of Wall Street are crushed to powder.

With regard to education, my impression is that the educational sector in the U.S. is about as inflexible the European labor market - the entire structure is hugely inefficient because it is detached from measures of quality and student time-on-task, undercompensating many excellent teachers and at the same time institutionalizing the employment of poor ones. Meanwhile, the failure of parents to maintain a heavy involvement in their kids’ education, in the belief that the responsibility for education, personal responsibility and moral development can simply be thrust onto teachers, is a problem that money alone can’t address.

If we as a nation fail to allow market discipline, to create incentives for research and development, to discourage speculative bubbles, to accumulate productive capital, and to maintain adequate educational achievement and human capital, the real wages of U.S. workers will slide toward those of developing economies. The real income of a nation is identical its real output - one cannot grow independent of the other."

http://myprops.org/content/Hussman-on-Misallocating-Resources-Market-Valuations-Earnings-Estimates-and-Public-Policy/

Change…and Hope…and Change…and Hope…and…uh…yeah…more hope and…uh…more change…

Yeah…

91

[quote]JoeGood wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I’d put William Henry Harrison above Reagan.[/quote]

I put Reagan Dead last I know he was a champion to the free market , he cost America it’s steel industry [/quote]

Please tell us how Reagan cost America it’s steel industry. Also, is that the only reason you’d place him as last? Or is that the issue that cut’s closest to home for you. I’d like to hear more as to why you’d place him dead last.
[/quote]

He signed a bill that open the doors for steel imports ,

It is close to home and a major catastophry for America . America had 100 of thousnds of high paying jobs running through PA,OH,IN, IL and MI . there were other states as well . But where you once had a thriving industry that had a lot of high paying jobs that produced a lot of tax revenue . You now have vast areas of poverty, with no Industry at all .

All of your poorest cities in America were all old steel towns . They are now a stone around America’s neck and will be until some one come’s up with jobs .

I have heard all the free market defense, the buggy whip defense, but no one can say the good that came out of it. Except what steel mills we do have are a lot more productive . I feel what Reagan did was short sighted.He is not eligable for greatness because of that catastrophic mistake.

If the name of our country was the United States of the Free Market , I would think Reagan great[/quote]

I grew up in a steel town and in a family of steelworkers and I can safely say that what killed the US steel industry was paying an high school educated worker 35K a year in 1978 to do a job pretty much anybody in the world could be trained to do. The labor economics of the steel industry got insanely out of whack with reality.[/quote]

I disagree , that was what all union shops of any type were paying Steel Workers , Auto Workers , Unions did get too powerful but paying that amount equated to what we now refer to as the shrinking middle class. Some one has sold you on the Idea that unless College educated you are only entitled to poverty

Why American Steel industry failed was because it was left totally open to a foreign assault , Because America had a set price of what steel could be sold for and be profitable , all the competition had to do was sell it cheaper ,

A third world company could have bought scrap steel for way below American scrap prices, because of an endless supply of dirt cheap labor they probably did not have a hundredth of what American steel companies paid. Their biggest cost was transportation.

You could do the same with any market or vocation in America.

92

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
It may be good for workers in the steel industry to have protectionist policies, but all Americans benefit from cheaper steel.
[/quote]

Are you sure? It is clear the steel workers wouldn’t be as well off.

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
These are economic facts and can’t even be argued.[/quote]

Stop treating “economic facts” as a trump card in public policy. For instance which of the following two cases is better for society:

1000 people have to pay $10 per year for a total of $10,000 AND
That $10,000 goes to Jim, the widget man

OR

1000 people have to pay a cheaper man in China only $8/year for a total of $8,000 AND
Jim is destitute and on the streets

Option 2 is economically $2000 better off than option 1. Yet option 1 will result in a much better society.

You are simply looking at the economic aspect of it and going LALALALALALA at the social consequences.[/quote]

You forgot that ALL the JIMS on the street no longer are paying the high taxes that their income bracket paid which was hundreds of thousands , but now they are on the public dole , collecting welfare and the likes

93

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
What if it’s not slave labor, but just REALLY cheap labor (comparatively)?[/quote]

Hey look if you can afford to have a decent style of living and also undercut me…well good for you.

But if you are malnutritioned and living in squalid conditions then it is neither ethical nor good for the US to do business with you.

Do you know why it is REALLY cheap labor? Because there is extreme pressure to work for shitty wages. And a sad acceptance that it is the best they can do. Because the people are exploited and don’t have the same rights or standards that we do over here. Freedom of Speech? In China? Fuck off.[/quote]

US companies that outsource labor overseas typically pay double what other companies of that country pay. Workers bust their nuts over getting these jobs. Who is exploiting who?

[quote]TBT4ver wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
It may be good for workers in the steel industry to have protectionist policies, but all Americans benefit from cheaper steel.
[/quote]

Are you sure? It is clear the steel workers wouldn’t be as well off.[/quote]

Yes, I’m sure. And I’ve already said protectionist policies benefit steel industry workers.

[quote][quote]LankyMofo wrote:
These are economic facts and can’t even be argued.[/quote]

Stop treating “economic facts” as a trump card in public policy. For instance which of the following two cases is better for society:

1000 people have to pay $10 per year for a total of $10,000 AND
That $10,000 goes to Jim, the widget man

OR

1000 people have to pay a cheaper man in China only $8/year for a total of $8,000 AND
Jim is destitute and on the streets

Option 2 is economically $2000 better off than option 1. Yet option 1 will result in a much better society.

You are simply looking at the economic aspect of it and going LALALALALALA at the social consequences.[/quote]

Why are there always only two choices? Why can’t we have option 3) where people get their cheaper widgets, and Jim finds another job, one that is competitive and helps himself rather than expecting society to pay for his noncompetitveness?

Oh I forgot all economics is zero sum game.

[/quote]

Exactly. Let’s subsidize Jim beause he can’t produce enough to be competitive on the world market. No thanks.

Also, it goes even further. If we don’t subsidize Jim, and all others like Jim, they have more incentive to gain new skills, educate themselves, etc. In the long run they will find a job which they can be competitive on the world market and the standard of living will be increased again.

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If the steel companies can’t produce a competitive product, why should other business be forced to by from them?[/quote]

Because it is good for the common American.

Competing with slave labor is neither ethical nor good for the US.[/quote]

It may be good for workers in the steel industry to have protectionist policies, but all Americans benefit from cheaper steel. Cheaper steel means all steel products are cheaper, raising the overall standard of living for all Americans.

These are economic facts and can’t even be argued.[/quote]

It could be argued that the deporting of almost all industrial jobs, and the subsequent trade deficits could result in long-term economic contraction, a small but highly relevant part of our current economic difficulties.
[/quote]

I’d argue that the people who would otherwise work these industrial jobs are forced to adapt. They either have to get better at what they do to compete or learn new skills which can benefit society.

Subsidizing workers which don’t produce as much is the equivalent of paying someone to carry rocks up and down stairs all day for no reason. There is no economic benefit and the only person that gains is the actual worker while the rest of society loses.

94

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
What if it’s not slave labor, but just REALLY cheap labor (comparatively)?[/quote]

Hey look if you can afford to have a decent style of living and also undercut me…well good for you.

But if you are malnutritioned and living in squalid conditions then it is neither ethical nor good for the US to do business with you.

Do you know why it is REALLY cheap labor? Because there is extreme pressure to work for shitty wages. And a sad acceptance that it is the best they can do. Because the people are exploited and don’t have the same rights or standards that we do over here. Freedom of Speech? In China? Fuck off.[/quote]

What should we do with the poor if we are not doing business with them? Ignore them perhaps?

There is “extreme pressure” to work for “shitty wages” because many are, literally, starving to death. Where will the “money” to get them out of these conditions come from if not from business with us?

Now I criticize China more than anyone else. But give credit where credit is do: by moving towards capitalism in the way they have they have lifted more out of extreme poverty than anyone else in the world. Period.

95

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
What if it’s not slave labor, but just REALLY cheap labor (comparatively)?[/quote]

Hey look if you can afford to have a decent style of living and also undercut me…well good for you.

But if you are malnutritioned and living in squalid conditions then it is neither ethical nor good for the US to do business with you.

Do you know why it is REALLY cheap labor? Because there is extreme pressure to work for shitty wages. And a sad acceptance that it is the best they can do. Because the people are exploited and don’t have the same rights or standards that we do over here. Freedom of Speech? In China? Fuck off.[/quote]

US companies that outsource labor overseas typically pay double what other companies of that country pay. Workers bust their nuts over getting these jobs. Who is exploiting who?

[quote]TBT4ver wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
It may be good for workers in the steel industry to have protectionist policies, but all Americans benefit from cheaper steel.
[/quote]

Are you sure? It is clear the steel workers wouldn’t be as well off.[/quote]

Yes, I’m sure. And I’ve already said protectionist policies benefit steel industry workers.

[quote][quote]LankyMofo wrote:
These are economic facts and can’t even be argued.[/quote]

Stop treating “economic facts” as a trump card in public policy. For instance which of the following two cases is better for society:

1000 people have to pay $10 per year for a total of $10,000 AND
That $10,000 goes to Jim, the widget man

OR

1000 people have to pay a cheaper man in China only $8/year for a total of $8,000 AND
Jim is destitute and on the streets

Option 2 is economically $2000 better off than option 1. Yet option 1 will result in a much better society.

You are simply looking at the economic aspect of it and going LALALALALALA at the social consequences.[/quote]

Why are there always only two choices? Why can’t we have option 3) where people get their cheaper widgets, and Jim finds another job, one that is competitive and helps himself rather than expecting society to pay for his noncompetitveness?

Oh I forgot all economics is zero sum game.

[/quote]

Exactly. Let’s subsidize Jim beause he can’t produce enough to be competitive on the world market. No thanks.

Also, it goes even further. If we don’t subsidize Jim, and all others like Jim, they have more incentive to gain new skills, educate themselves, etc. In the long run they will find a job which they can be competitive on the world market and the standard of living will be increased again.

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If the steel companies can’t produce a competitive product, why should other business be forced to by from them?[/quote]

Because it is good for the common American.

Competing with slave labor is neither ethical nor good for the US.[/quote]

It may be good for workers in the steel industry to have protectionist policies, but all Americans benefit from cheaper steel. Cheaper steel means all steel products are cheaper, raising the overall standard of living for all Americans.

These are economic facts and can’t even be argued.[/quote]

It could be argued that the deporting of almost all industrial jobs, and the subsequent trade deficits could result in long-term economic contraction, a small but highly relevant part of our current economic difficulties.
[/quote]

I’d argue that the people who would otherwise work these industrial jobs are forced to adapt. They either have to get better at what they do to compete or learn new skills which can benefit society.

Subsidizing workers which don’t produce as much is the equivalent of paying someone to carry rocks up and down stairs all day for no reason. There is no economic benefit and the only person that gains is the actual worker while the rest of society loses.[/quote]

You are expecting Jim to compete with some one that has a bottom line barely over shipping costs . I think we are back to a one world economy , which means diluting all good economies until they equal the poor economies and vise versa , then you will get a one world Government to regulate that one world economy

96

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/government/official-obama-socialist/

found this interesting.

97

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If the steel companies can’t produce a competitive product, why should other business be forced to by from them?[/quote]

Because it is good for the common American.

Competing with slave labor is neither ethical nor good for the US.[/quote]

What if it’s not slave labor, but just REALLY cheap labor (comparatively)?[/quote]

You would have to feed your slaves , I would imagine you could employ people below the amount it would cost to feed them

98

[quote]Otep wrote:

[quote]Bush got docked for saddling Obama with two bloody wars and a recession, and he got low marks for “ability to compromise, foreign policy
accomplishments and intelligence,” according to the survey[/quote]

I like to think Bush’s lack of ability to compromise was actually a strength.[/quote]

Absolutally. I mean who wants to compromise when we can just go to war and make huge profits for our buddies at Haliburton.

99

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
What if it’s not slave labor, but just REALLY cheap labor (comparatively)?[/quote]

Hey look if you can afford to have a decent style of living and also undercut me…well good for you.

But if you are malnutritioned and living in squalid conditions then it is neither ethical nor good for the US to do business with you.

Do you know why it is REALLY cheap labor? Because there is extreme pressure to work for shitty wages. And a sad acceptance that it is the best they can do. Because the people are exploited and don’t have the same rights or standards that we do over here. Freedom of Speech? In China? Fuck off.[/quote]

US companies that outsource labor overseas typically pay double what other companies of that country pay. Workers bust their nuts over getting these jobs. Who is exploiting who?

[quote]TBT4ver wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
It may be good for workers in the steel industry to have protectionist policies, but all Americans benefit from cheaper steel.
[/quote]

Are you sure? It is clear the steel workers wouldn’t be as well off.[/quote]

Yes, I’m sure. And I’ve already said protectionist policies benefit steel industry workers.

[quote][quote]LankyMofo wrote:
These are economic facts and can’t even be argued.[/quote]

Stop treating “economic facts” as a trump card in public policy. For instance which of the following two cases is better for society:

1000 people have to pay $10 per year for a total of $10,000 AND
That $10,000 goes to Jim, the widget man

OR

1000 people have to pay a cheaper man in China only $8/year for a total of $8,000 AND
Jim is destitute and on the streets

Option 2 is economically $2000 better off than option 1. Yet option 1 will result in a much better society.

You are simply looking at the economic aspect of it and going LALALALALALA at the social consequences.[/quote]

Why are there always only two choices? Why can’t we have option 3) where people get their cheaper widgets, and Jim finds another job, one that is competitive and helps himself rather than expecting society to pay for his noncompetitveness?

Oh I forgot all economics is zero sum game.

[/quote]

Exactly. Let’s subsidize Jim beause he can’t produce enough to be competitive on the world market. No thanks.

Also, it goes even further. If we don’t subsidize Jim, and all others like Jim, they have more incentive to gain new skills, educate themselves, etc. In the long run they will find a job which they can be competitive on the world market and the standard of living will be increased again.

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If the steel companies can’t produce a competitive product, why should other business be forced to by from them?[/quote]

Because it is good for the common American.

Competing with slave labor is neither ethical nor good for the US.[/quote]

It may be good for workers in the steel industry to have protectionist policies, but all Americans benefit from cheaper steel. Cheaper steel means all steel products are cheaper, raising the overall standard of living for all Americans.

These are economic facts and can’t even be argued.[/quote]

It could be argued that the deporting of almost all industrial jobs, and the subsequent trade deficits could result in long-term economic contraction, a small but highly relevant part of our current economic difficulties.
[/quote]

I’d argue that the people who would otherwise work these industrial jobs are forced to adapt. They either have to get better at what they do to compete or learn new skills which can benefit society.

Subsidizing workers which don’t produce as much is the equivalent of paying someone to carry rocks up and down stairs all day for no reason. There is no economic benefit and the only person that gains is the actual worker while the rest of society loses.[/quote]

You are expecting Jim to compete with some one that has a bottom line barely over shipping costs . I think we are back to a one world economy , which means diluting all good economies until they equal the poor economies and vise versa , then you will get a one world Government to regulate that one world economy
[/quote]

No, I’m expecting Jim to learn a skill or trade or learn to provide a service that people overseas cannot provide. If Jim can’t do it better or cheaper, Jim needs to find something else to do.

100

[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
Why are there always only two choices? Why can’t we have option 3) where people get their cheaper widgets, and Jim finds another job, one that is competitive and helps himself rather than expecting society to pay for his noncompetitveness?

Oh I forgot all economics is zero sum game.
[/quote]

Of course economics isn’t a zero sum game. However unemployment exists. People being forced into shitty jobs because their last job was outsourced exists.