[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
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.[/quote]
And if Jim cannot compete I have no problem with him forcefully taking from you. Jim’s kids have to eat.
Washing your hands from it will simply leave your neighborhood in the gutter.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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?
[/quote]
For practical reasons. If Jim your neighbor is destitute you are going to have more crime in your neighborhood. This can become crime directed against you. And businesses don’t want to set up in violent areas, or areas full of poor unskilled people. Hence YOUR job prospects are damaged by having your neighbors loose their jobs.
I believe by reaching out to those closest to you and helping them you do the most good. Selling out your countrymen to help those in China is unethical.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But the larger issue is where do you get off thinking you have the authority to tell me I can’t buy from Sam?[/quote]
I want a society where basically anyone can prosper. If you want to do things that damage society to the point where massive underclasses are created I have no problem with using force to stop you.
Where do you get off thinking that the community cannot govern the rules of business?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
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. [/quote]
Yes they have. The problem is America is going to the dumps because of it. We see an equalizing take place between wealth per person in the two countries.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
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. [/quote]
Yes they have. The problem is America is going to the dumps because of it. We see an equalizing take place between wealth per person in the two countries.[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this. You think America is going to the dumps because we are doing business with China?
What do you mean by “equalizing taking place between wealth per person in the two countries?” I believe inequality is greatly rising in both countries. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[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
[/quote]
What would you do to support your family? What if you lived in a 3rd world country? Would you take a job working for $2.50/day in a city if you were only making $1.50 a day in the country? Of course you would. This is the actual situation facing many in the third world. Do you believe that business/capitalism in incapable of helping these people?
I beleive that the US is not going down, but leveling off. It just appears that we are going down because the rest of the world is catching up to us.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this. You think America is going to the dumps because we are doing business with China?
[/quote]
Yes. The only thing keeping the US afloat at the moment is the high levels of corruption and risk in China. In that the risks for outsourcing many positions is too high. If the corruption is fixed, and the US continues along a free trade path, then America will quickly turn into a dump.
A few important points to note:
In the next 50 years China and India will turn into powerhouses. Real opportunity will be available to the educated.
A large proportion of new technological discoveries in the US are made by foreign born people who have moved to the US.
Enrolment numbers in science and engineering in the US are dismal compared to China and India.
To become an expert in a field takes 10+ years of hard study.
Smart Chinese and Indian students go to the US because the opportunities in their home countries suck. They can do better in the US career wise.
Growth doesn’t come from Lawyers, Doctors, Accountants, or the services/retail industry. Yes they have important functions…but they don’t make major innovative changes. Real growth comes from IT, from Science, and from Engineering.
So points 1-6 naturally lead to a time in the near future where massive numbers of bright foreign students don’t want to move to the US because they can do as well in their home country. At the same time born and bred Americans don’t want to fill that gap because there isn’t that much money in it (in large part due to outsourcing). Hence in the near future America will no longer be an intellectual powerhouse.
If it isn’t an intellectual powerhouse what will it be? A manufacturing powerhouse (HAHAHAHAHA!)?
The only solution to that is to start training is some form of cultural shift/government intervention (in the form of fair trade or direct grants).
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
What do you mean by “equalizing taking place between wealth per person in the two countries?” I believe inequality is greatly rising in both countries. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean?
[/quote]
In that the wealth difference between the two countries is decreasing.
Inequality is raising through two completely different mechanisms in the different countries. In China the inequality is growing from people pulling themselves out of poverty while many remain in poverty. In the US inequality is growing from the already rich growing richer while the poor get left in the dust and many of the old middle class fall into the poor class.
The middle class in the US is being destroyed. The middle class in China is being created.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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?
[/quote]
[/quote]
There are no steel mills in my state. My company does however consume large amounts of steel. cheaper steel helps my business and my neighborhood. More expensive steel makes us less competitive abroad and could easily force my company to downsize. You forcing my company (at threat of violence) to buy from a mill in some other state risks my job.
I’m glad you feel that way. But I don’t see the ethical difference. Why are Americans more worthy of my business that one in china or Mexico? Where do you get of using violence to enforce your opinion, because you feel I should help someone “closer”. I say closer in parenthesis because physically I’m closer to some Mexicans and Canadians than some US states.
Hell I’d even say I share more in common with folks of other countries than I do places like new york or LA.
No, you don’t. You already said you don’t care about sam. sam is an anyone.
You think you should be able to use force to dictate transactions between consenting adults? You do realize this is totalitarianism, the opposite of liberty and the death of American and all it stood for, right?
Rights are inherent to man, not society. God did not endow the US of A with inalienable rights.
[quote]
Where do you get off thinking that the community cannot govern the rules of business?[/quote]
So, if me and my group of buddies get together and decide your ideas are bad for the community, we have a right to violently silence you. good to know. Can I have your address?
[quote]phaethon wrote:
In that the wealth difference between the two countries is decreasing.
Inequality is raising through two completely different mechanisms in the different countries. In China the inequality is growing from people pulling themselves out of poverty while many remain in poverty. In the US inequality is growing from the already rich growing richer while the poor get left in the dust and many of the old middle class fall into the poor class.
The middle class in the US is being destroyed. The middle class in China is being created.[/quote]
Okay, I was kinda with you up until here. Equality and wealth are 2 entirely different things. I really bothers me when people use them interchangeably. Disparity in wealth can be caused by inequality in person hood, but not always. Equality in the US means equal under the law, equal opportunity, NOT equal success. Being weighed and measured according to your character doesn’t violate the American ideal of equality.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, you don’t. You already said you don’t care about sam. sam is an anyone.
[/quote]
No. Sam is a person outside of the society. Perhaps I should have made it clear that I want a society where anyone in the society can prosper.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You think you should be able to use force to dictate transactions between consenting adults? You do realize this is totalitarianism, the opposite of liberty and the death of American and all it stood for, right?
[/quote]
No more totalitarian than paying taxes. The government already takes its cut of business transactions. Is it that much of a totalitarian leap to placing a higher tax on transactions between consenting adults in two separate countries? Why?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, if me and my group of buddies get together and decide your ideas are bad for the community, we have a right to violently silence you. good to know. Can I have your address?[/quote]
Because governing the rules of business is the same as saying it is ok for one group to violently silence another :S. Oh wait it isn’t even close. Boring straw man.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Okay, I was kinda with you up until here. Equality and wealth are 2 entirely different things.
[/quote]
Yes they are. He mentioned inequality so I talked about it. We are talking about economic inequality.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Equality in the US means equal under the law, equal opportunity, NOT equal success. [/quote]
Equality can mean a damn lot of things. In this case we are talking about economic inequality, aka the difference between wealth, i.e. wealth not being equal.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, you don’t. You already said you don’t care about sam. sam is an anyone.
[/quote]
No. Sam is a person outside of the society. Perhaps I should have made it clear that I want a society where anyone in the society can prosper.
[/quote]
Why do you get to draw the line and why do you draw that line at country? Why not community, or city or county or state or region? What so magical about country? I no more know people in California (or care about them) than people in japan. Why should I?
No more totalitarian than paying taxes. The government already takes its cut of business transactions. Is it that much of a totalitarian leap to placing a higher tax on transactions between consenting adults in two separate countries? Why?
[/quote]
I never said they were different. Taxes the way there are, is steeling.
[quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, if me and my group of buddies get together and decide your ideas are bad for the community, we have a right to violently silence you. good to know. Can I have your address?[/quote]
Because governing the rules of business is the same as saying it is ok for one group to violently silence another :S. Oh wait it isn’t even close. Boring straw man.[/quote]
No, you were arguing a community had the right to dictate individuals actions if they deemed something harmful to the community. If you can explain why dictating individual decisions to “protect” community is acceptable when there is money changing hands, but not when ideas are changing hands, I’ll accept my point as straw man.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Okay, I was kinda with you up until here. Equality and wealth are 2 entirely different things.
[/quote]
Yes they are. He mentioned inequality so I talked about it. We are talking about economic inequality.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Equality in the US means equal under the law, equal opportunity, NOT equal success. [/quote]
Equality can mean a damn lot of things. In this case we are talking about economic inequality, aka the difference between wealth, i.e. wealth not being equal.
[/quote]
No. Once again economic equality means equal economic opertunity not equal result.
2 guys start out in the same situation (family situation, upbringing, education), one works hard and makes it rich, one is lazy and never gets ahead. They are still economically equal.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No. Once again economic equality means equal economic opertunity not equal result.
[/quote]
According to whom? As a general economic term the inequality it refers to is inequality of outcome.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Why do you get to draw the line and why do you draw that line at country? Why not community, or city or county or state or region? What so magical about country? I no more know people in California (or care about them) than people in japan. Why should I?
[/quote]
I’m not going to explain the entire concept, importance, and history of nations to you. Primarily because you are a libertarian and would shrug it off because it doesn’t appeal to your philosophy.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I never said they were different. Taxes the way there are, is steeling.
[/quote]
Ahhh I see. A libertarian…sigh
And in what form are taxes not stealing?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, you were arguing a community had the right to dictate individuals actions if they deemed something harmful to the community. If you can explain why dictating individual decisions to “protect” community is acceptable when there is money changing hands, but not when ideas are changing hands, I’ll accept my point as straw man.[/quote]
Because a business venture tends to have more effect upon the community. In simple terms: money changing hands gets shit done.
You implied violence and loss of my liberty in many areas. I said loss of liberty in the specific area that is likely to cause harm to society.
Less liberty in a business situation doesn’t damage personal character.
You and the boys don’t reflect society.
Limiting ideas is dangerous and produces a stagnant society. Limiting business operations is not.
So there would be no problem if the community decided to stop me from implementing an idea they believed was very dangerous to the community.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Why do you get to draw the line and why do you draw that line at country? Why not community, or city or county or state or region? What so magical about country? I no more know people in California (or care about them) than people in japan. Why should I?
[/quote]
I’m not going to explain the entire concept, importance, and history of nations to you. Primarily because you are a libertarian and would shrug it off because it doesn’t appeal to your philosophy.
[/quote]
Good dodge.
Ahhh I see. A libertarian…sigh
And in what form are taxes not stealing?
[/quote]
Technically, only voluntary ones. all others are the taking of property by force. How is it not steeling?
Free speech can cause plenty of societal harm.
So, being poor (less liberty in business) doesn’t damage charater? And yes. Yes it does. But either way, who the hell are you to decide that?
Yes, we do reflect a society. I can make the same claim that US voters don’t reflect society, because the US population is a very small minority of people.
limiting business opportunity absolutely does create a stagnant society. Protected businesses stop innovated and fall behind.
[quote]
So there would be no problem if the community decided to stop me from implementing an idea they believed was very dangerous to the community. [/quote]
Even if that idea is to spread a message to change peoples hearts and minds? I consider liberalism dangerous to the community. Why can’t I violently stop you?
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
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.[/quote]
And if Jim cannot compete I have no problem with him forcefully taking from you. Jim’s kids have to eat.
Washing your hands from it will simply leave your neighborhood in the gutter.[/quote]
What if Jim can compete but he does not because he knows I’ll take care of him? Is that fair?
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by this. You think America is going to the dumps because we are doing business with China?
[/quote]
Yes. The only thing keeping the US afloat at the moment is the high levels of corruption and risk in China. In that the risks for outsourcing many positions is too high. If the corruption is fixed, and the US continues along a free trade path, then America will quickly turn into a dump.
A few important points to note:
In the next 50 years China and India will turn into powerhouses. Real opportunity will be available to the educated.
A large proportion of new technological discoveries in the US are made by foreign born people who have moved to the US.
Enrolment numbers in science and engineering in the US are dismal compared to China and India.
To become an expert in a field takes 10+ years of hard study.
Smart Chinese and Indian students go to the US because the opportunities in their home countries suck. They can do better in the US career wise.
Growth doesn’t come from Lawyers, Doctors, Accountants, or the services/retail industry. Yes they have important functions…but they don’t make major innovative changes. Real growth comes from IT, from Science, and from Engineering.
So points 1-6 naturally lead to a time in the near future where massive numbers of bright foreign students don’t want to move to the US because they can do as well in their home country. At the same time born and bred Americans don’t want to fill that gap because there isn’t that much money in it (in large part due to outsourcing). Hence in the near future America will no longer be an intellectual powerhouse.
If it isn’t an intellectual powerhouse what will it be? A manufacturing powerhouse (HAHAHAHAHA!)?
The only solution to that is to start training is some form of cultural shift/government intervention (in the form of fair trade or direct grants).
[/quote]
I’m not really sure if I’m following your logic, but certainly a move towards fair trade (and/or better fair trade labeling) is a good idea.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
What do you mean by “equalizing taking place between wealth per person in the two countries?” I believe inequality is greatly rising in both countries. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean?
[/quote]
In that the wealth difference between the two countries is decreasing.
Inequality is raising through two completely different mechanisms in the different countries. In China the inequality is growing from people pulling themselves out of poverty while many remain in poverty. In the US inequality is growing from the already rich growing richer while the poor get left in the dust and many of the old middle class fall into the poor class.
The middle class in the US is being destroyed. The middle class in China is being created.[/quote]
While this is an interesting dichotomy you’ve created, I’m not sure if there really are two different mechanisms at work. The capital class is getting richer in both countries that spurs the vast majority of the growth in both countries. But I do agree that the middle class is going away in the States and being created in China.
As far as the wealth difference between the two countries is concerned, do you think there is a “leveling off” that comes when countries hit the “developed” status? This seems to be the case for ALL “industrialized/first-world” nations who sit with growth rates around 2-3%. It’s interesting to note that the “better” of the 3rd-world/developing/pre-industraized/whatever nations that “get capitalism right” tend to have growth rates between 5-10%
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Good dodge.
[/quote]
Look, in short a nation is designed to protect borders. A city/county/region is not. Look if you and your community has nothing in common with the people of California then perhaps you shouldn’t be part of the same country.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Technically, only voluntary ones. all others are the taking of property by force. How is it not steeling?
[/quote]
Because everything exists within a framework. In our current framework taxes are not stealing.
Mate, as much as you libertarians like to believe otherwise, ownership of land only makes sense within a social framework. There is no inherent right to own a piece of the earth. You didn’t create it, you just came along and set up camp.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Free speech can cause plenty of societal harm.
[/quote]
It can. But it is also a necessity in getting things done.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, being poor (less liberty in business) doesn’t damage charater? And yes. Yes it does.
[/quote]
Mate less liberty in business does not = poor. You simply have to look at certain rich European countries to see it is a silly statement.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, we do reflect a society. I can make the same claim that US voters don’t reflect society, because the US population is a very small minority of people.
[/quote]
Only for a sufficiently vague definition of society.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
limiting business opportunity absolutely does create a stagnant society. Protected businesses stop innovated and fall behind.
[/quote]
Rubbish. America has done well in protectionist periods. Likewise there is significant innovation in European countries with high protectionist/welfare policies.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Even if that idea is to spread a message to change peoples hearts and minds? I consider liberalism dangerous to the community. Why can’t I violently stop you?[/quote]
Errrrr…do you always deliberately misconstrue an opponents argument? Spreading a message != implementing an idea.
Free speech needs to be maintained because it provides an avenue for change. If there is free speech and strict business regulations…well that can change if you can provide a convincing argument to change the peoples minds.
And I like how you consider any views even slightly to the left of your kooky views as liberalism. Hint: I’m not even left wing. In fact I’m considered by most people to be far right.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
What if Jim can compete but he does not because he knows I’ll take care of him? Is that fair?[/quote]
No, it is not fair. However it can happen regardless of a country being protectionist or not.
