| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 6:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Poinster--thoughtful and thought provoking argument. It missed a few points:
1. Offshoring of high labor cost/low skill manufacturing was well under way, and probably could not have been stopped by tariffs. On the other, the agreements accelerated it, and the author is probably right that it fundamentally changed the safet of investment.
2. True that global strategy was a big part of the underlying rationale. Not enough said; it was more about avoiding war than negotiating for military bases. My thoughts at the time were that tying the world togetther with trade would reduce conclict. Wars, particularly. with the US as world cop, are more expensive than trade deficits. What that assumption failed to consider was the potential for global conflict in the Middle East and Africa, where trade was not doing much to alleviate poverty or develop a middle class. Add in the differences in culture and religion, which value economic growth less than assumed, and you get expensive wars anyway.
Thanks for the link. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14880
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Though the writer writes nicely. I can rip him easily. First his time with reagan the trickle down theory was nothing but as I call it piss on americans.
Second he completely negligently forgets the gross enrichment income shift of the top 1% and does not even bring that into the equation. Like it has no effect on how that income shift alone can really have destroyed the middle class lower class vs the ubber.
As GM noted they were in mexico manufacturing 75 years ago, he neglects these issues.
When a economics expert is that biassed I can not respect his history.
Next he obviously is so clueless to the real world of manufacturing. As I said in college I worked in a machine shop graveyard shift. The company was being run by a trust fund kid and he was not investing into machinery, we were using 35 year old machines from WW2. this is the typical of america. I have set up manufacturing in the chicago area for several companies. When developing products you go out and qualify manufacturers/suppliers. I would inspect many companies and it was like clockwork, a trust fund run company was old obsolete machines that could not hold a decent tolerance, a new owner was state of the art. again this was repeated all over, ya a few exceptions here and there. But that was the real effects of american style capitalism. Our rich never invested in state of the art, they cashed out and that is just american capitalism and nothing we can really do about it.
As I have noted when in other countries I see a pride in their technologies in companies including public ones. I see a pride as exemplified by their CEOs in lower salaries that they look at making money for long term vs US public company CEOs look at cashing in in 5-10 years so here they will not invest in the long term.
exactly how did this morons reaganomics of trickle down theory work for us. Fool me once fooled man can not be fooled again? haha? again as I coined it "piss on americans"...
wiki
| Quote: | | "Trickle-down economics", also referred to as "trickle-down theory", is a populist political term used to characterize economic policies as favoring the wealthy or privileged. There is no "trickle down" economics as defined by economists; the term is almost exclusively used by critics of policies with other established names.[1] It is usually associated with criticism of laissez-faire capitalism in general and more specifically supply-side economics. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14880
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Latino voter registration surges ... in Georgia |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14880
Location: on earth
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pointster
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 376
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mac wrote: | Poinster--thoughtful and thought provoking argument. It missed a few points:
1. Offshoring of high labor cost/low skill manufacturing was well under way, and probably could not have been stopped by tariffs. On the other, the agreements accelerated it, and the author is probably right that it fundamentally changed the safet of investment.
2. True that global strategy was a big part of the underlying rationale. Not enough said; it was more about avoiding war than negotiating for military bases. My thoughts at the time were that tying the world togetther with trade would reduce conclict. Wars, particularly. with the US as world cop, are more expensive than trade deficits. What that assumption failed to consider was the potential for global conflict in the Middle East and Africa, where trade was not doing much to alleviate poverty or develop a middle class. Add in the differences in culture and religion, which value economic growth less than assumed, and you get expensive wars anyway.
Thanks for the link. |
1. The loss of jobs in the rust belt, starting in the 70s, was not from off-shoring by US companies, but from imports from foreign competitors. Off-shoring production by US companies didn't get big until the 90s, with a boost from NAFTA. The problem was not just the lowering of tariffs, but the failure of the US government to respond to currency exchange rate manipulation by some of our trading partners.
2. While our global strategy may have reduced global conflict, financially the costs were borne by US workers, and the gains went to the 1%. I think the EU worked in a similar way, thus Brexit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2016 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An interesting perspective:
| Quote: | The Divided States of America
Rabbi Yonason Goldson
Once ideology overrules a sense of common destiny, the writing is on the wall
E pluribus unum -- Out of many, one.
Such a glorious sentiment, 240 years old this week, destined for the dustbin of history.
In contrast to the vitriol of the broadsheets from two centuries ago -- which belied a common commitment to basic, “self-evident truths” -- the unfiltered invective filling our airwaves today reveals a wholesale abandonment of common values or, even worse, of any values at all.
With the general election now reduced to a choice between the two most unpopular candidates in American history, the undeniable take away is that our population has splintered into four intractable camps, each unwillingly come to terms with any other.
Here is a snapshot of who we now are.
•Utopians. These are the supporters of Bernie Sanders, largely idealistic and unsophisticated millennials, enamored with the socialist senator’s genuine passion and entranced by his pollyana vision and historical myopia. Their ardent devotion is the reason Mr. Sanders has held his own against Hillary Clinton in the popular vote, if not in delegates. It is also the reason that the senator’s minions have no interest in the impossibility of his claims. If it sounds good, it must be good.
•Left-wing ideologues. Hillary Clinton leads her party for 2016 for the same reason the Barack Obama displaced her in 2008: she is best positioned to protect the party establishment and perpetuate the party agenda. What is that agenda? Liberalism. Progressivism. Secularism. What do those words mean? It doesn’t matter, any more than it matters to New Yorkers who’s on the Yankees or to St. Louisans who’s on the Cardinals. I support my team because it’s my team. I don’t need a reason. This is why server-gate and Benghazi and loyalty to a misogynistic husband and the unapologetic contempt for truth don’t matter to Hillary Clinton’s supporters, any more than the toxic corruption exposed by Lois Lerner and Jonathan Gruber and now Ben Rhodes matters to supporters of Barack Obama. Either they haven’t heard about it, or they don’t believe it, or they don’t care. Their candidate is their candidate because he -- or she -- is their candidate.
•Reactionaries. Everyone understands that the popularity of Donald Trump has little to do with Donald Trump. It is a reaction to the Obama administration, to the Clinton dynasty, to the blatant partisanship of Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, to the fecklessness of John Boehner, to unchecked illegal immigration, to ISIS and the Taliban, to Putin and Assad, to the Iran deal, to Obamacare, to Ferguson, to Obergefell, and to bathroom legislation. Trump supporters don’t care about ideology. They’re mad as hell, so they’ve turned to the one person who gives vent to their anger, no matter how much his rhetoric may resemble that of Benito Mussolini.
•Pragmatists. I have omitted conservative ideologues by design, because there are so few of them left in existence. Indeed, Ted Cruz would certainly have fared better with more hardliners to rally around him. But thinking moderates rejected Cruz for his irascible reputation, preferring the lackluster John Kasich for the same reason they supported Mitt Romney: they want a leader able and willing to build consensus from a position of integrity. But the pragmatists were doomed from the start precisely because they sought out the best possible candidate. Did Carly Fiorina’s managerial experience outweigh Marco Rubio’s congressional experience? Did Ben Carson’s character outweigh his lack of political savvy? Was Chris Christie's impulsivity a greater deficit that Jeb Bush’s family name? In the end, pragmatic voters made principled choices that divided the most capable candidates and left the road open for the grand duke of reality television to steal the crown.
So where does that leave America? The most obvious solution is to carve up the country up as was done with the former Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, demographic realities make such a plan unfeasible: Liberals occupy the big cities, Utopians live around college campuses, Reactionaries dwell in the rural precincts, while Pragmatists are scattered hither and yon. The necessary gerrymandering would make the partition of India a walk in the park.
Our system was designed for two parties, and changing it might require constitutional reconfiguring that will never happen.
When all is said and done, revolution may be the only solution after all. Not that I’m advocating this, since revolutions don’t usually end as well as the one that gave birth to this country -- especially without a healthy supply of Washingtons, Jeffersons, and Hamiltons on hand to see it through. There’s also the problem of national will.
Because this is the real problem: it’s not that we disagree, not that we see the world differently, and not that we can’t understand one another. The problem is that we don’t want to understand one another. We’d rather preach to the choir than attempt to engage those with whom we disagree. We want to cast our ideological opponents as evil, want to muzzle them, want to beat them into submission, want to win at all costs. And as long as that sad state of affairs remains unchanged, we will remain a nation divided against itself.
And, as such, we will not stand much longer. |
Read more at Rabbi Yonason Goldson - The Divided States of America
http://jewishworldreview.com/0716/goldson_divided_america.php3#laJmud8Bc8h6FgWW.99 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2016 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Divided?"
The UNITED States of America?
But Barack Obama told the whole world just this morning that “When we start suggesting that somehow there is this enormous polarization and we’re back to the situation in the 1960s — that’s just not true,”
despite CNN pronouncing him on Feb 6, 2015 as " the most polarizing president in modern history".
How would any of you classify Black Lives Matter animals marching down public streets shouting "Kill the Pigs"? Black Panthers publicly advocating killing cops? The governor of Minnesota stating that if the guy in the car were white, he wouldn't have been shot? Obama insinuating cop guilt in general when not blaming guns in particular? Professors blaming cops? Obama advisor Al Sharpton blaming cops?
Not polarized? What an idiot! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 09, 2016 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The idea that "pragmatists" are Republicans?
Now, that's truly laughable. The Rabbi must one of the few Jews in America that votes Republican. One has to wonder whether he's voting for Donald Trump. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mat-ty
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7850
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2016 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| swchandler wrote: | The idea that "pragmatists" are Republicans?
Now, that's truly laughable. The Rabbi must one of the few Jews in America that votes Republican. One has to wonder whether he's voting for Donald Trump. |
Voting for an incompetent, inexperienced, un-vetted, american hating fraud.
That was real practical!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swchandler
Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 10588
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2016 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mat-ty, you keep sending strong signals that are a very frustrated guy that has a lot of pent-up anger about what's going on. Try as I might, I can't understand why. How did you get to where you're at, and what's fanning the fire and ugliness inside you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
