Garry Cobb, former NFL Linebacker, and current sports and political commentator is the editor of a new political website called A Black Conservative.com
Check it out. Comments welcome.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
quote:Originally posted by Faheem:
Damn, never seen so many negro men and women pictured on one site....
There will be a whole lot ofon that site.... Buck Dancing and foot shuffling that is....
quote:Originally posted by Noah The African:
I wonder how many of those men and women chose black spouses? I bet that group has a much higher rate of inter-racial marriage than does the general black population.
quote:Toussaint- could you explain to me how and why Chinas gain of manufacturing jobs is affecting US manufacturing, assuming there is not fixed pie? I mean, why can't their manufacturing sector grow rapidly and ours grow rapidly at the same time? When a US manufacturer closes plants in America and open plants in Asia, where is the Win-Win of an infinite pie?
quote:Originally posted by toussaint:quote:Originally posted by Noah The African:
I wonder how many of those men and women chose black spouses? I bet that group has a much higher rate of inter-racial marriage than does the general black population.
OOh. Why don't you do a study so we can find out who the evil race-mixers are?quote:Toussaint- could you explain to me how and why Chinas gain of manufacturing jobs is affecting US manufacturing, assuming there is not fixed pie? I mean, why can't their manufacturing sector grow rapidly and ours grow rapidly at the same time? When a US manufacturer closes plants in America and open plants in Asia, where is the Win-Win of an infinite pie?
China lost manufacturing jobs as the US was losing them ... and many more at that.
So, what were you saying?
quote:Originally posted by Noah The African:
If I am a company in the USA and I got a billion dollars to invest, a billion dollars that when spent will create jobs and income, and I invest that money in China....where is the NET GAIN of an infinite pie? The fact they China gets the investment and jobs means that we don't get the investment and jobs. Somebody wins and somebody loses....ZERO SUM.
quote:Originally posted by Noah The African:
I wonder how many of those men and women chose black spouses? I bet that group has a much higher rate of inter-racial marriage than does the general black population.
quote:Originally posted by Noah The African:
I wonder how many of those men and women chose black spouses? I bet that group has a much higher rate of inter-racial marriage than does the general black population.
quote:Originally posted by toussaint:quote:Originally posted by Noah The African:
If I am a company in the USA and I got a billion dollars to invest, a billion dollars that when spent will create jobs and income, and I invest that money in China....where is the NET GAIN of an infinite pie? The fact they China gets the investment and jobs means that we don't get the investment and jobs. Somebody wins and somebody loses....ZERO SUM.
That's like saying when I buy something from someone, every person other than that someone loses. Ridiculous.
No one in either side is made worse off in your hypothetical. A company is taking its own money and investing it. It's not taking someone else's money. There's no zero-sum here.
quote:Originally posted by Noah The African:quote:Originally posted by toussaint:quote:Originally posted by Noah The African:
If I am a company in the USA and I got a billion dollars to invest, a billion dollars that when spent will create jobs and income, and I invest that money in China....where is the NET GAIN of an infinite pie? The fact they China gets the investment and jobs means that we don't get the investment and jobs. Somebody wins and somebody loses....ZERO SUM.
That's like saying when I buy something from someone, every person other than that someone loses. Ridiculous.
No one in either side is made worse off in your hypothetical. A company is taking its own money and investing it. It's not taking someone else's money. There's no zero-sum here.
Well...you seem to not understand that competition produces winners and losers and hence by its nature represents a zero sum. Given population growth, there need to be economic growth and job growth just to keep up with providing opportunity for an expanding population. Thus, when there is capital to be invested which creates jobs and income for peoples. Geographic locations compete for the investment dollars. Some win and some lose. Even within the United States, there has been a migration of investment dollars to the Southern Region and away from the Northern Region. Thus, opportunity has thus shifted from the North to the South and that is why jobs and people are flocking south. Obviously the South gain is to the North's loss. Obviously Asia's gains are the US loss.
"MAY" your aztecz!!!quote:Some specific group may not be as well off as they could have been, but that does not mean "worse off" for zero-sum purposes.
quote:It is not at all obvious that A's gain is B's loss. That's why your argument about manufacturing jobs fell flat.
If a US company takes its profits and invests them in China, tell me, who has "lost" something? Investment seekers in the US may have "lost" competition for investment dollars, but they have not lost anything tangible. They are just as well off as they were before the US company decided to invest its profits.
Some specific group may not be as well off as they could have been, but that does not mean "worse off" for zero-sum purposes.
quote:If a US company takes its profits and invests them in China, tell me, who has "lost" something?
quote:Some specific group may not be as well off as they could have been, but that does not mean "worse off" for zero-sum purposes
quote:Originally posted by Nmaginate:"MAY" your aztecz!!!quote:Some specific group may not be as well off as they could have been, but that does not mean "worse off" for zero-sum purposes.
Even within the United States, there has been a migration of investment dollars to the Southern Region and away from the Northern Region.
Could've, Would've, Should've that.
Show how there is absolutely no relation or correlation - clear, direct, complete or particle - instead of puking out the Mealy Mouth. You got a pretty straightforward example right there. Show the lack of a relationship and how "nothing tangible" was "lost" in the switch.
quote:Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Yet, you refuse to recognize that with globalism there are in fact losers that really weren't even in the game.
quote:I say ask any of the 100's of thousands of US employees that lost their sources of livelihood.
quote:But for a Black person to support, let alone, promote a system that has systemically shut out Black folk here, and exploited Black folk abroad is ...
CAN your aztecs, too!! What's up with the MEALY MOUTH!!quote:So, the South is growing faster economically. Does that necessarily mean the North is getting poorer? No, because there's not a fixed pie. Both regions can grow at the same time.
Does it mean the North isn't?? IN REALITY!! Demonstrate that or take the MEALY MOUTH to Disney where all your Mickey Mouse, Make-Believe logic resides.quote:Does that necessarily mean the North is getting poorer?
Ummm... GROWTH FIGURES in the same sectors. Manufacturing, etc. The thing here is the impact on workers; aka "the people."quote:Ummm, both the North and the South are growing economically, meaning no net loss on either side.
quote:The decline in manufacturing jobs has swiftly accelerated since the beginning of 2000. Since then, more than 1.9 million factory jobs have been cut "” about 10% of the sector's workforce. During the same period, the number of jobs outside manufacturing has risen close to 2%
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2002-12-12-manufacture_x.htm
quote:Many of the factory jobs are being cut as companies respond to a sharp rise in global competition. Unable to raise prices "” and often forced to cut them "” companies must find any way they can to reduce costs and hang onto profits.
Jobs are increasingly being moved abroad as companies take advantage of lower labor costs and position themselves to sell products to a growing "” and promising "” market abroad. Economy.com, an economic consulting firm in West Chester, Pa., estimates 1.3 million manufacturing jobs have been moved abroad since the beginning of 1992 "” the bulk coming in the last three years. Most of those jobs have gone to Mexico and East Asia.
QUESTION: How is there "pain" when there is no Net TANGIBLE Loss (i.e. something that can be felt or touched)?quote:Many in manufacturing disagree that the sector is dying. They say it's just changing. The sector's output grew for a decade through 2000 before weakening during the economic downturn in 2001 that swept across the economy but hit the manufacturing sector hardest.
...economists say the change in manufacturing, albeit painful, is healthy for the sector and for the overall economy in the long run.
How can someone run the risk of being unemployed when NOTHING IS LOST?? Hmmm....quote:"It's an ongoing process, but it obviously means that people who fall behind in the accumulation of skills find their incomes advance more slowly, and they suffer a greater risk of unemployment..."
quote:Originally posted by toussaint:quote:Originally posted by Nmaginate:"MAY" your aztecz!!!quote:Some specific group may not be as well off as they could have been, but that does not mean "worse off" for zero-sum purposes.
Even within the United States, there has been a migration of investment dollars to the Southern Region and away from the Northern Region.
Could've, Would've, Should've that.
Show how there is absolutely no relation or correlation - clear, direct, complete or particle - instead of puking out the Mealy Mouth. You got a pretty straightforward example right there. Show the lack of a relationship and how "nothing tangible" was "lost" in the switch.
So, the South is growing faster economically. Does that necessarily mean the North is getting poorer? No, because there's not a fixed pie. Both regions can grow at the same time. In order for it to be zero sum, you'd have to prove that they cannot both grow at the same time. Good luck with that.quote:Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Yet, you refuse to recognize that with globalism there are in fact losers that really weren't even in the game.
First, who "isn't in the game"? Second, what losers are you talking about? People who lose their jobs?
Resources shift and people gain and lose jobs. That alone does not make it a zero-sum game. In a healthy (free) economy job turnover is vigorous and leads to better jobs, such as lower paying manufacturing jobs being replaced by higher paying service jobs. That is how an economy develops.quote:I say ask any of the 100's of thousands of US employees that lost their sources of livelihood.
Are you talking about outsourcing? That is just a part of job turnover (and a very small part of it at that). Also, it's not even part of the hypothetical I posed. I didn't say the company closed down operations in the US, because that is not a necessary component of overseas investment. So, your 100s of thousands with no livelihoods was an assumption, and a weak one at that. Most overseas investment is not closing down plants and moving them.quote:But for a Black person to support, let alone, promote a system that has systemically shut out Black folk here, and exploited Black folk abroad is ...
Good luck showing how freedom of exchange "shuts black folk out." Sure, slavery and Jim Crow shut black folks out. But that's not freedom of exchange- that's the exact opposite. Freedom of exchange is how the Black Wall Street was created, and how thriving black towns sprung out of nowhere in the late 1900s. It is how this nation became rich, and how every other rich nation became rich. It's how the rich black people in this country became rich. You're attacking the wrong culprit, Kweli.
And you haven't moved past the MEALY MOUTH. Show some manhood and support your contentions with something other than SHOULD'VE, WOULD'VE, COULD'VE bullshitz and avoiding demonstrating what you claim.quote:No situation than any of you have brought up has fit this definition.
DUDE, you said NO TANGIBLE LOSS.quote:any system that allows people to provide for themselves and better their lot will have job turnover.
I'll ask you again:quote:"It's an ongoing process, but it obviously means that people who fall behind in the accumulation of skills find their incomes advance more slowly, and they suffer a greater risk of unemployment..."
Now there you go with that WHITE BOY shit!quote:BTW if any of you are yearning for a system where no one ever loses a job, it's already been tried. See: Soviet Union.
quote:Originally posted by toussaint:
Ummm, both the North and the South are growing economically, ...By the way, that IS what is happening.
quote:Another question (read it slowly so you don't hurt yourself) If there is a fixed pie, then how is the world's wealth so much greater than it was 200 years ago?
Like, actually speak to that point instead of some stupid shit.quote:...economists say the change in manufacturing, albeit painful, is healthy for the sector and for the overall economy in the long run.
quote:Originally posted by HonestBrother:
There is no net loss for the investor class... all the pain is saved up for the poor schleps who lose their jobs.
quote:Originally posted by Kweli4Real:quote:Originally posted by HonestBrother:
There is no net loss for the investor class... all the pain is saved up for the poor schleps who lose their jobs.
That is so true. The main problem that I have with this Free Market Globalism [besides the fact that it is all theory] is that it discounts the very real suffering of very real people, without making no allowances or better taking no measures to elevate the suffering.
It assumes that all parties are equal players in the game, when in fact, very few are players [they are called owners], all the rest are the played.
Anyone supportive of this theoretic philosophy, other than the already wealthy, are fooling themselves-believing that they are smarter than the average bear [played one], and thus protected from the enviable suffering that their philosophy thrives upon.
All philosophies that discount real human's suffering as a cost of progress sound great ... until one wakes up are realizes that you are not the player that you thought you were; rather you are merely one of the played.
And then guess what? When these played ones get played, they cry about how the system is broken. But it is way too late.
quote:The main problem that I have with this Free Market Globalism is that it discounts the very real suffering of very real people
quote:Originally posted by toussaint:
Zero Sum Game: A situation in which a gain by one person or side must be matched by a loss by another person or side.
No situation than any of you have brought up has fit this definition.
BTW if any of you are yearning for a system where no one ever loses a job, it's already been tried. See: Soviet Union.
Otherwise, your attacks on capitalism are really pointless, as any system that allows people to provide for themselves and better their lot will have job turnover.
quote:All philosophies that discount real human's suffering as a cost of progress sound great ... until one wakes up are realizes that you are not the player that you thought you were; rather you are merely one of the played.
quote:Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
NTA, that's a great philosophical discussion to answer the philosophy of globalism vis a vis zero sum game. And, I'm sure Free Market Globalists such as Toussaint would prefer that we focus on that level of discussion-the theoretic.
Because focusing on the real impact of FMG means looking in the face of real live losers in this game, real live human beings that no longer have a job. And while if the factory locates from one intra-country region to another, people can follow the jobs, this does not address the race to the bottom in terms of wages and/or benefits.
But not only don't they have a means to support themselves, FMG has always negated the position [or avoided the topic] of a social safety.
Again,quote:All philosophies that discount real human's suffering as a cost of progress sound great ... until one wakes up are realizes that you are not the player that you thought you were; rather you are merely one of the played.
quote:What about the people who are involved in this "Free Trade" scheme? You know the ones on the bottom. The 5,6 and 7 year olds who are making products for JC Penney, Macy's and Pier1 in India? Or what about the Asian girls who are making Nike shoes for about $10 a pair and they get sold around the world for $80 or more to you.
quote:Originally posted by toussaint:
If free trade is so horrible, then why has Hong Kong, which has the most open economy in the world become richer than the nation that had colonized it(UK)? Maybe Noah should go tell them how they're being exploited.
Why have tens of millions been lifted out of poverty in China since they opened up their economy and practice free trade in their special economic zones? Maybe Nmag should hurry up and tell them how free trade is just for white people.
Why has the same happened for India?
It is not a coincidence, folks. If the Chinese former communists can realize the benefits in wealth and poverty reduction brought on by allowing their economy to operate freely, why can't people on this forum realize it?
This isn't theory right here. Everything I mentioned above is fact.
Nothing Noah said about "the pie growing because of population increasing" has any basis in fact. The pie grows whenever we go to work (provided the transaction is voluntary, which eliminates government jobs from this example), whenever we go buy something we want or need, or whenever someone buys something from us. This has nothing to do with population growth. Trade and wealth has to do with subjective value, which is turned as objective as possible through money.
I know I won't get answers for the questions I posed above, because everyone here is entrenched in their beliefs despite the facts.
But you can keep on believing that free trade hurts the poor etc. etc. when in reality, it is their only proven way out of poverty. There is no government program shortcut - there are numerous examples of failures of such policies. Stifling international trade across the board makes everyone worse off. That has also been proven throughout history.
Go ahead and ignore the facts again.
Then, there's Noah's example. Both parties are trading away something they have for something they want/need more. They are both better off in the end. One guy gets a real bargain, having his life saved for $100, and the other guy is $99 richer. Both are better off than they were before the transaction. Both have profited. Of course, geniouses like Noah will only look at the money transfer, convert it to "energy" and be done with it, discounting the fact that the thirsty guy values his life far more than the $100 or $1000 that he had to trade.
Like I said before, value is subjective. That's the real world whether you like it or not. All this energy talk is nonsense. When you trade, all that matters is what the object you're trading is worth to the other person. It's not hard to understand. We deal with this concept every day of our lives.