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
Damn, never seen so many negro men and women pictured on one site....
There will be a whole lot of
on that site.... Buck Dancing and foot shuffling that is....
There will be a whole lot of
on that site.... Buck Dancing and foot shuffling that is....quote:Originally posted by Faheem:
Damn, never seen so many negro men and women pictured on one site....
There will be a whole lot of
lol... But hey, it's a debate stimulator, regardless of whether you agree.
indeed.. I will definetly be a part of the debate...
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.
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?
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 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 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?
I never said that race mixing is evil....just noting some people cannot seem to find worthy black folks to marry and most often these folks are conservatives. Hmmmmmm
Oh look at you do the jig around China. The fact is that Much of Chinas growth is related to US direct foreign investment. My question is why not China could grow from its own capital investment at the same rate and does not the direct foreign investment coming from the US mean that the US has LOST those investment dollars? 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:
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.
what these so called conservatives fail to mention as the world becomes more and more global, the margins between the rich and poor widens. The same racist companies that were national are no international, forcing the down the cost of labor because they can simply go to countries that favor business and stiffle human rights.how does this benifit black people,
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.
I thought the exact same thing...
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.
I wonder how many of those men and women are millionairs. I bet that group has alot more money than the general Black population.
Interesting that conservatism only benefits the wealthy, and as soon as they make it they forget where they came from.
Damn shame...
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Welcome back Toussaint.
I see that you remain firm in your "free market globalism."
Yet, you refuse to recognize that with globalism there are in fact losers that really weren't even in the game.
You ask:
I say ask any of the 100's of thousands of US employees that lost their sources of livelihood.
For those above, globalism is in fact a zero-sum game.
The globalism that you promote is exploitively as well as myopic. 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 ...
But then again, we've done this dance before. Again, welcome back.
I see that you remain firm in your "free market globalism."
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.
Yet, you refuse to recognize that with globalism there are in fact losers that really weren't even in the game.
You ask:
quote:If a US company takes its profits and invests them in China, tell me, who has "lost" something?
I say ask any of the 100's of thousands of US employees that lost their sources of livelihood.
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
For those above, globalism is in fact a zero-sum game.
The globalism that you promote is exploitively as well as myopic. 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 ...
But then again, we've done this dance before. Again, welcome back.
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.
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.
I didn't stutter:
Show the lack of a relationship and how "nothing tangible" was "lost" in the switch.
Oh, you've had NO LUCK with that. Figures...
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?
It's not that hard. You claim "there's not a fixed pie"... Show us how, tell us why. Again, you had a clear, straightforward example. "FIXED" or not, you have to demonstrate how there is no NET LOSS, whether there's a 1-to-1 ratio or not.
Note: YOU CANNOT Hide Behind "MAY" and "CAN"... You're talking about what's "possible". Some hypothetical type of BS. Talk about REALITY. What is actually happening. The Realm Of Possibility says you might have a clue. But every time you open your mouth you convince us that you don't. Now that's real and not some fantasized "Free Market" SHOULD, WOULD and COULD BS!!!
pardon my utter ignorance on this subject but is denzel washington really a conservative??? i recognize most of the faces (on that website) and certainly identify with them as conservative but denzel is throwing me for a loop. guess it's the malcolm x flashbacks...
Ummm, both the North and the South are growing economically, meaning no net loss on either side. That is impossible in a zero some game, by definition. Do you understand now?
By the way, that IS what is happening.
By the way, that IS what is happening.
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
Understand, now??
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.
How about now?
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.
Toussaint. What you fail to consider is that everything is relative. Lets say that an area has a million residents and normative levels of population growth. Lets now say that there is little job growth, despite a growth in population. The net effect of that is that the economic health of the region is deteriorating, despite not losing any jobs, but because they are not gaining any jobs. This is why despite job growth under the Bush administration, his tenure is considered a poor performance because job growth has not kept pace with population growth. The national economy needs to add between 130-150 thousand new jobs a month just to keep pace with population growth.
In light of this, when there are investment dollars ready to be invested, winning those investments creates losses for all others because they need the investment to keep pace with population growth dynamics. Investment promotes growth and lack of investment promotes relative, if not absolute, decline.
What you need to understand is that although the pie is always growing, the zero sum manifest most profoundly in the distribution of the pie. The only way that one can increase their percentage of the pie is for others to lose a proportional percentage. If you look at the state of Michigan as an example, its losses in jobs and people have translated in gains for the Southern USA as well as Mexico and Asia.
Take the simple economic law of supply and demand. The more you supply of anything, relative to demand, you decrease the value of what is being supplied. Lets look at an example to see how zero sum works. Say for example that there is a shortage of Engineers and hence Engineers value translate to 100k salaries. Now say many people get hip to this opportunity and get the training to become Engineers to the point that Engineers are now a dime a dozen. Given the finite demand for Engineers at a point in time, there are only so many dollars available to pay Engineers, thus the oversupply of Engineer results in people willing to work for less just to beat out the competition for jobs. In a free market for labor with wage elasticity salaries will be driven down from the 100k until an equilibrium price point is reached. Now, was their a loss to offset the gain. Yes. The loss was absorbed by those who would were or would have been earning 100k and the gain comes from the increased profits of the companies who don't have to pay as much for labor. Of course, in the real world such flexibility of wages does not exist due to REGULATION, which is an anti-free market term. However, if the free market was allowed to dominate, it would be clear that gains would be offset by losses.
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.
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.
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.
There's difference between LOSS and TURNOVER and see if you can explain the "pain."
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..."
How can someone run the risk of being unemployed when NOTHING IS LOST??
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.
Here's some advice. When you can support/substanitate your points and can't manage to field questions and answer them effectively, it's best to keep your mouth shut.
I mean, seriously... You go from the MEALY MOUTH (playing Mickey Mouse on the subject) to some silly "America, Love It Or Leave It!" type BULLSHIT!!
That reflects heavily on the WEAKNESS of your position.
The situation was that a company decides to invest money in China. You can't just assume job turnover (let alone job loss) from that situation. Business invest in other countries all the time, and it doesn't equate to job loss or job turnover. If you had decided to insert your ignorance in the beginning of the debate rather than in the middle, you might've known that.
If I buy noodles from China, that doesn't mean someone in the US loses their job. People in the US are just as well off as they were before I bought the noodles. Thus, there is no tangible loss on either side.
And to go back to the debate before you exposed yourself once again, Noah was trying to prove that trade is a zero-sum game. He failed, and you're in the process of failing. None of the crap that either of you has served up meets the definition.
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?
If I buy noodles from China, that doesn't mean someone in the US loses their job. People in the US are just as well off as they were before I bought the noodles. Thus, there is no tangible loss on either side.
And to go back to the debate before you exposed yourself once again, Noah was trying to prove that trade is a zero-sum game. He failed, and you're in the process of failing. None of the crap that either of you has served up meets the definition.
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?
Who is quoting Milton Friedman? *yikes*
Let me go back and read the whole thread because something has gone horribly awry!
Let me go back and read the whole thread because something has gone horribly awry!
quote:Originally posted by toussaint:
Ummm, both the North and the South are growing economically, ...By the way, that IS what is happening.
According to whom and how... and why is the wealth gap between the haves and have nots growing?
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?
When you can raise intelligent questions and, more, make intelligent statements and, even still more, answer questions intelligently then you can talk.
I'll ask you again:
How can someone run the risk of being unemployed when NOTHING IS LOST??
Explain the "pain" and stop the Mickey Mouse, MEALY MOUTH BS! Why would actual economist (as opposed to a shade-tree ideologue) talk about present and short-term "PAIN" (while praying for long-term, off in the distance "gain") if there is/was NO NET LOSS?
How can there be "pain" when there is NO LOSS and, given your DUMB ASS 200 year BS... constant "GAIN"?
Again, you had a ready example:
Even within the United States, there has been a migration of investment dollars to the Southern Region and away from the Northern Region.
And with that.... I didn't stutter:
Show the lack of a relationship and how "nothing tangible" was "lost" in the switch.
Now, open your mouth and actually defend your statements. You said:
Both regions can grow at the same time.
Some MEALY MOUTH BULLSHIT!!!
Now demonstrate how that is so and how you have knowledge of things that contradict what I posted:
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.
How is there "pain", Toussaint? When there is, as you say, NO NET LOSS?
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 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: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.
Amen!
But of course, buck-dancing Kneegroids is all for it!
quote:The main problem that I have with this Free Market Globalism is that it discounts the very real suffering of very real people
My point exactly:
The thing here is the impact on workers; aka "the 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.
Anytime there is a competition there is winners and losers. Capitalism is all about competition and thus produces winners and losers. The only way you cannot have winners and losers in competition is to have a DRAW or TIE. Thus, if entities are competing for capital investment an entity winning those investments means another entity losing those investments.
Now, I am about to go over your head in that economics are bound by the physical laws of nature of this closed system we inhabit. E=mc2. Everything breaks down to matter and energy, including the components of the systems of economics. There can NEVER be a NET GAIN of matter or energy in a closed system. The only thing that can happen is that transformation takes place as things change from one form of matter and energy to another form of matter and energy. As a biological example, life is maintained through death. For life to survive it must devour other forms of life and via a metabolic process that matter and energy gets transformed from the victim to the host. This is how nature works.....economics is bound by the laws of nature....and hence this is how economics works.
The problem with realizing this with economics is population growth. If population were stagnant, there would be no new workers or no new consumers to fuel economic growth, assuming people not working more than 10 hour days. Thus, the only way for a company to get additional workers or find additional consumers is for other companies to lose workers and consumers, but the pool of labor and consumers is fixed by stagnant population growth.
What population growth does is that it makes the pool of workers and consumer dynamic and not static and new opportunity is gained by virtue of the increasing pool of potential workers and consumers. A good way to think of population growth is to think of it like inflation. Inflation is the phenomenon of a decline in purchasing power of a unit of currency. Now, if you purchased your home ten years ago for 100k and today it's worth 100k, nominally it would appear as if your home has maintained its value. Wrong? Due to ten years of inflation, your home should have increased to 130k, assuming 3% annual rates of inflation. Thus, in fact you have experiences a LOSS.
This is the point that escapes Toussaint Forsure. He does not see a loss if one geographic location is gaining investment and jobs, but anytime a geographic location is not gaining jobs in pace with population growth, its actually experiencing a loss, just as when a home or paycheck is not increasing with the rate of inflation, one is experiencing a loss.
In summary, what makes the PIE grow is population growth, which adds new workers and consumers and allows for new profits by owners of capital. Incidentally, this is why capitalism is always seeking to expand geographically and to convert non capitalistic nations to capitalism, to accelerate the growth of new workers and consumers...and hence potential profits from their exploitation/use.
This is why that given the population growth is always increasing the potential size of the pie, that the zero sum manifest in relative percentages and not absolutes. It's like the market share for automobiles. The US auto industry has lost market share to Asian car market. The resultant is that US auto manufactures cannot provide jobs to US citizens because of the loss of market share, where as if not for the gains of the Asians, they could and would. Thus, it's obvious that there is a zero sum dynamics going on in the automobile industry as Asia gains is translating to Americans losses. Such realities are evident all over the system if one looks closely and intelligently.
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,
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: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.
The thing is that my position is not a philosophical one; it's simply an application of the physical laws of nature concerning matter and energy. Economics is subject to these laws because matter and energy is what makes economies work.
I am a firm believer, based upon physical laws of nature, that there can never be a net gain...only shifts. You might have 20 dollars in one pocket and nothing in the other. If you move 20 dollars to the other pocket, you still only have 20 dollars, but one pocket experienced a gain and the other a loss.
Profit is simply the act of getting more out of something than what you put into it. The only way one can get more out of something that that which they contributed is for someone else to get less out than that which they contributed. Wealth and poverty is thus created from unequal exchanges and or ownership of matter and energy. The concept of value distorts the physical laws, because people in need or in desire are often willing to enter into unequal exchanges.
Take for example that I am driving down a highway in the desert and come upon a man walking in the desert that is dehydrated and needs water to survive. Say that I have some water in may car that I paid $1 for. I then take advantage of the man's need and offer to sell him the water for $100 dollars. Of course, he values the water so much at this point that he would likely pay $1000 for it, but I cut him a deal for only $100. We both go away satisfied. The man got the water he wanted and needed and I made a $99 profit from the sale of water. The fact that both parties are content masks the unequal exchange. It took me only a minute and a half of work (energy expenditure), to purchase the water. Assuming that the person in the desert earned the same rate of pay for his work, it cost him slightly more than 2 hours of expended energy, conserved in currency, to buy the water from me. Thus I transferred his energy, represented in currency, to me, meaning that I profited by getting more energy back, than the energy I put in. This is how the system of capitalism works but on a much larger scale. Energy (in the form of human work and natural resources) are pooled together then reallocated back disproportionately in favor of the owners of capital.
NTA, I understand what you are saying. But you have to admit that your discussion is somewhat esoteric.
And, anything not easily understood by the masses can be diversionary and/or distracting.
And, anything not easily understood by the masses can be diversionary and/or distracting.
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.
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.
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. The only people who are really making money on Free Trade are business people, like CEOs of the companies who willingly turn a blind eye to abuses. Now this same thing has begun to happen here in the U.S. Companies without fear of prosecution from the law are paying illegal immigrants under the table. Wal-Mart had a big scandal with this a couple of years ago with their cleaning contractors. Many of whom were white Eastern European illegal immigrants. I bet THEY are still in country. They are stealing people's identities to be "legal" in this country. Again, this is the Free Trade that many people are touting and they don't even know the human effects or they do and don't care.
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.
"Free Trade Globalist" will say that those Asian girls are far better off [i.e., "lifted out of poverty"] because prior to their 14-18 hours a day/7 days per week/no benefit/no safety rule/no environmental protection rule/get sick, get fired jobs, they were not even making the $10 a day. Never mind the fact that prior to the sweatshop, these 5, 6 and 7 year olds didn't need $10.00 a day, but now they do, because they lived primarily in a barter society where money was less important than agricultural time and skill.
See "Free-trade Globalist" mesure everything in terms of dollars flowing to the top ... culture, quality of life and economic casualties be damned.
I thought that we, as a people-a society, had progressed beyond the "economic ends being justified by any exploitive means", blind greed mentality.
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.
Toussaint, you seem to be a less intellectually worthy opponent than in the past, unless I am confusing you with someone else.
First, do not put words in my mouth. I never made a pro or con argument in regards to free trade, my argument was against your denial of zero sums. The first thing that you need to note about Hong Kong is that it was a City-state, like Singapore. These small populations are easily turned around by direct foreign investment from large wealthy nations, pumping in billions of dollars annually. The jobs created from the investment of western capital provided increase income for natives who, which created new business opportunities.
Second, the growth in China comes at the expense of growth the in USA, as much of their growth is tied to the USA. This comes back to the zero sum theory in that every action produces and equal and opposite reaction. If the USA produced all the goods and services that it consumes, inflation would skyrocket due to the high labor cost component of goods and services, which creates our high standard of living. You cannot have a high standard of living without the consequences of high prices paid for goods and services, because of the labor component of commodity price.
In light of this, what the rise of China is that it has fooled American into believing that it can have high wages and cheap prices at the same time, which is a fallacy. Thus, Americans are buying more and more products made abroad, for the short term gain of cheaper cost, which created employment opportunities in China and subtracts employment away from the USA in the long term. The only way American employment levels can be maintained is if people are buying the goods and services that we produce more than we buy the goods and services that others produce. All one has to do is check the nations balance of accounts ledger to notice that we as a nation buy much more from others than they buy from us, with the biggest gap being with CHINA.
The USA became the largest consumer market in the world by virtue of being the highest paid workforce in the world. Such a well paid workforce is why so many nations want to sell their goods here. However, the equal and opposite consequence of choosing less expensive goods is that it gives a competitive advantage to companies with cheap labor and hence becomes a corporate migration to low wage workers. Low wage workers do not have the purchasing power of high wage workers and the standard of living of Americans decrease as people lose good paying jobs that are replaced with low paying jobs as companies can migrate production to lo wage nations, who experience an increase in standard of living as a direct result of our decrease in our standard of living. Zero sum in a nutshell.
Here is a real work example of zero sum Toussiant.
Who can forget the neocons' claim that under their leadership America creates its own reality? Remember the neocons' Iraq reality--a "cakewalk" war? After three years of combat, thousands of casualties, and cost estimated at over $1 trillion, real reality must still compete with the White House spin machine.
One might think that the Iraq experience would restore sober judgement to policymakers. Alas, neocon reality has spread everywhere. It has infected the media and the new Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, who just gave Congress an upbeat report on the economy. The robust economy, he declared, could soon lead to inflation and higher interest rates.
Consumers deeper in debt and fresh from their first negative savings rate since the Great Depression show high consumer confidence. It is as if the entire country is on an acid trip or a cocaine trip or whatever it is that lets people create realities for themselves that bear no relation to real reality.
How can the upbeat views be reconciled with the Bureau of Labor Statistics' payroll jobs data, the extraordinary red ink, and exploding trade deficit? Perhaps the answer is that every economic development, no matter how detrimental, is spun as if it were good news. For example, the worsening US trade deficit is spun as evidence of the fast growth of the US economy: the economy is growing so fast it can't meet its needs and must rely on imports. Declining household income is spun as an inflation fighter that keeps mortgage interest rates low. Federal budget deficits are spun as letting taxpayers keep and spend more of their own money. Massive layoffs are spun as evidence that change is so rapid that the work force must constantly upgrade skills and re-educate itself.
The denial of economic reality has become an art form. Except for Lou Dobbs, no accurate economic reporting is available in the "mainstream media."
Occasionally, real information escapes the spin machine. The National Association of Manufacturers, one of outsourcing's greatest boosters, has just released a report, "US Manufacturing Innovation at Risk," by economists Joel Popkin and Kathryn Kobe. The economists find that US industry's investment in research and development is not languishing after all. It just appears to be languishing, because it is rapidly being shifted overseas: "Funds provided for foreign- performed R&D have grown by almost 73 percent between 1999 and 2003, with a 36 percent increase in the number of firms funding foreign R&D."
US industry is still investing in R&D after all; it is just not hiring Americans to do the R&D. US manufacturers still make things, only less and less in America with American labor. US manufacturers still hire engineers, only they are foreign ones, not American ones.
In other words, everything is fine for US manufacturers. It is just their former American work force that is in the doldrums. As these Americans happen to be customers for US manufacturers, US brand names will gradually lose their US market. US household median income has fallen for the past five years. Consumer demand has been kept alive by consumers' spending their savings and home equity and going deeper into debt. It is not possible for debt to forever rise faster than income.
When manufacturing moves abroad, engineering follows. R&D follows engineering, and innovation follows R&D. The entire economy drains away. This is why the "new economy" has not materialized to take the place of the lost "old economy."
The latest technologies go into the newest plants, and those plants are abroad. Innovations take place in new plants as new processes are developed to optimize the efficiency of the new technologies. The skills required to operate new processes call forth investment in education and training. As US manufacturing and R&D move abroad, Indian and Chinese engineering enrollments rise, and US enrollments decline.
The process is a unified whole. It is not possible for a country to lose parts of the process and hold on to other parts. That is why the "new economy" was a hoax from the beginning. As Popkin and Kobe note, new technologies, new manufacturing processes, and new designs take place where things are made. The notion that the US can lose everything else but hold on to innovation is absurd.
Someone needs to tell Congress before they waste yet more borrowed money. In an adjoining column to the NAM report on innovation, the February 6 Manufacturing & Technology News reports that "the US Senate is jumping on board the competitiveness issue." The Bush regime and the doormat Congress have come together in the belief that the US can keep its edge in science and technology if the federal government spends $9 billion a year to "fund innovative, big-payoff ideas that have the potential to transform the US economy."
The utter stupidity of the "Protecting America's Competitive Edge Act" (PACE) is obvious. The tremendous labor cost advantage of doing things abroad will equally apply to any new "big-payoff ideas" as it does to the goods and services currently outsourced. Moreover, US research is open-sourced. It is available to anyone. As the Cox Commission Report made clear, there are a large number of Chinese front companies in the US for the sole purpose of collecting technology. PACE will simply be another US taxpayer subsidy to the rising Asian economies.
The assertion that we hear every day that America is falling behind because it doesn't produce enough science, mathematics and engineering graduates is a bald-faced lie. The problem is always brought back to education failures in K-12, that is, to more education subsidies. When CEOs say they can't find American engineers, they mean they cannot find Americans who will work for Chinese or Indian wages. That is what the so-called "shortage" is all about.
I receive a constant stream of emails from unemployed and underemployed engineers with many years of experience and advanced degrees. Many have been out of work for years. They describe the movement of their jobs offshore or their replacement by foreigners brought in on work visas. Many no longer even know American engineers who are employed in the profession. Some are now working in sawmills, others in Home Depot, and others are attempting to eke out a living as consultants. Many describe lost homes, broken marriages, even imprisonment for inability to make child support payments.
Many ask me how economists can be so blind to reality. Here is my answer: Many economists are bought and paid for by outsourcers. Most of the studies claiming to prove that Americans benefit from outsourcing are done by economic consulting firms hired by outsourcers. Or they are done by think tanks or university professors dependent on corporate donors. Or they reflect the ideology of "free market economists" who are committed to the belief that "freedom" is good and always produces good results. Since outsourcing is merely the freedom of property to act in its interest, and since this self-interest is always guided by an invisible hand to the greater welfare of everyone, outsourcing, ipso facto, is good for America. Anyone who doesn't think so is a fascist who wants to take away the rights of property. Seriously, this is what passes for analysis among "free market economists."
Economists' commitment to their "reality" is destroying the ladders of upward mobility that made America the land of opportunity. It is just as destructive as the neocons' commitment to their "reality" that is driving the US deeper into war in the Middle East.
Fact and analysis no longer play a role. The spun reality in which Americans live is insulated against intelligent perception.
American "manufacturers" are becoming merely marketers of foreign made goods. The CEOs and shareholders have too short a time horizon to understand that once foreigners control the manufacture-design- innovation process, they will bypass American brand names. US companies will simply cease to exist.
Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, says that even McDonald's jobs are no longer safe. Why pay an error-prone order-taker the minimum wage when McDonald's can have the order transmitted via satellite to a central location and from there to the person preparing the order. McDonald's experiment with this system to date has cut its error rate by 50% and increased its throughput by 20 percent. Technology lets the orders be taken in India or China at costs below the minimum wage and without the liabilities of US employees.
Americans are giving up their civil liberties because they fear terrorist attacks. All of the terrorists in the world cannot do America the damage it has already suffered from offshore outsourcing.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
Who can forget the neocons' claim that under their leadership America creates its own reality? Remember the neocons' Iraq reality--a "cakewalk" war? After three years of combat, thousands of casualties, and cost estimated at over $1 trillion, real reality must still compete with the White House spin machine.
One might think that the Iraq experience would restore sober judgement to policymakers. Alas, neocon reality has spread everywhere. It has infected the media and the new Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, who just gave Congress an upbeat report on the economy. The robust economy, he declared, could soon lead to inflation and higher interest rates.
Consumers deeper in debt and fresh from their first negative savings rate since the Great Depression show high consumer confidence. It is as if the entire country is on an acid trip or a cocaine trip or whatever it is that lets people create realities for themselves that bear no relation to real reality.
How can the upbeat views be reconciled with the Bureau of Labor Statistics' payroll jobs data, the extraordinary red ink, and exploding trade deficit? Perhaps the answer is that every economic development, no matter how detrimental, is spun as if it were good news. For example, the worsening US trade deficit is spun as evidence of the fast growth of the US economy: the economy is growing so fast it can't meet its needs and must rely on imports. Declining household income is spun as an inflation fighter that keeps mortgage interest rates low. Federal budget deficits are spun as letting taxpayers keep and spend more of their own money. Massive layoffs are spun as evidence that change is so rapid that the work force must constantly upgrade skills and re-educate itself.
The denial of economic reality has become an art form. Except for Lou Dobbs, no accurate economic reporting is available in the "mainstream media."
Occasionally, real information escapes the spin machine. The National Association of Manufacturers, one of outsourcing's greatest boosters, has just released a report, "US Manufacturing Innovation at Risk," by economists Joel Popkin and Kathryn Kobe. The economists find that US industry's investment in research and development is not languishing after all. It just appears to be languishing, because it is rapidly being shifted overseas: "Funds provided for foreign- performed R&D have grown by almost 73 percent between 1999 and 2003, with a 36 percent increase in the number of firms funding foreign R&D."
US industry is still investing in R&D after all; it is just not hiring Americans to do the R&D. US manufacturers still make things, only less and less in America with American labor. US manufacturers still hire engineers, only they are foreign ones, not American ones.
In other words, everything is fine for US manufacturers. It is just their former American work force that is in the doldrums. As these Americans happen to be customers for US manufacturers, US brand names will gradually lose their US market. US household median income has fallen for the past five years. Consumer demand has been kept alive by consumers' spending their savings and home equity and going deeper into debt. It is not possible for debt to forever rise faster than income.
When manufacturing moves abroad, engineering follows. R&D follows engineering, and innovation follows R&D. The entire economy drains away. This is why the "new economy" has not materialized to take the place of the lost "old economy."
The latest technologies go into the newest plants, and those plants are abroad. Innovations take place in new plants as new processes are developed to optimize the efficiency of the new technologies. The skills required to operate new processes call forth investment in education and training. As US manufacturing and R&D move abroad, Indian and Chinese engineering enrollments rise, and US enrollments decline.
The process is a unified whole. It is not possible for a country to lose parts of the process and hold on to other parts. That is why the "new economy" was a hoax from the beginning. As Popkin and Kobe note, new technologies, new manufacturing processes, and new designs take place where things are made. The notion that the US can lose everything else but hold on to innovation is absurd.
Someone needs to tell Congress before they waste yet more borrowed money. In an adjoining column to the NAM report on innovation, the February 6 Manufacturing & Technology News reports that "the US Senate is jumping on board the competitiveness issue." The Bush regime and the doormat Congress have come together in the belief that the US can keep its edge in science and technology if the federal government spends $9 billion a year to "fund innovative, big-payoff ideas that have the potential to transform the US economy."
The utter stupidity of the "Protecting America's Competitive Edge Act" (PACE) is obvious. The tremendous labor cost advantage of doing things abroad will equally apply to any new "big-payoff ideas" as it does to the goods and services currently outsourced. Moreover, US research is open-sourced. It is available to anyone. As the Cox Commission Report made clear, there are a large number of Chinese front companies in the US for the sole purpose of collecting technology. PACE will simply be another US taxpayer subsidy to the rising Asian economies.
The assertion that we hear every day that America is falling behind because it doesn't produce enough science, mathematics and engineering graduates is a bald-faced lie. The problem is always brought back to education failures in K-12, that is, to more education subsidies. When CEOs say they can't find American engineers, they mean they cannot find Americans who will work for Chinese or Indian wages. That is what the so-called "shortage" is all about.
I receive a constant stream of emails from unemployed and underemployed engineers with many years of experience and advanced degrees. Many have been out of work for years. They describe the movement of their jobs offshore or their replacement by foreigners brought in on work visas. Many no longer even know American engineers who are employed in the profession. Some are now working in sawmills, others in Home Depot, and others are attempting to eke out a living as consultants. Many describe lost homes, broken marriages, even imprisonment for inability to make child support payments.
Many ask me how economists can be so blind to reality. Here is my answer: Many economists are bought and paid for by outsourcers. Most of the studies claiming to prove that Americans benefit from outsourcing are done by economic consulting firms hired by outsourcers. Or they are done by think tanks or university professors dependent on corporate donors. Or they reflect the ideology of "free market economists" who are committed to the belief that "freedom" is good and always produces good results. Since outsourcing is merely the freedom of property to act in its interest, and since this self-interest is always guided by an invisible hand to the greater welfare of everyone, outsourcing, ipso facto, is good for America. Anyone who doesn't think so is a fascist who wants to take away the rights of property. Seriously, this is what passes for analysis among "free market economists."
Economists' commitment to their "reality" is destroying the ladders of upward mobility that made America the land of opportunity. It is just as destructive as the neocons' commitment to their "reality" that is driving the US deeper into war in the Middle East.
Fact and analysis no longer play a role. The spun reality in which Americans live is insulated against intelligent perception.
American "manufacturers" are becoming merely marketers of foreign made goods. The CEOs and shareholders have too short a time horizon to understand that once foreigners control the manufacture-design- innovation process, they will bypass American brand names. US companies will simply cease to exist.
Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, says that even McDonald's jobs are no longer safe. Why pay an error-prone order-taker the minimum wage when McDonald's can have the order transmitted via satellite to a central location and from there to the person preparing the order. McDonald's experiment with this system to date has cut its error rate by 50% and increased its throughput by 20 percent. Technology lets the orders be taken in India or China at costs below the minimum wage and without the liabilities of US employees.
Americans are giving up their civil liberties because they fear terrorist attacks. All of the terrorists in the world cannot do America the damage it has already suffered from offshore outsourcing.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com