Side-by-side economics: McCain/Palin vs. Obama/Biden

Page 2 of 5 [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

09 Sep 2008, 12:36 pm

ed wrote:
NAFTA allows companies to shut down it's US plants and relocate them to Mexico. If you think that is a good thing, then you must have a warped sense of priorities.

Yes, I do think that is a good thing.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

09 Sep 2008, 12:37 pm

ed wrote:
Yes. That specific group of people is the hard-working but ill-paid workers of the United States. NAFTA allows companies to shut down it's US plants and relocate them to Mexico. If you think that is a good thing, then you must have a warped sense of priorities.

And if you don't think that our real wages are not going down, then you are simply not paying attention.

Because the hard-working but even more poorly paid workers of Mexico really don't deserve jobs in the first place. We need to maintain, even the most inefficient processes, just to maintain these jobs. After all, it is not as if the purpose of an economy is to efficiently allocate resources. Goodness forbid! If a new invention pops up. Crush it. If some better way of life arises, but it hurts some group, any group, in any way shape or form, demolish it. I am sorry that, well, making the world a more productive and better place, in a manner that will help potentially ALL people in the long run is a warped sense of priorities.



ed
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: Whitinsville, MA

09 Sep 2008, 1:01 pm

Well, if you think that causing Americans to lose their jobs is a good thing, then there is obviously no point in arguing with you. Personally, I consider your viewpoint to border on treason.


_________________
How can we outlaw a plant created by a perfect God?


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

09 Sep 2008, 2:52 pm

ed wrote:
Well, if you think that causing Americans to lose their jobs is a good thing, then there is obviously no point in arguing with you. Personally, I consider your viewpoint to border on treason.

They'll get new jobs. AG sarcasm cuts to the point rather well. I think advancing society and helping to raise the general standard of living is a good thing. But you are right on one thing: there is no point in arguing with me, because I'm stubborn. Not as stubborn as AG, though. He'll win an argument against a mule.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

09 Sep 2008, 8:02 pm

ed wrote:
Well, if you think that causing Americans to lose their jobs is a good thing, then there is obviously no point in arguing with you. Personally, I consider your viewpoint to border on treason.

Right, of course, as treason is the word we use for all people who disagree with us or have different views than we do. Couldn't I just counter-argue that causing Americans to use their resources less effectively, and holding back American progress is also treasonous? Not only that, but is treasonous really a word we should really care that much about in a nation created by rebelling against another nation due to tax issues, that is founded on notions of individual liberty, and that had founding fathers that believed that overthrowing the government was a good thing at times?

Ed, you are right, you have different ethical suppositions on some level. However, you are more rhetoric than analysis, and that small kernel of analysis underneath the rhetoric seems as flimsy as a piece of tissue paper, maybe construction paper if I am just underestimating you.



ToadOfSteel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,157
Location: New Jersey

09 Sep 2008, 8:29 pm

By building more factories and letting the mexicans work in them, this effectively allows companies to expand since they have more labor force to work with. More labor force means more demand for management personell, and therefore, more jobs (and higher-paying jobs) for the US people...

I'd love to see someone call that treasonous...



Speckles
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 280

10 Sep 2008, 9:53 am

Hmm, one of my few qualms when it comes to globalization is that some countries effectively use terror tactics to bully workers into accepting poorer wages and working conditions. Stuff like locking workers in the factory until their shift is done, and surrounding the area with barbed fences and strongman guards; the only reason to do some of these tactics is to intimidate workers into not organizing.

It could be argued that this is for their own good, as if a corporation perceives too much resistance it will leave to find a more compliant region; it would be very strange hearing it from a professed libertarian though. While I feel that the long-term benefits can potentially outweigh the short-term costs, I have no illusions about the fact that the potential good is created through oppressive authoritarian means.

The thing that really bothers me is that independent monitors are shut out of these factories. Workers can be fired just for talking to a watch-dog organization, bodily threated, and even killed if you believe some sources. In some cases this kind of story has been exaggerated, but in others it has not. Can it really be called a 'free' market when the commercial powers are able to enforce that level of censorship? If the ends truly justify the means, why do they have to be hidden?

And now I've got to run. Curse my lack of free time :cry:


_________________
I have seen the truth and it makes no sense.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

10 Sep 2008, 10:22 am

Hmm... I wouldn't be surprised about some terrible conditions for already working workers, but I can't imagine that we'd have things imposed on those who weren't working yet. So, I would think that on some level, there'd be free choice, even if the choices are terrible. The big issue is freedom to enter a contract and leave it contingent upon the conditions that the original contract stated, if that is upheld then there is a lot less true authoritarianism.

Yeah, the commercial contracts should have to put their threat in a contract, that way it would be a free market. To be honest, a free market allows for secrets, the real issue is probably that the method of enforcement is somewhat illegitimate seeming, however, I would not be surprised if these workers were knowingly going against a prior understanding on the labor they were doing.

Not only that, but "the ends justify the means" is not the only ethical idea that people hold, and some people don't even know how the ends will work in the first place.



matrix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 585
Location: between glitches

14 Sep 2008, 9:58 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Hmm... I wouldn't be surprised about some terrible conditions for already working workers, but I can't imagine that we'd have things imposed on those who weren't working yet. So, I would think that on some level, there'd be free choice, even if the choices are terrible. The big issue is freedom to enter a contract and leave it contingent upon the conditions that the original contract stated, if that is upheld then there is a lot less true authoritarianism.

Yeah, the commercial contracts should have to put their threat in a contract, that way it would be a free market. To be honest, a free market allows for secrets, the real issue is probably that the method of enforcement is somewhat illegitimate seeming, however, I would not be surprised if these workers were knowingly going against a prior understanding on the labor they were doing.

Not only that, but "the ends justify the means" is not the only ethical idea that people hold, and some people don't even know how the ends will work in the first place.


Honestly, a human rights violation is a human rights violation, contract or no.


_________________
You are not submitting the post
The post is submitting you


Hurricane_Delta
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 140

14 Sep 2008, 2:00 pm

Orwell wrote:
ed wrote:
Well, if you think that causing Americans to lose their jobs is a good thing, then there is obviously no point in arguing with you. Personally, I consider your viewpoint to border on treason.

They'll get new jobs. AG sarcasm cuts to the point rather well. I think advancing society and helping to raise the general standard of living is a good thing. But you are right on one thing: there is no point in arguing with me, because I'm stubborn. Not as stubborn as AG, though. He'll win an argument against a mule.


Okay, I've had enough of this BS. They'll new jobs right. Yeah they'll probably get a less well-paying job as a waiter or something. You're saying that your average working class guy,. who probaly has an associate's degree if lucky will get a high paid management position. I'm going have to call bullcrap on this one.

And lets forget that NAFTA hurt Mexican Farmers, who are now also out work. In essence, NAFTA decimated the US industrial sector, and the Mexican Farming Seector.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Sep 2008, 3:07 pm

Hurricane_Delta wrote:
Okay, I've had enough of this BS. They'll new jobs right. Yeah they'll probably get a less well-paying job as a waiter or something. You're saying that your average working class guy,. who probaly has an associate's degree if lucky will get a high paid management position. I'm going have to call bullcrap on this one.

Nonsense, read any introductory econ book. How is trade harmful to workers? Does it hurt workers in California if a factory is opened in Pennsylvania? Then why would it hurt workers in America for a factory to open in Mexico? Any negative effects of free trade tend to be highly localized and rather fleeting. There has not been found to be any long-term negative impact of free trade policies on workers whose jobs get outsourced. That said, I will concede that, as Keynes once said, "In the long term, we're all dead."

Quote:
And lets forget that NAFTA hurt Mexican Farmers, who are now also out work. In essence, NAFTA decimated the US industrial sector, and the Mexican Farming Seector.

They weren't out work before? More trade is beneficial to both countries' economies. All voluntary economic exchanges are mutually beneficial.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

14 Sep 2008, 3:08 pm

In any case, never mind the argument about free trade. Neither Obama nor McCain seem to be strong proponents of free trade policies, so let's try to move the debate back to what those two candidates actually advocate.

If anyone can figure out what the hell that is. :P


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

14 Sep 2008, 3:09 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
ed wrote:
Well, if you think that causing Americans to lose their jobs is a good thing, then there is obviously no point in arguing with you. Personally, I consider your viewpoint to border on treason.

Right, of course, as treason is the word we use for all people who disagree with us or have different views than we do.


No, I think that one side really sees free trade as something that hurts their country, and the other side really sees it as something that helps. Orwell only fanned the flames with a previous response that he thought it was a good thing that Americans were losing jobs - no mention in that response that he thought that America would also be generating better jobs through the same process.



matrix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Oct 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 585
Location: between glitches

14 Sep 2008, 3:45 pm

Orwell wrote:
In any case, never mind the argument about free trade. Neither Obama nor McCain seem to be strong proponents of free trade policies, so let's try to move the debate back to what those two candidates actually advocate.

If anyone can figure out what the hell that is. :P


I started this thread with the sole purpose of getting some homework help. In my econ class we have to discuss and asses both economic policies, but "where's the meat?"


_________________
You are not submitting the post
The post is submitting you


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Sep 2008, 3:50 pm

monty wrote:
No, I think that one side really sees free trade as something that hurts their country, and the other side really sees it as something that helps. Orwell only fanned the flames with a previous response that he thought it was a good thing that Americans were losing jobs - no mention in that response that he thought that America would also be generating better jobs through the same process.

I know, I was merely complaining that one side really was not trying to understand the other side and then trying to take some random moral highpoint, which I will admit, pissed me off a bit as I hate people who rest on some magical moral ground. Orwell does not always try to phrase things diplomatically, and I already argued with him for misrepresenting the difference between normative and positive economics on this issue, so it cannot be stated that I attempt to promote a lack of knowledge or understanding or that I attempt to promote pride.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

14 Sep 2008, 3:53 pm

matrix wrote:
I started this thread with the sole purpose of getting some homework help. In my econ class we have to discuss and asses both economic policies, but "where's the meat?"

Oh, just argue the median voter theory. The politicians are mostly the same because rational politicians in a 2 party system will run towards the middle in order to capture the most votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_voter_theory

Given that this is an economics concept, you probably won't lose points for promoting a view like that.