Originally Posted by James50

What is contrived? Consumers will buy the cheapest thing they can find at whatever quality level they wish to operate at. And what is "slash and burn"? I call it build and sell. The world owes us nothing.

James50

James, in all seriousness, that sounds like Social Darwinism to me.

Originally Posted by James50

What is contrived? Consumers will buy the cheapest thing they can find at whatever quality level they wish to operate at. And what is "slash and burn"? I call it build and sell. The world owes us nothing.

James50

The environment is contrived. If the Renminbi was revalued at or even near its true value, would the Chinese eat you lunch? And it isn't only the Chinese. The Germans use the Euro zone to keep the Euro in check, while they export aggressively internally and position themselves to export at a discount externally. Then there is Brazil ...

We shouldn't be accepting this, but the GOP is screaming that the dollar is falling ... falling ... falling. I would hope so for all our sakes. We need to make the cost of imports rational, even in the face of opposition. We may have to accept higher prices for fuel as a consequence. If so, we might finally start to conserve.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

James, in all seriousness, that sounds like Social Darwinism to me.

I don't know. Maybe if taken to a logical conclusion, it could be. But I think it *is* true that the world owes each of us nothing that we don't earn.

Having said that (and before you all start piling on) --

This isn't the same thing as saying that a compassionate and affluent society shouldn't want to provide some minimum "comfort level" to its citizens, particularly those who are either (a) honestly trying to help themselves or (b) physically/mentally unable to be expected to do so.

Do I *owe* the poor and the destitute a decent standard of living? No. Do I want to provide one nevertheless? Yes, in the general case I do. I may want to give to them, but I don't feel I have a *debt* to them (which is what the word "owe" implies).

(Edit to add: This sort of ties in with the "health care is a right" claim. I don't believe it is a right, as I believe a true *right* is something you can exercise without forcibly taking the life, liberty or property of another person. But I still think providing it for all is the morally correct thing to do; I just don't think it's a "right.")

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I don't know. Maybe if taken to a logical conclusion, it could be. But I think it *is* true that the world owes each of us nothing that we don't earn.

Having said that (and before you all start piling on) --

This isn't the same thing as saying that a compassionate and affluent society shouldn't want to provide some minimum "comfort level" to its citizens, particularly those who are either (a) honestly trying to help themselves or (b) physically/mentally unable to be expected to do so.

Do I *owe* the poor and the destitute a decent standard of living? No. Do I want to provide one nevertheless? Yes, in the general case I do. I may want to give to them, but I don't feel I have a *debt* to them (which is what the word "owe" implies).

(Edit to add: This sort of ties in with the "health care is a right" claim. I don't believe it is a right, as I believe a true *right* is something you can exercise without forcibly taking the life, liberty or property of another person. But I still think providing it for all is the morally correct thing to do; I just don't think it's a "right.")

If not health care, what qualifies? You seem to even exclude sustenance, but not the concept itself. I'm confused. If life itself is not a right, then how can you support the concept?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

James, in all seriousness, that sounds like Social Darwinism to me.

Its sounds like it because, on a world wide scale, that is what it is. We had better be on guard and work to stay competitive. The world does not owe us a living.

They are not staying up nights in Beijing worrying about America's middle class. They are trying to create their own.

This is hard stuff. Its scary, but it is what it is. Only the paranoid survive.

James50

Originally Posted by The Rani

If anyone is interested, check out The Descent of Man where Darwin talks about the social instinct as the basis of morality in animals and humans.
The term "Social Darwinism" is a misnomer. He talked about different races exterminating each other, but that has to do with survival, not wealth.

James seems to have equated the two, and that's David's point. Life is not necessarily that brittle. We choose to make it that way.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

James seems to have equated the two, and that's David's point. Life is not necessarily that brittle. We choose to make it that way.

Social Darwinism is a term used for various late nineteenth century ideologies predicated on the idea of survival of the fittest.[1] It especially refers to notions of struggle for existence being used to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. The most prominent form of such views stressed competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism but it is also connected to the ideas of the progressive era, in which many promoted eugenics or scientific racism or imperialism,[2] or a struggle between national or racial groups.[3] In sociology it has been defined as a theory of social evolution which asserts that "There are underlying, and largely irresistible, forces acting in societies which are like the natural forces that operate in animal and plant communities. One can therefore formulate social laws similar to natural ones. These social forces are of such a kind as to produce evolutionary progress through the natural conflicts between social groups. The best-adapted and most successful social groups survive these conflicts, raising the evolutionary level of society generally (the 'survival of the fittest')."[4] The term has very rarely been used as a self-description.[5]

here.

David Kaiser is the one who used the term. I took it as a complaint that I was portraying a world harsher than it really is.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

David Kaiser is the one who used the term. I took it as a complaint that I was portraying a world harsher than it really is.

Perhaps, but the flaw in Social Darwinism lay in treating everything as an individual contest for survival and ignoring the reality that Homo sapiens is a social species. A dog-eat-dog international world (which is the reality at present, agreed) is an argument for protectionism and other nationalistic economic measures, not against it. The Chinese, as you say, are not concerned with protecting and expanding the American middle class. Therefore, we must be.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The Chinese, as you say, are not concerned with protecting and expanding the American middle class. Therefore, we must be.

Yes, but is protectionism the way to expand our middle class? Most economists say not.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Yes, but is protectionism the way to expand our middle class? Most economists say not.

Most economists are in service to the agenda that enriches the owner class at the expense of the middle class. One must try to understand the arguments they make as to why it is not, and see where they are right and where wrong, and not trust them too far.

EDIT: Here's how we can describe the process facilitated by the "free-trade" ideology.

1) Owners of manufacturing companies outsource labor to poor, pre-industrialized foreign countries with cheap labor. Products are produced in those countries for sale to the advanced world, especially to the U.S.

2) In the process, well-paid manufacturing workers who were part of the middle class and a large part of the reason why the U.S. became a largely middle-class society when we were children, lose their jobs and are re-employed at lower-paying service jobs that drop them out of the middle class.

In what way is that beneficial to the American middle class? Isn't it self-evident that it is hurting it badly?

What if tariffs were imposed on imports from countries where this is taking place, reducing the incentive for doing so? Obviously it would take place less.

In what way does a tariff hurt the economy of the nation imposing it? In one way only. The nation impacted by the tariff enacts its own tariff in retaliation, and trade between the two nations is reduced. But if trade between the two nations was imbalanced anyway so that the more advanced country's citizens were (with a few notable exceptions) losing out because of it, how is the loss of that trade a problem? If we were to lose all of our trade with China, the U.S. would gain more than it lost. A trade war with China would very much be to our benefit, while a trade war with Japan or Germany or (God forbid!) Canada would be a catastrophe.

Now the final piece of the puzzle is the exceptions who do benefit from things as they are now. That's the owners of the companies that are doing the outsourcing. By drastically reducing their labor costs, they gain a much larger piece of the pie than they would by keeping their operations in the U.S. (or moving them to some other advanced nation). Even though they also reduce their prices, the net gain in profit is enormous, because prices are not reduced anywhere near the point that their labor costs go down. From their point of view, it's a lovely scam. America loses, but they make out like bandits.

Many economists, particularly a subset of those who are quoted in the media, think of the profits of the owner class when they speak of prosperity. One must bear that in mind when evaluating arguments against protectionism.

Originally Posted by James50

Its sounds like it because, on a world wide scale, that is what it is. We had better be on guard and work to stay competitive. The world does not owe us a living.

They are not staying up nights in Beijing worrying about America's middle class. They are trying to create their own.

This is hard stuff. Its scary, but it is what it is. Only the paranoid survive.

James50

Your choice of words and the tone of your language reminds me more of the Cold War than of a heated sports competition. Many smaller countries in the world don't seem too worried about being conquered, out produced or left behind technologically, perhaps because subconsciously their politicians & people just assume that the USA and the other big NATO powers will always pull them along, up the high tech tower of progress.

I would like the Republican candidates for president to articulate a global vision and a long-term plan instead of only focusing on fire fighting the political problems of today. However what we're subjected to via big media is just the way political rhetoric works in the real world. Granted, wars are very serious and not little problems.

Likewise with President Obama, tho' he does oft speaketh so (and recourse to pithy doth go).

Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

- Shakespeare

BTW, after the first line, I can't help but hear, "do not forget, stay out of debt."

Originally Posted by James50

But we were talking about intent. Do you think any of the Republican candidates wants a Gilded Age? Believes in social darwinism? (BTW that social darwinist Michelle Bachmann has taken in over 25 children into her house for foster care.)

I am sure that is not how they see it.

James50

The above is actually why I brought up the term again. James had been telling me I was too harsh in pinning it on the Republican candidates.

The question of whether protectionism will ever come back is a very interesting one. Stranger things have happened.

More to the point: health care. James, it's none of my business how much money you make or how much money you have, but my guess is that your net worth would probably not pay for a serious long-term medical emergency in your family. Thus you (like me) have insurance that will pay for it, based on the probability that very few people in the insurance pool will have it. Since you and I have that, I don't see why everyone else shouldn't, too.

But the overarching issue is one we've been over many times before (we as a forum): are we individuals or social beings? In my opinion the community makes all our lives possible in a jillion ways. It isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. We depend on most people obeying the laws, observing contracts, accepting our money, etc., etc., etc. And that creates, for me, some kind of mutual obligation to put a floor under everyone. In addition, since I think luck has a lot more to do with success than most people want to admit, I see nothing wrong with putting a ceiling on, too.

So I am against social darwinism. Some will always prosper more than others, but I see nothing wrong with keeping that spread within limits. I also think it helps the economy to do so, but that's another story.

Originally Posted by James50

Protected economies always end up poorer. Its just the way of things. Our problems cannot be solved just by changing laws. We must build, innovate, and compete. Your remedies might create some short term boost, but in the end, would fail. And in the meantime, you will create another class of supplicants to government asking for protection. Haven't we got enough of that already?

James50

This is contrary to historical fact. Industrialization requires protectionism. The US was highly protectionist during the Great Power saeculum. China is VERY protectionist right now. There is no country that ever industrialized via "Free Trade". In fact, "Free Trade" policies in 3rd Word countries get in the way of industrialization and keeps countries stuck in a state of being exporters of raw commodities.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

In what way does a tariff hurt the economy of the nation imposing it? In one way only. The nation impacted by the tariff enacts its own tariff in retaliation, and trade between the two nations is reduced.

It is impacted by the higher prices paid by its consumers. For every one person that is aided by protectionism in their jobs, there are ten who are hurt at the store. Low prices at Walmart keep the cost of living lower here. Raising prices for items which can be produced somewhere else at a lower cost makes the tariff producing country poorer.

Instead of thinking of the manufacturing sector (which is doing just fine in the US), think of the tariffs on sugar. That is the type of tariff you will get when the special interests have their way. It keeps our sugar prices artificially high while helping the special interests in LA. We also have high tariffs on ethanol which keep prices artificially high here. Protectionism is for losers.

James50

Originally Posted by Odin

This is contrary to historical fact. Industrialization requires protectionism. The US was highly protectionist during the Great Power saeculum. China is VERY protectionist right now. There is no country that ever industrialized via "Free Trade". In fact, "Free Trade" policies in 3rd Word countries get in the way of industrialization and keeps countries stuck in a state of being exporters of raw commodities.

I can't believe with the education and intellect on this forum that I am having to defend free trade as an ideal. Be left if you want, but don't try to believe that protectionism helps the lower classes. It just ain't so.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

So I am against social darwinism. Some will always prosper more than others, but I see nothing wrong with keeping that spread within limits. I also think it helps the economy to do so, but that's another story.

What makes you think I am in favor of domestic social darwinism? Fortunately we are still wealthy enough as a society to provide safety nets. I think they need modification if they become unaffordable (like Medicare as its currently constituted), but I do not advocate doing away with them.

My comment earlier was about the relations between states in an international economic context. We do live in a highly competitive world. When it comes to economics, its eat or be eaten. Do you dispute that? I don't like it and did not make it that way, but it is the world we live in.

James50

Will the GOP run from the left after getting establishment Dems to buy into the deficit hawk talk.

Originally Posted by The Hill

By Heather "Digby" Parton

Did the GOP con the Democrats into buying into deficit fever so they could run against them from the left?

It was just a week ago that Republican leaders like Reps. Paul Ryan (Wis.) and Ron Paul (Texas) were cavalierly dismissing the ramifications of default, with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) demanding trillions in immediate cuts or else. But a funny thing happened on the way to the deficit showdown: The housing numbers came in very grim, unemployment ticked back up over 9 percent and little tremors were felt in the financial markets. Suddenly the hard-line deficit hawks were sounding a little bit anxious about allowing the country to default if they didn’t get every last thing they wanted. On Monday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) warned that the need to come to an agreement was urgent, saying, “We don’t want the markets to make this decision for us.”

***
Now, one cannot absolve the administration and Democratic leaders of their responsibility here. Recent reports have made it clear that they placed far too much faith in the markets to somehow solve these problems and failed to understand, once again, just how quickly the GOP could turn from Deficit Hawks to Compassionate Conservatives (and probably back again). When you let people who have retired the concept of hypocrisy set the agenda, you should probably be prepared to get batted around like a political pinball.


It’s too much to believe that this was a master plan. Predicting the ups and downs of this economy has stumped the best market players in the world. But to be able to corner a Democratic president into focusing on deficits in the middle of the worst employment crisis since the Great Depression, and then pivot and run against him from the left, is a dazzling political move. It helps if you are completely unmoored from any kind of accountability for your former statements — as proven by front-runner Mitt Romney — but you just can’t help but be impressed by the sheer chutzpah of it all. Well played, GOP.

The bolding in the quote is mine of course.
And I can tell you just how quickly the compassionate conservative mask will be replaced by the hard man-and it will be a man- mask. As soon as the man finishes his walk down Pennsylvania Avenue on January 20, 2013.

Originally Posted by jpatrick

BTW, after the first line, I can't help but hear, "do not forget, stay out of debt."

It's funny that you quote Polonius, who's not meant to be taken seriously in that scene--in the context of the play.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by James50

It is impacted by the higher prices paid by its consumers.

Prices by themselves don't matter. The ratio of prices to wages is what matters. If the same thing that drives prices up by 25% also drives wages up by 150%, we're much better off.

For every one person that is aided by protectionism in their jobs, there are ten who are hurt at the store.

Not correct. Let me point out first of all that we're in unprecedented territory today, so no historical examples apply as far as tariffs per se. What we can do is look at what has happened historically when something has driven up wages in one part of the economy, for example the unionization of key industries. And it fits, because the same argument has been made about that: higher union wages drive up prices for industrial goods, which hurts more people at the store than it helps at the paycheck.

But rising union wages had the effect of driving up non-union wages, too. Employers in non-union companies had to pay something competitive with union wages for the same industry because they were competing with union shops for workers, and also because not doing so increased agitation in their own businesses to form a union. The same thing would happen if outsourcing were to be reversed. Jobs currently employing virtual slaves in foreign countries would be filled instead by Americans. Unemployment would drop dramatically. Supply and demand would force wages up across the board. Yes, prices would also probably go up, but the net effect would be beneficial for everyone except the owners of the businesses that could no longer outsource profitably.

Instead of thinking of the manufacturing sector (which is doing just fine in the US), think of the tariffs on sugar. That is the type of tariff you will get when the special interests have their way.

Now you've changed the subject. The key is NOT to let the special interests have their way.

Originally Posted by James50

For every one person that is aided by protectionism in their jobs, there are ten who are hurt at the store. Low prices at Walmart keep the cost of living lower here.

The thing is, we don't know that, at least not in terms of cost for items relative to spending power. (In other words, double my wages and I'll gladly pay 50% more for everything, and cutting prices by 5% does little good if my wages are cut by 10%, and cutting prices by 10% doesn't do much good if I lose my job completely because the relentless quest for "the lowest price" sends my job to China or India or wherever.)

We know, I think, that consumer behavior focusing strictly on price is leading to production of goods in places where wages are as low as circumstances and the law will allow. But that comes at a price that isn't reflected in the lower price tag. Whether or not the lower *direct* price is a better deal than the downward pressure it has on wages and domestic employment demand (and the increased demand in the government "safety net") is a bad deal, I can't say. But lower prices don't appear in a vacuum in a labor market which is now globalized and has a lot of dirt-cheap labor markets.

And at the very least, any honest assessment of the impact on Wal-Mart's "lower prices" on the average wages and benefits of the average domestic consumer is far from a slam-dunk in favor of a policy of "cheaper is always better" for the average consumer. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't -- but any benefit households have from "low prices" needs to be offset by considering the impact on domestic wages, unemployment rates and cost of public benefits for those unemployed due to having their jobs offshored.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

But rising union wages had the effect of driving up non-union wages, too. Employers in non-union companies had to pay something competitive with union wages for the same industry because they were competing with union shops for workers, and also because not doing so increased agitation in their own businesses to form a union.

Once upon a time. Maybe 35-40 years ago, but not now. Up to that point I think a rising union tide lifted all labor boats, but it mostly stopped at that time. And this erosion was already taking place before Reagan fired the controllers (and before Reagan even took office). It is a chicken and egg problem -- did the public stop supporting unions because it no longer delivered for the average worker (union or not), or did the unions stop delivering much for all labor because more of the non-union public stopped supporting them? I don't think it's clear. In any event I do think it's the case that the erosion in public support for unions and the "trickle down" of union benefits are linked. I just can't say which came first, or if they just fed on each other.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Once upon a time. Maybe 35-40 years ago, but not now.

35-40 years ago, more than a third of all private-sector workers were in unions. Now, it's less than 7%. OF COURSE not now. Cause and effect. Very simple. Nothing has changed about unions except that they have lost power, to our sorrow.

David Frum at TPM dug this up and its getting good play over at Kos.

I've posted it on three relevant threads on this Forum - yea, it is that deserving



Notice how workers rebounded after each recession until the 1980s?

Call it 3T, call it Movement Conservatism, call it outsourcing (and now, automation) whatever you call it, its worker slowly but surely getting screwed. Do you think it's going to stop?

Originally Posted by James50

I can't believe with the education and intellect on this forum that I am having to defend free trade as an ideal. Be left if you want, but don't try to believe that protectionism helps the lower classes. It just ain't so.

James50

Read "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations" by David Landes, that's where I got my claim about protectionism from.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

But the overarching issue is one we've been over many times before (we as a forum): are we individuals or social beings? In my opinion the community makes all our lives possible in a jillion ways. It isn't a luxury, it's a necessity. We depend on most people obeying the laws, observing contracts, accepting our money, etc., etc., etc. And that creates, for me, some kind of mutual obligation to put a floor under everyone. In addition, since I think luck has a lot more to do with success than most people want to admit, I see nothing wrong with putting a ceiling on, too.

A smarter person would either know or quickly be able to conclude that the majority of us are both an individual and a social being vs simply being one or the other. I don't know many Americans who would jump off a bridge or contribute to mass suicide because some leader told us too or a large group of leaders decided to set a greater example and actually do it themselves. BTW, as far as success is concerned, luck has very little to with most of it as well. I wasn't as lucky as Playdude or possibly yourself. I actually had to go out and do something, learn something, earn something, show something, proove something or actually impress people to earn and sustain my success.