From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Aug 09 2003 - 13:48:38 MDT
Mitch writes
> Ron h. [wrote]
> > For so many of the highly intelligent to be put out of work and sent
> > to pump gas or flip burgers in my opinion will either kick off a heck of a
> > civil explosion or possibly those guys on their own will power another spurt of
> > industrial growth in this country -- maybe.
> I see the actions of the boards of directors of these fortune 500
> companies (since small companies are less financially able to off-shore)
> as being sufficiently removed from reality. The Russian Czars or Marie
> Antoinette were realists in comparison.
C'mon, if you think that any CEOs are going to the cellar
to be shot, or marched up to guillotines, then you are
too far from reality. Even if you are right about overpaid
top executives, then the worst that will happen is that
they'll be replaced by cheaper and more effective CEOs from
within the ranks, as the fad of outside celebrity wears off.
Rafal writes (sorry---I just can't stand it and have to jump in)
> [Mitch writes]
> > As Americans become unemployed or take burger flipper jobs,
> > the tax base shrinks. Money for things like defense will
> > also shrink, money for investment in new technology will
> > indeed shrivel.
>
> ### No, it's exactly the opposite. Money which would otherwise be spent on
> overpaying some employees can be divided between cheaper but better foreign
> workers, local consumers who will benefit from lower prices, and researchers
> wherever they can be found. Research output will skyrocket.
I urge everyone to carefully attend to Rafal's *economic* arguments.
So far in perusing this thread, he appears to be the only one up
on free-market economics, who understands thoroughly why protectionism
always hurts everyone in the long run.
Right here, even the US is not really hurt by sending jobs
oversees where they can be done more cheaply and efficiently
because the American consumer is then so much better off.
The only bad thing that can happen is for the lazy Americans
---who *refuse* to take jobs at lower pay or at *whatever*
the market will offer---will be abetted by all the stupid
and awful unemployment "insurance" socialist schemes to
weaken the U.S. No one should ever receive *any* incentive
to remain unemployed, if what you want is the good of a
particular nation, or, if what you want is the good of the
whole world.
> If the money for the so-called "defense" shrinks, it's good.
> The US machine for killing people is too big already.
Okay, let's hear your tune if an A-bomb goes off in Newark
tomorrow. I guessed at what many other people's reaction
would be, but I didn't think to guess yours. My guess is
that you would have an immediate and 180-degree attitude
change.
> As some Americans become unemployed, the prices of services, homes, goods,
> will drop, allowing others, the working people, to benefit, and encouraging
> more economic activity, finally allowing the unemployed back into the
> economy. If they want to.
Exactly!
> > This scenario may not happen if the political forces of
> > the American middle class react to deprive the corporate
> > goons, under whose guidance has led to such wondrous
> > developments as Enron hiding loses in fake companies,
Hey Mitch, they got caught, didn't they?? The American
economy---unlike European ones---is doing just fine. Look
at the GNP and unemployment rate. I think you and far too
many other people want the make-believe of the late nineties
back, where everybody was employed on projects that were
eventually canceled and everyone thought that they were
getting rich in the markets. Real life is not like that.
*This* is normal---and not so bad, so long as you are not
having to make difficult life decisions about what to do
next to help (i.e., you are unemployed yourself).
> > Consider that an America reduced to a third-world
> > status,
The only way that will happen is if the lazy socialist
Americans fail to get off their butts and take work at
whatever the market prices dictate.
> > by moving nearly all industry and service off-shore,
> > (despite rabid, empty promises of the creation of
> > replacement jobs) is not something that most Americans,
> > I believe, will tolerate. Darwinian natural selection
> > is a choice with humans, not destiny.
>
> ### Yeah, let's select against other humans - the brown
> people in who-cares-where, let them eat ... who cares what.
Look, the patriotic part of me doesn't give nearly the
preference to all those non-Americans. *I* think that
protectionism *hurts* Americans. We are sacrificing a
lot of productive labor in other countries that could
be turning out a lot of goods that could make The Superpower
even greater and save humanity from nuclear proliferation.
That's the reason (the patriotic part of me that's left says)
we should always do as the market instructs. By maximizing
wealth for ourselves, it so happens that we maximize wealth
for others. I really have nothing against that!
> We won't tolerate them working for a pittance, if
> they can starve even cheaper.
Your point is well-taken; but our off-loading jobs
is not to rescue anyone but ourselves. Still, it
does expose the inconsistency of the left who
oppose NAFTA.
> We'll keep all industry and service here, won't let
> the ragheads and chinks take it away, right? And if
> they get feisty, we'll send the Marines.
No, we should send in the Marines only when someone
tries to get out of line with weaponry or repression,
and sometimes not even then.
> Rafal
>
> PS. I guess I shouldn't be so derisive and emotional. Sorry, I find
> xenophobia and tribalism too revolting. Better I'll just shut up
Oh, please don't do that! :-) Even if I am xenophobic
and tribalistic, your economic contributions are so keen
and precious. And even your angry sarcasm does not
descend to name-calling or anything.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 09 2003 - 13:57:42 MDT