The New American Politics thread

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Only way to bring manufacturing back to the USA is to impose trade regulations on countries that have poor workplace standards and wages.

As long as it's perfectly legal to shut in slave workers in decrepit conditions that eventually burn down and collapse on top of them, companies forced to provide decent working conditions won't be able to compete.

Garment Factory in Dhaka, Bangladesh:


Garment Factory in Los Angeles, USA:

That's all well and good, but you skipped the last line of the next part of that post

"Or if you're willing to spend 5-10X the amount for things."

That is part of the problem. If you increase tariffs, that would work. Unfortunately TV's, clothes and all the other things that are manufactured elsewhere are going to become really expensive. Unless the wages mirror the new prices, then the only result will be even higher poverty.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

That's all well and good, but you skipped the last line of the next part of that post

"Or if you're willing to spend 5-10X the amount for things."

That is part of the problem. If you increase tariffs, that would work. Unfortunately TV's, clothes and all the other things that are manufactured elsewhere are going to become really expensive. Unless the wages mirror the new prices, then the only result will be even higher poverty.

Maybe, maybe not. Many products simply would not sell at higher prices, so a in many cases a likely result would be that companies would actually take the hit on their profit margins. You know, maybe a 10$ T-shirt would cost 3$ to make instead of 1$. Investors might have to settle for 2% profits to investments instead of 8%.

However I don't see us dialing back that particular clock. For example the old industrialist era truth about specializations still holds true.

Plus there's the issue that the world simply does not need as many factories as it used to. There's just not that many manufacturing jobs to go around anymore.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Itse

Maybe, maybe not. Many products simply would not sell at higher prices, so a in many cases a likely result would be that companies would actually take the hit on their profit margins. You know, maybe a 10$ T-shirt would cost 3$ to make instead of 1$. Investors might have to settle for 2% profits to investments instead of 8%.

However I don't see us dialing back that particular clock. For example the old industrialist era truth about specializations still holds true.

Plus there's the issue that the world simply does not need as many factories as it used to. There's just not that many manufacturing jobs to go around anymore.

True, but when is the last time you heard a corporation doing something for the good of society rather than for the bottom line, Costco being a limited exception.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Itse

However I don't see us dialing back that particular clock. For example the old industrialist era truth about specializations still holds true.

Plus there's the issue that the world simply does not need as many factories as it used to. There's just not that many manufacturing jobs to go around anymore.

Yeah, there's no way the U.S., Canada, or any other country is dialing back the clock 50 years to put up trade tariffs and try to revive national manufacturing bases. The last time we tried to put protect national manufacturing at the expense of efficiency, we ended up with beggar-your-neighbour protectionism and the Great Depression of the 30s. And as you point out, there are simply fewer and fewer jobs in manufacturing full stop. May as well bemoan the fact that only a fraction of Canadians work as farmers as did a century ago.

I do find it interesting how socialism was originally an international endeavour, and now it's promoted solely to protect national interests. A billion people in Asia have been pulled out of poverty in the last 30 years by globalization. We no longer live in a world where you get an automatic entry into the global upper-middle-class (or lower class) owing to the geographic accident of your birth. But was the global advantage North Americans of 50 years ago enjoyed (which largely came about because of the perfect conditions of a post-war boom when the rest of the world was living in the medieval age or rebuilding from rubble) really more fair than today's world?

I don't know what the future is going to look like, but I doubt it will look much like the past. Both the left and right would be more responsible if they stopped selling nostalgia for national economic models that will never return.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I don't know what the future is going to look like, but I doubt it will look much like the past. Both the left and right would be more responsible if they stopped selling nostalgia for a past that will never return.

It will be interesting as a lot of jobs will be eliminated in all areas to the point where there simply will not be enough jobs for the amount of people out there.

The question then becomes how will they manage things when say 1/3 to 1/2 of people are not working in traditional jobs. A place like Amazon would easily be willing to cut out all the people that search for products if they can implement a system that would find those things and bring it to the conveyor belts.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

It will be interesting as a lot of jobs will be eliminated in all areas to the point where there simply will not be enough jobs for the amount of people out there.

The question then becomes how will they manage things when say 1/3 to 1/2 of people are not working in traditional jobs. A place like Amazon would easily be willing to cut out all the people that search for products if they can implement a system that would find those things and bring it to the conveyor belts.

Agreed - automation is the real challenge confronting us. But how do you suppress innovation and mandate inefficiency? We'll probably have to come up with some sort of guaranteed minimum income just to keep the wheels of the market turning. And a micro-tax on all financial transactions. The question is if those sorts of changes will come about peacefully and quickly, or only after prolonged turmoil and social strife.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Agreed - automation is the real challenge confronting us. But how do you suppress innovation and mandate inefficiency? We'll probably have to come up with some sort of guaranteed minimum income just to keep the wheels of the market turning. And a micro-tax on all financial transactions. The question is if those sorts of changes will come about peacefully and quickly, or only after prolonged turmoil and social strife.

As an aside to this, what also happens in this future market if say, someone like Sanders is elected and we have an entire workforce that is overqualified for such menial tasks. Does automation become a necessity then or will the world still need ditch diggers? If a tax on all transactions is needed to continue to feed the system do we see society move away from cash? Not trying to be argumentative, but curious how this plays out.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by New Era

Because the two are directly linked? The previous administration started us down this road and even cooked the books to prevent the people from knowing just how bad it was. When you are left holding a bag of #### from last guy, you should be granted some latitude on what you can honestly achieve. When an administration hides almost $2 trillion in war spending you are screwed.

Oh absolutely the two are directly linked. Neither party has had an issue selling future generations down the river. And as you mentioned in an earlier post, borrowing money is absolutely better to do when the cost of doing so is lower. The issue to me however is no longer what the interest rate is, but rather is there any plan AT ALL to pay it all off?

In an earlier post you mentioned spending public dollars on infrastructure ect. This is all fine and well as it does create jobs and income for people at home, and in the end that money moves around and helps different sectors and people. To a degree you could say the same when money is being pumped into public defense contractors, separate from the DOD, but is it needed?

Nearly 2 trillion pumped back into the military, and so far I have only heard one candidate mention anything to do with actually whittling down the bottom line on US debt. If there is one thing congress and the political class can agree on its how to spend money that doesn't exist. Will it ever exist? Is there any actual plan on paying it back or is a strong military the plan?

The ongoing crisis in the ME will never end so long as there are resources there for the taking, and it makes for an excellent proving ground for all the new toys. The course being undertook there will not change regardless of who is in power.

When it comes to Hilary and what should be her exclusion from public office, sadly scandal has become the norm and you have no farther to look than this thread to see how apologists are willing to turn a blind eye so long as their team is running the show. Mention Hillary, we bring up Cheney. Complain how Cheney was never tried for his crimes yet somehow we have the audacity to hold Hillary accountable. It would be akin to the next time someone bitches about Trump and his racist policy propositions, someone brings up FDR and his internment camps. It has nothing to do with the here and now. This tactic is all over the boards, hell some people like to bring up the crusades when talking about radical islam. Non sequitur.

Then people wonder why the country cant move forward. US politics is a prime example of divide and conquer tactics. Set up two candidates that are so far to either side of the political spectrum and people will end up with no choice but those viewed as moderates by their own parties standards. Watch Hillary and Rubio (possibly Bush, who oddly enough wants to pump even more money into the miliary) come on down for the big date with the American voter. Its a joke.

If there was an actual third party that could rise up and be on the happy side of crazy, maybe the US would stand a chance. As it stands; BOHICA.

[afc wimbledon]

You know the great con that they suckered poor saps like Nobama into is the idea that there are two political parties in the U.S., there aren't, throughout my lifetime, fifty odd years the American voter hasn't had any more choice than the average soviet voter, the only difference is at least the commies were honest about it, you got to choose which commie you wanted in charge, where as in the U.S. there's this pretence that there was a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, there isn't, it's the same party, it represents exactly the same interests.

I suppose it's lucky for the U.S. that the ruling interests are better at economics than the Russians were/are but other than that there's not really any difference.

[Azure]

Perhaps we as consumers should stop buying clothes that are made by children and workers exposed to slave like conditions?

American Giant sells the worlds best hoodie and it is made in the US. Their pricing is better than everyone other similar 'brand.'

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Azure

Perhaps we as consumers should stop buying clothes that are made by children and workers exposed to slave like conditions?

American Giant sells the worlds best hoodie and it is made in the US. Their pricing is better than everyone other similar 'brand.'

You know, people say stuff like this on this site all the time, but then other people on here say make sure to only spend money so that you live within your means, have an emergency fund, TFSA's, retirement savings, own your house, don't waste money when you don't have to, look for deals, yadda yadda yadda.

Well wtf? Which one is it? There's only so much money to go around.

[CliffFletcher]

Few people will pay a dollar more than they have to for anything. You have the price-is-everything market, and the luxury market. Wal-Mart and Nordstroms. There pretty much isn't a middle market anymore in retail. And if people can buy a book on Amazon for $1.30 cheaper than at Chapters, they'll do it. So brick and mortar retail itself is in relentless decline.

This isn't being driven by sinister and malignant corporate forces. Innovation + efficiency + choice = our economy. It's impossible to suppress any of the three without heavy government interventions of the sort that the average citizen would resent tremendously.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

You know the great con that they suckered poor saps like Nobama into is the idea that there are two political parties in the U.S., there aren't, throughout my lifetime, fifty odd years the American voter hasn't had any more choice than the average soviet voter, the only difference is at least the commies were honest about it, you got to choose which commie you wanted in charge, where as in the U.S. there's this pretence that there was a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, there isn't, it's the same party, it represents exactly the same interests.

I suppose it's lucky for the U.S. that the ruling interests are better at economics than the Russians were/are but other than that there's not really any difference.

There's certainly a lot of truth to this but I think you've exaggerated it. The two parties do ultimately serve the same master but they go about it in different ways. The US is, more or less, a plutocracy where the government is run by the rich and powerful which at this point happens to be big business. From an economic standpoint, the Republicans openly support big business with tax breaks, loopholes and the ridiculous concept of trickle-down economics. The Democrats, generally speaking, support higher taxes on the wealthy and slightly higher taxes on business. But both parties are behoven to big business since it's big business that funds their campaigns and helps to keep them in power.

It's a similar paradigm when it comes to social issues. The two parties are very similar but do diverge when it comes to some issues: abortion, voting, gun rights (sort of), etc.

It sometimes occurs to me that there is no difference between the two but then I think about how the world would be a much different (better) place if Al Gore had won the 2000 election instead of W. But maybe that just comes down to individuals rather than parties. But with the exception of the Tea Partiers and Trump, most of the current GOP field is cut from the same Neo-Con cloth as Bush Jr.

Sanders may not be the ideal candidate and he has some fundamentally flawed ideas, but I think he's the only current viable candidate that may actually be able to slow the momentum of the movement to a full plutocracy in the USA.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Few people will pay a dollar more than they have to for anything. You have the price-is-everything market, and the luxury market. Wal-Mart and Nordstroms. There pretty much isn't a middle market anymore in retail. And if people can buy a book on Amazon for $1.30 cheaper than at Chapters, they'll do it. So brick and mortar retail itself is in relentless decline.

This isn't being driven by sinister and malignant corporate forces. Innovation + efficiency + choice = our economy. It's impossible to suppress any of the three without heavy government interventions of the sort that the average citizen would resent tremendously.

Don't agree at all.

Economic protectionism is an incredibly popular, and populist, political stance, especially in America that has a long history of economic protectionism dating back from the revolutionary period through the Civil War up to present day.

From 2009:

Americans' top prescriptions for creating more jobs are instituting greater protections for U.S. manufacturing, lowering taxes, helping out small businesses, and creating more infrastructure work. Democrats largely favor more government involvement in terms of protectionism, stimulus spending, and shovel-ready jobs. Republicans tend to favor a free-enterprise approach, exemplified by lowering taxes and reducing government regulation.

These beliefs are extension of pre-civil war american politics, and are one of the few things (like raising taxes on the wealthy) that most Americans can find common ground on.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Perhaps we as consumers should stop buying clothes that are made by children and workers exposed to slave like conditions?

American Giant sells the worlds best hoodie and it is made in the US. Their pricing is better than everyone other similar 'brand.'

I'm not sure how to judge "the worlds best hoodie" but a quick look at their website tells me the basic one (the one at the top) is 89 American dollars.

You aren't going to convince many people to buy that, "slave like conditions" or not.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm not sure how to judge "the worlds best hoodie" but a quick look at their website tells me the basic one (the one at the top) is 89 American dollars.

You aren't going to convince many people to buy that, "slave like conditions" or not.

I personally would rather pay an extra few bucks for a product if it meant keeping manufacturing jobs in north america, if we keep allowing American/Canadian company's to use cheap labor in manufacturing it won't be long before every major city looks like Detroit.

I'm all for free trade but only with countries with a close to level field. 20% of Canadian auto workers have lost there jobs to mexican workers making under $3 per hour(far from level field), and as the union contracts come up a lot more will follow.

BTW, he's right about the hoodie, I have 2 of them

[Vulcan]

This isn't being driven by sinister and malignant corporate forces. Innovation + efficiency + choice = our economy. It's impossible to suppress any of the three without heavy government interventions of the sort that the average citizen would resent tremendously.

Tell me why corporations sell the same car, the same TV etc. cheaper in the States than in Canada and often won't even let Canadians purchase the article south of the border?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Don't agree at all.

Economic protectionism is an incredibly popular, and populist, political stance, especially in America that has a long history of economic protectionism dating back from the revolutionary period through the Civil War up to present day.

From 2009:



These beliefs are extension of pre-civil war american politics, and are one of the few things (like raising taxes on the wealthy) that most Americans can find common ground on.

I'd suggest that's because most Americans don't understand the ramifications of protectionist trade policies. The fact that most stuff we buy today is way, way cheaper than it was 50 years ago has gone unnoticed in the popular consciousness. Ask people if they want to see protectionist policies if it means everything they buy at WalMart will cost 30 to 70 per cent more and see how they respond. I mean, they have the option today to buy locally produced goods or foreign-made ones, so this isn't some hypothetical issue.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

You know the great con that they suckered poor saps like Nobama into is the idea that there are two political parties in the U.S., there aren't, throughout my lifetime, fifty odd years the American voter hasn't had any more choice than the average soviet voter, the only difference is at least the commies were honest about it, you got to choose which commie you wanted in charge, where as in the U.S. there's this pretence that there was a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, there isn't, it's the same party, it represents exactly the same interests.

I suppose it's lucky for the U.S. that the ruling interests are better at economics than the Russians were/are but other than that there's not really any difference.

That's what I've come to the conclusion to myself. I don't think there is much difference to either side and both are just hell bent on making the other look bad like a sibling rivalry. It's pathetic but that's America right now.

Lucky for me that I will have Italian citizenship in a couple of years so I could go anywhere in the EU once both parties decide to bury the country in their ideologies

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

There's certainly a lot of truth to this but I think you've exaggerated it. The two parties do ultimately serve the same master but they go about it in different ways. The US is, more or less, a plutocracy where the government is run by the rich and powerful which at this point happens to be big business. From an economic standpoint, the Republicans openly support big business with tax breaks, loopholes and the ridiculous concept of trickle-down economics. The Democrats, generally speaking, support higher taxes on the wealthy and slightly higher taxes on business. But both parties are behoven to big business since it's big business that funds their campaigns and helps to keep them in power.

It's a similar paradigm when it comes to social issues. The two parties are very similar but do diverge when it comes to some issues: abortion, voting, gun rights (sort of), etc.

It sometimes occurs to me that there is no difference between the two but then I think about how the world would be a much different (better) place if Al Gore had won the 2000 election instead of W. But maybe that just comes down to individuals rather than parties. But with the exception of the Tea Partiers and Trump, most of the current GOP field is cut from the same Neo-Con cloth as Bush Jr.

Sanders may not be the ideal candidate and he has some fundamentally flawed ideas, but I think he's the only current viable candidate that may actually be able to slow the momentum of the movement to a full plutocracy in the USA.

There were always a conservative and liberal choice in Moscow as well, Kremlin watchers would always try and rate whether Andropov represented a softening or hardening of attitudes in the politburo.