arkai88 Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Originally posted by Gary T: Gary - you really need to put some thought and research into your comments before you post. The US has a huge untapped oil reserve, including right here in my home state (Pennsylvania). The US uses foreign oil for one reason, and it's not that we don't have our own supply. We simply have decided to use most of our oil reserve as just that - a strategic reserve. Lack of oil during a time of war can be crippling. The US is probably the most capable country in the world of being self-reliant. We do not NEED imports of anything, it's simply a matter of the 2% that I spoke of earlier deciding that they can make more money on overseas slave labor than they can making products here in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xipe Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 And you need to check your premises. Just because you wouldn't work for $2.50 per hour, is it slave labour when you give someone a job in a shoe factory (for $2.50/hour) when the average salary in the country is $1.50? Think about what you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Originally posted by Lumbergh: It's not rediculous, actually. It fluctuates from year to year, but only around 5% of US GDP is from international trade. Now, granted, there are some issues in how GDP is calculated, but in the age of growing globalization, the US is the least globally integrated major economy. The largest supplier of oil to the US is....the US. Go figure.The 5% number you're referring to is, I believe, the trade deficit as a percentage of gdp - I think it was 4.6% in 2000. The actual effect of all foreign trade is, of course, much larger. I found one site that said that US merchandise exports alone made up 8.5% of gdp - and of course: (1) the US exports a lot of services that are not included as merchandise; and (2)imports are very important to the US economy as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkai88 Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Just because you pay someone 2.50 an hour and the average salary is 1.50 an hour for that country, that does not mean that at the end of the day that person doesn't go home to a shack made of cardboard without indoor plumbing or heat. I suppose you are trying to say that we are doing the people of the world a favor by letting them make our products? I'm sure that there are some that are being helped, but my question is what jobs will be left in the US in 15 years when all manufacturing has been moved to Mexico and China? [ January 19, 2003, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: arkai88 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkai88 Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 BTW - the article that started this thread is just a bunch of ramble. What is his point really, that our view of the Russian army in WWII is skewed because we took the Germans' viewpoint as gospel? I mean really - he goes on and on and then finally produces a list which he says are uninformed beliefs about the Red Army, yet where does he say what the truth is about those ideas? He doesn't. Does anyone think that the battle of Guadacanal is taught in Moscow schools? Of course not. Sure, our perspective is skewed, but then again Russian perspective of our fight is as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xipe Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Originally posted by arkai88: Just because you pay someone 2.50 an hour and the average salary is 1.50 an hour for that country, that does not mean that at the end of the day that person doesn't go home to a shack made of cardboard without indoor plumbing or heat. I suppose you are trying to say that we are doing the people of the world a favor by letting them make our products? I'm sure that there are some that are being helped, but my question is what jobs will be left in the US in 15 years when all manufacturing has been moved to Mexico and China?I guess that depends on your outlook, wether you're a socialist or a capitalist. I'm capitalist, as far as I am concerned we're doing them a favour - the only favour we're capably of short of invading them and shoving our ideals down their throat. If you had any economic understadning you'd see that once their production rises (and our production goes down and creates more service jobs for us so that we don't have to bother with messy production any more) their salaries will slowly go up (as their available work force diminishes) and they in turn will lose production jobs to even poorer countries (like the asian tiger economies are doing now) and in turn devlop more service-oriented jobs - while improving their overall standard. Meanwhile their close contact with us will rub off and they will start growing warm to western ideals (which I have no qualms about calling superior in the context of what their contenders from the rest of the world would be). Free trade is good in every way imaginable. Sorry if you can't see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkai88 Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Originally posted by Xipe: [QB]Since when do service jobs pay more than production jobs? Did you mean professional positions - that I can understand. But I don't see a whole nation of professional-type jobs becoming a reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xipe Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 I earn a good living through ennobling (refining, I don't know which word is more proper) information instead of standing on a factory floor ennobling/refining metal or plastics into something more valuable (i.e. a product of sorts, a stereo, car or refrigerator). I'd class the whole IT-business (of which I am a part) to the service sector - sevices needn't just be cleaning jobs you know. While we in the west might lose some jobs refining metal and plastics (etc) we will be able to get those products cheaper and new opportunities in new job sectors will open up as poorer countries take on those labours (and we get more money over to buy these new services with). The future of the west will be in making information more valuable - while the poor countries take over our laborious tasks of refining solids (meanwhile they also get more influenced by us, thus more freedom-prone and democratic). Learn more about capitalism (in a political, not economic, sense) here: http://www.capitalism.org/index.asp [ January 19, 2003, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Xipe ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkai88 Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Sorry - but I don't classify IT jobs as service type positions. It sounds as though you have a typical professional type mentality. IE - we're laying you off and moving your manufacturing job to China, if you were more literate/intelligent, you would understand that this is actually good for you and your family. I am done debating economics with you - it sounds as though you are reading from a textbook. I will be the first to admit that I am not an economics wizard, but on the other hand I have yet to see a plant closing that is good for the majority of people laid off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xipe Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 My sector is already under "assault" from cheaper labour in India - I still do well since foreigners can't replace me in my domestic market. And I've never claimed that everything should or will move. Some jobs are bound to stay because of higher skill, more passion (where applicable to the product) or simply through the buyers patriotism. I have still to come across a solid reason why we should limit ourselves at what we buy. If the chinese make ships cheaper and faster than our shipyards, we should protect our slow and expensive shipyards? Not with my money, thank you. If you want to save US jobs that are lost in time please do... it's your money. But lobbying for politicians to help you out is just intellectually dishonest - unless of course you're a strong proponent of that sort of stuff, like socialists are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkai88 Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Your job is safe because of your 'higher skill' - please! I hope that you don't truly believe that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xipe Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 And even if it was so, do you really think I'm such a hypocrit that I would start asking government to protect a job I obviously aren't fit to hold? Go read some Hayek, Friedman, Nozick and Rand. Once you get a hold of the moral aspect (which I think is the most important and probably should have stuck to in my argumentation) things should start clear up for you. And apart from the moral aspect it really is sound economy, too. (edited out some immature remarks of mine and added Friedman to the "to read" list) [ January 19, 2003, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Xipe ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Originally posted by arkai88: Your job is safe because of your 'higher skill' - please! I hope that you don't truly believe that.On a strictly macro level, an economist would say that yes, in general, workers in more developed countries have much higher developed levels of human capital. One of the big mysteries of macroeconomics is why capital does not flow from rich countries to poor countries, since, on paper, poor countries should grow faster than rich countries. Human capital is one small part of the answer. However, don't let this fool ourselves as to what service industry jobs are. Think AOL tech support, or bank teller, etc--these are the vast majority of "service" jobs. Edit: Oh, and I think it's important to add that manufacturing is already a very small part of the US economy. [ January 19, 2003, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Lumbergh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Originally posted by arkai88: Sorry - but I don't classify IT jobs as service type positions. It sounds as though you have a typical professional type mentality. IE - we're laying you off and moving your manufacturing job to China, if you were more literate/intelligent, you would understand that this is actually good for you and your family. I am done debating economics with you - it sounds as though you are reading from a textbook. I will be the first to admit that I am not an economics wizard, but on the other hand I have yet to see a plant closing that is good for the majority of people laid off.If you don't think that IT jobs are service jobs, then you don't understand what a service job is. IT, banking, design, architecture, filmmaking, finance, etc. are all important parts of the service economy; it's not all (or even mostly) burger flippers. And the question about people laid off from factories is not whether the individuals who are laid off are better off - of course they aren't, at least in the short term. The question is whether the economy itself is better off, and the answer to that question seems to be that it is. Certainly Japan's very protectionist and manufacturing-based economy has not done well for the past 12 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notalex Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 If you don't think that IT jobs are service jobs, then you don't understand what a service job is. IT, banking, design, architecture, filmmaking, finance, etc. are all important parts of the service economy; it's not all (or even mostly) burger flippers. Yep -- it's the divide between goods and services. The percentage of manufacturing jobs in the US and Canada is down to about 15% or so, but productivity improvements mean that they remain competitive, if not dominant, in the global market. And don't forget that arrayed behind that burger flipper or assembly-line bolt twister is a formidable range of service improvements and innovations, from Just-In-Time inventory to technological breakthroughs to massive advertising roll-outs to some rather, uh, "creative" accounting...well, it's the Information Age versus the Industrial Revolution. Look at what's happened in warfare. (A final, desperate try to get this somehow back on topic.) It mattered little that Iraq had the fourth-largest army in the world in 1991 when they went up against a foe who owned the skies, who could see in the dark, who could hit them wherever and whenever it chose. That is the difference between sweat and brainpower; and not uncoincidentally, the difference between free men and the conscripts of a tyrant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ubertracker Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Originally posted by Lumbergh: [QBPerhaps I just belong to a younger generation, but I think that love of witty, cynical television and slightly-strange-definitely-ubernerdy military history can exist together.[/QB]Use of the words "witty" and "television" in the same sentence is not allowed unless you're talking about the BBC. Anything that has a laugh track is not "witty." And the only thing "cynical" about it is probably the attitiude the copious advertisers have towards the IQ of their audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ubertracker Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Just a quick post: an interesting comment on how the USA (Time magazine) saw the war in 1942: Man of the Year: 1942 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sgt. Emren Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 One of the big mysteries of macroeconomics is why capital does not flow from rich countries to poor countries, since, on paper, poor countries should grow faster than rich countries. Oh, but capital DOES flow from the rich to the poor. Look at Foreign Direct Invstement (FDI) from rich countries to the poorer countries in the last decade. FDI's have grown tremendously in this period. One might then ask why it hasn't grown more than it has, and why indeed the level of FDI has not been higher in the past. Part of the answer to that question is that companies tend to want to invest in countries with a decent legal infrastructure and with political stability. Unfortunately, politically stable and poor countries are few and far between. There are some, though, and the Asian Tigers are the prime example here. FDI's are what made them Tigers in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Originally posted by coe: Americans are very busy and I assume most other people in the world are too. We are sometimes asked, "why do we only know English?" Well given our limited time, which language do we learn since most of the people we run into speak English?First you say that most other people are busy also, then you say that "given limited time" most americans only learn english.... It's a good thing we in central Europe have so much spare time on our hand so we can learn english, and many learn a 3rd language also. And, belive it or not, we also MOSTLY use our native language, but still learn other ones. Reminds me a bit of when I was in NY, this american that worked in UPS was surprised to find out that the Autralians had their own money, he thought they used American dollars... and he asked if we had unleaded petrol in Norway.... being the 2nd largest exporter of oil in the world, one would asume so.. And there are so many other stories one could tell. Anyways, it should be stated that this was the dumbest guy I met in US, but he sure fitted nicely in the stereo type! I guess one major reason for many americans being ignorant of whats outside the US is that it's such a large country, and most of them will never step outside of it. They have everything thay want right there, and there is so much to see in the US. Coming from a small country things are different, since it's not the "center of the world" you MUST learn about whats outside it, and about world history, not just your own country history. [ January 20, 2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horus Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 its OT i know but that hurt´s Thank you for requesting the Victoria`s Secret Catalogue. Unfortunately, we are not currently mailing to your country. ARRGGHHH :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary T Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Akrai88, You really should put some thought and research into actually reading my post. The US uses 70% of all the worlds oil. Am I to believe that it produces 70% of the worlds oil production? Or alternatively has 70% of the worlds oil reserves? Yes, you have your own supply of oil...but if your country used just that it would be gone in short order, if that was its only supply. So better to use foreign oil while you can. So only 2% of the US population buy goods made at lower costs outside of the US? So the other 98% buy purely 'Made in the US' goods do they? The Us public would not be prepared to pay the prices that would be asked if their goods were made in the US. The prices would go up or the companies would have to take a big cut in their profits. And they are mostly American companies. Your country imports more $ of goods than it exports (1994 - $513/$664 billion. To believe any country can survive without importing\exporting is laughable. Many a European country in the 19th century had plans for autarky...none were realised as a country can not exist in an economic vacuum. So please don't give us the line that the US is doing it for the greater good of the world and not its own gain...which of course is true for any country. [ January 20, 2003, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Gary T ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 I take some of the blame for leading this conversation astray....bascially my view on the eastern front is that in our daily lives we are less likely to encounter needs to know about the eastern front (aren't we more likely to run into a WWII or Vietnam Veteran etc.?) I mean, would one really expect your average non-American to know in reality at the Battle of Lexington (start of our revolution, the farmers/minutemen were on the common as a protest to the king, and that neither sides wanted to fight and more importantly very few people wanted to secede from Britain at the time....and that if you look at the background the boston massacre wans't really a massacre but a nicely organized dirty politics by the Sons of Liberty and that the British for the most part were very properly behaved (i.e. if it was a woman's house, they would not search it honoring her word even though she really was harbouring arms, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ubertracker Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 What I really want to know is: When will Steven Spielberg release the long-awaited sequel, Saving Private Ryanovich? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 that's really funny... Ryanovich? howabout Saving Gefreiter Rhein (on the eastern front) or Saving Private Riano in Libya or ok I'll stop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkai88 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 Originally posted by Gary T: So please don't give us the line that the US is doing it for the greater good of the world and not its own gain...which of course is true for any country.Actually - I never said anything of the sort, I actually was pointing out that corporate America has turned to the rest of the world as it's slave labor market now that it can no longer find enough cheap labor here in the US. There seems to be alot of economics professors in here that are dying to tell us all why America is much better off by exporting its' manufacturing jobs, personally I don't see it, and don't agree with them. But then again it's America - and I have the right to disagree with them. To them I seem uniformed and uneducated - to me they sound like politicians spewing rhetoric of how they are making a better world for us whether we can see it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts