Languish.org

I just heard about a book out called "American Beyond Capitalism" by Gar Alperovitz (sp) on NPR (my go-to radio station while at work), and I think it's pretty fascinating. The author talks about local economies as the answer to the current financial crisis and as a way to push us to the next type of economic model. (One that is as-yet unknown.)

He also mentioned Cleveland as a great example of how this model is working, and a website called community-wealth.com that offers ideas on how to create a similar model - at least in part - at home.

I want to buy the book to read, but I'm not sold that this is The Answer to things. A global economy is essential to the way of life we now know. At the same time, there is something to be said for buying local. Is there a way to combine both models to create an environment that encourages international trade while maintaining a local economy? It seems inconsistent to me.

Isn't that what we had as the ideal in the Middle Ages?  That each manor should be an independent self-sufficient economic unit?

Sounds interesting though.

You can have both. When I attended my local middle school (age 11-13), it banned soft drinks (soda). Thus, I went to the grocery store, bought 12-packs of soda cans, brought them into school via a big lunch container, and sold them at a profit of $1-$2 per can.

It is also worrisome whenever somebody's great example of success is something in Cleveland.

This sounds gay and hippyish.

 Gar Alperovitz?  Sounds fishy.

Too vague; cannot discuss.

No.  Unless you want to live in your own filth and meet about 10% of your material desires, probably not including the desire for food.

Still not as silly as that dork Rifkin in The End of Work, whose basic predictions I believe were correct, but whose solution to apocalyptic technological unemployment was people being nice to each other.  Sure, that'll happen.

This just sounds bad.  Interfacing economies (specifically separate currencies) rarely works out neatly.  As citizens, we're usually shielded from some of the costs by the simple fact that most of the interfacing happens at the government level, so we just don't have to deal with it.  Very few communities are completely self-sufficient anymore, so there'd be a lot more in the way of imports under this system, including "imports" of basic goods.  Urban residents needing to buy fruits, vegetables, and dairy is one example that springs immediately to mind.

Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 01:40:55 PM
No.  Unless you want to live in your own filth and meet about 10% of your material desires, probably not including the desire for food.

Actually, that's a good point.  Waste disposal is already a hot issue when crossing state lines- imagine waste disposal contracts becoming a hundred times more complex.

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

Found the guy.  Sounds like communes.  Ide won't like him, he opposed that atomic bombing of japan.

Why would he want a million more Japanese to die from bombs, bullets, and starvation?  Very sad.

Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 01:47:04 PM
Why would he want a million more Japanese to die from bombs, bullets, and starvation?  Very sad.

Well when you put it that way...

I cant imagine how horrible life would be under such an isolated economy.  No fresh fruits and vegetables during winter.  No French or Italian wines.  No French cheese (or Oka cheese). No thanks.

Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 01:24:41 PM
Isn't that what we had as the ideal in the Middle Ages?  That each manor should be an independent self-sufficient economic unit?

Sounds interesting though.

Actually, he argued in the interview that what we have today is feudal economics, with 1% of the population owning most things and others toiling for them. I thought that was an interesting thought...

The company I work for sells most of its products in other countries. It could not survive with a localized economy, so I would be out of work. No thanks.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 01:49:33 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 01:24:41 PM
Isn't that what we had as the ideal in the Middle Ages?  That each manor should be an independent self-sufficient economic unit?

Sounds interesting though.

Actually, he argued in the interview that what we have today is feudal economics, with 1% of the population owning most things and others toiling for them.

that is just silly.  Most "things" are owned by publicly traded corporations that are owned by large numbers of people especially if one considered the large pension fund holdings in such corporations.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 01:49:33 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 01:24:41 PM
Isn't that what we had as the ideal in the Middle Ages?  That each manor should be an independent self-sufficient economic unit?

Sounds interesting though.

Actually, he argued in the interview that what we have today is feudal economics, with 1% of the population owning most things and others toiling for them. I thought that was an interesting thought...

I'm pretty sure Karl Marx had the same thought back in the 19th century.  Based on his book's title I'm pretty sure that's where he got the idea from.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 13, 2012, 01:42:01 PM
This just sounds bad.  Interfacing economies (specifically separate currencies) rarely works out neatly.  As citizens, we're usually shielded from some of the costs by the simple fact that most of the interfacing happens at the government level, so we just don't have to deal with it.  Very few communities are completely self-sufficient anymore, so there'd be a lot more in the way of imports under this system, including "imports" of basic goods.  Urban residents needing to buy fruits, vegetables, and dairy is one example that springs immediately to mind.

I'm not sure you understand what he's talking about. He's saying that we need to buy local whenever possible, encourage local economic growth before state or international growth, and use local-based companies as a rule rather than an exception. I'm not sure how any of that is going to cause what you surmise.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 01:52:57 PM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 13, 2012, 01:42:01 PM
This just sounds bad.  Interfacing economies (specifically separate currencies) rarely works out neatly.  As citizens, we're usually shielded from some of the costs by the simple fact that most of the interfacing happens at the government level, so we just don't have to deal with it.  Very few communities are completely self-sufficient anymore, so there'd be a lot more in the way of imports under this system, including "imports" of basic goods.  Urban residents needing to buy fruits, vegetables, and dairy is one example that springs immediately to mind.

I'm not sure you understand what he's talking about. He's saying that we need to buy local whenever possible, encourage local economic growth before state or international growth, and use local-based companies as a rule rather than an exception. I'm not sure how any of that is going to cause what you surmise.

Buying local is a fine idea.  But putting it before international trade is a terrible idea.

How do you do that, Meri?  How do you make people chose options that are likely to be more expensive?

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2012, 01:49:11 PM
I cant imagine how horrible life would be under such an isolated economy.  No fresh fruits and vegetables during winter.  No French or Italian wines.  No French cheese (or Oka cheese). No thanks.

Fruits and vegetables - at the local level, anyway, in a number of communities - can be grown in greenhouses, and likely would be.

It's the other stuff that I worry about, too. I like having access to an International market. At the same time, I like having truly fresh fruits and vegetables that were grown nearby.

This local growth will come naturally if we have strong, fulfilling relationships with our families, friends, neighbors, and colleagues. I will patronize the local coffee shop if the owner is nice to me and pats me on the back.

Thus, stop getting divorced / having dramaz / hiding in gadgets.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 01:55:31 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2012, 01:49:11 PM
I cant imagine how horrible life would be under such an isolated economy.  No fresh fruits and vegetables during winter.  No French or Italian wines.  No French cheese (or Oka cheese). No thanks.

Fruits and vegetables - at the local level, anyway, in a number of communities - can be grown in greenhouses, and likely would be.

It's the other stuff that I worry about, too. I like having access to an International market. At the same time, I like having truly fresh fruits and vegetables that were grown nearby.

Trouble is growing food in greenhouses is quite energy intensive.  Though it does taste better, I understand it is often cheaper to grow food in distant locations and have it shipped.

Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2012, 01:58:06 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 01:55:31 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2012, 01:49:11 PM
I cant imagine how horrible life would be under such an isolated economy.  No fresh fruits and vegetables during winter.  No French or Italian wines.  No French cheese (or Oka cheese). No thanks.

Fruits and vegetables - at the local level, anyway, in a number of communities - can be grown in greenhouses, and likely would be.

It's the other stuff that I worry about, too. I like having access to an International market. At the same time, I like having truly fresh fruits and vegetables that were grown nearby.

Trouble is growing food in greenhouses is quite energy intensive.  Though it does taste better, I understand it is often cheaper to grow food in distant locations and have it shipped.

Exactly right.  The Lower Mainland here as a large greenhouse growing industry (and not just for the illicit stuff :D).  That production doesnt come close to meeting the demand for fresh produce and fruit.  That comes mainly from southern California in the off season when it cannot be grown locally.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2012, 01:55:10 PM
How do you do that, Meri?  How do you make people chose options that are likely to be more expensive?

I don't intend to make anyone do anything. I only asked if there is a way to marry both ideologies. I like the idea of buying locally whenever possible - even if there's a small premium to do so - but I also like being able to use a cellphone (China), drink fine wine (Italian, Australian, German), and eat good chese (France, Belgium).

The question for me is what is the best long-term economic model, and can I have it all in that model?

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 01:49:33 PM
Actually, he argued in the interview that what we have today is feudal economics, with 1% of the population owning most things and others toiling for them. I thought that was an interesting thought...

Well today the problem is not that people are toiling, it is that we cannot find toil for them to do.

I think this is already starting to happen.  In part because of a cultural reaction against globalisation towards more 'authentic' products.  It is, as it should be, a consumer choice that isn't necessarily antagonistic to global trade.

It's interesting that something that sounds so old fashioned to a large extent depends on modern technology.  I like that aspect of it.

QuoteI don't intend to make anyone do anything. I only asked if there is a way to marry both ideologies. I like the idea of buying locally whenever possible - even if there's a small premium to do so - but I also like being able to use a cellphone (China), drink fine wine (Italian, Australian, German), and eat good chese (France, Belgium).

Of course it's possible.  It's a consumer choice contained in your phrase 'whenever possible'.  If you have the choice, buy local.  If you don't, you can't.

QuoteTrouble is growing food in greenhouses is quite energy intensive.  Though it does taste better, I understand it is often cheaper to grow food in distant locations and have it shipped.

And better environmentally.  There was a big furor over food miles.  The Economist worked out that in terms of CO2 consumption you're better buying Spanish tomatoes than growing them in Norfolk in greenhouses.

I think the bigger problem is that as a society - a global society - we can't survive on the current model. Our standard of living is reliant on pretty much slave labor somewhere, and so long as people continue to argue for - and win - better working conditions, at some point, we won't be able to pay for the things we want. The stuff we want will just be too costly to make, and therefore, too costly for the average person to buy it.

So the question is: What gives? Our standard of living or the slave labor? Would buying those things closer to home that we can help with the other stuff, or make it worse? Will it bring in more jobs or lose them?

It seems to me that the drawback in your plan is the same drawback contained in protectionism: you could theoretically increase community incomes (and therefore local government revenues and provision of services) by paying a premium for locally produced goods, but if everyone around the world does the same thing then everyone suffers a net decrease in income.

BTW, what is this an answer to?

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:00:22 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2012, 01:55:10 PM
How do you do that, Meri?  How do you make people chose options that are likely to be more expensive?

I don't intend to make anyone do anything. I only asked if there is a way to marry both ideologies. I like the idea of buying locally whenever possible - even if there's a small premium to do so - but I also like being able to use a cellphone (China), drink fine wine (Italian, Australian, German), and eat good chese (France, Belgium).

The question for me is what is the best long-term economic model, and can I have it all in that model?

The problem is that people are going to naturally gravitate toward the cheaper products.  There will be a market for locally grown food, but it tends to be smaller and more expensive.  For instance, Whole Foods.  "Buy local" or simply "Buy American", has been a slogan for decades now.  It hasn't really done much good.  Sure there are few success stories, but they are going against the tide.  The only realistic way of doing these things is trade barriers and tariffs.

Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2012, 02:08:48 PM
BTW, what is this an answer to?

Helping economic depressed areas I presume.  Like Cleveland.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:06:37 PM
I think the bigger problem is that as a society - a global society - we can't survive on the current model. Our standard of living is reliant on pretty much slave labor somewhere

That is an extreme view.  for my part, my standard of living is pretty closely tied to the international price of the commodities.

Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 02:11:06 PM

Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2012, 02:08:48 PM
BTW, what is this an answer to?

Helping economic depressed areas I presume.  Like Cleveland.

I'm all for plowing under Cleveland and making it farmland.

Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 02:11:06 PM

Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2012, 02:08:48 PM
BTW, what is this an answer to?

Helping economic depressed areas I presume.  Like Cleveland.

Yeah, this makes more sense if you happen to live in an area that has nothing to trade.  Basically all you might have left is a local economy.  But making everyone else that miserable makes little sense to me.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:06:37 PM
I think the bigger problem is that as a society - a global society - we can't survive on the current model. Our standard of living is reliant on pretty much slave labor somewhere, and so long as people continue to argue for - and win - better working conditions, at some point, we won't be able to pay for the things we want. The stuff we want will just be too costly to make, and therefore, too costly for the average person to buy it.

That's a very dubious assumption, IMO.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 02:04:50 PM
I think this is already starting to happen.  In part because of a cultural reaction against globalisation towards more 'authentic' products.  It is, as it should be, a consumer choice that isn't necessarily antagonistic to global trade.

It's interesting that something that sounds so old fashioned to a large extent depends on modern technology.  I like that aspect of it.

The author advocated government restraints to sort of force the issue, but I disagree completely with that. I think it should be an organic movement, if it should happen.

QuoteOf course it's possible.  It's a consumer choice contained in your phrase 'whenever possible'.  If you have the choice, buy local.  If you don't, you can't.

I just wonder if this will create an overhaul of the economic standard that many economists are saying will be necessary to pull us out of the recession we're in.

QuoteAnd better environmentally.  There was a big furor over food miles.  The Economist worked out that in terms of CO2 consumption you're better buying Spanish tomatoes than growing them in Norfolk in greenhouses.

That's interesting. It would be nice to see what other items that might be true of. Of course, when it comes to fresh produce, a personal greenhouse might actually be the better way to go rather than going to a grocery store, anyway. If it's attached to the house, it would require even less energy than a stand-alone box, and would mean healthier, tastier food. But then, that would require a massive shift in the general consciousness of the populations in the Western World, and I'm not sure that could or would happen.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2012, 02:11:41 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:06:37 PM
I think the bigger problem is that as a society - a global society - we can't survive on the current model. Our standard of living is reliant on pretty much slave labor somewhere

That is an extreme view.  for my part, my standard of living is pretty closely tied to the international price of the commodities.

Sorry. I should have clarified. I'm thinking specifically of our technological standards. The technology we buy is affordable because of the low-paying jobs in China with minimal if any benefits or safe working environments.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:15:53 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2012, 02:11:41 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:06:37 PM
I think the bigger problem is that as a society - a global society - we can't survive on the current model. Our standard of living is reliant on pretty much slave labor somewhere

That is an extreme view.  for my part, my standard of living is pretty closely tied to the international price of the commodities.

Sorry. I should have clarified. I'm thinking specifically of our technological standards. The technology we buy is affordable because of the low-paying jobs in China with minimal if any benefits and safe working environments.

And yet the Chinese workers who are employed in those jobs would say their standard of living has increased dramatically from that of their parents who were subsistance dirt farmers.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:06:37 PM
I think the bigger problem is that as a society - a global society - we can't survive on the current model. Our standard of living is reliant on pretty much slave labor somewhere, and so long as people continue to argue for - and win - better working conditions, at some point, we won't be able to pay for the things we want. The stuff we want will just be too costly to make, and therefore, too costly for the average person to buy it.

So the question is: What gives? Our standard of living or the slave labor? Would buying those things closer to home that we can help with the other stuff, or make it worse? Will it bring in more jobs or lose them?

That's quite pessimistic and a bit obtuse. What happened to innovation and invention?

Past models have been changed (for the better/richer) by technology, not necessarily slave labor (though they help, too). We just need to work towards our next steam, steel, coal, etc. moment. If we finally discover some cheap, clean, unlimited energy source, then our standard of living will skyrocket to the next stage.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F51524%2Fwaves%2520of%2520creative%2520destruction.png&hash=7ec9046748ac440ffaee81134b9a058a331e212f)

Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2012, 01:46:01 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gar_Alperovitz

Found the guy.  Sounds like communes.  Ide won't like him, he opposed that atomic bombing of japan.

He said that many would equate him to a communist, but in reality he believes that what's required is a new model that maybe hasn't been conceived of yet. He just doesn't believe that capitalism - or communism - is the answer to future economic growth.

Quote from: Phillip V on January 13, 2012, 01:57:38 PM
This local growth will come naturally if we have strong, fulfilling relationships with our families, friends, neighbors, and colleagues. I will patronize the local coffee shop if the owner is nice to me and pats me on the back.

Thus, stop getting divorced / having dramaz / hiding in gadgets.

They started it.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:15:53 PM
The technology we buy is affordable because of the low-paying jobs in China with minimal if any benefits or safe working environments.

Well we shall all find out eventually.  Some day we are going to run out of politically stable countries with huge labor surpluses.

To me it sounds like the guy's solution is in desperate search of a problem.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:19:23 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2012, 01:46:01 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gar_Alperovitz

Found the guy.  Sounds like communes.  Ide won't like him, he opposed that atomic bombing of japan.

He said that many would equate him to a communist, but in reality he believes that what's required is a new model that maybe hasn't been conceived of yet. He just doesn't believe that capitalism - or communism - is the answer to future economic growth.

Fuck.  I wouldn't equate him to a communist.  I'd equate him to a hippie.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2012, 02:17:50 PM
And yet the Chinese workers who are employed in those jobs would say their standard of living has increased dramatically from that of their parents who were subsistance dirt farmers.

Does that make their working conditions acceptable on a human level? I agree that they are in a far better situation than their ancestors, and I have no problem buying my techie toys. That doesn't mean that I believe that those people will remain in that situation indefinitely, nor that it's the right place for them to be. Eventually, something will give and they will fight for better conditions, just like Americans did at the turn of the last century, and when it happens, it will mean a higher cost for everyone.

I'm not thinking next year or even next decade. I'm trying to think longer term economics that will help raise the standard of living for everyone while maintaining humane conditions for workers everywhere. Is this combined econimic model the way? Is localized economy? Is Government-owned and operated? How can we grow as a society over the long-haul?

Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 02:20:08 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:15:53 PM
The technology we buy is affordable because of the low-paying jobs in China with minimal if any benefits or safe working environments.

Well we shall all find out eventually.  Some day we are going to run out of politically stable countries with huge labor surpluses.

Lol.  Reshoring.

Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2012, 02:21:01 PM
To me it sounds like the guy's solution is in desperate search of a problem.

:yeahright:

You don't think that our society's economic picture is bleak?

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2012, 02:17:50 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:15:53 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2012, 02:11:41 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:06:37 PM
I think the bigger problem is that as a society - a global society - we can't survive on the current model. Our standard of living is reliant on pretty much slave labor somewhere

That is an extreme view.  for my part, my standard of living is pretty closely tied to the international price of the commodities.

Sorry. I should have clarified. I'm thinking specifically of our technological standards. The technology we buy is affordable because of the low-paying jobs in China with minimal if any benefits and safe working environments.

And yet the Chinese workers who are employed in those jobs would say their standard of living has increased dramatically from that of their parents who were subsistance dirt farmers.

Agreed. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty the past few decades thanks to globalization. And the American consumer gets cheaper and more various goods. In fact, Chinese wages have skyrocketed so rapidly that net manufacturing is returning back to America this decade because it is no longer profitable for businesses to outsource to China (shipping costs, foreign complications, etc.).

Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 02:20:08 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:15:53 PM
The technology we buy is affordable because of the low-paying jobs in China with minimal if any benefits or safe working environments.

Well we shall all find out eventually.  Some day we are going to run out of politically stable countries with huge labor surpluses.

We pretty much have, haven't we?  I mean China's not all that stable, and companies are already investing in places like Indonesia

Meri: how in the world does a Clevelander not buying stuff made in China help the Chinese out? :huh:

Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2012, 02:25:46 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 02:20:08 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:15:53 PM
The technology we buy is affordable because of the low-paying jobs in China with minimal if any benefits or safe working environments.

Well we shall all find out eventually.  Some day we are going to run out of politically stable countries with huge labor surpluses.

We pretty much have, haven't we?  I mean China's not all that stable, and companies are already investing in places like Indonesia

We're seeing industry migrate from China to new cheap labor supply in Vietnam, Indonesia, and Bangladesh.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:13:23 PM
The author advocated government restraints to sort of force the issue, but I disagree completely with that. I think it should be an organic movement, if it should happen.

I don't mind the idea of agrictultural protection, clear labelling and all the rest.  But then I'm European.

I don't think it's the answer to our economic problems but I think it's a trend that's getting stronger in our economy.  Perhaps in part in response to the crisis.

QuoteThat's interesting. It would be nice to see what other items that might be true of. Of course, when it comes to fresh produce, a personal greenhouse might actually be the better way to go rather than going to a grocery store, anyway. If it's attached to the house, it would require even less energy than a stand-alone box, and would mean healthier, tastier food. But then, that would require a massive shift in the general consciousness of the populations in the Western World, and I'm not sure that could or would happen.

I think one of the problems in terms of the environment is how complex it all is.  On the face of it I'd guess that you're better off consuming local tomatoes than Spanish ones, but that's wrong.  I'm not sure if it's possible but I'd support some sort traffic light label of CO2 consumption, like you have with nutritional information.

I don't know enough to consume environmentally, if I could I would.

Yeah, but those people aren't slaves.  They actually want those jobs.  There is a great talk about the evils of sweat shops and the like, but it turns out, most of those people actually want those jobs.  There are exceptions and where people are forced into unfree labor, but generally speaking, they want those jobs.  It's a hell of lot easier and safer then farming and you get much more cash.  An excellent example is The Kathie Lee Gifford sweatshop scandal in the 1990's.  When it was revealed her line of clothing was being made in Central American sweatshops.  She tearfully apologized and they closed down the factories.  You know who was really pissed?  The average workers, who while making pitiful wages by American standards, were making several times the national average.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:23:15 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2012, 02:17:50 PM
And yet the Chinese workers who are employed in those jobs would say their standard of living has increased dramatically from that of their parents who were subsistance dirt farmers.

Does that make their working conditions acceptable on a human level?

that isnt the correct question.  Their living standards have improved and continue to improve.  Valmy hit the nail on the head when he said eventually we will run out of surplus low cost labour - eg China will eventually rich our stardard of living.  It is patronizing and paternalistic to say to China - sorry, we dont like watching you industrialize.

Further, your author fails to recognize the fundamental fact that international trade raises the standard of living for everyone.  He is worse then a protectionist.  He is more like a nihilist.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2012, 02:27:03 PM
Meri: how in the world does a Clevelander not buying stuff made in China help the Chinese out? :huh:

It doesn't. That's the problem that I have with this model. It's very insular. It will help the local economy, while hurting the global economy. That's why I'm asking if there's a way to marry both into a feasible model that will benefit the majority of people and will be sustainable over the long-haul.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:23:15 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2012, 02:17:50 PM
And yet the Chinese workers who are employed in those jobs would say their standard of living has increased dramatically from that of their parents who were subsistance dirt farmers.

Does that make their working conditions acceptable on a human level? I agree that they are in a far better situation than their ancestors, and I have no problem buying my techie toys. That doesn't mean that I believe that those people will remain in that situation indefinitely, nor that it's the right place for them to be. Eventually, something will give and they will fight for better conditions, just like Americans did at the turn of the last century, and when it happens, it will mean a higher cost for everyone.

I'm not thinking next year or even next decade. I'm trying to think longer term economics that will help raise the standard of living for everyone while maintaining humane conditions for workers everywhere. Is this combined econimic model the way? Is localized economy? Is Government-owned and operated? How can we grow as a society over the long-haul?

They're going for the same development program that neighbors Taiwan, South Korea and Japan followed in the 50s-70s.  They started out making cheap crap for the west (there was a time when Made in Japan was not a badge of quality), but by gaining local expertise, local companies, they hope to move up the value-added ladder

Quote from: Barrister on January 13, 2012, 02:29:27 PM
They're going for the same development program that neighbors Taiwan, South Korea and Japan followed in the 50s-70s.  They started out making cheap crap for the west (there was a time when Made in Japan was not a badge of quality), but by gaining local expertise, local companies, they hope to move up the value-added ladder

Which requires an element of protectionism on their part.  It's not always bad.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2012, 02:28:29 PM
Yeah, but those people aren't slaves.  They actually want those jobs.  There is a great talk about the evils of sweat shops and the like, but it turns out, most of those people actually want those jobs.  There are exceptions and where people are forced into unfree labor, but generally speaking, they want those jobs.  It's a hell of lot easier and safer then farming and you get much more cash.

Pretty much.  I recall an article I posted a while back where some Taiwanese workers were rioting because, due to Western pressures, the company wouldn't let them work 14-hour days, 6 days a week any more because of the bad conditions.  Many of the workers were eager to work those hours because the whole point was to do so for 1-2 years and use the cash to start a business themselves.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2012, 02:28:29 PM
Yeah, but those people aren't slaves.  They actually want those jobs.  There is a great talk about the evils of sweat shops and the like, but it turns out, most of those people actually want those jobs.  There are exceptions and where people are forced into unfree labor, but generally speaking, they want those jobs.  It's a hell of lot easier and safer then farming and you get much more cash.  An excellent example is The Kathie Lee Gifford sweatshop scandal in the 1990's.  When it was revealed her line of clothing was being made in Central American sweatshops.  She tearfully apologized and they closed down the factories.  You know who was really pissed?  The average workers, who while making pitiful wages by American standards, were making several times the national average.

Absolutely true. Just as Americans wanted the sweat-shop jobs of the late Victorian era. But after a while they realized that there were other options - better pay, safer work environments, etc. - and they organized and demaned more. That will happen here, too. Historically speaking, it always does.

So they move somewhere else and get their cheap labor there for a while, until it happens there, too. What happens when we run out of places willing to work under those conditions? Long-term, this model just doesn't work.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:29:00 PM
It doesn't. That's the problem that I have with this model. It's very insular. It will help the local economy, while hurting the global economy. That's why I'm asking if there's a way to marry both into a feasible model that will benefit the majority of people and will be sustainable over the long-haul.

I'm not so certain that it would help the local economy in anything but the short-term.  It will certainly help specific groups in the local economy, but if people lack the means to purchase some items because they're spending more to buy some goods locally...

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:23:15 PM


Does that make their working conditions acceptable on a human level?

Yes!  Certainly.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 02:27:54 PM
I don't know enough to consume environmentally, if I could I would.

I find it pretty easy.  I don't eat meat, try not to drive much, live in a mild climate and attempt to suffer bad weather without using the heat, and I use as little plastic as is convenient.  I'd suspect my carbon footprint is 50-75% lower than the average American's.

But I'm rich in self-righteousness.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2012, 02:28:55 PM
that isnt the correct question.  Their living standards have improved and continue to improve.  Valmy hit the nail on the head when he said eventually we will run out of surplus low cost labour - eg China will eventually rich our stardard of living.  It is patronizing and paternalistic to say to China - sorry, we dont like watching you industrialize.

I never said we should. I only said that it's not sustainable.

Quote
Further, your author fails to recognize the fundamental fact that international trade raises the standard of living for everyone.  He is worse then a protectionist.  He is more like a nihilist.

You've read his book to know this? I certainly didn't get that from his interview. You may be reading more into his opinion than is there. He's not saying stop international trade; he's saying consider growing a more local economy.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:32:11 PM
So they move somewhere else and get their cheap labor there for a while, until it happens there, too. What happens when we run out of places willing to work under those conditions? Long-term, this model just doesn't work.

Then, as a lot of companies are doing now, they move the factories and positions to places that are more efficient--such as the USA.  This is already happening on a large scale in the automotive industry--view the Toyoto, Kia, etc. factories opening up in the South.  Berkut posted an excellent graph in another thread showing the growth of manufacturing output-per-worker in the USA.  Once the labor stops being cheap enough, the production will simply shift again, at least until labor becomes cheaper elsewhere, ad infinitum.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:32:11 PMAbsolutely true. Just as Americans wanted the sweat-shop jobs of the late Victorian era. But after a while they realized that there were other options - better pay, safer work environments, etc. - and they organized and demaned more. That will happen here, too. Historically speaking, it always does.

So they move somewhere else and get their cheap labor there for a while, until it happens there, too. What happens when we run out of places willing to work under those conditions? Long-term, this model just doesn't work.

When we run out of place that are willing to work under such conditions, we should all rejoice because we would finally have ended absolute poverty in the world.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:32:11 PM
So they move somewhere else and get their cheap labor there for a while, until it happens there, too. What happens when we run out of places willing to work under those conditions? Long-term, this model just doesn't work.

We substitute more capital for labor.

Quote from: Habbaku on January 13, 2012, 02:32:31 PM
I'm not so certain that it would help the local economy in anything but the short-term.  It will certainly help specific groups in the local economy, but if people lack the means to purchase some items because they're spending more to buy some goods locally...

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Maybe going local for a while is what's necessary to rebuild the middle-class so that the next model can take us to the next level.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:32:11 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2012, 02:28:29 PM
Yeah, but those people aren't slaves.  They actually want those jobs.  There is a great talk about the evils of sweat shops and the like, but it turns out, most of those people actually want those jobs.  There are exceptions and where people are forced into unfree labor, but generally speaking, they want those jobs.  It's a hell of lot easier and safer then farming and you get much more cash.  An excellent example is The Kathie Lee Gifford sweatshop scandal in the 1990's.  When it was revealed her line of clothing was being made in Central American sweatshops.  She tearfully apologized and they closed down the factories.  You know who was really pissed?  The average workers, who while making pitiful wages by American standards, were making several times the national average.

Absolutely true. Just as Americans wanted the sweat-shop jobs of the late Victorian era. But after a while they realized that there were other options - better pay, safer work environments, etc. - and they organized and demaned more. That will happen here, too. Historically speaking, it always does.

So they move somewhere else and get their cheap labor there for a while, until it happens there, too. What happens when we run out of places willing to work under those conditions? Long-term, this model just doesn't work.

Why not? :huh:  If you run out of places with cheap labor then you might have circumstances like the US economy in the 1950's, or Germany for the last few decades.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:13:23 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 02:04:50 PM
I think this is already starting to happen.  In part because of a cultural reaction against globalisation towards more 'authentic' products.  It is, as it should be, a consumer choice that isn't necessarily antagonistic to global trade.

It's interesting that something that sounds so old fashioned to a large extent depends on modern technology.  I like that aspect of it.

The author advocated government restraints to sort of force the issue, but I disagree completely with that. I think it should be an organic movement, if it should happen.

See, this is the problem.  Raz is correct, most people are simply going to go for the cheaper alternative, and 95% of the time, that's not going to be the local alternative.  You'd have to dictate that "choice" for people, or at least provide strong incentives, such as prohibitively high tarrifs.

I seem to recall this happening before, with all of us jumping on Meri for unsound ideas.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2012, 02:39:53 PM
I seem to recall this happening before, with all of us jumping on Meri for unsound ideas.

To be fair, it's just some garden-variety, hippie protectionist's unsound ideas.

Quote from: dps on January 13, 2012, 02:37:55 PM
See, this is the problem.  Raz is correct, most people are simply going to go for the cheaper alternative, and 95% of the time, that's not going to be the local alternative.  You'd have to dictate that "choice" for people, or at least provide strong incentives, such as prohibitively high tarrifs.

Right now there's a movement in this direction in a number of local areas. Some have even created local currencies to use for local products, and using it gives them a discount. The incentive is a backlash against corporate greed, or so they claim. It's an organic movement at the local level to boycott the "1%". Unfortunately, I think this may be going too far.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2012, 02:39:53 PM
I seem to recall this happening before, with all of us jumping on Meri for unsound ideas.

How odd. I am asking questions and advocating nothing, and yet this is your response. Well thought-out and useful, as usual, Raz.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:37:04 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on January 13, 2012, 02:32:31 PM
I'm not so certain that it would help the local economy in anything but the short-term.  It will certainly help specific groups in the local economy, but if people lack the means to purchase some items because they're spending more to buy some goods locally...

Is this necessarily a bad thing? Maybe going local for a while is what's necessary to rebuild the middle-class so that the next model can take us to the next level.

It would much more likely destroy what's left of the middle class.

There are people who could have afforded to own their own homes a generation or 2 ago who can't now because the money that they could have used to purchase a home has to be used to purchase food and gasoline instead.  You're proposing ideas that would greatly increase most people's costs to buy daily necessities.  Working people would go from having to rent because they can't save up enough money for a down payment on a home to not being able to afford to rent either.

Quote from: dps on January 13, 2012, 02:37:55 PM


See, this is the problem.  Raz is correct, most people are simply going to go for the cheaper alternative, and 95% of the time, that's not going to be the local alternative.  You'd have to dictate that "choice" for people, or at least provide strong incentives, such as prohibitively high tarrifs.

Yeah, the only way to really do it is some sort of coercive force.  Tariffs or whatever.  Just saying "Hey, everyone do this", isn't going to work.  If that was true, the Government would have stamped out illegal drug use long ago.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:42:14 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2012, 02:39:53 PM
I seem to recall this happening before, with all of us jumping on Meri for unsound ideas.

How odd. I am asking questions and advocating nothing, and yet this is your response. Well thought-out and useful, as usual, Raz.

And when people point out the negatives of the guy's ideas, you seem to defend his views--which many people will interpret, perhaps incorrectly but not unreasonably, as you being an advocate of the ideas.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:41:11 PM
Right now there's a movement in this direction in a number of local areas. Some have even created local currencies to use for local products, and using it gives them a discount. The incentive is a backlash against corporate greed, or so they claim. It's an organic movement at the local level to boycott the "1%". Unfortunately, I think this may be going too far.

This is nonsense.  The evol 1% doesn't own Best Buy, our pension plans own Best Buy.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2012, 02:45:33 PMThis is nonsense.  The evol 1% doesn't own Best Buy, our pension plans own Best Buy.

Poor investment choice for our pension plans.  :(

Was the author Captain Crunch?  Because he used to talk about those sorts of things.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2012, 02:28:29 PM
Yeah, but those people aren't slaves.  They actually want those jobs.  There is a great talk about the evils of sweat shops and the like, but it turns out, most of those people actually want those jobs.  There are exceptions and where people are forced into unfree labor, but generally speaking, they want those jobs.  It's a hell of lot easier and safer then farming and you get much more cash.  An excellent example is The Kathie Lee Gifford sweatshop scandal in the 1990's.  When it was revealed her line of clothing was being made in Central American sweatshops.  She tearfully apologized and they closed down the factories.  You know who was really pissed?  The average workers, who while making pitiful wages by American standards, were making several times the national average.

Yah, I think Nike had to do the same for some sweatshops in 90s, closing them down. Luckily, the women and children found new jobs as prostitutes. There's always demand for that.

Quote from: dps on January 13, 2012, 02:42:28 PM

It would much more likely destroy what's left of the middle class.

There are people who could have afforded to own their own homes a generation or 2 ago who can't now because the money that they could have used to purchase a home has to be used to purchase food and gasoline instead.  You're proposing ideas that would greatly increase most people's costs to buy daily necessities.  Working people would go from having to rent because they can't save up enough money for a down payment on a home to not being able to afford to rent either.

Yeah, that'd be a serious issue. Of course, if you carried it to the next level - using only local banks, builders, etc. - there may cheaper houses to buy. I don't know. It's certainly possible, but I don't know how probable it would be.

Quote from: dps on January 13, 2012, 02:45:18 PM
And when people point out the negatives of the guy's ideas, you seem to defend his views--which many people will interpret, perhaps incorrectly but not unreasonably, as you being an advocate of the ideas.

:huh:

I'm trying to understand both sides equally. If one argues against him, I'm trying to understand why, or to dig deeper into the argument. In fact, I see a lot of issues with this man's ideas. I also see some positives. I'm trying to understand both more thoroughly. Only here is that considered "advocating".

Why does everyone want to go tribal all of a sudden? Scotts want indepence, this guy wants city states back (actually more primitive, since city states traded). Communties are too small to be self sefficient. who is going to build cars, tv, etc. more complicated things require production chains.

And really so what if Meri thought these were good ideas?  You would never resort to attacking the person instead of the idea would you Raz?  :P

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2012, 02:45:33 PM
This is nonsense.  The evol 1% doesn't own Best Buy, our pension plans own Best Buy.

Agreed. However, those who run those businesses have the majority of the money in our economy right now, which is, I think, what is considered the bigger issue than who actually owns the company.

Quote from: HVC on January 13, 2012, 02:56:56 PM
Why does everyone want to go tribal all of a sudden? Scotts want indepence, this guy wants city states back (actually more primitive, since city states traded). Communties are too small to be self sefficient. who is going to build cars, tv, etc. more complicated things require production chains.

They can sell us cheap Chinese goods but they can never take our FREEEDOM?

Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 02:58:48 PM

Quote from: HVC on January 13, 2012, 02:56:56 PM
Why does everyone want to go tribal all of a sudden? Scotts want indepence, this guy wants city states back (actually more primitive, since city states traded). Communties are too small to be self sefficient. who is going to build cars, tv, etc. more complicated things require production chains.

They can sell us cheap Chinese goods but they can never take our FREEEDOM?

that's it. you're getting hung, drawn, and quartered!

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:57:35 PM
Agreed. However, those who run those businesses have the majority of the money in our economy right now, which is, I think, what is considered the bigger issue than who actually owns the company.

First of all, I sincerely doubt that CEOs of incorporated businesses "have the majority of money in our economy right now."

Second of all, I don't see how you can just dismiss away the impact your/Gar's plan would have on shareholders, either individual or institutional.

Finally, and I say this because I love you like the Mexican sister I never had, this whole thread has very much an Occupy Wall Street "everyone throw their pet issue into the pot and call it a plan" feel to it.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2012, 03:08:22 PM
First of all, I sincerely doubt that CEOs of incorporated businesses "have the majority of money in our economy right now."

I have no idea. I'm more concerned with making enough money to feed my family right now to worry about how much - or how little - anyone else makes.

Quote
Second of all, I don't see how you can just dismiss away the impact your/Gar's plan would have on shareholders, either individual or institutional.

I'm not dismissing it. It never occured to me until you posted, so I couldn't possibly have dismissed it. It has to be factored into whatever model comes up because it's a major concern for everyone. Do you think going more local will seriously adversely affect the shareholders? I know going completely local would be devestating. How much is too much?

QuoteFinally, and I say this because I love you like the Mexican sister I never had, this whole thread has very much an Occupy Wall Street "everyone throw their pet issue into the pot and call it a plan" feel to it.

Oh, there's no question that this guy is a huge advocate of the Occupy movement. Listen to the interview and he's sings their praises. I don't know how I feel about the movement other than to say that I have a fairly strong personal distaste for the megalopolies that drive our economy, like Citibank, pharmaceutical companies, etc. because of the policies that I have directly run into that I found fundamentally wrong. (My opinion only.)

My issue with all of this is that my personal inclination is toward a local economy, but I know that it, like communism, doesn't work beyond a very small group of people (=/< 50 people). So I'm trying to figure out the best global economy moving forward. I don't believe that our economic model right now is sustainable, so it makes sense - to me - to try to look beyond both of those models while recognizing the positive and negatives of each.

Massive human dieback coupled with a reevaluation of how people earn the right to live is the only real option.

Dieback sounds nasty, but it needn't be.  Global population is already poised to collapse.  In other words, we've already solved one problem, albeit perhaps too late to stave off many negative effects.

The foundations of modern capitalism are going to be a lot more difficult to deal with, since they form the basis of our civilization, and its ethos is perhaps ingrained in our nature.  In which case we're doomed and dieback will be a lot more severe than one might first expect.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:24:41 PM

Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2012, 02:21:01 PM
To me it sounds like the guy's solution is in desperate search of a problem.

:yeahright:

You don't think that our society's economic picture is bleak?

:huh:  No, I don't.  We're at a low point now, economically and politically, but we haven't reached a permanently new level of dysfunction.

I think our situation's pretty bleak.  2% growth instead of 3% is pretty damn bleak!

:D

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.frumforum.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2Fno-apology-cover.jpg&hash=d28a357e22c416c094a8f9fd7c0ca6dce3533fcf)

"Death would be too merciful for you, Zap Rowsdower!"

I still have very little notion of what this guy's plan is other than "buy local" - and that Cleveland is somehow involved as an example.  :huh:

Quote from: PDH on January 13, 2012, 01:31:18 PM
This sounds gay and hippyish.

+1  <_< I'm already buying basic school supplies for the........less fortunate.

Cleveland is a shithole. I sure haven't seen any sort of real recovery up there.

Assuming that Cleveland is in Ohio and not in fantasyland.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 01:52:57 PM
I'm not sure you understand what he's talking about. He's saying that we need to buy local whenever possible, encourage local economic growth before state or international growth, and use local-based companies as a rule rather than an exception. I'm not sure how any of that is going to cause what you surmise.

If it's not coercive, it won't work and if it is coercive, it will do more harm than good.

Most people make decisions to purchase produce and other goods based on cost.  If the local goods are more expensive, they won't purchase them unless there are coercive measures (like tariffs, subsidies or exclusions) to sway them.  That gets you into the whole discussion of why trade is beneficial, theories of competitive advantage, etc.

Quote from: 11B4V on January 13, 2012, 04:51:10 PM

Quote from: PDH on January 13, 2012, 01:31:18 PM
This sounds gay and hippyish.

+1  <_< I'm already buying basic school supplies for the........less fortunate.

The problem is with the solutions, not the problem.

Quote from: Phillip V on January 13, 2012, 02:25:08 PM
Agreed. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty the past few decades thanks to globalization. And the American consumer gets cheaper and more various goods. In fact, Chinese wages have skyrocketed so rapidly that net manufacturing is returning back to America this decade because it is no longer profitable for businesses to outsource to China (shipping costs, foreign complications, etc.).

And frankly we don't want a lot of it back, because in many cases it's not profitable.  Case in point, the iPhone & iPad: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/24/china-makes-almost-nothing-out-of-apples-ipads-and-i/

Quote from: derspiess on January 13, 2012, 05:28:22 PM

Quote from: Phillip V on January 13, 2012, 02:25:08 PM
Agreed. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted out of poverty the past few decades thanks to globalization. And the American consumer gets cheaper and more various goods. In fact, Chinese wages have skyrocketed so rapidly that net manufacturing is returning back to America this decade because it is no longer profitable for businesses to outsource to China (shipping costs, foreign complications, etc.).

And frankly we don't want a lot of it back, because in many cases it's not profitable.  Case in point, the iPhone & iPad: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/24/china-makes-almost-nothing-out-of-apples-ipads-and-i/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/24/china-makes-almost-nothing-out-of-apples-ipads-and-i/)

Well there is a mismatch between what Americans say and do in regards to manufacturing. ;)

Two-thirds want manufacturing to become a bigger share of the economy again. But only 10% would recommend their children pursue a career/study in manufacturing.

Manufacturing is going the same way that agriculture did, an increasingly small number of people will meet our manufacturing requirements. Services, however, there seems to be an insatiable demand for labour here  :cool:

Incidentally, a lot of services are rather local by nature...........thinking of geriatric and infant care, teaching, medical care etc etc.........as the service sector continues to grow our domestic/personal economies may well become more local.

QuoteAnd frankly we don't want a lot of it back, because in many cases it's not profitable.  Case in point, the iPhone & iPad: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/24/china-makes-almost-nothing-out-of-apples-ipads-and-i/

That doesn't make sense to me. Surely China makes quite a lot? It provides jobs for thousands.

QuoteI cant imagine how horrible life would be under such an isolated economy.  No fresh fruits and vegetables during winter.  No French or Italian wines.  No French cheese (or Oka cheese). No thanks.

That is a problem. Some things just aren't available in some areas. Going back to seasonal stuff makes sense to an extent but it would also be quite annoying.
That being said the way things tend to be now is a bit mad.
I recall reading once about the UK exporting lots of potatoes to Germany * I don't know my measurements so can't guesss how many, millions of tonnes? is that reasonable? Thousands?) whilst at the same time Germany exported a similar amount to Britain....such waste.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 13, 2012, 01:44:15 PM
Actually, that's a good point.  Waste disposal is already a hot issue when crossing state lines- imagine waste disposal contracts becoming a hundred times more complex.

In Japan its a local village/town/city affair.
And...yeah. Hasn't worked too well, its a big contributing factor to so many settlements going into debt and then a bunch of them having to merge into new cities.

Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 03:58:13 PM
Massive human dieback coupled with a reevaluation of how people earn the right to live is the only real option.

Dieback sounds nasty, but it needn't be.  Global population is already poised to collapse.  In other words, we've already solved one problem, albeit perhaps too late to stave off many negative effects.

The foundations of modern capitalism are going to be a lot more difficult to deal with, since they form the basis of our civilization, and its ethos is perhaps ingrained in our nature.  In which case we're doomed and dieback will be a lot more severe than one might first expect.

The physical destruction of 98% of humanity, coupled with a eugenics program is the way to go.

Do we get to choose the surviving 2%?  That'd get the eugenics program off to a promising start.

Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 09:04:50 PM
Do we get to choose the surviving 2%?  That'd get the eugenics program off to a promising start.

I do.

Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 09:04:50 PM
Do we get to choose the surviving 2%?  That'd get the eugenics program off to a promising start.

Obamacare death panels FTW!

Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 02:33:59 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 02:27:54 PM
I don't know enough to consume environmentally, if I could I would.

I find it pretty easy.  I don't eat meat, try not to drive much, live in a mild climate and attempt to suffer bad weather without using the heat, and I use as little plastic as is convenient.  I'd suspect my carbon footprint is 50-75% lower than the average American's.

But I'm rich in self-righteousness.

After all these years I still can't believe no one has lynched you yet, you're asking for it more than any white man in America.

 :lol:

Insufferability is it's own reward.

Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 02:57:14 PM
And really so what if Meri thought these were good ideas?  You would never resort to attacking the person instead of the idea would you Raz?  :P

I wasn't even attacking her.  I was simply noted I've seen this pattern before.  I was kinda feeling sorry for her.

I am unimpressed with any arguments I've read so far, and extremely skeptical of needing to move to a new economic system that we don't know exactly what it is yet.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 13, 2012, 02:36:38 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:32:11 PM
So they move somewhere else and get their cheap labor there for a while, until it happens there, too. What happens when we run out of places willing to work under those conditions? Long-term, this model just doesn't work.

We substitute more capital for labor.

No one really commented on this, but Yi hit this one on the head.

There's a good article in the Atlantic right now about an auto parts manufacturing plant in the south (I think South Carolina.) The article was sort of an exploration of modern American manufacturing jobs. One set of people working there made something like $25/hour, and had training from technical schools and could actually interact directly with the software that controlled these modern industrial machines due to their ability to write in the instruction language that is pretty standard in industrial machines.

Basically, those guys have a pretty good job because the machine they work on does precision work on parts that are very delicate, and the worker running it needs to actually be more than an automaton, has to be able to make on the fly adjustments to the machine and has to really understand what is going on. Because the part is delicate, and because the machine can and is regularly retasked to make a new part day in and day out, outsourcing to China just doesn't make sense.

In the same factory, other parts in the same production chain are made by machines that do far more of the work. These are the meat and potato parts that are bulky and the machine itself is a much simpler device. The person operating it is training a new employee, and in the first 25 minutes of the new employee's shift they have as much proficiency at the job as the more experienced worker. These workers make around $14/hour, and the reason their jobs haven't been outsourced to China is because in the words of the management, outsourcing to China isn't worthwhile for 10% savings (this company has outsourced some parts manufacturing to Mexico, China etc; but the company points out it takes significant savings to justify it.) The parts they make also need to be used along with the more delicate parts that are made by the high-skilled workers, so the part gets made here in the United States.

The question is then posed, why don't they replace that $14/hour employee with a machine? Because all the low skill employees are actually doing is moving parts from one machine to another, a mechanical arm could easily do this work. The reason the employee isn't replaced is because the mechanical arm that would replace them costs more than just keeping the employee. I don't know if it's a company rule of thumb or something in the wider manufacturing community, but the article states that they won't buy a machine that can't pay for itself in 2 years time. The mechanical arm costs more than the employees make in 2 years time.

However, in a world of labor becoming ever more expensive and not being able to find cheap labor overseas, you would, as Yi says, just buy the mechanical arm that isn't price effective right now.

Quote from: Neil on January 13, 2012, 09:19:44 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 09:04:50 PM
Do we get to choose the surviving 2%?  That'd get the eugenics program off to a promising start.

I do.

Oh, can I live?  I've good plenty of experience being alive.

Quote from: Phillip V on January 13, 2012, 01:25:45 PM
You can have both. When I attended my local middle school (age 11-13), it banned soft drinks (soda). Thus, I went to the grocery store, bought 12-packs of soda cans, brought them into school via a big lunch container, and sold them at a profit of $1-$2 per can.

People paid you $2 for a can of warm soda?  :huh:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 14, 2012, 02:56:12 AM

Quote from: Phillip V on January 13, 2012, 01:25:45 PM
You can have both. When I attended my local middle school (age 11-13), it banned soft drinks (soda). Thus, I went to the grocery store, bought 12-packs of soda cans, brought them into school via a big lunch container, and sold them at a profit of $1-$2 per can.

People paid you $2 for a can of warm soda?  :huh:

Upper middle-class kids. :D

One of my fond memories is 5th grade elementary school. I would loan $1 in return for $2 the next day. 100% interest rate. Until one constant debtor's mother threatened to "break my legs".

Quote from: Valmy on January 13, 2012, 01:24:41 PM
Isn't that what we had as the ideal in the Middle Ages?  That each manor should be an independent self-sufficient economic unit?

Sounds interesting though.

If by interesting you mean unbelievably retarded, then yes. It's what fahdiz used to tout during his catholic insanity era. There is so much wrong with this idea in the global economy era, it's only comparable to millennial cults of middle ages.

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 02:04:50 PM
I think this is already starting to happen.  In part because of a cultural reaction against globalisation towards more 'authentic' products.  It is, as it should be, a consumer choice that isn't necessarily antagonistic to global trade.

It's interesting that something that sounds so old fashioned to a large extent depends on modern technology.  I like that aspect of it.

QuoteI don't intend to make anyone do anything. I only asked if there is a way to marry both ideologies. I like the idea of buying locally whenever possible - even if there's a small premium to do so - but I also like being able to use a cellphone (China), drink fine wine (Italian, Australian, German), and eat good chese (France, Belgium).

Of course it's possible.  It's a consumer choice contained in your phrase 'whenever possible'.  If you have the choice, buy local.  If you don't, you can't.

QuoteTrouble is growing food in greenhouses is quite energy intensive.  Though it does taste better, I understand it is often cheaper to grow food in distant locations and have it shipped.

And better environmentally.  There was a big furor over food miles.  The Economist worked out that in terms of CO2 consumption you're better buying Spanish tomatoes than growing them in Norfolk in greenhouses.

Sheilbh, I like you, but your bohemian upper class experience is not a general economic trend that is starting to happen. :)

I also frequently choose more expensive offer because it is "fair trade", or "bio", or "local produce" but it's a delusion to think most people do or will act this way.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:06:37 PM
I think the bigger problem is that as a society - a global society - we can't survive on the current model. Our standard of living is reliant on pretty much slave labor somewhere, and so long as people continue to argue for - and win - better working conditions, at some point, we won't be able to pay for the things we want. The stuff we want will just be too costly to make, and therefore, too costly for the average person to buy it.

So the question is: What gives? Our standard of living or the slave labor? Would buying those things closer to home that we can help with the other stuff, or make it worse? Will it bring in more jobs or lose them?

But we have always relied on slave labor (especially the one defined the way you define it). It's just that in the global economy, your "slave labor" can be located on the other side of the globe. If you bring back the "local economy", you would also bring back "local slave labor", because some people would naturally be unable to afford the costs of this economy, especially as it would be more expensive/inefficient.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2012, 02:10:39 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:00:22 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2012, 01:55:10 PM
How do you do that, Meri?  How do you make people chose options that are likely to be more expensive?

I don't intend to make anyone do anything. I only asked if there is a way to marry both ideologies. I like the idea of buying locally whenever possible - even if there's a small premium to do so - but I also like being able to use a cellphone (China), drink fine wine (Italian, Australian, German), and eat good chese (France, Belgium).

The question for me is what is the best long-term economic model, and can I have it all in that model?

The problem is that people are going to naturally gravitate toward the cheaper products.  There will be a market for locally grown food, but it tends to be smaller and more expensive.  For instance, Whole Foods.  "Buy local" or simply "Buy American", has been a slogan for decades now.  It hasn't really done much good.  Sure there are few success stories, but they are going against the tide.  The only realistic way of doing these things is trade barriers and tariffs.

The problem that Merri is oblivious to is that her idea (contrary to what she seems to imply) does nothing to address income/wealth inequalities in the local economy. So if you decrease everyone's standards of living  in her "local economy", some people will be destitute. So unless she is planning some radical redistribution, true communism style, I can't see her model not relying on slave labour, only that the poor in that model will be living in the nearby shanty town and not in Shanghai sweatshops.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 02:24:41 PM

Quote from: DGuller on January 13, 2012, 02:21:01 PM
To me it sounds like the guy's solution is in desperate search of a problem.

:yeahright:

You don't think that our society's economic picture is bleak?

Not really, at least not on pure economic level. The world's economy has hiccups because of financial markets issues but this has very little to do with the state of the market economy, which is doing fine.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2012, 02:28:55 PM
Further, your author fails to recognize the fundamental fact that international trade raises the standard of living for everyone.  He is worse then a protectionist.  He is more like a nihilist.

I have an inkling suspicion that he is just an idiot.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 13, 2012, 02:28:55 PMthat isnt the correct question.  Their living standards have improved and continue to improve.  Valmy hit the nail on the head when he said eventually we will run out of surplus low cost labour

China has been stealth-industrializing Africa for the last decade. Plus the industrialization of China and India is only skin-deep - sure, the standard of living has increased but only for a small number of people, there is still a lot of cheap labour left there, it's just this will be rich Chinese exploiting the poor ones. I think the global economy will be fine. ;)

Quote from: Ideologue on January 13, 2012, 02:33:59 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 13, 2012, 02:27:54 PM
I don't know enough to consume environmentally, if I could I would.

I find it pretty easy.  I don't eat meat, try not to drive much, live in a mild climate and attempt to suffer bad weather without using the heat, and I use as little plastic as is convenient.  I'd suspect my carbon footprint is 50-75% lower than the average American's.

But I'm rich in self-righteousness.

You disgust me.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 13, 2012, 02:39:53 PM
I seem to recall this happening before, with all of us jumping on Meri for unsound ideas.

Vaccines are bad for you. If you listen to your body, you know when to tell it to get rid of tuberculosis or polio on its own.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on January 13, 2012, 05:39:46 PM
Manufacturing is going the same way that agriculture did, an increasingly small number of people will meet our manufacturing requirements. Services, however, there seems to be an insatiable demand for labour here  :cool:

Yeah, and here we can expect to see a continuous growth in demand. Yoga instructors, personal trainers, dog walkers, taxi drivers, interior designers etc. We will constantly invent and increase demand for all kinds of jobs like this.

I hate it when an interesting pile-on discussion happens when I'm asleep, then I have to post like 20 posts in a row.

Sweat shops are not slavery.  :mad: Stop saying "slave labor".  You might have more traction if you say "cheap labor", but even then it's questionable.  Germany has set itself up as the major manufacturing hub of Europe and exporter of finished goods, and those people aren't slaves.  Western Trade with China is beneficial to both parties.  The Chinese are industrializing and their standard of living is increasing and we get cheaper goods.  The Chinese are much, much better off then they were 40 years ago.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 14, 2012, 04:32:17 AM
Sweat shops are not slavery.  :mad: Stop saying "slave labor".  You might have more traction if you say "cheap labor", but even then it's questionable.  Germany has set itself up as the major manufacturing hub of Europe and exporter of finished goods, and those people aren't slaves.  Western Trade with China is beneficial to both parties.  The Chinese are industrializing and their standard of living is increasing and we get cheaper goods.  The Chinese are much, much better off then they were 40 years ago.

Well that's an expression Merri used - I qualified it by saying I use the term "slave labour" the way she seems to mean it. Also, I tried to avoid a pointless discussion about the pros and cons of slavery.

CBA to read all the posts from the beginning, but here are my thoughts why the OP is misguided:

First, "community-based" economies already exist to the extent that they are viable. I go across the road to get my hair cut, or my pictures framed, or to use the gym (services). But it does not make sense for my urban locality to also have to produce TV sets, computers and food: these things are all made better and more cheaply (and, in fact, probably to lower net CO2 emissions) by specialised labour and production facilities much further away from me. This is the essence of trade. And it just depends on how you define "community". Free market liberals traditionally view the globe as the ideal trading community.

Second, the idea that cheap labour is wrong is based upon some basic flawed assumptions and, worse, patronising or romantic idealism. As long as labour is freely given and contracts to do so freely entered in to, there is no ethical difference between the wage level in Germany to that of China. Where you can make an argument is that certain labour standards that we like are not adhered to (for instance, the banning of unions which, no matter your opinion of them, is the denial of a fundamental freedom of association). The quest against cheap labour however is often a thinly disguised political objective to protect industries in marginal constituencies that are no longer competitive.

The thought that industrialising economies playing a massive game of economic catch up (see comparative GDP per capita levels) should somehow arrive at post-industrial wage levels matching the highly educated Western world's overnight is far-fetched if not silly.

The next economic model will include robots. Tons of them.

Quote from: Iormlund on January 14, 2012, 09:58:06 AM
The next economic model will include robots. Tons of them.

I hope so. It would relieve me of sexual harassment lawsuits.

Quote from: Phillip V on January 14, 2012, 09:59:41 AM
I hope so. It would relieve me of sexual harassment lawsuits.

Until the Robot Rights movement succeeds and then you're back at square 1.

Quote from: Martinus on January 14, 2012, 03:56:57 AM
Sheilbh, I like you, but your bohemian upper class experience is not a general economic trend that is starting to happen. :)

I also frequently choose more expensive offer because it is "fair trade", or "bio", or "local produce" but it's a delusion to think most people do or will act this way.

:lol:  I'm not bohemian upper class :console:

This is a trend - it may not reach the majority of people or the majority of purchases but it doesn't need to for it to be a trend.

At the widest level there's far more emphasis by all retailers on 'local' when they can say it and 'UK' when they can't.  In addition the most successful retailers over the last year have been those that most emphasis localism and associated values (Waitrose, John Lewis etc.).  I think there's been a shift where you won't necessarily buy local stuff every week, because it's expensive, but you will as a treat or for a special occassion.  That is a huge shift from 5 years ago when there wasn't really a market for it.

At the same time there's been a growth of retailers who specialise in this sort of thing, in middle class areas of course, but I actually think it's sort of aspirational now.  It's a way to show off or to feel better about your shopping than otherwise.  There's been a growth of companies offering local products (from the resurgence of traditional beers, to the new micro-brews, through to Riverford or Abel and Cole veg) and of things like farmers markets or city farms.

It may never make the majority of purchases, but this is a trend and it's one that's survived the recession and actually come out stronger.  I think in part because in a globalised world of trillions of dollars swilling round in debt, there's an attraction to the 'authentic' and local.  It's the English version of la France profonde.

Quote from: merithyn on January 13, 2012, 03:15:38 PM
I don't know how I feel about the movement other than to say that I have a fairly strong personal distaste for the megalopolies that drive our economy, like Citibank, pharmaceutical companies, etc. because of the policies that I have directly run into that I found fundamentally wrong. (My opinion only.)

What does "evil" pharmacy have to do with this?

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on January 13, 2012, 10:49:57 PM
No one really commented on this, but Yi hit this one on the head.

There's a good article in the Atlantic right now about an auto parts manufacturing plant in the south (I think South Carolina.) The article was sort of an exploration of modern American manufacturing jobs. One set of people working there made something like $25/hour, and had training from technical schools and could actually interact directly with the software that controlled these modern industrial machines due to their ability to write in the instruction language that is pretty standard in industrial machines.

Basically, those guys have a pretty good job because the machine they work on does precision work on parts that are very delicate, and the worker running it needs to actually be more than an automaton, has to be able to make on the fly adjustments to the machine and has to really understand what is going on. Because the part is delicate, and because the machine can and is regularly retasked to make a new part day in and day out, outsourcing to China just doesn't make sense.

In the same factory, other parts in the same production chain are made by machines that do far more of the work. These are the meat and potato parts that are bulky and the machine itself is a much simpler device. The person operating it is training a new employee, and in the first 25 minutes of the new employee's shift they have as much proficiency at the job as the more experienced worker. These workers make around $14/hour, and the reason their jobs haven't been outsourced to China is because in the words of the management, outsourcing to China isn't worthwhile for 10% savings (this company has outsourced some parts manufacturing to Mexico, China etc; but the company points out it takes significant savings to justify it.) The parts they make also need to be used along with the more delicate parts that are made by the high-skilled workers, so the part gets made here in the United States.

The question is then posed, why don't they replace that $14/hour employee with a machine? Because all the low skill employees are actually doing is moving parts from one machine to another, a mechanical arm could easily do this work. The reason the employee isn't replaced is because the mechanical arm that would replace them costs more than just keeping the employee. I don't know if it's a company rule of thumb or something in the wider manufacturing community, but the article states that they won't buy a machine that can't pay for itself in 2 years time. The mechanical arm costs more than the employees make in 2 years time.

However, in a world of labor becoming ever more expensive and not being able to find cheap labor overseas, you would, as Yi says, just buy the mechanical arm that isn't price effective right now.

This is great. Thanks, Otto. I guess the only question I have with this is what happens to those workers then, and what affect will too many of those mechanical arms have across the country? I'm a big proponent for when industry changes, change the industry you're in. (In other words, if you can't find a job doing what you used to then re-educate and re-adjust, don't whine about it.) But when it happens to a lot of people very quickly, that's nearly impossible to do. You end up with a lost generation while people figure out what to do where.

What I find most interesting in what you're saying is that the common perception that it is always cheaper to go to China/Mexico/etc just isn't true; at least according to the piece you're talking about. I find that heartening for our country's economy... at least for as long as that remains so.

Quote from: merithyn on January 15, 2012, 10:51:21 AM
I guess the only question I have with this is what happens to those workers then, and what affect will too many of those mechanical arms have across the country?

What happens to those workers then is that they accept lower wages to compete with mechanical arms and Chinese and Mexican workers, or they move to a nontradeable sector in which they're no longer competing with mechanical arms and Chinese.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2012, 12:54:54 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 15, 2012, 10:51:21 AM
I guess the only question I have with this is what happens to those workers then, and what affect will too many of those mechanical arms have across the country?

What happens to those workers then is that they accept lower wages to compete with mechanical arms and Chinese and Mexican workers, or they move to a nontradeable sector in which they're no longer competing with mechanical arms and Chinese.

Don't they just go on welfare and end up either taking up criminal endeavours or working dead-end, life-destroying service jobs?

Quote from: merithyn on January 15, 2012, 10:51:21 AM
This is great. Thanks, Otto. I guess the only question I have with this is what happens to those workers then, and what affect will too many of those mechanical arms have across the country? I'm a big proponent for when industry changes, change the industry you're in. (In other words, if you can't find a job doing what you used to then re-educate and re-adjust, don't whine about it.) But when it happens to a lot of people very quickly, that's nearly impossible to do. You end up with a lost generation while people figure out what to do where.

The problem is many people live with the expectation that their job will be there forever. That isn't true at all, much less today.

I've spent this last month reprogramming an assembly line at a big factory nearby and I can't help but be surprised at the amount of young boys and especially girls working there. How many of those are planning for the future? They can't seriously think their jobs will be there in 5, 10 or 20 years, not while working alongside automata (some as big as houses) that already do a lot of the work men did a few years ago (running the warehouse, soldering, handling heavy parts, gluing, painting, etc).

Quote
What I find most interesting in what you're saying is that the common perception that it is always cheaper to go to China/Mexico/etc just isn't true; at least according to the piece you're talking about. I find that heartening for our country's economy... at least for as long as that remains so.

Labour cost is just one piece of the puzzle. Some products are more expensive to ship than to build locally. Some require so much capital in machinery, infrastructure, etc that labour costs are not as important. Often local governments will offer subsidies to big employers to stay. There's the skilled labour thing that Otto mentioned as well, though eventually other countries do train their own skilled workforce.
In the end, often what happens is you have lot of money already invested in a factory, so instead of closing it, you just wait till it is time to build another and locate that one in Mexico, China or Turkey.

Quote from: Neil on January 15, 2012, 01:11:29 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 15, 2012, 12:54:54 PM

Quote from: merithyn on January 15, 2012, 10:51:21 AM
I guess the only question I have with this is what happens to those workers then, and what affect will too many of those mechanical arms have across the country?

What happens to those workers then is that they accept lower wages to compete with mechanical arms and Chinese and Mexican workers, or they move to a nontradeable sector in which they're no longer competing with mechanical arms and Chinese.

Don't they just go on welfare and end up either taking up criminal endeavours or working dead-end, life-destroying service jobs?

That's the nontradeable sector Yi refers to, I'm sure.