Languish.org

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/23/bad-apple-employ-more-us-workers

QuoteApple: why doesn't it employ more US workers?

The electronics giant assembles its gadgets in China. But, according to new research, if it moved its production home, it would still be hugely profitable and create thousands of jobs

An old rule states that you are a mere six degrees of separation away from anyone else on the planet. For some people, however, the world is even smaller. So let me propose an amendment: you are only one relative, friend or acquaintance away from one of the late Steve Jobs's creations.

You may be browsing this on a new iPad, one of the 30m Apple sold last year. Or perhaps you're viewing it on an iPhone screen – which would be unsurprising, since the market analysts at Mintel say that the iPhone 4 is the most popular handset in Britain today. Maybe your children are reluctantly putting away their iPods, of which Apple sells 5m worldwide every three months (a remarkable figure, but half the 10m Jobs and his colleagues were shifting each quarter in 2008 and 2009).

And if you've really never done any of those things, rest assured your prime minister has. "The cool thing is that I now control my iMac from the iPad, to play out through the speaker," David Cameron boasted to the Telegraph a few months after moving into No 10. It was one of those canny-to-the-point-of-irritating references the Old Etonian used to specialise in; a flash of his real-world accreditation.

As Cameron knows, Apple is a byword of everyday sleekness. Yet there is another way of viewing the company. Focus instead on the way it does business, and all those iPhones, iPods and iPads aren't just exemplars of design and user-friendliness: they are devices that destroy western jobs. And they do so needlessly, because if the California-based giant manufactured its goods in America rather than China, it could still make profits that would be the envy of every other US business.

This is, I know, an unorthodox position. When journalists or politicians discuss the way that western companies make goods in China, or anywhere else in Asia, they almost always start from the premise that this is how business is done nowadays. This is the commonly accepted logic of globalisation, which enables companies to keep their costs down, which allows the ordinary American or Briton to spend less money shopping, and which also offers poorer nations in the east to develop their economies. Expensive shirts might still be made in Italy; high-end kitchens might be assembled in Germany – but the future of mass production inevitably lies in China.

Apple has both made and benefitted from that argument. In January, the New York Times ran a lengthy investigation of the technology firm's manufacturing processes, which began by disclosing a conversation in 2011 between Jobs and Barack Obama. The president asked why Apple products could not be made in the US. The most admired man in Silicon Valley was reportedly blunt: "Those jobs aren't coming back."

Very few people argued with that assessment. In other ways excellent, the New York Times' piece had an elegiac tone, conveyed by the headline How the US Lost Out on iPhone Work. And the following commentary went on in this it's-not-you-it's-me vein. It wasn't Apple's fault it didn't hire Americans to make its goods: it was America's. US workers weren't skilled enough; not enough of them were trained in engineering.

All this should be familiar to anyone who's followed the Westminster debate on globalisation, where prime ministers from Thatcher to Blair to Cameron have agreed that if Britain is to attract employers, its workers need to shape up. Students need to brain up and get degrees, adults need to retrain or sharpen up their attitudes. Even then, the British have to prepare for a post-industrial future, where they do the design and marketing and the Chinese (or the Indians, or the Vietnamese) make the goods.

Such national self-abasement has the merit of at least feeling like a policy; but it's debatable whether on its own it really will pull in big employers. Apple, after all, used to base its manufacturing in the US. Jobs used to boast about how the Mac was "a machine that is made in America". And according to new research given exclusively to the Guardian by the Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change (Cresc), it's clear that it would not only be affordable for Apple still to make its goods in America, it would remain hugely profitable.

Using a mix of Apple's own filings and industry data, the academics broke down the cost of making one product in particular: the wildly popular 4G iPhone. Assembled in China, the total cost of putting together just one phone was $178.45. Compare that with a sale price (including downloads) of $630 and Apple makes $452 on each phone: a whacking gross margin of 72%.

Chinese labour accounts for a tiny proportion of the company's costs: $7.10 for each phone, which accounts for about eight hours of assembly. So what would it cost to make the same iPhone in America? The Cresc team took the average wage in the US electronics industry of $21 per hour and calculated that the total production cost would increase to $337.01. That is a big jump – but it still leaves Apple with a gross margin of 46.5% on each iPhone – a level that Cresc's Sukhdev Johal estimates would probably still make it the most profitable phone in the world.

So: two models of making one of Apple's most popular products, and two models for distributing the profits. The made-in-America model still leaves the California giant with a profit margin that most companies can only dream of, but would create hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the US to boot. That may strike you as laughably naive, but it's more akin to enlightened self-interest: just think of the way Henry Ford raised wages so Ford workers could buy his cars.

The made-in-China model, on the other hand, has carried no such social benefits, either in Apple's home country or in the People's Republic. Last year, Apple built up cash reserves of $100bn – more than the US government. Indeed, it was so much money that the company was stumped how to dispose of it. Tim Cook, who is now CEO of Apple, announced a few weeks ago that he would begin buying back shares and paying dividends to investors. Among other people who benefited from this arrangement was Cook himself, who was awarded $376.3m in Apple stock when he took over last year. That pile of shares is now valued at around $634m. The people who win from the made-in-China model are big investors and top executives.

In the case of Apple, outsourcing manufacturing is not about keeping costs to customers down – they are still paying huge prices for the latest handset or tablet computer. Nor is it about the company's survival: it would still do tremendously well were it to bring those factories back home. No, in the case of Apple, moving jobs offshore has become a way of directing ever more money to those at the top of American society.

This is not just my conclusion, or that of the Cresc team; it is backed up by the Asian Development Bank. In a 2010 study of an earlier model of the iPhone, ADB researchers concluded: "It is the profit maximisation behaviour of Apple rather than competition that pushes Apple to have all iPhones assembled in the PRC."

This division of labour has certainly not helped China very much. Foxconn, which makes those iPhones, has to work to an incredibly tough contract with Apple that forces it to keep all costs to a minimum. This surely helps account for why Foxconn, whose client list is almost a Who's Who of the smartphone sector, has had repeated troubles with its workforce, including at least 18 suicide attempts by workers in 2010 alone. After that, and the terrible publicity that followed, Apple put pressure on its subcontractor to raise workers' pay and improve conditions. But it didn't take the most obvious route of doing so, which would be: pay more to Foxconn, and direct it to use that surplus to increase wages.

The reason for concentrating on Apple in this fashion is not because it's a terrible company, but because it's an exemplary one. It has become the business success story of our age: the firm others want to emulate, and prime ministers want to name check. And yet there is a paradox here. For all the stylishness and sleekness of its products, the Apple business model is an unattractive and, over the long term, possibly an unsustainable one. It subcontracts work that offers the Chinese little prospect of economic development, while at the same time selling to Americans and others products they want but increasingly don't have the jobs or incomes to buy so readily.

Apple's rise to primus inter pares in the business world has coincided with a wider social trend: a general anxiety about the decline of the west. Some of the reasons for why America, Britain and others are on the slide are large and abstract. But some of the factors are smaller and closer to hand, like the iPhone in your pocket or the Mac waiting for you at home.

• Cresc is holding a workshop on the "Apple Business Model" at Senate House, University of London on Wednesday

The benefits of manufacturing in China are more than just costs.  Chinese workers can't strike, for example.  They can't disrupt production.  Also good luck in finding that many US workers for these jobs.  If you employ so many people, you'll drive wages up, increasing the differential with China. 

I don't know if that's an advantage specific to China. Can people really strike in Mississippi and other Deep South states? You'd figure Hailey Barbour, et al would put down any slave revolt with such swift and brutal force that it would make Foxconn look like daycare.

The article (like many others) ignores a major dynamic of what is going on. Corporate taxes in the US are 35% plus state and local. Taxes in China vary, but are much less. The huge cash reserves Apple (and many other US companies have) are a result of this. They attribute their income to tax advantaged overseas locales where they have sourced production and can pay low rates, but then can't repatriate the money to the US without paying a surcharge on their tax savings. So they keep their money overseas where it shows as a huge cash reserve. Then they wait for any overseas investment opportunity, or wait out the next repatriation tax holiday in the US.

Quote from: Monoriu on April 25, 2012, 06:35:15 AM
The benefits of manufacturing in China are more than just costs.  Chinese workers can't strike, for example.  They can't disrupt production.  Also good luck in finding that many US workers for these jobs.  If you employ so many people, you'll drive wages up, increasing the differential with China. 

When was the last major manufacturing strike in the US?  1985?

Especially as these factories would be in non-union states.

QuoteThis is not just my conclusion, or that of the Cresc team; it is backed up by the Asian Development Bank. In a 2010 study of an earlier model of the iPhone, ADB researchers concluded: "It is the profit maximisation behaviour of Apple rather than competition that pushes Apple to have all iPhones assembled in the PRC."

:o

Mono: there have been plenty of strikes in China.

So wait a corporation's behavior is motivated by a desire to maximize profits?  :hmm:

Quote from: alfred russel on April 25, 2012, 07:56:05 AM
The article (like many others) ignores a major dynamic of what is going on. Corporate taxes in the US are 35% plus state and local. Taxes in China vary, but are much less. The huge cash reserves Apple (and many other US companies have) are a result of this. They attribute their income to tax advantaged overseas locales where they have sourced production and can pay low rates, but then can't repatriate the money to the US without paying a surcharge on their tax savings. So they keep their money overseas where it shows as a huge cash reserve. Then they wait for any overseas investment opportunity, or wait out the next repatriation tax holiday in the US.

So Apple really works for the Chinese Communist Party, makes sense what with the agitprop, devoted idealogical followers and icons of veneration.  :)

Guardian thinks that for profit companies should be run for the benefit of the employees, Film at 23.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2012, 08:19:36 AM
Mono: there have been plenty of strikes in China.

True.  But at least there are...effective ways to end one  :ph34r:

Quote from: Monoriu on April 25, 2012, 06:35:15 AM
They can't disrupt production. 

Sure they do, after they collapse from dehydration and exhaustion from six 18 hour days a week.

Quote from: Monoriu on April 25, 2012, 09:05:17 AM
True.  But at least there are...effective ways to end one  :ph34r:

There are very effective ways to end strikes against state-owned enterprises like coal mines.  Strikes against foreign manufacturers, not so much.

Quote from: Monoriu on April 25, 2012, 06:35:15 AM
The benefits of manufacturing in China are more than just costs.  Chinese workers can't strike, for example.  They can't disrupt production.  Also good luck in finding that many US workers for these jobs.  If you employ so many people, you'll drive wages up, increasing the differential with China.

There is a big labor-related problem in China too: worker retention. Skilled employees leave companies en masse to look for better jobs, which makes it very hard to build an organisation.

Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2012, 08:20:48 AM
So wait a corporation's behavior is motivated by a desire to maximize profits?  :hmm:

Preposterous!

Next in Guardian: "Company hires an excellent specialist in the field even though they could hire my friend who would do worse, but still somewhat decent job, for more money."

Solution: tariffs.  Or nationalization.

Quote from: Viking on April 25, 2012, 08:29:33 AM
Guardian thinks that for profit companies should be run for the benefit of the employees, Film at 23.

No, that is not at all what they are saying.

I don't necessarily agree with what they ARE saying, but it certainly is nothing as simplistic as some call to turn Apple into a employee owned company or something like that.

They are saying that the current "best practices" business model, as exemplified here by Apple, results in the continued concentration of created wealth into the very top tier of wealth holders. It is a good example of how our current system continues to concentrate wealth.

If you think that is a good thing, then I suppose you would conclude that this is just fine.

If you think that the continuing reality that over the last several decades we have seen the top few percent of society is amassing a larger and larger percentage of societies wealth and income, while those not in that top few percent are losing their share of relative wealth to those top few percent, then the article is a good example of one way in which this is occurring.

I don't know about the solution though - the simple fact is that our system is setup to reward those who run businesses and make these decisions for making exactly these kinds of decisions. A vain appeal to altruism is clearly not going to change anything.

Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2012, 08:20:48 AM
So wait a corporation's behavior is motivated by a desire to maximize profits?  :hmm:

But it's Apple, the Guardians of Good, Protectors of Hipsters! :weep:

Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 10:17:23 AM
A vain appeal to altruism is clearly not going to change anything.

Depends on whether that altruism (either improving factory conditions in PRC or moving production to U.S.) generates enough goodwill to increase the value of the brand (and sales) enough to make up for higher costs.

So where are the GOPtards screaming OMG TEH UNIONS WOULD DRIVE UP IPAD COSTS TO $451,514,674?

Quote from: alfred russel on April 25, 2012, 07:56:05 AM
The article (like many others) ignores a major dynamic of what is going on. Corporate taxes in the US are 35% plus state and local. Taxes in China vary, but are much less.

When an iphone is sold in the US, which taxing authority has jurisidiction over the profits realized from that sale?

I guess he is talking about property taxes and that sort of thing, granted those would not be related to the corporate tax rates and alot of states would give them tax breaks.

Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 10:17:23 AMI don't know about the solution though - the simple fact is that our system is setup to reward those who run businesses and make these decisions for making exactly these kinds of decisions. A vain appeal to altruism is clearly not going to change anything.

Surely those who run businesses will soon come up with a system, not based on altruism, which reduces their own wealth in order to favour redistribution - a system which will not involve state regulation, no reform of the tax codes, no raises on taxes on capital, no inheritance tax, no luxury tax, no protectionism, no public health care, no free education, no welfare, no unions, no true fight against tax evasion or international money laundering, no toleration of public protest, no strikes, no nationalisations, no publically funded political parties. After all, all of these things hinder business, and punish entrepreneurial spirit, and we wouldn't want those jobs to flee elsewhere.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 25, 2012, 10:55:38 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 10:17:23 AMI don't know about the solution though - the simple fact is that our system is setup to reward those who run businesses and make these decisions for making exactly these kinds of decisions. A vain appeal to altruism is clearly not going to change anything.

Surely those who run businesses will soon come up with a system, not based on altruism, which reduces their own wealth in order to favour redistribution - a system which will not involve state regulation, no reform of the tax codes, no raises on taxes on capital, no inheritance tax, no luxury tax, no protectionism, no public health care, no free education, no welfare, no unions, no true fight against tax evasion or international money laundering, no toleration of public protest, no strikes, no nationalisations, no publically funded political parties. After all, all of these things hinder business, and punish entrepreneurial spirit, and we wouldn't want those jobs to flee elsewhere.

Let us hope you vision of the future is at least partially correct.   :P

Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2012, 10:52:58 AM
I guess he is talking about property taxes and that sort of thing, granted those would not be related to the corporate tax rates and alot of states would give them tax breaks.

No kidding;  the concept of taxes for commercial industry being detrimental to domestic production is such a fucking myth.  Any state in the Union would give Apple a ten-year lease with a tax amount of a single dollar.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 25, 2012, 10:55:38 AM
Surely those who run businesses will soon come up with a system, not based on altruism, which reduces their own wealth in order to favour redistribution - a system which will not involve state regulation, no reform of the tax codes, no raises on taxes on capital, no inheritance tax, no luxury tax, no protectionism, no public health care, no free education, no welfare, no unions, no true fight against tax evasion or international money laundering, no toleration of public protest, no strikes, no nationalisations, no publically funded political parties. After all, all of these things hinder business, and punish entrepreneurial spirit, and we wouldn't want those jobs to flee elsewhere.

We have all those things except the nationalization part and the jobs still left for China :P

But anyway our government is so corrupt any attempt to craft legislation to keep jobs here would just result in even more going abroad.

Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2012, 11:07:04 AM
We have all have all those things except the nationalization part and the jobs still left for China :P

But anyway our government is so corrupt any attempt to craft legislation to keep jobs here would just result in even more going abroad anyway.

I think we need to invest in more green jobs.

Quote from: derspiess on April 25, 2012, 11:09:22 AM
I think we need to invest in more green jobs.

I think you're trolling.  Trolls are green.

Jaron can save us all?

Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2012, 11:07:04 AM

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 25, 2012, 10:55:38 AM
Surely those who run businesses will soon come up with a system, not based on altruism, which reduces their own wealth in order to favour redistribution - a system which will not involve state regulation, no reform of the tax codes, no raises on taxes on capital, no inheritance tax, no luxury tax, no protectionism, no public health care, no free education, no welfare, no unions, no true fight against tax evasion or international money laundering, no toleration of public protest, no strikes, no nationalisations, no publically funded political parties. After all, all of these things hinder business, and punish entrepreneurial spirit, and we wouldn't want those jobs to flee elsewhere.

We have all have all those things except the nationalization part and the jobs still left for China :P

But anyway our government is so corrupt any attempt to craft legislation to keep jobs here would just result in even more going abroad anyway.

I don't think the solution is government regulation or even legislation that is as ham-handed as "Thou shalt get a tax break for jumping through these hoops..." That doesn't seem to work.

What we need to do is change the system in some more fundamental manner such that we do not see these perverse incentives where the people who make decisions are rewarded for making decisions that are largely detrimental to society as a whole.

Hell, I don't even know if an actual solution is even possible. I can't think of even how to start.

But I do NOT believe that government regulation is the answer, at least not in any direct manner.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 25, 2012, 10:27:45 AM
So where are the GOPtards screaming OMG TEH UNIONS WOULD DRIVE UP IPAD COSTS TO $451,514,674?

If Apple were stupid enough to set up an assembly plant in a non-right to work state they deserve to fail.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2012, 11:12:08 AM
Jaron can save us all?

Martinus would tax that ass.  And then VAT the bitch.

Quote from: Steve Jobs to President Obama
Those jobs aren't coming back.

Oh they will...someday.  But certainly not anytime soon.  Circumstances will eventually change.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2012, 11:00:05 AM
Let us hope you vision of the future is at least partially correct.   :P

Oh, I have no doubt many of the things I enumerated are, in this context anyways, "harmful for business" - but to listen to our great captains of industry, everything potentially is - especially things which threaten to bring any sort of political choice into the economic realm. What is their solution for the rising inequality? It always seems to be some form of magical job creation - the rhetorical export of a 19th - 20th century model of manufacturing, and the hopes these could bring to a dying breed of workers, to a 21st century economic climate. What are their political ideals? There are none, except the continuation of their own enrichment - something most of them are quite content with docile workers without a voice, child labour, Chinese totalitarism, tax evasion - as their historical predecessors had been quite content with docile workers without a voice, child labor, limited voting rights, colonialism. But our own captains of industry have even succeeded in getting rid of the pesky paternalism which imposed upon them, with the certitude of their own superiority, the necessity to give back. Ours only kept the certitude of their own superiority. Paternialism is left for a few wackos (Buffet) or to Hollywood stars who thrive on emotions.   

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2012, 09:31:13 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on April 25, 2012, 09:05:17 AM
True.  But at least there are...effective ways to end one  :ph34r:

There are very effective ways to end strikes against state-owned enterprises like coal mines.  Strikes against foreign manufacturers, not so much.

Can't they use the same method that US manufacturers used to use?  Murder?

Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2012, 11:20:43 AM
Oh they will...someday.  But certainly not anytime soon.  Circumstances will eventually change.

Which is why we should do nothing until they change. After all, circumstances change of their own accord, outside of any human agency whatsoever. 

Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2012, 11:20:43 AM
Oh they will...someday.  But certainly not anytime soon.  Circumstances will eventually change.

No, they won't.  If they leave China, they'll just go to the next country with shit-poor labor, like Vietnam.  And when they leave Vietnam, they'll go to Indonesia.  And after that, who knows, Sri fucking Lanka or something.

There will always be an inexhaustible supply of shit-power labor to exploit somewhere in the world.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 25, 2012, 11:23:46 AM
Which is why we should do nothing until they change. After all, circumstances change of their own accord, outside of any human agency whatsoever. 

So far we are already doing everything you recomend and, as I said, our government wouldn't do it anyway-all the politicians need those corporations support to win elections (and likewise the corporations are all but extorted to continue to fund them or their competition will).

Finally even if it wasn't the case, if the government was in a position to take strident action to keep jobs here at the expense of these interests...what exactly would be the plan?  And wouldn't it have to be pretty hamfisted and extreme and likely to be perceived as economic warfare on the Chinese?  Wouldn't that lead to international conflict that might end up hurting the American worker anyway? 

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 25, 2012, 11:27:37 AM
No, they won't.  If they leave China, they'll just go to the next country with shit-poor labor, like Vietnam.  And when they leave Vietnam, they'll go to Indonesia.  And after that, who knows, Sri fucking Lanka or something.

There will always be an inexhaustible supply of shit-power labor to exploit somewhere in the world.

There need to be very specific qualities in said shit country in order for it to be attractive to businesses.  There has to be a reasonably stable country with the ability to protect a corporations shit.  China has those things but if it was just about cheap labor international corps would be employing millions of Africans and they are not because it is too risky to set up shop in alot of those countries.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 25, 2012, 11:21:39 AM
Oh, I have no doubt many of the things I enumerated are, in this context anyways, "harmful for business" - but to listen to our great captains of industry, everything potentially is - especially things which threaten to bring any sort of political choice into the economic realm. What is their solution for the rising inequality? It always seems to be some form of magical job creation - the rhetorical export of a 19th - 20th century model of manufacturing, and the hopes these could bring to a dying breed of workers, to a 21st century economic climate. What are their political ideals? There are none, except the continuation of their own enrichment - something most of them are quite content with docile workers without a voice, child labour, Chinese totalitarism, tax evasion - as their historical predecessors had been quite content with docile workers without a voice, child labor, limited voting rights, colonialism. But our own captains of industry have even succeeded in getting rid of the pesky paternalism which imposed upon them, with the certitude of their own superiority, the necessity to give back. Ours only kept the certitude of their own superiority. Paternialism is left for a few wackos (Buffet) or to Hollywood stars who thrive on emotions.

You are fixated on the notion that good fiscal policy necessarily eguals policy that favours business beyond all else.  Whereas our experience shows that good fiscal policy benefits society in general.  For example, why should the tax payer subsidize political parties when that money can be used to help fund medical treatment?

You seem particularly ideological these days.

It's election season.

Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 11:13:28 AM
But I do NOT believe that government regulation is the answer, at least not in any direct manner.

Would your answer on how to get people to act against their own interests be to have a wizard do it?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 25, 2012, 11:11:04 AM

Quote from: derspiess on April 25, 2012, 11:09:22 AM
I think we need to invest in more green jobs.

I think you're trolling.  Trolls are green.

Not at all.  I just started a green energy company called Spiesslyndra and really need some federal cash to get things going.  I'm even going to donate to Obama's 2012 campaign to show him how serious I am about supporting his green agenda.

Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2012, 11:49:50 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 11:13:28 AM
But I do NOT believe that government regulation is the answer, at least not in any direct manner.

Would your answer on how to get people to act against their own interests be to have a wizard do it?

No, it would be to set it up so that when they act in their own interests, it does not result in sucha perverse outcome for society in general.

Such a system, however, might require a wizard to be involved...

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2012, 11:32:54 AM
You seem particularly ideological these days.

No, I am explicitely ideological - which is a different thing, and not especially new with me. One of my constant refrain is the need to reclaim the political realm as a legitimate and necessary aspect of human life. Our ideal, at least after the brief flash of 1989, has been political irrelevance - the idea that politics can not, and indeed, should not, matter to what actually should - the market. The 19th century, at least, had overinvested the political realm - it could do anything and everything - which is why socialists thought it was their primary target, and why liberals thought it needed to be strictly controlled by elites. Our recent sense of loss in many parties, the decline of participation in elections, the conspiracy theorists on right and left both point to the fact that people are being told that they can't do anything. That whatever they do has no impact, and indeed, should have no impact. Your own suggestion - that we should divest funds from politics to health care, is quite representative. I shouldd ad that this is no less ideological, but because you seem to subscribe to this necessary irrelevancy of politics, you cover your ideological underpinings under a misleadingly neutral notion of "policy".

I will freely admit that my rare interventions here are more polemical, but it is perhaps simply the late realization that in some instances, and some venues, one can put so much water in one's wine that one can't taste the wine anymore.

Plus, when some consumate socialists as CdM and Berkut share a sense of uneasiness at how the world is turning, you kind of have to agree that there is something off...

Tax exec income, dividends, and capital gains the greater of the current rate and the percentage of the companies overseas operations compared to the whole. (ie 70% of the companies manufacturing is outside of the country then you tax at 70%) it'd ruin the economy and screw over the poor living in other countries, but Ide and Oex would be happy lol

Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 11:52:25 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2012, 11:49:50 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 11:13:28 AM
But I do NOT believe that government regulation is the answer, at least not in any direct manner.

Would your answer on how to get people to act against their own interests be to have a wizard do it?

No, it would be to set it up so that when they act in their own interests, it does not result in sucha perverse outcome for society in general.

Such a system, however, might require a wizard to be involved...

You know what's better than a wizard, in that it can actually do things?  Government legislation and regulation.

Saying that you'd like this to happen, but are unwilling to take any steps to have it take place is a bit odd.  That sort of thinking seems almost... religious. :berkut:

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 25, 2012, 11:52:43 AM
Our recent sense of loss in many parties, the decline of participation in elections, the conspiracy theorists on right and left both point to the fact that people are being told that they can't do anything. That whatever they do has no impact, and indeed, should have no impact.

I think it is more of the fact that even concerted and long political efforts, like campaign finance reform, repeatedly come to nothing and have no impact (well ok they have an impact, they seem to make the problem worse) and the resulting demoralization is the problem.  Not somebody, whoever that might be, coming forth and telling us we cannot do anything.  We are not fools.  The huge international nature of corporations means that our ability to control their behavior through political action is seriously reduced.  That is a fact.

Quote from: HVC on April 25, 2012, 11:56:51 AM
Tax exec income, dividends, and capital gains the greater of the current rate and the percentage of the companies overseas operations compared to the whole. (ie 70% of the companies manufacturing is outside of the country then you tax at 70%) it'd ruin the economy and screw over the poor living in other countries, but Ide and Oex would be happy lol

That is exactly the kind of ham handed idiocy that never works. Blunt dis-incentives to act in some manner just makes businesses figure out how to get around the dis-incentive. Blunt incentives to act in some manner just makes businesses figure out how to reap the benefit of the incentive without actually providing the benefit to society the incentive is designed to encourage.

Neither of these really work for the most part.

Rather than paying people to act in a certain manner, we need to structure the system so that people simply act in that manner because it makes good sense for them to do so - I used to believe that the free market was the best means to accomplish this, and for the most part still do - but I am not a fool, and I am not going to kid myself into having faith that it is so simply because it makes for a convenient and consistent philosophical view about how society and economics ought to work.

In a practical sense, there is a real problem. The continued trend that increasing productivity and wealth is being concentrated into a smaller and smaller segment of society is a real problem. I do not know the solution, but I am not really interested in just chanting a bit about the "free market" and assume that could fix it if only we made it a bit more free. I just don't see any reason to believe that is true, and I think this article does a passable job of illuminating an example of why it isn't necessarily true.

Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 11:52:25 AM
Such a system, however, might require a wizard to be involved...

Fireball!

Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2012, 12:06:01 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 11:52:25 AM

Quote from: Neil on April 25, 2012, 11:49:50 AM

Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 11:13:28 AM
But I do NOT believe that government regulation is the answer, at least not in any direct manner.

Would your answer on how to get people to act against their own interests be to have a wizard do it?

No, it would be to set it up so that when they act in their own interests, it does not result in sucha perverse outcome for society in general.

Such a system, however, might require a wizard to be involved...

You know what's better than a wizard, in that it can actually do things?  Government legislation and regulation.

Saying that you'd like this to happen, but are unwilling to take any steps to have it take place is a bit odd.  That sort of thinking seems almost... religious. :berkut:

Nah, I am not saying I am unwilling to take steps, I am experssing skepticism that the types of solutions generally proposed by government in the form of regulation and legislation are not likely to work. My resistance is purely practical, not ideological.

I do realize this is a bit of a bullshit position. I think there is a problem, but not only do I not have a solution, I am fundamentally skeptical of the very means by which a solution could be crafted even in theory.

Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 12:10:08 PM
I do realize this is a bit of a bullshit position. I think there is a problem, but not only do I not have a solution, I am fundamentally skeptical of the very means by which a solution could be crafted even in theory.

Right there with you.

Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 12:10:08 PM
I do realize this is a bit of a bullshit position. I think there is a problem, but not only do I not have a solution, I am fundamentally skeptical of the very means by which a solution could be crafted even in theory.

Nothing wrong with acknowledging that something is a problem, but also realizing that the most realistic "solutions" might be worse than the problem itself.  Unless maybe it's your pet issue-- then you need to shit or get off the pot.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2012, 11:23:18 AM
Can't they use the same method that US manufacturers used to use?  Murder?

Of course they can kill people, like unions did to brother workers crossing picket lines.

They can juggle pumpkins while standing on their head too.  But my comment was about what they have done.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2012, 12:21:04 PM
Of course they can kill people, like unions did to brother workers crossing picket lines.

You mean class traitors!  :frog:

Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2012, 12:24:20 PM
You mean class traitors!  :frog:

I mean hard working Americans trying to provide for their families.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2012, 12:30:09 PM
I mean hard working Americans trying to provide for their families.

Trying?  Did this just happen yesterday?

Anyway I was obviously kidding.  Murderous picket lines are pretty ancient history.  I did not realize you felt so strongly about them.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2012, 12:21:04 PM
Of course they can kill people, like unions did to brother workers crossing picket lines.

Snitches get what snitches get.

And scabs aren't brother workers.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2012, 12:21:04 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2012, 11:23:18 AM
Can't they use the same method that US manufacturers used to use?  Murder?

Of course they can kill people, like unions did to brother workers crossing picket lines.

They can juggle pumpkins while standing on their head too.  But my comment was about what they have done.

I thought China did kill people. :huh:  I think a strike would fall under an "Illegal demonstration".

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2012, 10:49:23 AM

When an iphone is sold in the US, which taxing authority has jurisidiction over the profits realized from that sale?

I don't know the ins and outs of apple's corporate structure, but in general high margin goods are produced in low tax jurisdictions through corporations located in those jurisdictions.

A very generic example would be:

IPhone production is the responsibility of Apple China, which pays $20 for it to be produced by a third party (say Foxconn). Apple China then sells the I Phone to Apple USA, which then sells it to Best Buy for $200.

Apple China and Apple USA are both subsidiaries of Apple. Apple would argue for a very high price on the sale of the IPhone between Apple China and Apple USA, which would leave most of the bulk of the profit in China.

A related (and more complicated) issue is the tax revenue on IPhones significantly designed in the US, built in China (under the supervision of a Chinese corp), and sold in Europe (under the supervision of a European corp). The US taxes worldwide income, so the IRS should be getting tax revenue from US based activities, but Apple is going to argue that the US is as incidental to the transaction as it can get away with. Keeping production off of US shores is a key part to making a more convincing case.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 25, 2012, 12:30:09 PM

Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2012, 12:24:20 PM
You mean class traitors!  :frog:

I mean hard working Americans trying to provide for their families.

Murder is hard work.  Just ask the Pinkerton's or the Coal and Iron Police.

Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 12:10:08 PM
Nah, I am not saying I am unwilling to take steps, I am experssing skepticism that the types of solutions generally proposed by government in the form of regulation and legislation are not likely to work. My resistance is purely practical, not ideological.

I do realize this is a bit of a bullshit position. I think there is a problem, but not only do I not have a solution, I am fundamentally skeptical of the very means by which a solution could be crafted even in theory.

Well that's fair enough, even if it is a bit hopeless.

Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2012, 10:52:58 AM
I guess he is talking about property taxes and that sort of thing, granted those would not be related to the corporate tax rates and alot of states would give them tax breaks.

No, income taxes. This is why globalization is lowering effective corporate tax rates in the US.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 25, 2012, 12:38:52 PM
No, income taxes. This is why globalization is lowering effective corporate tax rates in the US.

You mean...on employees?  So you mean labor costs?

Oh wait what you are saying is Apple would have to pay tax on goods sold overseas that were produced in the US.

Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2012, 12:40:12 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on April 25, 2012, 12:38:52 PM
No, income taxes. This is why globalization is lowering effective corporate tax rates in the US.

You mean...on employees?  So you mean labor costs?

No, corporate income tax rates.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 25, 2012, 12:32:52 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2012, 10:49:23 AM

When an iphone is sold in the US, which taxing authority has jurisidiction over the profits realized from that sale?

I don't know the ins and outs of apple's corporate structure, but in general high margin goods are produced in low tax jurisdictions through corporations located in those jurisdictions.

A very generic example would be:

IPhone production is the responsibility of Apple China, which pays $20 for it to be produced by a third party (say Foxconn). Apple China then sells the I Phone to Apple USA, which then sells it to Best Buy for $200.

Apple China and Apple USA are both subsidiaries of Apple. Apple would argue for a very high price on the sale of the IPhone between Apple China and Apple USA, which would leave most of the bulk of the profit in China.

A related (and more complicated) issue is the tax revenue on IPhones significantly designed in the US, built in China (under the supervision of a Chinese corp), and sold in Europe (under the supervision of a European corp). The US taxes worldwide income, so the IRS should be getting tax revenue from US based activities, but Apple is going to argue that the US is as incidental to the transaction as it can get away with. Keeping production off of US shores is a key part to making a more convincing case.

Thanks Alfred, that helps me understand your point much better.

Do you think there is some form of tax reform that might prevent Apple from pooling its money in low tax jurisdictions?

Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 12:07:59 PM
Rather than paying people to act in a certain manner, we need to structure the system so that people simply act in that manner because it makes good sense for them to do so

If such an act is against their self interest - eg the Guardians suggestion that Apple take a 30% hit to their margins, that will necessarily take some kind of government intervention and likely some kind of tax policy implementation.

An example for you to consider is the tax credit the Canadian Federal government gave for home renovations to try and keep the construction industry going after the real estate markets stalled after 08.

Prior to that credit the black market was a real problem - ie contractors working for cash and not reporting the income.  When the government brought in the tax credit that black market essentially disappeared because the home owner needed to prove the expenditure to obtain the credit.  Overnight what had been a cash based business became a business run on payment by cheques and reciepts for payment.

My bet is the government obtained more net revenue with the credit.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2012, 12:43:30 PM
Thanks Alfred, that helps me understand your point much better.

Do you think there is some form of tax reform that might prevent Apple from pooling its money in low tax jurisdictions?

I'd be in favor of cutting corporate rates to the bone, and jacking them up on high earners. It is too easy to move operations overseas, it is much harder for a high earner to move to another country.

Barring that, bringing US corporate tax rates down to international norms (we currently have the highest rate) while moving to a territorial tax system would help. I think in the US this is understood, and the Obama administration has indicated this may be on the agenda after the election, but the problem is our government can't afford to reduce revenue streams. Obama wants to close "loopholes", but I'd rather see the revenue made up with higher tax rates on people. I'm not sure the "loopholes" to be closed aren't just targeted taxes at the more politically vunerable.

Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2012, 12:06:29 PMNot somebody, whoever that might be, coming forth and telling us we cannot do anything.  We are not fools.  The huge international nature of corporations means that our ability to control their behavior through political action is seriously reduced.  That is a fact.

Lots of people are telling us we cannot do anything, even if not in so many words. Capitalists are saying that if we do some things, then economic apocalypse would be upon us. We can't let investment banks fail because they are too big. We can't give investment banks public funds because it would disrupt the market. We can't erase debt, it will have an impact on interest rates. Corporations are saying that they can't chose to employ well-paid earners because they will be less competitive. Banks are saying they can't afford losing brilliant economists by paying them less. Universities can't lower tuition because they will be underfunded. Employees should not ask for more because that would bankrupt their firm / the state and they would lose their jobs.  Unions can't strike because it hurts the economy. People can't demonstrate because that disrupts the peace. Politicians are repeating they have no power on tons of things because it is the way the market goes.

Even if, indeed, a lot of these things are fact the message remains the same: bow down your head and hope for a change that will come from nowhere, and especially not from you - because you can't enact it, can't decide it, can't control it. And you certainly shouldn't look for it in others. For an ideological world which was built upon the premise that man could potentially change anything, it is a huge, bleak, and disheartening paradox. For those who are liable to profit from that world - bright people, priviledged people, beautiful people - they can afford not to care, to spend times calmly discussing the fine points of policy, to denounce the lack of nuances in the unwashed masses. We shouldn't be surprised that people are more and more angry that they are being told to accept their fate and that times are unchanging - yet it wouldn't be the first time such philosophies came to the forefront. Except that now, the powers that be have means of coercion and control that medieval lords and early modern tyrants could never have dreamt of.

But, maybe, perhaps, we can also recognize that even these facts are chains we have forged for ourselves - that they are facts because we have made them so.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 25, 2012, 11:52:43 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2012, 11:32:54 AM
You seem particularly ideological these days.

Our ideal, at least after the brief flash of 1989, has been political irrelevance - the idea that politics can not, and indeed, should not, matter to what actually should - the market.

I suppose if you set up the argument that way you are bound to despair.  But as a practical matter I have never experienced the politics become irrelevant, nor have I known anyone who thought that it was.  I also highly doubt you could find enough Canadians, in all of Canada, who believe the only thing that matters is the market, to fill a hockey arena.

Good thing I am already 46 and more than halfway to death.  The world sucks today.

Quote from: PDH on April 25, 2012, 12:57:34 PM
Good thing I am already 46 and more than halfway to death.  The world sucks today.

"Hey Herbie, how's life?"
"Takin' forever."

Quote from: PDH on April 25, 2012, 12:57:34 PM
Good thing I am already 46 and more than halfway to death.  The world sucks today.

You might live past 100.  :cry: Your own fault for getting back into shape.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2012, 12:55:52 PM
But as a practical matter I have never experienced the politics become irrelevant, nor have I known anyone who thought that it was.  I also highly doubt you could find enough Canadians, in all of Canada, who believe the only thing that matters is the market, to fill a hockey arena.

The voters turnout in most western countries seem to indicate - your entourage notwithstanding - that a huge number of people think politics irrelevant, and that, even amongst those who do vote (some out of civic habit), the trust in politics to actually enact profound change is pretty low (I seem to recall numerous polls on such topic).

And while I am pretty sure an overwhelming majority of Canadians would agree that there are much more important things than the market, I strongly doubt that a) politics and b) the capacity of politics to have significant impact on their lives, except as mediated through "taxes", would rank much higher.

Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 12:10:08 PMNah, I am not saying I am unwilling to take steps, I am experssing skepticism that the types of solutions generally proposed by government in the form of regulation and legislation are not likely to work. My resistance is purely practical, not ideological.

I do realize this is a bit of a bullshit position. I think there is a problem, but not only do I not have a solution, I am fundamentally skeptical of the very means by which a solution could be crafted even in theory.

I'm continually amazed by the strength of the belief that government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 25, 2012, 12:54:54 PM
I'd be in favor of cutting corporate rates to the bone, and jacking them up on high earners. It is too easy to move operations overseas, it is much harder for a high earner to move to another country.

Barring that, bringing US corporate tax rates down to international norms (we currently have the highest rate) while moving to a territorial tax system would help. I think in the US this is understood, and the Obama administration has indicated this may be on the agenda after the election, but the problem is our government can't afford to reduce revenue streams. Obama wants to close "loopholes", but I'd rather see the revenue made up with higher tax rates on people. I'm not sure the "loopholes" to be closed aren't just targeted taxes at the more politically vunerable.

But dont you just move the problem from corporations pooling their money in low tax off shore jurisdictions to individuals doing so in order to avoid high income, dividend and capital gains taxes (or should I say increased incidence of individuals acting in that way)?

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 25, 2012, 01:06:03 PM
The voters turnout in most western countries seem to indicate - your entourage notwithstanding - that a huge number of people think politics irrelevant, and that, even amongst those who do vote (some out of civic habit), the trust in politics to actually enact profound change is pretty low (I seem to recall numerous polls on such topic).

Well you have got me there.

QuoteAnd while I am pretty sure an overwhelming majority of Canadians would agree that there are much more important things than the market, I strongly doubt that a) politics and b) the capacity of politics to have significant impact on their lives, except as mediated through "taxes", would rank much higher.

That is where I will disagree.  Maybe its just that I live in province where there is a real choice amongst party policies but we have intense debates about such things.  As it appears you do in Quebec.

But I get the feeling you are using the word politics to mean something more that the practical day to day business of government.

Quote from: Oexmelin on April 25, 2012, 12:55:19 PM
Even if, indeed, a lot of these things are fact the message remains the same: bow down your head and hope for a change that will come from nowhere, and especially not from you - because you can't enact it, can't decide it, can't control it. And you certainly shouldn't look for it in others.

Are you going to actually address my points or just blame everything on Capitalists?  I am talking about specific problems that have paralyzed the government of my country, or at least made it difficult for me to impact.  And if somebody has a plan that looks promising I am certainly willing to hear it.

But dude...we passed a bill, flawed though it may be, that attempted to address the corruption and rot in the system that was a result of hard work and political action by principled people over at least a decade.  The Supreme Court struck it down claiming that any attempt to regulate the rampant corruption and extortion going on would be unconstitutional as it violates people's protected rights to buy off polliticians.  That is not the only issue but it is pretty demoralizing when even that small and limited victory turned out to be for nothing.

So...you got a plan?  Or just want to rail against Capitalism?

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 01:10:48 PM
I'm continually amazed by the strength of the belief that government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2012, 12:31:04 PM
Trying?  Did this just happen yesterday?

Anyway I was obviously kidding.  Murderous picket lines are pretty ancient history.  I did not realize you felt so strongly about them.

Now you know that I feel strongly enough to mention it when Raz brings up companies murdering strikers.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 25, 2012, 01:26:37 PM
But dont you just move the problem from corporations pooling their money in low tax off shore jurisdictions to individuals doing so in order to avoid high income, dividend and capital gains taxes (or should I say increased incidence of individuals acting in that way)?

In the US, we tax worldwide income. So if I have personal money invested in stocks in Taiwan (even if I move there), I still have to pay personal US tax on that income. I don't get any benefit. The only way for me to escape the US tax regime is to move out of the country and renounce my citizenship. Even then there are all sorts of exit penalties to be paid.

Corporations have the outs generally discussed above--and they need those outs. Almost all industries require reinvestment of earnings to keep going, and if Chevrolet had to pay an effective tax rate of 35% on its operations in China it could never compete against other multinationals in China paying 15%.

Quote from: Valmy on April 25, 2012, 01:31:05 PM
Are you going to actually address my points or just blame everything on Capitalists? I am talking about specific problems that have paralyzed the government of my country, or at least made it difficult for me to impact.  And if somebody has a plan that looks promising I am certainly willing to hear it.

You seem to be confusing what I want, what I believe and my attempts at putting words to an undercurrent of political resignation that goes well beyond the specific problems that paralyze the government of your country. I thought it unnecessary to address those points simply because they seemed to me a specific illustration of exactly what I was describing in general terms.

The very reason why I am not desparing at all is exactly because I have the vague feeling we are witnessing a revitalization of politics - but such revitalization precisely has to fight many years of people repeating that their hands were tied. So, if you want specifically American examples, I think Citizens United has served as a revealer that something political was off. I think the whole economic debacle and the occupy Wall Street movement, despite its occasional wackiness, served as a revealer that something economical was off. Are those going to be connected, in some way, and translated into sustained political action? I don't know. I hope so - but, my point is simply that my optimism is itself politically motivated. 

(and I'll continue to blame capitalists anyway I can - have no fear, they usually defend themselves ;) They celebrated themselves for so long, we might as well remind them of the often dubious moral and political choices they make)

But isn't the main problem that everyone who is crying out against the system, be they the protest kids on the left or the Tea Party types on the right, is a total fucking asshole?

A few thoughts:

1.  I agree with AR that the distortions created by differential international tax treatment of corporate income are a significant factor, and one that could be addressed by the US unilaterally if (as in 86) the political will could be summoned for fundamental tax reform.  Which is to say, it won't happen.

2.  The moral case is not as clear as the Guardian would have it.  Apple is a multi-national company, and even if they weren't, why as a matter of ethics should they assume a special obligation to US workers as opposed to workers who happen to live on the other side of an imaginary line that we conventionally call the boundaries of a nation-state?  Put another way, by providing relatively high wage jobs to Chinese workers, Apple has helped played a role in brining about one the greatest developmental miracles of all human history - the raising of hundreds of millions of people out of crushing poverty as subsistence farmers.  Moving those jobs to America would make Americans better off, and as an American, I personally would welcome that.  But at the same time it would leave Chinese workers - who start at a lesser level of material endowments - worse off, and one doesn't have to be John Rawls to see that from a purely nation-neutral moral perspective, that can be a problematic outcome.  And that is before one deploys economic theory to raise the question whether there might be deadweight losses that result from such a forced reallocation.

3.  I don't think the inequality problem in the US is primarily or even significantly the result of offshoring of manufacturing in itself.  But that is a longer discussion.

Re: Minsky's second thought, I was listening to a tech podcast featuring Josh Topolsky, a dude who knows a lot about technology but next to nothing about economics. The main subject of the podcast was Foxconn's supposedly bad working conditions and he was pushing his idea for Apple to produce iPhones, iPads, etc. in both the US and China, giving US consumers a choice between paying a 'small' premium for a US-made iPad vs. a cheaper Chinese-made iPad.

His thoughts were that people would buy the US-made products out of a concern for the *Chinese* workers, given the supposed horrid working conditions they have to endure.  It didn't occur to him that shifting production from China to the US would actually put those workers out of a job and force them to find lower-paying employment elsewhere.  Just blew my mind that someone could be so clueless.

Quote from: derspiess on April 25, 2012, 03:59:01 PM
His thoughts were that people would buy the US-made products out of a concern for the *Chinese* workers, given the supposed horrid working conditions they have to endure.  It didn't occur to him that shifting production from China to the US would actually put those workers out of a job and force them to find lower-paying employment elsewhere.  Just blew my mind that someone could be so clueless.

What's the logic behind anybody giving a rat penis soup fuck about a bunch of Chinese workers? 

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 25, 2012, 04:03:51 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 25, 2012, 03:59:01 PM
His thoughts were that people would buy the US-made products out of a concern for the *Chinese* workers, given the supposed horrid working conditions they have to endure.  It didn't occur to him that shifting production from China to the US would actually put those workers out of a job and force them to find lower-paying employment elsewhere.  Just blew my mind that someone could be so clueless.

What's the logic behind anybody giving a rat penis soup fuck about a bunch of Chinese workers? 

Beats the hell out of me.  But given the outrage over that Mike Daisey story (which of course turned out to be completely fabricated), people apparently do.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 25, 2012, 04:03:51 PM
What's the logic behind anybody giving a rat penis soup fuck about a bunch of Chinese workers?

Depends whether you are behind or in front of the veil of ignorance.  If the former, then based on rought population numbers, you should care about 20 percent.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 25, 2012, 04:14:32 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 25, 2012, 04:03:51 PM
What's the logic behind anybody giving a rat penis soup fuck about a bunch of Chinese workers?

Depends whether you are behind or in front of the veil of ignorance.  If the former, then based on rought population numbers, you should care about 20 percent.

Bonus points for the reference.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 25, 2012, 04:14:32 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 25, 2012, 04:03:51 PM
What's the logic behind anybody giving a rat penis soup fuck about a bunch of Chinese workers?

Depends whether you are behind or in front of the veil of ignorance.  If the former, then based on rought population numbers, you should care about 20 percent.

Meh, I take the Osama bin Laden approach; Chinese factory workers are as fair a target as PLA troops when it comes to mitigating the Advanced Persistent Threat.

Besides, if they weren't making iPods, counterfeit pharmaceuticals, lead painted toys, unsafe car tires and melamine-poisoned pet food, they'd be in the armaments industry.  So fuck their lot in life.

Quote from: derspiess on April 25, 2012, 01:34:46 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 01:10:48 PM
I'm continually amazed by the strength of the belief that government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Well, I'm happy that I live in a country where we've mastered fire.

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 06:32:14 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 25, 2012, 01:34:46 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 01:10:48 PM
I'm continually amazed by the strength of the belief that government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Well, I'm happy that I live in a country where we've mastered fire.

:lol:

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 25, 2012, 03:22:43 PM3.  I don't think the inequality problem in the US is primarily or even significantly the result of offshoring of manufacturing in itself.  But that is a longer discussion.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the drivers of the inequality problem.

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 01:10:48 PMI'm continually amazed by the strength of the belief that government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating.

Two words: history and entropy

That's three words.  I can sumit up in two words: "Cognitive dissonance".   Berkut and those like him have already formed an idea of what government is, and information that contradicts this schema is forgotten, relegated in the mind as unimportant, or subtlety changed to reinforce the current belief.

Quote from: citizen k on April 25, 2012, 06:52:25 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 01:10:48 PMI'm continually amazed by the strength of the belief that government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating.

Two words: history and entropy

Don't forget "massive propaganda".  Sure, one should always be skeptical of government regulations, but there is a difference between skepticism and blanket dismissal.  At the end of the day, the totality of government regulations is what makes our society civilized.

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 06:35:43 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 25, 2012, 03:22:43 PM3.  I don't think the inequality problem in the US is primarily or even significantly the result of offshoring of manufacturing in itself.  But that is a longer discussion.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the drivers of the inequality problem.

I had planned a thread but that darn work stuff keeps interfering.
Short answer is financialization and deflation.  The latter has been influenced by globalization and offshoring but also by the rise of Eurozone and post-Volker hawkish orthodoxy at the Fed.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2012, 07:55:12 PM
That's three words.  I can sumit up in two words: "Cognitive dissonance".   Berkut and those like him have already formed an idea of what government is, and information that contradicts this schema is forgotten, relegated in the mind as unimportant, or subtlety changed to reinforce the current belief.

Alright give me this information.

Quote from: Valmy on April 26, 2012, 12:32:09 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 25, 2012, 07:55:12 PM
That's three words.  I can sumit up in two words: "Cognitive dissonance".   Berkut and those like him have already formed an idea of what government is, and information that contradicts this schema is forgotten, relegated in the mind as unimportant, or subtlety changed to reinforce the current belief.

Alright give me this information.

That government can successfully regulate something?  Okay.  Take for example the Cuyahoga River.  It doesn't catch on fire anymore.  This is an improvement.  I doubt there are many people who claim that the Pure Food and Drug act did not improve food quality and the requirement that food and drugs had labels that helped consumers make better choices.

Morning, new day.  One day closer to death.  The world still sucks and nobody can ever fix it.

Quote from: PDH on April 26, 2012, 07:25:07 AM
Morning, new day.  One day closer to death.  The world still sucks and nobody can ever fix it.

I guess if you consider politics to be the world and the entirety of politics to be the US Federal Government than sure.  But come on if you can use your bully pulpit to brainwash your students into your political foot soliders you could probably rule Wyoming like a king.

Last spring I got evaluations, one said "PDH was horrible, he is too liberal,"  another said "PDH is horrible, he is too conservative," while a third said "PDH was great, he even swore in classs."

Given that is the range of my foot soldiers, I will pass on revolution.

Quote from: DGuller on April 25, 2012, 09:38:54 PM
Sure, one should always be skeptical of government regulations

:hmm:

Quote from: DGuller on April 25, 2012, 09:38:54 PM

Quote from: citizen k on April 25, 2012, 06:52:25 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 01:10:48 PMI'm continually amazed by the strength of the belief that government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating.

Two words: history and entropy

Don't forget "massive propaganda".  Sure, one should always be skeptical of government regulations, but there is a difference between skepticism and blanket dismissal.  At the end of the day, the totality of government regulations is what makes our society civilized. 

I don't think that the totality of government regulations is what makes our society civilized, but agree that they are important in the process, in a well-governed society (and part of the problem in a poorly-governed society).  I guess if I lived where Jacob does and was surrounded by people who had a strong "belief that government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating," I'd be concerned about that issue.  I've never met a person with even a weak belief that this was true, though, so I won't spend any time trying to figure out why a coupla cranks in western Canada are cranks.

I suspect that your explanation that those two (or however many there are out there) are the subject of massive propaganda.  I can't think of another reason why a Canuck would have a strong opinion on anything.  :P

Quote from: PDH on April 26, 2012, 07:43:27 AM
Last spring I got evaluations, one said "PDH was horrible, he is too liberal,"  another said "PDH is horrible, he is too conservative," while a third said "PDH was great, he even swore in classs."

Given that is the range of my foot soldiers, I will pass on revolution.

Maybe if you swore a bit more.

Quote from: Valmy on April 26, 2012, 08:36:37 AM

Quote from: PDH on April 26, 2012, 07:43:27 AM
Last spring I got evaluations, one said "PDH was horrible, he is too liberal,"  another said "PDH is horrible, he is too conservative," while a third said "PDH was great, he even swore in classs."

Given that is the range of my foot soldiers, I will pass on revolution.

Maybe if you swore a bit more.

Now that's a sodding policy I can get behind.  :bowler:

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 06:32:14 PM

Quote from: derspiess on April 25, 2012, 01:34:46 PM

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 01:10:48 PM
I'm continually amazed by the strength of the belief that government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Well, I'm happy that I live in a country where we've mastered fire.

All Canadians keep their doors unlocked and none die in fires. :smarty:

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 01:10:48 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 25, 2012, 12:10:08 PMNah, I am not saying I am unwilling to take steps, I am experssing skepticism that the types of solutions generally proposed by government in the form of regulation and legislation are not likely to work. My resistance is purely practical, not ideological.

I do realize this is a bit of a bullshit position. I think there is a problem, but not only do I not have a solution, I am fundamentally skeptical of the very means by which a solution could be crafted even in theory.

I'm continually amazed by the strength of the belief that government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating.

Fallacy of generalization, I believe?

Leftists are cute.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 25, 2012, 10:47:05 PMI had planned a thread but that darn work stuff keeps interfering.
Short answer is financialization and deflation.  The latter has been influenced by globalization and offshoring but also by the rise of Eurozone and post-Volker hawkish orthodoxy at the Fed.

I'm looking forward to your work slowing down a bit so you can post that thread :)

... because your short answer is intriguing, but I'm pretty sure I don't really understand it  :blush:

Quote from: Berkut on April 26, 2012, 10:20:11 AM

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 01:10:48 PMI'm continually amazed by the strength of the belief that government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating.

Fallacy of generalization, I believe?

If instead I said "I'm amazed at how frequently I hear a proposed solution through government action or policy dismissed not on the grounds of the substance of the solution or principle, but because it's expected that the government will mess it up anyhow through ineptitude or corruption" would that be more acceptable? If I swapped out the "inherently" with "most likely going to be" would that work?

I'm not really sure what you're objecting to, to be honest. Did I just misunderstand what you said?

Quote from: Jacob on April 26, 2012, 01:48:55 PM

Quote from: Berkut on April 26, 2012, 10:20:11 AM

Quote from: Jacob on April 25, 2012, 01:10:48 PMI'm continually amazed by the strength of the belief that government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating.

Fallacy of generalization, I believe?

If instead I said "I'm amazed at how frequently I hear a proposed solution through government action or policy dismissed not on the grounds of the substance of the solution or principle, but because it's expected that the government will mess it up anyhow through ineptitude or corruption" would that be more acceptable? If I swapped out the "inherently" with "most likely going to be" would that work?

I'm not really sure what you're objecting to, to be honest. Did I just misunderstand what you said?

I said I was skeptical of the ability of government to solve a pretty specific problem - said problem being enormously complex, very susceptible to unintended consequences when governments start meessing around with it, and very poorly understood, especially by those who would be taked with crafting the solution.

To extend that particular positions to "the belief that government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating." is just plain ridiculous. And certainly a fallacy.

What is more, it is an argument style that is simply beneath you. Trying to turn "Berkut is skeptical that government regulation and legislation can fix the problem os wealth inequality without doing more harm than good" with "Berkut apparently believes that government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating." is rather infantile. I never said anything of the kind. I think there are are incredible number of examples of effective government regulation, and to imply that I am some kind of....what, I don't even know what term would describe this fictional creature who believes something as ridiculous as "government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating." in the general sense. Anarchist?

Quote from: Berkut on April 26, 2012, 02:03:34 PM... I don't even know what term would describe this fictional creature who believes something as ridiculous as "government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating." in the general sense. Anarchist?

That would be the term, or perhaps "anarcho-libertarian".

Rothbardian or Anarcho-Capitalist.

Turns out I was correct.  I provided counter examples and was ignored.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Turns out I was correct.  I provided counter examples and was ignored.

That's because you're on so many ignore lists.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 01:38:35 AM
That government can successfully regulate something?  Okay.  Take for example the Cuyahoga River.  It doesn't catch on fire anymore.  This is an improvement.  I doubt there are many people who claim that the Pure Food and Drug act did not improve food quality and the requirement that food and drugs had labels that helped consumers make better choices.

I am talking about the current state of our government right now.  That stuff happened a long time ago.  Heck the Pure Food and Drug act is from the Roosevelt administration...Teddy Roosevelt.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Turns out I was correct.  I provided counter examples and was ignored.

You were on a previous page so I didn't see it.

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:26:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Turns out I was correct.  I provided counter examples and was ignored.

That's because you're on so many ignore lists.

:yes:

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:26:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Turns out I was correct.  I provided counter examples and was ignored.

That's because you're on so many ignore lists.

They can't handle the truth!

Quote from: Berkut on April 26, 2012, 02:03:34 PMI said I was skeptical of the ability of government to solve a pretty specific problem - said problem being enormously complex, very susceptible to unintended consequences when governments start meessing around with it, and very poorly understood, especially by those who would be taked with crafting the solution.

To extend that particular positions to "the belief that government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating." is just plain ridiculous. And certainly a fallacy.

What is more, it is an argument style that is simply beneath you. Trying to turn "Berkut is skeptical that government regulation and legislation can fix the problem os wealth inequality without doing more harm than good" with "Berkut apparently believes that government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating." is rather infantile. I never said anything of the kind. I think there are are incredible number of examples of effective government regulation, and to imply that I am some kind of....what, I don't even know what term would describe this fictional creature who believes something as ridiculous as "government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating." in the general sense. Anarchist?

Okay, fair enough (other than the "infantile" and "simply beneath you" bits).

I didn't mean to say that you personally think that all "government and government policy is inherently futile and self-defeating," and I agree that my post could be read as that. So my bad, that wasn't really what I was getting at.

That said, like you say, you are "skeptical that government regulation and legislation can fix the problem of wealth inequality without doing more harm than good." You are, I'm pretty sure, not the only one who harbours such skepticism. At the same times, on all the other issues of the day, it's not uncommon to hear similar skepticism from someone or other. In aggregate, it does bring up a picture where the government's ability to solve any sort of problem is pretty much always questioned.

It's this general sense of the governments inability to do more good that harm - from "I want the government to be small enough I can drown it in and bath tub" to "the scariest words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, I'm here to help" to the inevitable comments that "they'll just fuck it up" when potential solutions involving government actions are discussed - that I was commenting on.

I'm not even saying you're wrong to be skeptical about the particular point you brought up, or that whoever may say "they'll just fuck it up" is wrong in that specific case; nonetheless all this individual skepticism on individual points still add up to an environment where government action is assumed to not work to a degree I find amazing.

So yeah, I'm not saying you don't think government action will never work on any issue ever. I was using your comment as a jumping off point to comment on the general skepticism I see towards government action.

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:26:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Turns out I was correct.  I provided counter examples and was ignored.

That's because you're on so many ignore lists.

Still it proves my point.  Though the fact that Berkut ignores me puts him down to Marty level.

Quote from: Valmy on April 26, 2012, 04:31:30 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 01:38:35 AM
That government can successfully regulate something?  Okay.  Take for example the Cuyahoga River.  It doesn't catch on fire anymore.  This is an improvement.  I doubt there are many people who claim that the Pure Food and Drug act did not improve food quality and the requirement that food and drugs had labels that helped consumers make better choices.

I am talking about the current state of our government right now.  That stuff happened a long time ago.  Heck the Pure Food and Drug act is from the Roosevelt administration...Teddy Roosevelt.

Those regulations are still on the books.  When they were passed is irrelevant since they still function.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 05:46:35 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:26:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Turns out I was correct.  I provided counter examples and was ignored.

That's because you're on so many ignore lists.

Still it proves my point.  Though the fact that Berkut ignores me puts him down to Marty level.

No it doesn't.  It's very difficult for you to prove your point.

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 05:51:23 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 05:46:35 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:26:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Turns out I was correct.  I provided counter examples and was ignored.

That's because you're on so many ignore lists.

Still it proves my point.  Though the fact that Berkut ignores me puts him down to Marty level.

No it doesn't.  It's very difficult for you to prove your point.

It's difficult for me to prove that Berkut ignores new information?  Since he put me on the ignore list that pretty much clinches it.  He is ignoring information.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 05:53:20 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 05:51:23 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 05:46:35 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:26:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Turns out I was correct.  I provided counter examples and was ignored.

That's because you're on so many ignore lists.

Still it proves my point.  Though the fact that Berkut ignores me puts him down to Marty level.

No it doesn't.  It's very difficult for you to prove your point.

It's difficult for me to prove that Berkut ignores new information?  Since he put me on the ignore list that pretty much clinches it.  He is ignoring information.

Since the information you prevent is neither valuable or pertinent, it's hard to hold that against him.

It is always an error for anyone to do as Marti does.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2012, 06:03:09 PM
It is always an error for anyone to do as Marti does.

Even for Marti.

Which puts him in a bit of a bind.

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 06:01:21 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 05:53:20 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 05:51:23 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 05:46:35 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:26:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Turns out I was correct.  I provided counter examples and was ignored.

That's because you're on so many ignore lists.

Still it proves my point.  Though the fact that Berkut ignores me puts him down to Marty level.

No it doesn't.  It's very difficult for you to prove your point.

It's difficult for me to prove that Berkut ignores new information?  Since he put me on the ignore list that pretty much clinches it.  He is ignoring information.

Since the information you prevent is neither valuable or pertinent, it's hard to hold that against him.

Well, I had a higher opinion of Berkut then that.  Opinion: revised.

Quote from: Jacob on April 26, 2012, 06:08:00 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 26, 2012, 06:03:09 PM
It is always an error for anyone to do as Marti does.

Even for Marti.

Which puts him in a bit of a bind.

So he needs to figure out what he would do, then not do it.  But then he does it, and so he would have to not do it...and eventually the universe shrugs and says "fuck off" and all space-time ends.  No thank you, ignorant Marti helps keep everything running properly.

Ignorant Marti sounds like a ineffectual and ultimately disappointing gay sex technique (move?) :lol:

I ignore Tim.  :)

Quote from: The Brain on April 26, 2012, 12:41:49 PM
Leftists are cute.

:blush:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2012, 04:38:12 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:26:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Turns out I was correct.  I provided counter examples and was ignored.

That's because you're on so many ignore lists.

They can't handle the truth!

I told him.  He didn't listen.  I said, "Raz, you're great, I like you, most people would like you, but you go at people till it crosses a weird line.  Yi and I get alone fine, Berkie and I get along fine; your problem is you don't let shit go."  Does he listen?  Of course not.  No one listens to me, especially when I'm right. :(

Quote from: Ideologue on April 26, 2012, 11:11:47 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2012, 04:38:12 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:26:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Turns out I was correct.  I provided counter examples and was ignored.

That's because you're on so many ignore lists.

They can't handle the truth!

I told him.  He didn't listen.  I said, "Raz, you're great, I like you, most people would like you, but you go at people till it crosses a weird line.  Yi and I get alone fine, Berkie and I get along fine; your problem is you don't let shit go."  Does he listen?  Of course not.  No one listens to me, especially when I'm right. :(

command: ignore ide

Quote from: Ideologue on April 26, 2012, 11:11:47 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2012, 04:38:12 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:26:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Turns out I was correct.  I provided counter examples and was ignored.

That's because you're on so many ignore lists.

They can't handle the truth!

I told him.  He didn't listen.  I said, "Raz, you're great, I like you, most people would like you, but you go at people till it crosses a weird line.  Yi and I get alone fine, Berkie and I get along fine; your problem is you don't let shit go."  Does he listen?  Of course not.  No one listens to me, especially when I'm right. :(

The best part about having Raz on ignore is the occasional bit that pops up in a quote from someone else, and I remember "Oh yeah, Raz...kind of forgot about him...awesome!"

Quote from: Ideologue on April 26, 2012, 11:11:47 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2012, 04:38:12 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:26:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Turns out I was correct.  I provided counter examples and was ignored.

That's because you're on so many ignore lists.

They can't handle the truth!

I told him.  He didn't listen.  I said, "Raz, you're great, I like you, most people would like you, but you go at people till it crosses a weird line.  Yi and I get alone fine, Berkie and I get along fine; your problem is you don't let shit go."  Does he listen?  Of course not.  No one listens to me, especially when I'm right. :(

As a leftist, you're never right. :contract:

Quote from: Barrister on April 27, 2012, 12:09:04 AM
As a leftist, you're never right. :contract:

:bleeding:?

Quote from: Berkut on April 26, 2012, 04:34:38 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:26:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Turns out I was correct.  I provided counter examples and was ignored.

That's because you're on so many ignore lists.

:yes:

Disagree.  A lot of us ignore him, but many do not.  Even those not ignoring him, however, saw that he was providing examples to shoot down a mere strawman argument, and so recognized that his efforts were beneath notice.

If only those people extended their specific decision to a general rule, like the more advanced thinker have...

Quote from: Berkut on April 26, 2012, 11:50:20 PM
The best part about having Raz on ignore is the occasional bit that pops up in a quote from someone else, and I remember "Oh yeah, Raz...kind of forgot about him...awesome!"

Is there an actual ignore feature here?  If so, does it work to block entire threads started by the person on ignore?

I can ignore raz as a poster without any technological help, but I'd like to be able to block any thread started by a given poster.  That's take either more effort, or a bit of technological help.

Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2012, 09:36:39 AM

Disagree.  A lot of us ignore him, but many do not.  Even those not ignoring him, however, saw that he was providing examples to shoot down a mere strawman argument, and so recognized that his efforts were beneath notice.

If only those people extended their specific decision to a general rule, like the more advanced thinker have...

You and Marty, the advanced thinkers.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 05:50:38 PM
Those regulations are still on the books.  When they were passed is irrelevant since they still function.

It is entirely relevent when we are talking about the ability of the current political class' ability to use government regulation to achieve positive and appropriate results.

Quote from: Ideologue on April 26, 2012, 11:11:47 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 26, 2012, 04:38:12 PM

Quote from: Neil on April 26, 2012, 04:26:58 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 03:47:46 PM
Turns out I was correct.  I provided counter examples and was ignored.

That's because you're on so many ignore lists.

They can't handle the truth!

I told him.  He didn't listen.  I said, "Raz, you're great, I like you, most people would like you, but you go at people till it crosses a weird line.  Yi and I get alone fine, Berkie and I get along fine; your problem is you don't let shit go."  Does he listen?  Of course not.  No one listens to me, especially when I'm right. :(

I play rough.  It's who I am.  It's not my fault Berkut has a tantrum or Marty cries.  I suppose that's who they are.

Quote from: HVC on April 26, 2012, 07:23:16 PM
Ignorant Marti sounds like a ineffectual and ultimately disappointing gay sex technique (move?) :lol:

:D

To me, Ignorant Marti sounds like what you'd call that one person in the office who just doesn't have a clue.  Sorta like a Debbie Downer.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2012, 09:48:42 AM
I play rough.  It's who I am.  It's not my fault Berkut has a tantrum or Marty cries.  I suppose that's who they are.

One of the problems with measuring your success by how much you piss people off is that you can lose track of whether you're achieving your goal by triumphantly speaking truth to power or by being a dick.

Pissing people off is not the measurement I use.

Quote from: Valmy on April 27, 2012, 09:45:24 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2012, 05:50:38 PM
Those regulations are still on the books.  When they were passed is irrelevant since they still function.

It is entirely relevent when we are talking about the ability of the current political class' ability to use government regulation to achieve positive and appropriate results.

I didn't know this was what we are talking about.  Since regulations are often designed to tackle large scale and long term problems data on them tends to be fairly old.  A more recent example could be the ban on CFCs which has decreased the amount of Chlorofluorocarbon in the atmosphere.  There is some good evidence that the Ozone layer has stabilized in the wake of regulations to protect it.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2012, 10:48:08 AM
Pissing people off is not the measurement I use.

What is the measurement you use?

The extent to which you convince your interlocutors that they're wrong?  The extent to which you convince 3rd party observers that your interlocutors are not to be believed?

That I have convinced myself that I am correct.  I'm not going to convince anyone else of anything.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2012, 10:27:35 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2012, 09:48:42 AM
I play rough.  It's who I am.  It's not my fault Berkut has a tantrum or Marty cries.  I suppose that's who they are.

One of the problems with measuring your success by how much you piss people off is that you can lose track of whether you're achieving your goal by triumphantly speaking truth to power or by being a dick.

That can apply to a number of posters here, though.  For example, grumbler practically jizzes with joy when someone has enough of his antics and snaps at him.

The one thing we have learned in this thread is Marti = Debbie Downer.  If for no other reason Raz ought to be applauded.

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2012, 11:12:54 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 27, 2012, 10:27:35 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2012, 09:48:42 AM
I play rough.  It's who I am.  It's not my fault Berkut has a tantrum or Marty cries.  I suppose that's who they are.

One of the problems with measuring your success by how much you piss people off is that you can lose track of whether you're achieving your goal by triumphantly speaking truth to power or by being a dick.

That can apply to a number of posters here, though.  For example, grumbler practically jizzes with joy when someone has enough of his antics and snaps at him.

He also wets his pants at the prospect of playing the bully - compensation me thinks.

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2012, 11:12:54 AM
That can apply to a number of posters here, though.  For example, grumbler practically jizzes with joy when someone has enough of his antics and snaps at him.

The number is not that large.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2012, 11:03:56 AM
I didn't know this was what we are talking about.

I thought we were talking about a very specific problem going on right now and discussing the ability or disireability of the government, as it stands, to correct the problem.

Then the question why we have no faith in government regulation.  I have no faith, with regards to this specific issue, because of the corrupting influence of money and lobbying.  Which, due to the international interests of these corporations and the seeming fact that they have no choice but to participate in the government this way, are not really aligned to the interests of the country.

The idea that all government regulation is inneffective, or at least not without its positive effects that often makes up for its problems, I do not think is one that anybody on this board believes.

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2012, 11:12:54 AM
That can apply to a number of posters here, though.  For example, grumbler practically jizzes with joy when someone has enough of his antics and snaps at him. notes that he has won the argument when his opponent is unable to answer logical arguments with anything other than lies, strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, or bursts of tears about "how mean grumbler is."

Fixed.  FWIW, I don't mean you when I mention strawman arguments.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2012, 11:15:16 AM
He also wets his pants at the prospect of playing the bully - compensation me thinks.

Incorrect.  Hell, I don't even wet my pants when I think of you as my opponent, and if the thought of how easy it is to reduce you to lies, tears, strawman arguments, and ad hom attacks isn't pants-wetting-worthy, nothing is.

Tanning your ass isn't the mark of a bully, it is just the mark of a reasonably competent debater.

Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2012, 12:01:04 PM
Hell, I don't even wet my pants

You protest too much.

Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2012, 11:57:44 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2012, 11:12:54 AM
That can apply to a number of posters here, though.  For example, grumbler practically jizzes with joy when someone has enough of his antics and snaps at him. notes that he has won the argument when his opponent is unable to answer logical arguments with anything other than lies, strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, or bursts of tears about "how mean grumbler is."

Fixed.  FWIW, I don't mean you when I mention strawman arguments.

I did not take it that way, we haven't locked horns in a long time.  Nevertheless, one thing that you and Raz have in common is that the less than polite demeanor you are both known for gives people an easy out when you do crush them logically, which does happen often with both of you.  That's suboptimal if you do want your debate victories to be properly recognized and lauded, rather than leave your vanquished foes with plausible deniability.

Or, in the case of Grumbler, simply stop taking him seriously.

At least Raz doesnt pretend to be superior.

Far too much interest and attention is being paid to the relative humidity levels in grumbler's pants.
This falls definitively in the too much information category.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 27, 2012, 12:31:24 PM
Far too much interest and attention is being paid to the relative humidity levels in grumbler's pants.
This falls definitively in the too much information category.

:lmfao:

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 27, 2012, 12:27:18 PM
Or, in the case of Grumbler, simply stop taking him seriously.

At least Raz doesnt pretend to be superior.

I am a humble man, with much to be humble about. :goodboy:

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2012, 12:21:40 PM

Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2012, 11:57:44 AM

Quote from: DGuller on April 27, 2012, 11:12:54 AM
That can apply to a number of posters here, though.  For example, grumbler practically jizzes with joy when someone has enough of his antics and snaps at him. notes that he has won the argument when his opponent is unable to answer logical arguments with anything other than lies, strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, or bursts of tears about "how mean grumbler is."

Fixed.  FWIW, I don't mean you when I mention strawman arguments.

I did not take it that way, we haven't locked horns in a long time.  Nevertheless, one thing that you and Raz have in common is that the less than polite demeanor you are both known for gives people an easy out when you do crush them logically, which does happen often with both of you.  That's suboptimal if you do want your debate victories to be properly recognized and lauded, rather than leave your vanquished foes with plausible deniability.

This is no coincidence.  When I sometimes intentionally adopt the debating style of person I am debating.  I use Grumbler's style against him and the Yicratic method against Yi.

I don't get why people complain about Yi. His questions are usually reasonable (or always, since I can't think of stupid ones).

Quote from: chipwich on April 27, 2012, 10:44:01 PM
I don't get why people complain about Yi. His questions are usually reasonable (or always, since I can't think of stupid ones).

Because they're often pointed, but since they're questions he can't be pinned down to a particular position. This is frustrating to people who seek to "win" arguments.

Quote from: chipwich on April 27, 2012, 10:44:01 PM
I don't get why people complain about Yi. His questions are usually reasonable (or always, since I can't think of stupid ones).

Heh, because he already knows the answer.  Would've made a good ambulance chaser.

Quote from: Jacob on April 26, 2012, 01:28:37 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 25, 2012, 10:47:05 PMI had planned a thread but that darn work stuff keeps interfering.
Short answer is financialization and deflation.  The latter has been influenced by globalization and offshoring but also by the rise of Eurozone and post-Volker hawkish orthodoxy at the Fed.

I'm looking forward to your work slowing down a bit so you can post that thread :)

... because your short answer is intriguing, but I'm pretty sure I don't really understand it  :blush:

Hate to be rude Joan (well ok I dont often hate being rude) but you are keeping us waiting.