What's "The England" got to do with anything..?Lotta_Drool wrote:
So what is YOUR point? China can do what they want but the US can't put a tariff on them for some reason because THAT's unfair?Phrozenbot wrote:
So this makes it okay since it is targeted against a nation that subsidies exports by devaluing their currency (who doesn't subsidies industry spit?). If China can sell their products priced in a very weak currency and pay their workers dirt, do you really think this will stop jobs from being outsourced?Lotta_Drool wrote:
Unless I missed something these tariffs are targeted at specific countries that are NOT free market and manipulating currency so we can't trade with them unless we want to take it in the pooper.
I think this could be two different things but honestly I am too lazy to read or give a shit.
Currency Wars
The fact is that the US government is paying for US jobs to go overseas. NAFTA allows US companies to build goods in other countries and still get all the same benefits as if they were here in the US. The US has also done provisions for certain industries that have lobbied the government so that these companies could still get US protection/benefits even though 90% of its product is manufactured in another country.
For fuck sakes, look at the GM bailout. Most of the damn vehicles parts are made/manufactured overseas, car plants in Mexico, but it was the US taxpayer that are paying for the fucktard bailout to keep the plants open in Mexico and Canada. It is all convoluted anymore. This is not 1920 or a free market system in the US. The Socialists won, just like what happened in Spain. The world needs a good war and the England to fall so the Central banks get pwn'd.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Lessons from history... and the failure to heed them.
Shahter wrote:
i'm done with you two - go back to school.Cybargs wrote:
i found it funny that shahster tried to school you but then he fucked himself over in his own stupidity.JohnG@lt wrote:
Law of Conservation of Mass says otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_con … on_of_massThe law of conservation of mass, also known as principle of mass/matter conservation is that the mass of a closed system (in the sense of a completely isolated system) will remain constant over time. The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. A similar statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, and changed into different types of particles. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products.
Because you were completely wrong? What kind of fucked chemistry course did you take?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
JohnG@lt wrote:
Shahter wrote:
i'm done with you two - go back to school.Cybargs wrote:
i found it funny that shahster tried to school you but then he fucked himself over in his own stupidity.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_con … on_of_massThe law of conservation of mass, also known as principle of mass/matter conservation is that the mass of a closed system (in the sense of a completely isolated system) will remain constant over time. The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. A similar statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, and changed into different types of particles. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products.
Because you were completely wrong? What kind of fucked chemistry course did you take?
Shahter wrote:
go back to school.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Of course it isn't, but much more complex than your " We all can be rich and ride unicorns that shit rainbows of glitter " approach to economics.JohnG@lt wrote:
Do you think wealth is zero sum? Take it from one place and it piles up in another? It's not. That was disproven 234 years ago.
If a country is only exporting jobs and importing commodities then the country is screw'd. The US developed technologies, manufacturing processes, and new jobs that all got shipped away. Now the US can't make money off those things and is not generating wealth for the lower and middle class in the country.
Wal-Mart on the other hand is steadly developing a working class in an overpopulated country full of potential workers. This is fine if you are into globalization where there are no borders, but I live in a world where my kids can not compete with Lo Wang or Ho Chi-Mihn for jobs.
Yes. everytime HP, Intel, Microchip....... take 100,000 $50K/year jobs in the US and ship it to Wal-Mart where it becomes a $5K/year job. Nothing replaces that job and it drives down the cost of each computer chip produced by about 10 cents because labor is such a small part of the cost of manufacturing 40 billion computer chips per year.
Somehow, the single worker family was replaced by the two worker family which was replaced by the 2 worker family and a part-time job which was replaced by the 2 families sharing a house in debt with 4 people working...........
Why, because we have no decent paying jobs in the US and it takes 3-4 jobs to replace the one that was lost. Sure your plastic dog shit toy dipped in lead paint costs 20 cents less now but who gives a fuck when a household is putting in 100+ hours of work a week just to go in debt slower and bleed out the same way our government is.
So I guess your post isn't too comforting because when some commie in vietnam takes my job for $5K a year and I have to replace it with 3 service jobs (wal-mart greeter, waitor, bar-tender) to survive I want to know that the company that shipped my job there has to Pay a HUGE fucking tariff to sell the goods that fucking commie makes to anyone in the US.
We're not exporting jobs, we're exporting some jobs. New jobs are created every day. Some industries have gone, some new ones are beginning. Adapt and overcome. Who really gives a shit about factory jobs anyway? They pollute, in Northern states they raise the cost of living via unskilled labor being overpaid, and they are not competitive here. IT jobs going away? Oh well. Computer programmers are a dime a dozen anyway.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Of course it isn't, but much more complex than your " We all can be rich and ride unicorns that shit rainbows of glitter " approach to economics.JohnG@lt wrote:
Do you think wealth is zero sum? Take it from one place and it piles up in another? It's not. That was disproven 234 years ago.
If a country is only exporting jobs and importing commodities then the country is screw'd. The US developed technologies, manufacturing processes, and new jobs that all got shipped away. Now the US can't make money off those things and is not generating wealth for the lower and middle class in the country.
Wal-Mart on the other hand is steadly developing a working class in an overpopulated country full of potential workers. This is fine if you are into globalization where there are no borders, but I live in a world where my kids can not compete with Lo Wang or Ho Chi-Mihn for jobs.
Yes. everytime HP, Intel, Microchip....... take 100,000 $50K/year jobs in the US and ship it to Wal-Mart where it becomes a $5K/year job. Nothing replaces that job and it drives down the cost of each computer chip produced by about 10 cents because labor is such a small part of the cost of manufacturing 40 billion computer chips per year.
Somehow, the single worker family was replaced by the two worker family which was replaced by the 2 worker family and a part-time job which was replaced by the 2 families sharing a house in debt with 4 people working...........
Why, because we have no decent paying jobs in the US and it takes 3-4 jobs to replace the one that was lost. Sure your plastic dog shit toy dipped in lead paint costs 20 cents less now but who gives a fuck when a household is putting in 100+ hours of work a week just to go in debt slower and bleed out the same way our government is.
So I guess your post isn't too comforting because when some commie in vietnam takes my job for $5K a year and I have to replace it with 3 service jobs (wal-mart greeter, waitor, bar-tender) to survive I want to know that the company that shipped my job there has to Pay a HUGE fucking tariff to sell the goods that fucking commie makes to anyone in the US.
The single family worker model was replaced by the two family member model when women decided that they didn't want to be housewives anymore. More people in the job market means depressed wages. Double the amount of workers and you earn half as much. Simple.
I'll never be out of a job. I planned well and didn't jump into a saturated market. Perhaps you didn't. Go back to school or something and retool.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-10-11 12:01:11)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
What new jobs? What fucking planet do you live on?
Like I said, creating 3-4 low paying jobs for every decent job sent over seas. Jesus fuck, what do you do for a living?
Like I said, creating 3-4 low paying jobs for every decent job sent over seas. Jesus fuck, what do you do for a living?
caveman alertLotta_Drool wrote:
What new jobs? What fucking planet do you live on?
Like I said, creating 3-4 low paying jobs for every decent job sent over seas. Jesus fuck, what do you do for a living?
New jobs are created every day. They just might not be jobs that you recognize. The world changes, it evolves, it adapts. You sound like you're in your 50s and lament 'the old days'. Those days are gone. The information revolution came in and kicked out the old model. Now you get to be a web designer or work in marketing. Welcome to the 21st century.Lotta_Drool wrote:
What new jobs? What fucking planet do you live on?
Like I said, creating 3-4 low paying jobs for every decent job sent over seas. Jesus fuck, what do you do for a living?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Americans are just too lazy when compared to North Koreans. They work longer and harder for much lower pay.Cybargs wrote:
caveman alertLotta_Drool wrote:
What new jobs? What fucking planet do you live on?
Like I said, creating 3-4 low paying jobs for every decent job sent over seas. Jesus fuck, what do you do for a living?
Those tax cuts were actually for every tax payer in the country. But nice recitation of Dem talking points, ensuring you stay away from anything like precision or "the whole truth".Dilbert_X wrote:
(how do I make that icon bigger?)JohnG@lt wrote:
Bush was a hands off president when it came to the economy and it's how it should be.
Bush was hands-off - apart from tax cuts for the rich and welfare payments to military contractors when he was very hands-on.
Oh, and you don't typically consider payments for goods and services rendered to be "welfare". Again, non-fact-based talking points.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
What about robots? Do you have something against them as well? They are so much more efficient at producing even though they replace many human workers. You forget, or maybe you never understood, that much of the things we enjoy today are because of advancements like machinery. Whether it be motorized tools or advanced electronics, they have allowed us to produce much more complex products and also existing products much more efficiently, quickly, and with greater accuracy and precision. We all can't work at factories unless we want to go back to the 40's or 50's and stay in a technologically stagnant world economy.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Of course it isn't, but much more complex than your " We all can be rich and ride unicorns that shit rainbows of glitter " approach to economics.JohnG@lt wrote:
Do you think wealth is zero sum? Take it from one place and it piles up in another? It's not. That was disproven 234 years ago.
If a country is only exporting jobs and importing commodities then the country is screw'd. The US developed technologies, manufacturing processes, and new jobs that all got shipped away. Now the US can't make money off those things and is not generating wealth for the lower and middle class in the country.
Wal-Mart on the other hand is steadly developing a working class in an overpopulated country full of potential workers. This is fine if you are into globalization where there are no borders, but I live in a world where my kids can not compete with Lo Wang or Ho Chi-Mihn for jobs.
Yes. everytime HP, Intel, Microchip....... take 100,000 $50K/year jobs in the US and ship it to Wal-Mart where it becomes a $5K/year job. Nothing replaces that job and it drives down the cost of each computer chip produced by about 10 cents because labor is such a small part of the cost of manufacturing 40 billion computer chips per year.
Somehow, the single worker family was replaced by the two worker family which was replaced by the 2 worker family and a part-time job which was replaced by the 2 families sharing a house in debt with 4 people working...........
Why, because we have no decent paying jobs in the US and it takes 3-4 jobs to replace the one that was lost. Sure your plastic dog shit toy dipped in lead paint costs 20 cents less now but who gives a fuck when a household is putting in 100+ hours of work a week just to go in debt slower and bleed out the same way our government is.
So I guess your post isn't too comforting because when some commie in vietnam takes my job for $5K a year and I have to replace it with 3 service jobs (wal-mart greeter, waitor, bar-tender) to survive I want to know that the company that shipped my job there has to Pay a HUGE fucking tariff to sell the goods that fucking commie makes to anyone in the US.
This is like the same argument people make for having food grown here instead of importing it. The most poor nations are agrarian, yet we are saddened by the loss of farmers each year. California alone produces most of any given crop you see in your local super market. That productivity allows for year round items that are rather inexpensive these days.
Now if you are arguing that we spend more than we make, then obviously that is a problem and I don't disagree with that at all.
The funny thing is, the people that were grandparents in the 40s and 50s lamented factories and wanted to go back to working on the farm Everyone seems to want to retreat back to what they understood as a youth the older they get.Phrozenbot wrote:
What about robots? Do you have something against them as well? They are so much more efficient at producing even though they replace many human workers. You forget, or maybe you never understood, that much of the things we enjoy today are because of advancements like machinery. Whether it be motorized tools or advanced electronics, they have allowed us to produce much more complex products and also existing products much more efficiently, quickly, and with greater accuracy and precision. We all can't work at factories unless we want to go back to the 40's or 50's and stay in a technologically stagnant world economy.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Of course it isn't, but much more complex than your " We all can be rich and ride unicorns that shit rainbows of glitter " approach to economics.JohnG@lt wrote:
Do you think wealth is zero sum? Take it from one place and it piles up in another? It's not. That was disproven 234 years ago.
If a country is only exporting jobs and importing commodities then the country is screw'd. The US developed technologies, manufacturing processes, and new jobs that all got shipped away. Now the US can't make money off those things and is not generating wealth for the lower and middle class in the country.
Wal-Mart on the other hand is steadly developing a working class in an overpopulated country full of potential workers. This is fine if you are into globalization where there are no borders, but I live in a world where my kids can not compete with Lo Wang or Ho Chi-Mihn for jobs.
Yes. everytime HP, Intel, Microchip....... take 100,000 $50K/year jobs in the US and ship it to Wal-Mart where it becomes a $5K/year job. Nothing replaces that job and it drives down the cost of each computer chip produced by about 10 cents because labor is such a small part of the cost of manufacturing 40 billion computer chips per year.
Somehow, the single worker family was replaced by the two worker family which was replaced by the 2 worker family and a part-time job which was replaced by the 2 families sharing a house in debt with 4 people working...........
Why, because we have no decent paying jobs in the US and it takes 3-4 jobs to replace the one that was lost. Sure your plastic dog shit toy dipped in lead paint costs 20 cents less now but who gives a fuck when a household is putting in 100+ hours of work a week just to go in debt slower and bleed out the same way our government is.
So I guess your post isn't too comforting because when some commie in vietnam takes my job for $5K a year and I have to replace it with 3 service jobs (wal-mart greeter, waitor, bar-tender) to survive I want to know that the company that shipped my job there has to Pay a HUGE fucking tariff to sell the goods that fucking commie makes to anyone in the US.
This is like the same argument people make for having food grown here instead of importing it. The most poor nations are agrarian, yet we are saddened by the loss of farmers each year. California alone produces most of any given crop you see in your local super market. That productivity allows for year round items that are rather inexpensive these days.
Now if you are arguing that we spend more than we make, then obviously that is a problem and I don't disagree with that at all.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That's classical physics, Galt. This is the new stuff. Well, it's 105 years old, but still. E=MC²Shahter wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Shahter wrote:
i'm done with you two - go back to school.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_con … on_of_massThe law of conservation of mass, also known as principle of mass/matter conservation is that the mass of a closed system (in the sense of a completely isolated system) will remain constant over time. The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. A similar statement is that mass cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, and changed into different types of particles. This implies that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products.
Because you were completely wrong? What kind of fucked chemistry course did you take?Shahter wrote:
go back to school.
Matter can be created or destroyed, by dumping energy into the system properly. Now, if you modify the Law of Conservation of Mass to mean mass-energy equivalence rather than just mass, then it still holds true. You can translate mass to energy and energy to mass, and the total of mass-energy in the system (as described by E=MC²) will remain constant in a closed system.
This is why nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons work.
Even in a mundane chemical reaction, the binding energy in a chemical bond will cause a tiny (but often measureable) loss of mass in the system. Either that mass-energy is emitted/absorbed as a photon, or you get a change in mass of the molecule. Or both.
In a closed system mass is routinely converted to energy on a quantum scale. Mass is lost, but mass-energy doesn't change.
So, mass isn't a zero sum game. Mass-energy equivalence is a zero sum game.. until you get into the deep ends of the pool, with the very large (black holes, universes, dimensions) or the very small (all the way Through the Looking Glass into mathematical quantum physics).
"What kind of fucked chemistry course did you take?" - John Galt
CHMY 371 Physical Chemistry-Quantum Chemistry and Spectroscopy I
I know all this Point is that in a closed system mass does not change. Economies are closed systems no matter if you want to go local or global, they have limits, and yet they are not zero sum. Thus, his use of the idea was flawed.rdx-fx wrote:
That's classical physics, Galt. This is the new stuff. Well, it's 105 years old, but still. E=MC²Shahter wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_con … on_of_massShahter wrote:
i'm done with you two - go back to school.
Because you were completely wrong? What kind of fucked chemistry course did you take?Shahter wrote:
go back to school.
Matter can be created or destroyed, by dumping energy into the system properly. Now, if you modify the Law of Conservation of Mass to mean mass-energy equivalence rather than just mass, then it still holds true. You can translate mass to energy and energy to mass, and the total of mass-energy in the system (as described by E=MC²) will remain constant in a closed system.
This is why nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons work.
Even in a mundane chemical reaction, the binding energy in a chemical bond will cause a tiny (but often measureable) loss of mass in the system. Either that mass-energy is emitted/absorbed as a photon, or you get a change in mass of the molecule. Or both.
In a closed system mass is routinely converted to energy on a quantum scale. Mass is lost, but mass-energy doesn't change.
So, mass isn't a zero sum game. Mass-energy equivalence is a zero sum game.. until you get into the deep ends of the pool, with the very large (black holes, universes, dimensions) or the very small (all the way Through the Looking Glass into mathematical quantum physics).
"What kind of fucked chemistry course did you take?" - John Galt
CHMY 371 Physical Chemistry-Quantum Chemistry and Spectroscopy I
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You're right, it is nostalgia, but I'd rather work on a farm than in some factory. Lack of sun, gloomy work place, gloomy people, constant loud noises, exposure to hazardous waste at times. Bleh, someone might want to work there than in a cubicle lol.JohnG@lt wrote:
The funny thing is, the people that were grandparents in the 40s and 50s lamented factories and wanted to go back to working on the farm Everyone seems to want to retreat back to what they understood as a youth the older they get.
Its not that I don't like it its just that its very funny.JohnG@lt wrote:
Or you didn't like the fact that I said Bush was a better economic president than Obama because Bush is your personal antichrist?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
In my defense you are all fucking idiots and don't have a clue.
Everyone has that defense major spittle.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Lessons from history... and the failure to heed them.