Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Well implied in my statement was that democracy came about through violence but yeah.

 

Jobs are outsourced because people in Cambodia work for $50 a month, not because of bureaucracy or over-taxation.

 

That's how competition works, and you can't eliminate the effects of government bureaucracies, taxes, and unions have. It doesn't make sense to compare $50/month (more likely $80-$90) independent labor workers wages as being the wages of workers in jobs that you refer to as outsourced.

Imagine what Apple products would cost if they were forced to manufacture totally within the U.S., paying union wages and benefit packages. The same is true of all products that have been outsourced to countries where workers are capable of, and willing to accept wages less than workers in other countries. Some years ago, while on vacation in Asia, the company I worked for was hiring and I went to see about transferring from the U.S. to live and work in that country. At the time I was earning about $25/hour, and was told that a transfer was not possible, but I could be hired as a new employee at $4/hour which was slightly higher than the average daily wages of workers in that country. So my company was willing to pay workers more than 8 times what they were currently earning, which allowed 6 workers to be hired for each worker being replaced in the U.S., not to mention the savings to the company eliminating or reducing the costs of benefit packages.
In the end, the company was able to increase production and demand by producing some products at a much lower cost, making them available to a larger consumer base at a much lower price.

Or would you prefer isolationism, which I think several people have accused Ron Paul of? Those on the Left seem to like labeling themselves as progressives, yet complain loudly when they suffer the consequences of it.

 

Some jobs yes. But when a Ford plant is opened in Mexico, the labor wages are only one aspect being considered. To think that taxation and regulation isn't relevant is being naive.

 

That wage discrepancy argument you made was vague, and inaccurate. I lived in Cambodia for one year, and the wage for full time manufacturers of shoes (Sketchers) were paid $40 a month.

And I'm not against outsourcing as a matter of course.

Again, I'm not against outsourcing as a matter of course. But shipping a product across the world for it to be assembled with cheaper labor are mitigated by simply the market factors of logistics and prices and shipping costs.

These prices could be further mitigated by the company by lower executive compensation, and by regulation in taxation of technology imports. Then the benefit of outsourcing would be mitigated.

And again, I'm not against outsourcing as a matter of course, I think if controlled sending production to wherever is less expensive makes sense for a company, and it's can potentially be good for the outsourced companies if in moderation.

But your black and white market approach certainly loses perspective I think. "Imagine the costs of an Apple product" as if society would collapse if there were a few more jobs here and a few less apple products because prices doubled.

There are good aspects to an expanding market. When in Vietnam I ate at a PizzaHut (because there weren't any in Cambo) and while there were no customers, I was waited on by like 6 eager Vietnamese kids. You know, they were just raring to go because they had nothing else to do. But that's not a free market either, what I didn't know at the time, was that companies operating in Vietnam had to obey minimum hiring policies.

I think most of the accusations of isolationism lobbed against Paul have come from the Right, people unwilling to ascribe to his military policies.

As far as economic isolationism, no I think open markets are a good thing, but I think that a completely free market can be deleterious to the interests of a society.

The United States will continue to have low job growth if it remains a country of services, at it's center the US needs to be a country of production, and even more research. Because with a liberalized market some jobs that could happen in the US will continue to go overseas, but with a society that will continue to invest in college grants and research and innovation, we will continue to produce things things that can't be exported.

Business will by nature seek out a profit motive, and that doesn't mean that it's wicked, just that it may need to be monitored by a whip and carrot approach.

 

Lower wages are the principal reason there, but yes, less regulation can propel a company to move, and working wages are a consideration (or regulation) in those cases.

What's the tax difference Ford pays between operating a plant in Mexico versus importing?

 

Vague and inaccurate? Are you implying that those taking a job at Sketchers, or other similar foreign introduced companies were earning 'less' than their previous work paid them?

In most, if not many, cases the products produced abroad are made from components produced abroad with the final product fully, or at least nearly completely assembled due to tax laws, being shipped back home. Obviously the shipping costs are offset by the savings in labor and other costs.

They could be, but why should they?

In other words, regulated by the government?

Where did I say 'society would collapse'? It's only natural for jobs to be created where costs are most easily controlled which most often leads to lower priced products within the reach of a larger number of societies consumers both at home and abroad.

The point being?

I've not received many responses from the Right.

I don't think anyone has proposed a completely free market, and it is my opinion that a free market should only be one in which government exercises the absolute minimum amount of control, in order to protect the environment, consumers, workers and employers from harm by one another, essentially allowing individuals to contract with one another freely without further government intervention.

As long as the U.S. remains incapable of competing in the world market based on wages and costs, growth will slow accordingly until the wages and costs worldwide have increased to the point that the working classes in all countries have become more or less equally paid. The lowest common denominator is essentially the achievement socialism leads to.

Profit is usually a result of supply and demand, greater demand in a heavily populated world results in a consumer base which businesses take advantage of by competing with one another using cost and quality as the means of increasing their profits. The consumers act as both the carrot and the whip in a free and open minimally regulated market.

 

Not less, but they won't even have land ownership which is wealth transferred through generations that even impoverished agrarian societies had. So yes, the workers are worse off and working longer hours.

I agree with this.

Because then the benefits of outsourcing aren't mitigated, and most production can be shipped to a region of lower wages, which when done without digression will produce much higher unemployment here.

It will also be deleterious to foreign markets if enough jobs are shipped where higher skilled positions such as engineering aren't as highly paid.

Yes, said again, by the government, by the individual businesses, and by economic costs such as rising gas prices. And again, I'm not against outsourcing.

I never said those were your words. I'm getting at the impetus of business which is profit, doesn't always benefit consumers, a lower priced apple product doesn't benefit society if everyone has to pay more money to unemployment because all the jobs were sent away.

The point being that expanding markets being socialist countries with socialist policies such as I've mentioned doesn't back up the solely free market policies that you seem to be espousing.

I've not received many responses from the Right.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps because you're on a hippie website.

I agree with much of this in principle, but I do think you might be underestimating the role of government and the costs of it's inaction versus it's action by saying bare minimum.

 

HAHAHAH I love how the majority who voted yes say they are either "Liberal leaning" or "Moderate" even though Ron Paul is far from qualifying as a liberal or moderate.


EDIT: Maybe liberal on social issues, but goes against many other basic liberal ideals.

 

They're making more but worse off because they're working longer hours? Are you claiming they're earning a lower hourly rate, and only earning more due to being forced to work longer hours?
I'm not sure I understand how you meant to link land ownership.

In a competitive world it's simply natural that consumers exercise their freedom to choose where to spend their earnings, based primarily upon price and quality, when and where ever possible. When others are willing and able to produce goods and services less costly or better quality they tend to put those who are unwilling to beat or match them out of work.

Are you implying that government should raise the costs of foreign produced products and services by taxation and fuel costs to the point that individual businesses will find it unprofitable and be forced to cease or reduce outsourcing? Would that actually bring back jobs when the products and services would then be returned to a much higher paid work force more likely to experience a decrease in demand due to higher prices, which also would reduce/eliminate the need for a larger work force?

It appeared that was being implied, but again businesses primary motivation, just like that of the employees, is to profit from producing a product or service which the consumer finds beneficial and willing to purchase at the sales price set. Set the price too high and most consumers will refuse to buy leaving a door open to competition. Set the price too low and the business eventually goes bankrupt, unless government decides it's too big to fail and subsidizes it with taxpayers obligated to fund it. What is it that causes jobs to be sent away? If a company finds the costs of doing business in California and moves to another State where costs are more easily contained, the jobs would remain in the U.S. but workers in one State would benefit while those in California would lose their jobs, but the consumer nation wide might benefit as a result if the product/service could be produced with lower costs.

Socialist countries generally are ones with lower living standards, lower wages paid, and much fewer complex regulations, which does appear to provide a much freer market than that which exists in the U.S.

Perhaps because you're on a hippie website.
[/QUOTE]

True, I agree.

I think instead that government has for a long time now overestimated its' role in our society, and paid little attention to the consequences and costs by its' actions by trying to manage a massive economy with little regard for those who produce the goods and services upon which the economy is based. We seem to have become accustomed to accept economic growth as a result of government spending and debt, when a truly fiscally sound economy is built on increased production and employment. Currently we are projecting economic growth in the current and future years with record high unemployment and underemployment levels. Until the national debt is massively reduced, a continually devaluing dollar and low interest rates, which both China and Japan are shying away from, is all that keeps government alive leaving the Federal reserve to become the primary source of purchasing the U.S. debt.

 

While Ron Paul may espouse some ideas of his own, I think he should be labeled more appropriately as a Constitutional candidate, meaning I believe he would return a voice to the people as to how they are willing to be governed. That would, for all practical purposes, give the 99%, the 90%, or at least a majority of persons regardless of wealth a voice in what authority the Federal government should be allowed to exercise.

 

Letlovin - Indie

The thing is that economic globalisation and ‘outsourcing’ was a neo-liberal idea and con-game. The majority in the west had leant that unfettered capitalism was harmfully exploitative and worked in favour of the few rather than in the interests of the many. Over many years social regulations were fought for that tried to redress the balance.

The neo-liberal idea was that if they could bring in economic globalisation, they could bypass the long fought for social regulations and other benefited that are in the interests of the many. The idea was that the western worker would from now on have to compete with low pay and limited regulation of the poorest worker on the planet while the few could receive the highest remunerations in the world

Try reading Kicking global wealth out of the driving seat
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353922

‘Globalisation and its discontents’ by Joseph Stiglitz

 

I think we should just kill everyone who is not like me, but then I am a bit mental*.

Code:

[SIZE=1]*All sane people basically[/SIZE]

 

You are right, wages are the principal reason. I looked into it a bit more, and asked a few engineers at Ford. It seems the taxes are about the same, however I'm not sure if Mexico has more tax loopholes or less than the US. I'm guessing about the same or more, but that's just a guess. The reactions at Ford seemed to differ on that. An engineer that has been working for Ford for near 30 years said regulations are almost as much of a deciding factor as wages. Environmental regulations as well as the type of materials being used.

 

There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.
Henry Ford

Rolling in his grave much I wonder?
​

 

I've noticed most Americans, Brits, and Aussies have no idea what liberal is (though we Yanks are the largest offender in this regard, if I may be critical of my own enviornment); my guess is that is what contributes to the discrepancy you pointed out

 

I've been told that political terms differ in meaning from country to country.

 

Yeah, I agree with that. But in terms of right to left it's fairly universal - what changes is the subjective view of what is truly 'right' and truly 'left'. Some people think anyone to the left of Ronald Reagen is a socialist - that would be an example of someone not knowing what the fuck they're talking about, pardon my french. I think we can agree that communism and socialism are to the left (bigger government), and free market capitalism and little regulation is to the right (smaller government). I've found, particularly among Americans, that those of one side view those of the other with distrust, and sometimes even with contempt. Have you noticed that? Why are we like that? It seems counter productive.

 

I have noticed that, and I completely agree with your post. If I could rep it I would. The most logical thing to do would be to work together and meet somewhere in the middle. But instead both sides view the other as enemies and meanwhile nothing gets done because we're too busy fighting.

In real life, I tend to hang around the same type of people found on these forums. I am most always the outsider when it comes to politics, and have lost friends because they refuse to accept that I see things a bit differently. The wisest of either side realize that we can learn a great deal from each other. The right needs the left, and the left needs the right in order to balance each other out.

 

I find your attitude very encouraging, especially since it seems so rare this day and age. Now if only we could get those in Washington to think like that and meet somewhere in the middle they might get something done.

EDIT: And that's freaking nuts that you lost friends over politics. Was it any views in particular or just a general dislike of your worldview?