What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

From the American workers view the positive side of Globalism is that many workers worldwide in very poor countries will experience a significant increase in their standard of living because the manufacturing of certain products that were manufactured in America are manufactured in their country.

From the American workers view the negative side of Globalism is that the standard of living of many Americans will decline significantly because of the work that has gone to poor countries.

From the American capital owning and financial brokerage view Globalism is the best thing since sliced bread.

What moral judgment should all Americans take toward Globalism? I have no answers to this very difficult question. This is the type of question that leads some people, like me, to duck their moral principles.

I suspect that Americans with capital will reap great advantage from Globalism but working Americans will be net losers. The workers and the capital owning citizens in poor countries will be large net winners.

From the American workers view the positive side of Globalism is that many workers worldwide in very poor countries will experience a significant increase in their standard of living because the manufacturing of certain products that were manufactured in America are manufactured in their country.

LOL! No, they don't view that as a positive. The average American worker doesn't give a rat's ass about workers in poor countries... ESPECIALLY when those workers are competing for the Average American Worker's job.


IMO, American companies have a moral obligation to employ American workers first and foremost. American consumers have the same obligation to buy American made products, first and foremost. Many here will call me protectionist but I really don't give a f*ck about their immoral views on the subject.

IMO, American companies have a moral obligation to employ American workers first and foremost. American consumers have the same obligation to buy American made products, first and foremost. Many here will call me protectionist but I really don't give a f*ck about their immoral views on the subject.

That is a short sighted opinion...and historically refuted.

Protectionism = more expensive goods and services = everyone poorer.

Globalisation has made the US rich...consumer goods have never been so cheap.

/just saying.

That is a short sighted opinion...and historically refuted.

Protectionism = more expensive goods and services = everyone poorer.

Globalisation has made the US rich...consumer goods have never been so cheap.

/just saying.


They're so cheap because the US has outsourced production to corners of the globe where worker protection laws and pollution regulations are virtually nonexistent. Saying that cheap goods have made the US rich ignores both the negative externalities and the moral high ground that the US has absconded by resorting to these practices.

This isn't a moral issue, it is simple economics. None of the major corps. that have been "off shoreing" their mfg process are concerned with the morality of abandoning a workforce that made them what they are. What counts is the bottom line and after that it's the bottom line.

Saying that cheap goods have made the US rich ignores both the negative externalities and the moral high ground that the US has absconded by resorting to these practices.

No it is an economic fact.

This isn't a moral issue, it is simple economics. None of the major corps. that have been "off shoreing" their mfg process are concerned with the morality of abandoning a workforce that made them what they are. What counts is the bottom line and after that it's the bottom line.
I'm not so sure that you can cleaning distinguish economics on one side and morals on another. Granted, these are rational economic decisions, but in my opinion, you cannot leave aside the moral question. It's not as though we are powerless when it comes to affecting economic decisions through the legal frameworks we impose on them in order to further our moral values and choices.

They're so cheap because the US has outsourced production to corners of the globe where worker protection laws and pollution regulations are virtually nonexistent. Saying that cheap goods have made the US rich ignores both the negative externalities and the moral high ground that the US has absconded by resorting to these practices.

I don't understand why you keep thumping the morality drum, it is a peripheral issue in business and that is what we are discussing here. The only thing that gives a workforce a place at the table is a strong union system and a government that supports it with tariffs and fair trade laws. We pretty much put an end to that system with Reagan and at some point will have to reverse at least part of the slide. That becomes more difficult with the influx of cheap illegal labor into this country to drive the cost of labor even lower. There are all kinds of reasons and justifications on both sides of this issue but morality isn't a driving force for either.

That is a short sighted opinion...and historically refuted.

Protectionism = more expensive goods and services = everyone poorer.

Globalisation has made the US rich...consumer goods have never been so cheap.

/just saying.


Yet the median income US, adjusted for inflation, has been on a steady decline since globalization became popular. Used to be, when I was younger, you couldn't go long without seeing ads for "Buy American" or "Made in the USA!". It was the conservative American mantra. Now, it's reviled like the plauge by those same conservatives.

At some point, we have to stop f*cking ourselves. As I said, the moral obligation is to buy domestic first and foremost, not exclusively. There's nothing wrong at all with fair trade but promoting imports over your domestic product is social suicide.

This isn't a moral issue, it is simple economics. None of the major corps. that have been "off shoreing" their mfg process are concerned with the morality of abandoning a workforce that made them what they are. What counts is the bottom line and after that it's the bottom line.

You're right, the only concern of business is profit. This is why we need close government regulation of business.

You're right, the only concern of business is profit. This is why we need close government regulation of business.

Regulating what?

Yet the median income US, adjusted for inflation, has been on a steady decline since globalization became popular. Used to be, when I was younger, you couldn't go long without seeing ads for "Buy American" or "Made in the USA!". It was the conservative American mantra. Now, it's reviled like the plauge by those same conservatives.

At some point, we have to stop f*cking ourselves. As I said, the moral obligation is to buy domestic first and foremost, not exclusively. There's nothing wrong at all with fair trade but promoting imports over your domestic product is social suicide.

But history shows that total wealth increases when nations/peoples trade with one another. This is irrefutable.

There may be inequalities in America, but it is a fallacy that this is simpily caused by the recent increase in global trade (globalisation).

Regulating what?

because if making proifit is their only obligation

everything else suffers

is all our 'global partners'
have protectionist tariffs
even China

What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?



Dude, you ask a lot of questions and give very little in return. Do you even own a bike?

Dude, you ask a lot of questions and give very little in return. Do you even own a bike?

He posts these "questions" on boards all over the Internet. There was someone else in the past who used to do that. Often, the only response you would get was "good point."

He posts these "questions" on boards all over the Internet. There was someone else in the past who used to do that. Often, the only response you would get was "good point."

It would bug me less if they didn't sound like they were being cut and pasted from a Sophmore political science quiz...

because if making proifit is their only obligation

everything else suffers

I don't know where you've been but nearly every aspect IS regulated, it's one of the reasons for the exodus of mfg. After about 40 years working in the domestic oil industry, I can assure you it ain't yer grandaddy's awl bidness. They ARE responsible, DO take care of the environment and put environment and safety above production. Now that ain't all the little independents but the majors are ALL on board with the bright new world. Onliest thing that don't matter all that much is labor.

It would bug me less if they didn't sound like they were being cut and pasted from a Sophmore political science quiz...

It would bug me less if they weren't so abstract and detached.

It would bug me less if they weren't so abstract and detached.

Sounds like Cory looking for another column to meet his deadline. :)

What moral attitude should we take toward Globalism?

From the American workers view the positive side of Globalism is that many workers worldwide in very poor countries will experience a significant increase in their standard of living because the manufacturing of certain products that were manufactured in America are manufactured in their country.

From the American workers view the negative side of Globalism is that the standard of living of many Americans will decline significantly because of the work that has gone to poor countries.

From the American capital owning and financial brokerage view Globalism is the best thing since sliced bread.

What moral judgment should all Americans take toward Globalism? I have no answers to this very difficult question. This is the type of question that leads some people, like me, to duck their moral principles.

I suspect that Americans with capital will reap great advantage from Globalism but working Americans will be net losers. The workers and the capital owning citizens in poor countries will be large net winners.

goods are cheaper for the average American.

I love protectionism arguments.......they are so arbitrary. But why limit it to American made goods vs the rest of the world. How about Maryland goods vs California goods......after all when a company moves from the Northeast, they take jobs. Better still, how about your local town vs everbody else. Do you buy bike stuff off the internet.......how hypocritical.

It's a fact of life. Our economy grew to be what it is because we stoole markets from the Europeans. Now that we have it, no one else is entitled to do the same....I get it.

Len

This isn't a moral issue, it is simple economics. None of the major corps. that have been "off shoreing" their mfg process are concerned with the morality of abandoning a workforce that made them what they are. What counts is the bottom line and after that it's the bottom line.


I was just discussing this issue with someone. We have this notion in the U.S. that corporations and morality are separate and shall never meet. But why is that? Corporations have been given legal status commensurate with individuals, they may enter into contracts, own land etc. But why don't they have to act morally like anyone else? It seems this is a legal fiction that can be changed at anytime either by law or general consensus and perhaps it needs to be done. Is it really for the greater good that an entity can act in any way, immoral or not, in furtherance of profit and exclude all other ramifications of it's actions? How about a quote from Jefferson to leave you with.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. "

Thomas Jefferson

goods are cheaper for the average American.

I love protectionism arguments.......they are so arbitrary. But why limit it to American made goods vs the rest of the world. How about Maryland goods vs California goods......after all when a company moves from the Northeast, they take jobs. Better still, how about your local town vs everbody else. Do you buy bike stuff off the internet.......how hypocritical.

It's a fact of life. Our economy grew to be what it is because we stoole markets from the Europeans. Now that we have it, no one else is entitled to do the same....I get it.

Len

so the goods are cheaper by how much
and we lose how many jobs overseas?
which means less taxes collected
less $ in our home economy
more people unem,plyed and thus sucking on the system
hell the only reason many people shop at Big Box stores is it is all they can afford
because income levles for working class is slumping
nice little feedback loop

Len I'm not an anti globalist but I see no issue with taxing imports that do not meet our environmental, health and safety, workers rights standards. That would bring the world uip to our level instead of bringing us down to theirs

Len I'm not an anti globalist but I see no issue with taxing imports that do not meet our environmental, health and safety, workers rights standards. That would bring the world uip to our level instead of bringing us down to theirs


My position as well with the added "domestic first and foremost" tag.

Instead of sweatshops here in the states, we've promoted them offshore. If we care at all about our position on, say, torture and the image we present, then we should care equally about the image our trade policies present. Are we truly trying to make the world a better place through globalism or are we just trying to line our pockets of the blood and sweat of some poor schlub in a 3rd world nation?

It's a fact of life. Our economy grew to be what it is because we stoole markets from the Europeans. Now that we have it, no one else is entitled to do the same....I get it.

Len


Should we allow other nations to steal our markets?

This topic dovetails nicely from the thread regarding stewardship. If our first job is to be good people and good stewards, does that not directly translate to the fact that corps. need to also be moral? Can we not legitimately judge the "corporation" as moral or immoral just as we would a person? Can't or shouldn't we expect any corporation to live up to some minimum set of standards for workers/quality/environmental protection? Isn't that the moral way to live your own life? Why would we not expect that from the guy making our tires in Brazil? Isn't that "guy" the corporation?

Ethics and morality in business is logical and should coexist with capitalism.

BT

Should we allow other nations to steal our markets?

We haven't allowed anyone to steal anything- if buying from the lowest priced supplier is theft, then capitalisim is theft.

The Japanese are kicking our @sses at building cars because it costs them less to do so. The Koreans are going to kick the Japanese manufacturers @sses because it costs them even less to build stuff. Eventually, India will be kicking Korea's @ss. And so on.

If I had to guess what's driving the globalization of american products more than anything else, I'd say it was that we as a society made the choice of quantity over quality- we want more and more stuff, but we don't want to pay for it. Thus, we get cheap, semi-disposable crap that doesn't last but looks cool for a season or two. I can go to Old Navy and buy a couple outfits and a jacket, belt, socks and a cool bag for less than it would cost me to buy one pair of American made pants and a shirt. Sure, the old navy stuff will fall apart by next year, but it'll be out of style then, so who cares, right?

My position as well with the added "domestic first and foremost" tag.

Instead of sweatshops here in the states, we've promoted them offshore. If we care at all about our position on, say, torture and the image we present, then we should care equally about the image our trade policies present. Are we truly trying to make the world a better place through globalism or are we just trying to line our pockets of the blood and sweat of some poor schlub in a 3rd world nation?

we are not uplifting the world, we are downgrading ourselves

and the fact that every year we seem to look more like a Junta run system with rich folks moving behind guarded areas and greater gaps between rich and poor just illustrates the point

but lets look at say dogfood.

so say you invested in a $600 Dog. you're a snob and you wanted a pure bred
so you buy Chinese made dogfood from Big Box and it saves you .25c on every 10 lb bag. So you go through 10lbs a 2x month , savings of .50 c a month, Annually $6.00
You have the dog for 5 years, total savings $30.00
Dog gets sick from bad Chinese dogfood. Vet bills pile up as they try to save it from organ failure. It doesn't work and they have to Euthanize. Total vet expenditures $2300
and now you have to shell out another $600 for a new pup. Oh but the savings?

Shall we do Childrens toys next? how much do you need to 'save' per item to justify possible lead exposure and the damage it does to a kid?

Shall we do Childrens toys next? how much do you need to 'save' per item to justify possible lead exposure and the damage it does to a kid?

There's no guarantee that producing anything here, as opposed to there, will make anything safer or better. There are plenty of companies and people here who will use lower grade or illegal materials and processes in search of their own profit.

There's no guarantee that producing anything here, as opposed to there, will make anything safer or better. There are plenty of companies and people here who will use lower grade or illegal materials and processes in search of their own profit.

There are stronger laws and controls in place here. The mfg process is also not so splintered.

We haven't allowed anyone to steal anything- if buying from the lowest priced supplier is theft, then capitalisim is theft.


It may be...

...but that is another topic.

KenB I suggest you read up on the Corn laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws) as an example of the consequences of protectionism...

...you are indulging pseudo-patriotic nonsense. It has been tried before, it generally fails. End of story.

There are stronger laws and controls in place here. The mfg process is also not so splintered.

Interesting, coming from the party that wants less regulation! How many meat inspectors do we have working today, checking and enforcing those laws and controls? Have we never had Inspectors that have taken bribes? The process is not perfect. My point is that as long as there is profit to be made, someone will always be willing to take shortcuts to get it. We are no different in the USA.

Interesting, coming from the party that wants less regulation! How many meat inspectors do we have working today, checking and enforcing those laws and controls? Have we never had Inspectors that have taken bribes? The process is not perfect. My point is that as long as there is profit to be made, someone will always be willing to take shortcuts to get it. We are no different in the USA.

If you want to argue that inspection systems could be stronger, you may well have a point. The idea that we are no different than China is sort of laughable though. If you have paid any attention to posts here on PO you would have a better understanding of those differences, it ain't all about the argument, sometimes there's gold in them there spats. :)

If you want to argue that inspection systems could be stronger, you may well have a point. The idea that we are no different than China is sort of laughable though. If you have paid any attention to posts here on PO you would have a better understanding of those differences, it ain't all about the argument, sometimes there's gold in them there spats. :)

Considering that the punishment for willfully violating codes is pretty severe in China (including death), I'd have to say things are definitely better here for violators. Maybe the Chinese don't enforce it as much as they should (you could say the same about us), but when they do, look out. Here you get a fine and a slap on the wrist, and your insurance pays off the victims. You are free to do it all over again.

What is globalism & globalization?

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2392

Joe Nye, former Dean of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, informs us: Globalism describes the existence of various forms of networks that interconnect multi-continental distances while globalization describes the degree of globalism. In short, Nye considers “Globalism as the underlying basic network, while globalization refers to the dynamic shrinking of distance on a large scale”… globalization is the process by which globalism becomes increasingly thick and/or intense.

There are four distinct dimensions of globalism: economic, which is the flow of goods and services; environmental, which is the effect upon the worlds environment and health; social, which is the flow of ideas and the effect of those ideas and ideologies upon the worlds cultures; and of course, there is the military dimension where power is displayed world wise by all cultures with such power.

Should we allow other nations to steal our markets?

Should we allow other states to steal our jobs? It's about competitiviness.

It was OK when we were doing it....but it's not OK now. That is so self centered.

The truth is that you can't put the genie back in the bottle......anything you do to get more protectionist will hurt the US economy.......including your 401K portfolio, what you pay for goods, the reduced employment in the US caused by reaction overseas.

What you are really saying is that other economiew don't have the right to the same benefits we built this country on.....How can that be right.

Instead, how about innovating here, continue to build value added things that people want to pay for here. Anything else is artificial and not sustainable.

Len

Should we allow other states to steal our jobs? It's about competitiviness.

It was OK when we were doing it....but it's not OK now. That is so self centered.

The truth is that you can't put the genie back in the bottle......anything you do to get more protectionist will hurt the US economy.......including your 401K portfolio, what you pay for goods, the reduced employment in the US caused by reaction overseas.

What you are really saying is that other economiew don't have the right to the same benefits we built this country on.....How can that be right.

Instead, how about innovating here, continue to build value added things that people want to pay for here. Anything else is artificial and not sustainable.

Len

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is quite simple: American businesses have a moral obligation to Americans to hire Americans first and foremost. In return, Americans have a moral obligation to buy domestic first and foremost. I did not say "always and forever" or "exclusively". My view on taxes/tarriffs is that they should be applied fairly and honestly -- ie. Fair Trade.

That is not artificial nor is it unsustainable. The choice is still and always there.

But history shows that total wealth increases when nations/peoples trade with one another. This is irrefutable.

There may be inequalities in America, but it is a fallacy that this is simpily caused by the recent increase in global trade (globalisation).


Another fact that you aren't taking into account is that never before in history has it been as cheap, easy and fast to ship products around the world. That expense and natural barriers alone created the necessary balance.

I've never stated that the decline in the median American income was solely due to globalism. It is not an insignificant factor though.

[QUOTE=atpjunkie]we are not uplifting the world, we are downgrading ourselves

and the fact that every year we seem to look more like a Junta run system with rich folks moving behind guarded areas and greater gaps between rich and poor just illustrates the point
QUOTE]

but what globalization could do for us, we're not realizing or not capitalizing on. The fact that an exodus of lower paying, "blue collar" industrialization job have left this country should in fact free up the available work force for other types of positions...it, in general, opens a window for reeducation, advanced education into higher paying, lower risk positions (as well as service provider jobs)...however I don't think a LOT of Americans see this opportunity..instead of approaching their unemployment as an opportunity to learn and prosper in a few years, they receed onto unemployment and/or other dead end positions by enlarge. We could be a country of MBA's, lawyers, doctors, engineers, architects, etc. with the means to pay for cheap goods and a better lifestyle (as is explained by rydster)...however I don't think a large proportion of U.S. citizens realize this path...its almost as they'd rather bit*h and complain about the past, rather than improve their future...free secondary education is best thing this country gives to its citizens..and people piss it away like cheap beer.

but what globalization could do for us, we're not realizing or not capitalizing on. The fact that an exodus of lower paying, "blue collar" industrialization job have left this country should in fact free up the available work force for other types of positions...it, in general, opens a window for reeducation, advanced education into higher paying, lower risk positions (as well as service provider jobs)..


Agreed BUT.... the problem is that while we've been pushing globalization, we've also been screwing with the things (education) that would help Americans make the transition into new jobs. Instead of getting smarter, we've been getting progressively dumber.

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is quite simple: American businesses have a moral obligation to Americans to hire Americans first and foremost. In return, Americans have a moral obligation to buy domestic first and foremost. I did not say "always and forever" or "exclusively". My view on taxes/tarriffs is that they should be applied fairly and honestly -- ie. Fair Trade.

That is not artificial nor is it unsustainable. The choice is still and always there.

where the product is from & who I hire?

No matter who I hire or who I buy from, someone is not going to get hired, someone is not getting the sale. When I run a business, I have a moral obligation to create a sustainable workplace for the families that my business supports......that means hiring the best people for the Jobs irrespective of nationality. As to Moral obligation to buy American first, that smells of jingoism and xenophobia.

Do you have a moral obligation to buy Maryland produced things first? How is this different?

If I have the choice between an inferior US product and a superior non-US product, do I still have a moral obligation to buy the US goods? Why? Why should I support poor quality?

Trade tariffs only beget counter tariffs and do nothing but increase the cost for average consumers of all goods. How does that help Joe American?

The problem with fair Trade arguments is that they always are in the eye of the beholder..........whats fair to you the superior economy is not always fair if you are on the other side.

Protectionism is nothing more than trying to cling to past gains as opposed to strengthening the future.......it is & has never been economically sustainable for any length of time.

I think Protectionism is nothing more than selfishness......I never realized that selfishness was a moral imperative.

I understand the emotion. I understand the human instinct is always to take care of those that are part of our group & shun the other. But I've never understood this moral imperative issue.

Len

where the product is from & who I hire?

No matter who I hire or who I buy from, someone is not going to get hired, someone is not getting the sale. When I run a business, I have a moral obligation to create a sustainable workplace for the families that my business supports......that means hiring the best people for the Jobs irrespective of nationality.


Unless your business is offshore OR if you hire a disproportionate number of H1Bs.... that point is moot.


As to Moral obligation to buy American first, that smells of jingoism and xenophobia.

Do you have a moral obligation to buy Maryland produced things first? How is this different?


Yes, actually, I do. I use local vendors when and wherever possible. I use Virginia based vendors for all of our VA IT purchases unless there is no alternative or the price is way off the mark. For our Maine office, I use local vendors. Same for our FLA office and so on. I've always operated in that manner because I believe that supporting the community you do business in is the right thing to do.



If I have the choice between an inferior US product and a superior non-US product, do I still have a moral obligation to buy the US goods? Why? Why should I support poor quality?


Most American made products are superior in quality... the big exception being cars and that is mostly moot now. But, no, you should not support poor quality.



Trade tariffs only beget counter tariffs and do nothing but increase the cost for average consumers of all goods. How does that help Joe American?

The problem with fair Trade arguments is that they always are in the eye of the beholder..........whats fair to you the superior economy is not always fair if you are on the other side.


Fair trade is not encouraging imports over domestic products. Why should we import Canadian beef, for example? I can understand oil but beef? We import products and then end up subsidizing the domestic businesses and farms that go belly up under the pressure of unfair trade policies set by our own government.



Protectionism is nothing more than trying to cling to past gains as opposed to strengthening the future.......it is & has never been economically sustainable for any length of time.

I think Protectionism is nothing more than selfishness......I never realized that selfishness was a moral imperative.

I understand the emotion. I understand the human instinct is always to take care of those that are part of our group & shun the other. But I've never understood this moral imperative issue.

Len


Am I selfish for buying a Saturn that was assembled in the USA and has over 75% of its parts manufactured in the USA? Am I selfish for working to put money back into the local economy whenever I can? Am I selfish for buying from my LBS instead of the Internet? Am I selfish for supporting my neighbor before I support someone in China? I don't see it that way. I'm not against trade. I'm all for it. I just think the whole "eat our young" mindset is one of the reasons we're so effed up as a nation right now.

I just think the whole "eat our young" mindset is one of the reasons we're so effed up as a nation right now.

Oh but you want your taxes cut, KenB, so that you can send your uneaten to private school. To heck with public schools. Remember?:

2 Kings 6:28-30 :

""This woman said to me, "Give up your child for us to eat today, and we will eat mine tomorrow." So we cooked my son and ate him; but when I said to her the next day, "Now give up your child for us to eat," she had hidden him.""

Agreed BUT.... the problem is that while we've been pushing globalization, we've also been screwing with the things (education) that would help Americans make the transition into new jobs. Instead of getting smarter, we've been getting progressively dumber.

pre Reagan

#1 importer of raw materials
#1 exporter of mfred goods
also near the top (or the top) of nations that loan out money
strong middle class

America Post Reagan to now
#1 exporter of raw materials
#1 importer of mfred goods
now the top of debtor nations
ever weakening middle class

the NeoCons have succesfully converted us into
a Banana Republic

Oh but you want your taxes cut, KenB, so that you can send your uneaten to private school. To heck with public schools. Remember?:
Can you link to the post where I said "to heck with public schools"? I'll even go for the post where I implied that.

Such a dishonest post from a seemingly religious person. I won't hold my breath while you look.

pre Reagan

#1 importer of raw materials
#1 exporter of mfred goods
also near the top (or the top) of nations that loan out money
strong middle class

America Post Reagan to now
#1 exporter of raw materials
#1 importer of mfred goods
now the top of debtor nations
ever weakening middle class

the NeoCons have succesfully converted us into
a Banana Republic


I thought of posting pretty much exactly that.

I thought of posting pretty much exactly that.

cheaply exporting your raw materials only to buy them back as mfr'd goods and having high export (raw materials) to high import (mfr'd goods) is the textbook definition of a Banana Republic

Can you link to the post where I said "to heck with public schools"? I'll even go for the post where I implied that.

Such a dishonest post from a seemingly religious person. I won't hold my breath while you look.

Tax breaks, vouchers, is the philosophical equivalent to "abandon ship." So how am I being "dishonest?"

And what makes me a "seemingly religious person?"

Can you link to the post where I said "to heck with public schools"? I'll even go for the post where I implied that.

In a thread by you and hoo mostly, from "Providing for the general welfare," here's your words KenB, a mindset that results, no doubt, from your niggardly and facile polarization of "promote/provide" :

"Gotta love the bootstraps mentality. Instead of me getting a second job to pay for essential services my kid needs, how 'bout the government cut my taxes by 70% so I can afford to pay for those services myself? I'm not looking for expensive schools, I'm looking for competent ones. Our public school system is an embarrassment. I do make enough money to afford a private school for my kid. Problem is that the federal government takes so much of it away from me I can't provide a decent education for her. I'd love to not have to pay into that failing system. We had public schools long before the USDE was created in 1980. Thanks to the federal government, my kid's teachers now spend all of 1 hour/week on history/geography/social studies. Why? Because it's not required for to meet the NCLB standards. Math, reading, science? It's all about teaching to the test. Don't get me started on the quality of our schools, they're a joke. If the fed legislated tenure and unions away, perhaps we'd get somewhere. Failing that, it's just another thing to tax me for above and beyond what I pay in my property taxes."

p.s. According to the private school of KenB, those who cite scripture are "religious nutcases" and should be "killed."

In a thread by you and hoo mostly, from "Providing for the general welfare," here's your words KenB, a mindset that results, no doubt, from your niggardly and facile polarization of "promote/provide" :

"Gotta love the bootstraps mentality. Instead of me getting a second job to pay for essential services my kid needs, how 'bout the government cut my taxes by 70% so I can afford to pay for those services myself? I'm not looking for expensive schools, I'm looking for competent ones. Our public school system is an embarrassment. I do make enough money to afford a private school for my kid. Problem is that the federal government takes so much of it away from me I can't provide a decent education for her. I'd love to not have to pay into that failing system. We had public schools long before the USDE was created in 1980. Thanks to the federal government, my kid's teachers now spend all of 1 hour/week on history/geography/social studies. Why? Because it's not required for to meet the NCLB standards. Math, reading, science? It's all about teaching to the test. Don't get me started on the quality of our schools, they're a joke. If the fed legislated tenure and unions away, perhaps we'd get somewhere. Failing that, it's just another thing to tax me for above and beyond what I pay in my property taxes."

p.s. According to the private school of KenB, those who cite scripture are "religious nutcases" and should be "killed."


Now, can you highlight in that quote, the part where I said we get rid of public schools?

I advocate getting the federal government out of our public schools... OR having a Constitutional amendment that grants it authority to tax for the purpose of public schooling. I've never, not once, said anything about state governments not being able to tax.

Tax breaks, vouchers, is the philosophical equivalent to "abandon ship." So how am I being "dishonest?"

And what makes me a "seemingly religious person?"

So says you. I think you're wrong. Even more so because I think you're dishonest. You were dishonest in your representation of my posts.

You like to quote from the bible. I assume that makes you a religious person. If that assumption is incorrect, I apologize.... I'd be pissed if someone associated me with that garbage.

cheaply exporting your raw materials only to buy them back as mfr'd goods and having high export (raw materials) to high import (mfr'd goods) is the textbook definition of a Banana Republic


It's even worse when you have a massive domestic labor pool AND domestic manufacturing facilities AND domestic infrastructure.......

p.s. According to the private school of KenB, those who cite scripture are "religious nutcases" and should be "killed."


Yet another example of your dishonesty. Nice. It suits you well.

So says you. I think you're wrong. Even more so because I think you're dishonest. You were dishonest in your representation of my posts.

You like to quote from the bible. I assume that makes you a religious person. If that assumption is incorrect, I apologize.... I'd be pissed if someone associated me with that garbage.

I'm one of the most honest communicators on RBR, KenB. But, how again, have I misrepresented your extremism?

Of my 334 posts, how many include biblical citations, KenB?

"Garbage." Let me know in advance how I can avoid misrepresenting you on that summation of yours, KenB.

Now, can you highlight in that quote, the part where I said we get rid of public schools?

I advocate getting the federal government out of our public schools... OR having a Constitutional amendment that grants it authority to tax for the purpose of public schooling. I've never, not once, said anything about state governments not being able to tax.

So, like, how many families can fit into the state of Connecticut? Lemme see, which zip code can I bus my kids to?

I'm one of the most honest communicators on RBR, KenB. But, how again, have I misrepresented your extremism?

Of my 334 posts, how many include biblical citations, KenB?

"Garbage." Let me know in advance how I can avoid misrepresenting you on that summation of yours, KenB.


Please point out where I said people who quote scripture are religious nutcases.

So, like, how many families can fit into the state of Connecticut? Lemme see, which zip code can I bus my kids to?

I've driven though Conn. People aside, it's not very dense, so I'd figure you can fit a lot more than the 880K there now. That's roughly a 1 to 1 ratio for kids under 17 to owner occupied households. Per capita property tax there is roughly $2k. I pay more but that's beside the point. You should have no problem converting the 20% federal tax cut I'd give you into better schools for the kids in your state. How you do it is up to you.

I think that morality is very much a matter of choice. Some of us have been raised in a family where moral considerations are always uppermost and such individuals have a constant moral imperative staring them in the face. However, such families, I think, are rare and when we find them I suspect they have very absolutist and dogmatic forms of good and bad.

Much of our life is amoral. These parts of our life that have moral content can often be easily rationalized to suit our self-interest. We all probably have some moral forces working on us but we also have ego centric and social centric forces of equal or often stronger force.

I am primarily wishing to bring to the consciousness of the reader that globalization has a massive moral aspect to it. I am trying to elevate the consciousness of the average reader to the comprehension that much thought must be given to this matter and that much must be learned about it if we do accept that morality is an important aspect of all public policy.

Personally I think that reason cannot take us to the mode of stewardship that will save our civilization from self-destruction. I think that somehow we must integrate stewardship into the three major religions if we hope to save our species and our planet.

I think that somehow we must integrate stewardship into the three major religions if we hope to save our species and our planet.

Hmm so the solution to all problems is religion?

No thanks.

Hmm so the solution to all problems is religion?

No thanks.

I don't think he meant that at all. I read it as an admission that most people cannot act morally without religion. My personal observations support that admission. Religion isn't going away any time soon so, it would seem, the only way to get people to behave in a certain manner would be to incorporate that into their religion.

As much as I don't like religion, I believe that he's right.

I don't think he meant that at all. I read it as an admission that most people cannot act morally without religion. My personal observations support that admission. Religion isn't going away any time soon so, it would seem, the only way to get people to behave in a certain manner would be to incorporate that into their religion.

As much as I don't like religion, I believe that he's right.

So the fundamentalists are correct then? Religion is the only viable alternative to liberal democracy?

Unless your business is offshore OR if you hire a disproportionate number of H1Bs.... that point is moot.



Yes, actually, I do. I use local vendors when and wherever possible. I use Virginia based vendors for all of our VA IT purchases unless there is no alternative or the price is way off the mark. For our Maine office, I use local vendors. Same for our FLA office and so on. I've always operated in that manner because I believe that supporting the community you do business in is the right thing to do.




Most American made products are superior in quality... the big exception being cars and that is mostly moot now. But, no, you should not support poor quality.




Fair trade is not encouraging imports over domestic products. Why should we import Canadian beef, for example? I can understand oil but beef? We import products and then end up subsidizing the domestic businesses and farms that go belly up under the pressure of unfair trade policies set by our own government.





Am I selfish for buying a Saturn that was assembled in the USA and has over 75% of its parts manufactured in the USA? Am I selfish for working to put money back into the local economy whenever I can? Am I selfish for buying from my LBS instead of the Internet? Am I selfish for supporting my neighbor before I support someone in China? I don't see it that way. I'm not against trade. I'm all for it. I just think the whole "eat our young" mindset is one of the reasons we're so effed up as a nation right now.

Ken:

Show me a society where protectionism ever worked effectively for longer than a 5 to 10 year period. I'll save you some effort, you can't.....because it never has.

I'm not into eat your young.....rather I'm into having an efficient economy that doesn't reward someone for living next door, but rather rewards them for having a better quality/value relationship. We all benefit long term from that.

Your beef example is a good one. Why can Canadian beef be raised cheap i enough (in a harsher environment) to be able to absorb the Hugh cost of shipping it south and still be competitive with US beef? If the US Beef industry could either do it as efficiently or raise enough beef to meet the US demand than no one would buy Canadian beef at what would be a higher price.

You see, protectionism fundamentally rewards inefficiency and ineffectiveness. If the US products were so superior (as you say), they wouldn't need protection.

Quality is "Fit for purpose"........if no one is willing to pay an incremental price for an incremental step in quality, than it is wasted effort. The product is not "Fit for purpose".

I agree that our current internal economic incentive programs (Efforts to prop up ineffective industries) and out tariff programs are a mish-mash of things done without a cohesive purpose behind them. However, using these things as protectionist tools is, IMO counterproductive to the long term economic health of our country. They are artificial, unsustainable, props that prevent (or at best delay) whole industries from confronting the real realities of their uncompetitiveness. It's like enabling a junkie.

For someone who is so against big government and for people pulling themselves up by themselves, I am surprised you are so pro protectionism. It is anti-libertarian.

And it is selfish. Your motivation appears to be protect what we have at all costs, including any damage done to other economies as a result of our actions. That is the very definition of selfish.

Finally, I can't think of a scenario where protectionism wouldn't hurt the US economy, by raising prices, reducing supply, reducing employment, reducing raw material availability, reducing markets for US goods & services. It's kind of a reactionary cut your nose to spite your face type of thing.

As to American Quality (Fit for purpose) being better in everything but cars....that's just irrational. A few examples where there is parity if not superiority:

-Factory automation equipment (Italy,Germany)
-Bicycle gruppos (Italy, Japan)
-PC's (China)
-Cargo Ships (Several
-Cruise Ships (Several)
-Passenger airlines (Airbus)
-Off shore Oil platforms (EU)
-Medical devices

I could go on, but you get the point. The days of us being the best at everything are a myth and long gone.

Finally if you believe that Saturn has 75% US parts in it......well dig a little deeper. What that says is that 75% were sourced from US manufacturers...........what it doesn't say is that every sub assembly used is made up of at least 75% US parts. There is a Hugh difference. What car Mfg do now is buy modules from other companies (Dashboard module, trunk module, wiring harness module etc etc). 75% of these Cos are US companies, which means that these modules were assembled by a US MFG. (Which could have it's plants anywhere BTW). The US MFG can use parts from anywhere. It's nothing but PR aimed at people that want to "Buy American". It's also BS. But it makes everyone feel better.

Same is true when they advertise their minority content.

Len

So the fundamentalists are correct then? Religion is the only viable alternative to liberal democracy?

but if you view the planet as either

a random miracle of billions of years of cosmic evolution

or

a magnificient creation of a supreme being

or both

in either case you should do your damndest to preserve it

if religious folks need stewardship, so be it. however we can get it done.

most non religious folks (except the cynics) already understand it. hence why the secular/scientific community is big on the warming tip

hard when a large faction of one of the world's largest religions has turned into an Armageddon Worshippin' Death Cult

Agreed BUT.... the problem is that while we've been pushing globalization, we've also been screwing with the things (education) that would help Americans make the transition into new jobs. Instead of getting smarter, we've been getting progressively dumber.

I guess I see a model such as Israel that this country could emulate..but we're no where near it. They're easily the highest educated people on the planet...but, indeed, they have to import almost everything which makes them extremely reliant/dependent on foreign trade..

For someone who is so against big government and for people pulling themselves up by themselves, I am surprised you are so pro protectionism. It is anti-libertarian.

And it is selfish. Your motivation appears to be protect what we have at all costs, including any damage done to other economies as a result of our actions. That is the very definition of selfish.


So, you're saying that by me selecting local/domestic suppliers whenever and wherever possible is selfish and bad for the economy? And that, if everyone else did so, it would cripple us?

I think the less involved our government is, the better. Trade agreements should be on a business to business level not a national one. There should be no such thing as a trade deficit/surplus. Let the market truly rule.

I guess I see a model such as Israel that this country could emulate..but we're no where near it. They're easily the highest educated people on the planet...but, indeed, they have to import almost everything which makes them extremely reliant/dependent on foreign trade..

I bet they're very protective of their domestic industries, no matter how few they may be. Not necessarily from a legislative stand point but rather from one of moral obligation.

Israelis are probably proud to by Israeli made products whereas here in America we're not only ashamed of our products, buying American also gets you labeled a selfish protectionist.

I bet they're very protective of their domestic industries, no matter how few they may be. Not necessarily from a legislative stand point but rather from one of moral obligation.

Israelis are probably proud to by Israeli made products whereas here in America we're not only ashamed of our products, buying American also gets you labeled a selfish protectionist.

What ever happened the Republican Reagan era mantra...BUY AMERICAN! ...????
I remember how we were supposed to "look for the label."

What ever happened the Republican Reagan era mantra...BUY AMERICAN! ...????
I remember how we were supposed to "look for the label."



I grew up listening to that mantra. All of a sudden, it seems to have reversed.

I grew up listening to that mantra. All of a sudden, it seems to have reversed.

Now it is "buy American?" but what will Communist China do without our dollars?

Rationality has most assuredly flipped on its head.

So, you're saying that by me selecting local/domestic suppliers whenever and wherever possible is selfish and bad for the economy? And that, if everyone else did so, it would cripple us?

I think that long term yes. I also think that short term the poor would suffer the most by this policy. I personally do both.....but I can afford to be that selective. Most/many can't

I think the less involved our government is, the better. Trade agreements should be on a business to business level not a national one. There should be no such thing as a trade deficit/surplus. Let the market truly rule.

There is a trade defecit because we import more than we export.....because the fit for purpose of foreign goods is greater than ours. You can't fix that by regulation. You fix it by getting more competitive.

Len

Yet another example of your dishonesty. Nice. It suits you well.

KenB, you asked, "Please point out where I said people who quote scripture are religious nutcases." My logical paraphrase -- which should have been received by you as a call for you to clarify, but you chose to reply with an attempt to slander me -- came from the following three exceedingly strong statements from you:

"All religious nutcases should be killed and eaten. Well, maybe not eaten. That's kinda nasty. Definitely killed though."

"Actually, what I was saying was that I didn't consider your post or that religion in any way meritorious."

"You like to quote from the bible. I assume that makes you a religious person. If that assumption is incorrect, I apologize.... I'd be pissed if someone associated me with that garbage."

KenB, you asked, "Please point out where I said people who quote scripture are religious nutcases." My logical paraphrase -- which should have been received by you as a call for you to clarify, but you chose to reply with an attempt to slander me -- came from the following three exceedingly strong statements from you:

"All religious nutcases should be killed and eaten. Well, maybe not eaten. That's kinda nasty. Definitely killed though."

"Actually, what I was saying was that I didn't consider your post or that religion in any way meritorious."

"You like to quote from the bible. I assume that makes you a religious person. If that assumption is incorrect, I apologize.... I'd be pissed if someone associated me with that garbage."


What can I say, your paraphrase was.... plain wrong and, based on the way you've repeatedly attempted to manipulate my words, unless you have some sort of reading/comprehension disorder, it was purposfully so.

There is and was no need for me to clarify, I stand by those statements completely. Nowhere did I claim that all religious people are nutcases. Plain language, Joe. If I felt all religious people were nutcases, I'd say so in no uncertain terms.


Now, do you actually have anything to contribute to this thread or would you rather continue your little misguided hijack?

What can I say, your paraphrase was.... plain wrong and, based on the way you've repeatedly attempted to manipulate my words, unless you have some sort of reading/comprehension disorder, it was purposfully so.

There is and was no need for me to clarify, I stand by those statements completely. Nowhere did I claim that all religious people are nutcases. Plain language, Joe. If I felt all religious people were nutcases, I'd say so in no uncertain terms.


Now, do you actually have anything to contribute to this thread or would you rather continue your little misguided hijack?

Your fallacious retorts defend you not, KenB. This thread is about a "moral attitude." I cited a passage from 2Kings, to which you stated you found no merit, and then days later you utilized the same metaphor to back yourself. You described "the bible" as "garbage," correct? So by "that religion" you meant that you think the Judeo-Christian tradition is entirely without merit, correct? Lastly, "now," KenB, your "misguided hijack" phrase has nothing to do with my actions, but is a more apt association to yours, as you are the one advocating injustice, advocating punishment of death for being whatever it is you say a "religious nutcase" is.

I submit your words againg to all RBR members -- excluding all those with "reading/comprehension disorders" of course -- to logically conclude substantially different than I and that you deny, KenB:

"All religious nutcases should be killed and eaten. Well, maybe not eaten. That's kinda nasty. Definitely killed though."

"Actually, what I was saying was that I didn't consider your post or that religion in any way meritorious."

"You like to quote from the bible. I assume that makes you a religious person. If that assumption is incorrect, I apologize.... I'd be pissed if someone associated me with that garbage."

Now it is "buy American?" but what will Communist China do without our dollars?

Rationality has most assuredly flipped on its head.

I know you Cons know the Lyrics

(well at least the Chorus)

"Born in the U.S.A. I was Born in the U.S.A...."

This topic dovetails nicely from the thread regarding stewardship. If our first job is to be good people and good stewards, does that not directly translate to the fact that corps. need to also be moral? Can we not legitimately judge the "corporation" as moral or immoral just as we would a person? Can't or shouldn't we expect any corporation to live up to some minimum set of standards for workers/quality/environmental protection? Isn't that the moral way to live your own life? Why would we not expect that from the guy making our tires in Brazil? Isn't that "guy" the corporation?

Ethics and morality in business is logical and should coexist with capitalism.

BT


only if you swing that way..whatever works for ya. you ask a lot of questions...
ethics and morality, yes, should exist..but sadly it does not very often.

don't most "believers" think the world was put here for their unbrideled consumption...only now are they beginning to change their tunes...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21656644/

don't most "believers" think the world was put here for their unbrideled consumption...only now are they beginning to change their tunes...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21656644/

Depends which "believers" you're talking about, but Mosaic Law certainly does not equate to "unbridled consumption."