• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is Capitalist Dogma Unwittingly Pulling Marxism from the Grave?

WhipperSnapper

WhipperSnapper

Lifer
For Labor Day, pro-capitalist economist and former assistant Secretary of the Treasury to the Reagan Administration Paul Craig Roberts has produced an excellent and thought provoking op-ed for us.

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050904_marx.htm

Are dogmatic advocates of capitalism unwittingly resurrecting Marxism? Are people who claim to love freedom unwittingly destroying the economic and social foundations that are a prerequisite of having freedom and a healthy economy?

Request to all who participate in this thread: Please read the op-ed fully before posting. Thank you.

P.S. Another worthy op-ed that discusses comparative advantage is this one, Statement for the U.S.-China Commission Hearing, May 19, 2005:

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050520_hearing.htm

 
i never caught the connection to marxism, but in general, the article is right on.

EDIT: though i'm not sure about the whole "on the way to becoming a third world nation" part...
 
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
i never caught the connection to marxism, but in general, the article is right on.
Click to expand...

The connection to Marxism is that social classes will become more defined and people will slowly come to realize an economic class identiy that will be much more intense and explicit than what they feel today. One of the points was that as ladders of upward mobility come down, people will be trapped within their economic classes. You can already see some of this in the form of working class people's anger at high CEO salaries.

What I find amazing is that so many working class people still love the Republicans to the point of being dogmatic about it (Bush can do no wrong in their view). I think it's because they hate the Democrats (and rightfully so) and also that many are religious. Still, I find it almost mind-boggling.



 
Seems like a bunch of scare tactics to me. The US economy is not doing superb but its doing a hell of a lot better than that article made it out to be. The US economy is shifting, it did it the first 30 years of the 20th century. Look at the hundreds of thousands of farming jobs that were lost. People crying wolf, that we were collapsing, we weren't it was merely a shift. As for the US not adding many new hitech jobs the next 10 years we aren't going to be adding many jobs TOTAL the next 10 years. Why? Because beginning in 2 years baby boomers will start retiring. We will see baby boomers retiring in droves, so much so that by the year 2012 to 2014 we could indeed have a labor shortage. Many companies are moving jobs because htey are planning to have a labor shortage. The only way to avoid the shortage is to increase wages drastically or PLAN around the shortage.

As for jobs being lost to free trade...free trade has had a negative effect on jobs, no doubt about it, but the effect has been a 2% effect on the industries effected by free trade. We will continue to lose jobs in manufacturing as long as the industry overall is heavily controlled and minipulated by unions. How can we or our companies remain competitive when we're paying people 65k to 90k a year to bolt a bumper on an automobile?
 
Today capital is more mobile than tradable goods. Modern production functions are based on acquired knowledge and produce identical results regardless of location. When a US corporation closes a factory in Ohio and relocates its production for US markets to China, the loss of US jobs is not the result of a Chinese firm gaining a comparative advantage over the Ohio one. It is the result of US capital seeking absolute advantage in lower cost Chinese labor.
Click to expand...

How anyone can support totally free markets is beyond me. If your talking between two countries that are comparable, say the US and Japan, then yes. When you talking between the US and a country where the labor costs are 1/10 of ours then how are people supposed to remain competitive. No matter how smart or hard you work, how dedicated you are, your not going to be able to compete.


Just because something is good for a corporation doesn't mean it's good for you or our country. Now, lets give all those CEO's who are outsourcing jobs another big raise, they deserve it, right?? Greed is good?? LOL, it may be an intergel part of human nature, but in excess it is not a good quality.
 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Seems like a bunch of scare tactics to me. The US economy is not doing superb but its doing a hell of a lot better than that article made it out to be. The US economy is shifting, it did it the first 30 years of the 20th century. Look at the hundreds of thousands of farming jobs that were lost. People crying wolf, that we were collapsing, we weren't it was merely a shift. As for the US not adding many new hitech jobs the next 10 years we aren't going to be adding many jobs TOTAL the next 10 years. Why? Because beginning in 2 years baby boomers will start retiring. We will see baby boomers retiring in droves, so much so that by the year 2012 to 2014 we could indeed have a labor shortage. Many companies are moving jobs because htey are planning to have a labor shortage. The only way to avoid the shortage is to increase wages drastically or PLAN around the shortage.

As for jobs being lost to free trade...free trade has had a negative effect on jobs, no doubt about it, but the effect has been a 2% effect on the industries effected by free trade. We will continue to lose jobs in manufacturing as long as the industry overall is heavily controlled and minipulated by unions. How can we or our companies remain competitive when we're paying people 65k to 90k a year to bolt a bumper on an automobile?
Click to expand...


I still say there's a difference in jobs moving from the farm to industrial in that the jobs are BOTH here. Offshored jobs are gone. They rarely return. Domestic service jobs simply shift wealth around and rarely "create" wealth. Offshored jobs move capital outside the US and create wealth only for those who own the corporations, typically the upper and wealthy classes (somewhat owned by mutual funds by middle classes in 401k plans etc).

65k to 90k per year (and more) is exactly what companies like Toyota are paying and they are doing just fine. Of course, they don't have a 2 to 1 ratio of retirees vs current employees to pay as does GM. I do agree that the Unions have shot the big 3 in the foot (actually, they shot theirselves too).

Moving jobs because they are planning for a shortage? 😕 They are moving jobs because it's cheaper to produce the good there than here. No and, if's or but's about it. That's exactly what my company does when it decides between US and Mexico. The "cheaper" one wins, period! If shipping from Mexico is more than production savings, the US wins. One side effect of higher fuel prices is that shipping goes up. It actually helps keep jobs in the US.
 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Seems like a bunch of scare tactics to me. The US economy is not doing superb but its doing a hell of a lot better than that article made it out to be. The US economy is shifting, it did it the first 30 years of the 20th century.
Click to expand...

When enrollment for engineering students declines continually, I say that is not a good thing. Eventually we will have to order a Mars lander from the Chinese space corporation when we plan to visit the red planet.

 
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Seems like a bunch of scare tactics to me. The US economy is not doing superb but its doing a hell of a lot better than that article made it out to be. The US economy is shifting, it did it the first 30 years of the 20th century.
Click to expand...

When enrollment for engineering students declines continually, I say that is not a good thing. Eventually we will have to order a Mars lander from the Chinese space corporation when we plan to visit the red planet.
Click to expand...


I agree wholeheardetly, we need more emphasis on math and science.
 
Originally posted by: Engineer


I still say there's a difference in jobs moving from the farm to industrial in that the jobs are BOTH here. Offshored jobs are gone. They rarely return. Domestic service jobs simply shift wealth around and rarely "create" wealth. Offshored jobs move capital outside the US and create wealth only for those who own the corporations, typically the upper and wealthy classes (somewhat owned by mutual funds by middle classes in 401k plans etc).

65k to 90k per year (and more) is exactly what companies like Toyota are paying and they are doing just fine. Of course, they don't have a 2 to 1 ratio of retirees vs current employees to pay as does GM. I do agree that the Unions have shot the big 3 in the foot (actually, they shot theirselves too).

Moving jobs because they are planning for a shortage? 😕 They are moving jobs because it's cheaper to produce the good there than here. No and, if's or but's about it. That's exactly what my company does when it decides between US and Mexico. The "cheaper" one wins, period! If shipping from Mexico is more than production savings, the US wins. One side effect of higher fuel prices is that shipping goes up. It actually helps keep jobs in the US.
Click to expand...

Rising profits create wealth not just for the owners, but for shareholders and employees. Companies usually higher more people as profits go up. A perfect example of this is the company I work for. We are outsourcing some of the board mfg to India. As a result we will be able to save about 30% on the board mfg, thats taking into consideration the shipping costs and a buffer of 15% which is the typical margin of error in such scenarios. The result of this savings will be an already planned quality control division resulting in higher paying jobs for people right here in the US. Part of the reason jobs are moving is because of the savings, no doubt about that. Another huge part that people dont want to acknowledge is the planning of future business activities. By outsourcing med/low wage positions they are 1 saving money which makes shareholders and owners more money (in reality shareholders are owners), which creates wealth here in the US. It also in the long run will allow a shift in our economic system. The economy is like a living breathing organism it is constantly changing and being shaped by world markets.

 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: Engineer


I still say there's a difference in jobs moving from the farm to industrial in that the jobs are BOTH here. Offshored jobs are gone. They rarely return. Domestic service jobs simply shift wealth around and rarely "create" wealth. Offshored jobs move capital outside the US and create wealth only for those who own the corporations, typically the upper and wealthy classes (somewhat owned by mutual funds by middle classes in 401k plans etc).

65k to 90k per year (and more) is exactly what companies like Toyota are paying and they are doing just fine. Of course, they don't have a 2 to 1 ratio of retirees vs current employees to pay as does GM. I do agree that the Unions have shot the big 3 in the foot (actually, they shot theirselves too).

Moving jobs because they are planning for a shortage? 😕 They are moving jobs because it's cheaper to produce the good there than here. No and, if's or but's about it. That's exactly what my company does when it decides between US and Mexico. The "cheaper" one wins, period! If shipping from Mexico is more than production savings, the US wins. One side effect of higher fuel prices is that shipping goes up. It actually helps keep jobs in the US.
Click to expand...

Rising profits create wealth not just for the owners, but for shareholders and employees. Companies usually higher more people as profits go up. A perfect example of this is the company I work for. We are outsourcing some of the board mfg to India. As a result we will be able to save about 30% on the board mfg, thats taking into consideration the shipping costs and a buffer of 15% which is the typical margin of error in such scenarios. The result of this savings will be an already planned quality control division resulting in higher paying jobs for people right here in the US. Part of the reason jobs are moving is because of the savings, no doubt about that. Another huge part that people dont want to acknowledge is the planning of future business activities. By outsourcing med/low wage positions they are 1 saving money which makes shareholders and owners more money (in reality shareholders are owners), which creates wealth here in the US. It also in the long run will allow a shift in our economic system. The economy is like a living breathing organism it is constantly changing and being shaped by world markets.
Click to expand...


I say it again, as I've said before. You have $800 billion (and rising) "MORE" coming in than going out, eventually, you run into a problem.

I don't buy the whole "we get better jobs" out of the deal. When my company (and any company) ship enough jobs out, entire plants close. Those plants employ much more than just "unskilled labor". They contain plant maintenance, engineers, quality personel, management, etc.

You guys can think service is the way of the future if you will. Service will do nothing except start a decline of the US way of life and economy in general.

If you buy everything and sell nothing, then what?
 
Originally posted by: Engineer

I say it again, as I've said before. You have $800 billion (and rising) "MORE" coming in than going out, eventually, you run into a problem.

I don't buy the whole "we get better jobs" out of the deal. When my company (and any company) ship enough jobs out, entire plants close. Those plants employ much more than just "unskilled labor". They contain plant maintenance, engineers, quality personel, management, etc.

You guys can think service is the way of the future if you will. Service will do nothing except start a decline of the US way of life and economy in general.

If you buy everything and sell nothing, then what?
Click to expand...


Sorry but I think you're wrong. The shift to a service economy has created more wealth than at any point in our history. The shift which really started in the 60s has made this country wealthy beyond belief. By 800 billion difference I assume you're talking about the trade defecit? The trade deficit crap we all hear about is just that CRAP. A trade deficit has its negatives but it also has a whole slew of positives that no one in the media cares to talk about.
 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: Engineer

I say it again, as I've said before. You have $800 billion (and rising) "MORE" coming in than going out, eventually, you run into a problem.

I don't buy the whole "we get better jobs" out of the deal. When my company (and any company) ship enough jobs out, entire plants close. Those plants employ much more than just "unskilled labor". They contain plant maintenance, engineers, quality personel, management, etc.

You guys can think service is the way of the future if you will. Service will do nothing except start a decline of the US way of life and economy in general.

If you buy everything and sell nothing, then what?
Click to expand...


Sorry but I think you're wrong. The shift to a service economy has created more wealth than at any point in our history. The shift which really started in the 60s has made this country wealthy beyond belief. By 800 billion difference I assume you're talking about the trade defecit? The trade deficit crap we all hear about is just that CRAP. A trade deficit has its negatives but it also has a whole slew of positives that no one in the media cares to talk about.
Click to expand...


Please discuss the positives?!?


Oh, and starting around 2000 was the first time in post industrial era history that manufacturing jobs have been lost in a recovery. Not sure how you classify the service shift starting in the 60's as a result of wealth when manufacturing employment expanded some 40 years later.

Compounded with declining engineering and sciences, the future does have it's problems. Will the US fail completely? Doubtful, but the standard of living that has grown since the US was formed, will, IMO decline. Maybe not to the third world poverty level, but it will indeed decline. When the people can no longer afford to buy the goods, then the outsourcing (offshoring) stops.
 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: Engineer

I say it again, as I've said before. You have $800 billion (and rising) "MORE" coming in than going out, eventually, you run into a problem.

I don't buy the whole "we get better jobs" out of the deal. When my company (and any company) ship enough jobs out, entire plants close. Those plants employ much more than just "unskilled labor". They contain plant maintenance, engineers, quality personel, management, etc.

You guys can think service is the way of the future if you will. Service will do nothing except start a decline of the US way of life and economy in general.

If you buy everything and sell nothing, then what?
Click to expand...


Sorry but I think you're wrong. The shift to a service economy has created more wealth than at any point in our history. The shift which really started in the 60s has made this country wealthy beyond belief. By 800 billion difference I assume you're talking about the trade defecit? The trade deficit crap we all hear about is just that CRAP. A trade deficit has its negatives but it also has a whole slew of positives that no one in the media cares to talk about.
Click to expand...

No, your wrong. A country is no differnt then an individual. If he just charges everything on his credit card eventually the interest alone will eat him up, to say nothing of the principal. The trade deficit is just another charge on a credit card that has already been maxed out by the Iraqi war.

If you want to outsource something, let's outsource the Iraqi war. Why should our boys be laying their lives on the line to come home and have to settle for a crappy job??
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: Engineer

I say it again, as I've said before. You have $800 billion (and rising) "MORE" coming in than going out, eventually, you run into a problem.

I don't buy the whole "we get better jobs" out of the deal. When my company (and any company) ship enough jobs out, entire plants close. Those plants employ much more than just "unskilled labor". They contain plant maintenance, engineers, quality personel, management, etc.

You guys can think service is the way of the future if you will. Service will do nothing except start a decline of the US way of life and economy in general.

If you buy everything and sell nothing, then what?
Click to expand...


Sorry but I think you're wrong. The shift to a service economy has created more wealth than at any point in our history. The shift which really started in the 60s has made this country wealthy beyond belief. By 800 billion difference I assume you're talking about the trade defecit? The trade deficit crap we all hear about is just that CRAP. A trade deficit has its negatives but it also has a whole slew of positives that no one in the media cares to talk about.
Click to expand...

No, your wrong. A country is no differnt then an individual. If he just charges everything on his credit card eventually the interest alone will eat him up, to say nothing of the principal. The trade deficit is just another charge on a credit card that has already been maxed out by the Iraqi war.

If you want to outsource something, let's outsource the Iraqi war. Why should our boys be laying their lives on the line to come home and have to settle for a crappy job??
Click to expand...

UHHHHH trade defecit has nothing to do with credit card debt. They're completely UNRELATED and can't even be used in examples to make a point. National DEBT is a good example...national deficit is another example of what you're trying to convey NOT the trade deficit.

Trade deficit means we're buying more goods from other countries than we're bringing in. Generally this is reguarded as being the result of a strong and robust economy. The single biggest benefit of having a trade deficit is the economy is pinned less on the world economy than we would otherwise be. In otherwords it acts like a buffer in times of world recession and has a smaller impact on the economy of the United States.
 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: Engineer

I say it again, as I've said before. You have $800 billion (and rising) "MORE" coming in than going out, eventually, you run into a problem.

I don't buy the whole "we get better jobs" out of the deal. When my company (and any company) ship enough jobs out, entire plants close. Those plants employ much more than just "unskilled labor". They contain plant maintenance, engineers, quality personel, management, etc.

You guys can think service is the way of the future if you will. Service will do nothing except start a decline of the US way of life and economy in general.

If you buy everything and sell nothing, then what?
Click to expand...


Sorry but I think you're wrong. The shift to a service economy has created more wealth than at any point in our history. The shift which really started in the 60s has made this country wealthy beyond belief. By 800 billion difference I assume you're talking about the trade defecit? The trade deficit crap we all hear about is just that CRAP. A trade deficit has its negatives but it also has a whole slew of positives that no one in the media cares to talk about.
Click to expand...

No, your wrong. A country is no differnt then an individual. If he just charges everything on his credit card eventually the interest alone will eat him up, to say nothing of the principal. The trade deficit is just another charge on a credit card that has already been maxed out by the Iraqi war.

If you want to outsource something, let's outsource the Iraqi war. Why should our boys be laying their lives on the line to come home and have to settle for a crappy job??
Click to expand...

UHHHHH trade defecit has nothing to do with credit card debt. They're completely UNRELATED and can't even be used in examples to make a point. National DEBT is a good example...national deficit is another example of what you're trying to convey NOT the trade deficit.

Trade deficit means we're buying more goods from other countries than we're bringing in. Generally this is reguarded as being the result of a strong and robust economy. The single biggest benefit of having a trade deficit is the economy is pinned less on the world economy than we would otherwise be. In otherwords it acts like a buffer in times of world recession and has a smaller impact on the economy of the United States.
Click to expand...

Trade deficit means we owe money, right? It's just more debt we owe and debt we can't pay because we already borrow more then we take in. That means we have to pay interest on it. I don't like paying interest. I'm one of those damn fiscal conservative, commie pinko, liberals types.
 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang

Trade deficit means we're buying more goods from other countries than we're bringing in. Generally this is reguarded as being the result of a strong and robust economy. The single biggest benefit of having a trade deficit is the economy is pinned less on the world economy than we would otherwise be. In otherwords it acts like a buffer in times of world recession and has a smaller impact on the economy of the United States.
Click to expand...

Could you explain that? Having a trade deficit means that we rely on the worlds economy more than our own for basic needs (or at least it seems). How does a deficit act as a buffer? Huh?
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Trade deficit means we owe money, right? It's just more debt we owe and debt we can't pay because we already borrow more then we take in. That means we have to pay interest on it. I don't like paying interest. I'm one of those damn fiscal conservative, commie pinko, liberals types.
Click to expand...

Trade deficit IS NOT debt.
 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Trade deficit means we owe money, right? It's just more debt we owe and debt we can't pay because we already borrow more then we take in. That means we have to pay interest on it. I don't like paying interest. I'm one of those damn fiscal conservative, commie pinko, liberals types.
Click to expand...

Trade deficit IS NOT debt.
Click to expand...

Trade deficit is shifting more wealth outside the country than enters.

Severe trade deficit, when combined with severe budget deficits, = trouble on the US economic future.
 
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Trade deficit means we owe money, right? It's just more debt we owe and debt we can't pay because we already borrow more then we take in. That means we have to pay interest on it. I don't like paying interest. I'm one of those damn fiscal conservative, commie pinko, liberals types.
Click to expand...

Trade deficit IS NOT debt.
Click to expand...

<sarcasm on> Good, then nothing to worry about. Hell, let's buy some more stuff from China. <sarcasm off>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top