What do you expect anyone to say? Our society is terrifyingly, reprehensibly amoral, and the most comic-book villainy part of it is the people responsible for cutting off access to healthcare for the poor do it under the guise of being family values oriented and religious.
I'm disgusted and enraged to a point past hate and wrath.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One takes it as a reminder that some politicians-in this case strongly religious conservatives-are willing to score political points over the dead bodies of some of their weakest, most vulnerable constituents. One also lets it serve as a reminder never to let such politicians, or their supporters, claim to speak for any sort of 'moral majority' or a group of 'family values' types.
That's my answer anyway. Rick Perry can go die in a fire.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sort of puts Sarah Palin's recent comments about the Pope into sharp relief. She thinks he's being co-opted by the mainstream media because he wants people to focus more on the sick and poor in our society.
Can't wait until Sarah Palin reads the New Testament, she's going to be FURIOUS at Mainstream Jesus.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but there's a common theme among the poor to which Mainstream Jesus and his New Testament Pals TM devoted their ministries.
1. Widows 2. Orphans 3. Those too crippled or disabled to work at all, who were reduced to begging in order to survive. 4. Those who had been exiled because they had serious communicable diseases. 5. Those who could work, but were taxed into starvation by the crooked government.
It's not exclusive, but the theme is obvious: those who needed help most were the ones who literally had no power over their situations. The percentage of people like that in America is smaller than our privileged lifestyle would have us believe, but I'll admit that I don't know how to go about distinguishing between the genuinely needy and those who never took responsibility for their improving their lives and now expect the rest of the country to pay the bill. It's tempting to err on the side of blanket generosity but for the sake of taxpayers and their children it seems fair to me to be a little more discriminating.
I grew up in a trailer park in the ghetto with alcoholic, abusive parents, dropped out of high school, got knocked up at eighteen and have spent the last thirteen years trying to raise two children on one low income. But I don't see myself as a victim in any sense. I'm going to college part time and living very frugally so I can afford decent health insurance. I'm not saying everyone should think like me, but I do have a hard time understanding the threshold at which someone is no longer "able" to improve their situations. Personally, I've never been there.
By the way, as for my insurance that I've worked so hard to keep over the years: my co-pays just went up so much that I'll no longer be able to use it. So now I have insurance that amounts to "catastrophic," but costs the same as my old insurance.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I grew up in a trailer park in the ghetto with alcoholic, abusive parents, dropped out of high school, got knocked up at eighteen and have spent the last thirteen years trying to raise two children on one low income. But I don't see myself as a victim in any sense. I'm going to college part time and living very frugally so I can afford decent health insurance. I'm not saying everyone should think like me, but I do have a hard time understanding the threshold at which someone is no longer "able" to improve their situations. Personally, I've never been there.
I understand where you're coming from-to an extent, of course, there's only so far empathy can take you outside of your own experience-but wouldn't 'debilitating illness which intensifies to crippling and then kills you' meet this threshold of people who aren't able to improve their situations?
Doesn't this create widows and orphans when left unchecked, and doesn't it also stand that many of these people who might have been 'able' to improve their lots got in with the wrong insurance company or employer and drew the 'major poorly- or uninsured illness' card? And is it really fair to say that Prosperity Christians such as you're describing approach the question with anything approaching the nuance you're employing?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The word 'amoral' has been thrown around a few times in this thread. It's either being used in a non-standard way (and merits clarification) or it's being used incorrectly.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: Absolutely, having a debilitating disease that cripples you meets that qualification. But most people who receive free medical care don't have debilitating, crippling diseases. Many of them have no diseases and, because they know their medical bills will always be covered, have no incentive to plan ahead in case they get such a disease.
Do Prosperity Christians employ that level of nuance? I have no idea. I think many of them are so terrified of the country falling into financial ruin that they behave as though public assistance is a gushing, mortal wound that they have to staunch completely, before deciding how much blood they can afford to let trickle. I'm not sure they're completely wrong, but I can't stand the idea that legitimately needy people could suffer and die while they're figuring it out. I wish there was a balance somewhere; in my opinion, neither the liberals nor the conservatives are making any efforts at finding one.
quote:Rakeesh: Absolutely, having a debilitating disease that cripples you meets that qualification. But most people who receive free medical care don't have debilitating, crippling diseases. Many of them have no diseases and, because they know their medical bills will always be covered, have no incentive to plan ahead in case they get such a disease.
I can't argue with that. The problem seems to me to be, though, that efforts to incentivize the sort of proactive, long-term thinking you're describing...they tend to really rub many Americans the wrong way.
On the one hand if they're done via private insurance, well, then we're left with the many problems of many millions of people slipping through the cracks of health care which has been the status quo for a generation now. If they're attempted to be done publicly through a mandated insurance program, Americans will quickly begin to holler about things like death panels and nanny states and whatnot.
Like you (or at least, I imagine you might think this way) I don't think that sort of complaint is entirely without merit.
It's just that I've reached a point, looking at my country, where I've begun to think, "Which is the greater potential threat for us? Unchecked childhood obesity, or government-disincentives and restrictions on selling huge buckets of fries and soda to children?" has become a serious, valid question and no longer something to simply brush off as 'the parents decision'. That's just an example, mind.
I suppose for me my stance on these issues come from my response to your last observation-I'm not satisfied with the compromise and serious effort liberal politicians in this country are making and willing to consider for these problems, but to me there's no question at all that they're making more of an authentic effort than conservative politicians. Like, zero contest.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I edited my last post after you replied.
Moving my edit here:
ETA: I also think they're terrified of the federal government getting more involved in the states' legislation. But it makes me wonder (because I really don't know), is it possible to reject the federal aid, but then make laws within the state that will increase the availability of emergency care to poor people who don't meet the qualifications of Medicare? Does that money have to come from Washington?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also think they're terrified of the federal government getting more involved in the states' legislation. But it makes me wonder (because I really don't know), is it possible to reject the federal aid, but then make laws within the state that will increase the availability of emergency care to poor people who don't meet the qualifications of Medicare? Does that money have to come from Washington?
For some states in the long-run, it really wouldn't be possible-more than a few states get more than they give from the federal government in dollars. Paradoxically these tend to be red states, so even if they managed to navigate the labyrinth of political budgeting to take money from one program to give it to increased access to emergency care it wouldn't so much be a shift as an actual taking. And it's tough to sell constituents in a wealthy county or district on losing some of services for the sake of the poorest counties in the state, even if it was a breeze to get such things done in terms of budgeting.
I'm more than a little concerned about government creep too. I just wonder how many corpses the walls against it need to be sufficiently fortified.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's just that I've reached a point, looking at my country, where I've begun to think, "Which is the greater potential threat for us? Unchecked childhood obesity, or government-disincentives and restrictions on selling huge buckets of fries and soda to children?" has become a serious, valid question and no longer something to simply brush off as 'the parents decision'. That's just an example, mind.
Ehh...that's tricky. I come from a position, possibly fear-based, that rejects nearly all efforts on the part of the government to get involved with the raising of children. Right now unchecked childhood obesity is a greater threat. Long-term, I believe the government intervention is worse. Both are bad.
quote: I'm more than a little concerned about government creep too. I just wonder how many corpses the walls against it need to be sufficiently fortified.
Yeah, I worry about that, too. This is the biggest reason that I no longer align with the Republican party: because the religion of "right" has trumped their purported Christian religion.
I know you guys have hashed and re-hashed all of this until it's mashed potato, so thanks for talking to me about it at all.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Yeah, but there's a common theme among the poor to which Mainstream Jesus and his New Testament Pals TM devoted their ministries.
1. Widows 2. Orphans 3. Those too crippled or disabled to work at all, who were reduced to begging in order to survive. 4. Those who had been exiled because they had serious communicable diseases. 5. Those who could work, but were taxed into starvation by the crooked government.
Your must have a very different version of the New Testament than the one I've studied. I am unfamiliar with any scripture in the New Testament that could fit your #5. Please give me a reference. On the other hand, I know of many times that Jesus referred to the poor and beggars who were neither widows, orphans, cripples or lepers.
Here are a few references:
Luke 16:19-31 Matt 25:41 Luke 4:16-21 Matt 5:42 Luke 3:11 Luke 14:12-14 Matt 19:20
The New Testament I've read not only condemns those who do not help the poor it also condemns those who judge the poor.
quote:But I don't see myself as a victim in any sense. I'm going to college part time and living very frugally so I can afford decent health insurance. I'm not saying everyone should think like me, but I do have a hard time understanding the threshold at which someone is no longer "able" to improve their situations. Personally, I've never been there.
I'm surprised that growing up in such poor circumstances you've never known anyone who wanted to work but had a hard time finding a job. I've known lots of them, particularly in the current economy. I've also known quite a few who work long hours at multiple jobs, live very frugally and still don't earn enough to make ends meet. As a professor, I've worked with more than a few people who've went back to school when they were in their late forties because the business they'd work for went under. Many got their 2nd college degree and then still couldn't find a new job because of age discrimination.
I also have several family members and friends who want to pay for health insurance but can't find any company willing to sell it to them because of their medical history.
I'd love to believe I belonged to a society that had no victims, where everyone who was willing to work hard could be certain of having the basic necessities of life -- but I've lived to know that's a lie.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Misha misused it. Lyrhawn used it correctly.
I disagree. Rick Perry only pays lip service to the idea of morality because it serves his purposes, not because he actually has any morals. His decisions are ultimately based only on possible benefit to himself, not whether they are Right or Wrong. He has no empathy for other human beings and no feelings of guilt or remorse for anything because he doesn't really think he's done anything wrong. He completely lacks a conscience and probably has antisocial personality disorder. In short, he's amoral (as much as a human being can be) and as such all his choices are based on that lack of morality.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, that seems to be rather a lot further over the line than can be supported. By that I mean you're speaking about things that happen entirely between his ears, and so however reprehensible you find some of his actions you can't possibly know if even a fraction of what you've said is true.
I say this as someone who thinks he's a pretty big turd, mind you.
------
quote:Ehh...that's tricky. I come from a position, possibly fear-based, that rejects nearly all efforts on the part of the government to get involved with the raising of children. Right now unchecked childhood obesity is a greater threat. Long-term, I believe the government intervention is worse. Both are bad.
I worry about it too, but I question which is worse-another few inches in the line of government creep, or a substantial portion of a generation, eventually much of a generation, suffering from morbid obesity and dying sooner, living less happy lives, and costing the entire system more in money and resources?
Both are bad, but government creep is a problem on so many levels of society and surely there are many other levels on which it may be combated without sacrificing so much.
quote:Yeah, I worry about that, too. This is the biggest reason that I no longer align with the Republican party: because the religion of "right" has trumped their purported Christian religion.
I know you guys have hashed and re-hashed all of this until it's mashed potato, so thanks for talking to me about it at all.
I tend to think that any major political party anywhere-particularly in our system-that purports to align itself with religious objectives is going to be full of crap. And it should be said that strong Christianity hasn't been a real core component of Republicans generally for quite some time-it's rather been a major factor among their base.
As for it being rehashed, you're good to talk to in any event, and particularly since you come at this with a different perspective-there's plenty of left-leaning or moderate critical-of-GOP talk on the `rack, but not so much from someone who might be further right. It's an interesting angle.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Eh, that seems to be rather a lot further over the line than can be supported. By that I mean you're speaking about things that happen entirely between his ears, and so however reprehensible you find some of his actions you can't possibly know if even a fraction of what you've said is true.
I say this as someone who thinks he's a pretty big turd, mind you.
Three words- Cameron Todd Willingham.
Edit: And that's just the most egregious example in a list longer than I have time to type up.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if you could find a score more examples as egregious as the most egregious possible reality of that arson and execution, it still wouldn't be enough to support the kinds of statements you made, Misha.
Sorry. Extremely dubious, potentially very foul and wicked, sure. But you stated that Perry is not bound by any motives other than self-interest, period. That he is constantly lying about everything except when he acknowledges his self-interest. That far from feeling no guilt, he doesn't even think having no morality and constantly lying is even wrong.
There's a solid case to be made for Rick Perry being a hypocritical scumbag. You don't do any service to it by piling on hyperbole so obvious it's clear even to Perry's detractors.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
What right do Men truly have in the abortion debate? If Men don't give birth, then we should probably leave it to Women, in its entirety.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
What right do others truly have in the suicide debate? If individuals are free, rational and totally autonomous moral agents, then we should probably leave it to the person committing suicide, in its entirety.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Firstly this thread has NOTHING to do with abortion.
Secondly, I'm fairly certain that capa was neither being cute nor imitating you. I suspect he was simply applying your (horrible) principal to a broader topic to illustrate its horribleness. Altho I could be wrong.
Wanna talk abortion, I'll participate. But please show this thread the decency of not gate crashing with nonsequiters.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: Food for thought:
What right do others truly have in the suicide debate? If individuals are free, rational and totally autonomous moral agents, then we should probably leave it to the person committing suicide, in its entirety.
I actually have no problem with this, and think it's the correct thing to do. Hate the idea that society can tell someone that their life is not their own, to do with as they please.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rub is...what if the person who is making the choice is not in use their right mind? If presented with the same option a week earlier or a week later they would vastly prefer to be incarcerated in a mental hospital and still be alive than take their own life while at a limited capacity.
Then you get to the deeper problem...who gets to decide when one is right minded enough to make that choice or not?
All in all I'm good with the illegality of suicide. For those truly commited to dying there is very little the government can do about it.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also...everyone should have a voice in debate. Excluding people categorically from discussion is just the worst kind of assery.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: States that choose to reject the Medicaid expansion can maintain the pre-existing Medicaid eligibility thresholds they have set, which in many states are significantly below 133% of the poverty line for most individuals.[360] Furthermore, many states do not make Medicaid available to childless adults at any income level.[361] Because subsidies on insurance plans purchased through exchanges are not available to those below the poverty line, this will create a coverage gap in those states between the state Medicaid threshold and the subsidy eligibility threshold.[362][363] For example, in Kansas, where only those able-bodied adults with children and with an income below 32% of the poverty line are eligible for Medicaid, those with incomes from 32% to 100% of the poverty level ($6,250 to $19,530 for a family of three) would be ineligible for both Medicaid and federal subsidies to buy insurance. If they have no children, able-bodied adults are not eligible for Medicaid in Kansas.
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Yeah, but there's a common theme among the poor to which Mainstream Jesus and his New Testament Pals TM devoted their ministries.
1. Widows 2. Orphans 3. Those too crippled or disabled to work at all, who were reduced to begging in order to survive. 4. Those who had been exiled because they had serious communicable diseases. 5. Those who could work, but were taxed into starvation by the crooked government.
It's not exclusive, but the theme is obvious: those who needed help most were the ones who literally had no power over their situations. The percentage of people like that in America is smaller than our privileged lifestyle would have us believe, but I'll admit that I don't know how to go about distinguishing between the genuinely needy and those who never took responsibility for their improving their lives and now expect the rest of the country to pay the bill. It's tempting to err on the side of blanket generosity but for the sake of taxpayers and their children it seems fair to me to be a little more discriminating.
I grew up in a trailer park in the ghetto with alcoholic, abusive parents, dropped out of high school, got knocked up at eighteen and have spent the last thirteen years trying to raise two children on one low income. But I don't see myself as a victim in any sense. I'm going to college part time and living very frugally so I can afford decent health insurance. I'm not saying everyone should think like me, but I do have a hard time understanding the threshold at which someone is no longer "able" to improve their situations. Personally, I've never been there.
By the way, as for my insurance that I've worked so hard to keep over the years: my co-pays just went up so much that I'll no longer be able to use it. So now I have insurance that amounts to "catastrophic," but costs the same as my old insurance.
Knowing for a fact that if I were American I would not be able to pursue my dream of being a game designer because I wouldn't have had the safety net and support of the government to help me through hard times, I am glad I am not American.
I think its better, morally and economically that every individual should be able to have a free quality public education and have their healthcosts covered until University or a Tradeschool; and then be given a combination of bursuries and low interest loans they won't have to pay until they finish.
If something "bad" or out of your control happens this entire time, you can recover with help.
Also a well educated productive populace allows for a stronger nation.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm all for foreign aid, but we should be charging/cancelling debt to offset the huge costs of American humanitarian efforts.
As I said, I am for helping those in need around the world, but not at the cost of helping those at home.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foreign aid is such a small ticket item. I mean seriously, with the exception of foreign military aid, the cost/benefit analysis is incredibly skewed toward the benefits. Our dollars have a much more meaningful impact on the lives of people in need in the third world.
But even if we totally eliminated non-military foreign aid, it would only save a few billion dollars - a relatively tiny drop in the bucket for our overall problems that very much likely be better cut from elsewhere in the domestic or military budgets.
In a two trillion dollar budget, "huge" isn't a word I would use to describe American humanitarian efforts in terms of cost. Certainly they are massive undertakings after disasters, but the actual cost is less extreme than you might think, relatively.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm fine with addressing some of the actual real problems of our economy before we start scrimping on giving pennies to starving children in the world.
That's hardly all foreign aid is, of course-quite a bit of it is military, and tied in with American military producers-but still. It's a lot. How important is it to us to get some dollars out of the Phillipines when they get wrecked by a typhoon?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just issue them a bill at the end of the emergancy.
We help foreign powers who hold debt over this county you know.
That cost should cancel out that debt.
I'm not saying stop helping by any means! Lets just not pretend that there are those at home who need help and don't get it. And do something about it.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Just issue them a bill at the end of the emergancy.
We help foreign powers who hold debt over this county you know.
That cost should cancel out that debt.
I'm not saying stop helping by any means! Lets just not pretend that there are those at home who need help and don't get it. And do something about it.
I just don't see what purpose is served by pretending the reason we have those people at home is because we spend too much abroad. It's not. What you're advocating would net us mere pennies in economic terms, even in the cases of those countries who can pay-and would have a real cost in lives for those who couldn't. It'd also do real damage to our reputation abroad. All because we 'can't afford it'?
We could afford it. This is a leaky second floor faucet at a drip an hour or so you're talking about, when the reason our water bill is so high is because of the great big crack in the main underground.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you are right. I'm not one to follow politics closely for this very reason. I would go mad from the sheer injustice of how poorly those scheming, lying bastards are running our country.
Despite that, when you are in a leaky boat and sinking fast, if you see a leak you try and plug it, even if its only a small one. At least that small leak would be easier to get the morons who won't bail or fix the big leaks to agree to do something about.
ETA: No lives lost. Help first, bill later. If they don't pay, fine. We don't stop helping, they just have a running tab, that doesn't mean a whole lot. Mostly I'm affronted by us sending help that costs money to countries which hold our debt.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone wolf it gives me an aneurysm to see this kind of poor argumentation.
Firstly, in terms of national economic interest, military aid serves an important purpose for the United States.
You know all of those planes that are still decent in most of todays combat environments? that loads of countries would be interested in like the Super Hornet (Canada eh?)?
You can't build em anymore. Well the Super Hornet you probably can, but the A-10 Warthog? There's loads of equipment the industry 'tribal knowledge' and expertise doesn't exist anymore.
You know that boondoggle program now costing twice its original expected costs to somewhere to the tune of 400 billion dollars (A very large amount of money compared to foreign aid..)? The Joint Strike Fighter? Did you know its completely uncompetitive for ANY of its assigned roles when compared to its likely competitors with half the flight radius?
You know what the root cause of both these issues are? Its complex, but it comes down to that if you stop producing a certain plane and those people involved aren't able to be transfered to other projects they tend to go away and never come back.
Similarly the same problem resulted in the USA having several aircraft producers that were competitive, you had Lockheed, Boeing, Skunkworks, Northrop Grumman, Curtis-Wright, and so on, but now you have the problem that many of them didn't have sufficient orders to keep the lights on.
So you get mergers, and now you went from a competitive playing field with several manufacturers with juuuuuust enough overlap that if you couldn't get a good bomber out of one you could always threaten with going to a competitor; you could shop around, threaten contracts and so on.
But now the US can't, its now down to I think The Big Three and they're very specialized.
Its not the only factor, but foreign aid and military sales provides highly skilled jobs in the aerospace industry and keeps the lights on in between big orders.
These nations obviously won't accept such sales if they weren't essentially gifts, which the US does to keep these nations in its "camp"; with China far richer and more competitive in the third world, and less caring about ideology than th FSU, the USA cannot really afford to not pay the bill and give stuff away for free.
Because where the US won't the Chinese will.
As for humanitarian aid, the same logic applies at a basic level. Without assistance without a price tag not only would many governments possibly just refuse the aid to avoid stacking on top of their already ridiculous debts to the IMF and the World Bank that are keeping them in "resource export economy" third world status. Their people will suffer and you risk governments toppling and being overrun by revolutionaries of various stripes.
And you end up paying the cost anyways, except larger and later; because eventually politics will force you to act.
And not on your terms.
Finally, low interest/free development aid helps to develop the economies of various developing nations which increases their purchasing power over time. As their middle class expands, their demand for American goods increases, producing jobs for American manufacturers and services.
Since the US gov't can borrow money from the Central Bank for pennies on the dollar it allows for huge potential for investment with good returns.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with much of what Blayne just said.
What's the point of charging them a bill? Just for the sake of being able to point to it and crow about how benevolent we are?
When we send money to first world countries like Japan after a problem, it's usually political. Our way of attaching a dollar figure to how much we care about them. When we send money to third world countries after a disaster, like the Philippines, it's because they're overwhelmed and unlikely to have have the money to ever pay us back. When you realize both those realities, the only real conclusion to come to is that sending them a bill is all about score keeping, and not about economics or budgeting. And I think it'd ruin a lot of the good will you engender by being there in the first place.
Remember a lot of places offered or sent America aid after 9/11 and Katrina, not because they really thought we couldn't clean up our own mess (though we proved rather woefully unsuited for the task at the end of the day), but because it's a show of friendship and community. It's tenths of pennies on the dollar for good will you can't normally buy so easily.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
But I still don't but the American goods part, because all the stuff we have has a sticker that says, "Made in China."
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Very well.
But I still don't but the American goods part, because all the stuff we have has a sticker that says, "Made in China."
Bullshit.
American manufacturing comprises roughly 6% of GDP or 910 Billion dollars.
This comprises roughly 350,828 firms and employs over 15,000,000 people do you even google anything you claim? Or is this more Republican "Post Facts" bullcrap?
None of this of course factors in the other sectors of the US economy that get a small buff from increased global trade and demand, particularly in services, finance, transportation, investments into research and so on.
This really isn't hard, its Keynesian economics applied globally.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Ellison: It really isn't hard to not be snotty to people.
I was able to find out this information with less than 5 seconds of googling. Though I agree I shouldn't have had that tone.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
China routinely plays around with 30% of GDP coming from manufacturing. Taiwan is also at 30%, Japan 20%, South Korea 30%.
I've got the US at around 10-13% at the most. We are being hammered economically by several factors.
1: Year over year trade deficits. Our largest trading partners manipulate their currencies alot, keeping them weak, thus allowing their products to remain cheap, and hard for us to compete with. We buy their stuff, and they don't buy ours. We've got to stop running trade deficits. China is starting to import more and more, and its currency should be getting stronger, but instead they force it down, and nobody calls them on it because our economy is too dependent on imports.
2: We don't export as mentioned before. Or rather, we don't export enough. We import import import. Importing takes money out of the US economy and sends it elsewhere. Of course importing is good, just not at the ratios we've got it.
3: Intellectual property. Hua Wei China's telecom darling, partnered with US's Motorola. When they were caught stealing Motorola's IP, Motorola sued, but they couldn't stay afloat during the lengthy legal processes, and tried to sell themselves. Hua Wei countersued Motorola for IP theft (laughable)and demanded the sale be frozen until the court case was resolved. Motorola ended up paying off Hua Wei out of court, just so they could sell themselves off piecemeal. Leave a bad taste in your mouth? It should. China always tells companies that complain about IP theft to bring their claims to Chinese courts. Yeah right.
The US spends more on R&D than any other country, China has no problem paying hackers and corporate spies thousands of dollars for IP worth hundreds of millions. This behavior is devastating to US firms. And it's not even a case of both sides stealing from each other, one side has all the IP, the other doesn't.
Either cyber security needs to make an incredible leap forward, or laws protecting IP need to be given serious overhauling. Many firms don't even patent their work anymore because a patent application is basically a free schematic for spies to steal.
The Chinese government has fiercely denied paying hackers to steal IP or sabotage foreign firms, but security experts have found a pretty obvious proof that this is a lie. Chinese hackers all take weekends off. Only government employees do that. If the Chinese want to benefit from US R&D, pay us for our work.
3: The US made a *big* mistake letting China into the WTO without insisting on more liberal policies in regards to economic policy. When Japan butted heads with China over a Chinese trawler smashing into a Japanese coast guard vessel, the Chinese restricted rare earth exports, sending a harsh blow to the Japanese electronics industry. It was a vagrant violation of WTO policy, but they simply waited out the process, and then stopped restricting flow before the process was completed. The damage had already done, and the message was loud and clear. Fortunately this stimulated US firms to find rare earth metal deposits elsewhere. But its thuggery, plain and simple.
The US is far from white as the driven snow, but there is nothing worse than playing mostly free market rules, and playing with economic nationalists like China and Japan. The nationalists always win, while the liberals lose lose lose.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:China always tells companies that complain about IP theft to bring their claims to Chinese courts.
presided over by the honorable judge flunky kid of a powerful apparatchik
china's nuts, it really is. recently it's been making italian courts look honest and clean by comparison
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. In fairness, the trade imbalance has much more to do with cheap labor overseas than it does currency manipulation. Keep in mind two things: A. What the US loses in currency underevaluation in foreign markets, it gains in being the world's reserve currency. We couldn't regularly borrow half a trillion dollars if the dollar was like the yuan. B. China and other countries, especially our debt holders, have constantly berated us in the last five years for currency manipulation by printing (or hand wave creating) trillions of new dollars to dump into our economy. It's keeping the dollar somewhat devalued, and it's also depressing interest yields on their treasury bills. So it works both ways.
2. Reshoring is a big trend that's only likely to increase for two reasons: A. America is undergoing and will continue to enjoy an energy boom which is dramatically lowering the cost of running a largescale manufacturing enterprise in the United States. B. Labor costs are sky rocketing overseas, especially in China. A lot of that work is going to increasingly come back to America, because it's going to be cheaper, between labor, transportation and energy costs (energy costs are going up in China as well as demand soars whereas in the United States demand is actually decreasing as supply increases), to reopen a factory here, close to the market, instead of over there.
As time goes on, more and more of American-owned manufacturing will leave China, some of it going back to America, and a lot of it simply finding a new low-labor cost home base, like Vietnam, India (if they can get their crap together) or possibly a new boom in Africa.
3. Yes. Unfortunately China is too important to the US economy at the moment for us to really play hardball over it. It sucks, but we basically have to just beef up security and warn companies they're on their own and to be wary of partnerships, but that's hard because China often DEMANDS partnerships with shared technological access as the price for admission into the Chinese market. Companies like GM are paying that price on the gamble that domestic manufacturers won't just steal their secrets and kick them out in 5 to 10 years.
3b. Agree here as well. We're getting hosed pretty hard. It's hard to gather much of a coalition to fight back though. There isn't much we can do to hurt them that won't hurt us in return.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. I'd quibble over the ratios, but you are right that cheap labor is a big part of it. Yes it's true being the reserve currency lets us print money, but our GDP to Debt ratio is not unlike quite a few other countries (notably countries that I'd say are red flags for meltdowns, but... )
Further while we print money, it's only because other countries continue to buy our bonds that we aren't struggling with inflation yet. We should be though at some point. Still, it's not like we're making them buy them up. If people didn't buy our bonds, we'd stop printing money at some point.
2. Agreed on energy, but I'm not sure even some of the jobs are coming back here. People are already starting to move manufacturing to Vietnam, Thailand, and perhaps Indonesia. Parts of Africa are conceivable too.
3. Ultimately I think foreign firms are starting to see the problems with business in China. I think ultimately corporate law is going to have to develop at an extremely rapid pace in China, or else business will start leaving, at least in the tech industry. Companies like Walmart and Amazon I don't think have the same challenges. Hopefully the Chinese will see the benefits of IP protection, and allow trademark law to be developed in the country. It would be a self-correcting problem.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
