Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Changing the rhetoric

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Tell me, what is your opinion of outsourcing jobs? I'm afraid I can't tell. Are you for it or against it?"

    I think it is case by case, but generally, I think if done for the right reasons (that is, legally) and if the jobs provide working conditions that are consistent with what would be required here, then I am all for it. I think the cost of keeping jobs in the states for the sake of keeping jobs in the states will have a very small, very short term benefit, but a catastrophic long term downside. AGAIN: NOT if the new jobs are 'sweat shop' conditions. Don't anyone misconstrue that I am saying kids should work 32 hours a day.

    "Not to get back on the whole anti-capitalist thing but it makes me wonder where its headed. What will America be doing 100 or 200 years from now? Sounds like a good book...oh yeah he’s gone...oh well." The men laying rail in the 1800's thought the same thing and it worked out okay. The operators of the pony express thought the same thing and it worked out okay. The rail operators in the 50's (the advent of long distance air service) thought the same thing... "Brick and mortar retailers" thought the same thing in the early 90's....

    You get the point.

    Comment


    • Yes, I can understand the motivation for outsourcing jobs. As you implied there are many jobs that just become obsolete after awhile and they are best served by some other hungry market. Strictly from the standpoint of a business owner it also makes sense to keep costs down.

      However, from a social perspective it seems wise to make sure that too much of a vacuum isn’t created when jobs leave our shores. Being from PA I remember when steel workers started to loose their jobs . There wasn’t much to do in areas where they lived, because they pretty much lived in company towns. As you can imagine, this resulted in a lot of depression and inertia for the men. I actually ran across a few inmates that were former steel workers that said they turned toward antisocial behavior out of what amounted to childish anger. Of course now they see that what they did was stupid, but they came from steel worker families, and at the time their identity was wrapped around that. As you implied, the steel towns may not be producing steel anymore but clearly they are doing something, so it wasn’t the end of the world.

      I am concerned for people in the computer field though. Steel guys could maybe work construction or some other labor intensive job, but after years of studying how to work a device, I’m not sure how flexible the computer expert is. Plus, has a personal aside I really admire what the American computer enthusiast has done for the world, so I’m biased.

      Anyway, I don’t mind the outsourcing as long as it does not screw up our consumer base as that seems to be what drives our country. Guys like the 75K MSN certificate person that I mentioned probably sank a good bit of money into things like homes, the stock market, and whatnot. If they loose these things then the country may be at risk of loosing its morale. I noticed a bit of this after 911, as people appeared to be scared of investment, advertising , and the normal routine. So, I believe that business should be given as much incentive to stay here as possible. It guess its a slow balancing act.

      Comment


      • "I am concerned for people in the computer field though. Steel guys could maybe work construction or some other labor intensive job, but after years of studying how to work a device, I’m not sure how flexible the computer expert is."

        ?? computers are going nowhere. And the next wave (wireless networks, network processing systems, etc.) will ALWAYS need on-the-ground service support. The skills that go into being a good computer programmer/network administrator are vlauable, meaningful skills.

        "Plus, has a personal aside I really admire what the American computer enthusiast has done for the world, so I’m biased." But ironically, and like I said before, many of the more well-known and lasting computer advances, from American enthusiasts, are the very ones that jeopardized their jobs. Credit to them that they put the good of the group ahead their personal gain.

        Serious question, though: how does one "preserve the jobs" in any meaningful way? You can't - and shouldn't force the auto makers to buy steel when they can't make and sell competitive cars with that level of steel content. Okay, so you have factories producing, but no one consuming. How does that help the economy in the long run? INventory is actually worse from an economic/accounting standpoint. ANY first-year finance person working for a major manufacturer will tell you that one of the top three goals of their operation is to reduce inventory. Cash flow is another, and with no sales, there is no cash flow. In the long run, we are better off having the corporation prosper to the point at which the economy can provide alternate employment to those U.S. workers. Maybe that means government infrastructure programs; I am for that.

        But economically, forcing companies to pay more for labor doesn't work, since there is no corresponding compensation on the market side. No one is going to pay more for the same goods or services (well, maybe for services given the geographical component of service sales).

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jerico
          Please read my previous post for info. on how politics works these days. And now... something I posted here a while back, but I have no problem repeating myself for those who missed it...

          Trickle-down economics. It was started by Reagan. His policy relied on the rich people putting money back into the system by creating new jobs, investing in America. It is said that IT DOESN'T WORK. Reagan tripled the national debt. Lots of these rich people will not argue that there is such thing as a global economy. Well because of global economy, a lot of the money leaves America. Has it come back to America? You should be able to answer that one. Read into the terms: outsourcing and offshore tax shelters. Ever heard that "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer?" Well, now you know where it comes from. :)
          I don't even know where Bush has put us economically. I'll take the root canal instead. :D
          _________________
          Don't believe it? Take a bite of it...
          Trickle-down Economics and Ronald Reagan
          http://www.bigissueground.com/politi...wnreagan.shtml

          Trickle-Down Economics: Four Reasons Why It Just Doesn't Work
          http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html

          [Bush] Tax Cut Reminiscent of "Trickle-Down" Economics
          http://www.wpi.edu/News/TechNews/010410/taxcut.shtml
          "Today, new President George W. Bush sounds like an echo of 1981 as he calls for a huge tax cut..." [Regan's legacy...] "the biggest tax cut in U.S. history: $1.8 trillion over the next nine years. But since Reagan also demanded an expensive military buildup, the federal government soon was heading for bankruptcy. Therefore, the biggest tax increase in U.S. history, $98 billion, had to be passed to try to curb the deficits. But it wasn't enough. Deficits soared, and the national debt quadrupled."
          [Thanks, Ronnie!]

          Everything T.D.E. in Google...
          http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...down+economics
          ================

          To provoke thought... if you think the US economy is good, and will continue to be good and/ or get good under Bush, what news are you following?
          How much do you think it costs us to be in a war with Iraq? Is it good for the economy?
          How can anyone mention "good" and "economy" in the same sentence when we have stats like these?....

          2003 bankruptcy stats...

          http://www.members.aol.com/Jerricho1...uptcyStats.jpg

          ================
          The following is not new info. either. It's from a 2002 website. Shudder to think how current stats might look!....

          http://www.newstepsolutions.com/debt-statistics.htm

          DEBT STATISTICS
          The average American household has 13 payment cards, including credit cards, debt cards and store cards. There are 1.3 billion payment cards in circulation in the United States.
          Americans made $1.1 Trillion worth of credit card purchases in 1999.
          Americans carry, on average, $5,800 in credit card debt from month to month. If one were to make only the minimum payment on that debt every month, it would take 30 years to pay off - and include an additional $15,000 in interest.
          According to the American Bankruptcy Institute, 302,829 people file for bankruptcy in the first quarter of 2000.
          On average the typical credit card purchase is 112% higher than if using cash.
          Over 40% of US families spend more than they earn. (Federal Reserve).

          96% of all Americans will retire financially dependent on the government, family, or charity. (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)
          Almost one out of every 100 households in the United States will file for bankruptcy.
          [compiled from www.cardweb.com]

          A 1992 Federal Reserve study showed that 43% of U.S. families spent more than they earned.
          According to the National Association of Realtors the average homeowner stays in their home for 7.1 years (1993 statistic). With an 8% mortgage, they will sell their home still owing over 90% on their mortgage. If they were to continue this trend they would NEVER pay off a mortgage in their lifetime!
          Only 2% of homes in America are paid for!
          On average, Americans can expect to receive just 37% of the annual retirement income they will need to live comfortably. [America's Retirement Crisis: The Search For Solutions- Openheimer Funds Dist., Inc. 1993]
          As of 1995 92% of U.S. family disposable income is spent on paying debts, up from 65% in 1975. [Federal Reserve]
          For the year ending June 30, 1996, personal bankruptcies totaled more than ONE MILLION for the first time ever in a twelve month period. That is almost one bankruptcy for every 100 U.S. households.

          On average, you will spend 112% more on a credit card purchase than when using cash.
          The average household has four credit cards with balances around $4,800, up from two cards and $2340 in balances five years ago. [RAM Research, 1996]
          Making the minimum payment on a $4,800 balance (average balance of U.S. cardholders) at the average annual 17% interest rate, it would take you 39 years and seven months to pay off. You would pay $10,818.63 in interest alone, and a total of $15,619 for the privilege of charging the $4,800!
          Nearly half of all Americans (46%) have less than $10,000 saved for their retirement. And 39% of Americans are anxious about their ability to achieve their desired retirement lifestyle. [Miles To Go: A Status Report on Americans' Plans for Retirement-Public Agenda, 1997] It can either be the golden years or the golden arches.
          An $8,000 debt at a rate of 18% interest will take you over 25 years to repay and cost you over $24,000 in the long run.

          Can't blame it all on politicians, sure. That's not my argument. But are these stats a common phenomenon of a healthy country? Is it anyone's fault? How did this happen? If your children can't fathom this, thank the heavens. "Mom and dad! What kind of world did you bring me into?!!? :(

          :twisted:

          Actually, if you ever researched the tax inflows that came in after Reagan's tax cuts, you would see that they increased every year afterwards. Yes, tax cuts lead to tax revenue increases. And salaries went up, and unemployment and interest rates dropped. The national debt increased, not because tax revenues were shrinking, but because government expenditures were increasing. The military, neglected during the Carter administration, and depleted since the Viet Nam era, needed rebuilding. That was Reagan's main agenda for government funds. The Democrats in control of congress wanted to keep the massive entitlement outlays going, so that was their agenda. Together, the two parties conspired to create a massive debt because they wanted to have guns and butter. But to suggest that the tax cuts were "trickle down economics and didn't work" is flat out wrong, and one of the biggest myths Reagan haters are guilty of spreading:

          -Total government revenue grew from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion after Reagan's tax cuts, and income tax receipts grew from $347 billion to $549 billion.

          -Unemployment droppped from 7.6% of 5.5%

          -The economy created on average 2 million new jobs per year

          -Median househould income grew by $4000 from $37868 to $42049. That figure is not much different now, a decade and a half after Reagan left office.

          -Interest rates fell from 15% to 7%

          -And most importantly, inflation fell from 13.5% to 4.1%. Fighting inflation was the centerpiece of Reagan's plan, and the fed still follows that model to this day. Inflation is one of the most destructive forces imaginable, and the double digit inflation and interest rates Reagan inherited in 1981 were paving the road to disaster. Reagan actually took a huge chance when he battled this problem, because the Fed had to tighten up the money supply and create a recession to bring things back under control. Talk about real leadership in a crisis situation.


          Looking back over the numbers, I bet if the choice was Reagan or Bush Jr, 99% of you liberals would vote Reagan in a heartbeat. I know I would. If he would have allowed inflation and high interest rates to persist, the middle class really would have been squeezed (rising prices, can't get a loan to buy a house or a car, falling salaries) and we wouldn't even be talking about the 90's boom, because it never would have happened. Think of all the money that was loaned at dirt cheap interest rates in the 90's that fueled a good deal of that boom.

          So yeah, you guys can argue that Reagan wasn't touchy feely enough, didn't give enough entitlements or whatever, but on the economic record, you don't have a leg to stand on. I had to research this stuff in college so I know what I'm talking about.

          Comment


          • So why is our economy so crappy then? Why is there such a gigantic debt?

            Surely it can't all be Clinton's fault and the dems and liberals can it?
            \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
            Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DL
              I had to research this stuff in college so I know what I'm talking about.
              Well, that's certainly the last word on this topic then.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by CaseClosed
                Originally posted by DL
                I had to research this stuff in college so I know what I'm talking about.
                Well, that's certainly the last word on this topic then.
                Well, I'm doing this stuff at college right now and getting told the opposite! :roll:
                \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

                Comment


                • I have no problem saying I'm not Mr. Economics, but
                  I am pretty good at paying attention to what's going on around me.

                  In fact, I was just talking to a very smart and well informed person who does understand economics, politics, and foreign affairs.
                  He told me the following is happening to the economy... actually, the effect big corporations are having on the economy (perhaps why trickle down economics does not work)...

                  he drew an x-axis, which designates time. He drew two curves going upward, almost asymtotically, one labelled M, the other labelled F. The line M curved upward faster over time than F.

                  Then he drew an asymptotically curved line in the opposite, negative direction, and labelled it P.

                  From what I got listening to the guy, the Y axis represents growth and investment.
                  Now here's what the letters mean...
                  M = money. The money used by the corporations. The F-- if I remember correctly-- which lags slightly behind the money in time, but goes just as positively curved asymptotically as the money are financial Assets.

                  the great negative curve, P = the physical economy.

                  So what we have is the great investments in money and tremendous growth in assets of these big corporations coincidentally results in the collapse of the physical economy.

                  The guy made it a point that these corporations' growth in assets is so fast and tremendous at this point that the printing of money can't keep up with the growth.

                  I may not be well-versed in economics, but I do know a bit about business, and politics at this point. I think a lot of us on here can accept such a graph and understand how and why it's true. Such things have been discussed plenty of times on here.

                  The guy I talked to was a representative of LaRouche-Political Action Committee (PAC). Lyndon LaRouche is an economist.

                  http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/pre...22_ecostup.htm

                  "Sept. 22 — The first copies of LaRouche PAC's new pamphlet, "It's the Physical Economy, Stupid!", came off the press today, and will soon be flooding Ohio, and other crucial swing states across the nation. The first run of the 32 page pamphlet was 200,000 copies, which are expected to be only the first of a million or more."

                  I look forward to reading the literature I got.
                  Oh look! Bullet trains is part of LaRouche's solution to our problems!
                  C'mon! you know we need major infrastructure improvements among A LOT of things
                  ____________________
                  http://www.larouchepac.com/

                  http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...q=LaRouche+PAC

                  if the truth be known....
                  \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
                  Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mikey_C
                    Originally posted by CaseClosed
                    Originally posted by DL
                    I had to research this stuff in college so I know what I'm talking about.
                    Well, that's certainly the last word on this topic then.
                    Well, I'm doing this stuff at college right now and getting told the opposite! :roll:
                    Well, there you have it! That's certainly the last word on this topic then. :lol:

                    Comment


                    • Wait! I'm teaching this stuff in college. Can't I have the last word? :lol:

                      Comment


                      • You can just be happy that a certain guy's on "vacation", or he'd have the final word, I'm sure, Doc!
                        Google ergo sum

                        Comment


                        • Annie Hall

                          Originally posted by Doc
                          Wait! I'm teaching this stuff in college. Can't I have the last word? :lol:
                          Just hold on there Doc!

                          ALVY
                          I mean, d- He can give you- Do you hafta
                          give it so loud? I mean, aren't you ashamed
                          to pontificate like that? And-and the funny
                          part of it is, M-Marshall McLuhan, you don't
                          know anything about Marshall McLuhan's...work!

                          MAN IN LINE
                          (Overlapping)
                          Wait a minute! Really? Really? I happen to
                          teach a class at Columbia called "TV Media
                          and Culture"! So I think that my insights
                          into Mr. McLuhan-well, have a great deal of
                          validity.

                          ALVY
                          Oh, do yuh?

                          MAN IN LINE
                          Yes.

                          ALVY
                          Well, that's funny, because I happen to
                          have Mr. McLuhan right here. So ... so,
                          here, just let me-I mean, all right. Come
                          over here ... a second.

                          Alvy gestures to the camera which follows him and the man in line to the back
                          of the crowded lobby. He moves over to a large stand-up movie poster and
                          pulls Marshall McLuban from behind the poster.

                          MAN IN LINE
                          Oh.

                          ALVY
                          (To McLuban)
                          Tell him.

                          MCLUHAN
                          (To the man in line)
                          I hear-I heard what you were saying.
                          You-you know nothing of my work. You
                          mean my whole fallacy is wrong. How you
                          ever got to teach a course in anything is
                          totally amazing.

                          ALVY
                          (To the camera)
                          Boy, if life were only like this!


                          :lol:

                          Comment


                          • That's priceless, Carter. I just had a conversation with my chair about faculty who have stopped reading (let alone writing), and how it shows up in their teaching, especially when they rely solely on their credentials to make all of their points.

                            Comment


                            • Thanks, Carter. That's probably the best part of Annie Hall. (It's got some other
                              moments, too, of course.) It's been years since I saw the movie.

                              When does some one pop into the forum to pull rank on Doc? Whom would we
                              nominate? Karl Marx is no longer available, unfortunately. Perhaps we could get
                              John Kenneth Galbraith to dodder on stage. I can hear it now: "Under capitalism,
                              man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite."

                              LSN

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Doc
                                I just had a conversation with my chair about faculty who have stopped reading (let alone writing), and how it shows up in their teaching, especially when they rely solely on their credentials to make all of their points.
                                If you've started talking to the furniture, Doc, I think it's time for you to put the books away and get some fresh air. :D
                                "That which does not kill us, makes us stranger." - Trevor Goodchild

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X