Social Darwinism - the only logical explanation?

[Aferim]

@Wesley_Clark

And leftists could retort that a CBO study found conserative economic policy (supply side tax cuts) were the worst way to stimulate job growth.

You must be assuming I’m a Republican? Still, sounds like an interesting study. Worst compared to what? Banging on pots? I’d love to see a link.

Or that you can’t have an economy 70% based on consumption where consumers are chronically unemployed/underemployed/insecure.

Yes, FIRE (Finance, insurance, real-estate) economies seem to have been unsustainable bubbles powered by lax Greenspan and Bernanke economic policies. Turns out you actually have to make stuff and sell it cheaper than other people to be rich. Shocking.

Or that ignoring environmental damage doesn’t make it go away.

As the Soviet Union demonstrated amply.

The US economy grew fine during periods of lower income inequality.

What is your point?

…while the rest of the previously industrialized world had been bombed to rubble.
What your point?

[XT]

I notice, in passing, that few people are actually answering the OPs questions, and instead going off on tangents about how evil conservative paint the jobless as lazy or whatever.

Here is the crux of what the OP is asking:

Is the whole point of this economy to get rid of the jobless? Hope they starve to death or something?

So, Wesley Clark, Evil Captor, sqweels, Broomstick, The Tao’s Revenge (sorry if I missed anyone), you guys seem at least nominally to be on the same ‘side’ as the OP. Is it a big conspiracy by the rich to get rid of the jobless through starvation ‘or something’ (ominous)?

Everyone knows these people aren’t lazy - there’s just not enough jobs for all those unemployed people, and there never will be. At best we’ll hit 7-8% unemployment (like Europe) and stay there. The math does not support the lazy theory.

I see no evidence that this has to be the case. Unless you believe (like the OP) that all the jobs have been shipped overseas (and, QED, there are no jobs or potential jobs even in a recovery for US workers to do), aside from the the probable long term down turn in construction and contracting wrt the housing industry I don’t see why people who were laid off because of the recession necessarily have to continue to be laid off indefinitely. DO you guys believe that? Because that’s the question he’s asking.

Leave aside the strawman (or not, since some conservatives are as dumb as a box of rocks) and answer the actual question, not circle around the ‘lazy’ part and go into paroxysms of joyful converse about how this isn’t true. It ISN’T true, by and large…so, move on.

Again, the crux of the OPs message is that the US no longer has jobs for all the people who want to work, since said jobs have been shipped overseas, never to return (and that every job shipped is a net loss to the US). Do you agree?

What other options do unemployed workers have but to take a boat overseas?

Folks who believe what the OP is saying (he won’t answer me directly so I’m asking those of you who don’t have me on ignore), or are at least nominally on his ‘side’…do you believe the above to be a true and accurate statement of the only option available? Do American unemployed have to leave the US in order to get a job? Do you feel that accurately sums up the current situation? And, addressing what the OP is really getting at, is it because of offshoring and outsourcing that we are in our current fix, unemployment wise? That, essentially, the recession doesn’t matter (implicit in the OP’s message, since he claims that even in a recovery we won’t recover those jobs)?

I’m curious as to how many 'dopers secretly believe what the OP is ACTUALLY peddling…and how many are focused on peripheral issues such as conservatives ranting about the jobless being ‘lazy’ or whatever.

For a bonus, what would you all have the government do? Given the current economic conditions and the unemployment rates, the current stance most businesses are still in (i.e. a recession mentality), short falls in government revenue and the seeming desire of the American people to cut spending, what are your alternatives? Realistic alternatives? I’m all for extending unemployment benefits, personally, but I don’t think this will ‘fix’ the problem…merely help people through what I believe is the gap between when the economy (hopefully) starts to recover, and when they start hiring back workers because of increasing demand. So…what should the government and the Obama administration do that they aren’t already doing?

-XT

[Broomstick]

@xtisme

So, Wesley Clark, Evil Captor, sqweels, Broomstick, The Tao’s Revenge (sorry if I missed anyone), you guys seem at least nominally to be on the same ‘side’ as the OP. Is it a big conspiracy by the rich to get rid of the jobless through starvation ‘or something’ (ominous)?

That’s quite a stretch, really - I only popped in for comments about food stamps and whether they are sufficient to allow one to eat. (Yes, if you have a kitchen and you actually know how to cook and budget)

It’s all very well to say “unemployment benefits” but they run out after 99 weeks, or just under 2 years, no matter what. That’s it. Period. Apparently, this time, that’s not enough for a lot of people.

I think that in addition to food stamps the government should provide a minimum allotment for things like soap (so one remains employable - just try to get a job when you smell like body odor) and some sort of housing where one is neither freezing on the sidewalk nor in fear of assault from other residents. Basically, a rock bottom floor no one is allowed to fall beneath regardless of how stupid or capable/incapable they are. At the same time, you’d also need a society that doesn’t automatically label someone who’s been out of work for two years during the worst economy in 70 years as “unemployable” or “lazy”, which is all to often the case these days.

None of that, by the way, speaks to any sort of “conspiracy” among the rich, the poor, or anyone else. And I fully realize that no one has a really great answer for setting up such a system.

[XT]

Well, you aren’t going to get any major argument out of me that during this particularly nasty recession that benefits need to be extended (the devil is in the details as far as how you go about doing that). But that’s not really what the OP is asking (or restating in yet another back-handed anti-outsourcing anti-offshoring thread, even if he didn’t come right out and state it that way).

@Broomstick

At the same time, you’d also need a society that doesn’t automatically label someone who’s been out of work for two years during the worst economy in 70 years as “unemployable” or “lazy”, which is all to often the case these days.

I don’t believe that this is a mainstream stance even among supposed ‘conservatives’. I think most people are willing to acknowledge that this recession has been particularly nasty, and that a lot of people (not all of course) have made good faith efforts to find work, but that businesses are in a bunker, recession mentality and the jobs just aren’t there because demand just isn’t there. Yet. Sure, there are nutters and ideologues who want to look at everything as black and white, and who are using faith based methods and partisan blinders to make such silly statements about the current jobless being ‘lazy’, but I’ve seen no indications that most of ‘society’ believes this to be the case. Anecdotally, the refrain I’ve heard most is ‘I’m just glad I still have work and a job and hope it stays that way’.

YMMV, but if I’ve learned anything from being on this board it’s that the fringe on either wing who are yapping about their pet theories don’t constitute even a majority opinion of their own wing, let alone of society in general. They are just a lot louder and more attention grabbing.

-XT

[Wesley_Clark]

@xtisme

I notice, in passing, that few people are actually answering the OPs questions, and instead going off on tangents about how evil conservative paint the jobless as lazy or whatever.

Here is the crux of what the OP is asking:

So, Wesley Clark, Evil Captor, sqweels, Broomstick, The Tao’s Revenge (sorry if I missed anyone), you guys seem at least nominally to be on the same ‘side’ as the OP. Is it a big conspiracy by the rich to get rid of the jobless through starvation ‘or something’ (ominous)?

Why would the rich intentionally starve us. It isn’t malice, it is apathy. Many of us are realizing we don’t matter to the political and economic powers who run the country. Corporate profits and income for the top have recovered, but unemployment has not. However it doesn’t seem to really matter as much to the powers that be as long as the middle and lower classes are the only ones suffering.

So a malicious attempt to starve people? No. The calls to end food stamps and UI in this economy are extremely callous and cruel, but I don’t think they are done with the intent to kill anyone. However there are no prosecutions for the wall street workers who engaged in fraud. And the ‘too big to fail’ banks are now even bigger. And in the midst of such severe suffering there are calls to end social programs (medicare, SS, UI, food stamps). And now that the wealthy have recovered the economy doesn’t seem to be as important anymore to politicans.

So no, they don’t want to kill us. But they couldn’t care less about us.

@xtisme

I see no evidence that this has to be the case. Unless you believe (like the OP) that all the jobs have been shipped overseas (and, QED, there are no jobs or potential jobs even in a recovery for US workers to do), aside from the the probable long term down turn in construction and contracting wrt the housing industry I don’t see why people who were laid off because of the recession necessarily have to continue to be laid off indefinitely. DO you guys believe that? Because that’s the question he’s asking.

Are you in the job market? Not long ago someone on SD was posting about an opening for a part time file clerk paying $14/hr, probably with no benefits. He said he got well over a dozen applicants, some of whom used to make 6 figures. One was regional manager for tower records. I think others were store managers. The reality is there aren’t enough jobs to go around. Certain segments like construction or manufacturing were hit harder than others. But I think many fields are seeing fewer openings and the openings that do exist aren’t as god.

@xtisme

Leave aside the strawman (or not, since some conservatives are as dumb as a box of rocks) and answer the actual question, not circle around the ‘lazy’ part and go into paroxysms of joyful converse about how this isn’t true. It ISN’T true, by and large…so, move on.

Again, the crux of the OPs message is that the US no longer has jobs for all the people who want to work, since said jobs have been shipped overseas, never to return (and that every job shipped is a net loss to the US). Do you agree?

Yeah I agree. I don’t know what role outsourcing played, but there aren’t enough jobs. The housing bubble played a role too. So did stagnant wages resulting in a private debt bubble. So does automation. But fundamentally there aren’t enough jobs for those who want them. The reasons are multiple and far more complex than I understand.

@xtisme

Folks who believe what the OP is saying (he won’t answer me directly so I’m asking those of you who don’t have me on ignore), or are at least nominally on his ‘side’…do you believe the above to be a true and accurate statement of the only option available? Do American unemployed have to leave the US in order to get a job? Do you feel that accurately sums up the current situation? And, addressing what the OP is really getting at, is it because of offshoring and outsourcing that we are in our current fix, unemployment wise? That, essentially, the recession doesn’t matter (implicit in the OP’s message, since he claims that even in a recovery we won’t recover those jobs)?

I think it is coming to that. I know I have looked overseas a bit, but not really found anything. In the US jobs really are hard to find. Even if you do find them many are part time temp jobs w/o benefits. However jobs and lives in growing economies (brazil, russia, china, indonesia) have problems of their own.

@xtisme

I’m curious as to how many 'dopers secretly believe what the OP is ACTUALLY peddling…and how many are focused on peripheral issues such as conservatives ranting about the jobless being ‘lazy’ or whatever.

For a bonus, what would you all have the government do? Given the current economic conditions and the unemployment rates, the current stance most businesses are still in (i.e. a recession mentality), short falls in government revenue and the seeming desire of the American people to cut spending, what are your alternatives? Realistic alternatives? I’m all for extending unemployment benefits, personally, but I don’t think this will ‘fix’ the problem…merely help people through what I believe is the gap between when the economy (hopefully) starts to recover, and when they start hiring back workers because of increasing demand. So…what should the government and the Obama administration do that they aren’t already doing?

-XT

What should the government do? Find a way to reduce income inequality for one. If our income inequality wasn’t so bad then I don’t think the recession would be so bad. Consumers wouldn’t be so desperate and on the brink.

Reform health care since that is what will bankrupt the nation long term.

Try to make the US more competitive internationally.

Find a way to encourage businesses to use their 1.5 trillion in profits and 2 trillion in cash reserves to create jobs domestically.

Try to prevent massive risk and bubbles in the future, or structure them so the risk actually exists for those who take it. As it stands we have socialism for the rich in the US, and the moral hazard of risky behavior is gone for wealthy speculators.

[Le_Jacquelope]

@msmith537

Structural changes like what exactly? The usual cries for protectionism that all the macroeconomic morons think will make everything better?

Macroeconomic morons? Oh, two can play that game.

Why bother with protectionism if your free market globalist fantasies are to be accepted as reality? Might as well let globalism run its course until the inevitable happens - which is, the U.S. economy collapses and the dollar becomes worthless internationally, causing imported goods to become impossibly expensive. That’ll teach the anti-protectionist macroeconomic Einsteins out there a lesson they may live to regret - that is, if they’re not jumping off of bridges to escape the world crashing down around their ears.

The thing is, not everywhere is experiencing “fewer and fewer scraps”. How long do you stay in cities like Detroit or Las Vegas hoping “the jobs will come back”? Or do you move to a growing city like Austin or Raleigh?

1. The jobs that are coming back pay less than the jobs they replaced.
2. If a bunch of people move to relatively prosperous cities like Austin and Raleigh, or any other city you can bring up, the job markets there will become heavily impacted. They won’t remain the “growing” cities they are now.

I’m sorry. I didn’t realize that people were to good to work in a bar to pay the bills. So what will people use as an excuse when unemployment isn’t at 9%?

Well said. They can live at the homeless shelter, eat at the soup kitchens* and cash their paychecks at Wal Mart. What with these jobs not even sufficient to pay for housing, and minimum wage being too high to qualify for welfare. I wonder if the macroeconomic Einsteins out there know what the word underemployment means.

Because the anti-protectionist macroeconomic Einsteins have decided America’s comparative advantage is fulfilled by putting countless people out of good paying jobs into long term unemployment waiting for low paying jobs to bail them out.

These macroeconomic Einsteins don’t see anything wrong with this picture. They probably won’t see it even when this country gets terminally tired of this race-for-the-bottom bullshit that’s called globalism. The problem for these macroeconomic Einsteins is that they are so fracking tone deaf that they don’t realize that America is in fact very close to that point of terminal frustration. One clumsily-placed spark is all it takes to ignite an anti-globalist rebellion - and judging by the poll numbers concerning offshoring, it will be one hell of a rebellion.

• until the soup kitchens and homeless shelters become overwhelmed (which they have been, nationwide, several times in these past 2 years), in which case they’ll just starve or die of exposure, which is really what Conservatives want (if you assess their agenda by nothing more than their sheer actions).

[msmith537]

I just don’t understand where people think jobs are supposed to magically appear from? Should the government force companies to hire people? Put our smartest minds in a room and beat them until they come up with ideas for new industries?

I feel like the attitude of people on this board is “fuck those corporate fat-cats! Now pay me money to do something!”

[Le_Jacquelope]

@Wesley_Clark

Why would the rich intentionally starve us. It isn’t malice, it is apathy.

That is, basically, the core of social Darwinism: apathy. Let everyone sink or swim. The consequence is death by negligence.

Many of us are realizing we don’t matter to the political and economic powers who run the country. Corporate profits and income for the top have recovered, but unemployment has not. However it doesn’t seem to really matter as much to the powers that be as long as the middle and lower classes are the only ones suffering.

So a malicious attempt to starve people? No. The calls to end food stamps and UI in this economy are extremely callous and cruel, but I don’t think they are done with the intent to kill anyone.

THAT is social Darwinism. To quote one woman from the TV series “Undercover” (undercover CEOs posing as workers in their companies… not the other “Undercover” [damn them for cancelling the latter!]): if these corporate types were to trip over you they wouldn’t even so much as give a damn.

My question is… what use do these people have for a civilized society? Their law is the law of the jungle. Society requires too many evil “socialist” (by their definition) interventions for their liking.

However there are no prosecutions for the wall street workers who engaged in fraud. And the ‘too big to fail’ banks are now even bigger. And in the midst of such severe suffering there are calls to end social programs (medicare, SS, UI, food stamps). And now that the wealthy have recovered the economy doesn’t seem to be as important anymore to politicans.

So no, they don’t want to kill us. But they couldn’t care less about us.

Ya know, I don’t get what inspired xtisme to believe I was saying anything different from what you just said.

What should the government do? Find a way to reduce income inequality for one. If our income inequality wasn’t so bad then I don’t think the recession would be so bad. Consumers wouldn’t be so desperate and on the brink.

How about putting workers on corporate boards? Or, in fact, push for a trickle-up economy, where 80% of the wealth is concentrated at the bottom 90%. In that scenario I figure you could enact a flat “fair” consumption tax, no sweat.

I can hear it now. “But there’ll be fewer Billionaires! Nobody will want to achieve anything!” :D:p:D

Reform health care since that is what will bankrupt the nation long term.

Try to make the US more competitive internationally.

I’d start using the Government’s power to reward eggheads with enough money and fame and perks to make them virtually into rock stars. Start an academic Olympics - a fracking Calculus word problem marathon and a science fair Triathlon complete with solid gold, silver and bronze medals handed down by Senators or the President, backed up by subsidized corporate endorsements or whatever the flying hell it takes to get companies to be deep-pocket sponsors. I’m talking an absolute balls smashed right to the walls Government funded intellectualist religious take-no-prisoners crusade.

Find a way to encourage businesses to use their 1.5 trillion in profits and 2 trillion in cash reserves to create jobs domestically.

Try to prevent massive risk and bubbles in the future, or structure them so the risk actually exists for those who take it. As it stands we have socialism for the rich in the US, and the moral hazard of risky behavior is gone for wealthy speculators.

We should become like Iceland, or take it even further: there’s no such thing as too big to fail anymore.

[Le_Jacquelope]

@msmith537

I just don’t understand where people think jobs are supposed to magically appear from?

And this is part of what makes macroeconomic Einsteins so tone deaf: it’s not about where jobs magically appear from. It’s about where they not so magically disappear to. We wouldn’t need as many jobs to appear if they did not disappear on a boat out of the country in such great numbers.

Should the government force companies to hire people? Put our smartest minds in a room and beat them until they come up with ideas for new industries?

How about we just beat the corporate heads? (Relax. I’m only kidding.)

I feel like the attitude of people on this board

Hint: it’s not just this board. It’s becoming the entire country. When the black Muslim anti-American black terrorist Ayers-worshipping black non-citizen whatthefuckeveritistoday black President leaves office the majority demographic in America will get back to remembering who fucked them. And so will everyone else.

is “fuck those corporate fat-cats! Now pay me money to do something!”

Here’s another facet of reality that the tone-deaf macroeconomic Einsteins are woefully ignorant of: society is going to pay for these workers to do something, regardless. We’re either going to pay them to work, pay them to sit on their ass, pay to put them in prison, or pay to bury them and also perhaps those they take their frustrations out on. Oh, I forgot. The macroeconomic Einsteins don’t think that high and prolonged unemployment exacerbates things like crime and unrest.

Now, msmith, explain to me… which “pay for them to do something” option results in them paying society back in tax revenue? That should be an easy one.

How about we do what Andy Grove of Intel suggested and bitch slap them silly for sending jobs overseas. If you want to play in the American market you hire Americans to produce for that market. Or you keep your shit the fuck out of this country.

[John_Mace]

@Le_Jacquelope

How about we do what Andy Grove of Intel suggested and bitch slap them silly for sending jobs overseas. If you want to play in the American market you hire Americans to produce for that market. Or you keep your shit the fuck out of this country.

Your homework assignment for this evening is to look up how many factories and workers Intel has overseas. Hint: It’s >> 0. You will get extra credit if you tell us when Intel built its first overseas factory. Hint: It’s >> 2 years ago.

[XT]

Well, that’s how Andy Grove has bitch slapped the outsourcers and offshorers…he’s send manufacturing jobs overseas! It’s all part of a master plan by Intel to get American manufacturers to keep jobs in the US. It’s really complicated. See, first you get a chicken…

-XT

[Wesley_Clark]

@msmith537

I just don’t understand where people think jobs are supposed to magically appear from? Should the government force companies to hire people? Put our smartest minds in a room and beat them until they come up with ideas for new industries?

I feel like the attitude of people on this board is “fuck those corporate fat-cats! Now pay me money to do something!”

Companies hire when the cost of hiring is less than the productivity and benefits of not hiring. But if you can hire 2 part time temps at 20k a year to do what it used to cost 1 full time employee with benfits 80k a year to do, companies do that. If an Indian will do for 10k what an American needed 70k to do, they do that. All the productivity and profit goes to the top when you are able to achieve for 40k what it used to take 70k in wages/benefits to achieve. This creates a top heavy plutocracy that can use its influence to cement its hold on politics, the media, business, and whatever other levers of power they want. And what they want is to accelerate that situation where power and influence revolve around them. That is a problem because it is a race to the bottom. Nations competing to cut apart labor and environmental standards so corporations with record profits will set up shop there.

Watching the documentary food inc. it was said that food companies have managed to pass laws making it hard for consumers to sue them, but very easy for them to sue consumers. That is a problem since they have captured what used to be independent arms of power (legal and judicial systems) to serve their own interests. Lobbyists have grown exponentially since the 90s. Fox news and talk radio is fundamentally just an arm of corporate interests. The military and police are still independent of corporate power (by and large. Many military excursions during the war on communism were likely just attempts to prevent nationalization of private markets). But that won’t last forever.

In history the income inequality wasn’t as severe. Income for the top 1% was about 9% back in the 70s, corporate profits were 300-500 billion in the 90s. Now income for the top 1% is nearly 27%, corporate profits are 1.6 trillion or so. The job situation is worse. Supply side economics doesnt work for domestic job creation. It has been a failure.

Income inequality is becoming a severe global problem. Not only in the US (whose inequality is worse than many latin american nations) but China and India have problems too. Now that austerity is pushed in Europe it is becoming a global problem of nearly all developed and rapidly developing problems. If you ridicule people who care about that issue all you do is make their demands more radical. Right now leftists will likely settle for higher progressive taxes and more regulation. In the future they may demand revolution and mass confiscation. Communism was born out of anger over inequality. People who will accept center left policies today will demand socialism tomorrow and communism the day after tomorrow. You can’t allay the anger and frustration others feel by ridiculing people.

Start working on mandatory international basement standards for environmental and labor standards for one.

[Le_Jacquelope]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-01/how-to-make-an-american-job-before-it-s-too-late-andy-grove.html

The first task is to rebuild our industrial commons. We should develop a system of financial incentives: Levy an extra tax on the product of offshored labor. (If the result is a trade war, treat it like other wars – fight to win.) Keep that money separate. Deposit it in the coffers of what we might call the Scaling Bank of the U.S. and make these sums available to companies that will scale their American operations. Such a system would be a daily reminder that while pursuing our company goals, all of us in business have a responsibility to maintain the industrial base on which we depend and the society whose adaptability – and stability – we may have taken for granted.

Call it a heel-face turn…

[Le_Jacquelope]

@Wesley_Clark

Income inequality is becoming a severe global problem. Not only in the US (whose inequality is worse than many latin american nations) but China and India have problems too. Now that austerity is pushed in Europe it is becoming a global problem of nearly all developed and rapidly developing problems. If you ridicule people who care about that issue all you do is make their demands more radical. Right now leftists will likely settle for higher progressive taxes and more regulation. In the future they may demand revolution and mass confiscation.

Look for the “argumentum ad populum” copout in response to this.

These macroeconomic Einsteins are too tone-deaf to get it. (Yes, I’m using that phrase a lot… because it is so incredibly accurate.) The CIA warned that all this global unemployment was going to lead to unrest. No one listened. Now countries (or their leaderships) are falling like dominoes - the latest victim being the leader and ruling party of Ireland. It’s spreading Westward and into bigger societies than the Middle East. Even China is censoring the news to keep their powder keg from exploding.

Call me nuts (and I’m sure you will) but I’m actually giddy about this. Change is finally in the air. It’s later than the globalists realize. They’ve got their iPods on and they don’t hear the whistle of the karma bomb falling.

PS: I’m printing out your post and using it for computer screen wallpaper. Ok just kidding… but that was an awesome read.

[Wesley_Clark]

Your link doesn’t work.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_28/b4186048358596.htm
I’m no expert on the subject, but my understanding is the Chinese model of economics (gov involvement in the private market) is winning out over other markets. The gov of China is cornering the market on rare earth metals as an example. Or they can require companies doing R&D to share tech info with the gov. Either one gives them an advantage over markets which believe in a hands off free market approach.

While China is demanding companies share R&D secrets with the gov, in the US people who study STEM fields find the jobs are either non-existant or crappy temp jobs. over the long term that is going to put us at a disadvantage in innovation. So the US decline will likely continue.

[XT]

@Le Jacquelope

Even China is censoring the news to keep their powder keg from exploding.

EVEN China?? Gods…I’m howling here. So…even in China they are censoring the news these days, ehe?

-XT

[Paranoid_Randroid]

@Le_Jacquelope

Look for the “argumentum ad populum” copout in response to this.

Free of charge, here’s today’s lesson in avoiding fallacious reasoning: argumentum ad populum is the implication that a proposition is correct because it is widely believed. Merely stating that some populations are growing restless and may take action is not an example—so Wesley Clark has, happily, avoided the error of which you are guilty.

[XT]

@Wesley Clark

I’m no expert on the subject, but my understanding is the Chinese model of economics (gov involvement in the private market) is winning out over other markets.

And what do you base this incredible statement on??

The gov of China is cornering the market on rare earth metals as an example.

And probably slitting their own throats in the long run. Despite the name, rare earth metals are available in other countries (including the US)…it’s merely that they are costly in terms of initial capital and in terms of ecological damage to spin up. If China attempts to use this as a club over the rest of the world, however, they are in for a shock, as it will be a lesson in how market economics work. I doubt they will enjoy the lesson in the long run. YMMV, and perhaps the ‘Chinese model’ will indeed blow away the currently accepted economics and social models and they will become dominant. I wouldn’t hold my breath, but you are free to believe what you like.

Either one gives them an advantage over markets which believe in a hands off free market approach.

Well, I’m sure they believe this. And Le Jac believes this as well.

So the US decline will likely continue.

No doubt…

-XT

[Le_Jacquelope]

@Paranoid_Randroid

Free of charge, here’s today’s lesson in avoiding fallacious reasoning: argumentum ad populum is the implication that a proposition is correct because it is widely believed. Merely stating that some populations are growing restless and may take action is not an example—so Wesley Clark has, happily, avoided the error of which you are guilty.

My point was not whether his argument was argumentum ad populum. My point was that this fallacy has been repeatedly and irrelevantly invoked many times here. My point was never so much a popularity contest argument as much as it was a “it’s later than you realize” argument: that your point of view faces an extinction-level reckoning that threatens to wipe you right out of the arena of ideas.

I am no more guilty of argumentum ad populum than an Emperor Constantine-age Christian who might have seen the winds of change and said “Roman Pantheon worship is headed for extinction”. The problem - and it is not my problem at all - is that you do not realize the sun is setting for good on your ideology: globalism’s legacy has been set in stone and it has been judged lacking, not just by popular vote but by societal evolution itself.

Moreover, the whole concept of economic social Darwinism is doomed to eat itself.

[Voyager]

@John_Mace

Your homework assignment for this evening is to look up how many factories and workers Intel has overseas. Hint: It’s >> 0. You will get extra credit if you tell us when Intel built its first overseas factory. Hint: It’s >> 2 years ago.

There were overseas factories 15 years ago when I worked there. In fact, a guy from Malaysia transferred into my group to learn the processor - a temporary assignment which was getting longer and longer even before I left.

But this is misleading for two reasons. First, at that time only Israel had a fab. It also had a design center, and did some of the internally written EDA tools. The other overseas factories were lower value assembly and test factories. AT&T Microelectronics had one in Thailand 20 years ago.
Second, building a factory overseas during a period of growth is different from shutting down a factory here and moving it overseas.
Third, when I was at Intel (and Bell Labs) I never heard of any examples of hiring here stopped in order to hire overseas. That is exactly what is going on now.