Plasma clouds, microwave beams, electrified bullets—military contractors have been developing futuristic new combat technologies under the public radar. Already, the TASER stun gun has emerged from the pages of speculative fiction, and into the hands of military, corrections, and law enforcement personnel (See “Stunning Revelations,” November 2006). But stun technology is just one tool in the arsenal for developers of proposed… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (39)Page 1 of 1 pagesSo what technology would be acceptable to bleeding hearts? NERF batons. Squirt guns? Harsh language?
In a perfect world reason and logic would render technologies such as these a moot point. However the cracked out mental patients stalking our streets are immune to reason and logic.
Most if not all police departments require the officers who will carry TASER’s to be shocked by one. So of the thousands of officers who have received a TASER blast none have died or sustained any injury. Strange for such a “dangerous” weapon.
The common denominator of the around 167 suspects who have died following TASER use?
http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special43/articles/1224taserlist24-ON.html has the results of 50 autopsies.
of the 50 cases 30 were under the influence of illegal drugs. The remainder were mentally ill or pre existing health conditions. Three were cause unknown. One case was considered illegal and resulted in the jailer being charged with battery with a deadly weapon.
Posted by texasindependent on Jan 13, 2007 at 3:48 AM There are other options than “non-lethal” technologies. Dresden, for example.
The fascist empire died of lethal force.
The socialist empires died of corruption and inefficiency and sanity. They were not crazy enough to blow up the world for their absurd political and economic beliefs.
The Jihadists and their projected Caliphate are corrupt, inefficient, and insane. They are quite willing to blow up the world to further their religious vision of Allah’s will.The West can stop the Jihadists at little cost, just as it could have stopped Lenin in 1918, Hitler in 1938, and Mao in 1946, at little cost. When people like Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and the Jihadists are kind enough to describe in detail that they want to destroy you and your way of life, you are probably safe in believing them. And sooner or later, they must be stopped, or yielded to.
The strangest aspect of the Jihadist threat is it’s objective weakness. All the Jihadist technology is borrowed, or stolen. But the Jihadists have strength in their singleness of purpose, their intimidation of Muslim and non-Muslim populations, and the dying gasps of leftists who are unable to change history, and unwilling to accept history’s decrees, and therefore have allied themselves with the most self-destructive, unstable totalitarian philosophy of the last one hundred years, which has seen other, stronger totalitarian philosophies go down to defeat.
TASER the bastards, and be done with it.
Posted by scorp on Jan 13, 2007 at 8:45 PM Tex and Scorp,
“TASER the bastards, and be done with it.” Seems strange anyone could be opposed to this as a weapon of war being too severe. My skeptical view is if it became SOP it would embolden an enemy to think — A. He has little to lose and will still be able try again. B. He’s dealing with a wimpy bunch.
I guess I would admit it as preferable to nuking the whole bunch.
Since we still are unwilling to commit the numbers of troops needed to truly secure Iraq, I can see a danger of a nuclear escalation over there. If we are nuked in any way here (dirty bomb or whatever) we will see a national reunification borne of fear, to do whatever it takes.It took Pearl Harbor to commit to total war with a goal of unconditional surrender to overcome the pacifists and isolationists in WWll. We had downsized our military then (as Clinton did again) and were unable to launch an overwhelming deterrent to the Nazis and Imperial Japan, but in less than three years were turning out planes, tanks and all forms of weapons by the tens of thousands.
We no longer have this capability due to globalization/offshoring of our manufacturing. If faced with a great enough perception of annihilation — people will do anything.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 14, 2007 at 6:44 PM Sticking to the topic….. Less than lethal technology is the greatest leap forward in law enforcement in the past hundred years. Beanbag shells, sticky nets, TASER’s, Pepper Spray, Water Cannons, and now the new generation of Pulsed Energy Projectiles and Active Denial System. Lasers and Microwaves are the best leap forward to offer an alternative to simply shooting a suspect with a weapon.
The key word to understand is LESS THAN LETHAL. The technology is based on pain to incapacitate rather than kill. As with any technology death or injury is always a possibility. Considering the tens of thousands of suspects who have been arrested without incident using TASER’s and other LTL technology the 167 deaths are a statistical aberration.
Posted by texasindependent on Jan 14, 2007 at 8:14 PM WTH -
TASERing the bastards is not the object, but the means to the object.
The objects are to preserve Lebanese independence, to sever the shaky mutual admiration society between Persian Iran and Arab Syria, to stop the killing in Iraq and allow democracy to grow there, to allow the Palestinians to burn out their passion against each other rather than against Israel, to further development of democracy in the other Arab states, and to prevent Iran from developing nukes and thereby controlling the oil resources of the Middle East.
In this regard, Luttwak has a clarifying article in WSJ that brings vague observations into sharp focus.
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009521
We no longer have this capability (mass military hardware production) due to globalization/offshoring of our manufacturing.
WTH, knock this crap off. We manufacture more than we ever have, and we do it with fewer people. The stuff that is purchased offshore is low tech items such as textiles and household goods. We have the finest high tech manufacturing capability in the world, certainly including aviation, avionics, electronics, tanks and armored vehicles, and combat shipbuilding. No one comes close to our capability for quality and quantity in these areas. Relax.
Posted by scorp on Jan 14, 2007 at 8:20 PM Scorp,
Your reaction makes you sound like a part of the management class which is cashing in on options as the labor cuts boost the per share price. I argued for the last ten years before I retired with some of these guys who claimed it was so painful to let people go. They eased their own pain by voting each other great bonuses.
If our manufacturing capabilities were as good as you think they are we would be able to provide body armor and replacements for the HUMVEES, etc.
I live in what used to be the machine tool center of the U.S. I worked at and later was a supplier to an aviation/military parts mfg company from 1960 to 1998. Of over 30 manufacturing companies in 1952, two are still around (barely). All of these companies were involved in WWll war production.
When the experienced machinists were pushed into early retirement their apprentice programs dried up and now there are claims of a shortage. Part of the lack is due to the gap in training, but mostly it is that companies won’t pay what they once did. They are lobbying for increasing the number of work visas so they can keep payrolls low.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 14, 2007 at 10:41 PM WTH -
No options.
The excitement over the body armor and the vehicle armor lasted a few weeks, but when was the last time you heard anyone complain about this particular problem? Problems are for solving, and USA military logistics is extremely good, and getting better.
Regarding your concern about the machinists. I am from the oil patch. A shell-and-tube heat exchanger is a big metal cylinder with a large number of tubes running lengthwise or bent back upon themselves within the exchanger. Each tube passes through a tube sheet and is sealed to the tube sheet, which is a large, thick metal disk with multiple holes drilled in it for the tubes. The tube sheet acts as a seal between the cooling fluid and the cooled fluid.
At one time, a machinist and helper laid out the hole pattern for the tube sheets and individually drllled each hole. No more. Now the tube sheet blanks are mounted in a computer operated milling machine, and one operator/programmer controls several machines. The result is a faster, cheaper, more accurate product. You can certainly see the advantages of such a system. But you mistakenly believe that making products “faster, cheaper, and more accurate” necessitates a general loss of jobs.
We no longer have this capability (low-tech manufacturing) due to globalization/offshoring of our manufacturing.
Not exactly, and you put an entirely wrong interpretation on these simple facts. Two hundred years ago, over 90% of our population was engaged in agriculture; today the figure is closer to 3%. Where did all these farmers go? Did they lose their jobs and starve to death? Not quite. Our society has transformed itself from an agricultural base to low tech manufacturing and logistics to high tech manufacturing and logistics. There has been considerable individual disruption along the way, but well-being and prosperity have increased at an exponential rate.
We have a long-term trend toward high tech processes that raise productivity and earn profits that are invested in more and more high tech jobs. These high tech processes require high tech education, for those who are willing and able to indulge. As our technical capabilities increase, our low tech needs are increasingly met by low tech capabilities, such as India and China. You will note that both India and China, after decades of socialist stagnation, are growing rapidly, much to our advantage, and for an increasing prospect for peace in the world.
Check out the annual 2007 Index of Economic Freedom. Try to understand what the report says, and what the O’Grady article says, about rising incomes and economic freedom. Get an Econ 101 textbook and review it if you need to.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009529
There are several propagated untruths about our economy, which lead us into failure to understand and policy errors. These propagated untruths are the product of the left, and Krugman and the NYT are chief dispensers of these untruths:
>>> Globalization and trade hurt American workers. So, why is unemployment way down, and incomes at a record high?
>>> The poor are getting poorer. Not true. The poor are getting richer. The economic performance of all quintiles is consistently improving.
>>> The rich are getting richer. True, but this has a positive effect on everyone. Wealth generation is required for investment and growth in education, technology, and infrastructure. Socialist schemes to redistribute wealth invariably result in destroying wealth and wealth-generating capacity.
If you take time to understand the errors that the left is manufacturing for your consumption, you can avoid the foolishness of the leftist positions.
Posted by scorp on Jan 16, 2007 at 6:52 PM Scorp, over one third of US manufacturing capacity has disappeared since Bush 2 stole the 2000 Election. We manufacture LESS than we ever have and our huge trade deficit with China proves that. No ,the wealth is NOT filtering down as many conservative commentators like Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts have noted but the former disparity of 30 to 1 by bosses over workers has now gone to 400 or 500 to 1, astronomical levels not seen since the twenties. Most of the middle class believe that they are getting the shaft because they ARE getting the shaft and none of the bogus stats or phony arguments that you plagiarize directly from Rush Limbaugh can alter that fact. Yes, the poor are getting poorer and many middle class people are getting poorer. Incomes for most people are NOT at a record high and the actual unemployment rate is double the official because they do NOT count whose benefits have run out and people who have stopped looking for work. In the 50s a man could support with ONE income, now most people are struggling with TWO incomes and many more people are working longer hours and two jobs. Scorp, you need to open that bigoted little pea mind of yours and take an honest look at objective reality as my friend Rand used to say. Check your premises because they are all wrong. Until the 1880s corporations were public entities chartered by government for specific, time limited public purposes like railroads, canals, bridges, things too capital intensive for most businesses. Then the disastrous Supreme Court decision near the end of the 19th century, Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific RR which created the myth of crporate personhood, which is why scoundrels like the recent CEO who drove Home Depot down retire with 241 MILLION DOLLAR golden parachutea ! He certainly didn’t “earn” it, rather the opposite. See David Korten’s 1995 work When Coroprations Rule The World. For starters. That “Index of economic freedom” gives totalitarian states like Singapore the top ratings, a rather worthless guide, Scorp. Check out the Multinational Monitor and the Corporate Accountability Project. Limited liability means NONresponsibility and is a rather extreme statist intervention in favor of business which the Repugnicant buffoons like Scorp somehow never mention. The earlier historical analogies that Scorp mentions don’t hold because this is a much greater change, now even white collar jobs are being outsourced and there are some great books on this subject, go to amazon and punch in globalization & outsourcing. What is happening with these multilateral treaties is that the Swedens are being dumbdowned to the Spains and Mexico is now losing jobs to Bangladesh in a race to the bottom. This is fact, not any leftist insight. Ignore the panglossian rants of our deluded dittohead, Scorp, he’s never had an original thought in his life. Never.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 16, 2007 at 7:14 PM Texass, these tasers HAVE killed people, that’s the controversy and when they haven’t killed them they have often seriously injured them and they have been used on many people who have not committed violent crimes. If the death is yours or a close family member it is NOT a statistical aberration. WTH, yes it took the treason committed by FDR and George Marshall at Pearl Harbor to get us into the Back Door To War as the brilliant book of that name by Charles Callan Tansill demonstrated at tiresome length. Unconditional surrender was a policy we dropped towards the Japanese, our main enemy, let them keep the Emperor, etc. It was a disastrous policy in Europe which to the Soviet takeover of half of Germany and all of central Europe. The War Morons like you really believe if only we kill many more people the world will be just dandy. We were far better off under the isolationists than six decades of globaloney. And Scorp, Pat Buchanan demonstrated in The Great Betrayal that the US had high tariffs till the 1970s and these tariffs, NOT “free trade” is what created US prosperity. The GOP was staunchly pro-high tariff up to Reagan and when crunch time came Reagan abandoned the free trade mantra and imposed very high tariffs on imported steel and textiles. So much for “globalization.” NAFTA has not benefited MOST of the USA or MOST of Mexico. There are exceptions that prove the general rule. Scorp, you are a stupid loudmouth neoconman who doesn’t even know his own conservative and Republican history. I can understand someone like Nacho Texass whose of recent vintage but a native (?) I’m assuming your not Chinese like bro-in-law (oh, that was a touching story….......sniff, sniff.) The growth in China and India is distinctly not to the advantage of most US workers, now even computer & other professional jobs are being outsourced to both. India still has over a billion people in poverty as does China, both have around 1.3 billion people and in the case of China it is still very much ruled by a hostile Communist Party which is using the economic boom to finance a tremendous buildup in all areas including the miltary and they are making effective use of dual use technology. Krugman was a cheerleader for NAFTA but has wised up and has been devastating in his expose of the Reagan-Bush Voodoo Anti-Economics, first labeled as such by Bush Sr. Since the early 1970s per capita income relative to inflation has stagnated, the booms since then have been artificial Fed financed ones which invariably end in a bust. Krugman is right that there are serious structural problems. Tariffs and various governmental controls during the 20th century mitigated the always abrasive effects of globalization for most people. The winners here as Lewis Lapham recently noted in Harper’s are an increasingly smaller percentage of the US population. Except for utterly useless military equipment like tanks every one of the areas Scorp listed are now going overseas big time. Boeing just lost out to China. This is difference in principle from earlier capitalistic dislocations because we are going to end up being a nation of low paid service workers. Wal-Mart is our biggest industry and Manpower Temp Agency our biggest employer.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 16, 2007 at 7:35 PM Scorp, you need to immediately remove the panglossian rose-tinted shades because you are functioning at zero tunnel vision. If all you can do is recycle Rush’s handouts that he plagiarizes from big biz that is pretty pathetic and fooling no one anymore. Even a rightist dumbass like WTH knows that we are in very deep shit now. Many of the Index on Economic Freedom States that you mention are totalitarian fascist dictatorships like Singapore, Indonesia, etc. You will notice that all of those freedom states have a great deal more government intervention into their economies than even the USA. By the way, the NYTimes and Krugman are not leftists nor are the Clintons. They are all utterly pragmatic centrists. “Leftist” and “socialist” as used by Scorp are simply terms of abuse, they have no relation to the real world and no one that Scorp tags as leftist or socialist advocates nationalization & exclusive central planning. Many left libertarians like myself are concerned about the totalitarian & collectivist entities called corporations, a creature of the state. Scorp never deals with any points made against his position but merely comes back with some irrelevant bullshit about Russia in 1923. Scorp is simply a lowlife redbaiting troll sent by the Feds to disrupt any dissident boards with the lowest type of utterly moronic Reaganite anecdotes which invariably turn out to be false. He gets his behind kicked on every thread but then retreats and comes on a new one to throw some more crap to see if any of it will stick.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 17, 2007 at 1:32 AM Hardesty -
Scorp, over one third of US manufacturing capacity has disappeared since Bush 2 stole the 2000 Election. We manufacture LESS than we ever have and our huge trade deficit with China proves that.
It is not possible that you are so grossly mistaken so often, so you must be a habitual liar in pursuit of your “left libertarian” agenda, whatever that is. I fail to see how socialist dishonesty differs from left libertarian dishonesty.
The Bubba Bubble surplus peaked in 1999, and was in free-fall during the last fifteen months of the Clinton Administration. You don’t have to believe me, any federal surplus-deficit chart shows this clearly. Industrial production and capacity utilization started into free-fall in the middle of Clinton’s last year. Industrial capacity continued to build during this period because of the lead-time of capital construction. The markets, particularly the NASDAQ but also the DOW, were falling in Clinton’s last year.
Falling markets, falling production, and falling budget surplusus are a clear indication of economic instability and a coming recession, and it all happened on Clinton’s watch.
Your first lie above was that “over one third of US manufacturing capacity has disappeared”. This is not true. Capital investment slowed during the Clinton Recession, but there is no discernable loss of capacity during this period, and capacity is now increasing and is higher than it has ever been. (Graph 1, cite.)
Your second lie is that we “manufacture LESS than we ever have and our huge trade deficit with China proves that”. Ummm, no. We manufacture more than we ever have. (Graph 1, cite.) While our purchases in China are doing wonders for the Chinese economy, they are fairly small on the scale of the USA economy.
Your third lie will be that the Federal Reseve is lying and that you know better than the Federal Reserve the status of industrial capacity, production, and utilization. Just like you know better what the unemployment rate is, and the levels of income, despite all evidence to the contrary.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2006/ip06.pdf
Posted by scorp on Jan 17, 2007 at 2:59 AM I do know better than the Fed because everyone with half a brain knows that the unemployment rate is severely undercounted for the reasons that I listed yesterday. They don’t count people who have given up looking, they do count part-time employment which skewers the figures, they don’t count people whose unemployment benefits have run out and they do count the military which further dishonestly skewers the figures. Interesting that a self-proclaimed “conservative” would rely
on that most statist of institutions the political Federal Reserve System for his “figures.” The way Greenspan politiciized the Reserve for both Dems and Reps is notorious. Being called a “liar” by a world champion liar like you, Scorp, is like being called an adulterer by Liz Taylor. You gotta be kidding ! I KNOW the unemployment rate is AT LEAST double the government “official” figures and I KNOW that per capita income growth adjusted for inflation has been stagnant if not in decline
since 1973. I’ve already rebutted the Clinton depression theory, only the dotcom overhyped NASDAQ crashed in 2000, NOT 1999 and the rest of the economy prospered until the Bush Depression starting after he stole the Presidency in early 2001 and it went on until 2005.
BUSH WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT SINCE HERBERT HOOVER TO RESIDE OVER NO NET JOB GROWTH DURING HIS FIRST ADMINISTRATION. And, yes, Scorp, YOU know that too.
You’re third paragraph is an outright lie and you got it from Limbaugh’s broadcast yesterday ! I heard it too ! Falling markets and falling production came under BUSH TWO. Now you’re disingenuous remark about “falling budget surpluses” cracks me up ! At least Clinton had
surpluses ! Bush took five trillion in projected surpluses and turned it into five trillion of projected DEFICITS. Let’s see if little Scorp can figure this one out, Clinton-Surpluses, Bush-Deficits.
Yes, we DO manufacture much less than ever before in civilian products, fully 1/3rd of all manufacturing jobs have disappeared under BUSH TWO. ONE THIRD. And that has NOT been the result of automation. It has been a result of US jobs being outsourced overseas. There are any number of books that document this, get off you’re lazy ass on amazon for starters and you can find them. Our trade DEFICIT is the LARGEST ever in history and most of it is with China, so you’re imbecilic statement that China has not hurt the US worker is on a par with the rest of you’re pathetic Limbaughisms. The “wonders” of the Chinese economy is what is bankrupting the USA
without lifting over a BILLION Chinese out of poverty and the extra US cash Red China has now gives them control over the USA. They could shut us tomorrow if they withdrew their funds here, they are the ones subsidizing our multi-trillion dollar debt that BUSH TWO has created, you sick moron and the USA is BANKRUPT. I can refer you to a talk this summer by the Director of the Federal Reserve in St. Louis demonstrating that the USA is bankrupt, I’ll look it again and come back with the exact reference. Scorp, it’s always a pleasure to beat you’re stinky, lying ass and please give my best to bro-in-law, sniff, sniff, sniff. BTW, no one here has advocated “socialism” which is central planning and the nationalization of the means of production. So you take you’re totally and typically inaccurate “leftist” and “socialist” and put them straight up you’re stinky behind. Again, give my sniff, sniff, sniff to bro-in-law, I’m sure he’s not the only one in your sorry little family to see the inside of a lunatic asylum.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 17, 2007 at 5:40 PM Scorp,
“But you mistakenly believe that making products “faster, cheaper, and more accurate” necessitates a general loss of jobs.”
Those are the only true measures of “increased productivity” which is the only reasonable criteria for increasing anyone’s pay.
———————
“Two hundred years ago, over 90% of our population was engaged in agriculture; today the figure is closer to 3%. Where did all these farmers go? Did they lose their jobs and starve to death? Not quite. Our society has transformed itself from an agricultural base to low tech manufacturing and logistics to high tech manufacturing and logistics.”
But, it happened over a number of generations - now during one. The change took place within the U.S. borders, and involved a move to higher paying jobs, mostly at a time of an individual’s own choosing. My father and father-in-law did so. Today those jobs leave the U.S.“There has been considerable individual disruption along the way, but well-being and prosperity have increased at an exponential rate.”
Yes, but not for the U.S. middle class worker. It has been the management and shareholders who have reaped the biggest benefits. While some foreign workers have gained as well, many others have merely been exploited. If you want some examples read, “Who will tell the People?” (William Grieder, Simon & Schuster, 1993)—————————-
Government numbers are skewed to the upside, measurements are revised, data is excluded and through repetition absorbed as gospel.
The econ 101 text, like even the advanced ones are pre-globalization, written and taught by true believers. What you refer to as untruths “the product of the left” are experiences of the un-lobbied ordinary people.I regularly read WSJ, Weekly Standard, The Economist along with others and have read several books on the globalization process, both pro and con. I just finished “The World is Flat,” by Thomas L. Friedman, which like his “Lexus and the Olive Tree” makes globalization sound far less threatening than is my experience or conclusion.
(pg 21)
He makes wild sweeping statements based on hope and optimism not genuine evidence — With the collapse of the Cold War, Electric Boat company of New London, CT laid off workers and this situation as with those moving jobs to foreign labor, ”...ultimately helps New Londoners…even more than it helps the Bangalores and Shenzhens. It helps because it frees up people and capital to do different, more sophisticated work…”(Now the 50 something, former welders can all go on to something more sophisticated like….?) He doesn’t say.
(pg 227)
In questioning the current validity of David Ricardo’s Comparative Advantage theory, TF ultimately decides it still applies because, “...although jobs are often lost in bulk — to outsourcing or offshoring — by big individual companies…. new jobs are being created in fives, tens, and twenties by small companies that you can’t see. it often takes faith to believe (he has plenty) it is happening. But it is happening. If it were not, America’s unemployment rate would be much higher today than 5 percent.”Would that it were true.
——————————
Since the shift from manufacturing/globalization we have millions more people without health care,negative savings, a growing trade imbalance and as the middle class sinks lower the people already at the low end will face greater challenges than ever before.“The rich are getting richer. True, but this has a positive effect on everyone.”
Radiologists, accountants, architects (two of whom I know) and machinists as I mentioned before, are not seeing positive effects
———————————& —-
“If you take time to understand the errors that the left is manufacturing for your consumption, you can avoid the foolishness of the leftist positions.”I can send you a bibliography of what I have read over the past ten years, which presents tboth sides, if you indeed want to do so.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 17, 2007 at 8:58 PM WTH, thanks for your response to him but he’s a total braindead asshole. I’ve pointed out his errors with refs up the gazoo and he just keeps repeating the same mindless Limbaughite line.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 17, 2007 at 10:48 PM Blondemike,
This is not a smart/dumb issue. People will always be more apt to think of their own experience as the norm. I just happened to be among those who at the end of my working days got nailed. If I had been untouched I would be harder to convince. A bit of humility was acquired late in life.
It caused me to start spending my retirement savings about the same time the stock market tanked in 2000. My youngest son lost two jobs as a result of globalization and is still working at less than half what he made 12 years ago. Several of my friends had similar experiences across the country.
But other friends (intelligent individuals) who were unaffected often disagree with me when the topic comes up.Our city (pop. 150,000) was more adversely affected due to all the manufacturing — we lost around 11,000 jobs and many long time employers. But it’s not just here in the rust belt. Others I know live in California, Wisconsin and Connecticut and in a wide variety of occupations. Even my barber and dentist have felt the pinch — people go longer between visits.
We are in the midst of a massive economic change and lot even close to the end of it IMO.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 18, 2007 at 1:50 AM WTH, I’m not disputing your experience and in fact agree with much of what you say. I’m talking about the transparent intellectual dishonesty of Scorp. Every point he’s made here has been refuted with refs on several other threads. He never deals with the points made and just reiterates his arguable (to put it charitably) assertions. I appreciate your efforts here and it’s a great old American custom to set the public record straight. I’m merely warning you that it won’t in the least affect this guy nor prevent him from spewing out the same rebutted crap again here or on a new thread. I understand the value of personal experience and agree entirely with you about globalization. You bring it down to the micro level and that’s good. Scorp is arguing on the broad macro level and that is where I’ve been going after him. His pollyana panglossian assertions long ago rubbed me the wrong way. There’s a zillion loudmouth jerks like him on rightwing hate talk radio, they all have a right to their views but so do those of us who dissent from them. Here I believe we’re on the same wave length and our responses to Scorp are different enough not to be duplicative though in the end we come to the same conclusion. Again thanks.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 18, 2007 at 2:07 AM Hardesty -
Bankrupt? Gee, maybe we better go file for Chapter 11. Actually, countries do not go bankrupt in the way that individuals or companies do.
The only way a country could go bankrupt would be for the currency to collapse or for the currency to hyperinflate. I have followed left-wind doom-and-gloom pronouncements for a number of years. During this time there have been several cycles of collapse/hyperinflate paranoia, always by people on the far left, including your silly self. But the economy just keeps sailing along, punctuated by nasty little episodes like the Carter Catastrophe and the Bubba Bubble. Carter was ignorant of what to do about the economic problems he created and Clinton was oblivious to the economic and all the other problems he created, so don’t expect anything good from a Dimocrat. We were blessed to have Reagan and Bush come along and apply the proper corrective measures when they did. So, if we can keep the goddam Dimocrats out of power, there is no serious threat to the economy.
For all your weird pronouncements on unemployment, industrial capacity, and the economy, we can be assured that the American economy is in good shape because NO ONE this side of Michael Moron shares your silly outlook. Unemployment, inflation, interest rates, and productivity are all well within a moderate and favorable range. If there was any problem with the economy, the markets would pick up on the trouble and react, and this is simply not happening.
For a similar example, the Iraqi dinar has increase in value by over 12% in the last thirteen weeks, after being stagnant for months. What do you suppose the Iraqis know that the dumbasses on the left do not know? Well, lots, actually, but even you may discern that your socialist wet dreams do not conform with reality. Therefore, you have to lie about it.
You have often accused me of listening to Limbaugh, but you were lying, as always. Now you say you listen to Limbaugh? Ver-r-r-ry interesting, as the little German used to say. I’m sure old Rush appreciates the boost to his ratings.
One cannot learn anything at all about the economy, or bankruptcy, or unemployment, or industrial capacity, or productivity, or income from a lying leftist, such as your silly self, because, for a leftist, facts are subordinate to, and in service to, socialist ideology. You brag about “refuting” all my points, but you are just substituting your leftist ideology for BLS and Census Bureau data. Naturally, you think that your arguments are superior to actual data. Which makes rational conversation with a leftist impossible, and only worthwhile for the entertainment value. So, keep up the good work.
Posted by scorp on Jan 18, 2007 at 3:42 AM WTH –
I can sympathize with your individual circumstance, but the solution is not to close down trade. We did that (along with raising taxes) early in the Great Depression, and the results were horrendous.
I am guessing that you live in Ohio, or nearby. But not all states are in the rust belt, and some of the states are doing quite well. The states doing best are known as Red States, in contemporary political parlance, and you are living in a Blue State. During the 2006 election, there were a number of comparisons made between Red and Blue States. Blue States tended to be Dimocratic, high tax, and secular, with decreasing populations. Red States were more Republican, low tax, and religious, with increasing populations.
The Pacific Research Institute has a study out for some time comparing the states and the policies of individual states that affect the economic status of that state and its citizens. Categories that are ranked for each state include Fiscal, Regulatory, Judicial, Government Size, and Welfare Spending. As you might expect, states that do not interfere with individual freedom do much better than states that do interfere with individual freedom. That is, Red States residents have better jobs, incomes, and opportunities than do Blue State residents. Or to put it another way, (Blue) states that follow socialist policies get lousy results. But we already know this from world-wide experience.
http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/entrep/2004/econ_freedom/Econ_Index200 04.pdf
You are concerned with your economic status, and that of your friends and family. I notice that you particularly mentioned friends in California, Minnesota, and Connecticutt – Blue States all. I have previously noted that you, Cab Driver, and Hardesty live in Blue States and complain loudly about your situations, while apparently oblivious to the socialist factors that created the situation in your respective states, and while being entirely supportive of those socialist factors that are making you so unhappy. What do you want me to do about it?
I wish you luck, and think you ought to move to a Red State.
Posted by scorp on Jan 18, 2007 at 5:08 AM Scorp,
“...the solution is not to close down trade.”
I have never proposed this. What I do propose is spelled out in the Bill of Rights — concern for the general welfare and posterity — OUR own citizens, OUR kids, yours and mine, OUR national future.The problem is greed which ignores inequities (protections) which have been adopted over decades and are now preventing domestic producers from competing but not preventing traitorous expatriate business/political practices.
———————————& ——————————— 8212;——————————̵ 12;———“The Pacific Research Institute has a study out for some time comparing the states and the policies of individual states that affect the economic status of that state and its citizens.”
The problems are not due to any state policies. They are not limited to either political party. They are not new.
I first observed them starting in the mid 1980s when a fastener manufacturer client of mine stopped producing standards (ordinary screws and bolts, etc.) here and began shopping the cheapest Asian suppliers. They were able to turn them out at a fraction (comparative advantage) of our cost. It didn’t matter they were dumping plating solution into a rice paddy while we were restricted by OSHA — big bucks out weighed national loyalty or human concerns.
NAFTA (a Bush41/Clinton joint venture) was IMO the official sanctioning of globalization/internationalization and the first garage sale of U.S. jobs, hope and the American Dream.
———————————& ——————————— 8212;——————————̵ 12;———“If there was any problem with the economy, the markets would pick up on the trouble and react, and this is simply not happening.”
I see you using the same approach as Thomas Friedman (pg 227) “...If (the economy were in trouble), America’s unemployment rate would be much higher today than 5 percent.”
Don’t put too much faith in those data — you may regret it.
The signs are there.
• Take a look at the price of gold.
• Ever wonder why long term Treasury Bonds dropped back from 5 percent last year? Why the curve is inverted?• Have you noticed the value of the dollar lately?
• Are you aware of the record personal bankruptcies?
• Do you know individual Americans have a negative personal savings for the first time since the Great depression?
If your savings and retirement plans are in mutual funds or stocks — watch out! It won’t be announced on CNBC until after it is too late. It is even more dangerous if it is a gradual evaporation rather than a Black Tuesday or Black Friday.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 18, 2007 at 3:34 PM They do go bankrupt though. It takes longer because they can print money and they have a legal monopoly on the use of force. The Paciific Research Institute here in San Francisco is a rightwing, corporate funded think tank. Their studies have to be taken with a whole shaker of salt because they tend to “document” to dovetail with their pre-agreed on ideological conclusions. In a sense the whole debate on the left-right axis is now sterile. Each side reads to reinforce their prejudices.
Red states overall income level is much lower than Blue states. The South still leads in the number of poor states and the Mountain states are behind in terms of income and education with the Blue states, only Colorado excepted which is going from red to blue. In Georgia Atlanta is blue while its suburbs are mostly red. In fact every blue state has red zones and every red state has blue zones. But if the US as a whole goes down financially being in a red state won’t save you. There are no socialist factors or socialist governments in either red or blue states and the overall US economic condition is more dictated by Federal policies than state ones. One state may have more regulation of business than another but those states also have higher educational levels and more prosperous businesses. Much of the job growth in the red states is in lower paying service jobs.
WTH, my wife is in the market so I hope you’re wrong here. I never trusted the stock market but maybe I’m too conservative financially.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 18, 2007 at 6:14 PM WTH –
“...the solution is not to close down trade.”
I have never proposed this. What I do propose is spelled out in the Bill of Rights — concern for the general welfare and posterity — OUR own citizens, OUR kids, yours and mine, OUR national future.
I don’t see my children’s futures or our citizens’ futures in producing low tech stuff that some Asian or Mexican can produce more cheaply.
The problems are not due to any state policies.
Did you actually take time to read and understand the PRI data? Some states have higher tax rates than other states. The people in low tax states are more prosperous than people in high tax states. Some states have higher regulatory burdens than other states. The people in low regulatory burden states are more prosperous than people in high regulatory burden states. Some states have a higher percentage of state employees than other states. The people in low percentage of state employees states are more prosperous than people in higher percentage of state employee states. Some states have higher judicially restrictive policies than other states. The people in low judicially restrictive policy states are more prosperous than people in high judicially restrictive policy states. So, what makes you think that the “problems are not due to any state policies”?
Quite beyond the fractional greater prosperity of states with less socialistic policies, states that are free of socialist restrictions are more entrepreneurial, and have more money to finance entrepreneurial ventures, which are a major source of new jobs. These new jobs are high tech (Microsoft and other computer and internet companies, for example). Many of our best jobs did not exist twenty or thirty years ago, and were invented by American entrepreneurs.
Take a look at the price of gold.
The price of gold goes up and down, just like other commodities. So what?
Have you noticed the value of the dollar lately?
The value of the dollar is down. This is partly in response to the balance of payment “problem”, which is the source of many complaints on these pages. The effect of a lower dollar will be to raise the price of foreign goods, and lower the price of American goods in foreign markets. This will inevitably move to redress the effects of globalization that you complain about. You can’t have it both ways.
Do you know individual Americans have a negative personal savings for the first time since the Great depression?
Everybody, everywhere, puts their assets where they think they will do the most good. While Americans’ savings are low, more than half of all Americans are invested, and these investments are booming, and have a much greater rate of return than savings accounts. The Chinese keep their assets in American cash and American treasury notes for the same reason; this is the safest and best return they think they can get. Everybody benefits. So what? As the situation changes (the situation always changes) the investment mix will change. I know you are looking forward to a big financial calamity, but the closest we came to such a state was the Carter Catastrophe and the Bubba Bubble, and we recovered handily from both, unfortunately with a few million people out of work and a sizeable chunk of lost production. The Dimocrats will do that to you every time.
WTH, you have invested a major amount of time and effort in reading and understanding the recent economic past of America. You might have done better to invest in your own future. But don’t let me or anyone tell you how to spend you assets. Put your assets where you think they will do the most good.
Posted by scorp on Jan 18, 2007 at 7:39 PM There was no Carter “catastrophe” a recession yes, which lengthened into a three year Reagan Depression. Ergo for Clinton, a brief NASDAQ bubble burst because dotcom overvaluation which lengthened into a four Bush Depression AS THE FIRST PRESIDENT SINCE HERBERT HOOVER WITH NO NET JOB GROWTH DURING HIS FIRST TERM. Most Americans are NOT heavily invested but lightly invested and many Americans lost a total of three trillion in assets during Bush 2’s stock
market & depression crash. Who are you trying to kid with that Limbaugh Lite Pollyanna bullshit ????????????? The Chinese only keep here until they think the eurodollar is better as Venezuela is doing now. The dollar also gone way down under Bush 2. Do you ever even look
at a newspaper, even the WSJ in the NONeditorial pages are quite good. Excuse me, Scorp, but ALL the East Asian Tiger States plus China have MUCH MORE STATE INTERVENTION IN THE ECONOMY than even we do and we have quite a bit. Read Alice Amsden’s work on South Korea, a centrally planned state capitalist economy that forbade South Korean companies from divestment under penalty of death. The people in low state taxes are NOT more prosperous than people in high tax so-called blue states. The South, which is 90% of the so-called red states, have far lower per capita average income and educational levels than the high tax bluev states. Most of those jobs invented here are now being shipped abroad, see Lou Dobbs, conservative commentator on CNN. See Kevin Phillips, a longtime conservative author. The Census Bureau will confirm the stats on blue and red states incomes. Nice of you to offer WTH advice but I don’t think he needs yours. You do not have an especially good track record.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 18, 2007 at 8:52 PM Scorp,
I remember the Carter years very well.
I had been investing for some time already and in the 60s there was a period called “Go-Go” investing. The “experts” were super confident, but looking at the near term only, stocks being bought and sold without much supporting data and the U.S. thinking we could support a major military expense and still do business as usual. Then came the 70s Nixon’s price freezes and then — Carter’s double digit rates.It was very much like I see now. In 1969, Warren Buffett liquidated his fund and got out — since my money was in a mutual fund under the Keogh plan, I had no option to do so — it was stagnant until 1983 when the law changed and I was allowed to manage on my own.
“I don’t see my children’s futures or our citizens’ futures in producing low tech stuff that some Asian or Mexican can produce more cheaply.”
You’re living in 1993, when the pitch was “only the low-end jobs would be lost” with NAFTA.
It has virtually nothing to do with state tax rates. I’m talking about our life style meeting that of the emerging markets at some unknown level. The white collar jobs are leaving for India. There are many books and articles which confirm this. You seem unaware of this phenominom — where have you been?
“I know you are looking forward to a big financial calamity, but the closest we came to such a state was the Carter Catastrophe and the Bubba Bubble, and we recovered handily from both, unfortunately with a few million people out of work and a sizeable chunk of lost production. The Dimocrats will do that to you every time.”
OK, go ahead and comfort yourself with the idea this is a single political party responsibility. Ignore the fact that the policies of both have had the congressional backing under first the Democrats and then under the Republicans. However, what is likely to happen is not the result of ten or twenty years — you are thinking short term like the CNBC pundits.
“You might have done better to invest in your own future. But don’t let me or anyone tell you how to spend you assets. Put your assets where you think they will do the most good.”I already have.
P.S. In case you are interested you can see the ups and downs of gold for the past five years and ten year near the bottom right of this website:http://www.kitco.com/
Pay particular attention to what has happened to it since the collapse of the dotcoms in 2000. Mr. Market knows what is going on.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 18, 2007 at 10:05 PM WTH, again we’re all in you’re debt here for you’re perceptive comments. At least you are correcting the record. Thanks.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 18, 2007 at 10:45 PM WTH –
… in the 60s there was a period called “Go-Go” investing. The “experts” were super confident, but looking at the near term only, stocks being bought and sold without much supporting data …
And then the bubble burst. The economic stagnation after the 1960s lasted seventeen years into the 1980s. The economic climate changed for the better in the 1980s because President Reagan changed it.
Well, yes, that is what happened in the 1960s. The same thing happened in the 1920, and then the bubble burst. The Roaring Twenties were followed by the Great Depression, which lasted about ten years, and nobody knew what to do about it. Not only did they not know what to do about it, they tried to protect Americans by raising taxes and shutting off trade (the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs). We now know that raising taxes and creating trade barriers made the Depression worse, and prolonged it. WWII came along and brought us out of the Great Depression.
The same thing happened in Japan in the 1980s. The NIKKEI went to 36,000, and the Japanese were “super confident” that good times would last forever. And then the bubble burst, and Japan went into a fifteen-year period of stagnation and recession. PM Koizumi changed the economic climate in Japan, and Japan is finally now recovering from the 1991 collapse of the Japanese bubble.
Are we starting to see a pattern here?The United States suffered another bubble in the 1990s, when the markets went sky-high and NASDAQ stocks were “bought and sold without much supporting data”. In Clinton’s last two years the rising surplus became the falling surplus, the NASDAQ lost 50% of its value, and the DOW peaked and headed south. From what we know of the Great Depression, the Carter Catastrophe, and the Japanese Crash, what do you suppose was going to happen next?
Well, yes, we had the predictable recession that followed the bursting of the Bubba Bubble. BUT, this recession was short, less than two years, and unemployment only got to about 6.1%, which at one time was considered normal. How did we succeed in limiting the damage, as compared to the Great Depression, the Carter Catastrophe, and the Japanese Crash? We knew from experience that we had to supply investment capital to get business and jobs moving again. This investment capital could only come from tax cuts and low interest rates. The economic climate changed for the better in the early 2000s because President Bush changed it.
Now you are assuming (hoping for?) another crash, but crashes are infrequent things; having been burned, it takes a generation or two for ignorance to reestablish itself among the general population. There is nothing in the current economy that looks like a bubble. Growth, returns, employment, and productivity are at healthy levels.
The American economy has a tremendous potential for growth if we can keep the politicians from screwing it up. But already the Dimocrats are talking about new tax increases. You may not see any difference between Dimocrats and Republicans, but you need to look more closely, or you will learn the hard way. Again.
And only a little dumbshit like Hardesty thinks that bubbles are good, and have no consequences.
Posted by scorp on Jan 19, 2007 at 3:40 AM Scorp, who are you trying to kid with your falsified history ? “17 years” ! ? The 1973 recession lasted till 1976, GOP Administration. The Carter recession DIDN’T START TILL 1979, 1979-1980. Math computes this as FIVE YEARS, NOT SEVENTEEN. Then the first three years of Reagan’s term we were in the WORST DEPRESSION since the 1930s. Reagan did curtail inflation finally by 1984 by the old fashioned method of a depression. Then in Reagan’s last year 1988 the bubble burst again and a recession started which turned into the Bush 1 Depression of late 1990-early 1993. There was double digit unemployment here in California, Alabama, Michigan and Pennsylvania and possibly in other states too. Crashes are not infrequent things, in fact under Reagan we had the major Black Monday Stock Market Crash in October, 1987. Market went down over 500 points, the worst drop ever since the Great Depression and it was YEARS rebounding. Spare us your Rush Limbaugh Faked GOP Shit smells Chanel No. 5 line, no one is buying it.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 19, 2007 at 5:14 PM Scorp,
“The American economy has a tremendous potential for growth if we can keep the politicians from screwing it up.”
I see this as the primary issue and reason for approaching danger.
Politicians (of any party) want what?1. To be reelected — for that they need campaign contributions — from?
2. Big corporations — CEOs
CEOs want what?
1. To make money — they and their boardroom buddies vote stock options for each other
2. Want shares to rise and boost shares by cutting payroll
3. Legislation which allows them tax breaks on overseas earnings (The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004)
4. Lobbyists with knowledge and clout working for them (where the voted-out go to pasture)The stock market is a short term issue, We are in the midst of a world-changing event like never before — faster and more sweeping.
Recessions, bubbles, tax breaks are short term events and financial tactics — what’s happening is a macro change which, unless we figure how to control, will destroy 230 years of national progress.
————————“Growth, returns, employment, and productivity are at healthy levels.” — We can argue about this if you prefer, but we have totally different degrees of acceptance where these data are concerned. Just because this is repeatedly reported doesn’t make it accurate.
He’s one you can easily check — CNBC and nearly every other financial reporter is claiming “DOW makes new high!” Go back to the market drop of 2000, then figure inflation (I know officially it’s been low, but most of us old guys can’t exclude food and energy for more than a few hours.)
Calculate what was lost in retirement funds and what was lost without the compounding of that capital. Even people managing their own money who followed conventional wisdom “Don’t sell a mutual fund when it drops — dollar cost averaging will work it out for you.” got a big hit.
In no way have the losses of 2000, DOW or many mutual funds been recouped. The DOW (adjusted) needs to cross the 13,000 mark to reach the 2000 top.
I was in three mutual funds (large cap, medium cap and small cap) which lost 30 percent from Sep, 2000 to Jan 2001 and are just now slightly above where I sold in Jan. They dropped another 20 percent after I jumped out (against my broker’s advice).
You said, “I don’t see my children’s futures or our citizens’ futures in producing low tech stuff that some Asian or Mexican can produce more cheaply.” and seem to think high tech will keep us just fine.
There are some advantages low tech has over high tech.
Anyone starting a business should consider what cost protection is inherent. Low tech typically takes a lot of startup capital, for land, buildings, equipment and employees.
Since our city has lost so much heavy manufacturing our big new push is into nano manufacturing. We have received federal funds and some brilliant engineers have begun a new venture. It has been billed as a “factory in a shoe box” and can make a gear the size of Lincoln’s nose on the penny.
Marvelous and amazing!But…
What is there to prevent anyone in any country from doing the same? Why won’t they?
The “old” new tech — In 1993 I was forced to add memory to my computer at a cost of $45.50/MB. In 2003 I again needed to upgrade and it cost only $0.26/MB. This morning I checked and can buy it for $0.20/MB.
But who needs to anymore? My first Mac came with 2MB the new iMac starts with 512MB and for $200 more you get 1GB. My first Mac cost over $3,000 — now $919.
“Are we starting to see a pattern here?” to coin a phrase.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 19, 2007 at 6:14 PM WTH -
Recessions, bubbles, tax breaks are short term events and financial tactics — what’s happening is a macro change which, unless we figure how to control, will destroy 230 years of national progress.
The Dutch Tulip Bubble crashed in 1637, nearly 400 years ago. The Mississippi Bubble crashed in 1721. Recessions and tax breaks certainly go back much further. There is something new under the sun, but not the things that concern you so greatly. I fail utterly to see how doing things better and faster threatens “national progress”. The Soviet Union died of corruption and inefficiency. There are some things I do not like about our political process, but we have the least corrupt, least inefficint system ever seen. And still you complain.
For any given economic circumstance, there is an optimum course of action. The object of such a course of action should be to enhance employment and productivity. Raising employment and productivity absolutely requires investment capital, including education, infrastructure, fixed assets, software, hardware, and cash. The optimum course of action may be counterintuitive. During the Great Depression, business fell off, and government tax receipts fell. Obviouly, the government thought it needed more tax receipts to deal with all the problems, but raising taxes further strangled business activity, and raising taxes resulted in lower tax receipts. And the Great Depression went on, and on, and on. Unlike the Carter Catastrophe and the Bubba Bubble Crash.
We have come to understand the way our economy works much better than we did just a few years ago. We now know that President Johnson’s failure to pay for the Vietnam War and the Great Society led to seventeen years of economic stagnation, beginning with the “Go-Go” investments of the 1960s you previously referred to. This would have been a good time to raise taxes, or better, spend less. But we also know that Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush 43 lowered taxes to good effect, and that tax receipts rose as tax rates fell. Now the Dimocrats are back in Congress, and they are having wet dreams about all the taxes they can raise. And this is a genuine threat to our economy and to our “national progress”.
Are you seriously complaining that prices for computing power are going seriouly down? Are you really worried that “anyone in any country” has access to technology? No wonder you have such a negative outlook on everything.
Suppose we were having this argument twenty years ago. Could you pay for all the reference material you now access daily at virtually no cost? At that time did you have access to a library that had this material available? If you were lucky enough to have such a library, you probably had to drive there at some expense and with some time lost. Now you just crank up the computer in your own room, and you are in business.
Your productivity in debating your postion has been greatly enhanced even as the cost of your computing power has been falling like a rock. Other people use their computers to raise their productivity in more commercial-type activities.
Some people use their assets, including computing power, to make their lives better. Other people use their computing power to complain about their lives, and speculate about the boogey men that are out to get them.
Posted by scorp on Jan 20, 2007 at 7:03 AM Scorp,
Take a look at your own comments:
• I fail utterly to see how doing things better and faster threatens “national progress”.
• The object of such a course of action should be to enhance employment and productivity.
• ....but raising taxes further strangled business activity, and raising taxes resulted in lower tax receipts.
• Are you seriously complaining that prices for computing power are going seriously down? Are you really worried that “anyone in any country” has access to technology? No wonder you have such a negative outlook on everything.
• Could you pay for all the reference material you now access daily at virtually no cost?Your arguments are for something other than what I am saying. I have NEVER said I am opposed to doing things better, faster or enhancing employment and productivity. In fact I said earlier, “Those are the only true measures of “increased productivity” which is the only reasonable criteria for increasing anyone’s pay.”
I have NEVER advocated increasing taxes.
My alluding to computer prices falling and “anyone in any country” having access to technology is to point to the vulnerability of our economic condition and how it IS already affecting us.
Try to think about this objectively:
• With well-paying manufacturing jobs rapidly transferring to foreign countries our people in their prime earning years (and prime expense years) are losing ground.
• The switch to the “new tech” a century ago took place primarily within nations. It was labor intensive and yet, workers actually began to earn more.
• The current new tech move is to more automated jobs. There are far fewer positions to fill. Only a few of those pay well.
• People by the millions have been forced into jobs for which they are overqualified. They are being forced to pay for benefits which once were provided.
• The new tech is accessible worldwide. Some old style products are being counterfeited — LEVIS, New Balance shoes, Rolex watches — but the real difference is this — since anyone can do it, and it is rapidly lowering its price.
——————————— ;—————————
“Some people use their assets, including computing power, to make their lives better.”My assets have bought eleven computers, 3 scanners,7 printers (laser and ink-jet), 3 digital cameras, 3 CD burners, a dozen or more back-up storage devices and a score of software upgrades since July 1990.
Life is NOT better —it is different.
I was forced to make the switch to digital or go out of business. A comparison after switching to new tech I found myself working 27.3 percent more unbillable hours. (fixing glitches, learning upgrades, teaching clients)
My costs went up by nearly 20 percent and my customers — feeling the squeeze of globalization — kept pressing for lower prices.
A single person business is very easy to measure, but this is a microcosm of what has happened to manufacturing and now many service jobs in the U.S. Europe is beginning to realize the same thing. Mexico is apprehensive their jobs will shift to Asia.
With your appreciation of the ease in acquiring information, you might consider that ...
...information is not synonymous with knowledge,
...data is not an end in itself,
...not everything in a library is necessarily true
...increased productivity does not necessarily bring happinessIf an economy cannot sustain a society, what is likely to happen?
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 20, 2007 at 4:36 PM WTH -
Well, I certainly addressed your stated concerns. Now you say that this was not what you are talking about?
My alluding to computer prices falling and “anyone in any country” having access to technology is to point to the vulnerability of our economic condition and how it IS already affecting us.
Naah. Our productivity is making us invulnerable. The Chinese need our dollars to stabilize and improve their economy. Now, how would our “economic condition” be affected if we kept 1.3 billion Chinese and 1.3 billion Muslims in poverty, poor, undernourished, and unhappy, while raising prices for everything we buy? There are lots of things worse than prosperity.
I think this is your real concern:
With well-paying manufacturing jobs rapidly transferring to foreign countries our people in their prime earning years (and prime expense years) are losing ground.
This could be a real concern for a Blue State resident, over taxed, over regulated, over lawyered, and over seen by a big state government. Fortunately, it is not true for most people. This is my statement to Loony Booty on another thread:
You do not say so directly, but you seem to have bought into the left-wind fiction that the poor are getting poorer. That is nonsense, of course. Paul Krugman perpetrates and perpetuates this fiction. All five quintiles of adjusted income improve over time, and an arbitrarily defined middle-class and under-class are both growing smaller as the number and conditions of the better off continue to grow and improve. We are working our way out of poverty, just as China and India are doing. We are just doing it much more rapidly than anyone else. Now if we could just get Congress to use the SS surplus for personal investments, everyone could retire early in comfort.
http://www.madison.com/post/forum/viewtopic.php?p=159235&sid=cd90c598f95a ae64fe48a859bc76d201b
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=121306A
Income and Wealth, by economist Alan Reynolds
You are projecting your individual circumstance onto the nation at large, and big chunks of the left media are glad to capitalize on your fears. I am amazed that so many people allow themselves to be manipulated by the agenda-driven, nonsensical drivel of the NYT.
Bad news sells, and there is no shortage of manufacturing capacity for bad news.
Posted by scorp on Jan 20, 2007 at 6:58 PM Dream on, Scorp
I predict:
• The dollar will continue its downward movement, inflation will come on big time, (especially if oil valued in Euros) and U.S. bonds will lose their allure to foreign lenders. (They won’t dump them — suicidal) They will just quit buying them.
• Gold will continue upward to a new record within five years.
• The congress will not make any substantive trade policy changes, but the Democrats will get continued pressure for welfare to the unemployed and underemployed and will act on it, if not in this session, after they retake the White House in 2008.
• When enough white collar jobs evaporate, the Democratic our dominated government will begin “tough talk” about foreign imports/tariffs, but pacify people with universal health care and a boost in the Social Security cut-off point on wages.
Since you work in the “oil patch” and are probably invested there you will do OK. — China will need a lot more.
When this happens you will get tax increases in a big way — red or blue it’s all one giant mess.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 20, 2007 at 11:38 PM CORRECTION (The edit won’t work with my OS.)
• When enough white collar jobs evaporate, our Democratic dominated government will begin “tough talk” about foreign imports/tariffs. They won’t change policy, but will pacify people with universal health care and a boost in the Social Security cut-off point on wages.
————————-
P.S.
As you said,“You are projecting your individual circumstance onto the nation at large, and big chunks of the left media are glad to capitalize on your fears. I am amazed that so many people allow themselves to be manipulated by the agenda-driven, nonsensical drivel of the NYT.”
To paraphrase:
Perhaps YOU are projecting your individual experience. You are in sync with the majority of the media who simply parrot what is said by all who stand to benefit from perpetually painting a rosy picture… • brokers and fund managers • economists • politicians • bureaucrats • management gurus, like Jack Welsh, and any of the above who have a book to sell, like Thomas L. Friedman.I am not amazed.
“No one in this world, so far as I know, has ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of plain people.” H.L.Menchen, 1926
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 21, 2007 at 2:19 PM WTH -
Sheesh! You are taking counsel of you fears, and your fears won. You are a glutton for punishment.
If the Dimocrats succeed in electing a hard leftist (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Gore) to the White House in 2008, some of your predictions could not only come true, it could be much worse than you can imagine in your fondest dreams.
The most problematic of your predictions are the ones concerning the price of gold and interest rates. Interest rates, the price of gold, and the price of oil sometimes move in tandem, but we have made major progress in solving the riddle of economic movements in the last few years. IF we apply what we know, we can substantially reduce wild economic gyrations. But the Dimocrats are already talking about new taxes at a time of improving economic conditions, rising tax receipts, and a falling deficit. Raising taxes right now will certainly reduce the available funds for capital investment, and will restrict investment, profits, tax receipts, and employment.
During and just after the Carter administration, gold, oil, and interest rates moved in tandem to a very high point, but the stagnation and economic imbalances had been there for many years, dating back to the Go-Go economy of the Kennedy-Johnson years. The only Middle East war threat at this time was the Iraq-Iran conflict, which arose about the time that interest rates/gold/oil started to fall, and which did not contribute much to the maintenance of oil/gold prices.
The recent rise and fall of gold and oil was not driven by interest rates, but was driven initially by the American movement into Iraq. Then commodity funds got into oil and gold in a big way, and artificially drove both commodities higher than they would otherwise have risen. Some of the speculators got burned when the gold and oil prices went down about six months ago. Big speculative bubbles are infrequent events, and it will be a couple of decades before a new generation of fools tries to beat the markets in oil and gold.
Sa’udi Arabia owns all the readily available excess oil capacity in in the world, about three million bbl/day, and they are now moving aggressively to increase that excess capacity. Oil is the Sa’udis’ only weapon, and they will use it to their own best advantage, which sometimes corresponds to American requirements, and sometimes not. The al-Sa’uds’ basic long-term requirement of their oil resources is to keep the price of oil high, but not high enough to attract alternative fuels that would limit the need for Sa’udi oil, meaning somewhere south of $50/bbl.
Politically, the Sa’udis defend the Kingdom with oil, just now against the Iranians. The Irani oil infrastructure is in poor condition, and oil represents by far the largest sector of the Irani economy. The Sunni Sa’udis do not want the Shi’ite Iranis to take over the Middle East, which is the object of the Irani nuclear and missile projects, so the Sa’udis are now cranking up their oil production to lower prices and to impoverish the Iranis, who are not doing very well to begin with, economically speaking.
Lowering world oil prices has advantages and disadvantages, depending on where you stand. Russia has just nationalized great chunks of their oil industry, thereby cutting themselves off from foreign investment for the foreseeable future, just when high oil prices had allowed Russia to start being more assertive in world affairs: increased strategic military capability, increased military R&D for domestic use and foreign sales, increased energy pressure on former Soviet colonies and on Western Europe, for examples. Lower oil prices will certainly restrict Russian income, just at the time they cut themselves off from foreign investment and just when they were making big spending commitments on their economy and their military.
Like Russia, Venezuela has been making big plans for their oil revenues, just as that revenue has started falling like a rock. Venezuela has nationalized much of its oil and industry, so there won’t be any new foreign investment. Venezuela is not maintaining its oil facilities and production is down sharply, hindered by the wholesale replacement of petro technocrats with socialist bureaucrats to run their oil company, PDVSA. Chavez spent billions of dollars on undermining other Latin American countries, on Russian weapons, and on buying Argentine debt after Argentian defaulted on its World Bank obligations. So, how is Chavez going to pay for his adventures now?
On the other side of the coin, the recent high oil prices were a restraint on the American economy, acting just as high interest rates would act. So falling oil prices will substantially improve our economic position. We could help ourselves, with or without alternate fuels, by utilizing oil and gas resources offshore and in Alaska, but the Dimocrats don’t want to do that; whatever are the Dimocrats thinking?
If the Dimocrats succeed in raising tax rates and restricting trade, you may well see rising interest rates, inflation, and other calalmities. This will be a deliberate failure to do what we know works best in the economy.
Perhaps YOU are projecting your individual experience. You are in sync with the majority of the media who simply parrot what is said by all who stand to benefit from perpetually painting a rosy picture… * brokers and fund managers * economists * politicians * bureaucrats * management gurus, like Jack Welsh, and any of the above who have a book to sell, like Thomas L. Friedman.
We are discussing two entirely different media groups here, and I am “in sync” only with the professionals who know their business. If the economists’ concensus is that unemployment is down and things are going well, and the journalists’ concensus is that the economy is doing poorly, whom do you believe? You can read the NYT cover to cover and not realize that the unemployment rate is at near record low levels, tax receipts (after the tax cuts!) are at record high levels, and the deficit is falling rapidly. You surely realize (I hope) that Dimocratic politicians routinely describe the economy as being in terrible shape, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
You honestly seem to think that the only two sides of any question are Dimocratic or Republican, and you are oblivious to objective truth. You remind me of the Russians. Pravda is the name of the major Russian newspaper, and it is generally supposed that pravda means “truth”. But as Russians use the term, pravda should be translated as “the official word”. Do you see any difference in “truth” and “the official word”? Probably not. But objective truth is available, if you dig for it. There is not a single statement by a Dimocratic politician on domestic matters that I would accept as objective truth. And some Republicans are not much better.
Posted by scorp on Jan 22, 2007 at 6:20 AM Scorp, again, you have taken up a great deal of space to say absolutely nothing. Every assertion that you have made above has been rebutted dozens of times by myself and at least a dozen others on the ITT board over many threads. Youre description of Pravda above fits you to the proverbial “t.” Unemployment is not at record low levels and the vaunted “recovery” is largely producing low paid service sector jobs, even the white collar, highly educated jobs are being outsourced now. You are a little ape who parrots the Limbaugh Shittohead Party Line and keep those funny anecdotes about the red guards coming ! You can’t even spell DEMOCRATIC and you wouldn’t know objective truth if it bit you on the nose. The net result of all of your GOP proselytizing here is ZERO. Chavez hasn’t undermined one South American government, the CIA has done exactly that for 60 years and now everyone down there is waking up and they are all electing democratic socialist or social democratic governments. Not Soviet style but Scandinavian style “socialism.” All you can do is pull you’re tiny pod in anger. The NY Times is boringly centrist, like most of the Democratic Party, not leftist. The biggest booster of the bullcrap “free trade” nonsense is the Times’ leading columinst, Thomas Friedman, whose grasp of reality is as tenuous as yours. None of the four Dems you list can even be called consistent liberals or progressives, much less “hard core leftists.” No one here accepts you’re terms of reference because they are the standard ultra-Right boilerplate lies.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 22, 2007 at 6:04 PM Scorp,
For some reason you often refer to the New York Times, if that is who you consider to be a source for economic data, you should question journalists. As for economists, I never follow ANY consensus. Consensus will tell you what the average “expert” thinks the average average person will do in the future. Neither do I invest based on any media blather any more than I dress based on the weather forecast.
——————————-“You honestly seem to think that the only two sides of any question are Dimocratic or Republican, and you are oblivious to objective truth.”
I have pointed out that in my opinion BOTH parties are complicit in the selling of American jobs to the lowest bidder. If there are “only two sides” it is politicians and big managers on one side against our middle class and lower class citizens (us) on the other side.
I posed some real possibilities based on what is happening to U.S. manufacturing jobs, (I think we agree they are leaving.) how that relates to the the U.S. economy (2/3 consumer based) now that so many consumers jobs have gone elsewhere.
I have asked how we are going to sustain our lifestyle when what we have to sell (new tech) is unprotected from duplication, uses far less labor and is falling in price.
—————————You are still thinking short term in your examples and thinking in terms of trading rather than investing.
The price of oil is fluctuating and volatile — but from 1984 to 2006, the Vanguard Energy Fund averaged nearly 15 percent per year (doubling investment each 5 years). Investing — not trading.
“Sa’udi Arabia owns all the readily available excess oil capacity in in the world, about three million bbl/day, and they are now moving aggressively to increase that excess capacity.”
They may say so, but how reliable have their comments ever been?
Let’s just suppose a bit… Suppose they increase the capacity — prices fall — not what they want. Suppose they knew they had not much supply left. If they admitted that what would happen? Rationing? Sky high per gallon prices? People beginning too scrimp and conserve? Alternative energy sources on emergency production surge?
They can manipulate by cutting/increasing and by talking it up and down — thereby getting the most return on their supply, whatever it may be.
Unless/until there is a global DEcrease in oil demand the expansion of manufacturing into emerging countries will keep the price up. As they increase their entry into the global mfg markets they will need more than the 85 million bbl/day now available. We will not see sub $20/bbl oil again. If it hits $47/bbl I will buy more.
——————————-“There is not a single statement by a Dimocratic politician on domestic matters that I would accept as objective truth. And some Republicans are not much better.”
What do you know, COMMON GROUND at last.
BTW… Both parties say the economy is just fine. Peggy Noonan had a piece last week in WSJ saying Bush should be sure to tout his biggest success — the economy — in his State of the Union speech.
“If the economists’ concensus is that unemployment is down and things are going well,” (as you wrote) but the Repulicans AND Democrats say so too, how will you know the “objective truth”?
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 24, 2007 at 8:27 PM WTH -
NYT is short-hand for the Old Media, which includes LAT, WaPo, CBS, ABC, and NBC and similar sterling purveyors of fine dishonesty, obfuscation, commission, and ommission. Not to say that New Media does not indulge in the same, but with Old Media, it is constant. You must develop keen senses incorporating knowledge, understanding, wisdom, discrimination, irony, and humor to make any sense out of what is reported to be going on in the world. Subjective ideologues, such as Hardesty, have on tools to deal with any of this.
... I never follow ANY consensus.
Well, that is a foolish statement. Because of your own circumstance as a Blue State, over-regulated, over-taxed, over-governed, over-lawyered struggling businessman, you have concluded that everyone is in your sinking boat, and the ideologues such as Krugman who capitalize on your status become your concensus. Not true. You need to develop keen senses incorporating knowledge, understanding, wisdom, discrimination, irony, and humor to make sense of the world.
I have pointed out that in my opinion BOTH parties are complicit in the selling of American jobs to the lowest bidder.
Not true. The Republicans are much better at “selling of American jobs to the lowest bidder”, in your infelicitous phrase. That is why Red States are more productive than Blue States, why Red State citizens make more money and have more jobs than Blue State citizens, and why the USA is the most productive large economy in the world, and has one of the highest per cap GDP rates in the world. It is not my fault if you do not choose to share our good fortune.
... what is happening to U.S. manufacturing jobs, (I think we agree they are leaving.)
Of course they are leaving. You did not whine when over 90% of the farming jobs left, so why are you whining now? All those farming jobs went to better paying, more productive manufacturing jobs. Now the manufacturing jobs are going to better paying, more productive technical, medical, and financial jobs. The value of what we are manufacturing now is greater than ever before, with fewer people.
In tonnage, 98% of international cargo travels by ship, train, or truck. The other 2% travels by air, but that 2% represents 40% of the value of international shipments. Ships, trains, and trucks come to America full and go back mostly empty. Cargo flights go full from America, and come back mostly empty. You think that is bad, I think that is good.
“If the economists’ concensus is that unemployment is down and things are going well,” (as you wrote) but the Repulicans AND Democrats say so too, how will you know the “objective truth”?
Well, in my observation, when all the experts agree, something is wrong, and you will find out what soon enough. If the Dimocrats are saying the economy is good, they are not saying it very loudly. The USA goes to some effort to produce the most accurate, most descriptive numbers that can be produced that give a complete picture of our demographic, census, and economic status. We have a number of fine experts (Milton Friedman, recently deceased, comes to mind) that can help interpret those numbers. Generally, the numbers are accurate, but the interpretations vary. One of my current favorite interpreters is Steve Conover at optimist123.com.
Posted by scorp on Jan 25, 2007 at 1:58 AM Scorp, the great decline in farming jobs occurred over a period of one century. This is both qualitatively and quantitatively different. The idea that this Administration and FedGov in geneal tries to produce the most accurate stats is beyond laughable. In fact, about 40% of ALL international trade is actually inter-company trade. In the case of NAFTA the only serious question is whether it has hurt American business or Mexican agriculture more. “Dimocrats” hey, that’s clever ! Rush sure is a brain, eh ? Most businesses are not overregulated and overtaxed and overgoverned except exceptions like the abortion business in the south. But then Rush didn’t include in the little GOOPER handbook for the midwest branch of the Bible Belt Goobers, did he ? How’s that Weekly Standard sub coming along ? And then there’s the American Spectator, National Review, Michael Weiner Savage, James Dobson and other unimpeachable sources. We are all so impressed with your objectivity and astute scholarship….............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
See Murray Rothbard’s debunking of the Uncle Miltie Friedman fraud. And wasn’t the latest rant of
Nobody Can Lick My Dick Cheney urging us to stay the course in Iraq just so awesome ? It gave
Scorp another week of J/O material to wank to. Scorp, these postings of yours have got to be the most BORING events in world history outside of you’re wedding night. Time for the annual enema, big boy.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 25, 2007 at 5:34 PM Scorp,
Don’t know Krugman’s view. Maybe I should check it out.
Following the consensus can only lead to mediocrity. Analysts are more concerned with not being wrong than with being right, and about being a part of the herd. That way if there is a catastrophe they can say, “Who could have known?”
The way to make money is to avoid consensus -— sometimes, even do the exact opposite.
—————————“You did not whine when over 90% of the farming jobs left, so why are you whining now? All those farming jobs went to better paying, more productive manufacturing jobs.”
I ‘m old, but not THAT old.
I guess you choose to ignore the time frame for each and the lower quality of most jobs now.
“Now the manufacturing jobs are going to better paying, more productive technical, medical, and financial jobs.”
Huh? Machinists used to earn $40/hour — not many new ones come close for blue collar people.
Can you picture 50 year-old former lathe operators in technical, medical, and financial jobs? It just doesn’t happen.
“Ships, trains, and trucks come to America full and go back mostly empty. Cargo flights go full from America, and come back mostly empty.”“The value of what we are manufacturing now is greater than ever before, with fewer people.”
The only accurate part of this satatement is more production with “fewer people” working.
The empty containers are being made into houses in California. On the east coast they are becoming a storage issue. What goes out by air? Software.
What comes in by ship? Cars, furniture, appliances, clothes — cheaper?
OK, it takes fewer Americans to produce software and many more people to make the imported goods. What are we going to do with all our extra people — send them to China and India?
———————————& ———“The USA goes to some effort to produce the most accurate, most descriptive numbers that can be produced that give a complete picture of our demographic, census, and economic status.”
Oh, boy! I’ll give you this much — you do have faith!
My oldest son has a degree in statistics. For many years he worked for a consumer research company. His job was to improve data quality. When you are selling a service you give the customer the best or he will go somewhere else.
As for government numbers…
• All politicians have a stake in looking good, the agency’s primary goal is to do just that.
• When you are at the top of the agency you provide what the government wants.
• When you work in a bureaucracy you first goal is to protect your job. To do that you make your boss look good and/or just give him what he wants.So, where else can you go?
Alan Greenspan is a great example of a master bureaucrat. (Read “Maestro” by Bob Woodward) When Alan was disturbed by a low productivity number he didn’t say to his assistants, “Find out why this is so. Didn’t say find out the truth. He said, “This can’t be. Go back and see what you can find.” Guess what he found? Was Alan happy? You betcha!
Ever been in the military? The right way, the wrong way and the Army way. Our stats are concocted the “government way.” “Yes, Sir. No excuse, Sir.”
“One of my current favorite interpreters is Steve Conover at optimist123.com.”
You must love Larry Kudlow.
———————-I’ve read a lot of Milton Friedman’s economic philosophy and am in general agreement with most of it. His theories are sensible. The problem is today, all too often his major criteria are absent from the equation.
Free trade — good idea. But what we currently have is comparable to freedom of behavior versus license.We are not been competing on a level playing field — we have restrictions, others do not.
The playing field is being leveled — at the expense of western jobs, and our lifestyle will drop as the Asians rise. Some things are zero sum.
You can refer to this as whining, if you like, I see it as the handwriting on the wall.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 25, 2007 at 8:42 PM Scorp just exploded, WTH. it had been a year since his last bowel movement. His midwestern town is now under a declared state of emergency due to a veritable tsunami of excrement (shit) that has
flooded the town.
Posted by blondemike on Jan 25, 2007 at 9:34 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Silja J.A. Talvi
- De-escalating the Drug War
Obama's pick to head ONDCP is better than your average drug czar. - Ending the War on Drugs
Will the Obama administration put justice back in the criminal justice system? - Our Town vs. Exxon
Marine biologist Riki Ott explains how Cordova, Alaska, rebounded 20 years after the oil spill. - All Work, No Play
Vacation time shouldn't be the privilege of a few, but the right of all - Reporting From The Ground Up
The power of street reporting - Seattle Battles the Homeless
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
