USA is "No. 1" in nothing but weaponry, consumer spending, debt, and delusion. [Archive]

WoodPeckr

03-04-2005, 12:22 AM

Interesting thought provoking article suggesting the #1 status of the USA is fading.

America No. 1?

America by the numbers

by Michael Ventura

02/03/05 "ICH" - - No concept lies more firmly embedded in our national character than the notion that the USA is "No. 1," "the greatest." Our broadcast media are, in essence, continuous advertisements for the brand name "America Is No. 1." Any office seeker saying otherwise would be committing political suicide. In fact, anyone saying otherwise will be labeled "un-American." We're an "empire," ain't we? Sure we are. An empire without a manufacturing base. An empire that must borrow $2 billion a day from its competitors in order to function. Yet the delusion is ineradicable. We're No. 1. Well...this is the country you really live in:

The United States is 49th in the world in literacy (the New York Times, Dec. 12, 2004).
The United States ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematical literacy (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004).
Twenty percent of Americans think the sun orbits the earth. Seventeen percent believe the earth revolves around the sun once a day (The Week, Jan. 7, 2005).
"The International Adult Literacy Survey...found that Americans with less than nine years of education 'score worse than virtually all of the other countries'" (Jeremy Rifkin's superbly documented book The European Dream: How Europe's Vision of the Future Is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, p.78).
Our workers are so ignorant and lack so many basic skills that American businesses spend $30 billion a year on remedial training (NYT, Dec. 12, 2004). No wonder they relocate elsewhere!
"The European Union leads the U.S. in...the number of science and engineering graduates; public research and development (R&D) expenditures; and new capital raised" (The European Dream, p.70).
"Europe surpassed the United States in the mid-1990s as the largest producer of scientific literature" (The European Dream, p.70).
Nevertheless, Congress cut funds to the National Science Foundation. The agency will issue 1,000 fewer research grants this year (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004).
Foreign applications to U.S. grad schools declined 28 percent last year. Foreign student enrollment on all levels fell for the first time in three decades, but increased greatly in Europe and China. Last year Chinese grad-school graduates in the U.S. dropped 56 percent, Indians 51 percent, South Koreans 28 percent (NYT, Dec. 21, 2004). We're not the place to be anymore.
The World Health Organization "ranked the countries of the world in terms of overall health performance, and the U.S. [was]...37th." In the fairness of health care, we're 54th. "The irony is that the United States spends more per capita for health care than any other nation in the world" (The European Dream, pp.79-80). Pay more, get lots, lots less.
"The U.S. and South Africa are the only two developed countries in the world that do not provide health care for all their citizens" (The European Dream, p.80). Excuse me, but since when is South Africa a "developed" country? Anyway, that's the company we're keeping.
Lack of health insurance coverage causes 18,000 unnecessary American deaths a year. (That's six times the number of people killed on 9/11.) (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005.)
"U.S. childhood poverty now ranks 22nd, or second to last, among the developed nations. Only Mexico scores lower" (The European Dream, p.81). Been to Mexico lately? Does it look "developed" to you? Yet it's the only "developed" country to score lower in childhood poverty.
Twelve million American families--more than 10 percent of all U.S. households--"continue to struggle, and not always successfully, to feed themselves." Families that "had members who actually went hungry at some point last year" numbered 3.9 million (NYT, Nov. 22, 2004).
The United States is 41st in the world in infant mortality. Cuba scores higher (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).
Women are 70 percent more likely to die in childbirth in America than in Europe (NYT, Jan. 12, 2005).
The leading cause of death of pregnant women in this country is murder (CNN, Dec. 14, 2004).
"Of the 20 most developed countries in the world, the U.S. was dead last in the growth rate of total compensation to its workforce in the 1980s.... In the 1990s, the U.S. average compensation growth rate grew only slightly, at an annual rate of about 0.1 percent" (The European Dream, p.39). Yet Americans work longer hours per year than any other industrialized country, and get less vacation time.
"Sixty-one of the 140 biggest companies on the Global Fortune 500 rankings are European, while only 50 are U.S. companies" (The European Dream, p.66). "In a recent survey of the world's 50 best companies, conducted by Global Finance, all but one were European" (The European Dream, p.69)........

link to rest of the article: ....it only gets worse..... :(

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8191.htm

onthebottom

03-04-2005, 12:38 AM

Oh I don't know:

90 of the top 100 universities in the world are in the US.

The US has the largest economy.

The US has among the highest per capita GDP

The US has the fasted growing large economy

The US provided 60% of all world growth from 1995-2000

The US has among the highest rate of home ownership

The US is third in spending on education per capita

The US is the most productive economy in the world

The US has the most and three times more Nobel Prize winners than the next country

The US spends more on R&D than any other country

..........

OTB

WoodPeckr

03-04-2005, 12:45 AM

OTB

I do hope your happy talk & numbers are correct but that article is very disconcerting and does not bode well for the future global postion of the USA.

onthebottom

03-04-2005, 12:52 AM

OTB

I do hope your happy talk & numbers are correct but that article is very disconcerting and does not bode well for the future global postion of the USA.

The US is BY FAR the best positioned large country going forward. Our debt as a % of GDP is lower than most G8 countries, we have a vast higher Ed system, strong R&D and an open and productive economy. The US also has a very mobile society, in that you can move up over time. I'd have to do the research but remember reading that the US has a much more mobile society (bottom 20% moving up) than Europe.

You can't name a single country better prepared to compete and win in the future than America.....

OTB

yychobbyist

03-04-2005, 01:31 AM

You can't name a single country better prepared to compete and win in the future than America.....

OTB

China
India
Burkino Faso

In that order.

onthebottom

03-04-2005, 08:49 AM

China
India
Burkino Faso

In that order.

LOL

OTB

MrLuvr

03-04-2005, 09:02 AM

In 20 years, the US is going to be a has been.

onthebottom

03-04-2005, 09:06 AM

In 20 years, the US is going to be a has been.

Yeah, right LMFAO.....

Another liberal arts student working in the fast food industry...

In fact, I think the US will continue to increase its lead over Europe, we are growing much faster, have much lower unemployment and have a younger workforce.

OTB

langeweile

03-04-2005, 09:25 AM

Who knows where the USA and the world will be in 20 years from now?

I put my money on the USA, before I put it on Europe.
If the USA has to struggle to fend off China and therelikes. Imagine Europe's struggle. Wages and social costs in Europe are a lot higher than in the USA.
If Canada doesn't wake up, they will be following Europe to their doom. :)

Drunken Master

03-04-2005, 11:28 AM

Yeah, right LMFAO.....

Another liberal arts student working in the fast food industry...

OTB

That's right. Keep in mind, Luvr, you must make a least six figures in order for your opinion to count.

"Open ecomony", indeed.

yychobbyist

03-04-2005, 01:55 PM

That's right. Keep in mind, Luvr, you must make a least six figures in order for your opinion to count.

"Open ecomony", indeed.

Six figures in USD too!

onthebottom

03-04-2005, 02:19 PM

That's right. Keep in mind, Luvr, you must make a least six figures in order for your opinion to count.

"Open ecomony", indeed.

Six figures in USD too!

One way to know when people have no rational arguments to make ;-)

OTB

Drunken Master

03-04-2005, 02:31 PM

One way to know when people have no rational arguments to make ;-)

OTB

Riiiiiight - because dismissing anybody who disagrees with you as a "liberal arts student" or "not cleaver [sic] enough to make six figures" is the epitome of rational discussion....

OTBill, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but your inability to spark intelligent discussion is not likely a function of the logic or perspicacity of your arguments. It's far more likely a function of the fact that you're a jackass.

Sorry.

onthebottom

03-04-2005, 02:37 PM

Riiiiiight - because dismissing anybody who disagrees with you as a "liberal arts student" or "not cleaver [sic] enough to make six figures" is the epitome of rational discussion....

OTBill, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but your inability to spark intelligent discussion is not likely a function of the logic or perspicacity of your arguments. It's far more likely a function of the fact that you're a jackass.

Sorry.

Bite me DM.

Read my posts, read the posts I'm responding to:

In 20 years, the US is going to be a has been.

And I’m the jackass.

OTB

Vietor

03-04-2005, 03:01 PM

Who is Jeremy Rifkin? He has had no formal training in science or technology. Dr. Jay Gould, an imminent scientist, described an earlier Rifkin book as "a cleverly constructed trail of anti-intellectual propaganda masquerading as scholarship". Even the LA Times had this to say, "Who is Rifkin and what are his credentials? He has a long history of opposing things, but as to his credentials, he has none." Other descriptions of his work: "flagrant flimflam", "logical garbage" and, my favorite, Rifkin is a "dangerous loon." These, of course, are opinions and are offered as such; not facts. Relying upon Rifkin, or for that matter the NYT, for facts requires a precipitous leap.

Instead, check the number of patents issued each year and where they originate. Investigate who is developing new medications. Look at the amount of international charitable contributions, not by nations, but individuals. We can certainly do better, but notwithstanding Mr. Rifkin's opinions, to which he is entitled, I believe that the continent of the future is ours.

langeweile

03-04-2005, 03:07 PM

I like the use of the word "continent".
Certainly the future will be a lot more brighter, if we can get Canada and South America on board.

Cinema Face

03-04-2005, 05:11 PM

I'm sure glad this is not another US bashing thread on this board.

Wayda go Peckerwood. :D

assoholic

03-04-2005, 06:52 PM

langeweile

03-05-2005, 05:41 AM

If the US continues to disregard the rest of the World they will unite against her. Is that what we want , China , India, Russia and Europe all aligned against the US ?
The US is becoming more fundamentalist and I see a real riff developing between the US and the rest of the world. That over time will only deepen, with the likes of Dubya pandering to them.

Unlike in canada we don't have to wait for the POTUS to step down. He is gone in 4 years from now.
Traditonally the pendelum will swing more to the left with the next election.You are worriyng about nothing.

US and fundamentalist??HUH
Nobody was crying foul and called the USA socialist when the "D's" held the house for 34 years.

Europe will collapse under his own weight of self imposed socialism. Europe is done in 20 years or sooner.

Don

03-05-2005, 11:42 AM

OTB

I do hope your happy talk & numbers are correct but that article is very disconcerting and does not bode well for the future global postion of the USA.

You may be right - every power eventually falls or subsides.

But where does that lead us? We rely on a prosperous US unlike any other country. We should not be so smug at the prospects of the downfall of the US

Keebler Elf

03-05-2005, 12:24 PM

WoodPeckr

03-05-2005, 12:39 PM

If the US continues to disregard the rest of the World they will unite against her. Is that what we want , China , India, Russia and Europe all aligned against the US ?
The US is becoming more fundamentalist and I see a real riff developing between the US and the rest of the world. That over time will only deepen, with the likes of Dubya pandering to them.

Unfortunately present unilateral neocon fundamentalist Bush policies seem to be causing this riff to emerge where the rest of the world may unite against the USA.

Funny thing is this isolation of the USA by the rest of the world was one of the theories the late Chairman Mao, of Red China, espoused as one of the very ways to topple the USA in the past. Forget the details but it was some kind of 'big fish in the ocean' theory and how the big fish, the USA, could be isolated by the little fish, the rest of the world. Back then Mao knew China, even with USSR help could not beat the USA head to head, so this was an alterative he came up with to accomplish the same end back in the day when Mao was working for world communism to spread all over the world.

WoodPeckr

03-05-2005, 12:47 PM

You'll get no argument from me that the US is the most powerful money-making nation on the face of the earth. But is that it? That's what counts? Money-making ability? No thanks. I'm happy with where Canada stands in the rankings.

There are those in the US that hold 'money-making' as their 'end all & God.' It's their sole goal....nothing else matters including any consequences of that 'money-making first' goal policies.

For them, thats all there is, thats all that counts.

Don

03-05-2005, 03:18 PM

You'll get no argument from me that the US is the most powerful money-making nation on the face of the earth. But is that it? That's what counts? Money-making ability? No thanks. I'm happy with where Canada stands in the rankings.

Not just money making. I'd wager that their military might is unmatched by any nation.

Since the dawn of man, economic wealth and military might were pretty much the biggies.

Don

03-05-2005, 03:21 PM

There are those in the US that hold 'money-making' as their 'end all & God.' It's their sole goal....nothing else matters including any consequences of that 'money-making first' goal policies.

For them, thats all there is, thats all that counts.

Guess what, they are here in Canada too. I see and work with them everyday. They measure happiness by what materal possessions they can get. They badmouth the US while at the same time pumping their fists in joy when the stocks in Lockheed Martin go up.

n_v

03-05-2005, 04:37 PM

Europe will collapse under his own weight of self imposed socialism. Europe is done in 20 years or sooner.
Can we put this in a time capsule and look at it in that time to see utterly wrong you were/are?

Peeping Tom

03-05-2005, 05:47 PM

That sounds like a rough but realistic timeline, give or take a few years. America will just bury them in the same manner as was done to the evil empire. Perhaps the euro wake up call will come when they slip behind South America, possibly too late as America may not give a shit anymore.

Europe will collapse under his own weight of self imposed socialism. Europe is done in 20 years or sooner.

cyrus

03-05-2005, 08:06 PM

islandboy

03-06-2005, 12:59 PM

The US is BY FAR the best positioned large country going forward. Our debt as a % of GDP is lower than most G8 countries, we have a vast higher Ed system, strong R&D and an open and productive economy. The US also has a very mobile society, in that you can move up over time. I'd have to do the research but remember reading that the US has a much more mobile society (bottom 20% moving up) than Europe.

You can't name a single country better prepared to compete and win in the future than America.....

OTB

Wait a second how sure are you of that GDP/ debt figure. (private debt or public debt) And what is it carried forward against known obligations?

langeweile

03-06-2005, 02:47 PM

Gee . . . it amazes me how some are so unaware of what is happening in the world!
Europe is about 50 years advanced over NA in terms of social development.
It has been evolving into a contemporary continental force in terms of socio-economy, which after having to further adjust within the next 20 yrs, it is set to mature into one of the next super powers only second to Indo-China alliance as the next super power while America will fade away into history as British or Romans did at their own times, all within this century!
FR+GR+UK+RU+EE > EU ===> /\ <=== India + China
But of course, you would have known this if you knew what was behind the creation of EU but I guess you think EU is just a fancy name . . . ha! :confused:
The fact of matter is in the new world order there are or will be alliances between merging economic & military powers forming blocks i.e. E.U. or Asian Block (Indo-China) in peaceful competition and advancement of civilization while USA will probably continue the ruthless pursuit to dominate the whole world and impose their own culture and values only to fall behind and fade away into history. Time shall tell!

You are ignoring some realities.
Why did communism fall? Because a central market economy is doomed to fail. Second, the cost of the social net was too high an it couldn't be maintained.
If you take the incentives awya from people to be entrepreneural, there is nobody that will create new opportunities and jobs. The result is stagnation in the economy.
I had, and still have, very close ties to former communist countries.None of these people ever want to go back to the former system.
We who have never lived under a sociualist system, are still have this naive view on what socialism is all about.
It sounds good on paper and makes a good read, but rality is nowhere close. Just like communism ultimately collapsed, socialism will follow it's path. Today the total average disposable income of a german citizen is $250 a month. The population is in decline. Unemployment is 12.5%. Tax rates are over 50%. I am not sure if any of you guys really want this as your goals.
There is no way I could make the money i make today and maintain the lifestyle I havehere, in Europe. Trust me...I have lived there and part of my family still does. You don't want what they have....
The only saving grace is, that most socialists countries today are democratic. When things reallly get out of hand, the people have the opportunity to change it.

cyrus

03-06-2005, 03:19 PM

onthebottom

03-06-2005, 06:16 PM

onthebottom

03-06-2005, 06:20 PM

cyrus

03-06-2005, 06:52 PM

Hmmmmm . . . . old Europe , new Europe , Where did I hear that before?! Any idea?! :confused:

langeweile

03-06-2005, 07:06 PM

Social democracy is a choice unlike communism that was forced in!
Europe is still as entrepreneurial force as they have ever been and will continue to be and that is one of the missions of EU to consolidate, adjust and move forward.

When was the last time you visited Europe? How long have you lived there?
The truth is, the average standard of living in europe is far below from the USA and Canada.
Don't buy the media propaganda, the reality for the average joe is not as good as they want you to believe it.

I am a blue collar guy and i can assure you, that guys like me are a lot better of here or in the USA than in Europe.
Don't listen to the propaganda, it is all BS. I have lived and worked there for 27 years, there is not enough money they could give me to move back.
I hope that people in Canada wake up and find a better way. You have a good thing going here..DO NOT FOLLOW EUROPE.

onthebottom

03-06-2005, 07:37 PM

Hmmmmm . . . . old Europe , new Europe , Where did I hear that before?! Any idea?! :confused:

What, no content?

Rumsfeld, and I laughed my ass off, because I could imagine the cursing across the pond....

OTB

cyrus

03-08-2005, 12:11 AM

What, no content?

Rumsfeld, and I laughed my ass off, because I could imagine the cursing across the pond....

OTB
Rumsfeld . . . that is my point! :o
You are of course entitled to have your leaders picked and admired but for god sake not these guys! Greeeee . .. .

yychobbyist

03-08-2005, 12:28 AM

I loved the Daily Show's commentary on the "old" vs "new Europe".

Stephen Colbert "standing" in Paris doing his reportage and saying "hey look, girl on girl action and it's all anal!" Gotta love the new Europe.

red

03-08-2005, 08:50 AM

What, no content?

Rumsfeld, and I laughed my ass off, because I could imagine the cursing across the pond....

OTB
I knew you were George W

langeweile

03-08-2005, 09:04 AM

Geeeez! How many time do I have to say this OTB is the Vice POTUS - Americanson is the POTUS.

bbk

Jack(layton) is it you again???

onthebottom

03-08-2005, 05:30 PM

Game, set - match ;-)

I've always liked Rummy - he's likely going to be moved out in the next year or so - I think Condi is tired of him and she's on top these days. I'll say hi to Laura for ya.

LOL

OTB

red

03-08-2005, 06:26 PM

onthebottom

03-09-2005, 12:25 AM

yes, condi's is on top, and she's riding george like a champ

You're thinking like Clinton again, and Condi doesn't have the fat ankles to turn on bubba.

OTB

K Douglas

03-09-2005, 06:14 PM

Oh I don't know:

The US has the most and three times more Nobel Prize winners than the next country

OTB
As of 2002 US had 184 Nobel Prize winners, UK had 89 which is just over double. Not to be technical about it OTB. I still get your point. Let me add:

The US has been the world leader in innovation since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Whether it be aviation, space, automotive, pharmaceutical, military its the US that drives the world economy, creates wealth for all nations that does trade with them - Japan,China,Mexico, Canada to name a few.
Largest provider of foreign aid (public and private) in the world by a country mile. We hear the likes of Bono say they only provide something like .15% of their GDP in foreign aid (whereas Canada provides about .3%, Sweden .8%)Thats just public funds and that doesn't factor in military expenditures, which in many cases is considered aid. Private donations from individuals and corporations in the US are also huge compared to the rest of the world.

cyrus

03-09-2005, 06:26 PM

What are you talking about, USA has been net importer of foreign scientist and noble price winners so if you look closely most are not US born!

langeweile

03-10-2005, 07:52 AM

What are you talking about, USA has been net importer of foreign scientist and noble price winners so if you look closely most are not US born!

Like most Canadians

onthebottom

03-10-2005, 08:37 AM

...and you would be wrong here. While I agree with you that a lot of scientist are foriegn born, the US has had more than it's fair share (actually the majority) of Nobel Prize winners that were educated at US schools and are US citizens.

bbk

Perhaps, but does it really matter? 50% of PhD students are foreign born, many of them stay and enrich our society and economy. This is a core advantage our country has, smart people want to attend the best schools in the world (most of them in the US) and live in our country. Just makes us smarter and more diverse....

OTB

Caspertheghost

03-11-2005, 07:26 PM

Any of read The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, written back at the end of the 1980's. By Paul Kennedy. It still has many valid premises. Namely, powers rise, they compete, they go to war, and, eventually, the cost of maintaining superiority economically and militarily eventually becomes too much to bear in the face of new competition.

The 20th century was America's. The 21st will belong to China, unfortunately.

I also recommend the Rise and Fall of the Britsh Empire, and Gold, Guns & Germs.

Marco

03-12-2005, 10:54 AM

LOL what a thread. I guess the women suppressing, head chopping, Saudi's or other Mid East of the same ilk are the lesser of two evils. ROFL

onthebottom

03-12-2005, 05:06 PM

Keebler Elf

03-12-2005, 05:15 PM

Yeah, if it were distributed in that fashion. But it's not, and the growing disparity between rich and poor is part of the problem. I'm sure Roman citizens were wealthy beyond belief as well. Up until their "barbarian" subjects overthrew them and sacked their cities, that is.

And as a side note onthebottom, if you're American (which I'm assuming you are) and obviously very pro-US, what exactly are you doing on a Toronto escort review board? Just curious, but it seems kinda strange...

onthebottom

03-12-2005, 05:29 PM

Elf,

The distribution discussion is a long one, suffice it to say our poor are about as poor as the EUs but our rich are richer - thus a larger delta.

I've been here for a few years, came for the reviews for my business trips, stayed for the interesting conversation. Couldn't you say same for a Alberta lawyer.

OTB

MuffinMuncher

03-12-2005, 05:34 PM

And as a side note onthebottom, if you're American (which I'm assuming you are) and obviously very pro-US, what exactly are you doing on a Toronto escort review board? Just curious, but it seems kinda strange...
You're kidding right? What does one thing have to do with the other? Does that mean if you're Canadian you cant participate on American discussion boards?

Maybe all of us evil Yankees should pay a fine for being born American before Fred will let us join, or perhaps send you a videotape swearing that we didnt vote for Dubya. Or do we actually have to wait 3 years to get full citizenship before you will welcome us with open arms? :rolleyes:

You sure as hell will take our tourist dollars though.

Keebler Elf

03-12-2005, 08:46 PM

Holy overreaction Batman. Take that GIANT pickle out of your ass. It was just a question.

I asked b/c I would find it equally strange if I were to go on a Republican messageboard in the US and defend the Democrats even though I am neither and am not even an American citizen.

I also asked b/c I see a lot of American posters baiting Canadians to pick a fight.

But if you'd like to ask permission to use the board, be my guest...

onthebottom

03-12-2005, 09:08 PM

Elf,

I wasn't aware that there was a political standard on this board. As for baiting, there's plenty og that to go around.

I take it from your comments that you don't belong to any American boards. You might find it interesting, get a different perspective...

OTB

Asterix

03-12-2005, 10:31 PM

Just to add another fact to counter this post, US personal net worth reached an all time record in Q4 of 04, something like 48 Trillion! If my 3rd grade math is correct that is 165k for every person in the US.

OTB

You're right, it is third grade math. To simply divide net worth in the US by total population is meaningless. The distribution of wealth has been steadily shifting to the richest americans over the last 50 years. Currently the top 1% of americans have 40% of the net wealth, and nearly 50% of financial wealth. Contrast that with the bottom 60%, which has 5% of net wealth and virtually no financial wealth. The disparity continues to grow. An excellent book on wealth distribution in the US since the 1960's is "Wealth in America", by Lisa Keister. A bit technical at times, but very clearly written.

WoodPeckr

03-13-2005, 01:45 AM

Keebler Elf

03-13-2005, 09:05 AM

You're right, it is third grade math. To simply divide net worth in the US by total population is meaningless. The distribution of wealth has been steadily shifting to the richest americans over the last 50 years. Currently the top 1% of americans have 40% of the net wealth, and nearly 50% of financial wealth. Contrast that with the bottom 60%, which has 5% of net wealth and virtually no financial wealth. The disparity continues to grow. An excellent book on wealth distribution in the US since the 1960's is "Wealth in America", by Lisa Keister. A bit technical at times, but very clearly written.

Better be careful, they'll be calling you a pinko Commie soon...

antaeus

03-13-2005, 07:00 PM

.... This is a core advantage our country has, smart people want to attend the best schools in the world (most of them in the US) and live in our country. Just makes us smarter and more diverse....

OTB
Another otb rahrah americanism that's 100% huckster, no truth.

My conclusion from ~20 years around the world, most in academia or related, unequevically people desire and choose foreign schools based on the best deal they can get: sponsorship from foreign aid programs, scholarship, bursary, angel family members, friends' contacts. This applied to entrants, grad and post-grad to phd. Nothing against many fine american schools, just american arrogance and wrong assumption that automatically every one desires to come to america. You are wrong, again!

Asterix

03-13-2005, 11:01 PM

And as a side note onthebottom, if you're American (which I'm assuming you are) and obviously very pro-US, what exactly are you doing on a Toronto escort review board? Just curious, but it seems kinda strange...

Well, I'm an american and pro-US, though probably not in the way someone like OTB would define. Personally, I like posting on terb because it gives me full impunity to make fun of my fellow americans. Try getting away with that on an american board and see how long you last.

onthebottom

03-14-2005, 06:41 AM

Pecker,

If you're waiting for someone to give it to you you're part of the problem, get to work.

Ant,

Thanks for the little story, no everyone doesn't want to move here but many do, 35 of top 50 universities are in the US, nuff said.

As for wealth distribution, another thread waiting to happen, but I'd say more is better.

OTB

WoodPeckr

03-14-2005, 10:40 AM

Pecker,

If you're waiting for someone to give it to you you're part of the problem, get to work.
OTB

More silly bot logic. The real problem is that jobs are being exported out of the US out of pure greed nothing more. Luckily mine hasn't been offshored yet but many hard working Americans and Canadians haven't been so lucky. In the past saving jobs and our standard of living was viewed as important and one of our great strengths. The present GOP 'greed-is-good' crowd could care less about the common folk.

As for wealth distribution, another thread waiting to happen, but I'd say more is better.

Again this just shows where you are coming from. Yep the rich and 'well to do' are doing fine by Dubya policy of 'redistributing' wealth their way......while the rest of the population sees the standard of living and services being eroded away through GOP incompetence, pure stupidity and 'fuzzy math' fiscal folly.

GOP policy borders on 'class warfare' Marie Antoinette style. You can almost hear Rove & Dicky Cheney saying "Let them eat cake!" while Dubya doofusly smirks in agreement....... :rolleyes:

onthebottom

03-14-2005, 10:48 AM

More silly bot logic. The real problem is that jobs are being exported out of the US out of pure greed nothing more. Luckily mine hasn't been offshored yet but many hard working Americans and Canadians haven't been so lucky. In the past saving jobs and our standard of living was viewed as important and one of our great strengths. The present GOP 'greed-is-good' crowd could care less about the common folk.

Unemployment is at 5.6% (look at the other G8 countries for comparison) and there were over 200k jobs added in January alone. Employment is now larger than before the recession. If you can't find a job now I'd suggest finding a mirror for the source of your problems.....

Again this just shows where you are coming from. Yep the rich and 'well to do' are doing fine by Dubya policy of 'redistributing' wealth their way......while the rest of the population sees the standard of living and services being eroded away through GOP incompetence, pure stupidity and 'fuzzy math' fiscal folly.

GOP policy borders on 'class warfare' Marie Antoinette style. You can almost hear Rove & Dicky Cheney saying "Let them eat cake!" while Dubya doofusly smirks in agreement....... :rolleyes:

This is a macro economic issue that has been happening (and will continue to happen) regardless of who sleeps in the White House. In fact, if you remove the silly slagging statements from these two paragraphs they don't really say much. Bush has expanded many social spending programs (federal education spending increased 50% during his first 4 years, the fastest growth in history for education spending). To redistribute something you have to take it from one person and give it to someone else, Bush is just allowing people to keep more of their own money.

OTB

onthebottom

03-14-2005, 10:49 AM

Well, I'm an american and pro-US, though probably not in the way someone like OTB would define. Personally, I like posting on terb because it gives me full impunity to make fun of my fellow americans. Try getting away with that on an american board and see how long you last.

Didn't know that I had a litmus test.

OTB

WoodPeckr

03-14-2005, 11:11 AM

Unemployment is at 5.6% (look at the other G8 countries for comparison) and there were over 200k jobs added in January alone. Employment is now larger than before the recession. If you can't find a job now I'd suggest finding a mirror for the source of your problems.....
OTB

Again those are 'fuzzy math' numbers on unemployment. They fail to take into account many of those who can't find work. They simply don't count them to massage the numbers into looking better than they really are. Case in point: what is the true Unemployment level in Cleveland Ohio, bet it's no where close to that fantasy 5.6% figure you post. That same thing applies to many other parts of the USA, the unemployment numbers are 'massaged' to make things look better than they are.

This is a macro economic issue that has been happening (and will continue to happen) regardless of who sleeps in the White House. In fact, if you remove the silly slagging statements from these two paragraphs they don't really say much. Bush has expanded many social spending programs (federal education spending increased 50% during his first 4 years, the fastest growth in history for education spending). To redistribute something you have to take it from one person and give it to someone else, Bush is just allowing people to keep more of their own money.

.....And Dubya's new budget will take away from many of them same programs THAT WERE NEVER FULLY FUNDED FROM DAY 1 TO BEGIN WITH. So in the end all you got from Dubya was 'lip service' & 'happy talk left unfulfilled.' But the rich got theirs while everyone else it still waiting .... :rolleyes:

onthebottom

03-14-2005, 11:23 AM

Again those are 'fuzzy math' numbers on unemployment. They fail to take into account many of those who can't find work. They simply don't count them to massage the numbers into looking better than they really are. Case in point: what is the true Unemployment level in Cleveland Ohio, bet it's no where close to that fantasy 5.6% figure you post. That same thing applies to many other parts of the USA, the unemployment numbers are 'massaged' to make things look better than they are.

Ok, now I understand, when a fact doesn't fit to your propaganda it's "fuzzy".

Why would the unemployment number in Cleveland be of special importance? There are regional strong and weak points in good and bad times (other than DQ lives there). Actually, unemployment went UP in January (5.4 to 5.6) because more people were entering the job market because it has improved. Was that increase "massaged"?

.....And Dubya's new budget will take away from many of them same programs THAT WERE NEVER FULLY FUNDED FROM DAY 1 TO BEGIN WITH. So in the end all you got from Dubya was 'lip service' & 'happy talk left unfulfilled.' But the rich got theirs while everyone else it still waiting .... :rolleyes:

Well, the 50% increase was funded because it was a 50% increase was spent. Again, most of the post is just what one poster here would call squeegee kid spewing.

OTB

WoodPeckr

03-14-2005, 11:42 AM

Ok, now I understand, when a fact doesn't fit to your propaganda it's "fuzzy".

Why would the unemployment number in Cleveland be of special importance? There are regional strong and weak points in good and bad times (other than DQ lives there). Actually, unemployment went UP in January (5.4 to 5.6) because more people were entering the job market because it has improved. Was that increase "massaged"?
OTB

Was about to say the same on your facts not fitting your propaganda hence becoming "fuzzy".

Overall Ohio unemployment in far from that 5.6% figure. Perhaps G8 countries use real numbers when posting their unemployment numbers unlike the USA which likes to 'fuzzy' things up a bit.

Well, the 50% increase was funded because it was a 50% increase was spent. Again, most of the post is just what one poster here would call squeegee kid spewing.
Again it does not take into account that Dubya will be slashing funds from these programs in his next budget....ALONG WITH VETERANS SERVICES & BENEFITS BTW!....and again many of these progams were never fully funded from the start.

onthebottom

03-14-2005, 11:49 AM

Was about to say the same on your facts not fitting your propaganda hence becoming "fuzzy".

Overall Ohio unemployment in far from that 5.6% figure. Perhaps G8 countries use real numbers when posting their unemployment numbers unlike the USA which likes to 'fuzzy' things up a bit.

This thread is full of factual posts of mine and "I know you are but what am I" childish logic from you.

Unemployment is significantly lower in the US (ex Japan) than other G8 countries. What is so significant about Ohio (other than several of us live there)?

Again it does not take into account that Dubya will be slashing funds from these programs in his next budget....ALONG WITH VETERANS SERVICES & BENEFITS BTW!....and again many of these progams were never fully funded from the start.

Define slashing, you're such a kid.

OTB

WoodPeckr

03-14-2005, 12:02 PM

This thread is full of factual posts of mine and "I know you are but what am I" childish logic from you.

Unemployment is significantly lower in the US (ex Japan) than other G8 countries. What is so significant about Ohio (other than several of us live there)?OTB

What's significant about Ohio is the Unemployment rate is far above the 5.6% rate. If the USA used the same standard of measure used by G8 countries, the USA Unemployment rate would be much higher.

Define slashing, you're such a kid.

Stop being so childish and look up slashing in the dictionary. It will define it clearly and that is just what Dubya is doing in his next budget SLASHING PROGRAMS.....Dicky Cheney has to figure out a way to finance another 'tax-cut' for the rich, ya know, they feel they got it coming......... :rolleyes:

someone

03-14-2005, 12:03 PM

someone

03-14-2005, 12:12 PM

What's significant about Ohio is the Unemployment rate is far above the 5.6% rate. If the USA used the same standard of measure used by G8 countries, the USA Unemployment rate would be much higher.

God, I hate the fact that I seem to be on OTB's side lately (no offence ;) ). For standardize unemployment rates, see http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/13/18595359.pdf). BTW, a lot of academic research indicates that a lot of the difference between Canadian and American unemployment rates can be explained by the more generous EI and Welfare rules in Canada. Until Canada made EI (then UI) more generous in the 1970s, the rates were much closer together. Whether these more generous EI rules are a good thing or not is open to debate. However, it does indicate that the causes of the differences are microeconomic and not due to macroeconomic policies.

onthebottom

03-14-2005, 12:31 PM

God, I hate the fact that I seem to be on OTB's side lately .....

That's OK, we all see the light at different times :D

For standardize unemployment rates, see http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/41/13/18595359.pdf). BTW, a lot of academic research indicates that a lot of the difference between Canadian and American unemployment rates can be explained by the more generous EI and Welfare rules in Canada. Until Canada made EI (then UI) more generous in the 1970s, the rates were much closer together. Whether these more generous EI rules are a good thing or not is open to debate. However, it does indicate that the causes of the differences are microeconomic and not due to macroeconomic policies.

My view would be that outsourcing and the flow of capital and labor (or jobs) is macroeconomic, how a country fares in the flow is more microeconomic policy driven (along with productivity, openness of market bla bla bla - see econ 101 course). I think this means we agree again?

Once again Pecker gets OWNED by facts, which I'm sure will be fuzzy bla bla bla........

OTB

someone

03-14-2005, 01:13 PM

My view would be that outsourcing and the flow of capital and labor (or jobs) is macroeconomic, how a country fares in the flow is more microeconomic policy driven (along with productivity, openness of market bla bla bla - see econ 101 course). I think this means we agree again? OTB
I’m not sure what you are getting at as in the post you’re responding to I was not trying to address the outsourcing isse or flows of capital and labour. To cite the econ101 course you mention, macroeconomists usually divide unemployment into frictional, structural, seasonal (sometimes American textbooks combine seasonal and structural unemployment) and cyclical unemployment were cyclical unemployment is the only unemployment most econ 101 macro courses deal with in detail. Canada’s more general EI rules increase both frictional and seasonal unemployment. It increases frictional unemployment because it lowers the cost of unemployment and thus leads people to put less effort into their job searches and spend more time looking for the right job. The second point is not totally bad if it leads to better fits in the labour market (e.g. an engineer can spend time looking for an engineering job instead of having to work as a labourer to feed his family). However, the rules for seasonal EI benefits also encourage people to stay in areas of the country were they are never going to find year round employment (e.g. Newfoundland outports). It is the rules for seasonal unemployment that I think are the most harmful.

Anyway, I don’t know if this means we are in agreement or not. My point is that the economic literature finds that a lot of the differences between Canadian and American unemployment rates can be explained by the weaker incentives for job searchers created by Canada’s more generous EI system and not macroeconomic policies (e.g. fiscal and monetary policies)

onthebottom

03-14-2005, 01:23 PM

I’m not sure what you are getting at as in the post you’re responding to I was not trying to address the outsourcing isse or flows of capital and labour. To cite the econ101 course you mention, macroeconomists usually divide unemployment into frictional, structural, seasonal (sometimes American textbooks combine seasonal and structural unemployment) and cyclical unemployment were cyclical unemployment is the only unemployment most econ 101 macro courses deal with in detail. Canada’s more general EI rules increase both frictional and seasonal unemployment. It increases frictional unemployment because it lowers the cost of unemployment and thus leads people to put less effort into their job searches and spend more time looking for the right job. The second point is not totally bad if it leads to better fits in the labour market (e.g. an engineer can spend time looking for an engineering job instead of having to work as a labourer to feed his family). However, the rules for seasonal EI benefits also encourage people to stay in areas of the country were they are never going to find year round employment (e.g. Newfoundland outports). It is the rules for seasonal unemployment that I think are the most harmful.

Anyway, I don’t know if this means we are in agreement or not. My point is that the economic literature finds that a lot of the differences between Canadian and American unemployment rates can be explained by the weaker incentives for job searchers created by Canada’s more generous EI system and not macroeconomic policies (e.g. fiscal and monetary policies)

The outsourcing was a response to Pecker channeling Lou Dobbs.

OTB

someone

03-14-2005, 01:58 PM

The outsourcing was a response to Pecker channeling Lou Dobbs.
OTB
Sorry that I misunderstood your point. My position on outsourcing is even simplier. We should do what we have a comparative advantage in and India should do what they have a comparative advantage in. If they have a comparative advantage in one stage of the production process and we in another stage, that is fine with me. Gains from trade are gains from trade.

onthebottom

03-14-2005, 02:09 PM

Sorry that I misunderstood your point. My position on outsourcing is even simplier. We should do what we have a comparative advantage in and India should do what they have a comparative advantage in. If they have a comparative advantage in one stage of the production process and we in another stage, that is fine with me. Gains from trade are gains from trade.

Welcome to capitalism! :D

We are actually in violent agreement.

LOL

Some people think this should be preordained, usually those who don't understand it.

OTB

Peeping Tom

03-14-2005, 07:42 PM

WoodPeckr

03-15-2005, 01:09 AM

Another example of the new left logic. I suppose the interpretation changes according to whether the left has just won or lost an election. Sucks to be you with the Bush boom going on.

Bush boom!?!?!?
Surely you jest!
Bill Clinton had a Boom!
W.... has only a wimper, or maybe more like a wet fart, compared to Bill Clinton's Boom!

Don't forget exporting high paying $25/hr jobs to China, Mexico, India, et al., only to be repaced by low paying service jobs paying $7/hr, hardly constitutes much of a 'Bush boom' .....unless you happen to be high on Rush Limbaugh's OxyContin...... :p

onthebottom

03-15-2005, 11:45 AM

Bush boom!?!?!?
Surely you jest!
Bill Clinton had a Boom!
W.... has only a wimper, or maybe more like a wet fart, compared to Bill Clinton's Boom!

Don't forget exporting high paying $25/hr jobs to China, Mexico, India, et al., only to be repaced by low paying service jobs paying $7/hr, hardly constitutes much of a 'Bush boom' .....unless you happen to be high on Rush Limbaugh's OxyContin...... :p

For any Canadian wanting to understand why the Democrats are in such trouble down here, you only need to see the barrage of talking points devoid of merit and mindless dribble that is the grass roots of the Democratic party. Apparently Pecker is the poster child for them.

PECKER FOR DNC CHAIRMAN!

OTB

WoodPeckr

03-15-2005, 12:05 PM

For any Canadian wanting to understand why the Democrats are in such trouble down here, you only need to see the barrage of talking points devoid of merit and mindless dribble that is the grass roots of the Democratic party. Apparently Pecker is the poster child for them.

PECKER FOR DNC CHAIRMAN!

OTB

Aahhh shucks there bot.

Well then that coming from you only makes you only sound like one of them 'minded-numbed bots' Rush Limbaugh, (that triple divorced, dope addict, Chickenhawk draft dodger who used ANAL CYSTS to get his 4F classification to keep him out of Nam & 'Propaganda Minister-in-Chief of the GOP far Reich-Wing,') peps up on a daily basis to help them keep the faith in Doofus Dubya policy!

Praise the Lord & pass the OxyContin........ :p

onthebottom

03-15-2005, 12:06 PM

Aahhh shucks there bot.

Well then that coming from you only makes you only sound like one of them 'minded-numbed bots' Rush Limbaugh, (that triple divorced, dope addict, Chickenhawk draft dodger who used ANAL CYSTS to get his 4F classification to keep him out of Nam & 'Propaganda Minister-in-Chief of the GOP far Reich-Wing,') peps up on a daily basis to help them keep the faith in Doofus Dubya policy!

Praise the Lord & pass the OxyContin........ :p

And endless supply (I fear) of examples from the squeegee kid class....

OTB

WoodPeckr

03-16-2005, 11:38 AM

Just another example of how the US falling behind. In past times the USA always pioneered in these types of innovation. Sadly this is not the case anymore.

LONDON (Reuters) - Environmentally minded British motorcycle engineers have produced a zero-emission bike that ticks all the right boxes except one -- it's too quiet.

So quiet in fact that its designers are looking to introduce artificial vroom to keep potential customers happy. Powered by a high pressure hydrogen fuel cell, the Emissions Neutral Vehicle (ENV) produces the equivalent noise of a personal computer fan belt.

Not only is that distinctly wimpish in the eyes of many bikers, it could also be dangerous.

Makers Intelligent Energy are looking at ways to produce an artificial engine noise that will alert people to its presence, making sure the machine is not silent and deadly.

"We will consider that," said Nick Talbot, the project leader at Seymourpowell, who were hired by Intelligent Energy to design a bike to their brief.

The British designed and built bike, which has no gears, can reach speeds of 50 miles per hour.

Motorcycle enthusiasts have welcomed the green innovation but say some bikers like the roar of an engine and the thrill of going fast.

"It fits the definition of a motorcycle, but not as we know it," said Jeff Stone, a spokesman for the British Motorcycle Federation.

"The motorcycle is a primitive thing and it appeals to the inner person. The excitement and exhilaration of a bike is why people ride them."

Stone, however, believes that the "soft and cuddly" green bike could be useful in city traffic.

The bike's briefcase-sized fuel cell needs to be topped up every 100 miles and so far there is only one station in Britain that supplies the type of hydrogen required.

But its makers believe that will change.

"The whole point of the project is to say the technology is here, it works, so now put the infrastructure up," said Talbot.

link:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050316/sc_nm/environment_britain_bike_dc

Peeping Tom

03-16-2005, 01:28 PM

I used to think of the Dems being a less crazy version of what passes for politics here but I guess that's history now. Looking back, signs of the lunacy were plenty manifest, but as long as they retained a lesser champion (i.e., Mahomet vs. USSR) it was kept low key. Now, with both out of contention, and the left out of power, the cat is out of the bag.

Tell me, does this go beyond the grassheads? Does Dean acting as leader tell me enough? I'm just wondering, and not about to buy New Republic to find out

For any Canadian wanting to understand why the Democrats are in such trouble down here, you only need to see the barrage of talking points devoid of merit and mindless dribble that is the grass roots of the Democratic party.

langeweile

03-17-2005, 07:06 AM

I don't know OTB. Not only have I listened to the mindless dribble of the Democrats, I have also listened to the intolerance, and petty dribble of the Delay Republicans and the religious right, who wrap this crap up in God and the American flag.

So I quess what I'm saying is - You guys are so screwed down there.

Have fun.

bbk

A lot of your perception of the USA is the "mindless dribble" of the opinion makers..oh sorry...the press.

Between the two extrems that you describe 80% of Americans are somewhere in the middle.
The election of the POTUS does not always reflect the true sentiment of the people. Real politics in the USA happens on a much lower level.

WoodPeckr

03-18-2005, 01:01 AM

More disturbing evidence on present USA decline.

America's Has-Been Economy

By Paul Craig Roberts

03/16/05 - - A country cannot be a superpower without a high tech economy, and America's high tech economy is eroding as I write.

The erosion began when US corporations outsourced manufacturing. Today many US companies are little more than a brand name selling goods made in Asia.

Corporate outsourcers and their apologists presented the loss of manufacturing capability as a positive development. Manufacturing, they said, was the "old economy," whose loss to Asia ensured Americans lower consumer prices and greater shareholder returns. The American future was in the "new economy" of high tech knowledge jobs.

This assertion became an article of faith. Few considered how a country could maintain a technological lead when it did not manufacture.

So far in the 21st century there is scant sign of the American "new economy." The promised knowledge-based jobs have not appeared. To the contrary, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a net loss of 221,000 jobs in six major engineering job classifications.

Today many computer, electrical and electronics engineers, who were well paid at the end of the 20th century, are unemployed and cannot find work. A country that doesn't manufacture doesn't need as many engineers, and much of the work that remains is being outsourced or filled with cheaper foreigners brought into the country on H-lb and L-1 work visas.

Confronted with inconvenient facts, outsourcing's apologists moved to the next level of fantasy. Many technical and engineering jobs, they said, have become "commodity jobs," routine work that can be performed cheaper offshore. America will stay in the lead, they promised, because it will keep the research and development work and be responsible for design and innovation.

Alas, now it is design and innovation that are being outsourced. Business Week reports ("Outsourcing Innovation," March 21) that the pledge of First World corporations to keep research and development in-house "is now passé."

Corporations such as Dell, Motorola, and Philips, which are regarded as manufacturers based in proprietary design and core intellectual property originating in R&D departments, now put their brand names on complete products that are designed, engineered, and manufactured in Asia by "original-design manufacturers" (ODM).

Business Week reports that practically overnight large percentages of cell phones, notebook PCs, digital cameras, MP3 players, and personal digital assistants are produced by original-design manufacturers. Business Week quotes an executive of a Taiwanese ODM: "Customers used to participate in design two or three years back. But starting last year, many just take our product."

Another offshore ODM executive says: "What has changed is that more customers need us to design the whole product. It's now difficult to get good ideas from our customers. We have to innovate ourselves." Another says: "We know this kind of product category a lot better than our customers do. We have the capability to integrate all the latest technologies." The customers are America's premier high tech names.

The design and engineering teams of Asian ODMs are expanding rapidly, while those of major US corporations are shrinking. Business Week reports that R&D budgets at such technology companies as Hewlett Packard, Cisco, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, Ericsson, and Nokia are being scaled back.

Outsourcing is rapidly converting US corporations into a brand name with a sales force selling foreign designed, engineered, and manufactured goods. Whether or not they realize it, US corporations have written off the US consumer market. People who do not participate in the innovation, design, engineering and manufacture of the products that they consume lack the incomes to support the sales infrastructure of the job diverse "old economy."

"Free market" economists and US politicians are blind to the rapid transformation of America into a third world economy, but college bound American students and heads of engineering schools are acutely aware of declining career opportunities and enrollments. While "free trade" economists and corporate publicists prattle on about America's glorious future, heads of prestigious engineering schools ponder the future of engineering education in America.

Once US firms complete their loss of proprietary architecture, how much intrinsic value resides in a brand name? What is to keep the all-powerful ODMs from undercutting the American brand names?

The outsourcing of manufacturing, design and innovation has dire consequences for US higher education. The advantages of a college degree are erased when the only source of employment is domestic nontradable services.

link to balance of article:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8292.htm

Asterix

03-18-2005, 01:29 AM

Interesting that the author was Assistant Secretary of Treasury under Reagan, and a contributing editor at the National Review. Looking forward to how our conservative friends on the board will try to spin this.

WoodPeckr

03-18-2005, 10:28 AM

It's so easy to critique the cons but when one of their own does it and it this case does it so splendidly, it's even more enjoyable....and of all people an ex-Reaganite, Paul Craig Roberts the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review and he has seen the light......unlike some of our present conservative posters in the peanut gallery over here..... :p

onthebottom

03-18-2005, 01:16 PM

islandboy

03-18-2005, 03:09 PM

While there is a problem with health insurance, it is overstated. When you consider that the poor, the elderly, children (in several states), and medical emergencies are all universally covered, you find that most non insureds are folks between 21 and 35 who are taking the risk.

Lowering the costs will not come about as a result of malpractice reform. I am told that this is about .25% of the premium. (In New York when the insurance comapnies begged poverty and got reform, two years later - after the audited financial information finally became available - it turned out that they were making a great profit without premium increase or reform.

Better administration is the key to getting people covered. And on that score the overhead for private systems is about 30% of the premium as opposed to 5% for the government.

Nuf. Said.

red

03-18-2005, 03:37 PM

More disturbing evidence on present USA decline.

[b],

Outsourcing is rapidly converting US corporations into a brand name with a sales force selling foreign designed, engineered, and manufactured goods. Whether or not they realize it, US corporations have written off the US consumer market. People who do not participate in the innovation, design, engineering and manufacture of the products that they consume lack the incomes to support the sales infrastructure of the job diverse "old economy."

"Free market" economists and US politicians are blind to the rapid transformation of America into a third world economy, but college bound American students and heads of engineering schools are acutely aware of declining career opportunities and enrollments. While "free trade" economists and corporate publicists prattle on about America's glorious future, heads of prestigious engineering schools ponder the future of engineering education in America.

Once US firms complete their loss of proprietary architecture, how much intrinsic value resides in a brand name? What is to keep the all-powerful ODMs from undercutting the American brand names?

The outsourcing of manufacturing, design and innovation has dire consequences for US higher education. The advantages of a college degree are erased when the only source of employment is domestic nontradable services.

link to balance of article:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8292.htm

this is a western world problem. I am not sure how this will play out and I worry for my kids. we can't just be consumers and shareholders forever.

Asterix

03-18-2005, 05:27 PM

So, how is a macro economic shift a "cons" issue?

OTB

It becomes a conservative issue when one of their own shoots down the assumption that "free trade" and the current direction of the US economy will continue to benefit most Americans. He clearly indicates his belief that the GOP and the administration are effectively lying to American citizens about where this will lead, and that they could give a rip about how many people get sucked under. Again, this from one of their own.

"Misled by propaganda "free trade" claims, Americans will be at a loss to understand the increasing career frustration of the college educated. Falling pay and rising prices of foreign made goods will squeeze US living standards as the declining dollar heralds America's descent into a has-been economy."

"Meanwhile the Grand Old Party has passed a bankruptcy "reform" that is certain to turn unemployed Americans living on debt and beset with unpayable medical bills into indentured servants of the credit card companies. The steely-faced Bush administration is making certain that Americans will experience to the full their country's fall."

someone

03-18-2005, 06:37 PM

As I did not think much of the article, I as going ignore it. However, since posters who should know better seem to be taking it seriously, I will make a couple of comments. On the lighter side, I was amused when it referred to “free trade economists”. Protectionist economists would almost be an oxymoron. More seriously, it is talking about symptoms of American economic problems and not the causes. Throwing out over 200 years of economic theory and going back to mercantilism is not going to improve American living standards. I would recommend the following to those who know little about international economic issues and wish to dispel some common misconceptions without investing a lot of time and energy (I realize that many people find learning economics to be too boring to take the time to learn enough so they can make informed comments but this article is only 3 pages!).:

What Do Undergrads Need to Know About Trade?
Paul R. Krugman
The American Economic Review, Vol. 83, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Fifth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association. (May, 1993), pp. 23-26.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282%28199305%2983%3A2%3C23%3AWDUNTK%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T

Only those of you with employers who have access to JSOR will likely be able to click on the link but it never hurts to visit a library.

First, the fact is that although trade can influence the distribution of income and a country's wealth, it has little to do with employment levels. Thus, it has nothing to do with unemployed college graduates. When it comes to the distribution of income, it increases the returns to factors of production that a country is relatively abundant in. Thus, since Canada has relatively more skilled workers and capital than the U.S, the returns to suppliers of skilled labour and capital increased with the CUSFTA/NAFTA. Conversely, the returns to factors that are relatively scarce decrease. Thus, wages for unskilled labour in Canada went down (from what they otherwise might have been) with the CUSFTA. However, the gains do outweigh the losses so it is possible for the government to redistribute the gains through the tax system if it wants to.

Given that trade is not the problem what is the problem? Well first, a couple of the specific problems the article raises. Regarding the American unemployed college graduates. As someone who has taught in the U.S, I definitely don’t think much of the majority of their university programs. Yes, the ivy league universities are among the best in the world for research. However, a very high proportion of their best graduate students are not American. I recall seeing the numbers for the PhD program in economics at Harvard once. I don’t have the numbers in front of me right now but there were as many Canadians (a country 1/10 the population of the U.S) as Americans. Moreover both of these groups were greatly outnumbered by students from the rest of the world. Given their horrible school systems, most Americans are not ready for serous undergraduate studies. Given that this means that most undergraduate programs have to be dumbed down, this means that they can’t compete for the better graduate programs. Thus, I am not surprised that U.S. firms are outsourcing a lot of the technical jobs. A country that is so uneducated that half the population thinks the world was created in 7 days, is not one that is going to be relatively abundant in educated labour.

The article also makes other very misleading statements. For example, it states

“The disappearing US economy can also be seen in the exploding trade deficit. As more employment is shifted offshore, goods and services formerly produced domestically become imports.”

The U.S. trade deficit has nothing to do with shifting jobs overseas. It has to do with the fact that the U.S. is running a high budget deficit and has a very low private savings rate. Any student who has taken a half decent introduction to macroeconomics course can tell you that a trade surplus is equal to the government surplus plus private savings. When the government has a deficit and private savings are low, national income accounting tells you that the country will run a deficit. Thus, if the Americans here are worried about their country's trade deficit, they should be encouraging their government to (1) increase taxes, (2) reduce expenditures and (3) encourage private savings.

I’ve spent too much time on this post already (and yes, I am sure it is full of typos). The basic point is that you don’t blame foreigners for what are domestic American problems.

someone

03-19-2005, 08:33 AM

Is this Soviet economics? I don't what basic macro econimic course are being taught today, but budget deficits and low personal savings are not the major cause of the TRADE DEFICIT.
bbk
Clearly you have neither studied any economics nor do you understand national income accounting. The fact is a trade surplus (deficit) is equal to a government surplus (deficit) plus net private savings (dissavings). You cannot have a trade surplus unless private savings can cover the government deficit. The simple laws of addition makes that impossible. Are you saying that arithmetic is soviet mathematics! I would suggest that you pick up a first year economics textbook and read a few chapters before making uniformed posts.

someone

03-19-2005, 08:51 AM

As for Government Spending I'll let you explain that one again.
I don’t know why I’m taking the time to do this for someone too lazy to look in a principles textbook but here goes. One way of caculating GDP is adding up expenditures which gives you

Y = C + I + G +(X - M)
c= consumption, I = investment, G = government expenditures and x-m is net exports.
At the same time GDP = income
Income is either spent on consumption, saved (S) or given to the government in taxes (NT for net taxes). Thus,

Y = C + S + NT

Therefore,

C + I + G + (X – M) = C + S + NT
(X – M) = (NT – G) + (S-I)

Thus, next exports is equal to government surplus plus net private savings. Given how much I hate teaching first year, I don’t know why I spend so much time on a board I go to for recreation, explaining first year concepts. If you call it soviet economics, I would like to know what you call neoclassical economics

papasmerf

03-19-2005, 09:23 AM

I don’t know why I’m taking the time to do this for someone too lazy to look in a principles textbook but here goes. One way of caculating GDP is adding up expenditures which gives you

Y = C + I + G +(X - M)
c= consumption, I = investment, G = government expenditures and x-m is net exports.
At the same time GDP = income
Income is either spent on consumption, saved (S) or given to the government in taxes (NT for net taxes). Thus,

Y = C + S + NT

Therefore,

C + I + G + (X – M) = C + S + NT
(X – M) = (NT – G) + (S-I)

Thus, next exports is equal to government surplus plus net private savings. Given how much I hate teaching first year, I don’t know why I spend so much time on a board I go to for recreation, explaining first year concepts. If you call it soviet economics, I would like to know what you call neoclassical economics

So if x-m equals net exports M must equal exports and X must eqaul imortst and Someone must equal egomaniac.

someone

03-19-2005, 12:03 PM

So if x-m equals net exports M must equal exports and X must eqaul imortst and Someone must equal egomaniac.
X = xports, M = imports (we already used I for investment so it would be confusing to use it again)
I now realize I could have put it in simpler terms. The only way a country can consume more than it produces (i.e. the right side is negative) is for it to make up the difference by importing from the rest of the world (thus net exports are negative).

Alternatively, you can look at it in terms of the supply of a currency on international markets having to be equal to its demand. Exchange rates will adjust until this is true. When domestic savings are too small to finance investment and the government deficit, a country must borrow from the rest of the world by selling bonds and equity. To buy these bonds and shares, foreigners must buy U.S. dollars and sell their domestic currency. For foreigners to be able to sell their currencies, Americans must buy foreign currency by selling U.S. dollars. Americans are only going to buy foreign currency if they are going to buy foreign bonds and equity (but if the right side is negative, they are not doing this in net terms) or buy foreign goods. If they are borrowing from abroad, the only way for currency markets to clear is for the U.S. dollar to go up until Americans are buying enough imports to supply the American dollars foreigners need to finance the U.S. deficit.

I hope this is a bit clearer.

BBK. I’ sorry if I sounded condescending but your post caught me before my morning caffeine fix :D

someone

03-19-2005, 01:17 PM

Look you went a long way to say something very simple. All you have done is outline causes of the current situtation and in fact have left out few other factors. As far as I know the trade deficit is calulated by exports less imports. The value of the dollar, the amount of personal saving, government debt and deficit are all factors or causes of the current situtation as is the fact the US is exporting jobs to cheaper labour markets which was the point you were trying to disagree with.

To boil it down it down to fiscal deficit and low personal savings is simplistic at best, in fact you can use your model and lower the deficit and increase savings and make no impact to the Trade deficit if other parts compensate. I think your looking at the problem in it's basic form.
bbk
I'm not sure if by deficit you mean the budget deficit of the trade deficit. G and NT are exogenous variable determined by government policy. If you lower the budget deficit and increase net Savings (S-I), there is nothing left to compensate. If you don't believe me go to Stats Canada or the OECD's web site. You will find the government surplus (all levels) plus net priave savings do equal net exports). Just make sure you use comparable data (e.g. same base year prices, etc.) Look, I will try to put it in easier terms. If there were not international movements of capital, the only sources of demand and supply of American dollars in currency markets would through exports and imports. In this case, the exchange rate would have to adjust until exports equaled imports, no matter how cheaply foreigners produce products and how low their wages are (your argument). The only way exports and imports can differ if there are international movements of capital to finance investment and government deficits.

someone

03-19-2005, 03:48 PM

OK that I know - trade deficit/surplus reflects the flow of capital internationally, and yes of course trade will be influence by investment - but to go that extra step to say Trade Treaties are not important is a bit of a stretch.
Who said they don’t matter? They are important tools to liberalize trade and help countries take advantage of the benefits of specializing in areas they have a comparative advantage in.

Fifty years ago, wages in China were much lower than those in the US and you didn't see a wave of US Companies run to China and invest heavily to take of advantage of lower wages and reason for that was productivity. With the advances in technology, productivity has increased to the point that many Manufacturing jobs can be done in China with it's lower wages, thus making the investment by US Companies possible who then import those products for sale to the US market place. I used the word reflect because this flow of capital is not the sole cause of a trade deficit. A great deal of the US trade deficit is due to it's imports of Canadian raw natural resources which they need to fuel their economy, not to mention OPEC oil - again it's a flow of capital but it's not caused by a lack of investment, personal savings or Government deficits but the simple fact that Canada/OPEC has that resource in the ground and the US doesn't. The current problem in the US is that wages are too high compared to what is paid in certain parts of the world and as such jobs are exported.
They are high compared to other countries when measured at current exchange rates. You lower the exchange rate and the wages differential is also lower. BTW, what matters when it comes to trade flows are relative factor prices and not absolute factor prices. Countries export products whose production is intensive in the factors they are relatively abundant in and in import goods whose production is intensive in the factor that is relatively scarce domestically. These leads to the change in factor returns I spoke of in an earlier post.

I look at this as a healthy correction to the world's economy and over the next decade or so, we will see wages increase along with productivity in India and China and pressure on the US will lessen. However in the meantime, the US does have a sharp problem with it's trade deficit
Yes it is a problem. Eventually the U.S. will have to start paying off its international debts by producing more than it consumes.

and in this case trade treaties are important, and one area would that workers in the China/India are afforded some of the same rights as workers in the US - After all US Companies should not be able forsake their resonsibilities to their employees only to exploit foriegn workers. This would increase the expense to US Companies and some of those Companies may not make that foriegn investment.

What makes you think the U.S. has any right to tell other countries how to manage their internal affairs.

There has been a fundimental change to the world economy and that is the introduction of computer technology which has dramitically changed productivity and simply calling the US trade deficit a flow of capital really doesn't capture what the problem is. Even if the US eliminated the deficit by raising taxes, cutting off personal spending to all, the trade deficit would remain - in fact it might worsen as some US Companies would most likely layoff US workers first before they got around to their foriegn workers.

This would be mathematically impossible. I have tried to explain why. If my explananions are not clear, my advice is to pick up a decent principles textbook.

BTW, I would recommend that you read up on the law of comparative advantage. You will find that international trade really is a win-win scenario. All first year (and I suspect highschool) textbooks will have this. Moreover, I suspect that if you google “law of comparative advantage", you will find that some university has online information on it.

someone

03-19-2005, 03:58 PM

BTW bbk, you will find that your argument regarding low cost foreign producers is not new if you check this link.

http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

someone

03-19-2005, 09:36 PM

First off - if you want access to the US market - the US has every right to expect it's workers to be on a somewhat level playing field. In other words how fair would it be for US workers if trade was allowed with a Country that allowed slavery. Trade treaties have been made to ensure this fairness, including the protection of intellectual rights, but the current US administration fails to enforce them.
You clearly don’t understand the law of competitive advantage. It is in the interest of Americans not to enforce such laws. This reminds me of the following often quoted story about Paul Samuelson that I have copied below:
“Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson (1969) was once challenged by the mathematician Stanislaw Ulam to "name me one proposition in all of the social sciences which is both true and non-trivial." It was several years later than he thought of the correct response: comparative advantage. "That it is logically true need not be argued before a mathematician; that is is not trivial is attested by the thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them."” 1/ “http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/cadv_e.htm
Look, if Samuelson could not teach people like you, I have no hope so I give up.

As for being clear - you are but in my view your not accounting for the drastic changes in productivity and transportation that have occured over the last couple of decades. As for your advice on reading materials - well it's been many years since I dealt with the book stuff - if I'm interested I'll look it up.
I’m sorry to hear that you have not read books in many years.

Besides, ain't those silly macro equations subject to many adjustments - in other words open to a great deal of debate.
No, they are not equations, they are identities that have to be true by definition. Given the way the terms are defined and the data is collected by OECD countries, the result is true by definition. As I said before, if you don’t believe me, look up the numbers for yourself! If you don’t know the difference between and identity and an equation, look it up.

My point is that a lot of economic courses look to the past, and I'm saying is that there maybe a new economic reality emerging. While I still expect the same general rules to be in play, I do think new factors are being introduced into International Economics and this need to be taken into consideration.
I suggest you read the Krugman reference I posted earlier. It deals with pop internationalism (what you are referring to).

BTW your argument of currency being the factor of wages and not productivity really doesn't hold here since China fixes it's currency to the US dollar. If China allowed it to float you might be onto something - but in the end wages are always a function of productivity.
First, I never said productivity was not a factor in determining comparative advantage.
Second, whether currencies are fix or flexible, supply still has to equal demand. If you want to learn about fixed exchange rates check any international textbook that deals with the Berton Woods arrangement.

Look, I really don’t see any point in continuing this exchange if you are not even interested in picking up a book to learn the basics.

onthebottom

03-20-2005, 07:08 PM

It becomes a conservative issue when one of their own shoots down the assumption that "free trade" and the current direction of the US economy will continue to benefit most Americans. He clearly indicates his belief that the GOP and the administration are effectively lying to American citizens about where this will lead, and that they could give a rip about how many people get sucked under. Again, this from one of their own.

"Misled by propaganda "free trade" claims, Americans will be at a loss to understand the increasing career frustration of the college educated. Falling pay and rising prices of foreign made goods will squeeze US living standards as the declining dollar heralds America's descent into a has-been economy."

"Meanwhile the Grand Old Party has passed a bankruptcy "reform" that is certain to turn unemployed Americans living on debt and beset with unpayable medical bills into indentured servants of the credit card companies. The steely-faced Bush administration is making certain that Americans will experience to the full their country's fall."

Who was it again that signed NAFTA?

Free trade is not a "cons" issue, there are many on both sides of the isle that would like to clamp down on nations who dump cheap goods here, luckily cooler (and more intelligent) heads have prevailed to date.

I see a direct parallel to the "Dobbs" hysteria about China and what happened in the 70s and 80s with Japan and the Auto industry.

OTB

someone

03-21-2005, 07:02 AM

It's nice to see you wish to stick to this tired old refrain. As for cheap shots - keep them to yourself - because I don't share your rather narrow view of the the world's economy doesn't warrent this bull shit post.
You also don't share the view of reality.

I suggest that broaden your point of view - BTW wants this BS about supply/demand regarding currencies and labour - your point was that wages are the same in China as the US when you consider exchanges, clearly they are not.
Given your trouble reading my posts, I can believe that you have not read a book in years. It would likely be too demanding. I never said wages were the same in China and the U.S.

What suggest for you is to climb out of the text book and see how it works in the real world. Anyways clearly your prove that a little education is a dangerous thing - I'm done with you if you can't expand your beyond the text book.
bbk
And I am done with someone who does not even realize how embarrassing it is to admit that he has not read a book in years. I think that that admission says more about you than anything I could say.