The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Edward64

You would think there would be more press on this pending vote. Israel is against, US promises to veto etc.

I like Abbas and how he has kept his "part" quiet (for the most part I think). I don't know all details of the "statehood" but my inclination is to support the Abbas part at least.

Should be an interesting Sept 20.

Palestinians to present statehood bid to UN general assembly | World news | The Guardian

Its coming ... its not as if the same old/status quo is moving the chains, lets give this a chance.

LexisNexis News - Latest News from over 4,000 sources, including newspapers, tv transcripts, wire services, magazines, journals.

The Obama administration has begun a last-ditch diplomatic campaign to avert a confrontation this month over a Palestinian plan to seek recognition as a state at the United Nations, but it may already be too late, according to senior American officials and foreign diplomats.

The administration has circulated a proposal intended to be the basis of renewed peace talks with the Israelis - based on a formula that President Barack Obama outlined in May - in hopes of persuading the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to abandon the bid for recognition at the annual gathering of the U.N. General Assembly beginning Sept. 20.

The administration has privately made it clear to Mr. Abbas that it will veto any request that comes before the U.N. Security Council to make a Palestinian state a new member outright. But the United States alone does not have enough support to block a vote by the General Assembly to elevate the current status of the Palestinians' nonvoting observer ''entity'' to that of an nonvoting observer state.

Senior officials said the administration wanted to avoid not only a veto but also the more symbolic and potent General Assembly vote that would leave the United States and only a handful of other nations in opposition. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss diplomatic maneuverings, said they feared that in either case a backlash could sweep the Palestinian territories and the wider Arab world when the region is already in tumult.

''If you put the alternative out there, then you've suddenly just changed the circumstances and changed the dynamic,'' a senior administration official involved in the flurry of diplomacy said Thursday. ''And that's what we're trying very much to do.''

Efforts to head off the Palestinian diplomatic drive have percolated all summer, but have taken on an increased urgency as the vote and the confrontation loom. It has created a diplomatic dilemma for Mr. Obama, who after an uneven start has championed the aspirations of Arab protesters across the region. Now he is in a position of threatening to veto recognition of the aspirations of most Palestinians - or risk alienating Israel and its political supporters in the United States.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Nachric...S/Default.aspx

Israel fears that following the Palestinian Authority's September 20 bid at the United Nations to secure recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria (the so-called "West Bank"), Palestinian mobs will march on any Jews they see as "invaders" in that new state.

In fact, that is precisely what Palestinian leaders are telling the public to do.

"The appeal to the UN is a battle for all Palestinians, and in order to succeed, it needs millions to pour into streets," Palestinian official Yasser Abed Rabbo told the Associated Press following a Palestinian Authority vote endorsing a mass protest march on Israel.

Rabbo and other Palestinian leaders insist the protests will be peaceful, but Israeli officials noted that more often than not the Palestinians' definition of "peaceful" does not match Israel's.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

The concern with massive infrastructure spending is that spending is kept in checked. No inflated costs.

I have to say I don't really 'get' the checking of spending to some extent in this regard - cutting persistent costs makes sense for long term budget balancing and is required .... BUT on the other hand the government can borrow money at negative real interest rates presently (ie. less than inflation) so spending to invest in the future makes sense imho.

Or to put it another way, investing in infrastructure will create jobs and wealth - some of which will come back to the government via. taxes .... if jobs/wealth aren't generated then no amount of slashing and burning of the government will be able to balance the budget.

[SportsDino]

I think it is a little messed up that no one applies for lungs farm jobs... there are a number of factors that probably lead to that situation (seasonal rural jobs with many years of low wage expectations doesn't map well into an urban unemployed population). It is a shame though because agriculture is one of the few sectors that I would argue is doing well (what with all the inflation pushing up commodities, input costs rise to no doubt but a well run farm should overall net good gains).

Maybe people, particularly unskilled uneducated, need to adjust their expectations and go to the jobs that are needed and not the ones that they got away with for a few years doing boom times and the slow decline (and then fast decline of last few years).

----

Corruption is the biggest concern with infrastructure spending... but well it is the same with everything the government does. The tax cuts are corruption, the bank bailouts are corruption, just about every angle is exploited with a little grease in the government, so saying the government should avoid a particular area of policy because it is corrupt... well you ask me it should be out of the business of just about everything it has been doing already if we want to get serious about that. Infrastructure plus targeted tax incentives at least is a lot easier to control than many other forms of graft they have pulled the last few years (not free car or house money, subsidies get swallowed and gamed and don't move long term demand).

-----

I don't see the point in making unemployment linked to any particular job offer. One, unemployment has done more to keep this crappy economy running than a number of other things, particularly when measured against tax cuts, the phony stimulus, corp pork, or even military spending. Demand has a multiplier effect right now, and besides if they are getting unemployment it means they were hired in some fashion in the past (no matter how distant that may be now). Finally, I don't think there are many people content to live on unemployment... lack of money, piled up bills, and the eventual caps they keep extending will eventually whammy them.

I do think if the government were to make such an infrastructure program and be very active in getting people into those jobs, that would be a good thing. I don't think a stick would even be required... just make the local unemployment agencies actually care about people and help them instead of giving them bullshit, an attitude, incompetent with the paperwork, and treating the unemployed like a disease that walked in the door and that they have no responsibility to even point them in the right direction. The number of horror stories I have heard from people who are trying to use the pathetic systems we have in place are astounding (ranging from people hitting underemployed for years, to highly qualified people who found a job in three weeks... everyone is treated like garbage by the state and non profit workers who are getting paid to supposedly direct them towards work).

A strong government matchmaker would be welcome, hell I'm sure some segments of the private sector could piggy back on it as well.

But never mind that, besides we all know that companies don't bother hiring unemployed in the first place. All the 'good' people already have jobs the rest are hopeless losers!

-----

It will be sad and funny (in a gallows humor sort of way) when everyone looks back at the time period from 2000-2030 and wonders how everyone could be so short sighted. But if you set up a system which encourages purely maximizing profits, you have everyone right now running around saying "Well, what else should a company do?"

My hope is someone, maybe even me, will realize they can make money in this environment and they will be the giant companies of 2030 who show massive growth in this next recovery. At a macro level it is buy low and sell high... those sitting on the fence waiting for the official sign that the recovery has come will be the ones who get the least value out of the market climb because they are buying in everything at higher prices (higher starting wages for workers they acquire, weaker inventory at the demand surge, all their money in useless treasury bills when stocks surge 50% [hint gold kicks treasury bills in the ass for about 30+ years now]).

With the race towards mediocrity that seems to be the basis of our society we may be waiting a while, but those that break the trend will be the big winners overall. Unfortunately it is far too easy to win a nice jackpot by being a complete douchebag and destroying shareholder or national wealth to get pennies on the dollar. And it is riskier than most of the pansy executives can handle to move first because they care more about covering their ass than making money (hard to get work done with your hands covering your cheeks and your nose firmly entrenched in a CEO's butt).

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The problem is that every company is saying the same thing "As long as there are some customers out there, I have to do what I can to maximize profit" so everyone is cutting off everyone else's base just to maximize their own short term cash and profit.

Right on the money SI. These companies are just doing what big companies do...maximize profit, reduce risk exposure, and sit on your bread & butter money-making business units. When IBM, for example, lays off 2000 workers somewhere, they are doing it because "they" (i.e. IBM) could not make that business unit work profitably in their company. That does NOT mean there is no business need there, it is absolutely an opportunity for some other company that does (or can do) it better.

I'll give you a real example. Cisco. Big mega-company that has been cutting business units left & right. Their problem is being too large, with too little accountability, and having too many market segments/factors at play to manage. Whether its poor exec leadership, poor middle management, or just bad workers...it is irrelevant...they are abandoning market segments they lose money on(i.e. Flip phones/consumer market) in favor of staying afloat in the business units they do well in (enterprise routing/commercial segments). There is certainly going to be opportunity for smaller, leaner, more focused companies to come in and pick up the markets they have left.

Same with HP and their tablets/consumer laptops....HP thinks they are an enterprise supplier (or perhaps that is where they profit highest) and will leave market share out there. Maybe Apple picks it up if everybody sits on their hands, but it doesn't have to be that way.

I've always been a fan of this. The two big projects that really need to be done are modern electric grid and, yes, high speed rail. Those cost a lot of money but if you designate "buy American" provisions like a lot of the stimulus, they generate some of those "real jobs" in other sectors like engineering and railroad and electronic manufacturing and not just construction.

SI

Yes. I know we also need roads & bridges worked on as well...but I cannot say it enough...the electricity grid & energy sourcing side will drive the cost of EVERYTHING else in the best possible direction for the US. So, if you want sustainable operating/purchase costs for internet access, more devices in your home, food costs, automobiles, advanced health care services, cellular/GPS networks, HSR across the country, lower airline tickets, banking security/fees, renewed R&D investments to outer space, high(er) tech manufacturing, military mobilization costs (if needed)....literally, everything...you have to focus on the energy needed to do it & spare no reasonable expense to make it (financially) sustainable.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

My hope is someone, maybe even me, will realize they can make money in this environment and they will be the giant companies of 2030 who show massive growth in this next recovery. At a macro level it is buy low and sell high... those sitting on the fence waiting for the official sign that the recovery has come will be the ones who get the least value out of the market climb because they are buying in everything at higher prices (higher starting wages for workers they acquire, weaker inventory at the demand surge, all their money in useless treasury bills when stocks surge 50% [hint gold kicks treasury bills in the ass for about 30+ years now]).

With the race towards mediocrity that seems to be the basis of our society we may be waiting a while, but those that break the trend will be the big winners overall. Unfortunately it is far too easy to win a nice jackpot by being a complete douchebag and destroying shareholder or national wealth to get pennies on the dollar. And it is riskier than most of the pansy executives can handle to move first because they care more about covering their ass than making money (hard to get work done with your hands covering your cheeks and your nose firmly entrenched in a CEO's butt).

But, ultimately, if you want to be a profitable company in 2030, the rules will be the same as they are now. You will be more profitable if you outsource your work to another country.

If you're the next McDonalds, say, then you will employ a lot of people in this country... most at minimum wage. If you're the next, I dunno, Google or replacement for GM, you'll have some pretty good waged workers here but you will also have more elsewhere otherwise, you'll get killed by, say, the Chinese or Indian company that does the same thing you do.

How do you change that without some significant protectionism and we're definitely not going back that direction. People who run companies love globalism- you can live here, make a ton of profits, and just keep sending jobs overseas for bigger and bigger profits. You have companies that are more and more marginally "American" with huge international work forces.

SI

[JPhillips]

I don't think that has to be true. Germany has a strong manufacturing base with compensation higher than in the US. It's only a race to the bottom if you agree to run in it.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

How do you change that without some significant protectionism and we're definitely not going back that direction. People who run companies love globalism- you can live here, make a ton of profits, and just keep sending jobs overseas for bigger and bigger profits. You have companies that are more and more marginally "American" with huge international work forces.

SI

Well, globalism is a 2 way street though. The more you outsource to another country because of low wages, that same country then begins to increase its domestic quality of life. This helps to spur local demand for those same employees working for the foreign (US-owned for instance) company, which in turn drives up the US-owner's cost to employ workers. This is of course a very gradual process but it tends to balance itself out eventually when you hit the apex between the cost for outsourced labor including logistics to get to the target market (which may be the US, or may be elsewhere) vs the cost to run your business with US employees and no international logistics to worry about. Clearly, the Japanese auto companies don't agree that US labor is cost preventative for supplying to US consumers.

I think in the end it lifts the base quality of life for the outsourced workers in those countries while making the quality of life for impacted US workers stagnant, albeit very damaging/disruptive in the short term when the position(s) is outsourced.

As a bit of a side note...thats also why I'm not overly concerned with how far the US is falling behind in math skills compared to other countries. If you flood the market with 3B + of ANYTHING, it will just make it cheap & disposable. If you do that with advanced mathematics, you just make mathematicians cheaper. Plus, as long as western societies don't degrade into something the rest of the world no longer wants to be a part of, we will just have immigrants who are more educated than previous generations that came here who took the menial labor jobs upon first entering.

This is why I keep going back to the fundamentals of cost in the world. There are fundamental things needed for a society which, if outsourced, will enrich other societies and lower quality of life for our own society. Food, energy, & technology. You cannot outsource all of these things to a large imbalance or else you will ultimately fall behind your competitors (in the financial sense, but certainly there is spillover to other things such as the impact oil has on our interests abroad).

[SportsDino]

It is certainly hard to compete with cheap labor in many sectors which is why I argue the attempts to compete on those grounds are not a good idea. The thought in America for a few decades now is to attempt to resemble a third world country, low wages because workers are replaceable, weak emphasis on technology and efficiency because it will scare the big companies that are too lazy to implement it (and can cast it as a 'risk' thing), and thinking of the economy as a giant zero sum game where the only way you can get a dollar is if you physically yank it from somewhere else.

For America to turn around it does need to act like its own version of a Germany, a Sweden, or even a China (bad model in a lot of ways but some of their quirks are brilliant in a morbid survivalist sort of way). You need to focus on your strengths and build new ones, and build up your middle class.

Look at history and all pundits aside when you see any country making massive strides at becoming an economic power it is because some factors within that country's model have allowed upward mobility for a large number of people and all the right conditions for growth are hit. Not just a lack of war, or a collection of good technological developments, or easy availability of capital, but an attitude that all you need to do is reach for it and work hard and you can get somewhere. This is true of everything from the rise of merchant classes, ancient agricultural innovation, the American rushes in wealth (arguably to me the automobile revolution and the stages of great Western expansion, one exploiting technology and a culture change that creates massive demand, the other just a super abundance of resources and all the conditions to put people to exploit it).

Where the U.S. can compete is technology and its massive work force and high consumer spending base (and large amount of cash even though all you hear about is the deficits). You do this best not with a race to the bottom but a race to quality, you push the standards on products in ways that decrease inefficiency costs (like pollution) and improve standard of living and you push various product lines out of the competitive abilities of low wage countries. You still will have companies locate their work force outside and try and develop the products here though, and I can't see any way around that based on pure math. Unfortunately you can weld on a car door just about the same in Chicago or China, short of protectionism it is hard to get around the cheap labor edge.

We could improve a few areas though to make manufacturing slightly more viable, including eliminating the tax loopholes that make foreign dollars more attractive, getting reasonable tariffs in place (to generate income for that massive deficit we have, not to block products), and fighting back when other countries put unreasonable trade limitations on us (block our products then we will fuck you up mentality, Americans CAN live without cheap imports, the market is so damn huge and with so many players it will adapt, everyone thinks the world will end due to a price change based on this when we have inflation all the time just from our bad monetary policy).

Also some sort of quality controls, as in if your country ships us lead painted toys we can sue the hell out of that company and if the country does not cooperate you get a trade ban in place. Protect our consumer aggressively because we end up paying the costs anyway with our health programs.

But altogether I don't know how much it will budge the market. I know I would locate my manufacturing here, but that has more to do with my paranoid control freak and quality control tendencies than bottom line cost. And the type of manufacturing/work I hope to be involved in which would lend more towards tech, infrastructure, and services, all of which are easiest if they happen where the sales are going to be made.

[SportsDino]

I am concerned about America falling behind in math skills. Engineers make good money, and set up a lot of the processes and machinery that employs other people, not to mention generate a lot of revenue for companies.

If we applied mathematical thinking to a lot more facets of daily life we would probably be better off across the board. For instance people who can calculate a mortgage and understand all the implications. People who can calculate a budget. The damn McDonalds employee giving me the right number of quarters dammit!

A lot of political fluff would fall apart if people thought with numbers instead of with 'my gut feel and opinion on the appearance of the candidate'.

Math is one of those areas where you have to apply it to get any mojo from it, but those who do have a lot more job security, growth prospects, and ability to solve problems rather than wait for a brain to come along and do it for them.

If you don't teach math what exactly are kids learning in school all those years? You already have vocal groups saying English and literature (beyond basic reading comprehension) are useless, history is useless, there is a movement for phys ed because all the kids are little porkers but that won't translate into jobs, science depends on math for all of the interesting stuff... if there is no value in all that hard work we should probably cut all that money from the budget, lets start with your kids though okay.

Personally I want my kids (I got a soon to be stepson) to be able to think for themselves and never feel they can't do the things they need to do to get what they want. That means math and reading comprehension and curiousity to do more than you are told so you can find advantages. The boy wasn't encouraged to be smart before and doesn't have great grades, but guess what he does pretty damn good with some complicated math and other concepts if you take the time to talk with him about it. You gotta connect kids to thinking before they get too old and just believe they can't do it (the biggest problem I've had is the attitude of impossibility he shows which he always overcomes when he makes the effort but seems ingrained from years of education = meh).

[SteveMax58]

SD...The key here in my mind is the concept of "America, the land of freedom & opportunity" vs the concept of "my America that only I am entitled to".

What you are saying about math and your own kids is no different than what I do as well with my own kids. But there is a vary large entitlement mentality in this country that does not embrace immigration as an "American" concept, and in fact, believes foreigners are not deserving of being an equal.

It is the founding of this country & why this country is so desirable for the oppressed (and non-oppressed) people everywhere to come to. Without immigration, we lose out on the edge in multiculturalism which attracts new cultures every generation. They come here with their desire to work hard, their knowledge that nothing is handed to you, and their sense of fairness that tends to erode in the native-born population over time. That doesn't mean all native-born Americans are lazy, entitled, or stupid...nor does it mean they should ever accept mediocrity as a matter of principle for their kids. But it does mean that without influx of new generations of foreigners, I think the idea or concept of America becomes less about hard work and individual rights and more about entitlement & protectionism...which, I think is the foundation of bad policy & ultimately facilitates the need to wage war for resources as there will come a tripping point where we bloat ourselves to the point of being incapable of buttoning our own pants, so to speak.

A complex issue to say the least...but that is why I don't fear falling behind in math as we'll have 100M Asian-born mathematicians (or some variant thereof) over the next 30-50 years who will simply not wash the bed sheets, but in fact, help us develop technology to go to another planet (for instance). This is completely consistent in my mind, with the concept of America.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Well, globalism is a 2 way street though. The more you outsource to another country because of low wages, that same country then begins to increase its domestic quality of life. This helps to spur local demand for those same employees working for the foreign (US-owned for instance) company, which in turn drives up the US-owner's cost to employ workers. This is of course a very gradual process but it tends to balance itself out eventually when you hit the apex between the cost for outsourced labor including logistics to get to the target market (which may be the US, or may be elsewhere) vs the cost to run your business with US employees and no international logistics to worry about. Clearly, the Japanese auto companies don't agree that US labor is cost preventative for supplying to US consumers.

I think in the end it lifts the base quality of life for the outsourced workers in those countries while making the quality of life for impacted US workers stagnant, albeit very damaging/disruptive in the short term when the position(s) is outsourced.

As a bit of a side note...thats also why I'm not overly concerned with how far the US is falling behind in math skills compared to other countries. If you flood the market with 3B + of ANYTHING, it will just make it cheap & disposable. If you do that with advanced mathematics, you just make mathematicians cheaper. Plus, as long as western societies don't degrade into something the rest of the world no longer wants to be a part of, we will just have immigrants who are more educated than previous generations that came here who took the menial labor jobs upon first entering.

This is why I keep going back to the fundamentals of cost in the world. There are fundamental things needed for a society which, if outsourced, will enrich other societies and lower quality of life for our own society. Food, energy, & technology. You cannot outsource all of these things to a large imbalance or else you will ultimately fall behind your competitors (in the financial sense, but certainly there is spillover to other things such as the impact oil has on our interests abroad).

However, you seem to be portraying this as a short term problem. This will literally be a 50-100 year period of US stagnation while we distribute our wealth to the rest of the world. Yes, it's inevitable, and, ultimately it's for the greater good. But, in a globalized world, you can't have 300M people controlling a quarter of the wealth with 1/20th of the population in a developed world.

We, and a lot of the western world, have per capita incomes of $35K to $50K. The BRIC countries, for all of their "advances", still only average $10K per year so there's a lot of ground to gain and it comes from somewhere. This is going to take a while and if you allow for the unplanned, uncontrolled capitalism we like here, there's no incentive to do anything but outsource the jobs and keep the money in the hands of a few "entrepreneurs" and some of the managing class.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Americans CAN live without cheap imports

We choose not to.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

However, you seem to be portraying this as a short term problem. This will literally be a 50-100 year period of US stagnation while we distribute our wealth to the rest of the world. Yes, it's inevitable, and, ultimately it's for the greater good. But, in a globalized world, you can't have 300M people controlling a quarter of the wealth with 1/20th of the population in a developed world.

We, and a lot of the western world, have per capita incomes of $35K to $50K. The BRIC countries, for all of their "advances", still only average $10K per year so there's a lot of ground to gain and it comes from somewhere. This is going to take a while and if you allow for the unplanned, uncontrolled capitalism we like here, there's no incentive to do anything but outsource the jobs and keep the money in the hands of a few "entrepreneurs" and some of the managing class.

SI

A rising income in China doesn't have to mean a lowering income in the US. When our incomes rose to the current level it didn't make the Chinese poorer.

[JPhillips]

This is really a great read from a former GOP political staffer.

Goodbye all: reflections of a GOP operative who left the cult

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A rising income in China doesn't have to mean a lowering income in the US. When our incomes rose to the current level it didn't make the Chinese poorer.

For the record, I'm talking about buying power- not pure income (as inflation makes that continue to go up even as real income has stagnated over the last 10 years).

No, we had 2 major events that caused our incomes rose to the current level. The first mostly happened from the 40s to 60s when the rest of the world had their income levels go from "Pre-WW2" to "Oh crap, our infrastructure has been destroyed".

The other was a once-in-a-lifetime scientific boom with the internet. I'd argue that's more of an outlier than standard.

SI

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is really a great read from a former GOP political staffer.

Goodbye all: reflections of a GOP operative who left the cult

Maybe the best thing I've read all year. He summed up every single one of my problems with the way the Republican party is running itself right now. They are starting to look more and more like fascists.

[JPhillips]

And the whole industrial revolution.

(For SI, not rowech)

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And the whole industrial revolution.

(For SI, not rowech)

I didn't think there were reliable numbers for wages during the Industrial Revolution. I would have categorized things as having a drastically different model back then but I could see the argument being made.

SI

[JPhillips]

I think a lot of wage growth came in the transition from an agrarian to industrial economy. The same thing is happening for millions of peasants in Asia and Africa.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

However, you seem to be portraying this as a short term problem. This will literally be a 50-100 year period of US stagnation while we distribute our wealth to the rest of the world. Yes, it's inevitable, and, ultimately it's for the greater good. But, in a globalized world, you can't have 300M people controlling a quarter of the wealth with 1/20th of the population in a developed world.

Well, you can only realistically look so far ahead. I think its more likely that the US will be Greece or Italy in 100 years than being the world's largest/richest empire regardless of globalization.

Globalization (or outsourcing from a US standpoint) is really a rich man's tool to use. There are certainly laws/tariffs that need to be modified or looked at, but trying to fight it with protectionism is just not going to work. As they say...we have to earn our keep as the world's super power.

[SportsDino]

Rising wages here do not come out of somewhere else, that is zero sum thinking that is common but incorrect. Its hard to keep track of but dollars are currency used to simplify exchange, not the total sum of all world wealth. Value and quantities can grow without currency inflation and examples like the industrial revolution are a good example of this. Basic standard of living rose dramatically across the board in the entire world during that time.

If the economy was zero sum we would all still be cavemen.

[SteveMax58]

I think you might be confusing what people (including myself) commonly infer, which is buying power, not actual number of dollars. Buying power in relation to the rate of inflation.

The reverse is true as well. A lot of people insist there is no inflation, whereas what most people are really referring to (including myself) is the loss in buying power.

Its definitely worth clarifying from time to time, but I think it would get tedious to caveat everything with the definition being used every time.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A rising income in China doesn't have to mean a lowering income in the US. When our incomes rose to the current level it didn't make the Chinese poorer.

I think this is true as well. As a matter of fact, the "problem" as it were today, is that China is keeping the Yuan artificially low by hoarding it in order to keep their workers' salaries low enough to continue being attractive to Western businesses. If/when the actual reserves are put into circulation over there, there is going to be a good deal of inflation which will cause worker salary demands/needs to rise as well, unless businesses leave China and go loot some other cheap labor. But even that isn't a practical strategy as it takes a lot of stars to align (education of citizens, stability of law/order, availability of services, etc.) to make a country truly attractive enough to use labor in. Of course, this depends on what you need the labor to do...certainly trinket assembly has a lower set of requirements...but you aren't building iPads in Zimbabwe tomorrow no matter how cheap the labor is.

So, I think this sort of goes to what SI had questioned as far as the longer term picture. I think there are a confluence of things that may (or may not) happen which are highly unpredictable...but what I think IS predictable, is that there will be a breaking point of "something". That may be worker demands, currency inflation, availability of services, no new educated labor supply, wars, or a good ole migration of talent to Western societies and/or ways of thinking (back to my earlier point about ensuring we don't allow our society to degrade into unattractiveness).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

#2s are a little more rare, but we have killed at least 100 #3s. For the longest time, it was that any time some middle manager in Al Qaeda was killed that wasn't Bin Laden or al Zawahiri, they were somehow the #3.

Maybe another #3?

Pakistan Detains 3 Suspected Al Qaeda Members, Including Top Operative | FoxNews.com

ISLAMABAD -- Pakistani intelligence officers working with the CIA arrested three members of Al Qaeda including a top operative believed to have been tasked by Usama bin Laden with targeting American economic interests around the world, Pakistan's army said Monday.

Younis al-Mauritani's arrest -- made public five days before the 10-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks -- was seen as a blow to Al Qaeda's central leadership in Pakistan, further degrading its ability to mount terrorist attacks abroad. The terrorist organization has seen its senior ranks thinned since Usama bin Laden was killed May 2 along with Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, the group's No.2, in a CIA missile strike last month.

The public announcement of close cooperation with the CIA appeared aimed at reversing the widespread perception that ties between U.S. intelligence and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency had been badly damaged by the U.S. killing of bin Laden inside Pakistan.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

SD...The key here in my mind is the concept of "America, the land of freedom & opportunity" vs the concept of "my America that only I am entitled to".

What you are saying about math and your own kids is no different than what I do as well with my own kids. But there is a vary large entitlement mentality in this country that does not embrace immigration as an "American" concept, and in fact, believes foreigners are not deserving of being an equal.

It is the founding of this country & why this country is so desirable for the oppressed (and non-oppressed) people everywhere to come to. Without immigration, we lose out on the edge in multiculturalism which attracts new cultures every generation. They come here with their desire to work hard, their knowledge that nothing is handed to you, and their sense of fairness that tends to erode in the native-born population over time. That doesn't mean all native-born Americans are lazy, entitled, or stupid...nor does it mean they should ever accept mediocrity as a matter of principle for their kids. But it does mean that without influx of new generations of foreigners, I think the idea or concept of America becomes less about hard work and individual rights and more about entitlement & protectionism...which, I think is the foundation of bad policy & ultimately facilitates the need to wage war for resources as there will come a tripping point where we bloat ourselves to the point of being incapable of buttoning our own pants, so to speak.

A complex issue to say the least...but that is why I don't fear falling behind in math as we'll have 100M Asian-born mathematicians (or some variant thereof) over the next 30-50 years who will simply not wash the bed sheets, but in fact, help us develop technology to go to another planet (for instance). This is completely consistent in my mind, with the concept of America.

Well, I think there is a HUGE delta between those who embrace controlled immigration and those who embrace open-borders. Both embrace multi-culturalism and both embrace equality. But one embraces organized constraints within the grasp of what our budget can handle and the other couldn't care less about our budget. What you are implying is that concern for controlled immigration is simply racism and I would disagree completely.

As for 100M asian-born mathematicians in the next 50-100 years, great. But that's 200-300 million dumbass kids 70-120 years after that who will insist on somebody else taking care of them and ultimately getting something for nothing, that's the real "entitlement" problem America has and the founding fathers never envisioned that as an "American" ideal.

OT Sidebar: If SE Asia can produce 100 million mathematicians (SIC) that can't find work in SE Asia...then perhaps just knowing math isn't exactly the solution either. We have to correct our educational issues internally at some point. The big white elephant in the room continues to be our lack of vision, structure, and success at our nation's public school systems. Why aren't we producing mathameticians that can compete with SE Asia?

[SteveMax58]

I don't know what you think you read Dutch, but I don't see how you could walk away thinking of an implication about being a racist if you don't embrace open borders. I didn't even imply open borders as a matter of immigration. The word "immigration" should be understood to imply "legal immigration", which has a set of requirements to it and a whole other topic for discussion. The 2 are not the same and one should not be so overly sensitive to the issue to draw that conclusion from what I wrote.

Also...the point of the Asian migration of mathematicians was only to highlight that if countries (namely India & China) in the Billions that produce massive amounts of highly skilled people of a particular education, it will simply lower the cost to employ such skillsets (on a global basis, each market/country will always have variability). But in addition, those 100M (my swag of an estimate) mathematicians would be coming on the premise that the US has a shortfall AND those people prefer/want to be a part of American/Western society (not because they can't find a job in Asia).

This is not a bad thing (and is already happening), no different than when Polish, Irish, Italian, and many other immigrants migrated here over time. The key difference is that the new immigrants from Asia/India are better educated than previous generations were and thus won't be the people doing the menial labor jobs in the 1st generation.

That doesn't mean native-born citizens are being forced to step aside, but they just can't be a scientist without actually learning science. And you are right about needing to correct our educational shortcomings. My only point was that math, specifically, won't doom us into 3rd world status...it will be our culture & attractiveness of the ideals we represent that might (or perhaps will).

[Dutch]

But there is a vary large entitlement mentality in this country that does not embrace immigration as an "American" concept, and in fact, believes foreigners are not deserving of being an equal.

I read this as "a very large group of Americans that have this entitlement mentality belief that foreigners are not equal". That's racism.

It is the founding of this country & why this country is so desirable for the oppressed (and non-oppressed) people everywhere to come to. Without immigration, we lose out on the edge in multiculturalism which attracts new cultures every generation.

I read this as a choice between open borders and closed borders. I believe we have controlled borders, which is the ideal middle ground that most nations embrace.

Anyway, my point was that America does embrace multi-culturism and that we shouldn't worry too much about that. Our real problems is our ability to train hundreds of millions of future Americans to be productive members of this society.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I read this as "a very large group of Americans that have this entitlement mentality belief that foreigners are not equal". That's racism.

That quote is setup by the previous line which you did not quote. And foreigners are not equal in rights, but foreigners who become citizens are. There are plenty who don't think they deserve that equality, which was the point. Race has nothing to do with it...as they could very well be Caucasian & from England, for example.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

That quote is setup by the previous line which you did not quote. And foreigners are not equal in rights, but foreigners who become citizens are. There are plenty who don't think they deserve that equality, which was the point. Race has nothing to do with it...as they could very well be Caucasian & from England, for example.

Lets be honest, no one is screaming about illegals from Europe.

[SteveMax58]

And nobody here is claiming somebody is a racist because they don't see foreign-born citizens as deserving equal rights. But its a common theme that nobody considers that where the US has a shortfall, that future foreigners who become citizens will be capable (or should be seen as resources) to help fill that shortfall.

You guys are conflating 2 arguments into 1 which is something that our society's PC police (which has members on both sides of the aisle) has branded into every day thinking. Sorry...I dont have any guilt about using terms such as "not equal" and NOT thinking that it necessitates racism. Xenophobic? Perhaps that describes it better, but racist? I dont think that is the reason most would think see it that way.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Lets be honest, no one is screaming about illegals from Europe.

As a bit of a DOLA (quote since its a new page) to add to the previous post.

While I agree that nobody is really up in arms because of immigration from Europeans, I think I disagree to a certain extent that these same people wouldn't. I think history would suggest they have in the past as well. Irish, Italian, Polish immigrants all were relegated to the menial labor roles due to not being well educated and were also discriminated against. That had nothing to do with their race, it was purely (IMO) because of a perception that the native-born Americans (mostly of English/French decent) were entitled to the opportunities in the US more than them.

I'd venture to say that if a large influx of French happened, as an example, today that it would also become a bother to some natives who feel that they are entitled to this country and that these French immigrants are somehow less than equal in deserving the same opportunities. Sort of the low-man on the totem pole rejection we see in a lot of other circles. They would reject the accents, the culture, and many other characteristics that would accompany them & we wouldn't perceive that as racism...we'd call it xenophobia, or some other term. So, that's why I don't see the rejection of (legal) Mexican immigrants, Asian immigrants, or even Middle Eastern immigrants as anything but just another in a long line of native-born entitlement that new people are coming here to take our jobs that we are entitled to (whether we work hard for them or not).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Lets be honest, no one is screaming about illegals from Europe.

That Marc Vaughn character has caused this country nothing but trouble since he moved over here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Lets be honest, no one is screaming about illegals from Europe.

How many people are running into them on a regular basis?

[Edward64]

More fun on Tue. I don't think they can blame this on the US can they?

BBC News - Market slide continues as euro debt fears resurface

Frankfurt's Dax index ended the day 5.3% lower, while the Paris Cac 40 fell 4.7% and the FTSE 100 a comparatively modest 3.6% - its second-biggest fall this year.
:
:
Asian markets also fell earlier in the day, with the Nikkei in Tokyo ending 1.9% down, and Hong Kong's Hang Seng 3% lower. US markets remained closed on Monday for Labor Day.

The current slide in markets, which began in late Thursday trading in New York, was triggered by mounting evidence of a slowdown in the global economy and fears over the impact of US and European government austerity.
:
:
Bank shares have taken the brunt of the latest stock market sell-off.

Royal Bank of Scotland fell 12.3%, Deutsche Bank 8.9% and Societe Generale 8.6%.

Most major banks in the US and Europe have lost about half of their value over the last six months.

Fears began to mount again that the eurozone may not be able to contain its debt crisis, and a government default could in turn lead to a European banking crisis.

Deutsche Bank's outgoing chief executive, Josef Ackermann, said on Monday that some European banks would go bust if they were forced to recognise in their accounts the existing losses on government debts they own, based on current market prices for government bonds.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I'd venture to say that if a large influx of French happened, as an example, today that it would also become a bother to some natives who feel that they are entitled to this country and that these French immigrants are somehow less than equal in deserving the same opportunities. Sort of the low-man on the totem pole rejection we see in a lot of other circles. They would reject the accents, the culture, and many other characteristics that would accompany them & we wouldn't perceive that as racism...we'd call it xenophobia, or some other term. So, that's why I don't see the rejection of (legal) Mexican immigrants, Asian immigrants, or even Middle Eastern immigrants as anything but just another in a long line of native-born entitlement that new people are coming here to take our jobs that we are entitled to (whether we work hard for them or not).

I think you're absolutely right. It's just another in a long line of immigrant panics in the US, the same as with the Irish, Italians, Germans, Chinese and Japanese.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

More fun on Tue. I don't think they can blame this on the US can they?

BBC News - Market slide continues as euro debt fears resurface

AUSTERITY FOREVER!

[DaddyTorgo]

Yikes. Blood in the water.

[Edward64]

Premarket Stock Trading - CNNMoney

U.S. Stock Futures
S&P -25.90 / -2.22%
Level 1,143.40
Fair Value 1,172.91
Difference -29.51
Data as of 11:03pm ET

Nasdaq -46.25 / -2.14%
Level 2,118.50
Fair Value 2,167.43
Difference -48.93

Data as of 10:41pm ET
Dow -256.00 / -2.28%

[JPhillips]

From Bruce Bartlett:

In a courtroom, justice requires that both sides be equally well represented. If one doesn’t do its job properly, the jury cannot be blamed for a wrong result. If Democrats are going to accept Republican premises, they shouldn’t be surprised if a majority of people eventually conclude that Republicans ought to be in charge of government policy.

Yep.

[Edward64]

Romney's plan.

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney unveils jobs plan - CNN.com

Romney said his program would bring annual economic growth of 4% during the first four years of his presidency and create 11 million jobs.

"The right course for America is to believe in growth," Romney said. "Growing our economy is the way to get people to work and to balance our budget."

He promised to bring the corporate tax rate down from the current level of 35% to 25%, in line with much of the rest of the world, saying, "I will do that on day one." He also pledged to immediately halt any regulations and policies implemented by President Barack Obama that stall job growth.

The Romney plan, as outlined in a USA Today piece Monday, contained 59 specific proposals to turn the economy around, including 10 "concrete actions" he pledged to take on his first day in office if elected.

"Each proposal is rooted in the conservative premise that government itself cannot create jobs," Romney wrote in the USA Today column.

He proposed the creation of the "Reagan Economic Zone," which he described in the article as "a partnership among countries committed to free enterprise and free trade."

The World Trade Organization serves a similar role, and Romney did not elaborate in the USA Today piece how his proposal would be different.

Unfortunately, health care reform continuation/progression is pretty high up for me.

The Republican packages so far, while differing in scope and some details, generally call for major reforms of the tax and regulatory systems that proponents say will ease the burden on businesses, allowing them to increase investment and hire more people.

They share one common trait -- getting rid of the health care reforms enacted last year by Obama and Democrats.

[stevew]

Hmm, since we already have used "voodoo economics", I think Romney's tax plan is crackhead economics or some other clever name. Tax rates are already at low levels in the practical sense, I don't think that continuing to lower rates once you get past zero is possible unless you're Chuck Norris. Especially when I'd wager a huge amount of money that there is no tied in mandate for "we lower your rate, you create X jobs."

[RainMaker]

It's trickle down crap that has proven not to work. Demand is what will create jobs. Padding a company's balance sheet just means bigger bonuses.

[JPhillips]

I'd really like Romney or Huntsman to answer why they think a corporate tax cut will help employment when companies currently sit on record cash reserves.

Every recession isn't the same. Sometimes a supply side solution is needed, but our current crisis needs a demand solution.

[lcjjdnh]

The "Reagan Economic Zone"?!?!?!?! Do people really buy that garbage? Aside from the absurd sloganism, does it even mean anything, given the WTO exists, as the article points out?

[flounder]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's trickle down crap that has proven not to work.

I'd say at this point that it's government stimulus that has proven not to work.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

How many people are running into them on a regular basis?

Sad thing is, i think Jon is asking a literal question.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flounder

I'd say at this point that it's government stimulus that has proven not to work.

This chart is going to be the 'Mission Accomplished' of the Obama Administration. Actual is nearly spot-on with the non-stimulus projections.

[lcjjdnh]

Originally Posted by flounder

I'd say at this point that it's government stimulus that has proven not to work.

How does that "prove" anything? Even if it didn't meet expectations--economy is quite difficult to model after all--it might have exceeded what would have happened in the absence of a stimulus package. For all we know our current situation--obviously less than ideal--is much better than the counterfactual where we did nothing at all (as opposed to what we did, which was not go far enough).

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by flounder

I'd say at this point that it's government stimulus that has proven not to work.

It just proves at that scale it does not work.

I guess in comparison, in 1938 it would be very easy (and maybe correct) that the New Deal did not work. However, in 1946 I bet you would have said the massive stimulus of the previous 5 years did work. Just thank god it was a war, with an ending...

[flounder]

It may have worked 70 years ago, but the experience here and in Japan and Europe suggests that massive government stimulus just doesn't have the same effect on a modern economy.