Politics Discussion

[Pyure]

The problem is that it's a bunch of disparate markets, not a unified global one. People are much more likely to spend money close to home, and unless you're exporting your goods close to their home, if you buy THEIR product, then revenue is sunk into THEIR local economy. Which is why the US is having so many economic problems right now, the USA offloaded basically all production/manufacturing jobs to China (and a few other places, but mostly China). Which means that all the money is flowing to China, which means there's less money coming into the USA, which means US citizens have less money to spend, which quickly leads to less spending. That's why buying local is so advertized. That's why the advice during recessions/depressions is to spend. Because the only way to have a healthy economy is to have money flowing, and if the money leaves the system, the system dies. Right now with the way corporations are pushing for prices at the cost of sustainability? The money is BLEEDING out of the US into other countries. Which is unsustainable. Which is the point of all the advice to buy local. Because if more people did that, your job would almost certainly get more money, which means you would have better job security and likely get more money to spend; the only people that lose out when you try to buy local when reasonable are the other markets that almost certainly won't be sending money back your way.

I particularly like this section so I'm commenting on it.

The scenario is analogous to a wolf population which is primarily sustained by the rabbits it catches. The two populations wax and wane. If the wolves get too good at hunting, the hares drop off. The wolves then starve. So the hares rebound.

The "sustainable" response here isn't to interfere and try to balance out one population or the other. The response is to let it proceed. Right now our western countries are at the shitty part of the cycle.

Countries like the US and Canada (my own) are going to suffer at a rate inversely proportional to how well we adapt. That or we prop up our economies with artificial market pressures. The little people like me aren't going to notice a big difference either way but I put a bit more pressure on my local economy to adapt faster when I make a point of buying "intelligent" instead of local.

 

[psp]

The problem is that it's a bunch of disparate markets, not a unified global one. People are much more likely to spend money close to home, and unless you're exporting your goods close to their home, if you buy THEIR product, then revenue is sunk into THEIR local economy. Which is why the US is having so many economic problems right now, the USA offloaded basically all production/manufacturing jobs to China (and a few other places, but mostly China). Which means that all the money is flowing to China, which means there's less money coming into the USA, which means US citizens have less money to spend, which quickly leads to less spending. That's why buying local is so advertized. That's why the advice during recessions/depressions is to spend. Because the only way to have a healthy economy is to have money flowing, and if the money leaves the system, the system dies. Right now with the way corporations are pushing for prices at the cost of sustainability? The money is BLEEDING out of the US into other countries. Which is unsustainable. Which is the point of all the advice to buy local. Because if more people did that, your job would almost certainly get more money, which means you would have better job security and likely get more money to spend; the only people that lose out when you try to buy local when reasonable are the other markets that almost certainly won't be sending money back your way.

That's what my "producer-countries scenario" was saying. You spend money on chinese goods. That money goes to China. When does that money ever come back to your neck of the woods? China is making everything, what could they possibly want from another country? Raw materials? Ok, yay... unfortunately they're a MANUFACTURING country, which means the raw materials (quite by necessity) must cost less than the products going out. So China gains money. Unless you're Chinese, China gaining money doesn't help you in much of any way unless you don't buy Chinese products, and instead only provide them with the raw materials.

Also the lack of regulation in China is why Chinese goods have toxins in/on them. Lead-containing paints, unsafe plastics, heavy metals, pesticides. Not to mention that they're positively wrecking the environment thanks to a lack of environmental regulations, AND they treat their workers not much better than slaves. That's why I buy local. Because I know the money will come back to me in some form, and I know (or can find out) the conditions in which the things I'm buying were made.

The United States is just finishing the final leg of transferring from a production/manufacturing economy into a service based economy.
Would you rather be a factory worker, or an engineer designing the factory those people are working in? You are right in a sense, a model such as this one, is only sustainable in a truly global economy.

 

[TomeWyrm]

If our services were being used abroad? I'd love to be the engineer! Except that we (Canada/US) don't (or at least I haven't seen mention that we do) export our expertise. People come to get schooling here and then hire themselves out locally. One of other the problems is that there are a lot of services that are unsustainable as a means of providing a living wage. I mean, everyone needs a doctor every now and then, but how many times do you need a factory designed? It requires either infinite growth potential or a destructive force to remove old product (which in this case would be factories) in order to be sustainable.

The biggest problem that I see about western economies right now (particularly the North American ones) is that we're offloading creation of value to other parts of the world, and those parts of the world aren't doing anything but taking our money. We have next to nothing to offer them of sufficient value to maintain anything but a downward trend on our usable funds. I mean sure, if we were building all their factories, maintaining all their robots, and such? It'd be great, the wolves and rabbits would be in something approaching balance (probably) and then the easy thing to do would be try and maintain that. But free markets aren't particularly stable. They may balance out, they may not. Nobody has ever done a truly free market, there's always some form of regulation, even if it is not explicit; but that's a good thing. We've tried anarchy in every possible way, politically, socially, economically, you name it. Chaos is not a good thing for an ordered system

 

[Pyure]

If our services were being used abroad? I'd love to be the engineer! Except that we (Canada/US) don't (or at least I haven't seen mention that we do) export our expertise. People come to get schooling here and then hire themselves out locally. One of other the problems is that there are a lot of services that are unsustainable as a means of providing a living wage. I mean, everyone needs a doctor every now and then, but how many times do you need a factory designed? It requires either infinite growth potential or a destructive force to remove old product (which in this case would be factories) in order to be sustainable.

The biggest problem that I see about western economies right now (particularly the North American ones) is that we're offloading creation of value to other parts of the world, and those parts of the world aren't doing anything but taking our money. We have next to nothing to offer them of sufficient value to maintain anything but a downward trend on our usable funds. I mean sure, if we were building all their factories, maintaining all their robots, and such? It'd be great, the wolves and rabbits would be in something approaching balance (probably) and then the easy thing to do would be try and maintain that. But free markets aren't particularly stable. They may balance out, they may not. Nobody has ever done a truly free market, there's always some form of regulation, even if it is not explicit; but that's a good thing. We've tried anarchy in every possible way, politically, socially, economically, you name it. Chaos is not a good thing for an ordered system

Economies are a competition, and some people will come out on top and some will come out on bottom.

If we're failing to compete because lineworkers "deserve" a "living wage" that gives them a large home and flatscreen TVs, then we're going to suffer badly for a while.

 

[trajing]

I don't agree with you what a free market is, unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.
A free market should have regulations to make sure businesses play fair. Think of it as a tabletop RPG - you don't want the GM to get involved too much - that would ruin suspension of disbelief - but you're fine if the GM fudges the numbers a bit so that you aren't dead, just nearly so.

 

[Pyure]

I don't agree with you what a free market is, unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.
A free market should have regulations to make sure businesses play fair. Think of it as a tabletop RPG - you don't want the GM to get involved too much - that would ruin suspension of disbelief - but you're fine if the GM fudges the numbers a bit so that you aren't dead, just nearly so.

Insofar as this reply is concerned we're almost on the same page.

The GM should get involved to ensure nobody cheats, remind everyone of the rules, and lay down the law as necessary. But number-fudging would be a no-no. Everything must play out naturally.

 

[psp]

Insofar as this reply is concerned we're almost on the same page.

The GM should get involved to ensure nobody cheats, remind everyone of the rules, and lay down the law as necessary. But number-fudging would be a no-no. Everything must play out naturally.

Maybe it's just the teenager in me, but, I hold to the montra "systems exist to be broken".
As my math teacher says "Theres always a way to game the system, I wont even try to outsmart human nature".

 

[Pyure]

Maybe it's just the teenager in me, but, I hold to the montra "systems exist to be broken".
As my math teacher says "Theres always a way to game the system, I wont even try to outsmart human nature".

Agreed, but I think I mentioned this above: that mantra holds true in any market, and the more we try to apply unnatural rules to a natural system, the more a) people will feel instinctively inclined to break them, and b) the more rules there will be to break in the first place.

 

[trajing]

Perhaps fudging the numbers was a bad idea - everyone has different opinions on that, and it's easy to forget that lots of people dislike that, as in my group we go for 'story first, game mechanics second.' We don't rely on the dice for everything.
Anyway, yes, it's supposed to lay down the rules, enforce them, but otherwise be uninvolved. In some cases, it's better for the government to either run something or to heavily regulate the organization running that thing - see: the electrical grid in the US.

 

[psp]

Anyway, yes, it's supposed to lay down the rules, enforce them, but otherwise be uninvolved. In some cases, it's better for the government to either run something or to heavily regulate the organization running that thing - see: the electrical grid in the US.

Of course.

Now, in my civics class, we started studying economics (can't call it that, its more of an extremely brief, condensed form of an overview of economics). And they idea that the federal reserve can dictate how the economy preforms, and try to fix, is ludicrously stupid.
I can't even describe the amount of stupidly, it's just so, beyond bleeping retarded. If a foreign entity needs to be continually monitoring and controlling an economy, something ain't working. The federal reserve should not exist in that capacity.
The government should be able to do enough with taxes, bonds, and laws.

 

[psp]

I phrased that pretty badly. There needs to be an entity that controls the interest rate, ect. But their job should not be to try and "fix" the economy.

 

[Pyure]

I phrased that pretty badly. There needs to be an entity that controls the interest rate, ect. But there job should not be to try and "fix" the economy.

Or, maybe, if they want to fix the economy, place more of an emphasis on making the workforce adaptable.

For instance, a prevailing problem in Canada is that while there are serious shortages of jobs in some areas, there's also serious shortages of workers in others. I wouldn't mind seeing more government emphasis placed on rewarding workers who are willing to relocate to areas of the country where they're needed more.

Obviously its really tough to uproot when you're settled somewhere, but I think its better than living on welfare.

One of the best decisions my wife and I ever made was relocating to the back end of nowhere. Turns out nowhere pays well. After a year there we bought a new home. After three years we moved back to civilization and tore up our mortgage.

If you're willing to relocate its of net benefit to everyone including yourself.

 

[TomeWyrm]

I'd agree with you more Pyure, if (especially in the US) the people in control hadn't sought short-sided profit and made our current life difficult. If the manufacturing hadn't been shipped off to China, we wouldn't be facing the kinds of job shortages we are now (and I'm of the opinion that we're running out of jobs as compared to population. Not just because population is going up but also because we're mechanizing more and more jobs). Which means we're either facing a mass die-off where people that don't have a choice in the matter are killed or effectively tortured because they were born to the wrong parents in the wrong part of the world, in droves. Or we need to re-think the system to focus more on providing livability (and "living wage" does NOT mean flat screen TV's and large homes, anyone that thinks that hasn't had to deal with living below the poverty line. Which US Federal Minimum wage is WELL below) for people. Because those are really the only two long-term options, charity (trying to affect the system for the betterment of the people in it) or suffering (letting "nature" take its course, for greed-induced man-made definitions of nature).

 

[Pyure]

I'd agree with you more Pyure, if (especially in the US) the people in control hadn't sought short-sided profit and made our current life difficult. If the manufacturing hadn't been shipped off to China, we wouldn't be facing the kinds of job shortages we are now (and I'm of the opinion that we're running out of jobs as compared to population. Not just because population is going up but also because we're mechanizing more and more jobs). Which means we're either facing a mass die-off where people that don't have a choice in the matter are killed or effectively tortured because they were born to the wrong parents in the wrong part of the world, in droves. Or we need to re-think the system to focus more on providing livability (and "living wage" does NOT mean flat screen TV's and large homes, anyone that thinks that hasn't had to deal with living below the poverty line. Which US Federal Minimum wage is WELL below) for people. Because those are really the only two long-term options, charity (trying to affect the system for the betterment of the people in it) or suffering (letting "nature" take its course, for greed-induced man-made definitions of nature).

I've lived below the poverty line as a young adult. Before I had a live-by-myself-wage, I lived with others.

Here's a harsh, terrible truth: the minimum wage should not be enough for a person to live by themselves on their own resources. People don't want to understand that. But minimum wage is and should be for the lowest rung on your way towards something greater for yourself. This includes teenage babysitters, paper-delivery persons, burger flippers. Most of us have done crap-jobs like this.

We can either be complacent with our crappy line of work, or we can demand more money for it even though we don't deserve it, or we can aspire to something greater for ourselves.

But because we DO artificially inflate the value of these positions, my costs go up. My child care is more expensive. My food is more expensive. So naturally I attempt to artificially inflate the value of my position. The net result? You nailed it: the manufactoring sector gets shipped off to China.

Screwing around with nature always ends up with horrible inflationary results. And now instead of trying to repair that problem properly, we're trying to cover it up with even more bullswank artificial measures.

At the end of the day, me and a "I buy domestic" guy can both sleep very well feeling strongly that we're doing the right thing, but it sometimes it amuses me a bit that I'll have more money in my pocket than the other guy because I did what was right and I spent less

PS: Charity is a different topic slightly, as is socialism. And I'm right proud of our healthcare system except that its run so horribly

 

[TomeWyrm]

What about the people who HAVE to work those jobs, forever? There aren't enough "good" jobs to go around. Hell there aren't enough BAD jobs to go around, or won't be soon. A lot of making decent money is being in the right place at the right time.

Also I agree with you that raising everyone's wages is a bad idea, we need to SPEND more money, not try to make more money. Economies thrive on money FLOW. It's what bugs me about people with net worths in the hundreds of millions. Most of that money just sits there doing approximately bupkiss as far as I can tell. I just don't think anyone should be able to work full time and still fall well short of being able to live decently. Not own a 100 inch (2.54 meter) flat screen tv, not have 4 cars, not a mansion; just eat real food, not be swamped in debt because your only option was to borrow against money you didn't have, be able to treat yourself to those little luxuries occasionally that make life bearable even in a shitty job, and just generally live a not-crap life.

I dunno, not buying domestic is unsustainable at a large scale. The money goes out and then doesn't come back.

Universal healthcare is a great goal, every country that has it has an impressively increased standard of living. Hard as CRAP to run though.

 

[Pyure]

What about the people who HAVE to work those jobs, forever? There aren't enough "good" jobs to go around. Hell there aren't enough BAD jobs to go around, or won't be soon. A lot of making decent money is being in the right place at the right time.

This is the key issue right here, bang on.

Ideally, in a magical world, we could fairly and safely divide these into different segments. For those who are impaired (mentally or physically) a socialist approach is humane without being overly burdensome on the overall system. But for many of them, a cold, pragmatic approach is usually sensible. If you and I are both making below-poverty-line income, we need to abandon our westernized notion that everyone should have their own separate single residence. We need to combine resources, live under the same roof and share responsibilities.

BTW: I cannot in any way or form fathom myself doing this. The idea that everyone should own their own personal residence by 25-30 is deeply rooted in our culture, and I love my personal space like you wouldn't believe. But this is a nurtured issue, a social construct that we've developed and call "civilized". As a result, the poverty line is ridiculously high because it assumes that everyone "should" get their own personal residence. But in many ways, it makes an awful lot more sense the way mega-family-houses function, where its perfectly common to see three or four generations under one roof.

But, ergh. My space, dammit.

 

[TomeWyrm]

Go for the metropolis apartment approach. I like my personal space, but I don't need 800 square feet of it. Just make it so I don't have to deal directly with my neighbors and I'd be fine living in a space the size of a shipping container... probably smaller