← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · weisbrot
Thread ID: 12405 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2004-02-19
2004-02-19 04:17 | User Profile
Professional shabbos goy Boortz straps some advanced econ on the sheeple...
[url]http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html[/url] Wednesday, February 18, 2004 LET'S TALK ABOUT "YOUR" JOBS
Jobs .. and the economy. Those seem to be the issues that are driving many, if not most, of those who are supporting the Kerry candidacy.
First of all ... I'm going to repeat this simply because it makes the whiners so unbelievably angry. Listen up. They're not your jobs! The jobs belong to the employers .. not to you! You have job skills and, presumably, a willingness to work. Your task in a free economy is to get out there and find some employer with a job who needs your skills ... and strike a deal.
If you do not have the particular set of job skills that an employer needs, or if you have priced your labor out of the marketplace, guess what? It's not the employer's fault. The fault lies with you. Either develop a new set of job skills that are actually in demand, or adjust your pricing. The employer knows what he's looking for. If you're not it .. it's your problem, not his.
Now ... you say you're going to vote for a Democrat this year because of jobs? You mean to tell me that you're going to vote against George Bush this year because you don't have a set of job skills that are in demand in our free marketplace? Yeah .. that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
Tell me. Just what do you want the president to do? You information technology people out there .. just what are you demanding? Do you want companies to stop outsourcing IT jobs to India? OK ... tell me how to do that. These companies aren't shipping parts overseas and completed products back. All they do is ship information overseas by phone lines or the Internet. Then that information is modified and shipped back the same way. What do you want the government .. the president to do? Do you want some federal law that prohibits companies from transmitting information overseas by the Internet, having that information transformed or modified, and then shipped back? And tell me just how do you enforce that law? Does that law then apply to you also if you seek information from a company that is located overseas, thus depriving a domestic company of your business?
Ditto for manufacturing. I've already told you the story about the California company that makes computer mouses. (computer mice?) This company ships the components to China. The mouse is assembled in China and shipped back, then sold for around $40. Why? Because the assembly is cheaper in China than it would be in the US. So, you say you want the president to force this company to have that mouse assembled in the US? Fine .. then the price for the mouse goes up to about $70 a pop and sales drop. As the sales drop the jobs of the people in this country who manufacture the components for that mouse go away. Then the 100 marketing jobs this company supports in California also go away. You see, perhaps you can succeed in forcing this company to assemble these mouses in the US, but there just isn't any way you can force the American consumer to pay 80% more for the "made in America" version.
As Bruce Bartlett says in an article listed in my reading assignments, "No nation has ever gotten rich by forcing its citizens to pay more for domestic goods and services that could have been procured more cheaply abroad."
What we are seeing here is a demonstration of the "government owes me" mentality of far too many Americans. Every time you arrive at a speed bump in your life's journey you start screaming to the government for help. Sure, the speed bump is going to slow you down a bit ... but just keep moving forward and things inevitably pick up speed again. Americans are becoming helpless whiners. The more helpless you are, and the more you whine, the more likely it is you're going to vote for a Democrat. Democrats specialize in stroking the malcontent.
Congratulations, whiners. At a time when America is fighting World War IV, the war against Islamic terrorism ... you're going to vote for a candidate who wants to treat terrorism as a freaking law enforcement problem because you've made some pitiful jobs choices. Pitiful.
2004-02-19 04:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=weisbrot] If you do not have the particular set of job skills that an employer needs, or if you have priced your labor out of the marketplace, guess what? It's not the employer's fault. The fault lies with you. Either develop a new set of job skills that are actually in demand, or adjust your pricing. The employer knows what he's looking for. If you're not it .. it's your problem, not his. [/QUOTE]
There is one problem: how's one supposed to survive living in the first world while agreeing to a third-world salary?
2004-02-19 05:18 | User Profile
Weisbrot,
Neal's been reading the Wall Street Journal again, I see. If I were a "liberal," I'd say that Neal has grown. Grown in the sense that he has "migrated" from being a run of the mill left-libertarian to a full blown neo-con.
If you do not have the particular set of job skills that an employer needs, or if you have priced your labor out of the marketplace, guess what? It's not the employer's fault. The fault lies with you. Either develop a new set of job skills that are actually in demand, or adjust your pricing. The employer knows what he's looking for. If you're not it .. it's your problem, not his.
Let's see. The Fedgov in cahoots with the multinationals and other folks who wish to wreck the country for whatever reason, decides not to control/enforce legal and and illegal immigration driving down wages. Sure, that's the fault of the employee. Boortz logic termpered with a dose of sheer greed. In the perfect world of Neal Boortz whether you're a carpenter or a computer programmer your skills are only valuable if you are willing to work for next to nothing.
I haven't heard the story about $40.00 mouses, but forgive me if I question Boortz's version of this. I happen to believe that if mass production methods are enployed in the manufacture that the per unit price will drop even with more expensive labor. Of course I realize that something made in Red China will be cheaper, but that can be offset by a superior product and a tariff to insure American industry isn't crippled by a flood of cheap stuff that only serves to benefit a few greedy importers and the P.R.C. military.
Congratulations, whiners. At a time when America is fighting World War IV, the war against Islamic terrorism ... you're going to vote for a candidate who wants to treat terrorism as a freaking law enforcement problem because you've made some pitiful jobs choices. Pitiful.
Pitiful indeed and congratulations to Neal for collecting his thirty pieces of silver by shilling for Israel and the Wall Street whores. Neal can holler all he wants and wave the bloody flag to his heart's content, but if we lose the demographic war here on the "home front" it won't make a damn bit of difference what happens in "the (so-called) war against terror."
Bottom line with people like Boortz is this. He practices what I call reverse class hatred. The rest of society that doesn't have his money is only here to serve him and to live their lives for him. He would do well in the era of Louis XVI before the mob came and dragged his worthless ass off to the guillotine.
2004-02-19 06:16 | User Profile
What an asshole.
Maybe we could out-source his job to India. Couldn't be that hard to teach some dothead Boortz's act:
Remember 9/11 ... Democrat's are dumb ... out-sourcing is good so stop whining ... War on Terror ... vote Bush 2004 ... Islamo-terrorists are evil and want to kill us all ... Israel is our greatest ally ...
Bottom line with people like Boortz is this. He practices what I call reverse class hatred. The rest of society that doesn't have his money is only here to serve him and to live their lives for him. He would do well in the era of Louis XVI before the mob came and dragged his worthless ass off to the guillotine.
[CENTER][img]http://boortz.com/images/highpriest.jpg[/img] [FONT=Arial Narrow]he sure seems dressed for the part[/FONT][/CENTER]
2004-02-19 07:12 | User Profile
The problem with all these "capitalist" types is that they haven't actually read Adam Smith.
Adam Smith said some things that guys like Boortz presumably wouldn't like.
First, AS didn't like the corporation, because he understood that property consists BY DEFINITION in a unity of management and control, and that by attenuating (as in the case of private corporations with even a dozen stockholders) and even severing this unity (as in the case of large public companies with millions of small shareholders) private property in effect ceases to exist. But private property is the key institution, the plinth of the entire free market system. We see then that capitalism with its reliance on the corporate form of organization undermines its very foundations. (Note that I didn't write "corporate form of property" since that is in fact an oxymoron). Distributivism is all about re-instituting private property by ending (or at least greatly restricting) the corporate organizational form, which of course entails an end to the capitalism of Enron and Waste Management.
Second, Adam Smith understood that free markets and free trade can only work WITHIN THE CONTEXT of a moral and indeed religious people. That which most folks nowadays call "capitalism" has no intention of subsisting within the context of a Christian society. Indeed, men like Eisner, Sumner Redstone and the rest of the kosher culture destruction crew are intent upon destroying the very religious-social matrix within which free markets subsist. Again, capitalism is thus undermining its own foundations. Distributivism is all about re-instituting families and communities, and shoring up these cracked cornerstones of our society.
Third, AS's belief in free markets was explicitly predicated on the understanding that labor and capital assets were fixed and not readily movable from one country to another, and that therefore free trade can increase efficiency without undermining the social basis within which the free enterprise system subsists. But as Paul Craig Roberts recently explained, exporting the jobs of knowledge workers via the internet and unchecked immigration contradict those basic assumptions. Once again, capitalism takes a wrecking ball to its own foundations, and folks like Boortz cheer them on. In contrast, Distributivism is based upon the simple fact that man exists in nature in families extending to clans extending to nations, and is thus profoundly nationalist in all things including matters economic.
The list could go on, but time doesn't allow.
Guys like Boortz fall into the middle-brow trap that there is some sort of basic dichotomy between capitalism and socialism. That's a lot of boloney. They're the same. Both seek to destroy our most basic social institutions: private property, religious cohesion, marriage and family, national bloodlines and cultural identities.
Indeed, our enemy Marx saw socialism as a natural outgrowth of capitalism, and although he obviously had the process wrong Shrub's signing into law the largest Great Society program increase since LBJ proves that he was right on that point. Marx also had it right that capitalism contained the seed of its own destruction, although he was wrong that it would create a revolutionary proletariat that would overthrow it. What actually is happening is that capitalism creates a bunch of castrated fat cats who become so dependent on the capitalism's largesse in the form of social welfare programs and corrupt entertainments that they're incapable of defending themselves - like Little Alex after he took Dr. Brodsky's cure. Anyway, the point is that Marx was in his soul a capitalist (read the Manifesto - he goes into a sort of rapture over the accomplishments of capitalism) who just wanted to take capitalism's monopolistic tendencies to their ultimate, totalitarian conclusion and institute them forever in Socialism. Or would it be better to say that his ethnic cousin Michael Eisner is in his soul a socialist? You get the picture - they're the same in all ways the ultimately matter.
The USSR was "1984", but America is "Brave New World." Choose your poison, thralls.
Distributivism rejects both of these as flip-sides of the same coin, and seeks to place society on a natural, organic basis of development. Distributivism is a fully worked out system that is proven to work (see the Mondragon cooperatives of Spain).
Again, both socialism and capitalism attack our most fundamental social institutions - private property, marriage and family, religion and charitable works. Both, to use a "B" school phrase, both CONSUME social capital and put nothing in its place. Capitalism has drawn down that account for the past 100 years, and its becoming increasingly desperate for the social capital it needs to exist (while of course refusing to recognize this fact). Note well that capitalism is becoming aware of its nearly depleted social capital account, and it's making noises that it will go after your social capital.
For those few of us who understand this, our task is to build our social capital while keeping it for ourselves. We will do this by joining religious organizations that believe in marriage (which capitalism is about to repeal in the States via "redefining" it to include homosexual unions, thus in effect redefining it out of existence), homeschooling our kids, setting up our own buisness and doing business with each other (I suspect that this is why Ygg included "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" in his classics list - the Greeks in the film all had their own family businesses, and they made sure that they ate at Greek restaurants and booked their trips through Greek travel agencies). Thus, steps will be taken not to allow married couples with children to remove themselves from a hostile society (this is already underway). I expect content restrictions in private schools. Homeschoolers are considered enemies of the state because they're not sacrificing their children to the failed experiement of Dr. Brodsky's capitalist public schools, as just the most obvious example. I'd expect the war on homeschoolers to heat up as well. There's already a war on small businesses, in case you haven't noticed.
That's enough out of me for one day!
Walter
2004-02-19 14:00 | User Profile
Walter,
Brilliantly stated!
For years folks like me have been telling people that monopolistic capitalism and Socialism were two sides of the same coin. Unfortunately, as you noted, the people who are too lazy to get their information by reading for themselves and instead rely on the radio have developed pavlovian reflexes to someone who points this out. Unless it is a case that involves blatant fraud these clowns will say that any criticism of a multinational corporation shows that you are a socialist. They have been brainwashed into thinking that the multinational is the most perfect economic unit in history. Boortz is one of those people who believes that the U.S. Armed Forces exist also for the purpose of bailing out these companies when their assests are nationalized, instead of taking the view that this is something for the stockholders to deal with the management over.
2004-02-19 15:49 | User Profile
Walter -
That's the best material I've read on this subject in LONG time. Faster than an Econ undergrad program...more powerful than a truckload of LewRockwell.com essays.
One of Boortz' premises that needs refuting is this notion that a job is something someone else GIVES you. Yes, it is that way today, but it need not be, and shouldn't be. The system is surely designed to punish those who try to opt out...the self employed, the home-schoolers, and anyone else who even slightly resists being herded onto the plantation. It's so obvious if only one is willing to see it - but it seems that so few are.
What these Reagan-was-god types never address is the value of national self-sufficiency. It's as though the only calculus that matters is what can be quantified on a balance sheet. I think pride is the biggest obstacle. One who thinks of himself as "conservative" or "libertarian", who has parrotted all the right soundbites for years, is awfully reluctant to question orthodoxy, as that questioning ultimately necessitates turning his back to it all...the reading, the conversations, the college degree...all the hard-earned CONVICTIONS.
It reminds me of Edward Norton's character in Fight Club: just when he FINALLY got the whole sofa issue figured out for all time...Boom! And he was so nearly complete.
Oh well. We'll wait. A little more time with current employment trends and there may be a much more receptive audience to this kind of message.
"We were all told that we're going to be rock stars and movie gods and millionaires. But we're not. We're slowly waking up to that fact...and we are very, VERY pissed off." (more Tyler Durden)
2004-02-19 17:35 | User Profile
Sert & Marlowe:
Thank you for your kind words. It's actually hopeless to discuss this with Freepers and various middle-brow fans of Ayn Rand (Alisa Rosenberg).
The really big advantage that we have is that this is really the Catholic critique of capitalism (and socialism).
Catholic social teaching is based upon the diffusion of power - both political and economic - as broadly as reasonably possible. The key concepts are:
Check out distributivism, my friends. As I've said many times, it's the official theology of the world's billion plus Catholics (although hardly any of them know about it) and it's proven to work by the long and resounding success of enterprises like the Mondragon cooperatives of Spain.
Walter
2004-02-19 18:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]3. Marriage and family (preferably large and extended) - the connection between husband and wife has been severed ...Marriage, so rightly defined, must be protected at all costs, and challenges to it ...must not be tolerated.[/QUOTE]
I think the "no-fault divorce" laws had a great, maybe the greatest, impact in severing the bonds of family. I've had surprising conversations with people of all ages about this subject. Thirty-somethings and younger have no idea what the hell I'm talking about. They're incredulous when they learn of how difficult it once was to file for divorce.
I remember reading "Atlas Shrugged" years ago, and wondering what it meant when the wife of one of the industrialists refused to "give" him a divorce. I thought, "huh?"...then I looked into it...and learned that it was a godd***ed REAGAN initiative when he was Governor of California. And you know, as goes California, so goes the nation. What a blow that was to this young capitalist cheerleader Reagan-is-my-hero fool. Mention this incovnenient fact to a Reaganaut and he'll cover his ears and hum and stomp his feet.
2004-02-19 18:06 | User Profile
Paul Craig Roberts [URL=http://www.vdare.com/roberts/economy_offshore.htm]keeps it simple.[/URL]
February 18, 2004
Moving Our Economy Offshore By Paul Craig Roberts
The dollar keeps going down, and the trade deficit keeps going up.
Economists and reporters explain this in terms of American appetite for foreign goods outstripping overseas demand for U.S. goods.
There is another explanation, one perhaps closer to the truth. Americans are buying the same goods as in the past made by the same U.S. multinational corporationsââ¬âonly the goods are no longer made in the United States. Their production has been outsourced or offshored to Asia. The same goods now count as imports, because they are produced offshore.
A country cannot close its trade deficit if its economy is being moved offshore.
Offshore production hits the trade deficit from both ends: goods once produced domestically become imports, and as production moves offshore the ability to export declines. When a U.S. business moves a factory to China, that factory's products cease to be potential exports and become imports.
Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley estimates that more than half of our whopping trade deficit with China results from offshore production.
Economists claim that outsourcing of U.S. production helps our economy by creating incomes for the Chinese to buy our products. However, increased Chinese incomes are more likely to be spent in China buying products from the U.S. multinationals that have moved their production to China. Outsourcing and offshore production cause the Chineseââ¬ânot the U.S.ââ¬âeconomy to grow.
Offshore production is a new development. It is not your father's traditional foreign trade. Goods are not being traded. Offshore production is not a case of the United States making good X and trading it to China for good Y. It is a case of the United States ceasing to make good X in the United States and making it in China instead.
What is happening is that foreign labor is substituted for U.S. labor in the production of the goods and services that Americans consume. Americans lose the incomes and employment associated with the production of the goods that they consume.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics offers no evidence to support economists' claims that outsourcing production to Asia creates new and better jobs in the United States. On Feb. 11, the BLS released its 10-year projections of U.S. job growth by industry and occupation. Missing in the BLS lineup are the high-tech and knowledge jobs that economists have been falsely promising us are our rewards for losing our manufacturing jobs.
Are you ready for this? The BLS says that the bulk of U.S. job growth over the next decade will be in low-paid nontradable services that do not require a college education.
Here is America's job future for the next 10 years:
waiters and waitresses;
janitors and cleaners;
food preparation;
nursing aides, orderlies and attendants;
cashiers
customer service representatives;
retail salespersons;
registered nurses;
general and operational managers;
postsecondary teachers.
Of these 10 areas of greatest job growth, RNs require an associate degree, managers a bachelor's degree, and postsecondary teachers a graduate degree. The BLS says the qualifications for the other seven are met by on-the-job-training.
The BLS has another list: the 10 fastest growing occupations. An occupation can be growing rapidly without providing many jobs. For example, the BLS estimates that employment for physician assistants will grow by 31,000 over the decade or by 3,100 jobs per year, enough to produce a 49 percent growth rate.
Seven of the 10 fastest growing occupations are in medical services: medical assistants, physician assistants, social and human service assistants, home health aides, physical therapist aides, physical therapist assistants, and medical records and health information technicians.
The only knowledge jobs about which the BLS is hopeful are network systems and data communications analysts, and computer software engineers. Considering the number of unemployed software engineers and the rate at which these jobs are being outsourced, not many of these jobs are likely to end up in American hands.
With employment growth concentrated in nontradable services, how will the United States pay for its growing dependence on imported manufactured goods? The BLS projection of employment by major occupational group shows production occupations with the lowest growth rate.
If the BLS projections are correct, the United States won't long remain a high-tech, high-wage economy.
When the dollar collapses, Americans won't be able to afford those "cheap foreign imports" for which we are giving up our good jobs.