How much can Obama stop Outsourcing

[Archbob]

Again, you claim to have toured plants and have knowledge about the auto industry.


ENOUGH of your bs please.


Name the countries we would export the jobs to please?

Then take a look on Youtube at the crash tests of their vehicles.

China cant even sell cars in NA and you think countries like India can build multimillion dollar plants that get multimillion dollar upgrades by Ironworkers every 4 months?

Please Fallen Angel Lord, admit you have know idea what youre talking about.

Actually I have toured plants. GM has the knowledge and personell to build plants overseas, just like how Intel is building their advanced chip-making plants in China. They'd be using American technology and Materials. Its just that the workers in the plants would be foreign. They could also bring in American personell to supervise it.


And what the heck is you deal with Ironworkers? Its the mechanical and electrical engineers that do the upgrades, not the Ironworkers. And yes, China does have Ironworkers too.


Gimme a break Alpine troops, the UAW has also demanded and forced GM to give ridiculous an costly concessions in healthcare, non-work pay(read article posted earlier about how workers get paid to not work), and played a large part in GM's financial meltdown.

Just about every source says that its a combination of management and labor that lead up to its crisis, and yet you still seem fixed that its all management.

 

[aelf]

I know I said I wasn't going to continue this, but you can't honestly be this delusional, can you? I mean you refuse to read my post, and then you say that you have succeeded in "attacking my position" and that I "haven't backed it up at all" when I decide to stop wasting my time arguing with you? Please. I made a point that invalidated LightFang's suggestion regardless of the environment. You're apparently some sort of green nut so you took issue with the fact that I made an argument that didn't involve the environment. You subsequently posted a bunch of nonsensical posts asserting that my argument was "flawed" because it didn't take the environment into account, when in reality the environment doesn't matter one lick to my argument, which you would have learned had you actually read the post you were arguing about.

Give me a break.

Well, I'm saying it does matter. For all your mumbling about how I did not read your post, did you actually read my posts?

If you disagree with what I said, criticise the content clearly and methodically, instead of just resorting to mere ad homs.

By the way, Gogf. For the continued safety and well-being of your sanity, don't bother to entertain him. I have enough horror stories of my time with him too.

Oh, my. I wanted to report this, but that would at most earn you an infraction, which I'm sure doesn't matter to you. But what can I say? That your snide remark is just that, with no content whatsoever and is therefore pathetic? But you've regularly demonstrated how pathetic you are at actual discussion, so the fact does not bear repeating. I'll just chalk it up to a personal vendetta, since I've made you look stupid a couple of times and you obviously can't let go of that. Have fun

 

[bhsup]

Ford must have had a better plan that Toyota or Honda. That means Ford's CEO is better.
Sales Drops
Ford: 31%
Honda: 32%
Toyota: 34%

 

[aelf]

I really don't think you'd be beating this to death if you hadn't meant anything by it, but what does it matter? Text is a poor medium of communication.

Because you insisted, sir.

If you read my posts you know I'm not advocating "staying that way", I'm talking about increasing productivitiy which in turn increases development

Explain "increasing productivity".

The Bangladesh textile industry flouished when Daewoo was hit hard and had to pull out. Your argument is recursive. Do you really think economies sit at a standstill because of foreign investment?

What are you trying to say? In fact, this proves my point that local industries grow when the presence of foreign industries are removed or restricted.

What's wrong with the poor benefiting?

Misreading seems to be a regular thing that you do. I said the rest of the world other than the poor majority. I thought that was rather obvious.

I know, I still found it hollow. A few other posters did as well.

So what? If you're posting in a neo-Nazi forum and most posters there think your anti-racist arguments are hollow, does that give their views more credence?

 

[Fayadi]

Oh, my. I wanted to report this, but that would at most earn you an infraction, which I'm sure doesn't matter to you. But what can I say? That your snide remark is just that, with no content whatsoever and is therefore pathetic? But you've regularly demonstrated how pathetic you are at actual discussion, so the fact does not bear repeating. I'll just chalk it up to a personal vendetta, since I've made you look stupid a couple of times and you obviously can't let go of that. Have fun

You said I cannot oppose you because you are very sensitive. All right. But how is me telling people not to spend time in unproductive activity being offensive? As facts and consensus have shown, you consistently cling on to stubborn views even when facts are clearly proven and you care more about your ego than facts. Take a look at Fallen Angel Lord, he has chosen to ignore you too after you mentioned animal when you quoted him.
I felt some sympathy for the opponents that you engage. Giving good intentioned advice doesn't hurt, does it?

In any case. You could choose to ignore that statement of mine( as I wasn't even speaking to you in the first place), but you didn't.

You should change yourself instead of expecting others to change.

Made me look stupid? Name a single example in which your views has prevailed over mine in a discussion. Name just a single one dude.
When I have consistently tear down your twisted insight and facts, that is a hilarious thing to say.

Explain "increasing productivity".

The meaning is clear cut. I guess your intention now is to twist the meaning of the words for political purpose.
If you are trying to discredit the benefits of increased productivity has done to society, you must have failed basic economics.

So what? If you're posting in a neo-Nazi forum and most posters there think your anti-racist arguments are hollow, does that give their views more credence?

Nope this is not a neo-Nazi forum. People in general does not respect someone that does not exercise common sense in discussion.

 

[Gogf]

Well, I'm saying it does matter. For all your mumbling about how I did not read your post, did you actually read my posts?

If you disagree with what I said, criticise the content clearly and methodically, instead of just resorting to mere ad homs.

The content is nonsensical. There is no way to criticize it "clearly and methodically." It's like if I asked what the 10 times 2 was and you said "banana." There's no real way to respond to it, yet you are incredibly persistent in asserting that your point makes sense.

But I'll try one last time. The first sentence of my original post, I think you will agree, is not a critical part of the final argument in that post. In fact, if that sentence did not exist, the argument of that post would make just as much sense. So please, ignoring the first sentence of that post, explain to me the flaw in my argument (and if it's an environmental one... so be it).

 

[aelf]

You said I cannot oppose you because you are very sensitive. All right. But how is me telling people not to spend time in unproductive activity being offensive? As facts and consensus have shown, you consistently cling on to stubborn views even when facts are clearly proven and you care more about your ego than facts. Take a look at Fallen Angel Lord, he has chosen to ignore you too after you mentioned animal when you quoted him.

So mentioning an animal is a crime now? Hmm...

I felt some sympathy for the opponents that you engage. Giving good intentioned advice doesn't hurt, does it?

And thus you demonstrate yourself to be full of reason and not perhaps a troll.

In any case. You could choose to ignore that statement of mine( as I wasn't even speaking to you in the first place), but you didn't.

What statement? Your post was only of interest to me insofar as it made a pathetic snide remark. And it was merely amusing at that.

You should change yourself instead of expecting others to change.

Change myself in what regard?

In any case, if I get what you may mean, that's precisely what I think. I have a pessimistic view of the world, but I will take care of my own sphere of responsibility. Unfortunately, that includes stating the truth to others.

Made me look stupid? Name a single example in which your views has prevailed over mine in a discussion. Name just a single one dude.
When I have consistently tear down your twisted insight and facts, that is a hilarious thing to say.

We'll see.

The meaning is clear cut. I guess your intention now is to twist the meaning of the words for political purpose.
If you are trying to discredit the benefits of increased productivity has done to society, you must have failed basic economics.

To answer your past question about whether I prefer the industrialised world or the pre-industrialised one, I had answered that I don't know because I don't know how the living in the pre-industrial world felt. That still holds, of course. However, I would now like to assert that there are clear benefits about living in the pre-industrial world.

People like to toss "basic economics" around. But if you follow basic economics blindly, you fail basic humanity. That's all.

Nope this is not a neo-Nazi forum. People in general does not respect someone that does not exercise common sense in discussion.

This is a very thin accusation, and you know that.

The content is nonsensical. There is no way to criticize it "clearly and methodically." It's like if I asked what the 10 times 2 was and you said "banana." There's no real way to respond to it, yet you are incredibly persistent in asserting that your point makes sense.

But I'll try one last time. The first sentence of my original post, I think you will agree, is not a critical part of the final argument in that post. In fact, if that sentence did not exist, the argument of that post would make just as much sense. So please, ignoring the first sentence of that post, explain to me the flaw in my argument (and if it's an environmental one... so be it).

But your point is basically that pragmatic concerns override environmental concerns, and that's what I'm addressing. Unless I misunderstood, in which case your explanation is all the more necessary.

 

[BasketCase]

Just about every source says that its a combination of management and labor that lead up to its crisis, and yet you still seem fixed that its all management.

After what I've seen of auto companies worldwide, it's definitely not all management. Foreign auto companies are notable for paying less to the upper-management people, and yet those companies have been just as badly hurt as American companies have.

Take Toyota as an example. Go check their share price over the last two years, and compare it with General Motors. BOTH companies have seen a 60-point drop in their share price over the last couple of years. Toyota did start out higher, but the thing to take note of is that both companies have taken the SAME size hit.

So Toyota's different management practices have nothing to do with it. Toyota simply got lucky.

 

[Mise]

Err, the DOW lost 25% over the past 2 yrs, Toyota lost 50%, GM lost 75%. In what way did they take the SAME size hit...?

GM lost 95% of its value since its peak. It peaked at 93¢... it's now trading at just under 4¢.

 

[Fayadi]

Change myself in what regard?

In any case, if I get what you may mean, that's precisely what I think. I have a pessimistic view of the world, but I will take care of my own sphere of responsibility. Unfortunately, that includes stating the truth to others.

In regard to accept others point of view when what someone else said something that makes more sense. Ultimately changing your beliefs in when you have made error. Because stubbornly clinging on to misguided view is not cool or defending your pride, it is defending stupidity.

I don't really know much about your world view, but I only know the horrible experiences of people when you stubbornly defend misguided opinion. My point is that it is better for yourself and the people that you engage with, when you discuss things from a learning perspective instead of "There is no way you can point my error in that one, because I am the one that knows it, you don't". Because it gets very annoying with that kind of attitude.

So mentioning an animal is a crime now? Hmm...

You said "Unlike you, I am a human.... Not an animal". Labeling someone as animal is offensive. Ooh I remember you said that wasn't what you are trying to say. If you are not labeling someone as an animal, what does that sentence mean? Come on, the meaning of the sentence is pretty clear cut.

To answer your past question about whether I prefer the industrialised world or the pre-industrialised one, I had answered that I don't know because I don't know how the living in the pre-industrial world felt. That still holds, of course. However, I would now like to assert that there are clear benefits about living in the pre-industrial world.

People like to toss "basic economics" around. But if you follow basic economics blindly, you fail basic humanity. That's all.

I remember when mentioning about the living condition of people pre-Industrial age you said "Some people lived quite happily, and they didn't know of such abundance so they felt no need for it.". That clearly demonstrates the true ideology of wealth-redistributionist and socialist. The ideology of envy. That you care how the other is doing more than your own life and progress.

The truth about Industrial Revolution is that what was needed to produce a certain amount of work before, was done with less people later. With less people doing what was before essential jobs for a country to survive, cost of materials will go down and there will be more new people to create new demands. That's where invention will come from. In the short run there will be unemployment, but with the every successful attempt of a creation of new demand, there will be new jobs to supply that demand.

Let say Society A regards television as a necessity, increased productivity will means that was before it took $1000 to buy a new television now it will only cost $200. A family will now have $800 more to spend on non-essential products. In the process of increasing the efficiency of producing televisions, television companies laid off workers which cause unemployment. This frees up people that are going to find new ways to create demand for the every individual family to spend the unused $800 on. So increased productivity and modernization is basically just that.

Do these events create winners and losers? Sure it does. There are winners and losers for all human society from the beginning of history. You said that things were more "zero-sum" after Industrial Revolution. Later on you describe the conditions of life after Industrial Revolution in a negative manner after somebody(mrt144?) questioned that "zero-sum" comment of yours.

Naturally, I got very amused of what you are thinking. After that when you said "I have no preference for either (life after or before IR)" then my shock was confirmed, that there are individuals who think that "Whatever Industrial Revolution brings, it does not necessarily improve life condition".

I was very shocked back then because I thought How could somebody clearly ignore the tremendous improvement in quality of life of how Industrialization has brought to mankind and forgot that the last 2 centuries since Industrial Revolution has been the fastest era in which mankind has progressed in terms of innovation, GDP/purchasing power and many other area(such as lifespan,cleanliness,convenience). The denial of modern life benefits just looks very extreme to me akin of how I would perceive people as twisted as the Taliban would think (they ban anything modern in Afghanistan when they were in control of the country in case you don't know)

Basic economics teach us how to allocate resources and people "opportunity cost" more efficiently. How does that contradict basic humanity? Explain. How about saying "I like to live a life of full of mistakes and inefficiency and basic economics is a system that put me behind if I do mistakes".

 

[aelf]

Oh, no, someone is back!

In regard to accept others point of view when what someone else said something that makes more sense. Ultimately changing your beliefs in when you have made error. Because stubbornly clinging on to misguided view is not cool or defending your pride, it is defending stupidity.

Have you done this before? Strange, I've never seen you do it, while I've just done something like that quite recently.

You said "Unlike you, I am a human.... Not an animal". Labeling someone as animal is offensive. Ooh I remember you said that wasn't what you are trying to say. If you are not labeling someone as an animal, what does that sentence mean? Come on, the meaning of the sentence is pretty clear cut.

What I said was absolutely missing the "unlike you" bit. Go and see it again. Maybe you'd like to stop being such a liar.

I remember when mentioning about the living condition of people pre-Industrial age you said "Some people lived quite happily, and they didn't know of such abundance so they felt no need for it.". That clearly demonstrates the true ideology of wealth-redistributionist and socialist. The ideology of envy. That you care how the other is doing more than your own life and progress.

Non-sequitur. If people in the past somehow learned about the future, envy is very unlikely to be something the sane ones would feel. Probably incomprehension and wonder, perhaps the motivation to reach a similar state where they can perceive great benefits. Some might not be attracted at all, as some people remaining in remote tribes today have shown. Envy has nothing to do with this.

Let say Society A regards television as a necessity, increased productivity will means that was before it took $1000 to buy a new television now it will only cost $200. A family will now have $800 more to spend on non-essential products. In the process of increasing the efficiency of producing televisions, television companies laid off workers which cause unemployment. This frees up people that are going to find new ways to create demand for the every individual family to spend the unused $800 on. So increased productivity and modernization is basically just that.

The "television as a necessity" bit is a laugh. To choose such a bad example is telling of the fact that you can hardly understand anything beyond the accumulation of material wealth.

This is what I mean by people in the past are not necessarily less happy than people now. An average person today may feel the need for the newest flat screen TV to be happy, but the average person in the past didn't have such blatantly unnecessary 'needs'.

Naturally, I got very amused of what you are thinking. After that when you said "I have no preference for either (life after or before IR)" then my shock was confirmed, that there are individuals who think that "Whatever Industrial Revolution brings, it does not necessarily improve life condition".

Sorry, I can admit that I cannot make a clear decision either way because of the lack of information and objectivity. Naturally, I might prefer to live in modern times now. However, what is to say I wouldn't have been happy as a shopkeeper's or a farmer's son in the 18th century? So I don't have enough information about what life would be like if I had lived then. I wouldn't have known the things I know now and wouldn't have had some of the things I now think I need, so I wouldn't be objective when thinking about it now.

As for you, can you admit ignorance? Or do you, like the stereotypical insolent modern man, think that you know everything?

I was very shocked back then because I thought How could somebody clearly ignore the tremendous improvement in quality of life of how Industrialization has brought to mankind and forgot that the last 2 centuries since Industrial Revolution has been the fastest era in which mankind has progressed in terms of innovation, GDP/purchasing power and many other area(such as lifespan,cleanliness,convenience). The denial of modern life benefits just looks very extreme to me akin of how I would perceive people as twisted as the Taliban would think (they ban anything modern in Afghanistan when they were in control of the country in case you don't know)

Again, you demonstrate that you cannot understand anything beyond the mere accumulation of material wealth.

Basic economics teach us how to allocate resources and people "opportunity cost" more efficiently. How does that contradict basic humanity? Explain. How about saying "I like to live a life of full of mistakes and inefficiency and basic economics is a system that put me behind if I do mistakes".

Exactly. To err is human. People make mistakes or are just downright unlucky sometimes. Basic economics make little provision for such naturally human experiences and, without the temperance of other considerations, would be destructive to many. Until we've changed ourselves enough physically and psychologically such that we're no longer such imperfect beings (if that is possible), the rules of efficiency and such will not apply fully to us.

 

[LordRahl]

There's only one way to stop outsourcing. You need to lower the cost of labor.

 

[Cutlass]

So the way to stop outsourcing is to make everyone worse off?

 

[Gogf]

But your point is basically that pragmatic concerns override environmental concerns, and that's what I'm addressing. Unless I misunderstood, in which case your explanation is all the more necessary.

I'm not sure whether you misunderstood or not, because all you've done so far in this thread is complain that I asked you to focus on something other than the environment and say that you think it's reasonable to dismiss my entire post without actually reading it.

My point was that some things are impossible. If you read the post that I was replying to and the post that it quoted, I don't see how you could still misunderstand what I was talking about. If you don't understand something that nobody else seems to have had a problem with, then it might be wise to look at it a second (or in this case first) time rather than demanding an explanation after incessantly arguing about it. If I need to explain to you why "this is impossible" trumps "this would be good for the environment," then I think we're done here. If I don't, then I suppose we're also done here.

Aelf, your thread about "functional machines" has gotten me to like you. Let's drop this.

 

[aelf]

I'm not sure whether you misunderstood or not, because all you've done so far in this thread is complain that I asked you to focus on something other than the environment and say that you think it's reasonable to dismiss my entire post without actually reading it.

My point was that some things are impossible. If you read the post that I was replying to and the post that it quoted, I don't see how you could still misunderstand what I was talking about. If you don't understand something that nobody else seems to have had a problem with, then it might be wise to look at it a second (or in this case first) time rather than demanding an explanation after incessantly arguing about it. If I need to explain to you why "this is impossible" trumps "this would be good for the environment," then I think we're done here. If I don't, then I suppose we're also done here.

Aelf, your thread about "functional machines" has gotten me to like you. Let's drop this.

That's fine. Maybe I had a point, but I honestly can't remember what exactly I was thinking about.

 

[RalofTyr]

Outsourcing is a good thing. But Americans need to adapt to produce items which cannot be Outsourced, like high tech jobs.

Removing the menial factory jobs to other nations is a good thing for America.

 

[Cutlass]

Outsourcing is a good thing. But Americans need to adapt to produce items which cannot be Outsourced, like high tech jobs.

Removing the menial factory jobs to other nations is a good thing for America.

Where have you been? High tech jobs are outsourced every day. It's among the easiest things to outsource. There is very little that cannot be outsourced except that with requires direct personal contact with the customer.

 

[El_Machinae]

There's only one way to stop outsourcing. You need to lower the cost of labor.

Or increase the output, which is probably the superior way

 

[lovett]

Sorry, I can admit that I cannot make a clear decision either way because of the lack of information and objectivity. Naturally, I might prefer to live in modern times now. However, what is to say I wouldn't have been happy as a shopkeeper's or a farmer's son in the 18th century? So I don't have enough information about what life would be like if I had lived then. I wouldn't have known the things I know now and wouldn't have had some of the things I now think I need, so I wouldn't be objective when thinking about it now.

Interesting question. Do you enjoy hard manual labour from dawn to dusk? Would you mind overly much dying at sixty (if you were lucky) and being periodically beset by mysterious incurable diseases? Watching you sons, daughters brothers and parents dying from said diseases? Does complete ignorance about the natural world appeal? A marked impotence in your ability to change the political structures of whichever nation you happen to reside in? How comfortable are you with violence? Are you prepared to settle many disputes with a lively resort to fighting and possible death? Hell, that's small fry, are you prepared to be conscripted by your 'class superiors' and go off to fight random bloody and revolting wars for the glory of your country?

If the answer to all those questions is 'yes' then you might well have found the 18th century almost tolerable!

 

[aelf]

Interesting question. Do you enjoy hard manual labour from dawn to dusk? Would you mind overly much dying at sixty (if you were lucky) and being periodically beset by mysterious incurable diseases? Watching you sons, daughters brothers and parents dying from said diseases? Does complete ignorance about the natural world appeal? A marked impotence in your ability to change the political structures of whichever nation you happen to reside in? How comfortable are you with violence? Are you prepared to settle many disputes with a lively resort to fighting and possible death? Hell, that's small fry, are you prepared to be conscripted by your 'class superiors' and go off to fight random bloody and revolting wars for the glory of your country?

If the answer to all those questions is 'yes' then you might well have found the 18th century almost tolerable!

I wouldn't have known today's alternative, yes? And the picture you paint is pretty extreme. Not all of those were likely to happen to the same person.

Read my post again and think about it. Just read that whole paragraph. That's all I can say.