StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The total debt of the US government is currently about 6.4 trillion dollars.

During the first six months of last year IIRC, the amount of money used to simply pay the interest of this debt was about 225 billion dollars. This is the fourth largest piece of expenditure the government makes.

Bush has called for a 700 something billion dollar tax cut while government spending has risen.

That 6.4 trillion dollar figure will rise to something like 7 trillion dollars in a year or so. (not sure about this one)

Our budget defecit is already somewhere near the 250 billion dollar range. Within a few months or by the end of this year, it is expected to rise to the 500 billion dollar range.



It is not surprising why so many people say that our economy is currently going dooooooooowwwwnnn.

Bush and co. are scrambling to fix their economy fuckups while still trying to maintain the war smokescreen. It's really sad.

Shinova wrote:

It is not surprising why so many people say that our economy is currently going dooooooooowwwwnnn.

Actually, it is surprising. Our economy is now improving, and with the tax cuts, can only improve more. Tax cuts to the job providers stimulate economic growth, and that will result in a healthier economy. Yes, the government will not be in good shape for a few years, but as the economy improves (which will occur first), government revenue will also improve, which will allow us to catch up on the debt in the long term even with reduced tax revenues in percentile terms.

Zeon, the economy is still in a hole. You say it can only get better? What have you been smoking?

The US debt is more like 12 trillion

Superman wrote:Zeon, the economy is still in a hole. You say it can only get better? What have you been smoking?

It's hardly in a hole. People were just misled to think that the ridiculous boom figures from the tech bubble were supposed to be "normal". They weren't. Yes, it's obviously not fully recovered, but to call the economy in a hole is to make it sound like you've been smoking something. Now, I know that's a bit harsh, but really. The simple fact is that the tech bubble was just that, and just like the South Seas Bubble or any other speculation bubble in history, it had to burst, the fat had to slough from the market, and some people who got wealthy off of it through questionable means had to get tossed into prison while others lost their shirts. No system is perfect.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Actually, it is surprising. Our economy is now improving, and with the tax cuts, can only improve more. Tax cuts to the job providers stimulate economic growth, and that will result in a healthier economy. Yes, the government will not be in good shape for a few years, but as the economy improves (which will occur first), government revenue will also improve, which will allow us to catch up on the debt in the long term even with reduced tax revenues in percentile terms.

I assume you're talking about helping supply-side economics, doing the "trickle-down" approach, right?


Wrong. When businesses provide jobs, they're more likely to do it in foreign countries where it's cheaper instead of here. Money goes from the government to the companies to foreign nations.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The US deficit is more like 12 trillion

The deficit? You mean the debt.

The national debt is about 6.4 trillion, like Shinova said. Add in the unrecorded debt owed to Leviathan's crown jewel, Social Security, and that number is higher than 8 trillion.

What shinova said it true. Look at Nike, Ford, G & E, shit... where do we stop?

Shinova wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Actually, it is surprising. Our economy is now improving, and with the tax cuts, can only improve more. Tax cuts to the job providers stimulate economic growth, and that will result in a healthier economy. Yes, the government will not be in good shape for a few years, but as the economy improves (which will occur first), government revenue will also improve, which will allow us to catch up on the debt in the long term even with reduced tax revenues in percentile terms.

I assume you're talking about helping supply-side economics, doing the "trickle-down" approach, right?


Wrong. When businesses provide jobs, they're more likely to do it in foreign countries where it's cheaper instead of here. Money goes from the government to the companies to foreign nations.

Nader? Is that you? Or is it Buchanan...

Of course businesses are more likely to provide jobs in places where Union workers aren't entitled to 25 dollars an hour for using a drill to screw in bolts. But the wealth that is generated remains in America.

And you're still not accounting for the rest of the money, which is either spent, invested, or saved. The net effect of a tax decrease will always be beneficial.

In any case, we're not terribly in need of lots of new jobs, anyway. Unemployment is only a point shy of the natural rate, which is absolutely outstanding for an economy in recession.

I can leave it to Durran from here, I think. The idea that there's some kind of economic wall of seperation that lets a company escape taxation by moving operations outside of the USA is silly. Even foreign companies that operate in the USA are subject to taxes.

Of course businesses are more likely to provide jobs in places where Union workers aren't entitled to 25 dollars an hour for using a drill to screw in bolts. But the wealth that is generated remains in America.

Baloney. The more third-world workers they can exploit, the better. The more safety measures they can avoid enforcing, the better. Unions aren't as strong as they were years ago, partly due to Reagan's union busting and regulators looking the other way when corporations don't play nice.

Hamel wrote:

Of course businesses are more likely to provide jobs in places where Union workers aren't entitled to 25 dollars an hour for using a drill to screw in bolts. But the wealth that is generated remains in America.

Baloney. The more third-world workers they can exploit, the better. The more safety measures they can avoid enforcing, the better. Unions aren't as strong as they were years ago, partly due to Reagan's union busting and regulators looking the other way when corporations don't play nice.

"Exploiting third-world workers" is just fancy talk for "lift the third world out of poverty and into development." Believe it or not, and you won't hear this in The Nation or from Michael Moore, you can't jump from third world shithole to Western capitalist democracy in a few years. It takes time; these countries are going through what the U.S. went through a hundred years ago.

And Unions may not be able to wreck the economy as well as they used to, but they can still artificially raise wages.

"Exploiting third-world workers" is just fancy talk for "lift the third world out of poverty and into development." Believe it or not, and you won't hear this in The Nation or from Michael Moore, you can't jump from third world shithole to Western capitalist democracy in a few years. It takes time; these countries are going through what the U.S. went through a hundred years ago.

See Nike's antics in 3rd world nations as a key example of why your arguments are bullshit.

And Unions may not be able to wreck the economy as well as they used to, but they can still artificially raise wages.

Unions wrecking the economy? Rofl I've never heard THAT little gem before, even from people that think throwing money at rich people will solve our economic problems

See Nike's antics in 3rd world nations as a key example of why your arguments are bullshit.

See "hasty generalization fallacy" for why yours is. See the fact that Nike hired a U.N. labor expert to evaluate its labor policies due to consumer pressure. See the economic miracle of the various Asian nations that has allowed them to achieve the kind of growth in a few decades that took the Western world a century thanks to globalization.

The wage rates paid by American corporations to non-Americans is outstanding. On average, the wage paid to low-income workers by American corporations is 8.5 times the per capita GDP (source: Institute for International Economics) in underdeveloped and developing countries.

Yes globalization can be painful. I'm not denying that. But compare the situation these countries would be in were it not for American corporations to the much more beneficial situation they're in because of them.

There's a name for countries that reject globalization and corporations. They're called "Cuba" and "North Korea."

Unions wrecking the economy? Rofl I've never heard THAT little gem before, even from people that think throwing money at rich people will solve our economic problems

I point you to the post-WWII period before the Taft-Hartley Act was passed, when Harry Truman had to draft people in the army to do essential functions, because the Unions had shut the economy down.

See the fact that Nike hired a U.N. labor expert to evaluate its labor policies due to consumer pressure. See the economic miracle of the various Asian nations that has allowed them to achieve the kind of growth in a few decades that took the Western world a century thanks to globalization.

The fact that Nike hired former UN Ambassador Andrew Young to look at the code of conduct is meaningless, considering that Nike was not paying workers a livable wage. As of 1997, Indonesian workers were paid $2.46 a day, far less than the $4 a day living wage. According to Medea Benjamin, 2% of Nike's $560 million marketing outlays could raise the saleries of 25,000 Vietnamese workers from $1.60 a day to $3, a livable wage. They can afford it and they know it.

Nike isn't cutting down on abuse of workers. Asian-American Free Labor Institute in Indonesia claims that workers file more complaints about wage violations than any other company

More from same url wrote:Nike has been in Vietnam for less than two years and already one factory official has been convicted of physically abusing workers, another fled the country during a police investigation of sexual abuse charges, and a third is under indictment for abusing workers, as reported in the New York Times. Nike, the biggest shoe company in the world, spends over $600 million a year on marketing ploys that "empower" women and inner-city youth to buy shoes that were made with sweatshop labor. Nike has a responsibility to abide by humane labor practices as defined by their Code of Conduct which says "in the area of human rights... in the communities in which we do business - we seek to do not only what is required, but what is expected of a leader." A leader would not lower human rights standards to maximize profits. Some U.S. companies like New Balance make most of their shoes in the U.S. paying workers over 30 times what Nike workers get in Vietnam. And New Balance still makes a profit.

The url goes into more detail on why Nike is a piece of shit company.

The wage rates paid by American corporations to non-Americans is outstanding. On average, the wage paid to low-income workers by American corporations is 8.5 times the per capita GDP (source: Institute for International Economics) in underdeveloped and developing countries.

Refuted above.

There's a name for countries that reject globalization and corporations. They're called "Cuba" and "North Korea."

There's a name for countries that reject unions and set a grossly low minimum wage : China, and Indonesia.

I point you to the post-WWII period before the Taft-Hartley Act was passed, when Harry Truman had to draft people in the army to do essential functions, because the Unions had shut the economy down.

Care to back up your claim that unions were the culprit here?

The fact that Nike hired former UN Ambassador Andrew Young to look at the code of conduct is meaningless, considering that Nike was not paying workers a livable wage. As of 1997, Indonesian workers were paid $2.46 a day, far less than the $4 a day living wage. According to Medea Benjamin, 2% of Nike's $560 million marketing outlays could raise the saleries of 25,000 Vietnamese workers from $1.60 a day to $3, a livable wage. They can afford it and they know it.

Can they afford it, really? I would suspect that Medea Benjamin does not have the kind of access to Nike's financial information that Nike has.

If the skills of the workers in question were worth more than the amount in question there would be someone more than willing to pay it to them. Make them pay too much and unemployment will result. It is also important to note that these workers are not confined to these low wages forever; income mobility is getting better and better in the undeveloped world. Furthermore, real wages are still on the rise overall in third-world nations.

How exactly a voluntary contract between employer and laborer amounts to economic exploitation is a mystery to me, but then again I am not a Harvard graduate.

Nike isn't cutting down on abuse of workers. Asian-American Free Labor Institute in Indonesia claims that workers file more complaints about wage violations than any other company

Hey, America had to go through this also. It's an unfortunate but inevitable part of development. I'm not trying to pass Nike or any other multinational corporation as saintly, I'm just saying that employment at Nike at a low wage is better than non-employment.

The url goes into more detail on why Nike is a piece of shit company.

Posting whole webpages is a lazy man's way of debating, so I won't read it.

Refuted above.

Refuted not at all. Nike is one corporation. On average, multinational American corporations pay outstanding wages to their employees, comparatively. I base my argument on comprehensive statistics; you base yours on the actions of one corporation, Nike.

There's a name for countries that reject unions and set a grossly low minimum wage : China, and Indonesia.

I could point out the outstanding growth that China has experienced over the past decade, but that would be pointless with you, since you have refused to concede any benefit that globalization has for developing countries. For God's sake, if you want to bitch about globalization, fine, but produce a better alternative.

And the Indonesia reference is simply unfair. Indonesia's economy is in the shitter because of shitty management of the economy by the government, not American corporations.

Care to back up your claim that unions were the culprit here?

I was exaggerating a bit, I will concede; however, railroad strikes were very destructive to their sector of the economy. Nearly 2 million American workers went on strike during this period.

Durran Korr wrote:In any case, we're not terribly in need of lots of new jobs, anyway. Unemployment is only a point shy of the natural rate, which is absolutely outstanding for an economy in recession.

Unemployment figures do not reflect people who have run out of benefits or stopped looking. Unemployment is very high, more so in certain locales.

Obviously things are really bad here, where office vacany rates are around 50% in some areas.

However, I agree with your sentiment that it could be worse.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:In any case, we're not terribly in need of lots of new jobs, anyway. Unemployment is only a point shy of the natural rate, which is absolutely outstanding for an economy in recession.

Unemployment figures do not reflect people who have run out of benefits or stopped looking. Unemployment is very high, more so in certain locales.

Obviously things are really bad here, where office vacany rates are around 50% in some areas.

However, I agree with your sentiment that it could be worse.

I'm not saying it's not a problem, I'm just saying 6 percent is not a bad figure for an economy in recession, especially in contrast to what some of the European countries are experiencing.

Can they afford it, really? I would suspect that Medea Benjamin does not have the kind of access to Nike's financial information that Nike has.

Nike doesn't seem to be hurting. They're making a killing by selling cheaply made shoes made at sweatshops for over a hundred dollars when another shoe company already mentioned is making a sound profit while paying US workers a decent wage. If they can't afford to pay their workers a decent wage, then they're about as good with managing their money as Salon.com (^o^);

If the skills of the workers in question were worth more than the amount in question there would be someone more than willing to pay it to them. Make them pay too much and unemployment will result.

Or maybe these people are simply underpaid because Nike WANTS to underpay them and can get away with it.

It is also important to note that these workers are not confined to these low wages forever; income mobility is getting better and better in the undeveloped world. Furthermore, real wages are still on the rise overall in third-world nations.

Do tell! Where is your source on this?

How exactly a voluntary contract between employer and laborer amounts to economic exploitation is a mystery to me, but then again I am not a Harvard graduate.

It doesn't take a Harvard graduate to see that Nike isn't treating their employees with respect and giving them a good wage, when in all likelyhood these people have no other place to go to for work.

Hey, America had to go through this also. It's an unfortunate but inevitable part of development. I'm not trying to pass Nike or any other multinational corporation as saintly, I'm just saying that employment at Nike at a low wage is better than non-employment.

There is NO excuse for an American company, which I should be holding to HIGH moral standards, to be turning a blind eye to an abuse of their workers when they are financially able and morally obligated to be taking care of the problem

Posting whole webpages is a lazy man's way of debating, so I won't read it.

Actually, no. If I just quoted the entire webpage and said "durrr read this", then you would have a point here. I posted quite a few points on Nike, and I merely invited you to view the webpage for further evidence of their evilness

Refuted not at all. Nike is one corporation. On average, multinational American corporations pay outstanding wages to their employees, comparatively. I base my argument on comprehensive statistics; you base yours on the actions of one corporation, Nike.

Where are your comprehensive statistics, and where do they show that these corporations are treating their workers soundly?

I could point out the outstanding growth that China has experienced over the past decade, but that would be pointless with you, since you have refused to concede any benefit that globalization has for developing countries. For God's sake, if you want to bitch about globalization, fine, but produce a better alternative.

Durran strawman. I'm railing on corporations abusing foreign workers

And the Indonesia reference is simply unfair. Indonesia's economy is in the shitter because of shitty management of the economy by the government, not American corporations.

I neber said their economy is in the shitter because of american companies. Another strawman. And even if Indonesia's economy sucks, that's no excuse for exploitation

I was exaggerating a bit, I will concede; however, railroad strikes were very destructive to their sector of the economy. Nearly 2 million American workers went on strike during this period.

That's a fact, jack. You won't find a disagreement with me on that one

Durran Korr wrote: I'm not saying it's not a problem, I'm just saying 6 percent is not a bad figure for an economy in recession, especially in contrast to what some of the European countries are experiencing.

Oh yeah, no arguement there.

Actually, it is surprising. Our economy is now improving, and with the tax cuts, can only improve more. Tax cuts to the job providers stimulate economic growth, and that will result in a healthier economy. Yes, the government will not be in good shape for a few years, but as the economy improves (which will occur first), government revenue will also improve, which will allow us to catch up on the debt in the long term even with reduced tax revenues in percentile terms.

You mean like how we caught up to the debt from the 80's and paid it down during the boom of the 90's.

Nike doesn't seem to be hurting. They're making a killing by selling cheaply made shoes made at sweatshops for over a hundred dollars when another shoe company already mentioned is making a sound profit by paying US workers a decent wage. If they can't afford to pay their workers a decent wage, then they're about as good with managing their money as Salon.com ^^;

The Nike workers in question do not yet have the skills to earn a high wage. Wages are low in underdeveloped economies. Nike is paying the market wage, nothing more, nothing less. The basic principle of economic rationality holds that if these workers could find higher wages elsewhere, they would do so.

Or maybe these people are simply underpaid because Nike WANTS to underpay them and can get away with it.

Call them underpaid if you wish, but no one is forcing them to work at Nike.

Do tell! Where is your source on this?

http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-010.pdf

There are a few figures here. There is also the simple fact that the kind of growth rates being had by the countries embracing capitalism and globalization are themselves indicative of income mobility and increasing real wages.

It doesn't take a Harvard graduate to see that Nike isn't treating their employees with respect and giving them a good wage, when in all likelyhood these people have no other place to go to for work.

There is NO excuse for an American company, which I should be holding to HIGH moral standards, to be turning a blind eye to an abuse of their workers when they are financially able and are morally obligated to be taking care of the problem

It's nice that you seem to know better than the market what Nike's completely voluntary terms of employment with its workers should be.

Where are your comprehensive statistics, and where do they show that these corporations are treating their workers soundly?

http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-010.pdf

I found my comprehensive statistic (the one I listed) on American corporation wages to per capita GDP in this report.

As for the working conditions, well, if you can show me one developing economy that has the kind of working conditions we have in America today, please do. As I've stated again and again, transferring from a third world shithole to a capitalist democracy can be painful. These working conditions are more a consequence of the pre-capitalist era. Working conditions historically have improved with the gradual acquisition of capital.

You have based your case solely on the example of Nike, while ignoring the fact that I have produced the only comprehensive statistic relating to wages paid to employees by American corporations.

Durran strawman. I'm railing on corporations abusing foreign workers

Lie, lie, lie. I said that globalization benefits developing countries, you called it bullshit.

I neber said their economy is in the shitter because of american companies. Another strawman. And even if Indonesia's economy sucks, that's no excuse for exploitation

Repeat this; voluntary agreements regarding labor are not exploitation.

The Nike workers in question do not yet have the skills to earn a high wage. Wages are low in underdeveloped economies. Nike is paying the market wage, nothing more, nothing less.

I don't fucking care about the market I care about the wellbeing of human beings.

Call them underpaid if you wish, but no one is forcing them to work at Nike.

So what?

http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-010.pdf

There are a few figures here. There is also the simple fact that the kind of growth rates being had by the countries embracing capitalism and globalization are themselves indicative of income mobility and increasing real wages.

Must...downlo..ad... adob... *gurk*

Ok, I'll take a look at these

It's nice that you seem to know better than the market what Nike's completely voluntary terms of employment with its workers should be.

This is my biggest problem with libertarians: they use the market to excuse the outrageous and abhorrent behaviour of corporations! Fuck the market! Fuck it up the ass!

http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-010.pdf

I found my comprehensive statistic (the one I listed) on American corporation wages to per capita GDP in this report.

Gotcha, will read

As for the working conditions, well, if you can show me one developing economy that has the kind of working conditions we have in America today, please do. As I've stated again and again, transferring from a third world shithole to a capitalist democracy can be painful. These working conditions are more a consequence of the pre-capitalist era. Working conditions historically have improved with the gradual acquisition of capital.

Nothing stopping them from providing a safe and human work environment along with living wages for the workers.

You have based your case solely on the example of Nike, while ignoring the fact that I have produced the only comprehensive statistic relating to wages paid to employees by American corporations.

There are many more examples besides Nike, and it was already a known fact that american corporations aren't exactly known for their kind behaviour overseas. Consider that union activity at Colombian CocaCola bottling site have been met with terror tactics. At least 129 union activists in Colombia have been murdered.

From the above urls wrote: United Steelworkers of America and the International Labor Rights Fund filed suit in US court against Coca-Cola and some bottlers in Colombia on behalf of their workers, alleging that the companies hired, contracted with or otherwise directed paramilitary security forces.

Bangladeshi workers make shirts for Walmart at 9 cents an hour. Honduras workers suffer in horrible sweatshop environments for Walmart. Salvadoran Kathie Lee Gifford workers and a union organizer have received death threats. Ann Taylor workers face miserable sweatshop conditions in China. The list goes on and on, and it still continues to this day, when any of these companies could put a stop to it.

Lie, lie, lie. I said that globalization benefits developing countries, you called it bullshit.

And it still seems to be bullshit

Repeat this; voluntary agreements regarding labor are not exploitation.

Yes they are.

Lie, lie, lie. I said that globalization benefits developing countries, you called it bullshit.



And it still seems to be bullshit

Bullshit as opposed to what ? Working on a farm? Living in a shanty town?
No shoe factory means no jobs for some of these folks, its not like they can go to their local university and become programmers.