Posted on 03/08/2004 3:14:41 PM PST by Mini-14
No, he wants a aptive gaggle of grinning jackanapes to salivate at his every command. He wants to employ Communist slaves who have no voice or options. Oh master, may I wash your Mercedes after I sat at your keybooard for 20 hours today, please sir, please?
Fie on him and on a pox on his house.
(My Bold)
When I graduated college in 1980, the job market was terrible. Add to that, the jobs that were available at that time were for "minorities only" -- affirmative action it was called.
So I took low paying odd jobs for two years and I studied some more at school trying to increase my value to any potential employer. Eventually, the job market got better and I got a good job.
There is no unalienable right to a job. Young people in college who can't find work and who turn to revolution -- is the stuff of failure.
Get a dog, Barrett, you creep. Or a mail-order bride. You suck. No wonder nobody loves you.
What page in the Marxist Handbook did that come from?
Most corporations exist for the purpose of returning a profit to their shareholders. If they do not, they rapidly fail & go out of business.
Have you ever taken a course in economics?
Protection of jobs today is a short-term solution which leads to a very serious long-term problem. Lack of competitiveness and decline of the nation relative to others.
The world will change around us whether we choose to deal with it or hide our collective heads in the sand. The laws of economics are as merciless as the laws of physics or any other science. The only way for the US to keep its position of leadership in the world is to be in the forefront of the coming changes--not to be fighting a rear guard action of protectionism and job preservation. Significant changes will always produce new and better opportunities for those who exploit them. This cycle has been repeated over & over during the lifetime of this country. The cycle times are getting shorter which leads to personal discomfort, but protectionism will always lead to long-term disaster.
How many software writers saw the handwriting on the wall years ago and didn't take personal responsibility to do something about it? How many software writers were so tied up in their work that they didn't even bother to look around and see where the industry was going?
When did it become the law that a job was lifetime employment at an ever-increasing salary? Five years ago software engineers were changing jobs every year and constantly demanding higher salaries. Their motto was "isn't free enterprise great". Now that the situation has changed they demand job protection.
As difficulty as it is for the people effected by outsourcing, it is and was a foreseeable trend. It is the responsibility of the individual to prepare for future possibilities.
I don't understand about the food, but a lot of people believe this so strongly that they will only eat locally-produced food, some even grow their own. Are they more free than I am? I don't think so.
Your remark about goods and services is either false (if you mean all goods and services) or true (if you mean some goods and services). A world without trade is not free. A world where I have to grow my own bananas is not free.
Science and technology: again, false if you mean all science and technology; true if you mean some science and technology.
You cannot eat a computer chip
You can't eat a bar of gold, either, but you can certainly trade it for something edible.
Offshoring is no different from paying someone else to do your car repairs or teach your kids. It's just further away. You don't expect your auto mechanic to turn around and buy your computer services any more than you expect the Chinese company that makes your kids' toys to do so. But eventually the money makes its way back. You don't get upset if the auto mechanic uses your money to go to college and create a better life for himself. Why get upset if a bunch of foreigners do?
Your job is to figure out how to create value for the market; not to prevent other people -- wherever they are -- from generating and selling their value.
Exactly. No unsustainable trend continues indefinitely. But the solution is not revolution. Markets will adjust, if permitted by governments. In particular, currencies will adjust to create a new equilibrium, making foreign goods and services more expensive so that we'll buy less of them, and making our goods and services less expensive so that foreigners will buy more of them, creating more jobs here.
I agree there is no right to a job but when the political envirornment makes jobs unavailable for a large and educated section of the populace there will be a revolution that is merely fact. Maybe it will be done via a Socialist government put in place as happened in the weimar Republic or it might well be some other mechanism but the results are still bad.
The job market was terrible in the 1980's but money was still going into R&D in the USA the result was a lonmg term increase in jobs. We also had Ronald Reagan in the White House who used his clout to help force open foreign markets and attract investment into the USA. The current economic envirornment is such that new investment is not pouring into the USA. We need to change that and that means such things as making the tax cuts permanent, cutting back on government over regulation, getting reasonable trade policies in place so foreign markets are open to American exports, getting a better still tax policy (eventually eliminating the business income tax and hopefully the personal income tax), tort reform, etc.
Study: Senators' Stock Picks Beat Market
All Things Considered audio
March 7, 2004
A Georgia State University study shows that U.S. senators have an uncanny knack for picking stocks that outpace the overall market. Professor Alan Ziobrowski's analysis of senators' financial disclosure data found that over a period of six years, the lawmakers outperformed the market by 12 percent.
Of course we can stop it.
I think you are arguing that we won't stop it, which may be correct. It is certainly correct that Democrat half-measures will burden Americans differentially and make the situation worse.
But can't stop it?
We can close the ports, remove the legal protections associated with incorporation, ban imports, all with simple legislation.
All adverse consequences of globalization per se could be ended in sixty days-and if the Democrats and the Republicans won't do it (I agree they won't, which is what I think you mean by "can't be stopped")-then somebody else will.
Incorporation is a legal invention, in all of its forms.
Corporations are legal persons, with two exceptions-they don't die, and they have no natural or Constitutional rights.
All the adverse consequences of "globalization" can be ended by simple legislation (not without cost, of course-that's why it hasn't happened)-but I agree with you that it will happen, and soon.
Can you protect it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.