quote:

---

Originally posted by gtSasha: I agree that it is not pleasant to loose a job due to outsourcing (or for any other reason).

---

Sasha, i agree with most of what you are saying later in the post, but I want to again emphasize that your statement above is not at all what should drive this debate. If we are basing our political views on feeling sorry for people who can't run their own lives, then I am very far to the right of it politically. Nothing will be accomplished by statements like this until outsourcing becomes so catastrophic that the majority of the electorate begins to feel sympathy for individual victims of it. I do not believe outsourcing is bad enough to be that drastic at this point. Every hardworking American is still able to land a great job, in my view. My concerns, once again, are with the greater economy longterm.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gtSasha: What we differ on is what to do about it? How do you increase employment, or at least prevent the uneployment from climbing.

---

I already stated my views. I do not believe the government should be put in the driver's seat in battling unemployment, which is very low right now. The tax policy is already there, and currently encourages outsourcing. I propose that it very carefully and very slowly tweaked, but only with the consent of the public, if that consent exists. The corporate world should be untouched by the government in every other way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gtSasha: I think it would be better to find products or services that the people in the third world would want to buy from us. The article from "The Economist" posted above describes such an effort.

---

I would support such an effort, but suspect that many here don't favor anything of that nature. It is not in the immediate interest of the political minority which is the upper class. Pure and unobstructed outsourcing of the economy piece by piece has higher short-term returns. Any such effort can therefore only be stimulated with tax policies, which, from what I read here, many participants are inherently against.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: Not in a scale that can drive economy up. War is limited, we use mostly supplies from storage. The only recent exeption was cruise missiles which we almost run out off and had to start new production.

---

What you decribe as "storage" is actually an inventory-based reserve. The amount of supplies is kept constant (as close to constant as possible), so for every bullet or a missile that is fired, a new one will be bought by the government as soon as it is practical.

---

Actualy it works quite differently. Yes, if the some low level is reached - production of that item is started again, but that happens rerely. One example I already mentioned and I can't remember another.

quote:

---

Since we thankfully do not outsource manufacturing of military supplies and equipment, this is a very direct and real boost to the logistics and manufacturing industry, and as a consequence, to the domestic economy. If I was wrong about this, these industries would not support Bush so strongly. Removing this stimulus, according to most economists would hurt the economy, and Wall Street agrees.

---

These industries support Bush so strongly, because he increased military spendings and didn't cancel stupid projects, like F-22 ;))

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: What internal infrastructure ? Oil production infrustructure, transportation, schools, universities, prisons, hospitals, machinery, heavy manufacturing, etc. I can make this list very long. All of the above is fully or partially funded with future US tax dollars ($87 billion so far). This part of the $87 billion shows up on the flip-side as revenues for domestic corporations. And that is a lot of revenues. To put things in perspective, Microsoft's annual revenues are around $30 billion. So it is as if more than 2 Microsofts have been added to the economy and to the GDP.

---

Are you saying that because of war in Iraq US has increased investment in Oil production and other stuff ?!?!?!?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: No they don't. Concrete for Iraq is made in Iraq. Currently there is a shortage of concrete in US due to high construction rate (nothing to do with war) and high demand in China. Machinery and other stuff - no visible increase. Come on, do you really think I was saying that we are shipping bags of american concrete? Obviously it is made there. It has nothing to do with any of my points.

---

You said the war contributed to raise in those areas. And it didn't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: You want congress to discuss every problem job market experience ? I didn't know congress supposed to run this country economy [img] No. This is an example of making up things I said.

---

No, it is a logical conclusion of things you said. See the difference ? If you want congress to discuss outsourcing problem, why not other economic problems ?

quote:

---

It's like if I drink one beer and you call me an alcoholic. :)

---

If you drink one beer every 30 mins - Yes

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: Transit form dollar to euro wil take years. Meanwhile world economy will crumble. No one in the world with any brain wants US currency to fall. I disagree. In my view no one would be hurt significantly except for us, especially if the change is gradual (and I agree with you that it would be gradual). All the things that the dollar represents to the world were naturaly accomplished by the economic stability of the United States, and the staples of economic stability are always balanced trade, low inflation, and low deficits. It would not be a disadvantage to Eorope, for instance, if the niche occupied by the dollar began to shift to the Euro. Nor do I believe it would be bad for Asia. It would be very bad for the U.S.

---

Agree to disagree here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: Clinton didn't make them more profitable to build here. That decision was based on different things. Like taxes and import/export quotas. But I thought targeted taxes and tariffs for the purposes of putting us at an advantage were unpopular here?

---

Maybe, but I have no problem with them, as long as we stop calling it free trade.

quote:

---

Of course Clinton didn't wave a magic wand, but he backed policies that were conducive, and described in your last sentence. And Gingrich and the republican congress did the right thing and supported him. Taxes and tarrifs are not random acts of nature that in your statement just happen to be there, they are carefully adjusted by the congress and the president as a balance between "too much" and "too little". They are not inherently right or inherently wrong, as some of you believe. Sometimes conservatives back them. Sometimes liberals do not. Every issue is a complex one, filled with nuances and long discussions by democratically elected representatives. This is why I believe this country is so successful.

---

Agree. gtSasha, Back when I was a student at Georgia Tech one of my professors told us about a project he was involved in. The application was drilling holes in circuit boards. After some time a drill gets dull and needs to be replaced. Hence, a person had to periodically check the drill and replace the drill bit if it is dull. My professor's task was to design a system that would based on the sound the drill makes determine if the drill bit is dull or not. The project ran into some resistance though, for an intruduction of such a system would eliminate the above mentioned job... Simplier solution would be to change a drill bit after set interval, calculated on a statistical data. What your prof. was doing is called "попил народных денег" in russian The natives are restless. Падонки. Capt. James Cook, Sat. Feb. 13th 1779, aboard HMS Discovery.

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: Actualy it works quite differently. Yes, if the some low level is reached - production of that item is started again, but that happens rerely. One example I already mentioned and I can't remember another.

---

If you were right, we would regularly run out of supplies. True, there are some shortages because of unprecedented carpet bombing in Afghanistan, last year, and pointless street fighting in Iraq this year, but generally we do not tolerate these shortages, and this situation will be rapidly fixed by doing what I am describing. Except doing it better and faster than before.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: These industries support Bush so strongly, because he increased military spendings and didn't cancel stupid projects, like F-22 ;))

---

I agree that this is one of the reasons. It is not the reason that I was talking about though. It is not really in doubt that more military equipment and supplies will be needed under Bush. For the purposes of this conversation, I am talking about replacement supplies rather than new programs like brand new planes. Although you are right about that reason as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: Are you saying that because of war in Iraq US has increased investment in Oil production and other stuff ?!?!?!?

---

you keep trying to reword what I am saying :) The infrastructure of oil production in Iraq is being rebuilt from the ground up almost exclusively by American contractors. That is what I am saying. Same with the concrete - i know it is made there. But made by US contractors, and so far, exclusively so. And by the way, these contractors charge the US government by some accounts 4 times what these things really cost. Because there is no competition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: No, it is a logical conclusion of things you said. See the difference ? If you want congress to discuss outsourcing problem, why not other economic problems ?

---

I am not sure why this is so difficult to get across. Yes, I want this discussed. No, I do not want "all things" discussed. This is very simple. You want everyone to be on one of two sides - either congress deals with everything or deals with nothing. That is not how the world works.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: Maybe, but I have no problem with them, as long as we stop calling it free trade.

---

I am not really that concerned with semantics, as I said earlier in this forum. You can call it whatever you feel comfortable calling it. :) Let me elaborate. I hate semantics. things like "leave no child behind" for example. If someone opposes this program based on intelligent views about education, you can say "this guy wants to leave children behind". If someone does not support the patriot act based on honest and intelligent opinions, you can say, this guy is not a patriot. Free trade is something similar. Semantics is a dirty political game to play.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: Actualy it works quite differently. Yes, if the some low level is reached - production of that item is started again, but that happens rerely. One example I already mentioned and I can't remember another. If you were right, we would regularly run out of supplies.

---

No we won't. We are over stocked with most of immediate need supplies for regular war needs.

quote:

---

True, there are some shortages because of unprecedented carpet bombing in Afghanistan, last year, and pointless street fighting in Iraq this year, but generally we do not tolerate these shortages, and this situation will be rapidly fixed by doing what I am describing. Except doing it better and faster than before.

---

There are no shortages right now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: These industries support Bush so strongly, because he increased military spendings and didn't cancel stupid projects, like F-22 ;)) I agree that this is one of the reasons. It is not the reason that I was talking about though. It is not really in doubt that more military equipment and supplies will be needed under Bush. For the purposes of this conversation, I am talking about replacement supplies rather than new programs like brand new planes. Although you are right about that reason as well.

---

It's the main one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: Are you saying that because of war in Iraq US has increased investment in Oil production and other stuff ?!?!?!? you keep trying to reword what I am saying :) The infrastructure of oil production in Iraq is being rebuilt from the ground up almost exclusively by American contractors. That is what I am saying.

---

But that has nothing to do with our infrastructure and our economy.

quote:

---

Same with the concrete - i know it is made there. But made by US contractors, and so far, exclusively so. And by the way, these contractors charge the US government by some accounts 4 times what these things really cost. Because there is no competition.

---

And this helps US economy how ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: No, it is a logical conclusion of things you said. See the difference ? If you want congress to discuss outsourcing problem, why not other economic problems ? I am not sure why this is so difficult to get across. Yes, I want this discussed. No, I do not want "all things" discussed. This is very simple. You want everyone to be on one of two sides - either congress deals with everything or deals with nothing. That is not how the world works.

---

Because why is this topic more important than others ? If we talk about one issue, why not talk about others. Why is it so difficult to understand ? [quote]Originally posted by KGBMan: Maybe, but I have no problem with them, as long as we stop calling it free trade. I am not really that concerned with semantics, as I said earlier in this forum. You can call it whatever you feel comfortable calling it. :) Let me elaborate. I hate semantics. things like "leave no child behind" for example. If someone opposes this program based on intelligent views about education, you can say "this guy wants to leave children behind". If someone does not support the patriot act based on honest and intelligent opinions, you can say, this guy is not a patriot. Free trade is something similar. Semantics is a dirty political game to play.

---

Ok. So, you want economic policy which protects US economy and US economic entities. So do I. And I think current administration is not doing anything different in this regard from any other administration. Except some NAFTA things..... Remember steal scandal ? The natives are restless. Падонки. Capt. James Cook, Sat. Feb. 13th 1779, aboard HMS Discovery.

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: No we won't. We are over stocked with most of immediate need supplies for regular war needs.

---

ok, this is pointless. I cannot convince you that if you have a supply and you use X amount of it you have to then produce X supplies to replenish the supply. I do not understand what the logical problem with this is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: There are no shortages right now.

---

Maybe not this very second, but there have been different shortages throughout the war. And besides, if shortages are fixed, it just proves my point of replenishing the supply as quickly as it is practical.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: And this helps US economy how ?

---

I have shown direct evidence. What specifically do you disagree with? That is exactly what the economy is-- US companies producing services and products and selling them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: Because why is this topic more important than others ? If we talk about one issue, why not talk about others. Why is it so difficult to understand ?

---

I repeat one last time, I do not want what you say I want. I have the final say on what I want :) What is the point of you trying to convince me of this?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: Ok. So, you want economic policy which protects US economy and US economic entities. So do I. And I think current administration is not doing anything different in this regard from any other administration. Except some NAFTA things.....

---

Record budget deficit and record trade deficits are occuring. In this environment, doing "nothing different" is not a positive statement.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor: No we won't. We are over stocked with most of immediate need supplies for regular war needs. ok, this is pointless. I cannot convince you that if you have a supply and you use X amount of it you have to then produce X supplies to replenish the supply. I do not understand what the logical problem with this is.

---

There is no logical problem. It's just how things work with military. During buildup, like during cold war, supplies were overstuffed, manufacturing was cranking new stuff and so on. Than cold war ended and most of production facilities for this stuff closed. Right now those supplies are being used, but we haven't reach a point at which production of those will be activated again. That's all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: There are no shortages right now. Maybe not this very second, but there have been different shortages throughout the war. And besides, if shortages are fixed, it just proves my point of replenishing the supply as quickly as it is practical.

---

Those shortages were logistical, not because of quantity issues. If you want to prove your point just provide the list of factories which were reopen or those which have increased their production.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: And this helps US economy how ? I have shown direct evidence. What specifically do you disagree with? That is exactly what the economy is-- US companies producing services and products and selling them.

---

Those hand full of companies produce services and products overseas, not here. They have almost no impact on US economy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: Because why is this topic more important than others ? If we talk about one issue, why not talk about others. Why is it so difficult to understand ? I repeat one last time, I do not want what you say I want. I have the final say on what I want :) What is the point of you trying to convince me of this?

---

Than you don't follow your statesment to their logical conclusion. What's the point than ? Faith should be discussed in other topics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: Ok. So, you want economic policy which protects US economy and US economic entities. So do I. And I think current administration is not doing anything different in this regard from any other administration. Except some NAFTA things..... Record budget deficit and record trade deficits are occuring. In this environment, doing "nothing different" is not a positive statement.

---

Budget difficit comes from war (speaking of positive effects) and stupid social projects. Trade difficit - there is no way you'll be able to fix that by imposing taxes. The natives are restless. Падонки. Capt. James Cook, Sat. Feb. 13th 1779, aboard HMS Discovery.

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....