Eminent Domain, Corporate Welfare, and JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!

[Lumpenproletariat]

The purpose of job creation, purpose of the economy

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

The real purpose of my job:

to get me off the streets so I don't "steal"

(from the "steal" mill to the "steel" mill)

RVonse: And they correctly assume that it is actually easier and safer to work for a living than to steal for it.

With this sentence, you are giving the real reason for the "jobs! jobs! jobs!" hysteria: You believe that Americans who don't have these artificial "jobs" provided for them will resort to CRIME. You believe the "unemployed" is a mass of pillagers who are ready to go on a rampage of plunder if we don't put them into factory "jobs" to keep them out of mischief.

You're proving my point that the whole purpose of Trump's "jobs" is to provide babysitting slots to put the rabble into in order to get them off the streets so they don't turn into a plundering and pillaging mob.

You are saying in effect that the whole purpose of saving your job as a steelworker was to get you off the streets and prevent you from pillaging and plundering. Because without your steel job, paying you 10 times as much as a Chinese worker would be paid, you'd resort to crime and plunder and pillage, and so to save our society from your crimes we had to provide you with a job at the steel mill, even though it means we have to pay higher prices for steel as a result.

Why do you believe that GM or Steel Dynamics would hire people just to babysit them?

They would because they're paid to do it, by the state, wanting to subsidize "jobs" for someone who otherwise would steal.

It's RVonse who demands that the state do this subsidizing, saying the purpose of his job is to prevent him from stealing. He said in the quote above that the point of the "job creation" is that the job is needed as an alternative to stealing:

"And they correctly assume that it is actually easier and safer to work for a living than to steal for it."

And this is the reason we have to provide "jobs" for people. It's not the company who wants to babysit them, but it's RVonse who's saying we have to get them into the jobs in order that they don't STEAL as the alternative to having the job.


So it's not in order to produce a better product, or serve the consumers, that we need these "jobs" -- No, that production was already taking place in China, where the steel and other products were produced just as well and at lower cost. So, what was gained by "bringing back the factories" from China? or the steel production? It wasn't to get something produced that wasn't already being produced before. Nothing new is produced by relocating the production to the U.S. All that's new is the new job slots for Americans, to do the same work at higher labor cost than before, so that now consumers have to pay higher prices than before, for the same production.

RVonse's explanation why we need Trump to "create jobs" for someone is that "it is actually easier and safer to work for a living than to steal for it." Meaning that if they had not been put in this new job brought back from China, they'd be stealing instead.

How is it not BABYSITTING them, if we put them in that factory job in order to deter them from stealing as their alternative? And we're paying GM or U.S. Steel etc. to provide this babysitting slot. The company does it in order to get the subsidy, or the protectionism, the extra business, but society's motive for paying the company is to get that job slot for the U.S. job-seeker, who would otherwise resort to stealing. According to RVonse.

3. The voters want a better lifestyle.

How do higher prices for steel mean a better lifestyle? How are we better off by driving up the cost of production so that the price we pay for everything is higher?

Or maybe you mean that if you and other workers don't get your artificial "jobs" provided by government protection and subsidies to steel and auto etc., you and other workers will go on your rampage of plunder and pillage, causing so much havoc that the general living standard will decline. Is that it? A threat: either give us our artificially-high-cost steel and auto jobs or we'll inflict damage on you to make you worse off.

It's essentially the same philosophy as that of the Luddites, 200 years ago. Higher prices to consumers to pay for artificial "jobs" to workers we're supposed to feel sorry for and are threatening us with retaliation if we don't pay for these babysitting slots they're entitled to. A shakedown.

That comes from making more money as a result of higher wages as a result of higher and higher employment.

What good are the higher wages and employment for a few if the only result is higher prices for everyone? and nothing additional produced? How do you make us better off by running up the labor cost artificially, as this does, and limiting competition and forcing consumers to pay higher prices without any improvement in the production? How is the product made better by only increasing the labor cost, with no improved performance by the workers paid the higher wages?

How is the labor performance improved by relocating the production from China to the U.S. and forcing the companies to pay higher labor cost? Where's the improved performance? Where's the increase in either quantity or quality of the production simply by "bringing back the factories" to do it here at a higher cost than before?

What's the benefit of "higher and higher employment" if it doesn't produce anything extra? no extra output, or better output than before? Just the extra "jobs" per se or extra factories puffing away is not the same as more wealth -- it's the improved performance we need, producing better output to meet the consumer demand. It's not enough to just give more "jobs" to crybabies, to appease them and get them off the streets. Those "jobs" are worthless unless they mean improved performance and better product than before. Or MORE product.

Do you think that the purpose of the economy is to produce wealth?

Yes, i.e., to produce the stuff people want or need, and distribute it efficiently to those wanting or needing it.

I don't.

So everything you're saying is based on the premise that there's no need to produce the stuff people want or need, and distribute it efficiently. OK, at least we've established how we differ. Free trade and free market economics is based on this premise of getting the stuff produced and distributing it, while you reject this premise and base your economics on something different than production and distribution of the stuff people want. Like on the need to prevent RVonse from stealing?

That's your argument against free trade, i.e., that it doesn't serve well enough to get the riff-raff off the streets and into the factory "jobs" to keep them out of mischief. Whereas "job creation" provides these needed babysitting slots, even though it drives up the cost of production so that less wealth is produced. Which doesn't matter because producing wealth is not the purpose of the economy.

Wealth is not important to the economy.

So the stuff people want and need doesn't matter. It's not important for this stuff to be produced and distributed efficiently. This is your premise for saying free trade is wrong.

Especially if it is how much money you have or how much your stock is worth today.

There's nothing wrong with these as part of the economic system producing the wealth. They are part of the process of producing and distributing the stuff. And producers should be free to change that process any way they wish. If there are artificial elements in the process which make it less efficient, like money or stock which hinder the production somehow, producers should be free to circumvent those and produce the wealth by more direct means. What matters is the end result, or getting the stuff produced and distributed. The means to getting this done is not what's essential. Whoever knows a better way to get it done should be put in charge.

Are there some producers trying to circumvent these artificial elements but being suppressed by the State? The state should get out of the way of any producers and let them produce any way they wish (that doesn't threaten our environment etc.) and also let consumers choose whatever they wish from any producers, no matter what category someone puts them into. In our current economic process, money and stock-trading play a necessary role in getting the stuff produced and distributed.


Would socialist CO-OPS produce the stuff better?

Or distribute it better? done by workers who make the decisions? not based on how much money you have or how much your stock is worth?

If so, then nothing artificial should be imposed by the state to prevent those co-ops. People/workers should be free to form co-ops or any alternative kind of production. Let them compete in the market and serve consumers and prove that their system is better.

What is there in the law which prevents anyone from forming a co-op, so they can demonstrate how a non-profit-based system of production would be better? Who or what is preventing them?

Wealth is money that has stopped moving.

It's more than that. It's ALL the money -- the money which is moving and the money which has stopped moving. All of it matters. And free trade gets the money moving or stopping as needed in order to maximize the efficiency of producing and distributing the stuff people want. It's not necessary for all the money or wealth to be constantly moved around at the speed of light in order to produce the optimum social benefit.

The economy is only interested in the money that is changing hands, the money that is being spent.

No, ALL the money matters -- the money moving and the money standing still. The money changing hands, not changing hands, being spent or not being spent. All of it is involved in the process of the production and distribution of the stuff people want. Free trade best moves the money or stops it, as needed to maximize the efficiency of the production and distribution.

I think that the purpose of the economy is to encourage work toward what society needs, that by working provide for the needs of everyone in our society.

Same thing. Optimum production and distribution of the stuff. That's what free trade and competition does, by best providing for the needs/wants of everyone.

No one has shown how the performance of the Chinese workers is inferior to that of the U.S. workers. All we know is that the U.S. workers cost us 10 times as much for the same work. Otherwise, there is no difference. The only "making more money" is the higher cost of the U.S. workers and thus higher prices to 330 million U.S. consumers who have to pay for it but get nothing in return (except your promise to not go on a crime spree).

Once again, for demand to be effective, consumers have to have the money to carry out their desire to buy something.

But there is no need to make demand "effective," or to even create demand. It's not in order to create demand that workers are paid the money. They are paid money to get them to do the work, not for any other purpose. If the work is done at less cost in China, and less money paid to workers, then it's better for it to be done there, because if the cost is less, that frees up some revenue to pay for even more work to be done. I.e., lower cost = more work done than at higher cost.

And it's getting the work done which matters, not paying someone more money or creating demand somewhere. All that matters is to SATISFY the existing demand and satisfy it more effectively, not to just pay more money or to create more demand or make demand to be more effective. What we need is production to satisfy the demand, not more demand to satisfy some producer's need for a market.

The vast majority of consumers get the money to be effective consumers by trading their labor for money, by working. To pound the point further, if they don't have a job or they have a job that pays little more than what the necessities of life cost, they won't have the money to spend to buy the production of their own country.

There's no need for ALL the production to be bought. Maybe some of it was not worth the cost of producing it and should not have even been produced. In which case maybe it should go unsold, or the price of it needs to come down. What workers should be paid is not based on how much is necessary in order for all of the production to be sold. The point of paying them is not to create buyers for the stuff produced, but to get them to produce the stuff people want to buy.

This stuff is pretty basic and should be easy to understand Lumpens.

Yes, extortion and thuggery is pretty basic in economics. Those who are good at spreading delusion and paranoia are able to intimidate society and threaten it with doom if it does not appease their demands. Plus a good dose of China-bashing xenophobia, and employer-bashing. You're right -- it's basic and understandable that you and other special interests have been able to succeed at this intimidation and thuggery inflicted onto 330 million consumers, with the help of your Demagogue Leader whipping up the mindless masses. Plus the help of demagogues on the other side, like Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown, etc. Such mindlessness and hysteria is very basic to seizing power and dominating the economy, and so is practiced by both major parties.

More employment is always in the best interest of society.

Even if it's artificial makework "jobs" which cost more than the value they produce and thus cause a lower living standard? This can make sense only if you mean "employment" of rabble who otherwise threaten to go on a rampage of destruction and so which we must put into factory "jobs" (babysitting slots) to keep them out of mischief. Or, because otherwise, they will resort to stealing, as you threatened above.

If that's what you mean, and this is why Trump had to "bring back" your steel job from China, to prevent you from resorting to pillage and plunder, maybe you have a point.

Once again, I am proposing is that we convert the excess profits that don't help the economy and . . .

How do you identify which profits are "excess" and which ones not? or which ones "help the economy" and which ones do not?

. . . and turn them back into middle-class wages that do . . .

Let's assume there are some "excess" profits. Where these should go is not into someone's wages, but into public revenue to be spent on public needs, infrastructure, benefits to all society. Those profits should be taxed and go into the general revenue, to be spent or used to reduce the public debt, or to offset some other tax.

. . . into middle-class wages that do help the economy.

It's only the work done by the workers which helps the economy, not the wages paid to them, except in the sense that these are their reward for doing the needed work. These wages are paid to them, in the competitive market economy, without the state needing to "turn them back into middle-class wages" for some purpose imagined by you or labor union leftists.

Rather, the state taxes some wealth, or income, etc., in order to pay for its functions, not to "turn them back" into someone's wages, but to do its own hiring or to pay whatever costs for the needed state functions. And maybe "the rich" are not paying enough into this, in which case some taxes on them should be increased, in order to get those costs paid, not to prop up middle-class wages somewhere.

The purpose of profits in capitalism is to provide incentives for investment. When we convert wages into profits it is a disincentive to invest.

The phrase "convert wages into profits" is meaningless. Or, there is really no such thing. We don't "convert" either wages or profits into something else. Unless you mean we can tax them, i.e., we can tax income, but this doesn't mean to "convert" a particular income into some other kind of income. Or, perhaps it means to "convert" that individual's income into income for the state. In any case, to "convert wages into profits" or "convert profits into wages" is perverse, if it means anything at all.

It's not the state's role to "convert" anyone's income into someone else's income. Other than simply to "convert" it into income to the state, which is what a tax does. And this income to the state is then income to ALL the population, not to any particular class, like wage-earners or profit-earners.

Capitalism works best when everyone has to work to make money. But this includes the corporations.

What we have done is to let the corporations make easy profits, money that . . .

No, some corporations go broke. Even if some corporations do make easy profits, others do not. If you want to somehow tax "easy profits," you must first determine which profits were "easy" and which ones were not. It's not true that ALL profits are "easy" profits.

. . . easy profits, money that they didn't have to work for, they . . .

No, some of them DID have to work for it. You can't show that no corporation ever worked for its profit. Many of them did and got rich by working for it. In some cases they paid low wages, because the work was low-value and wasn't worth any more. That doesn't mean the company's profit which it earned should be stolen away from it and given to those low-value workers who were already paid what they were worth. Why should the company have to pay the workers more than they're worth? Just because the company did well and earned high profits doesn't mean it owes extra to the workers who were paid what they were worth and no more.

If you can identify some "easy profits" which a company didn't really earn, then it's OK to tax that excess profit away, into the public revenue, for all of society. But you can't assume that ALL companies have acquired "easy profits" just because they got rich. You have to first distinguish between the easy profit and the not-easy profit before you can tax away the profit you think was easy.

. . . they didn't have to innovate for the money, they didn't have to increase productivity to make the money, they didn't have to invest any money to do it.

They did some of that. But it doesn't matter, because all they really need to do is provide stuff consumers want, at lower prices, and whatever makes that happen (without harming the environment etc.) is what we need them to do, regardless of anything else.

They just had to give up their intellectual property to the Chinese.

Is that supposed to mean anything serious?

How many companies have gone broke because they gave their "intellectual property" to the Chinese? or lost money?

Actually they didn't "give" it to them -- they traded it to them, in return for something, and the deal made the American companies better off.

What's an example of "intellectual property" they had to give up to the Chinese? I doubt there's anyone who can really give an example of it. We keep hearing this talking point, but the talking-one never seems to know what it means that they "give up their intellectual property." And even so those companies apparently are doing just fine in China. And they would never have agreed to "give up their intellectual property" and would have taken their business elsewhere, if it didn't produce a net gain for them.

Maybe the world would be better off if ALL companies everywhere had to "give up their intellectual property" to everyone. No one ever gives an example how this does any damage to the economy.

Can anyone explain what the damage is from giving up its "intellectual property" to China? Other than just that this phrase scores points with China-bashers?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

More employment is always in the best interest of society.

As is good working conditions and decent pay rates.

Yes, whatever platitudes the mob wants to hear.

That's why we need President Trump. Because he does the best at screaming "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!"

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Call me cynical but somehow I don't think that the primary purpose of capitalism/ business is to 'create jobs for people.'

No, but part of their public relations is to preach "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!" because this is what the mob wants to hear, and business has to pander to the idiots just as the politicians do.

And the corporate welfare to them is mostly based on JOB-CREATION, which they have to promise to the demagogues in order to get the corporate welfare subsidies. In the Michigan case they promised to create 6,000 jobs, in order to get the deal (which they didn't have to fulfill, but the promise was necessary -- "job creation" is more about the words and platitudes, not anything real).

 

[Deepak]

Obviously you are embarrassed to try to answer this question.

Um, no - what I'm not understanding is how the logic of changing the message to 'CONSUMERS! CONSUMERS! CONSUMERS!' changes anything.

The company still wants to build the factory cheaply, so they'll try to convince politicians that it's a good idea - and they'll in turn try to convince their constituents that what they're doing is a good idea.

Are you saying that the idea of building factories based on consumer demand is so unpopular as to never be voted for? If not, then conditions will exist where factories need to be built based on consumer demand, buildings will get razed to serve consumer demand, then as demand ebbs the factory goes away. In what sense would the outcome actually change for this town with a different rationalization?

What exactly is the question we're supposed to answer?

 

[RVonse]

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

Why do you believe that GM or Steel Dynamics would hire people just to babysit them?

They would because they're paid to do it, by the state, wanting to subsidize "jobs" for someone who otherwise would steal.

It's RVonse who demands that the state do this subsidizing, saying the purpose of his job is to prevent him from stealing. He said in the quote above that the point of the "job creation" is that the job is needed as an alternative to stealing:

"And they correctly assume that it is actually easier and safer to work for a living than to steal for it."

And this is the reason we have to provide "jobs" for people. It's not the company who wants to babysit them, but it's RVonse who's saying we have to get them into the jobs in order that they don't STEAL as the alternative to having the job.


So it's not in order to produce a better product, or serve the consumers, that we need these "jobs" -- No, that production was already taking place in China, where the steel and other products were produced just as well and at lower cost. So, what was gained by "bringing back the factories" from China? or the steel production? It wasn't to get something produced that wasn't already being produced before. Nothing new is produced by relocating the production to the U.S. All that's new is the new job slots for Americans, to do the same work at higher labor cost than before, so that now consumers have to pay higher prices than before, for the same production.

RVonse's explanation why we need Trump to "create jobs" for someone is that "it is actually easier and safer to work for a living than to steal for it." Meaning that if they had not been put in this new job brought back from China, they'd be stealing instead.

How is it not BABYSITTING them, if we put them in that factory job in order to deter them from stealing as their alternative? And we're paying GM or U.S. Steel etc. to provide this babysitting slot. The company does it in order to get the subsidy, or the protectionism, the extra business, but society's motive for paying the company is to get that job slot for the U.S. job-seeker, who would otherwise resort to stealing. According to RVonse.

This is very true. Babysitting is actually recognized as a HUGE value to our society. And as such is a big reason why Warren Buffet pays lower taxes than his secretary. Ordinary labor is not that much of a benefit to society so the IRS taxes it heavily. But the management of people into productive employment is a HUGE benefit to society which is why the IRS does not tax capitalists much at all. In the United States, the taxes will prevent you from becoming very wealthy unless you can successfully babysit a significant number of the adult population.

 

[RVonse]

(continued from previous Wall of Text)

They just had to give up their intellectual property to the Chinese.

Is that supposed to mean anything serious?

How many companies have gone broke because they gave their "intellectual property" to the Chinese? or lost money?

Actually they didn't "give" it to them -- they traded it to them, in return for something, and the deal made the American companies better off.

What's an example of "intellectual property" they had to give up to the Chinese? I doubt there's anyone who can really give an example of it. We keep hearing this talking point, but the talking-one never seems to know what it means that they "give up their intellectual property." And even so those companies apparently are doing just fine in China. And they would never have agreed to "give up their intellectual property" and would have taken their business elsewhere, if it didn't produce a net gain for them.

Maybe the world would be better off if ALL companies everywhere had to "give up their intellectual property" to everyone. No one ever gives an example how this does any damage to the economy.

Can anyone explain what the damage is from giving up its "intellectual property" to China? Other than just that this phrase scores points with China-bashers?

The concept of intellectual property is huge because without patents no one would want to spend money to invent anything. In fact, it is so important now every Hollywood movie I have paid my money for forces me read a big FBI lecture before I can actually watch what I paid for. It was so important that the multi-billion corporate empire Disney payed millions in court to extend Micky Mouse rights.

Yet China just gets to do what they want. They are not tied to US law so they can steal anything that others have paid to develop. And if you have no rule of law everywhere, capitalism will not survive. Trump can not enforce the laws with court so he uses the tool of tariffs.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The only need is for more competition, not more WALL-TO-WALL FACTORIES and "jobs" for crybabies

If Simpledon can't get through to you, let's try listening to Paul Roberts here: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/08/26/can-the-american-economy-be-resurrected/

What resulted over the last quarter century was the dismantling of the supply chains and labor force that supported American manufacturing and industry.

Only by replacing these by the new supply chains and labor force which were more competitive. And it's not true that ALL the old supply chains and labor force were dismantled. Some of it was updated to make it more competitive. Only the less competitive was abandoned in favor of newer production supports which were more competitive.

There is nothing wrong with something less competitive being replaced by that which is more competitive. It's called "progress" and "improvement" in the production. It's appropriate for the less efficient, more costly, to be replaced by the more efficient, less costly.

The once booming factories and industrial sites are closed and run down or converted . . .

Yes, the less competitive ones, replaced by new factories and sites which are more efficient or less costly. That's an improvement. Why shouldn't the industry improve and become more efficient?

. . . or converted into condos or apartments.

It's good for them to be salvaged for whatever they are still good for. They served their purpose, when they were the most efficient, but when something more efficient could replace them for doing that production, then it was good for them to be terminated, for the benefit of consumers, and converted to some other use.

Whining over what used to be but is no more, just for nostalgia, just to preserve memories, is no reason to make the production costly and inefficient, going back to the past just for old-times' sake. It's OK to preserve the past in museums, but not to distort production to make it more costly, and reject the benefits of change. It's good when the economy changes as a result of competition, so that the more competitive production replaces the less competitive.

If Trump can bring the US corporations home, where do they go?

All the rest of this is mostly an argument to NOT "bring the US corporations home" because they don't have the production infrastructure in the U.S. in place anymore. So, what's the point of this sermon? Your pundit here is really giving us the reasons why we should leave the production in China, where it's less costly, so that all Americans are better off as consumers.

The offshoring era wasn’t a six-month economic recession. It was years when skilled and experienced labor aged and died, and no new entrants learned the skills and work discipline.

Which "skills and work discipline"? It's not necessary to learn every kind of "skills and work discipline." Some of those "skills and work discipline" might be more appropriate to China, or some other country than the U.S. It's nonsensical to suggest that China somehow monopolizes all "the skills and work discipline" -- what difference does it make which country has which "skills or work discipline" as long as the needed work gets done most efficiently? If the Chinese can do it at lower cost, why shouldn't it be done by them?

Today China is a fully developed manufacturing and industrial economy. The United States is not."

What does "fully developed" mean? wall-to-wall factories? There's plenty of efficient production going on elsewhere than in China, some of it in the U.S. There's no reason for the production to go anywhere other than where it's done most efficiently, at lowest cost. This could mean an increase in this or that country, including an increase of factories in Viet Nam or Bangladesh or India, depending on where the production can be done at lower cost, including lower labor cost. China is not necessarily the only source of cheap labor. There's nothing wrong with the production leaving the more developed countries to countries where the cost is lower.

There's no need to be a "fully developed manufacturing and industrial economy" if this means propping up unneeded factories everywhere just because someone worships factories or factory jobs. There's no reason to make a religion out of factory "jobs" and build wall-to-wall factories, with higher prices for the products, just to satisfy some nostalgic yearning for manufacturing per se, and call it "fully developed" when all it really means is satisfying an emotional-impulse for babysitting slots for hapless laid-off factory workers in Michigan and other rust-belt states.

his solution

Solution to what? You haven't presented the problem yet. It's not a problem that the U.S. today has fewer wall-to-wall factories than it did 40 years ago. The fact is that U.S. consumers are better served than ever before, better than any humans have ever been served by manufacturing. So, what's the problem needing a "solution"?

Trump is correct that if the US is to remain a world power, it is necessary to restore manufacturing and industrial capability.

What's to "restore"? Just keep the current capability going at the high level it already is. Just because foreign production and cheap labor is used does not mean anything was lost which needs to be restored. The US is currently better supplied by manufacturing than any other country, or anyone else in history. Nothing has been lost. The LOSS would be to return to the costly production of the 60s or 70s or 80s when we had far less.

The U.S. already has plenty of manufacturing and industrial capability, without requiring vast wall-to-wall factories for any purpose. The U.S. needs to continue promoting science and technology research and cooperation with business to continue producing the best. But using other countries as a source of cheap labor is part of that cooperation, allowing companies to do their production most efficiently.

If there's a deficiency, it's likely in the reduction of R & D, or of education to train future scientists and engineers. There's plenty of fault to find, but not a shortage of manufacturing plants and a need to crack down on foreign imports and drag companies away from other countries where they produce more efficiently. Making them become less competitive and driving up their production costs is no solution to anything.

If the US is to absorb the massive number of third world peoples it has admitted, it is necessary to restore middle class jobs and the ladders of upward mobility.

No, the purpose of "jobs" is not to provide babysitting slots in which to put excess people.

And the "middle class jobs" of the future are not those traditional factory jobs where Grandpa worked. Those jobs are losing their "middle class" status more and more, as those workers can so easily be replaced now, and as those jobs are disappearing and being replaced by robots. Bringing back those factories won't produce the million jobs it did 50 years ago, but just a lot more computers and robots to replace the workers who are no longer needed.

No, restoring the past is no solution to anything. Dinosaurs belong in museums, not in today's productive economy.

In order to bring American corporations home from China, this is what Trump has to do.

That word "home" doesn't mean anything. The corporations are already "home" having production wherever it's most efficient, having certain operations in the U.S. but others in Mexico or in Japan and other countries. Being "home" no longer means having everything in this country, but having whatever is needed wherever it is needed to produce the most profit, cutting the costs, getting the needed resources, and moving facilities again and again as conditions change. Bringing them "home" should mean making them more efficient, letting them produce at their highest capability without artificial obstacles, not dictating to them to locate their factories where they're most needed to provide babysitting slots ("jobs") for excess people we don't know what to do with.

The transition has to be gradual. The corporations can only phase out their offshored production in China as they . . .

But there's no reason to phase this out. Why do a transition to something which drives up cost and makes the production more costly? The production was offshored there in order to reduce cost, to the benefit of everyone.

. . . as they can recreate the necessary conditions for producing in the US.

But why? The conditions for producing are better in China, and other countries, where the cost is lower. The production which can be done more efficiently in the U.S. is already in the U.S., or will come to the U.S. automatically, as needed, as it produces more benefit and lower cost and more profit for the companies. The global competition will drive the production to wherever it can be done most efficiently. There's nothing gained by forcing companies to artificially locate their production in the U.S. where it's more costly.

Plenty of production already does take place in the U.S. if it's more efficient. And this can change, with some production moving abroad, and even some coming back, without any protectionism or direction by the government needed, as the change just happens automatically in response to the changing conditions, the changing market, the resources, the new demand or supply.

We don't need demagogues like Trump telling companies where to locate their production, as if he knows better than the ones being driven by profit-motive to try to save on costs and gain more market share. Those decision-makers in the business already have the incentive needed to relocate back to the U.S. if and when it's more profitable to do so, to improve the production to the benefit of the company and the consumers. The only reason they don't produce in the U.S. is because this would be less efficient and thus bad for consumers.

The process is, in effect, like bringing development to an undeveloped economy.

No, "development" does not mean wall-to-wall factories. Well-developed means functioning most efficiently to serve the consumers. The U.S. is already "developed" with fewer domestic factories, but the optimum manufacturing output.

Having excess unneeded factories is more characteristic of a backward undeveloped economy.

The way Trump should proceed is to explain to the corporations that they have inflated their profits in the near term at the cost of destroying consumer purchasing power, and . . .

No, why tell them myths invented 100 years ago and which probably helped cause the Great Depression? Trying to drive up purchasing power of workers as a way to "stimulate" the economy was put to the test in the 1920s and early 30s, as companies were guilt-tripped into paying higher wages in order to stimulate the economy. There's no evidence that this crybaby economics worked. The economy is not improved by giving someone more money to spend, but by improving the competitiveness and performance of the producers, and rewarding those whose performance improves.

. . . destroying consumer purchasing power, and thereby their sales, in the longer term.

No, in the long term it's profit-driven production which improves sales and the living standard, not pandering to crybabies who want "jobs" just for the sake of "jobs! jobs! jobs!" This crybaby theory of economics was tested about 90-100 years ago, and the best indication is that it led to the Great Depression, probably turning a normal recession into something much worse.

Driving up wages and labor cost results in higher prices to ALL consumers, or to the entire population, which offsets the benefit to the few workers paid the higher wages. The only time higher wages can benefit the economy is when the increased wages are required in order to attract needed workers, so that work gets done which otherwise would not get done. Whereas just passing higher wages around to some workers we feel sorry for, to give them extra spending money, doesn't produce any better output, but is only a higher cost which is passed on to consumers.

Americans whose real incomes are not rising do not have the discretionary purchasing power with which to purchase the goods and services that provide revenues to US corporations.

That's no reason to give the uncompetitive American a phony "job" in a factory which exists only to provide "jobs" to uncompetitive American crybabies whose only contribution is their "purchasing power" to buy the stuff. The purpose of the "job" is not to provide income to crybabies so they can buy the stuff. The company should hire whoever can do it more efficiently, to make the production better, less costly, in larger quantity = greater supply = lower price = higher living standard for consumers.

Some incomes rise and others fall, according to the rising or falling value of the worker, or whatever producer is selling something. There's nothing in Economics which says everyone's income has to be continually "rising" in order to provide "purchasing power" to buy the stuff. Rather, consumers have "purchasing power" because they did something as producers to earn the money to buy the stuff, and it's only when their production value increases that their income should rise. Their value, for which they are paid, is the WORK THEY DO, not their buying the stuff. Their value in the economy is whatever they produced in order to earn their income, not their consumption. They are not doing society a favor or benefit by consuming the stuff -- rather, their income to buy stuff is their reward for the work they did to help produce the stuff.

It's to help produce the stuff that they are paid their income, not because society needs them to consume the stuff. There is no need to produce demand, or to create consumers to buy the stuff, which makes no sense. If we really needed something to consume the stuff, we could create robots whose function would be to consume excess stuff, as if we might need some way to get it consumed.

Of course, the CEOs and directors are not here in the longer run, and they might not care.

The longer run does matter, and everyone should care about it. Which is why we don't need artificial factory "jobs" just to provide incomes to crybabies so they can consume the stuff. Creating consumers for the stuff, rather than improving the production and making it more efficient, makes the country much worse off in the longer run.

The CEOs and directors should care about improving the production to make it more efficient, which often means outsourcing, and thus lower cost and higher production = higher living standard for all consumers. This is the long-term goal, not providing uncompetitive "jobs" or babysitting slots for hapless job-seekers because we feel sorry for them and need to find some place to put them to get them off the streets.

But a president can make it a patriotic issue and put them on the spot.

We can "put them on the spot" by requiring a COMPETITIVE MARKET where they are judged for their performance, and rewarded only for improved performance to serve consumers. There needs to be a better reward-penalty system to incentivise them to be more productive, and better enforce laws against anticompetitive behavior. This is the area where they need to be put "on the spot" and held accountable.

But forcing them to provide "jobs" to whining job-seekers out of pity for them, to become babysitters to them, to get them off the streets, is not patriotic and does not serve the long-term good of the nation.

 

[Deepak]

Anybody else find it funny that the guy complaining about the inefficiency of socialist cooperatives is also arguing that steel producers in Communist China are more efficient?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Can Trump get re-elected on petty China-bashing alone?

Here is an excellent video to further your enlightment Lumpens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH5QzuzD01A

You're sick to think this video is "excellent" -- your long hours at the steel mill is taking its toll.

There's nothing in this China-bashing video worth responding to. If you want to argue for propping up the U.S. steel or auto industry, or for corporate welfare like the Michigan case, or for "jobs! jobs! jobs!" etc., there are many better propagandists than Bannon you could offer. You undermine your credibility by citing this nutcase as your authority.

In the video Bannon tells us exactly what the American voter saw in Trump which got . . .

There's no such thing as "the American voter." Some individuals voted for Trump because they hated Hillary, others because after Bernie Sanders he was their 2nd choice for chief trade-basher and China-basher, others because they are White rather than Black, or even White Supremacists, others because they are male rather than female, others because they live in Wyoming rather than Chicago. And many other reasons.

. . . which got him elected in the first place. Trump has . . .

It's obvious what some idiots saw in him which got him elected: he understands best how to manipulate the masses with demagoguery and pandering, telling them what they want to hear, and offering instant gratification. Sanders and others are also good at this, but Trump is better.

Trump has been and continues to be 100% correct about China.

There you go -- you're a case in point, showing how effectively he manipulates the mindless masses, pandering to their petty nationalism.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

(this Wall of Text to be continued)

Why, God? Why?

I disagree with you that SimpleDon is not worth responding to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anybody else find it funny that the guy complaining about the inefficiency of socialist cooperatives is also arguing that steel producers in Communist China are more efficient?

China isn't socialist anymore.

 

[RVonse]

Anybody else find it funny that the guy complaining about the inefficiency of socialist cooperatives is also arguing that steel producers in Communist China are more efficient?

China isn't socialist anymore.

Its a centralized managed pirating economy. President Xi could teach Al Capone on how to sell furniture.

 

[DBT]

Was China ever socialist?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Was China ever socialist?

I think that maybe you meant to ask if China is really capitalist? If so, I wonder sometimes also. Sure they allow individuals to own assets. However, are the means of production really owned by the private sector when the government can (and often does) take said assets away at any time? Can you really have a capitalist system when the government is so powerful that individuals have zero personal rights to hold and control the assets that they presumably own?

 

[DBT]

Was China ever socialist?

I think that maybe you meant to ask if China is really capitalist? If so, I wonder sometimes also. Sure they allow individuals to own assets. However, are the means of production really owned by the private sector when the government can (and often does) take said assets away at any time? Can you really have a capitalist system when the government is so powerful that individuals have zero personal rights to hold and control the assets that they presumably own?

I was referring to simple labels that are sometimes applied arbitrarily. Maybe the labels "socialist' or 'oommunist' are applied to systems that are probably better described as a kind of autocracy, a ruling body dominated by powerful leader.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Was China ever socialist?

I think that maybe you meant to ask if China is really capitalist? If so, I wonder sometimes also. Sure they allow individuals to own assets. However, are the means of production really owned by the private sector when the government can (and often does) take said assets away at any time? Can you really have a capitalist system when the government is so powerful that individuals have zero personal rights to hold and control the assets that they presumably own?

I was referring to simple labels that are sometimes applied arbitrarily. Maybe the labels "socialist' or 'oommunist' are applied to systems that are probably better described as a kind of autocracy, a ruling body dominated by powerful leader.

They went crazy with collectivization--and tens of millions starved as a result.

 

[DBT]

I was referring to simple labels that are sometimes applied arbitrarily. Maybe the labels "socialist' or 'oommunist' are applied to systems that are probably better described as a kind of autocracy, a ruling body dominated by powerful leader.

They went crazy with collectivization--and tens of millions starved as a result.

But not those in the upper layers of government hierarchy.

 

[Deepak]

Anybody else find it funny that the guy complaining about the inefficiency of socialist cooperatives is also arguing that steel producers in Communist China are more efficient?

China isn't socialist anymore.

Anybody else find it funny that the guy complaining about the inefficiency of socialist cooperatives is also arguing that steel producers in Communist China are more efficient?

China isn't socialist anymore.

Its a centralized managed pirating economy. President Xi could teach Al Capone on how to sell furniture.

Whatever you want to call it - the one-party ruled Chinese Government picks winners and losers in their domestic economy and is willing to heavily subsidize industries for political purposes. It's hardly the model for free-market economics...

 

[RVonse]

Whatever you want to call it - the one-party ruled Chinese Government picks winners and losers in their domestic economy and is willing to heavily subsidize industries for political purposes. It's hardly the model for free-market economics...

Exactly correct.

I used to believe most of the free market crap Lumpens or the Republicans advertise. And I still do believe that free market capitalism is a great way to price goods to efficiently bring them to consumers. As well as encourage a good allocation of production assets utilized to the proper places.

But saying you have to have free market capitalism in order to produce wealth for the society of that country just isnt true. China has just proven it to us all that it isnt at all true. And actually, I believe Nazi Germany has proved it as well. Take away Germany's ww2 loss and they would have demonstrated an incredible economy. There was nothing free market about Nazi Germany yet their economy may have even exceeded what Xi has accomplished.

So since America has not enjoyed prosperity by free market capitalism it must have been by plundering such a land full of valuable resources from the Indians. Im thinking now we simply had better and more resources that we plundered more effeciently than anyone else.

 

[Deepak]

Whatever you want to call it - the one-party ruled Chinese Government picks winners and losers in their domestic economy and is willing to heavily subsidize industries for political purposes. It's hardly the model for free-market economics...

Exactly correct.

I used to believe most of the free market crap Lumpens or the Republicans advertise. And I still do believe that free market capitalism is a great way to price goods to efficiently bring them to consumers. As well as encourage a good allocation of production assets utilized to the proper places.

But saying you have to have free market capitalism in order to produce wealth for the society of that country just isnt true. China has just proven it to us all that it isnt at all true. And actually, I believe Nazi Germany has proved it as well. Take away Germany's ww2 loss and they would have demonstrated an incredible economy. There was nothing free market about Nazi Germany yet their economy may have even exceeded what Xi has accomplished.

So since America has not enjoyed prosperity by free market capitalism it must have been by plundering such a land full of valuable resources from the Indians. Im thinking now we simply had better and more resources that we plundered more effeciently than anyone else.

Well the Brits might still take the cake, but Europe squandered their gains in the World Wars.

Colonialism didn't really end - just changed form. With all the talk now from the Business Roundtable of changing the focus to stakeholder value from shareholder value, I'm reminded of the last time we heard that. Any time you hear an evangelist complaining about wealth transfer, remember they only mean in one direction and not the other.