Walmart

[Robert]

American factories are producing more with less workers so while output is growing, the number of Americans working in the industry is shrinking.

You are comparing apples to oranges. While it is true automation is up, this pales in comparison to the outsourcing of jobs to places like China.

[Dr. Shane]

Those in Costa Rica that fear CAFTA know that American manufacturers can produce more with less workers and that is why they are against free trade. Even though Americans get paid more, it takes less of them to produce goods than factories in third world countries. What they don't understand is that it is only a matter of time before factories in the third world will be producing more with less workers too. It is the inevitable. It is progress. Trying to stop it is like trying to keep the sun from setting.

Exporting jobs isn't about making rich people rich. It is about making large corporations more competitive. It is about making products cheaper for consumers. In a capitalistic society, companies that can make their products affordable to the masses are the successful ones. Henry Ford said he didn't want to make a lot of money off each car by selling them to to a few people rather he wanted to make a little money off each car by selling them to a lot of people. While he did not invent the automobile, he was so successful many believe he did. So exporting jobs is about making products cheap and thus raising the standard of living for the poor and lower class here in the good old U.S. of A.

Exporting jobs is not about exploiting the poor either. If American companies built factories in third world countries and provided work environments that were below the standard of that country, than it would be true that they would be taking advantage of the poor. However these factories are often the most attractive factory jobs in those countries. Instead of being substandard, they often present better pay and work environments than other factories in the same area. We consider them substandard by judging them by our standards which is imposing our culture on them. These third world governments have the power to make rules and regulations for factories.

Before one swallows what Lou Dobbs has to sell they may want to be a little skeptical and get a little education in economics. Here is an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal -> Lou Dobbs Takes On the World

Quote:

For starters, Lou Dobbs isn't an economist; he's a television performer. As such what Lou is doing would satisfy economic rationalists from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman. "Exporting America" has little to do with economics but everything to do with Lou Dobbs's economic self-interest.

Every program that appears on the broadcast networks and on 46 cable channels--from Animal Planet to all-news cable--is measured for audience size by A.C. Nielsen. And Nielsen purports to tell its network clients whether a program's audience rises or falls every 15 minutes. Because advertiser revenue tracks the mercury in Nielsen's audience barometer, TV executives can quote these ratings from memory--for their own and each competitor's programs. It is a competitive, brutal, even crazy market. But it's the market Lou Dobbs has to swim in...

Now, all that said, it is entirely possible that Lou Dobbs fell off his horse on the road back from Space.com, and now believes with the faith of Saul of Tarsus that outsourcing is the root of all evil. But as an economic rationalist, I have to believe that Lou Dobbs is ranting nightly about "cheap overseas labor" as a pure ratings play. It's about the money. And it makes perfect sense: Companies outsource to protect their market share, and Lou attacks outsourcing to protect his market share.

[Robert]

So exporting jobs is about making products cheap and thus raising the standard of living for the poor and lower class here in the good old U.S. of A.

[Dr. Shane]

Many liberals have lectured us about not trying to impose our culture on others. This lecture specifically comes in handy when discussing affairs in the Middle East. Yet these same liberals will bemoan factory conditions in the third world.

Now wait a minute! Is our culture superior to others or not?

Fact is that I grew up on the welfare dime and never had a new article of clothing until I left home and bought it for myself. Kids growing up on welfare today get new clothing from Wal-Mart. My family had a used black & white TV. Families on welfare today have color TV with DVD player. It is a little hard to defend the position that cheaper, imported products are not raising the lifestyle of our nation's poor.

[Robert]

It is a little hard to defend the position that cheaper, imported products are not raising the lifestyle of our nation's poor.

Hmmm...cheaper products...less good paying jobs equals a win win situation? Not!

Actually the America public is steadily losing while corporate greed skyrockets. How? They send lobbyist to Washington and buy off those who can be bought. Bush is one of them.

Hey, I got an idea Shane! Why not go work for Bush….You can claim Christianity while you sale out both groups (Americans and Chinese) for your own personal gain.

I will be so happy when that criminal in the White House is gone. I hope he leaves some towels for the next guy….

[bevin]

Reverting back to the question of "10% was good enough for God" God's plan.

Israel had THREE welfare systems in place

(a) the tithe

( the custom of hospitality and gleaning

© the Jubilee.

It is this third one that is relevant to this discussion of "sharing the wealth".

According to this plan, every 50 years the land was to be equitably redistributed. Basically land was owned by clans, and every fifty years the clans got their land back.

If we are going to point to God's plan, then we need to include an equitable redistribution of the land every fifty years.

Note: it was to the clan, not to the individual - so if one clan had breed like crazy and another had engaged in birth control, the individuals in the two clans ended up with very different shares - which provided a disincentive to population explosion - something we could do with right now.

I wonder if Ed thinks Jubilee is centralised planning.

/Bevin

[Robert]

By VIKAS BAJAJ

Published: February 11, 2006

"The United States trade deficit widened to a record $726 billion in 2005, the government reported yesterday, adding more fuel to the increasingly partisan debate between advocates of further globalization and those who contend that free trade is causing the loss of too many American manufacturing jobs."

Here's the bottom line: We are buying their stuff, but they can't afford neither our stuff nor theirs. Who wins? American corporations. Who loses? American and Chinese workers!

[Dr. Shane]

Private property ownership and contract law have proven to be backbones to successful economies. I don't like property tax at all because it means a person can never really own anything. I don't mind the idea of income tax, consumption tax (aka sales tax), usage taxes (electrical, telephone, toll roads, etc.) and corporate taxes as long as they are not too excessive. But property tax just rubs me the wrong way.

Many low income families have homes built by Habitat for Humanity only to have the local authorities appraise them so high that the family couldn't afford the taxes. If a person maintains or improves his or her property, the taxes are raised. It is no wonder many poor areas become slums. Poor people have no incentive to maintain or improve their property.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

We are buying their stuff, but they can't afford neither our stuff nor theirs.

Again, before we buy into the propaganda, it pays to read a little more. They do buy our stuff. In fact, the more of their stuff we buy, the more of our stuff they buy - but we do buy more from them than they buy from us.

One major reason our trade deficit has shot up so much the last few years is because the spike in oil prices. Much of our trade deficit is from foreign oil. A few years ago oil was at $33/barrel and it shot up to $70/barrel and now has be inching up toward $60/barrel again.

[there buster]

Quote:

srael had THREE welfare systems in place

(a) the tithe

( the custom of hospitality and gleaning

© the Jubilee.

I find it fascinating you automatically associate taxation with welfare.

The list confuses lightning with lightning bugs.

The tithe was not a welfare system. It was in essence a temple tax, to compensate the Levites since they had no land of their own. So it does not belong with the others.

And, your list only includes only the politically correct aspects of what might be termed a 'welfare system,' while ignoring other, less appealing features.

There were three others:

d) In addition to the Jubilee system was a mandate to conquer their neighbors, thus making more lands available for the Israelites, and encouraging expansion.

e) Levirate marriage, which reduced the number of aged women without support, and

f) Slavery, which was the primary mechanism for dealing with bankruptcy--and was integrally related to the jubilee. They are inseperable.

So yes, I recommend the 10% flat tax, as the best way to provide for necessary services, but one which has nothing to do with welfare.

As for the rest:

I'm happy with hospitality and gleaning--easily adaptable to the 21st century.

I do not recommend either conquest or jubilee. Each would dangerously destabilize the current world.

I oppose levirate marriage and slavery.

But you are welcome to advocate the whole package. But the tax is one thing, the 'welfare package' another.

[Robert]

Hence the trade deficit.

[Robert]

Going back a few posts, I gave the following example:

"Let's say you have a hamburger joint. I have one too down the road a bit. Thing is I get all sorts of perks because I know some people in high places. While you are required to pay a minimum wage, I pay about 2 bucks an hour. The taxes on my building are substantially less than yours, even though they are valued the same. In nutshell, because of unfair practices, more customers are showing up at my joint because of cheaper prices."

Is this fair, Shane?

[Dr. Shane]

Domestic competition in the same town is not comparable to international trade because both competitors are drawing from the same labor pool and using the same infrastructure. In the analysis above the one paying less than minimum wage would need a large family because he would be unable to get anyone else to work for him. His taxes would only be less if his property was worth less which would be for a reason like the size or location which would impact his ability to compete with others.

Now where I live, Mexico is just a few miles down the road. I can take my family out to a fine restaurant on this side of the border and pay about $35. To dine at a comparable restaurant in Mexico we pay about $20. The difference is about 10 miles from one to the other.

[Robert]

Domestic competition in the same town is not comparable to international trade because both competitors are drawing from the same labor pool and using the same infrastructure. In the analysis above the one paying less than minimum wage would need a large family because he would be unable to get anyone else to work for him. His taxes would only be less if his property was worth less which would be for a reason like the size or location which would impact his ability to compete with others.

Shane, you would make an excellent politician!

If you owned a manufacturing facility in the States that made widgets, how would you compete with another facility in China that made the same widgets?

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

If you owned a manufacturing facility in the States that made widgets, how would you compete with another facility in China that made the same widgets?

That depends on the type of product. If I owned a factory I would want to have it near an Adventist school so that students could earn money to go to school. If it was a product that I couldn't compete with the Chinese on, I would move the factory to a country where I could compete with them, like the Philippines or South Korea, and build it near an Adventist school. However there are too many variable to address the hypothetical in general.

[Robert]

Quote:

If you owned a manufacturing facility in the States that made widgets, how would you compete with another facility in China that made the same widgets?

If it was a product that I couldn't compete with the Chinese on, I would move the factory to a country where I could compete with them, like the Philippines or South Korea....

And you would join the other 3 million manufacturing jobs lost to unfair trade practices. You cannot compete with a guy in China who is making literally fifty cents on the hour unless you pay your employees the same. Like I said, this is pure exploitation!

Robert

[Dr. Shane]

Ok, let's use the 50¢/hour hypothetical. Now say we have a group of Adventists living in South Korea. There is high unemployment. The jobs that come available every once in a while pay between 30¢ and 45¢/hour. These Adventists would love to have a school but there is no way to build one. Then an American factory is built that employs 2,500 workers and pays 50¢/hour. All the Adventists get jobs there, build their school and spread the gospel. Is the factory taking advantage of them?

That is the hypothetical that takes place. Factories work out the details with local governments. Places with high unemployment and a young workforce are attractive places to build factories. These foreign factories typically pay more than other jobs requiring similar skills in the area.

When a job is exported overseas it is bad for us and good for them. I thought there were laws here that make a company provide funds for retraining for displaced workers due to factories moving overseas. That certainly is appropriate. I know when many local Levis factories closed down our local colleges and vocational schools had a surge in students getting their re-education paid for by Levis.

[Robert]

Ok, let's use the 50¢/hour hypothetical. Now say we have a group of Adventists living in South Korea. There is high unemployment. The jobs that come available every once in a while pay between 30¢ and 45¢/hour. These Adventists would love to have a school but there is no way to build one. Then an American factory is built that employs 2,500 workers and pays 50¢/hour. All the Adventists get jobs there, build their school and spread the gospel. Is the factory taking advantage of them?

1] Most all factory jobs revolve around a rotating shift. So these good Adventists would have to work on Sabbath or remain unemployed.

2] How can students making 50 cents on the hour build a school? Much more - how could they afford to attend one?

3] And yes, while there are minimal benefits for the locals, these corporations are not there to play nice, but to increase profits. They do this by taking advantage of local customs and laws that are far below our constitutional, environmental and labor standards.

4] The winners? Corporate America!

5] The losers? Middle/lower class Americans!

6] The used? Chinese, Koreans, etc...

[Dr. Shane]

The McNeilus Companies were owned and operated by Adventists for many years without having to work on Saturdays. My sisters worked for them which helped them pay for the Adventist education.

McKee Foods is still run by Adventists and according to Wikipedia "the NASCAR team it sponsors covers up all logos from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday". They too help students pay for their education.

Quote:

How can students making 50 cents on the hour build a school?

In Mexico they earn about $10/day and do quite well. Remember our 50¢/hour was a hypothetical. I do not know what factories in the Philippians or South Korea are paying. However I am sure the cost of living is much cheaper, as it is in Mexico. Services are cheaper, housing, electricity and other utilities. One has to get out of their American thinking when discussing global economics.

[bevin]

Quote:

Quote:

Israel had THREE welfare systems in place

(a) the tithe

( the custom of hospitality and gleaning

© the Jubilee.

I find it fascinating you automatically associate taxation with welfare.

I find it fascinating that you automatically read things into my words that aren't there.

You were the person that brought ancient Israel's 10% into a discussion on taxation.

If you are going to use ancient Israel as a model for taxation, then either (a) it is a coincidence and you are just bringing up spurious facts that don't really support your case in the hope of bambozzling your audience, or ( some aspects of it are applicable, in which case you need to distinquish those aspects that are from those that aren't.

In this case, it is obvious that Israelite law had this redistributing of wealth in it. This implies that the concept of land ownership in perpetuity is not necessarily God's plan.

In fact, one of the biggest causes of problems today, in many countries, including the USA, is land ownership.

Let me know when the USA government is going to abide by the land treaties they signed with the Native American population. Clearly in fact the USA government does not believe in following treaties/contracts made in the past.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Clearly in fact the USA government does not believe in following treaties/contracts made in the past.

That is a subject for debate that has been dealt with by various courts at various levels, by legislatures and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. That means, of course, that all three branches of government have dealt with it. The adjective "clearly" is most certainly misleading in that sentence.

Private land ownership and a court system to protect it is key to a successful economy.

[Bravus]

Then God got it wrong on that too? Man, he's not travelling well on economic issues.

[Dr. Shane]

Here is the catch. For a Godly people, socialism would work well. The apostles practiced socialism. However in order for socialism to work, all those involved in it must be noble and sinful man does not fit the description. Ancient Israel failed too.

Capitalism works well because it rewards hard work. If I work hard and play by the rules I can get ahead. Owning property is the very base of "getting ahead". Studies show over and over that nations that protect private property ownership prosper more than those that do not. Why should I work hard and play by the rules if the property I buy is going to be taken and given to someone else?

[bevin]

Quote:

That is a subject for debate that has been dealt with by various courts at various levels, by legislatures and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. That means, of course, that all three branches of government have dealt with it. The adjective "clearly" is most certainly misleading in that sentence..

On the contrary - all three branches of government have dealt without honoring the treaties - this clearly shows that we don't want to honor them.

Compare this with the socially disruptive but deliberate actions in New Zealand over the last 20 years to try to resolve the Treaty of Waitangi issues - where a treaty between the British-based NZ government and the natives was made in the 1840's was basically ignored by the NZ govt for over 100 years, and is now being honored.

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/category/tid/133

Quote:

Private land ownership and a court system to protect it is key to a successful economy

Provided that it doesn't involve releasing land-grabs that profited the current ruling class...

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

Why should I work hard and play by the rules if the property I buy is going to be taken and given to someone else?

Actually I basically agree with you - but there is another dynamic as well.

Why should I try to preserve a status quo that has already allocated all the natural resources to someone before I was born? Why should the first person to say "this land is mine" have an in-perpetuity claim that tey can pass to the descendents for ever?

The Jubillee avoided this problem by effectively saying that all land belongs to all people, and can only be leased for a few years before being given back to the next generation.

This is not such a bad idea - since you could not possibly really afford to buy a million-year lease on a piece of land.

Property tax causes almost the same effect - it stops a handful of people claming huge amounts of land.

/Bevin